Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Does a person need to study DNA development and genetics to understand why and how scientists declare humanoids to be hundreds of thousands of years old? Or is it just maybe 30-40,000. Maybe you know.

It is not the only method. For example Lucy was dated using a combination of radiometric dating and stratigraphy. There were volcanic beds deeper than where she was found ((therefore older) and volcanic beds above here. Therefore younger. That bracketed her age. They then used the rate of deposition of materials to give a reasonable estimate for the date the she lived. I could proved sources. There are other methods of dating that I am less familiar with that have been used for other fossils. But I can answer questions on Lucy's dating.

 

[YoursTrue]

You obviously know more about evolution than I do, although I try to understand things, so please tell me how researchers know Lucy was a humanoid organism. I see she is dated like in the millions. I'd like to discuss this as well as how scientists classify her as human ancestor.

It is not the only method. For example Lucy was dated using a combination of radiometric dating and stratigraphy. There were volcanic beds deeper than where she was found ((therefore older) and volcanic beds above here. Therefore younger. That bracketed her age. They then used the rate of deposition of materials to give a reasonable estimate for the date the she lived. I could proved sources. There are other methods of dating that I am less familiar with that have been used for other fossils. But I can answer questions on Lucy's dating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You obviously know more about evolution than I do, although I try to understand things, so please tell me how researchers know Lucy was a humanoid organism. I see she is dated like in the millions. I'd like to discuss this as well as how scientists classify her as human ancestor.

For quite a few reasons Right place, and right time. That is a start. Second she is just about half way between a chimp and a human being in almost every aspect of her skeleton. She is a bit closer to us since she is a biped, unlike chimps that still go around on all fours. And then there is the line of fossils since her time. Looking at just the skulls of the various transitional forms we can see a continual change from her to us. It would be rather hard to draw a line and say "this is a different lineage than the other one".

 

[YoursTrue]

For quite a few reasons Right place, and right time. That is a start. Second she is just about half way between a chimp and a human being in almost every aspect of her skeleton. She is a bit closer to us since she is a biped, unlike chimps that still go around on all fours. And then there is the line of fossils since her time. Looking at just the skulls of the various transitional forms we can see a continual change from her to us. It would be rather hard to draw a line and say "this is a different lineage than the other one".

Thank you for your answer. I realize from reading about Lucy that her limbs suggest she is quite small, do I remember that correctly?
I'd really like to know since you say she is about half way between a chimp and a human being, aside from looks of the skeletal parts of this being (can't really call it/her a person yet as far as I'm concerned, so let's not make an issue out of that), what about DNA examination? Do you know if they do such an examination on skeletal remains?

 

[Valjean]

Lets analyze this by reading this article and give your feedback.

Apologetics Press - "Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"

OK, "Evidence" from the article:

1. The existence and teachings of the laws of science demand a non-material, uncaused Cause for the Universe;

   What are "laws of science?" Science does not rule out a cause for the expansion, as yet, the Big Bang is not understood. It seems to me it's the theists who posit an uncaused cause.
   

2. There are numerous natural evidences in the Universe that exhibit the characteristics of intent, purpose, and complexity, which indicate a Mind behind them. Such attributes testify to the presence of intelligent design, which implies a Designer;

   This is frequently cited as evidence. Complexity is explainable by the natural laws and constants of the universe. The essay implies intent and purpose, but these don't follow from the existence of complexity. Nor does God explain the complexity. Agency isn't a mechanism.
   

3. Objective morality exists, which implies a higher Law that transcends mankind, which in turn demands a supernatural Author;

   This isn't evidence, Objective morality is asserted, and unevidenced. Nor would it necessitate a supernatural author. We know of various natural laws and constants, but there is no reason to believe them anything but natural artifacts of a natural reality.
   

4. A Book exists that contains certain characteristics that can only be explainable if it is what it says it is—the Word of the Creator.

   An interesting claim, but only a claim. No evidence is presented here.

 

[Valjean]

I think we should probably have separate stickied topics for evolution resources and creationist resources. If we try to put them together, we'll just end up turning it into a debate thread (which is not its purpose).

What sort of discussion are we supposed to have here? The OP invites argumentation and debate.

 

[Valjean]

Behe Responds to Postings in Talk.Origins Newsgroup: Behe, Michael One review of Talk Origins

Talk.origins - Conservapedia Another review of Talk Origins

More Problems with TalkOrigins' Response on the Cambrian Explosion - Evolution News & Views Another review of Talk Origins

My point is I have read many that are not real glowing and there are others. I get referred to them so often as if it is the Holy Grail for Evolutionist when according to many reviews I read it shouldn't be. Just food for thought.

These links are a gish gallop of multifarious assertions. The second one, in particular, seems more an attempt to bolster creationism by nit-picking the biological record of the Cambrian explosion.

Again I want written articles. I thought I had made this pretty clear.

You've already referenced Talk Origins. Isn't it full of such articles and references?

 

[Valjean]

I've heard this argued. Here is one rebuttal. What say you to this?

Apologetics Press - "Don't Duplications, Polyploidy, and Symbiogenesis ADD Material to the Genome?"

Don't give standard of millions of yrs and is might or could, should or due to what we see it did happen. That is not science proof. Like when you show me all the steps of photosynthesis etc.

Mutations rearrange, add or remove genes. If you equate the genetic code with information, they yes, mutation often does add information. Whole chromsomes may be added or deleted. "Material" is added all the time.

 

[YoursTrue]

What sort of discussion are we supposed to have here? The OP invites argumentation and debate.

Does that mean we can't agree on certain things?

 

[Valjean]

The reason I ask is this. I find that truly few people really openly research a subject. They only read material that reinforces their own opinion. They rarely read opposing opinions and very rarely will read rebuttals and counter rebuttals to the point they could actually debate for both sides so they know will them both so well.

I was recently studying a topic and I came across this article that I think was written so well about the subject doing exactly as I mentioned above.

Now for the monitors, I don't know how else to illustrate this point but to link this article. It has nothing to do with evolution and creationism. It is religious in nature but not to converting to one religion or another.

Even as a Christian. My wife and I have a glass of wine when we celebrate another anniversary of her being breast and now thyroid cancer free. Our wedding anniversary. That really is about it. I found this article interesting to say the least. Has it changed our minds? Not sure yet. We've both read it and it makes very good points I've never known both ways. We don't have more than a glass each regardless.

My point of this post is to illustrate how thorough this man did his research both ways and researched rebuttals and counter rebuttals. That impressed greatly. I personally have never read any article that so thoroughly went through both sides and rebuttals and counter rebuttals like this.

I feel in creations vs evolution both sides need to do as thorough a job as this man did on this subject. I don't think either side does that. I find each side rarely reads the other side much less the rebuttals and counter rebuttals like is necessary to honest open research. That way an honest not biased decision is made.

Monitors, So I am asking you to please allow this as the reason is to illustrate how he presented his opinion by how he did his research and handling both sides and rebuttals and counter rebuttals. I've never seen a creationist nor evolutionist article be this thorough for both sides, esp handling all the rebuttals and counter rebuttals. He really impressed me.

I hope you guys get as much out of how he handled the topic as I did regardless of the topic itself. It is how he handled the topic! Enjoy. If you actually have read one like this for creationism or evolution please give the links for us all to enjoy.

P.S. Sorry I am so inconsistent on here. I just struggle with so many health issues. I never know from day to day when I will be able to come back and if so how long I will be able to stay. For those that even care I do apologize.

Jesus and Wine

What article are you referring to, here? Several have already been linked, and the one above gives an "article not found" notice when I click on it.

What I've noticed is that there are boatloads of consilient research papers on evolution. The various mechanisms are well established, testable, productive and observed..

Creationist articles and posts attempt, poorly, to discredit the ToE by reporting what they perceive as flaws, in the apparent belief that discrediting evolution supports creationism.
It's clear from creationist posts that they don't understand the ToE, or the mechanisms therein, or the reasons it's accepted by science.

Creationists rarely try to defend creationism with actual evidence, and, in fact, there doesn't seem much to it except "goddidit." No actual mechanisms are cited. The whole thing seems to be based on an axomatic, major premise of a creator God and the authority of the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

What article are you referring to, here? Several have already been linked, and the one above gives an "article not found" notice when I click on it.

What I've noticed is that there are boatloads of consilient research papers on evolution. The various mechanisms are well established, testable, productive and observed..

Creationist articles and posts attempt, poorly, to discredit the ToE by reporting what they perceive as flaws, in the apparent belief that discrediting evolution supports creationism.
It's clear from creationist posts that they don't understand the ToE, or the mechanisms therein, or the reasons it's accepted by science.

Creationists rarely try to defend creationism with actual evidence, and, in fact, there doesn't seem much to it except "goddidit." No actual mechanisms are cited. The whole thing seems to be based on an axomatic, major premise of a creator God and the authority of the Bible.

How is evolution testable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your answer. I realize from reading about Lucy that her limbs suggest she is quite small, do I remember that correctly?
I'd really like to know since you say she is about half way between a chimp and a human being, aside from looks of the skeletal parts of this being (can't really call it/her a person yet as far as I'm concerned, so let's not make an issue out of that), what about DNA examination? Do you know if they do such an examination on skeletal remains?

DNA in bones is long gone in the case of almost all fossils. You might find it in very recent bones that have not been fossilized such as mammoth bones. But just as DNA can identify close human relatives, it can also identify close animal relatives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is evolution testable?

One could look for violations of phylogeny.

 

[Valjean]

Not just believers against ToE (Theory of Evolution), but scientists, too.

From the 75 Theses:

1. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.

So? Research yields new answers and insights, which almost always lead to new questions.

2. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

The components of life have been observed forming and replicating themselves, and there's a great deal of ongoing research into artificial life. Early results are promising. It's foolish to claim it can't be done. https://scitechdaily.com/artificial...nthetic-cell-that-grows-and-divides-normally/
As for abiogenisis, it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a theory of change -- in extant organisms, not of origins.

3. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.

But there is. Google "chemical evolution. And again. The ToE is not about origins, but change.

4. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.

It probably didn't originate in a cell. It probably began developing in a proto-cell of some kind. Science does not yet know. This doesn't mean "goddidit."

5. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.

Self replicating structures are well known in biology. The ability precedes the development of cells.

6. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.

The processes are known, all the steps involved in the development are not, nor is it purely chance. Chemistry is not chance.

7. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.

Cells in slime molds and colony organisms change function all the time, and not by magic.

8. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.

Yes, there are such explanations. Many small changes accumulate into big changes and complex systems. Remember that there are billions of mutations, conjugations &c every minute, and this has been going on for billions of years.

9. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.

See above.
........................................Continued next post..........................................

 

[Valjean]

.................................................Continued........................................................

10. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.

There is, and there are, living examples of the several steps in eye development.

11. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.

Selected mutations, multiplied by billions over millions of generations.

12, No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.

What! . Novel functions are well known. When a change proves useful, it tends to increase in populations and become generalized. There are many examples of these.

13.There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.

Why do you say that? Selective breeding over millions of generations could easily produce a great deal of change and many new species,. We got maize from teosinte grass in just a few thousand years. We got chihuahuas from wolves. Kale, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage cauliflower, bok choy &al all look pretty different, but they're all just recent cultivars of a cabbage-like plant.
Continued selective breeding over thousands of generations could easily get you entirely new species, genera, &c.

14. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.

Define "life form." How different does something have to be to be a new 'form'? Speciation has been observed, even in human timespans.

15. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.

Huh???? Who's claiming that?

14. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.

No, the mechanisms are well known and have been both demonstrated and observed in species with shorter generation times.

15. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.

Q: what link did you get that from?
The brain is biologically expensive. Cooking both releases nutrients that would otherwise not be available, and increases the efficiency and speed of digestion. An organism eating cooked food has more available energy and nutrients. The extra energy and protein can enable a lot of beneficial changes, including increased brain size. What Makes Us Human? Cooking, Study Says
Google Scholar

16. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.

And nobody''s claiming this, are they?

17. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.

Things that died in modern times haven't had much time to fossilize. Unless there's been some disruption of the terrain, you'd expect recent remains to be found in the top layers, as you implied.
I'm not seeing your point, here.

18. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.

Radiometric dating has been shown to be very accurate if properly applied, including consilient verification from different disciplines. Are you implying that atomic decay might have occurred at different rates in the past? There's no reason to believe that.

19. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.

We've seen it happen multiple times in short generation species. We've seen the processes at work in longer generation species.
We can make it happen both in the lab and in the field, and we also know how it happens.

This article makes a lot of false claims, contains a lot of innuendo, and a lot of irrelevancies. It's misleading

 

[Valjean]

Check out this book, it presents some compelling information discrediting evolution and it also presents some scientific facts that were presented in the Bible thousands of years prior to their discovery by modern science.

https://www.amazon.com/Conjugation-...ugation&qid=1629823655&s=digital-text&sr=1-12

I'm not going to buy and read an entire book to discover arguments I've probably heard a hundred times. Would you list a few examples?
You can find more or less questionable 'prophesies' in lots of different religions, and even non-religions like Nostradamus. They're usually somewhat ambiguous. There are also plentiful failed predictions, as well.

 

[Valjean]

because humanism uses that very same science to claim God and religion are false and a curse to society. The atheist view of Science demands that it is allowed to deny God. Also, the interpretations of science cannot include God! So we are allowed to interpret only if we first deny God. I see very obvious problems with that. humanism is setting a precedent that says only its world view can determine our existence through supporting science investigation. I thought Science did not determine such things as they are philosophical questions.

This isn't true. Atheism is indifferent to god. God comes up only in discussions like these in RF.

Of course science doesn't include god. Science can't research what it can't detect, measure, examine, test and so on. As soon as some concrete evidence for God appears, expect science to jump on it like a cat on a mouse.

Humanism isn't science, and yes, science stays in its lane and investigates only what's within its purview. Questions of purpose, meaning, value, morality, &c are outside the scope of science.

 

[Valjean]

Does a person need to study DNA development and genetics to understand why and how scientists declare humanoids to be hundreds of thousands of years old? Or is it just maybe 30-40,000. Maybe you know.

Science believed on an old Earth and millions-year-old "humanoids' (did you mean humans?) long before DNA was discovered. The double helix was discovered within my own lifetime.

 

[Valjean]

You obviously know more about evolution than I do, although I try to understand things, so please tell me how researchers know Lucy was a humanoid organism. I see she is dated like in the millions. I'd like to discuss this as well as how scientists classify her as human ancestor.

A humanoid is anything that's shaped roughly like a human. Science knows Lucy's a hominid from her anatomy, location and age.

 

[Valjean]

Thank you for your answer. I realize from reading about Lucy that her limbs suggest she is quite small, do I remember that correctly?
I'd really like to know since you say she is about half way between a chimp and a human being, aside from looks of the skeletal parts of this being (can't really call it/her a person yet as far as I'm concerned, so let's not make an issue out of that), what about DNA examination? Do you know if they do such an examination on skeletal remains?

Just google australopithicenes, or Australopithicus afarensis for Lucy's specific species.
Lucy walked fully upright like we do, her body was very small and looked much like ours, but with shorter legs. Her head, though, was quite different.
Apparently big brains weren't as important to survival as our erect stance and bipedal gait were, inasmuch as our familiar head shape is a recent development.
Lucy's >3M years old, and completely fossilized. No DNA's been recovered.