If Evolution is Not True...

[Polymath257]

which according to the theory, required changing to leave that stable ocean environment.... hmm

I understand the temptation of the extrapolation, genetic apples fall not far from their trees,

Just as the observation of literal apples falling from trees was erroneously extrapolated out to account for all physical reality, it was similarly an intuitive and comprehensive explanation- superficially

But the point of the horseshoe crab was - in contrast to what whatsisname said- that not everything is changing, it's not only the explosive speed of change observed in natural history, but the stasis- highly 'evolved' species abruptly appear, remain with negligible change for vast periods, and/or disappear as abruptly as they arrived, The gradual incremental transition predicted and conceded as crucial to the theory 150 years ago... simply never showed up, it remains the realm of artistic impressions.

The changes don't happen in all lines, that is correct. But we also have numerous examples of *other* lines (horses, birds, whales, humans) where large scale change did happen over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think some are mislead by assuming evolution is a proven fact, which it is not, there is no scientific proof outside of mathematics. The theory of evolution is supported by established, observable facts.

Correct!!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sir, I don't think we're conversing ... As much as I would like, on this subject. Let us set 0,0,0 as being Earth. This does not impact the mass of Sol. Or Earth, or Jupiter. I will have some time in June and if you like, will actually perform the calculation with step by step mathematics. It's trivially more complicated because if you define the coordinate system at 0,0,0 to Earth's centroid of mass and then use Newtonian physics, nothing changes except the datum. The Earth is still the low-mass body in the Earth-Sol system, so the laws of planetary motion are conserved. We are simply measuring spatial position from the Earth. You may find the results odd since you've been raised in a Heliocentric model, but the mathematics are not more complex.

As a point, I don't think the universe is centred at Earth. It presumes that the creating force cared enough only to weave us into the fabric of the universe--quite unlikely. I was just using this as an example that science is far more fungible than atheistic humanism would presume. To be honest, I am astonished that you brought Ptolemy into this. I see no requirement in the laws of planetary motion that the datum be centred at the centroid of mass of the system primary -- how do you think multi-star planetary systems are calculated then? Nothing is at the centre of mass in that case.

All of what you say would be true if everything in the universe were not moving relative to everything else -- according to the laws of physics. As they are doing that, however, setting earth at 0,0,0 and trying to figure out where Mars will be in the sky relative to Betelgeuse on April 12, 2026 will be simply impossible.

I brought the Ptolemaic system in because that's exactly what that system was attempting to do -- provide models that could PREDICT.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I still dismiss the "poll" as fake-- the questions themselves were front-loaded, skewing the "results".

More rational polling puts around 47% of the US deny evolution, in favor of the silliness that is creationism.

The remaining 53? Or so percent accept the scientific validity of evolution. Which is rational, as evolution is a fact. There is a pretty theory which claims to explain the fact of evolution--but evolution is fact.

Well yes, Gallup are well known for crazy outlandish polls!?

Sure, if you can find a poll that for some reason does not distinguish between God guided evolution and purely chance driven, then of course you will manage to eek out more numbers for 'evolution' - and then use this number to suggest those people somehow all believe in a fundamentalist Darwinistic chance driven mechanism, which is actually a minority.

It's no different than polls which get 97% of climastrologers to agree with the most benign technical definition of global warming, and positing that next to clips from Hollywood disaster movies!

Fair to say; Fundamentalist creationists are at one extreme, Fundamentalist Darwinists at the other, most of us are somewhere in the middle-in an inherently speculative field.

It's a red flag of ideology when anyone claims utter fact on either extreme, without doubt, as they did for Piltdown man, birds from dinos, dogs from wolves, men from apes etc- all these definitives have been rightly humbled by science

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The changes don't happen in all lines, that is correct. But we also have numerous examples of *other* lines (horses, birds, whales, humans) where large scale change did happen over time.

What exactly did birds evolve from? or any of these examples, other than dated artistic impressions, did any of these Victorian age predictions stand up to the scrutiny of science over the last 150 years?

 

[sayak83]

What exactly did birds evolve from? or any of these examples, other than dated artistic impressions, did any of these Victorian age predictions stand up to the scrutiny of science over the last 150 years?

From dinosaurs. Tons and tons of evidence from fossil, soft tissue, preserved feathers and DNA. How much do you want to know?
How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds

 

[Tomyris]

All of what you say would be true if everything in the universe were not moving relative to everything else -- according to the laws of physics. As they are doing that, however, setting earth at 0,0,0 and trying to figure out where Mars will be in the sky relative to Betelgeuse on April 12, 2026 will be simply impossible.

I brought the Ptolemaic system in because that's exactly what that system was attempting to do -- provide models that could PREDICT.

But if you set 0, 0, 0 at Sol, everything is moving relative to everything else still anyway, and that's also true for a coordinate system at a galactic or a supercluster level. The only way to definitively avoid that would be to calculate everything from the exact centre of the universe. And nobody even thinks of doing that. Furthermore, setting the coordinates at 0,0,0 in Earth's centroid of mass gives you stable positions for the entirety of Sol because bodies in the same orbital system are going to remain at fixed distances as a function of that orbit in time (with variation over a longer time scale which is not important to the visualization we're discussing) and that is true whether or not you put the centre of your coordinate system in Earth, or in Sol, or in Jupiter, etc, etc. Betelgeuse is translating relative to Sol as much as Earth, and that translation would still be occurring no matter where you define the centre of your coordinate system.

Sir, with all due respect... That isn't even hard. We've been tracking changes of positions of stars in the sky for many centuries, and the equations are inherently agnostic to the selection of the coordinate system. Indeed, positions of stars relative to Earth have been tracked for considerably longer than heliocentric theory existed. I'm really not seeing why you think it's complicated... And why you think that the datum matters for this computation.

 

[osgart]

all this evolution stuff is just poor associations of creatures to other creatures. I'm no creationist but I only see evolution as a childish notion.

most people blindly accept evolution. scientists are prone to bias and making false connections just like everyone else .

I find evolution and creationism equally ridiculous

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What exactly did birds evolve from? or any of these examples, other than dated artistic impressions, did any of these Victorian age predictions stand up to the scrutiny of science over the last 150 years?

Yes. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. DNA is the latest in a giant pile of facts that support that observation.

Evolution remains a fact.

 

[David T]

The Evolution debate goes on forever, of course, and I strongly doubt that either side will ever stand down. Each side for their own reasons, of course (for better or worse)!

But for this one thread, let's just assume that Evolution is not true, that Darwin was wrong, that species cannot give rise to other species, that non-life cannot give rise to life (abiogenesis, which is of course not part of Darwin's theory, but let's allow it in for this one thread).

There are, as one might expect, consequences that can be understood if this is the case. Most obviously, life had to have been either created, or always have existed -- those are the only two possibilities. This would also be entirely true of every species of life, if we accept that one species cannot give rise to another -- that (as I've heard approximately a zillion times to often!) "cat's can't turn into dogs!" (Which of course is also not part of evolution, but one can't expect understanding from everybody, can one?)

So what kinds of things must we assume, if Evolution is not true?

1. That every species known was created
2. That there was either one or more creators at work
3. If there were more than one creator, they each shared equivalent creative abilities
4. That they either created for a purpose (they had a reason for doing it) or they didn't

There are, of course, many more, but these will do for now.

Let us now look at the causes of polio and smallpox, which have both been eradicated in the most of the first world, along with a host of horrible other creatures, from amoebae to revolting parasites.

If polio and smallpox were created (as they must have been if evolution [and abiogenesis] is false), and if they were created with a purpose -- then the first world effort of the last century to eradicate them in the first world, and the present effort to eradicate them everywhere, is an attempt by humans to thwart that purpose. If the creator in question is "God," as usually defined in the Abrahamic religions, how do we justify trying to defeat the Creator's (God's) purpose? Are we capable of determining that that purpose was wrong? Is the World Health Organization (WHO) the enemy of at least some of God's purposes on earth?

There'll be more, but I'll leave it there for now...looking forward to responses.

As I continue to state a dog is an evolutionist Darwin stated the obvious as if it was meaningful. We have a serious problem in religion in context to this topic this a serious problem in science. We tend to nature and objectify it either religiously or scientifically with different interpretations rooted in the sub conscious. I have stated before that evolution was already stated in religious terms in 1200ad . That got a response of "I never heard that before". So i guess the pro evolutionist anti religious "i never heard that before" and the pro religious anti evolutionist "I never heard that before" have a more in common than not. Since i have a match between twiddle see and twiddle dum which twiddle is correct and which twiddle is wrong? Who stated evolution in religious terms in 120OAD? I will give you a hint he is very famous and probably the most famous and certainly the most beloved saint in the world. We create bird ponds sold at stores of him!!!! If you guess, then what did he say in context to evolution? It's right there in the open for all to see.

 

[David T]

Yes. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. DNA is the latest in a giant pile of facts that support that observation.

Evolution remains a fact.

Yes it is but the problem is rooted in the universities. Religion is so dumb its painful on this topic. I actually got a friend who was a bit befuddled by it to realize we have evolution over here, and narrarative evolution over here. So when we say "evolution" we automatically think "narrative over here" while evolution is at work over here. Btw i already know what i wrote sounds odd. It's because I split narrative from experience that's a bit odd itself and we tend to not be able to do that easily. Heraclitus said "nature loves to hide". I would say" loves to hide in the open". Like the cobra lily to the fly. Nature is big we are tiny tiny tiny.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

From dinosaurs. Tons and tons of evidence from fossil, soft tissue, preserved feathers and DNA. How much do you want to know?
How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds

Yes. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. DNA is the latest in a giant pile of facts that support that observation.

Evolution remains a fact.

That's certainly been a popular guess, first made over 150 years ago based on vague similarities, but was never validated, and is looking increasingly unlikely

Scientists: Bird's Ancestors Likely Not Dinosaurs

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
Feb 10, 2010 - A new study provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to ...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

all this evolution stuff is just poor associations of creatures to other creatures. I'm no creationist but I only see evolution as a childish notion.

most people blindly accept evolution. scientists are prone to bias and making false connections just like everyone else .

I find evolution and creationism equally ridiculous

It was a perfectly rational logical fit with the way we viewed reality 150 years ago, where everything developed itself out of a handful of simple 'immutable' laws, and all the predetermined fine tuning we now now of was still considered 'religious pseudoscience'

Scientifically it's hard to image how it's predictions could have failed any more spectacularly, but a huge emotional attachment to the theory has been built up.

 

[sayak83]

That's certainly been a popular guess, first made over 150 years ago based on vague similarities, but was never validated, and is looking increasingly unlikely

Scientists: Bird's Ancestors Likely Not Dinosaurs

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
Feb 10, 2010 - A new study provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to ...

I know that there is a small group led by Czerkas who, Hoyle like, are hell bent on clutching at straws to prove their pet theory that birds evolved from early reptiles before the birds. Unfortunately for them, this latest attempt has floundered as well. Careful studies have now shown that these groups are correctly classified as therapod dinosaurs nomatter what Czerkas thinks.
A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran theropod with preserved evidence of membranous wings : Nature : Nature Research


The wings of birds and their closest theropod relatives share a uniform fundamental architecture, with pinnate flight feathers as the key component1, 2, 3. Here we report a new scansoriopterygid theropod, Yi qi gen. et sp. nov., based on a new specimen from the Middle–Upper Jurassic period Tiaojishan Formation of Hebei Province, China4. Yi is nested phylogenetically among winged theropods but has large stiff filamentous feathers of an unusual type on both the forelimb and hindlimb. However, the filamentous feathers of Yi resemble pinnate feathers in bearing morphologically diverse melanosomes5. Most surprisingly, Yi has a long rod-like bone extending from each wrist, and patches of membranous tissue preserved between the rod-like bones and the manual digits. Analogous features are unknown in any dinosaur but occur in various flying and gliding tetrapods6, 7, 8, 9, 10, suggesting the intriguing possibility that Yi had membranous aerodynamic surfaces totally different from the archetypal feathered wings of birds and their closest relatives. Documentation of the unique forelimbs of Yi greatly increases the morphological disparity known to exist among dinosaurs, and highlights the extraordinary breadth and richness of the evolutionary experimentation that took place close to the origin of birds.



A full point by point demonstration of the fallacies Czerkas group had indulged in, in their paper is linked here.
Rhetoric Vs. Reality: A Commentary an "Bird Origins Anew" by A. Feduccia

The pdf is free to open and download. Needless to say, few outside his group take his claims seriously.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That's certainly been a popular guess, first made over 150 years ago based on vague similarities, but was never validated, and is looking increasingly unlikely

Scientists: Bird's Ancestors Likely Not Dinosaurs

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm
Feb 10, 2010 - A new study provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to ...

First link is not a scientific site, and is essentially an opinion piece/editoral.

The second link is pure click-bait, and is a hypothetical "discussion", not a scientific consensus.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First link is not a scientific site, and is essentially an opinion piece/editoral.

The second link is pure click-bait, and is a hypothetical "discussion", not a scientific consensus.

Cmon Bob, both clearly cite the published studies

these links are provided in the article, not hard to find, nor are countless similar studies if you are at all interested in the actual science

I'm sure you can argue your superior understanding of this subject with any of these scientists, but we can't pretend there is somehow some conclusive evidence for birds from dinos, it was only ever a tempting assumption, like Piltdown man, dogs from wolves, man from apes, though I wouldn't be surprised if you still believe in those too?

1. John Ruben. Paleobiology and the origins of avian flight. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0915099107
2. David E. Alexander, Enpu Gong, Larry D. Martin, David A. Burnham, and Amanda R. Falk. Model tests of gliding with different hindwing configurations in the four-winged dromaeosaurid Microraptor gui. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0911852107

Alan Feduccia, biology professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, studied the Scansoriopteryx fossil. What he found was something more birdlike than dinosaur-like.

"It’s just not a dinosaur. In other words, there’s not anything about this creature that allows classifying it as a dinosaur," he said.

His study, with co-author Stephen Czerkas and published in The Journal of Ornithology, ..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

all this evolution stuff is just poor associations of creatures to other creatures. I'm no creationist but I only see evolution as a childish notion.

most people blindly accept evolution. scientists are prone to bias and making false connections just like everyone else .

I find evolution and creationism equally ridiculous

And I find your post even more so. It certainly reeks of the usual lack of any education in science at all, which is all too common now. I am certainly glad that when I was growing up, kids were actually expected to LEARN something, rather than to just become fascinated by their own ill-formed opinions.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

which according to the theory, required changing to leave that stable ocean environment.... hmm

I understand the temptation of the extrapolation, genetic apples fall not far from their trees,

Just as the observation of literal apples falling from trees was erroneously extrapolated out to account for all physical reality, it was similarly an intuitive and comprehensive explanation- superficially

But the point of the horseshoe crab was - in contrast to what whatsisname said- that not everything is changing, it's not only the explosive speed of change observed in natural history, but the stasis- highly 'evolved' species abruptly appear, remain with negligible change for vast periods, and/or disappear as abruptly as they arrived, The gradual incremental transition predicted and conceded as crucial to the theory 150 years ago... simply never showed up, it remains the realm of artistic impressions.

Have you got an example other than the horseshoe crab? (I could throw in the coelacanth, if you'd like.)

I say it is not "the realm of artistic impressions," but the realm of "punctuated equilibrium." Everything changes at different rates depending on conditions and needs. Horseshoe crabs, living near shorelines, continue much as before because whether continents shift and shimmy, they continue to have shorelines as long as there are oceans. But throw up a mountain range due to tectonic activity, or raise a volcanic island, or open a rift valley -- then follow that up with the inevitable climate changes (which are, by the way, less noticeable on coastlines and in deep ocean rifts where crabs and coelacanths live), and more rapid evolution will follow -- and then stabalize again. See Stephen J. Gould.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But if you set 0, 0, 0 at Sol, everything is moving relative to everything else still anyway, and that's also true for a coordinate system at a galactic or a supercluster level. The only way to definitively avoid that would be to calculate everything from the exact centre of the universe. And nobody even thinks of doing that. Furthermore, setting the coordinates at 0,0,0 in Earth's centroid of mass gives you stable positions for the entirety of Sol because bodies in the same orbital system are going to remain at fixed distances as a function of that orbit in time (with variation over a longer time scale which is not important to the visualization we're discussing) and that is true whether or not you put the centre of your coordinate system in Earth, or in Sol, or in Jupiter, etc, etc. Betelgeuse is translating relative to Sol as much as Earth, and that translation would still be occurring no matter where you define the centre of your coordinate system.

Sir, with all due respect... That isn't even hard. We've been tracking changes of positions of stars in the sky for many centuries, and the equations are inherently agnostic to the selection of the coordinate system. Indeed, positions of stars relative to Earth have been tracked for considerably longer than heliocentric theory existed. I'm really not seeing why you think it's complicated... And why you think that the datum matters for this computation.

Okay -- you claimed math skills. Here's a comparative problem for you to solve:

1. Assume that Kepler was correct about planetary elliptical orbits and Newton correct about gravity
2. Set Earth at 0,0,0
3. Assume fuel is NOT unlimited, and therefore gravity assist will be needed
4. Plot a path from Earth to Neptune showing the math

4b -- Now, do the same with Sol at 0,0,0 -- and everything else the same.

(Please remember as you present your math that this assumes Sol is orbiting the earth, as are the other planets. I might forgive a version with Sol orbiting earth, and all the other planets orbiting Sol, but that's not generally what a geo-centric model assumes.)

 

[Ricktheheretic]

If evolution isn't true (God forbid. ) then creationism is true by default because................................................................................well because that's what creationists say. Why else would they continually attack evolution if it wasn't? They ain't stupid ya know. .............Ya know!

.

There were theories about how life got here without god before Erasmus or Charles Darwin came along. Democritus and Epicurus believed that long ago atoms of different types whirled through space and came together to form celestial bodies, planets, stars etc. and that flesh atoms came together to make animals. According to both philosophers if an animal wasn't able to survive the atoms would come apart and make something new, eventually they got it right and made the right type of animals. A book of mine, The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant, describes it as pre-Darwinian account of evolution with the law selection "survival of the fittest."