Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

If the theory of evolution predicted no gaps that would be evidence against the theory of evolution. But even Darwin recognized and predicted gaps. He also predicted that as exploration went on many of those g aps would be filled and he recognized that as a possible test of his theory. Each new fossil find could be a huge problem for the theory, if it was wrong. Yet for some strange reason that creationists have not figured out yet all of these millions of fossils support the theory of evolution.

Creationists seem to view scientific findings in the same way they view religious teaching. As if all the answer comes complete and defined with nothing more to know. This, no doubt, arises from a demand of literalism as the only means to interpret scripture.

Scientific findings do not develop as complete knowledge and each finding requires effort to understand. One has to know basic principles and be versed in prior work. As well as having an understanding of methodology. It is not an exclusive club, but it does require more than simple, comfortable effort to understand. Claims have to be supported with evidence explained in a logical basis.

I know you know this, but it bears pointing out these basic points.

 

[YoursTrue]

The things that died and could leave remains naturally would form a progression when we start at the beginning of life. By the time the Cambrian got here it may have been decades or even centuries after creation. Naturally more things would be dying. More thing that could leave fossil remains.
The thing that mystifies this simple reality for you seems to be taking the belief-based dates about Adam's day being many millions of years ago seriously.

Decades?? Each "day" could have been many, many, m-a-n-y years. Many.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why not? You clearly don't.

No, it isn't.

Nope.

OK. Rapid or not, I have been checking about chromosomes and how many animals have, I don't include humans in that area, I hope to get to that later, after the animal chromosomes, so perhaps you can bear with me in that. You can say humans are animals, I do not, be that as it may, yes, humans have chromosomes LIKE the animals. So as I was checking, not that I understand it all, here's what I found:
"Dogs have 76 chromosomes. Most of these cells contain a nucleus. In dogs, 38 pairs of autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) can be found in every nucleus, for a total of 76 chromosomes plus the two sex chromosomes (X and Y) for a grand total of 78. During conception, a dog gets one copy of each chromosome from each parent."
Online Research Resources Developed at NHGRI

Now I must say I don't understand all of this, however, that's what it says. 76 chromosomes. That's for dogs. I hope to move on to other organisms later. It has been ascertained that dogs have 76 chromosomes. I have to keep repeating that to remember it. 76--chromosomes--dogs.

 

[YoursTrue]

Going back to article and study:
"Dogs have 76 chromosomes. Most of these cells contain a nucleus. In dogs, 38 pairs of autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) can be found in every nucleus, for a total of 76 chromosomes plus the two sex chromosomes (X and Y) for a grand total of 78."
(Online Research Resources Developed at NHGRI)
Now I must say I don't understand all of this, however, that's what it says. 76 chromosomes. That's for dogs. I hope to move on to other organisms later. It has been ascertained that dogs have 76 chromosomes. I have to keep repeating that to remember it. 76--chromosomes--dogs.
Continuing -- recognizing I'm just not as smart as you guys, I appreciate the language in the article cited above, but still have questions. So here's a bit more of it: (I may comment sentence by sentence.)
"A dog's body contains trillions of cells."
OK, a dog's body contains trillions of cells. (Wow, TRILLIONS -- that's a lot.)
"Most of these cells contain a nucleus."
OK, most of those trillions of cells contain a nucleus.
Then it says, "In dogs, 38 pairs of autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) can be found in every nucleus, for a total of 76 chromosomes plus the two sex chromosomes (X and Y) for a grand total of 78."
So in every nucleus (and not every cell has a nucleus) there are in dogs 38 pairs of non-sex chromosomes, plus two sex chromosomes. X and Y. ok, so actually it is 78? or is it 76? Just for clarity, why say a dog has 76 chromosomes if they have 78? But that doesn't really matter too much right now because that's not what my point is. Although which is it, 76 or 78? So in summation, dogs have in most cells 76 chromosomes plus 2 sex chromosomes = 78. 76 really plus two. in each cell with a nucleus.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Going back to article and study:
"Dogs have 76 chromosomes. Most of these cells contain a nucleus. In dogs, 38 pairs of autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) can be found in every nucleus, for a total of 76 chromosomes plus the two sex chromosomes (X and Y) for a grand total of 78."
(Online Research Resources Developed at NHGRI)
Now I must say I don't understand all of this, however, that's what it says. 76 chromosomes. That's for dogs. I hope to move on to other organisms later. It has been ascertained that dogs have 76 chromosomes. I have to keep repeating that to remember it. 76--chromosomes--dogs.
Continuing -- recognizing I'm just not as smart as you guys, I appreciate the language in the article cited above, but still have questions. So here's a bit more of it: (I may comment sentence by sentence.)
"A dog's body contains trillions of cells."
OK, a dog's body contains trillions of cells. (Wow, TRILLIONS -- that's a lot.)
"Most of these cells contain a nucleus."
OK, most of those trillions of cells contain a nucleus.
Then it says, "In dogs, 38 pairs of autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) can be found in every nucleus, for a total of 76 chromosomes plus the two sex chromosomes (X and Y) for a grand total of 78."
So in every nucleus (and not every cell has a nucleus) there are in dogs 38 pairs of non-sex chromosomes, plus two sex chromosomes. X and Y. ok, so actually it is 78? or is it 76? Just for clarity, why say a dog has 76 chromosomes if they have 78? But that doesn't really matter too much right now because that's not what my point is. Although which is it, 76 or 78? So in summation, dogs have in most cells 76 chromosomes plus 2 sex chromosomes = 78. 76 really plus two. in each cell with a nucleus.

76 chromosomes in this word salad. 76 chromosomes that go no where. Followed by rows and rows of meaningless repetition. 76 chromosomes in the big parade.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK. Rapid or not, I have been checking about chromosomes and how many animals have, I don't include humans in that area, I hope to get to that later, after the animal chromosomes, so perhaps you can bear with me in that. You can say humans are animals, I do not, be that as it may, yes, humans have chromosomes LIKE the animals. So as I was checking, not that I understand it all, here's what I found:
"Dogs have 76 chromosomes. Most of these cells contain a nucleus. In dogs, 38 pairs of autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) can be found in every nucleus, for a total of 76 chromosomes plus the two sex chromosomes (X and Y) for a grand total of 78. During conception, a dog gets one copy of each chromosome from each parent."
Online Research Resources Developed at NHGRI

Now I must say I don't understand all of this, however, that's what it says. 76 chromosomes. That's for dogs. I hope to move on to other organisms later. It has been ascertained that dogs have 76 chromosomes. I have to keep repeating that to remember it. 76--chromosomes--dogs.

Humans are animals. I know you do not like that, but there you go.

Is there some point to this? Will you be presenting posts like this for each mammal group? Will you include other classes? Reptilia? Aves? Can we forgo potential future posts by stipulating the existence of chromosomes and the presence in various numbers in Animalia?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The thing to remember is that Genesis does not hold up to the evidence and even if new evidence challenging evolution were found, Genesis is not going to move up as a default replacement to the current theory. It has all ready been eliminated as possibility as scientific explanation.

What makes you think that?

Can you provide reasons for saying so?

(Could it possibly be a misunderstanding of the Genesis creation account?)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But not finding them [obvious precursors for the Cambrian biota] is a gap and not evidence against evolution.

A gap? To me, that’s special pleading. I’ll tell you why...

The organism fossils found in the Burgess Shale & Chengjiang strata representing that period and the previous Ediacaran, are well-preserved, even the soft bodied parts are clearly defined. After over 150 years of intense searching such smooth, pristine layers, calling it a gap is not recognizing the obvious....


there comes a time when science will have to admit, they don’t exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What makes you think that?

Can you provide reasons for saying so?

(Could it possibly be a misunderstanding of the Genesis creation account?)

This has been discussed in modern conversations to great length. If you think about it, I am sure you will recall the evidence.

Here is a brief list.

1. Billions of years and not days. I realize that says is interpreted differently by some, but the evidence supports 4.3 billion years for the Earth and 3.8 for living things.

2. The order of creation is not internally consistent in Genesis, not is it consistent with the evidence. Plants did not exist pejorative sun as one example.

3. Living things were not created entire as they exist now. The evidence shows a change in life over time as well as an increasing complexity.

4. No global flood.

5. Humans evolved like all other life. Adam and Eve are metaphorical. The order of human appearance is not internally consistent, not using consistent with the evidence.I

this is just what I could list quickly, without deeper reflection.

If the account is interpreted as metaphorical, there is no conflict.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A gap? To me, that’s special pleading. I’ll tell you why...

The organism fossils found in the Burgess Shale & Chengjiang strata representing that period and the previous Ediacaran, are well-preserved, even the soft bodied parts are clearly defined. After over 150 years of intense searching such smooth, pristine layers, calling it a gap is not recognizing the obvious....


there comes a time when science will have to admit, they don’t exist.

Why is the recognition that we do not know a double standard when there is no evidence to conclude the expectation of something contrary to established and supported theory?W

I suppose, not having supporting evidence to illustrate the claim, if I claimed that the existence of a gap refuted the theory, then it would be special pleading. Demanding science produce evidence to support evolution, while I produce none to discredit it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A gap? To me, that’s special pleading. I’ll tell you why...

The organism fossils found in the Burgess Shale & Chengjiang strata representing that period and the previous Ediacaran, are well-preserved, even the soft bodied parts are clearly defined. After over 150 years of intense searching such smooth, pristine layers, calling it a gap is not recognizing the obvious....


there comes a time when science will have to admit, they don’t exist.

What evidence are you using to establish the 150 year deadline? The evidence is 540 million years old. Mankind is only 300,000 years old. Modern man may be 50 to 100 thousand years old and civilization less than 10,000 years old. Why do we have to have all the answers in 150 years or we are wrong?

Are you suggesting scientist make up answers? This is science and not Intelligent Design or some similar pseudoscience. If scientists cannot say, the default answer is not"the theory is refuted". That is what you are suggesting.

The evidence supports the existence of life prior to the Cambrian. The evidence supports evolution. Besides not knowing yet, what actual evidence excludes explanation by the theory of evolution? None. All you are doing is making a gap argument.

 

[dad]

Decades?? Each "day" could have been many, many, m-a-n-y years. Many.

Not really. Look at the several days between which Noah sent out the birds to look for fresh growth. Not like we could wave that away. Then we see God gave several reference points as to how long the flood lasted when it started when it ended etc. No way to wave that away.
The years, depending on what source we use from the garden until the flood were something like a little over 1600 years. That is how much time we have for the various 'geologic ages' to have happened. Why, have you some reason to dobt this was the case?

 

[dad]

Are you suggesting scientist make up answers? .

I would suggest most are not smart enough to realize that is exactly what they are doing by using faith-based models.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What makes you think that?

Can you provide reasons for saying so?

(Could it possibly be a misunderstanding of the Genesis creation account?)

This just occurred to me and rebuts the incorporation of observations into a literal interpretation of Genesis. The geological events that have taken place in earth, compressed into a few thousand years or less would have destroyed the earth. All that energy released over a short time would have been cataclysmic to the earth and life on it. 10,000 years is not enough time and those that believe that are deluding themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would suggest most are not smart enough to realize that is exactly what they are doing by using faith-based models.

Dammit dad! You should put such posts behind a spoiler alert. That would give us time to get your irony meters in to protected storage. There will be a bill.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dammit dad! You should put such posts behind a spoiler alert. That would give us time to get your irony meters in to protected storage. There will be a bill.

I now use a different meter for the detection of that type of poster.

By the way, if you garden, I know where you can find an immense amount of low grade, organic fertilizer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This just occurred to me and rebuts the incorporation of observations into a literal interpretation of Genesis. The geological events that have taken place in earth, compressed into a few thousand years or less would have destroyed the earth. All that energy released over a short time would have been cataclysmic to the earth and life on it. 10,000 years is not enough time and those that believe that are deluding themselves.

There is an answer. Magic. God magicked everything and then lied by making it look as if there were no Flood. I don't know why dad believes in a lying God. He has not said yet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is an answer. Magic. God magicked everything and then lied by making it look as if there were no Flood. I don't know why dad believes in a lying God. He has not said yet.

I don't really care what he believes. He made himself irrelevant with his abuse of honesty and other useless contributions.

The question that never gets an answer from creationists except to claim different interpretation. The evidence has to be examined and addressed and an interpretation has to be supported in order for that claim to have any substance.

Claiming God lies is not a Christian value. I wonder why some creationist claim that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't really care what he believes. He made himself irrelevant with his abuse of honesty and other useless contributions.

The question that never gets an answer from creationists except to claim different interpretation. The evidence has to be examined and addressed and an interpretation has to be supported in order for that claim to have any substance.

Claiming God lies is not a Christian value. I wonder why some creationist claim that.

Sometimes one creationist with a wacky interpretation of Genesis gets into an argument with another creationist with a wacky interpretation of Genesis. Then it's popcorn time!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is an answer. Magic. God magicked everything and then lied by making it look as if there were no Flood. I don't know why dad believes in a lying God. He has not said yet.

Have you ever noticed that what some have to say is unimportant and there is no point to read their words?