|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/11/2008 11:37:00 PM
|
|
|
futuredocter37
Posts: 139
Joined: 11/9/2006
From: www.truthwar.net
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Two nearly complete fossil specimens discovered in Canada reveal a new genus of horseshoe crab, pushing their origins back at least 100 million years earlier than previously thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primitive looks
Analysis of the recent finds also indicates the ocean creatures haven’t changed much over the eons.
"We wouldn't necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that's exactly what they look like," Rudkin said.
...
Well, up until recently horshoe crabs were thought to have originated later than the earliest spider or scorpion, so until this fossil was discovered it wouldn't have been a consideration.
...
Sure, but that common ancestor doesn’t appear to be a horseshoe crab. In fact, according to the fossil record, the only common ancestor for a horseshoe crab appears to be a horseshoe crab.
Looks like the evidence is starting to support biblical creation more and more. ie: Everything was created in a short period of time and organisms with huge anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor.
Well look at the null hypothesis of the Hardy-Weinberg theorem, are you telling me that you would really count all the alleles in a population, which has to be many million for most animals and plants. Is this why nobody even mentions Hardy-Weinberg equation.
_____________________________
KEN
Have you perfectly obeyed the ten commandments?? If God gave you justice will you go to heaven or hell???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/11/2008 11:38:30 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Betta you say there is evidence that everything was created in a short period of time. I have not seen that evidence. Could you be more specific?
The evidence I quoted.
quote:
You also say that organisms with 'huge' anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor. Scientifically speaking, what is the measurement of 'huge'?
Anatomical changes at the level required for molecule to man evolution. That is, evolution on the level of the number of atoms that a bacteria or molecule has to the level of atoms required to produce a human. Why that level of evolution? Because that level of evolution must have occurred for molecule to man evolution to be valid. If you want to claim evolution on such a scale did occur, the burden of proof is on you. Claiming it took millions of years is unfalsifiable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 12:02:55 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Betta you say there is evidence that everything was created in a short period of time. I have not seen that evidence. Could you be more specific?
The evidence I quoted. Well, my evidence shows otherwise. By what scientific methodology was your evidence that this is a young earth founded on.
quote:
You also say that organisms with 'huge' anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor. Scientifically speaking, what is the measurement of 'huge'?
Anatomical changes at the level required for molecule to man evolution. That is, evolution on the level of the number of atoms that a bacteria or molecule has to the level of atoms required to produce a human. Why that level of evolution? Because that level of evolution must have occurred for molecule to man evolution to be valid. If you want to claim evolution on such a scale did occur, the burden of proof is on you. Claiming it took millions of years is unfalsifiable.
Let me repeat the question. It really doesn't require any particular scientific discipline to define. The term is "huge". I asked what is the measurement of "huge".
Thanks.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 12:49:16 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Well, my evidence shows otherwise.
Your interpretation of the evidence.
quote:
By what scientific methodology was your evidence that this is a young earth founded on.
My reference to the quote was in reference to the notion that distinct kinds were created separately. This notion is consistent with biblical creation and not UCD.
quote:
Let me repeat the question. It really doesn't require any particular scientific discipline to define. The term is "huge". I asked what is the measurement of "huge".
Thanks.
Huge is not a measurable quantity and different people may have different opinions on what constitutes a huge difference. I told you what I meant by huge and why that definition is relevant. The difference in the quantity of atoms from a molecule to a man I would consider to be huge (with respect to evolution) and if you would like to claim evolution on such a scale occurred, please demonstrate (ie: don't speculate millions of years since that is unfalsifiable).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 12:54:55 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
Well look at the null hypothesis of the Hardy-Weinberg theorem, are you telling me that you would really count all the alleles in a population, which has to be many million for most animals and plants. Is this why nobody even mentions Hardy-Weinberg equation.
What?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 1:02:34 AM
|
|
|
futuredocter37
Posts: 139
Joined: 11/9/2006
From: www.truthwar.net
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
Well look at the null hypothesis of the Hardy-Weinberg theorem, are you telling me that you would really count all the alleles in a population, which has to be many million for most animals and plants. Is this why nobody even mentions Hardy-Weinberg equation.
What?
You've never heard of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium theorm??
_____________________________
KEN
Have you perfectly obeyed the ten commandments?? If God gave you justice will you go to heaven or hell???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 2:03:51 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
You've never heard of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium theorm??
I'm not sure how what I quoted from your post relates to what you quoted from my post or the topic as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 2:13:17 AM
|
|
|
futuredocter37
Posts: 139
Joined: 11/9/2006
From: www.truthwar.net
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
You've never heard of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium theorm??
I'm not sure how what I quoted from your post relates to what you quoted from my post or the topic as a whole.
My post have delt with what is known as the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium theorm, it is used to test wether or not a population is "evolving".
_____________________________
KEN
Have you perfectly obeyed the ten commandments?? If God gave you justice will you go to heaven or hell???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 2:52:57 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
My post have delt with what is known as the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium theorm, it is used to test wether or not a population is "evolving".
I believe I understand what the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium refers to, I'm just not sure how it relates to my previous quote (the one you quoted) or the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 3:00:21 AM
|
|
|
futuredocter37
Posts: 139
Joined: 11/9/2006
From: www.truthwar.net
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
My post have delt with what is known as the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium theorm, it is used to test wether or not a population is "evolving".
I believe I understand what the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium refers to, I'm just not sure how it relates to my previous quote (the one you quoted) or the topic.
The topic deals with stasis in populations, this the understanding how of how a population changes geneticlly which is what in part the topic of the thread is about. I dont anyone has every done a full equilibrium test, well for starters it assumes alleles and traits are inherited in a Mendelian fasion which not all of them are.
_____________________________
KEN
Have you perfectly obeyed the ten commandments?? If God gave you justice will you go to heaven or hell???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 9:33:49 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6728
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm not sure how someone can think this is evidence against evolution. First of all, there are several species of horseshoe crabs. Second, what is meant by "it's a good plan" is referring to the body 'plan'. The shape of the crab has remained largely unchanged for a half billion years. No change to the phenotype does not necessitate no change to the genotype. Think of how we look similar to our ancestors from 10,000 years ago yet there are some fundamental changes. Lactose tolerance comes to mind first, but there are plenty of other examples (for instance, the fossil of an American Indian would be indistinguishable from that of a European a few hundred years back, yet the European had a higher resistance to small pox).
The problem with this approach is that is cuts both ways. It is true we cannot by observing phenotypical changes really know what is happening genetically – but that is exactly where evolutionists claim to derive most of their historical evidence – from observed phenotypic differences in the fossil record which they claim is evidence for certain kinds of genetic changes.
What we can know by observing phenotypes of horseshoe crab fossils (and the other organisms in historical stasis) are that if there are genetic changes, those changes had no observable affect on the organism despite 500 million years of presumably significant selective events.
quote:
The idea that this presents a problem for evolution because mutations occur at regular intervals and rates is boggling. First, many mutations are either neutral or deleterious. The neutral ones are a non-factor for obvious reasons. The deleterious ones are weeded out by natural selection. Second, beneficial mutations are quite evidently extremely rare for the horseshoe crab. In other words, what leads to more adaptability would need to be extremely specific at this point due to the fact that the crab is already so highly adapted to its environment. But again, it's important to remember that a beneficial mutation need not necessarily have a result in the phenotype.
There is no reason to think that there would be more or fewer ‘beneficial’ mutations (or deleterious ones for that matter) in a horseshoe crabs (or jellyfish, or army ants or platypuses, etc) than any other organism. In fact, one of the claims of evolution is that mutational change is rather ordinary and constant – not that it occurs especially in some species sometimes, and not at all in other species. The whole idea is that incremental changes accumulate over time and add up to large changes – not that they don’t happen at all in some species at any time, while happening dramatically in other species at certain times.
quote:
It is a true stretch to claim stasis presents any issues for evolution. It would be surprising to discover a majority or even a relatively large number (1%, say) of species that remained unchanged for such long periods of time, but to find a few is not so surprising. All that is needed is a relatively stable environment. This means that when the Earth faces large scale changes to most of its species that not every species will be forced to go through a period of great change. This is because a horseshoe crab doesn't necessarily need to change its shape if it can eat various species of clams and worms that are going through great changes. In other words, its environment hasn't actually changed. It is still obtaining a food source and the method it currently uses is the best available.
It is increasingly evident that stasis is not all that unusual for overarching forms. As I pointed out, the major groups of flowering plants and beetles – two groups which make up a large part of all living things – were established long ago, and have not changed in major ways since. The evidence is that life advances by way of explosion and stasis, not incremental and incidental modification of genetics.
< Message edited by Jhud -- 2/12/2008 10:24:46 AM >
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 10:18:02 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Well, my evidence shows otherwise.
Your interpretation of the evidence. Maybe that is your problem. Evidence does not need to be interpreted. It stands on its own. It is the evidence I refer to that has guided the fields of anthropology, geology, archeology, paleontology and others. Do you ignore these sciences?
quote:
quote:
By what scientific methodology was your evidence that this is a young earth founded on.
My reference to the quote was in reference to the notion that distinct kinds were created separately. This notion is consistent with biblical creation and not UCD. Okay, so you are saying that in order for the Bible to be factual, the Earth would have to be only 6,000 to 10,000 years old?
quote:
quote:
Let me repeat the question. It really doesn't require any particular scientific discipline to define. The term is "huge". I asked what is the measurement of "huge".
Thanks.
Huge is not a measurable quantity and different people may have different opinions on what constitutes a huge difference. Thank you again.
quote:
I told you what I meant by huge and why that definition is relevant. The difference in the quantity of atoms from a molecule to a man I would consider to be huge (with respect to evolution) and if you would like to claim evolution on such a scale occurred, please demonstrate (ie: don't speculate millions of years since that is unfalsifiable).
It already has been established and its irrefutable evidence given to YEC's ad nauseum. Maybe it's time for YEC's to show science evidence that the Earth cannot be older than 6,000 years. Where would you begin?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 10:20:50 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6728
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
This is not a young earth thread, take it elsewhere.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 10:28:50 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Maybe that is your problem. Evidence does not need to be interpreted.
To try and figure out what the evidence means, it does.
quote:
Okay, so you are saying that in order for the Bible to be factual, the Earth would have to be only 6,000 to 10,000 years old?
I wasn't referencing the young earth, I was referencing the notion that all organisms seem to have been created at once. There are/were other threads on the subject of the age of the earth, you may refer to those.
quote:
It already has been established and its irrefutable evidence given to YEC's ad nauseum. Maybe it's time for YEC's to show science evidence that the Earth cannot be older than 6,000 years. Where would you begin?
Again, the age of the earth is not what I was referencing in particular. There are other threads for that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 10:32:38 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
The topic deals with stasis in populations, this the understanding how of how a population changes geneticlly which is what in part the topic of the thread is about. I dont anyone has every done a full equilibrium test, well for starters it assumes alleles and traits are inherited in a Mendelian fasion which not all of them are.
The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium says something to the extent of
quote:
If we mate two individuals that are heterozygous (e.g., Bb) for a trait, we find that
* 25% of their offspring are homozygous for the dominant allele (BB)
* 50% are heterozygous like their parents (Bb) and
* 25% are homozygous for the recessive allele (bb) and thus, unlike their parents, express the recessive phenotype.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/Hardy_Weinberg.html
However, it doesn't seem to say much about which traits would be selected for or against in a specific environment. So, it's completely possible for one trait to be expressed within a population more frequently than another (ie: it's possible for a recessive gene to be expressed more frequently than 25% of the time) if selective pressures favor that trait.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/12/2008 10:39:55 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 11:18:59 AM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, the age of the earth is not what I was referencing in particular. There are other threads for that.
Baloney....you said to jhud, "Looks like the evidence is starting to support biblical creation more and more. ie: Everything was created in a short period of time and organisms with huge anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor."
Jhud didn't tell you to take your "short period of time thread" comment to another thread. You also were telling Jhud that his topic showed a relationship between the horseshoe crab and the fact that the Bible supported a young earth.
Now you two are telling me to take my responses to the content of this thread to another thread. Isn't that rather hypocritical?
You don't have to answer. The question was rhetorical. I just wanted you both to be aware of your inconsistancies and to show that it is not I who should take any part of this discussion to another thread.
But to get back on topic....stasis and the young earth theory are contradictory. Maybe that is why you both wish to avoid the connection.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 11:21:26 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3165
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Betta you say there is evidence that everything was created in a short period of time. I have not seen that evidence. Could you be more specific? You've seen it Aristocrat, but you choose to interpret it to suit your preconceived assumptions.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 11:22:54 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6728
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Baloney....you said to jhud, "Looks like the evidence is starting to support biblical creation more and more. ie: Everything was created in a short period of time and organisms with huge anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor."
Jhud didn't tell you to take your "short period of time thread" comment to another thread. You also were telling Jhud that his topic showed a relationship between the horseshoe crab and the fact that the Bible supported a young earth.
Now you two are telling me to take my responses to the content of this thread to another thread. Isn't that rather hypocritical?
You don't have to answer. The question was rhetorical. I just wanted you both to be aware of your inconsistancies and to show that it is not I who should take any part of this discussion to another thread.
But to get back on topic....stasis and the young earth theory are contradictory. Maybe that is why you both wish to avoid the connection.
I don't really care about the 'connection', I care about keeping this thread from becoming another YEC thread, take it elsewhere.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 11:24:43 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Baloney....you said to jhud, "Looks like the evidence is starting to support biblical creation more and more. ie: Everything was created in a short period of time and organisms with huge anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor."
The notion that everything was created in a short period of time sometime in the past is supported by my quote and says nothing about the age of the earth.
quote:
Jhud didn't tell you to take your "short period of time thread" comment to another thread.
Again, the notion that everything was created in a short period of time says nothing about the age of the earth.
quote:
You also were telling Jhud that his topic showed a relationship between the horseshoe crab and the fact that the Bible supported a young earth.
No, I did not mention the age of the earth in particular.
quote:
Now you two are telling me to take my responses to the content of this thread to another thread. Isn't that rather hypocritical?
With respect to the age of the earth. I did not mention the age of the earth, just the notion that everything was created all at once sometime in the past (in a short period of time sometime in the past, not throughout the fossil record).
quote:
You don't have to answer. The question was rhetorical. I just wanted you both to be aware of your inconsistancies and to show that it is not I who should take any part of this discussion to another thread.
What inconsistencies?
quote:
But to get back on topic....stasis and the young earth theory are contradictory.
No they're not. They're not mutually exclusive but they're also not mutually inclusive. The notion that organisms remain static throughout the fossil record is more consistent with Biblical creation than it is with UCD. Again, this doesn't say much about the age of the earth in particular.
The fact that organisms suddenly appear in the fossil record with few to no transitions suggests that they were created instantly in a short period of time more so than would be suggested if there were many transitions from one organism to the next. So the fact that organisms suddenly appear in the fossil record is more consistent with Biblical Creation than it is with UCD. Again, this particular piece of circumstantial evidence says little to nothing about the age of the earth, there are other threads covering that topic.
quote:
Maybe that is why you both wish to avoid the connection.
Why shouldn't we avoid a connection that doesn't exist?
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 2/12/2008 11:41:08 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 12:30:31 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
Baloney....you said to jhud, "Looks like the evidence is starting to support biblical creation more and more. ie: Everything was created in a short period of time and organisms with huge anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor."
The notion that everything was created in a short period of time sometime in the past is supported by my quote and says nothing about the age of the earth.
quote:
Jhud didn't tell you to take your "short period of time thread" comment to another thread.
Again, the notion that everything was created in a short period of time says nothing about the age of the earth.
quote:
You also were telling Jhud that his topic showed a relationship between the horseshoe crab and the fact that the Bible supported a young earth.
No, I did not mention the age of the earth in particular.
quote:
Now you two are telling me to take my responses to the content of this thread to another thread. Isn't that rather hypocritical?
With respect to the age of the earth. I did not mention the age of the earth, just the notion that everything was created all at once sometime in the past (in a short period of time sometime in the past, not throughout the fossil record).
quote:
You don't have to answer. The question was rhetorical. I just wanted you both to be aware of your inconsistancies and to show that it is not I who should take any part of this discussion to another thread.
What inconsistencies?
quote:
But to get back on topic....stasis and the young earth theory are contradictory.
No they're not. They're not mutually exclusive but they're also not mutually inclusive. The notion that organisms remain static throughout the fossil record is more consistent with Biblical creation than it is with UCD. Again, this doesn't say much about the age of the earth in particular.
The fact that organisms suddenly appear in the fossil record with few to no transitions suggests that they were created instantly in a short period of time more so than would be suggested if there were many transitions from one organism to the next. So the fact that organisms suddenly appear in the fossil record is more consistent with Biblical Creation than it is with UCD. Again, this particular piece of circumstantial evidence says little to nothing about the age of the earth, there are other threads covering that topic.
quote:
Maybe that is why you both wish to avoid the connection.
Why shouldn't we avoid a connection that doesn't exist?
I think anyone with half a brain can see through this, Betta. I'm done.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 12:36:54 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
I think anyone with half a brain can see through this, Betta. I'm done.
Something could have been created in a short period of time: 1 day ago, 1 year ago, 1 decade ago, 1 century ago, one millennium ago, one eon ago, etc... If it was created in 6 days and you consider that a short period of time, it doesn't matter how old something is, it was still created in a short period of time. I don't see how this is such a difficult concept. Take a car, it might take 1 hour for robots to build a car. The car could be 1 day old, it could be 1 year old, 10 years old, etc... but it was still built in 1 hour. I don't see how the length of time something took to create dictates how old the object is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 5:29:20 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Baloney....you said to jhud, "Looks like the evidence is starting to support biblical creation more and more. ie: Everything was created in a short period of time and organisms with huge anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor."
Jhud didn't tell you to take your "short period of time thread" comment to another thread. You also were telling Jhud that his topic showed a relationship between the horseshoe crab and the fact that the Bible supported a young earth.
Now you two are telling me to take my responses to the content of this thread to another thread. Isn't that rather hypocritical?
You don't have to answer. The question was rhetorical. I just wanted you both to be aware of your inconsistancies and to show that it is not I who should take any part of this discussion to another thread.
But to get back on topic....stasis and the young earth theory are contradictory. Maybe that is why you both wish to avoid the connection.
I don't really care about the 'connection', I care about keeping this thread from becoming another YEC thread, take it elsewhere.
Would you rather get into a discussion about spongebob on this thread again Jhud?
"Did he look different than his modern form? Was he Spongebob SquareFurLoinCloth? "
I think there are alot more civil ways to request a thread stay issue specific for you, the author. ESpecially if one is a practicing hypocrite.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 5:42:45 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
No they're not. They're not mutually exclusive but they're also not mutually inclusive. The notion that organisms remain static throughout the fossil record is more consistent with Biblical creation than it is with UCD. Again, this doesn't say much about the age of the earth in particular. Wait, isn't the Biblical creation story about the earth being only six to ten thousand years old? And didn't jhud just command us to take it to another thread because he does not want to discuss YEC ? I am really confused now.
quote:
So the fact that organisms suddenly appear in the fossil record is more consistent with Biblical Creation than it is with UCD. Biblical creation is six days....and about the earth being only a few thousand years old.
You guys have me totally dumbfounded.
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 5:56:41 PM
|
|
|
Aristocrat
Posts: 1182
Joined: 8/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
So the pattern, rather than gradual changes through incremental and incidental modification of ongoing mutation, appears to be a rapid appearance of various groups followed by extreme stasis, presumably comprising in some cases hundreds of millions.
This would seem to directly contradict the fundamental notion of Neo-Darwinian evolution.
Are you speaking specifically of punctuated equilibrium?
_____________________________
I find it odd that ID proponents call evolution materialistic and then take the materialistic approach to finding the ID or Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution - 2/12/2008 8:25:27 PM
|
|
|
Mountaineer
Posts: 20
Joined: 2/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The problem with this approach is that is cuts both ways. It is true we cannot by observing phenotypical changes really know what is happening genetically – but that is exactly where evolutionists claim to derive most of their historical evidence – from observed phenotypic differences in the fossil record which they claim is evidence for certain kinds of genetic changes.
What we can know by observing phenotypes of horseshoe crab fossils (and the other organisms in historical stasis) are that if there are genetic changes, those changes had no observable affect on the organism despite 500 million years of presumably significant selective events.
I assume you mean selective pressures. It isn't necessary that because one sea creature changed as a result of, say, a snowball Earth that another creature changed. There's plenty of reason to suspect that a major global or regional event would have a profound effect on relevant species (in the case of a global event, the relevant species would be all of them), but there's little reason to say that these relevant species would all necessarily be impacted. If you wish to contend that there have been selective pressures that would radically (or even minorly) alter the horseshoe crab, you're going to need to present evidence.
What are the major events you contend are relevant to the horseshoe crab?
How is the horseshoe crab affected?
quote:
There is no reason to think that there would be more or fewer ‘beneficial’ mutations (or deleterious ones for that matter) in a horseshoe crabs (or jellyfish, or army ants or platypuses, etc) than any other organism.
There quite specifically is a reason to think this. I already cited it. An organism which is highly adapted to its environment has a smaller range of all possible beneficial mutations when compared to less well adapted organism. Let's set a max number of 100 possible beneficial mutations that could occur to an organism. The actual number of possible mutations is so near infinite we may as well call it that, but that isn't important. Our hypothetical states 100 possibilities. A poorly adapted organism can have 90 of these. The other ten would be deleterious because of what it happens to be. In other words, five mutations could be five different kinds of claws, but because of the cumulative effect of natural selection selecting another 5 mutations, our organism is some sort of finned sea creature. Claws are no good.
Now we take a well adapted organism. It only has a possible range of 10 mutations because it has already gone through 90 others (or maybe a combination of, say, 60 which canceled out the benefit of another 30). The total set of possibilities is smaller. This means the probability of a beneficial mutation is less for the well adapted organism than the poorly adapted organism. The point is assisted if we consider 100 possible neutral mutations, 100 possible deleterious mutations, and, of course, the 100 beneficial mutations.
All these numbers are arbitrary, but the point should be clear. A more well adapted organism has less room with which to improve. If it has fully exploited its niche, why would it need to evolve? The horseshoe crab has done this, at least insofar as its body is concerned.
quote:
In fact, one of the claims of evolution is that mutational change is rather ordinary and constant – not that it occurs especially in some species sometimes, and not at all in other species. The whole idea is that incremental changes accumulate over time and add up to large changes – not that they don’t happen at all in some species at any time, while happening dramatically in other species at certain times.
Most mutations are neutral. Many are deleterious. Neutral mutations do no lead | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
