Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sriram on August 15, 2019, 05:26:36 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Interesting video...about comets and medieval monks.
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p07jljv5/how-medieval-monks-are-revealing-our-universe-s-mysteries
They weren't as ignorant as people might think.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Enjoyed that. Thanks ;)
-
Sririam:- They weren't as ignorant as people might think.
----
I wasn't aware that people thought they were ignorant, on the contrary monasteries were places where learning and research were encouraged. The monks had a peaceful atmosphere in which to work, indeed some were attracted to the religious life for that very reason. I think there were probably quite a lot of 'nerds' amongst them & they comfortably fitted monasticism.
Mendel was the monk I particularly thought of, but this wiki article gives a list:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists (they're not all mediaeval, some more recent).
Interesting article.
-
Robbie,
Yes...Gregor Mendel and even Darwin, among many others, show that there was no conflict between Faith and science even among Christians. People thought of nature as God's creation and Science as a tool to unravel God's design and God's plans.
Why suddenly in the mid 20th Century such a big divide got created I wonder. It is not necessarily inevitable as many people here seem to think. Lot depends on the culture one grows up in, I think.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sririam:- They weren't as ignorant as people might think.
----
I wasn't aware that people thought they were ignorant, on the contrary monasteries were places where learning and research were encouraged. The monks had a peaceful atmosphere in which to work, indeed some were attracted to the religious life for that very reason. I think there were probably quite a lot of 'nerds' amongst them & they comfortably fitted monasticism.
Mendel was the monk I particularly thought of, but this wiki article gives a list:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists (they're not all mediaeval, some more recent).
Interesting article.
There was learning in the early medieval period, but it was restricted largely within the confines of the church. The general population were deeply superstitious, believing the world to be populated by all manner of mythic creatures, angels, mermaids, dogmen etc. The church had an agenda to keep knowledge to itself; William Tyndale, who first translated the Bible into the common man's vernacular, English, was hunted down and murdered. Galileo was threatened with torture by the church unless he rescinded his ideas, which we now know are true.
And in some form, this divide persists to this day; 150 years after Darwin there are still significant populations that deny evolution by natural selection, and this denial is almost always rooted in religious opposition to science.
-
Robbie,
Yes...Gregor Mendel and even Darwin, among many others, show that there was no conflict between Faith and science even among Christians. People thought of nature as God's creation and Science as a tool to unravel God's design and God's plans.
Why suddenly in the mid 20th Century such a big divide got created I wonder. It is not necessarily inevitable as many people here seem to think. Lot depends on the culture one grows up in, I think.
Cheers.
Sriram
There is no great divide or conflict. You get into problems and arguments because you misrepresent metaphysical ideas as objective truths.
-
Torridon, what you say is very true. I've known one or two who believe the earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old despite evidence to the contrary. Despite that I don't think there is a huge divide.
Sometimes I think people believe what they want to believe as there's no great pressure nowadays, from the mainstream churches, to believe literally.
-
Torridon, what you say is very true. I've known one or two who believe the earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old despite evidence to the contrary. Despite that I don't think there is a huge divide.
Sometimes I think people believe what they want to believe as there's no great pressure nowadays, from the mainstream churches, to believe literally.
And thank goodness for that. Perhaps it brings faith belief leaders a fraction closer to admitting that the God etc they tell people is true/ loves them/wants this and that/etc is a myth, entirely created in the human imagination, and the sooner the better.
I am prone to mention Jasper Fforde's Bookworld series wherein the main character, Thursday Next, has a brother, Joffy, who is a vicar in the Church of the GSD - Global Standard Deity. Everyone is fully aware that no such god exists, but they like the way the church has a meeting place, routines, functions for namings, marriages and funerals, etc etc. the whole system works very well!
-
Torridon, what you say is very true. I've known one or two who believe the earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old despite evidence to the contrary. Despite that I don't think there is a huge divide.
Sometimes I think people believe what they want to believe as there's no great pressure nowadays, from the mainstream churches, to believe literally.
The belief that all life arose from single celled creatures is as fanciful as creationism. Everyone has a belief about origins, and all such belief is fanciful. It's just a question of which, if any, is right. Creationists believe the Bible is God's special revelation and so they believe in six days. It's no harder to believe than molecules to man evolution, which is full of holes.
-
The belief that all life arose from single celled creatures is as fanciful as creationism.
Well, an actual cell is not likely to have been the first replicator subject to natural selection. Cells would have evolved from something simpler. However, the scientific theory (not "belief") that life evolved from simple beginnings is not in the lest bit fanciful - it is one of the most well established theories in science.
Creationists believe the Bible is God's special revelation and so they believe in six days. It's no harder to believe than molecules to man evolution, which is full of holes.
The evidence that the universe and earth are very old and were not poofed into existence in six days a few thousand years ago, is even more comprehensive and overwhelming than that for evolution.
If the creation myth you cling to is true, it makes your god a liar - because the overwhelming evidence in its creation is telling us something entirely different.
-
The belief that all life arose from single celled creatures is as fanciful as creationism.
The word you were looking for there wasn't 'belief' it was 'conclusion'...
Everyone has a belief about origins, and all such belief is fanciful. It's just a question of which, if any, is right.
It's never 'just' anything - it's about what basis you have for your claim, what impositions come along with your acceptance of one school of thought or the other, how willing your compatriots are to kill people if they don't like your opinion...
Creationists believe the Bible is God's special revelation and so they believe in six days. It's no harder to believe than molecules to man evolution, which is full of holes.
It's harder for some people to accept, because they want 'evidence' and 'causal mechanisms'. Also, to note, there are creationists who are perfectly happy with the concept of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection being a sufficient explanation for the development of all current life from a common ancestor - some Creationists believe in a young Earth and six literal days, others are more figurative in their interpretation.
O.
-
The word you were looking for there wasn't 'belief' it was 'conclusion'...
I wonder how many hours scientists have spent mixing chemicals together in the hope that a life form will arise, yet still conclude that this happened by chance billions of years ago.
Some of us conclude based on the miracles in the Bible that God made life miraculously.
Well, an actual cell is not likely to have been the first replicator subject to natural selection. Cells would have evolved from something simpler. However, the scientific theory (not "belief") that life evolved from simple beginnings is not in the lest bit fanciful - it is one of the most well established theories in science.
The evidence that the universe and earth are very old and were not poofed into existence in six days a few thousand years ago, is even more comprehensive and overwhelming than that for evolution.
I'll concede that distant starlight appears to lead to the conclusion that everything is billions of years old, however, this has its own problems because you have to invoke dark matter to account for star and galaxy formation. Also, I don't agree there is evidence for macroevolution.
If the creation myth you cling to is true, it makes your god a liar - because the overwhelming evidence in its creation is telling us something entirely different.
Again, distant starlight is the only thing I currently see as a contradiction to six day creation. Yet when I see pictures of supernova SN1987 I think of it in terms of a recent event, even though it can't yet be explained as one.
-
Robbie,
Yes...Gregor Mendel and even Darwin, among many others, show that there was no conflict between Faith and science even among Christians. People thought of nature as God's creation and Science as a tool to unravel God's design and God's plans.
Why suddenly in the mid 20th Century such a big divide got created I wonder. It is not necessarily inevitable as many people here seem to think. Lot depends on the culture one grows up in, I think.
Cheers.
Sriram
Yes Sriram our minds are evolving, there you are no need to waste any more time delving into woo, not that their's anything there to delve into in the first place.
Cheers old boy.
ippy
-
Everyone has a belief about origins, and all such belief is fanciful. It's just a question of which, if any, is right. Creationists believe the Bible is God's special revelation and so they believe in six days.
And yet the Genesis account states that the Sun was not made until the 4th "day". How were the earlier three "days" measured?
-
I wonder how many hours scientists have spent mixing chemicals together in the hope that a life form will arise, yet still conclude that this happened by chance billions of years ago.
The chances of replicating those original conditions in a laboratory are indeed remote, since we don't know what those original conditions were exactly, nor can we replicate the cataclysmic forces which were acting upon those lifeless substances with any accuracy. You're talking about hours in laboratories contrasted with the billions of years available to natural forces.
-
I wonder how many hours scientists have spent mixing chemicals together in the hope that a life form will arise, yet still conclude that this happened by chance billions of years ago.
Some of us conclude based on the miracles in the Bible that God made life miraculously.
Firstly abiogenesis is a different subject from evolution - and if I had a pound for every time I've pointed that out to a creationist, I'd be rich by now.
There is endless evidence that life evolved from a common ancestor on the early Earth about 4 billion years ago. The first replicator subject to natural selection got there, at that time, somehow.
We don't yet know how that happened but that mystery doesn't help a jot with the fairytale creation story with the magic garden and the talking snake, a few thousand years ago. That has simply been falsified by countless different lines of evidence, from geology, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, genetics, astrophysics, archaeology - hell, some ice cores are much older than creationist universe is supposed to be.
I'll concede that distant starlight appears to lead to the conclusion that everything is billions of years old, however, this has its own problems because you have to invoke dark matter to account for star and galaxy formation.
Distant star light is just one part of the evidence from one discipline. I really don't know why you think dark matter is a problem.
Also, I don't agree there is evidence for macroevolution.
Then you're just wrong. "Macroevolution" isn't a distinct process - it's just lots of "microevolution".
Again, distant starlight is the only thing I currently see as a contradiction to six day creation.
This is a joke, right? Tell me you're joking...
Yet when I see pictures of supernova SN1987 I think of it in terms of a recent event, even though it can't yet be explained as one.
What are you talking about?
-
Firstly abiogenesis is a different subject from evolution - and if I had a pound for every time I've pointed that out to a creationist, I'd be rich by now.
There is endless evidence that life evolved from a common ancestor on the early Earth about 4 billion years ago. The first replicator subject to natural selection got there, at that time, somehow.
I was about to mention drawing a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution in my post, but felt that I'd be pissing into the wind, and decided to let someone better informed than myself to attempt to educate the boneheads for the Nth time.
Well done you for stepping forward!
-
Robbie,
Yes...Gregor Mendel and even Darwin, among many others, show that there was no conflict between Faith and science even among Christians. People thought of nature as God's creation and Science as a tool to unravel God's design and God's plans.
Why suddenly in the mid 20th Century such a big divide got created I wonder. It is not necessarily inevitable as many people here seem to think. Lot depends on the culture one grows up in, I think.
Cheers.
Sriram
Darwin is a bad choice. He was never particularly religious and, in fact lost his faith when his daughter died. Georges Le Maitre would be a better example for your argument.
-
Macroevolution" isn't a distinct process - it's just lots of "microevolution".
Macroevolution is life forms becoming progressively more complex, which is what you claimed ("life evolved from simple beginnings ")
-
Also, I don't agree there is evidence for macroevolution.
Of course there is evidence for 'macroevolution'. Who are you to dismiss it ? It is all out there in the public domain, and access to knowledge in the internet age is easy compared to previous generations. Maybe you have been debilitated by poor upbringing or maybe you had lousy teachers in school, but now you are an adult with internet access there is nothing to stop you finding out information and learning about the real world. Just because you haven't come across it yet does not mean it does not exist. Evidence for 'macroevolution' is voluminous and found in many intersecting disciplines of learning. it is there whether or not you choose to be blind to it.
-
Macroevolution is life forms becoming progressively more complex, which is what you claimed ("life evolved from simple beginnings ")
Which happens by the exact same processes as microevolution, accumulated over a long period of time. The distinction is arbitrary and human-made. As torridon has already pointed out, there is plenty of evidence and it isn't a secret - it's easily found. If you accept microevolution, and try to deny macroevolution, not only do you have to deny all the overwhelming evidence, but you also need to explain what keeps microevolution micro.
-
St. Ranger,
We've been through examples before, of 'older' fossils than the less complex animals they are thought to arise from. Instead of interpreting this as evidence against macroevolution, you assert that it pushes the transition date back further, and insist we wait for older fossils of the supposed ancestor to be uncovered.
What keeps microevolution micro? I don't know. The evidence suggests that it does stay micro.
-
St. Ranger,
We've been through examples before, of 'older' fossils than the less complex animals they are thought to arise from. Instead of interpreting this as evidence against macroevolution, you assert that it pushes the transition date back further, and insist we wait for older fossils of the supposed ancestor to be uncovered.
What keeps microevolution micro? I don't know. The evidence suggests that it does stay micro.
Hi Spud,
Have you ever heard of Glenn Morton? He was raised a YEC and educated in geology, the intention being that he would eventually expose the world-wide, cross-cultural scientific conspiracy to discredit the truth of the Bible from an unassailably expert position. I won't spoil the end of the story for you. Search Morton's Demon.
-
I wonder how many hours scientists have spent mixing chemicals together in the hope that a life form will arise, yet still conclude that this happened by chance billions of years ago.
I bet it doesn't come close to the billions of instances that could, conceivably, have been in place in the early Earth's various warm, wet areas. Assuming, of course, that this hypothesis is, in fact, correct.
Some of us conclude based on the miracles in the Bible that God made life miraculously.
Conclude? I don't think that means what you think it means. You don't 'conclude' that Biblical story of miraculous creation is true, you assume that it is. You accept it wholesale, not necessarily without questions or qualms, but it is not a 'conclusion', it is merely a given fact that is accepted independently of the evidence.
You might conclude that the odds are too fantastical for natural selection to have operated on random variation over billions of years, but that doesn't in any way support miraculous creation, it merely calls into question the current scientific model of Earth's history. The 'conclusion' if you don't find the conventional science to be acceptable is 'we don't have a clue'.
O.
-
We've been through examples before, of 'older' fossils than the less complex animals they are thought to arise from. Instead of interpreting this as evidence against macroevolution, you assert that it pushes the transition date back further, and insist we wait for older fossils of the supposed ancestor to be uncovered.
I don't know what examples you're thinking of, but a seriously out of place fossil would falsify the current picture. The famous comment from J B S Haldane, when asked what would falsify evolution, was "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian".
However, there is probably more evidence for evolution (macroevolution and common descent) from genetics than there is in the fossil record. Remember, genetics was unknown at the time the theory was formulated and could have falsified it at one fell swoop - instead of which, it spectacularly corroborated it and added greatly to our understanding.
What keeps microevolution micro? I don't know. The evidence suggests that it does stay micro.
Where is this evidence and why do you think nobody, without a religious vested interest, working in the field, has noticed it?
-
I don't know what examples you're thinking of,
https://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished
-
https://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished
Even if I accepted everything this article says (and I don't because creation.com is a lying propaganda site), it's supposed to be even the slightest dent in the mountainous evidence for evolution, how exactly?
At the most it's a rethink of a particular detail.
-
https://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished
The strata in which the prints were found seem to have been securely dated, and may indeed indicate that some kind of tetrapod had evolved before tiktaalik. But this hardly constitutes a demolition of evolutionary theory. What it does indicate is that, yet again, Creationists misunderstand the ToE in thinking that it is of a purely linear nature. Many organisms of a 'primitive' morphology have existed for millions of years alongside many types which have evolved more rapidly (the coelocanth has modern descendants which differ little from their prehistoric ancestors except for the modern varieties' adaption to deep-sea conditions).
So, tiktaalik may indeed prove to be not the hugely significant transitional fossil it was once thought to be - but that doesn't leave much of a dent in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is supported by a vast mountain of evidence, much of which is not dependent on the fossil record in any case (I mean genetics etc.)
-
I don't know what examples you're thinking of, but a seriously out of place fossil would falsify the current picture. The famous comment from J B S Haldane, when asked what would falsify evolution, was "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian".
However, there is probably more evidence for evolution (macroevolution and common descent) from genetics than there is in the fossil record. Remember, genetics was unknown at the time the theory was formulated and could have falsified it at one fell swoop - instead of which, it spectacularly corroborated it and added greatly to our understanding.
Where is this evidence and why do you think nobody, without a religious vested interest, working in the field, has noticed it?
Another example is archaeopteryx. This is the oldest known bird with flight feathers (correct me if I'm wrong). It has pennaceous feathers, with asymmetrical barbs (a characteristic of modern flight feathers) and also barbules.
So pennaceous feathers with barbules appear abruptly around 150 million years ago.
"The barbules and the alignment of melanosomes within them, Carney said, are identical to those found in modern birds."
https://tinyurl.com/y3n5bd3b
There are no transitional links from dinosaurs.
-
Another example is archaeopteryx. This is the oldest known bird with flight feathers (correct me if I'm wrong). It has pennaceous feathers, with asymmetrical barbs (a characteristic of modern flight feathers) and also barbules.
So pennaceous feathers with barbules appear abruptly around 150 million years ago.
"The barbules and the alignment of melanosomes within them, Carney said, are identical to those found in modern birds."
https://tinyurl.com/y3n5bd3b
There are no transitional links from dinosaurs.
The link just talks about the feathers - they aren't the only transitional feature - neither is archaeopteryx the only relevant specimen. Origin of birds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds)
But you're still missing (or ignoring) the point. We could totally ignore all the fossil evidence and we'd still have a cast-iron case for evolution. What's more, even if evolution was falsified and we'd no idea how life got here - we'd still have copious evidence for an old Earth and universe.
The 6,000 ya, 6 day myth is falsified in endless different ways.
-
(feathers)... aren't the only transitional feature
It doesn't matter - it only takes one feature, in this case a feather, to be as complex as a flight feather today, and that will falsify the theory that its owner was more primitive. Right?
-
It doesn't matter - it only takes one feature, in this case a feather, to be as complex as a flight feather today, and that will falsify the theory that its owner was more primitive. Right?
What are you talking about? What do you mean by "more primitive"? Do you have some strange idea that evolution is some strict progression in which some quality of "primitiveness" is smoothly reduced across all features of all organisms?
I'm struggling to even get what your misunderstanding might be...
-
There are no transitional links from dinosaurs.
Birds are dinosaurs
Are Birds Really Dinosaurs? - ZME Science
https://www.zmescience.com Science Biology
-
Thanks for the link Dicky, fascinating site. For some reason I went on to read about Chlamydia which is not relevant to this thread :-). However, I found this:-
https://www.zmescience.com/other/science-abc/birds-dinosaurs/
-
What are you talking about? What do you mean by "more primitive"? Do you have some strange idea that evolution is some strict progression in which some quality of "primitiveness" is smoothly reduced across all features of all organisms?
I'm struggling to even get what your misunderstanding might be...
Archaeopteryx had feathers with barbs, and barbules to keep the barbs in place, according to the research paper quoted above. It's difficult to imagine how these barbules could have evolved, and the fact that archaeopteryx is almost the oldest species with pennaceous feathers implies that there isn't a species with a feather structure with semi-formed (ie evolving) barbules in the fossil record.
If this is the case, we have to conclude that archaeopteryx was, like the platypus, a mosaic. It had theropod-like and bird-like features, giving the appearance of transitional features (like the long bony tail and reduced breast bone) but in reality not transitional, since there is no evidence that its flight feathers evolved.
If you want to say that archaeopteryx is transitional, it must be made clear that this is based on the as-yet unsupported assumption that the feathers evolved.
-
Archaeopteryx had feathers with barbs, and barbules to keep the barbs in place, according to the research paper quoted above. It's difficult to imagine how these barbules could have evolved, and the fact that archaeopteryx is almost the oldest species with pennaceous feathers implies that there isn't a species with a feather structure with semi-formed (ie evolving) barbules in the fossil record.
If this is the case, we have to conclude that archaeopteryx was, like the platypus, a mosaic. It had theropod-like and bird-like features, giving the appearance of transitional features (like the long bony tail and reduced breast bone) but in reality not transitional, since there is no evidence that its flight feathers evolved.
If you want to say that archaeopteryx is transitional, it must be made clear that this is based on the as-yet unsupported assumption that the feathers evolved.
Just watch those goalposts skipping merrily across the field!
- No matter how many transitions are filled in, you can always find another gap for creationists to say "look, you still don't have that transition!". The fossil record is patchy because fossilisation is rare. We're never going to have everything.
- Saying "it's difficult to imagine" how something evolved, is just an argument from incredulity/ignorance.
- This whole game of focusing on perceived difficulties in detail is just a distraction from the massive mountain of evidence for ("macro") evolution which would be beyond reasonable doubt even if there wasn't a single fossil.
-
Archaeopteryx had feathers with barbs, and barbules to keep the barbs in place, according to the research paper quoted above. It's difficult to imagine how these barbules could have evolved, and the fact that archaeopteryx is almost the oldest species with pennaceous feathers implies that there isn't a species with a feather structure with semi-formed (ie evolving) barbules in the fossil record.
If this is the case, we have to conclude that archaeopteryx was, like the platypus, a mosaic. It had theropod-like and bird-like features, giving the appearance of transitional features (like the long bony tail and reduced breast bone) but in reality not transitional, since there is no evidence that its flight feathers evolved.
If you want to say that archaeopteryx is transitional, it must be made clear that this is based on the as-yet unsupported assumption that the feathers evolved.
Baffling watching people trying to pick holes in evolutionary theory, like some detail here or there is going to bring the whole house down. People like you put me in mind of a visitor to London's Natural History Museum who unlike everyone else marveling at magnificent structure and its contents, spends all his energies going round the building hoping to find brick with a crack so that he can claim the entire edifice to be invalid. I mean why ? All you can achieve is nit picking holes when you could be growing in insight with the positive attitude of someone open to learning.
Do you really think a god that created life and set it loose in a changing dynamic environment would then impose arbitrary limits on its ability to adapt and evolve in line with changing environment ? It would be madness as a design principle. Every time a big rock falls out the sky and causes a mass extinction. god has to come down and get busy all over again, a horse here, a hedgehog there, a colony of penguins for Antarctica, that would be nice. No more triceratops or velociraptors though, he's gone right off them now. I mean, really ?
-
Torridon,
If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).
If birds evolved from dinosaurs it would have happened in the above context, but there were a lot of changes needed to the anatomy and physiology, so it doesn't seem likely to me. Maybe there were genetic changes that influenced feathers to evolve barbules, but the fossils currently don't corroborate that. It'd be interesting to know how they form in the embryonic stage, as that might give a clue as to how they could evolve.
The idea that extensive changes took place over just a few million years, as in the case of pakicetus to ambulocetus, or australopithecus to homo, doesn't agree with the other cases where very little change occurs over hundreds of millions of years, eg jellyfish to jellyfish, or bat with bony tail to bat without bony tail (possible clue to an archaeopteryx-modern bird transition there?) Or turtle with tail to turtle without tail - minor changes.
-
Torridon,
If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).
An inherently silly comment, Spud: you over-estimate the relevance of whatever either those living in antiquity or modern-day evolution denying creationists thought/think. The former have the excuse of reasonable ignorance, but the latter don't, so you'd be better not taking the views of either seriously.
If birds evolved from dinosaurs it would have happened in the above context, but there were a lot of changes needed to the anatomy and physiology, so it doesn't seem likely to me. Maybe there were genetic changes that influenced feathers to evolve barbules, but the fossils currently don't corroborate that. It'd be interesting to know how they form in the embryonic stage, as that might give a clue as to how they could evolve.
The idea that extensive changes took place over just a few million years, as in the case of pakicetus to ambulocetus, or australopithecus to homo, doesn't agree with the other cases where very little change occurs over hundreds of millions of years, eg jellyfish to jellyfish, or bat with bony tail to bat without bony tail (possible clue to an archaeopteryx-modern bird transition there?) Or turtle with tail to turtle without tail - minor changes.
I suspect you've been at the creationist websites again.
-
Every living thing on this planet is an example of a transitional state except for one organism .
It's name ? Spud !
-
If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).
Except that the literal creation story is falsified by bucketloads of evidence from biology, physics, astrophysics, geology, archaeology, astronomy, cosmology, and so on. It is one of the creationist lies to suggest that they only dismiss "macroevolution" - they deny great swaths of modern science, much of which has nothing at all to do with evolution.
Scientifically it's dead - it is an ex-idea, it has ceased to be, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the choir invisible. Creationists are not offering "constructive criticism", they are away with the fairies, in a fantasy land, blinded by their faith, and shutting their eyes to reality.
The idea that extensive changes took place over just a few million years, as in the case of pakicetus to ambulocetus, or australopithecus to homo, doesn't agree with the other cases where very little change occurs over hundreds of millions of years...
The noxious reek of another creationist misrepresentation of the theory. If creationism actually had anything to offer, why the need to be so dishonest about what the ToE actually predicts?
-
And there are so very many of them. It is sad to think it is going to take so very long to make them a very small minority
-
Every living thing on this planet is an example of a transitional state except for one organism .
It's name ? Spud !
I'm not a transitional organism. I don't have any children. My combination of genes will go extinct with me.
-
Torridon,
If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).
If birds evolved from dinosaurs it would have happened in the above context, but there were a lot of changes needed to the anatomy and physiology, so it doesn't seem likely to me. Maybe there were genetic changes that influenced feathers to evolve barbules, but the fossils currently don't corroborate that. It'd be interesting to know how they form in the embryonic stage, as that might give a clue as to how they could evolve.
The idea that extensive changes took place over just a few million years, as in the case of pakicetus to ambulocetus, or australopithecus to homo, doesn't agree with the other cases where very little change occurs over hundreds of millions of years, eg jellyfish to jellyfish, or bat with bony tail to bat without bony tail (possible clue to an archaeopteryx-modern bird transition there?) Or turtle with tail to turtle without tail - minor changes.
Can you not see the double standards you are applying? You are quibbling about tiny details in respect of evolution and yet you seem to accept the Christian creation story without question in spite of the fact that there are holes in it you could drive the Queen Mary through.
-
I'm not a transitional organism. I don't have any children. My combination of genes will go extinct with me.
do you think you'll be missed jezza? 😪
-
A word of warning !
Don't forget to drink plenty in this hot weather . I'm already on my seventh pint of Copper Dragon 🍻
Ccheers🍻
-
Torridon,
If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).
All of which merely demonstrates that biblical mythologies are no good as a substitute for science.
All species are related, clearly Old Testament prophets would not know that, so their stories merely reflect the level of understanding of their times. Now we know better and should not be in the business of ditching the fruits of meticulous research in favour of the ignorance of earlier times.
There have been mass extinctions in the past but none ever at the hands of a global flood. So again, the Bible is clearly wrong on that and it's no good trying elide the mythology of Noah with the science of extinctions.
If creationists accept the principle of 'microevolution' then what is the barrier that prevents lots of 'microevolution' aggregating into 'macroevolution' over time. If you don't specify a mechanism, then the assumption will be that you believe god intervenes to inhibit the natural workings of the very evolutionary processes that he himself devised, and does so by some form of magic for some unknown arbitrary reason. And then you'd have to explain why god would curse life in such a way as to prevent the development of new ecosystems following the mass extinction. And then you'd also have to explain why the evidence shows that in fact life does recover from mass extinction events despite your belief in god's seeming desire to block any such recovery.
-
All of which merely demonstrates that biblical mythologies are no good as a substitute for science.
All species are related, clearly Old Testament prophets would not know that, so their stories merely reflect the level of understanding of their times. Now we know better and should not be in the business of ditching the fruits of meticulous research in favour of the ignorance of earlier times.
There have been mass extinctions in the past but none ever at the hands of a global flood. So again, the Bible is clearly wrong on that and it's no good trying elide the mythology of Noah with the science of extinctions.
If creationists accept the principle of 'microevolution' then what is the barrier that prevents lots of 'microevolution' aggregating into 'macroevolution' over time. If you don't specify a mechanism, then the assumption will be that you believe god intervenes to inhibit the natural workings of the very evolutionary processes that he himself devised, and does so by some form of magic for some unknown arbitrary reason. And then you'd have to explain why god would curse life in such a way as to prevent the development of new ecosystems following the mass extinction. And then you'd also have to explain why the evidence shows that in fact life does recover from mass extinction events despite your belief in god's seeming desire to block any such recovery.
The Hindu culture did recognize the close relationship between humans and other life forms, from ancient times. They focused on the evolution and development of consciousness from lower life forms to humans and did not bother about biological development.
-
do you think you'll be missed jezza? 😪
I'm sure my friends and relatives will, but probably not by anybody else.
-
I'm sure my friends and relatives will, but probably not by anybody else.
Who but our nearest and dearest counts, in this context? :)
O.
-
Another example is archaeopteryx. This is the oldest known bird with flight feathers (correct me if I'm wrong). It has pennaceous feathers, with asymmetrical barbs (a characteristic of modern flight feathers) and also barbules.
So pennaceous feathers with barbules appear abruptly around 150 million years ago.
How do you conclude that it's an abrupt appearance, when the crux of your argument is that we don't have the complete record? We don't know how many predecessors of archaeopteryx had similar formations, or the precursors to them, we simply know that at one point dinosaurs didn't have feathers and then, at a later point, they did. Exactly when in that sequence they appeared we can only estimate.
There are no transitional links from dinosaurs.
Comparative anatomy would suggest otherwise for the early dinosaurs, direct genetic comparisons for more modern dinosaurs would definitively contradict that.
O.
-
Even if I accepted everything this article says (and I don't because creation.com is a lying propaganda site), it's supposed to be even the slightest dent in the mountainous evidence for evolution, how exactly?
At the most it's a rethink of a particular detail.
With you on creation.com.
The only rival in innacuracy is Answers in Genesis.
-
How do you conclude that it's an abrupt appearance, when the crux of your argument is that we don't have the complete record?
That is also the crux of the evolutionist's argument, as complex feathers could also be found in earlier* strata than archaeopteryx. As things currently stand, complex feathers appear abruptly (unless you want to argue that "anchiornis" is a transition).
We don't know how many predecessors of archaeopteryx had similar formations, or the precursors to them, we simply know that at one point dinosaurs didn't have feathers and then, at a later point, they did. Exactly when in that sequence they appeared we can only estimate.
But if I recall correctly, most if not all of the non-feathered dinosaurs that archaeopteryx is supposed to be a link to from modern birds, post-date it. Eg Deinonychus which is tens of millions of years younger.
Comparative anatomy would suggest otherwise for the early dinosaurs, direct genetic comparisons for more modern dinosaurs would definitively contradict that.
O.
*earlier = by conventional dating
-
That is also the crux of the evolutionist's argument, as complex feathers could also be found in earlier* strata than archaeopteryx. As things currently stand, complex feathers appear abruptly (unless you want to argue that "anchiornis" is a transition).
No, my point is that no-one I'm aware of is suggesting that we have anything even vaguely approaching a complete fossil chain - to presume that the presence of feathers on archaeopteryx represents a sudden emergence is to fail to acknowledge that we have no idea how many species for which we've no fossil evidence comprise the chain of evolutionary development from (presumably) scales to these more complex feathers.
But if I recall correctly, most if not all of the non-feathered dinosaurs that archaeopteryx is supposed to be a link to from modern birds, post-date it. Eg Deinonychus which is tens of millions of years younger.
*earlier = by conventional dating
And this establishes what? Presuming that you're right, and there are purported relationships, and that we have an accurate enough fossil record of deinonychus to suggest whether or not it had feathers, and whether or not those feathers were complex... so what? Modern felines have a range of claws, some of which are retractable, some of which aren't - they are all undoubtedly related... this is the nature of evolution, some traits are expressed strongly and others aren't, it's one of the things that makes our attempts to definitively classify organisms into rigidly defined boxes so difficult.
O.
-
No, my point is that no-one I'm aware of is suggesting that we have anything even vaguely approaching a complete fossil chain - to presume that the presence of feathers on archaeopteryx represents a sudden emergence is to fail to acknowledge that we have no idea how many species for which we've no fossil evidence comprise the chain of evolutionary development from (presumably) scales to these more complex feathers.
"The chain of evolutionary development..." How do you know there is one?
The scale to feather hypothesis is not a good one, from what I've read.
And this establishes what? Presuming that you're right, and there are purported relationships, and that we have an accurate enough fossil record of deinonychus to suggest whether or not it had feathers, and whether or not those feathers were complex... so what? Modern felines have a range of claws, some of which are retractable, some of which aren't - they are all undoubtedly related... this is the nature of evolution, some traits are expressed strongly and others aren't, it's one of the things that makes our attempts to definitively classify organisms into rigidly defined boxes so difficult.
O.
It's the increase in complexity, from microscopic to great big, that I have a problem with. Not minor variation like claw types or feather types. You can line up a group of species and demonstrate an evolutionary progression, based on comparative anatomy or geological context. You can equally conclude, based on the many examples of stasis in the fossil record, that evolution only exists within boundaries such as genus or family.
-
"The chain of evolutionary development..." How do you know there is one?
The scale to feather hypothesis is not a good one, from what I've read.
I'm no expert, Spud, but if you've been reading creationist shite again then neither are you.
It's the increase in complexity, from microscopic to great big, that I have a problem with. Not minor variation like claw types or feather types. You can line up a group of species and demonstrate an evolutionary progression, based on comparative anatomy or geological context. You can equally conclude, based on the many examples of stasis in the fossil record, that evolution only exists within boundaries such as genus or family.
Your qualifications for being so certain about this, to the extent that the 'concerns' you have would be serious obstacles for evolutionary science, are what exactly?
-
I'm no expert, Spud, but if you've been reading creationist shite again then neither are you.
Your qualifications for being so certain about this, to the extent that the 'concerns' you have would be serious obstacles for evolutionary science, are what exactly?
I used to be a member of the YOC (young ornithologist's club), Gordon.
It was a non-creationist website that said the scale-to-feather theory is wrong.
-
"The chain of evolutionary development..." How do you know there is one?
The evidence for evolution isn't secret, it's easy to find. This is one of the most secure theories in the whole of science - the only controversy surrounding it is artificially generated by religious fundamentalists. The science is as solid as it gets.
The scale to feather hypothesis is not a good one, from what I've read.
It wouldn't matter a jot if there wasn't any direct evidence for scale to feather. It wouldn't be as much as a grain of sand out of the mountain of evidence for evolution.
It's the increase in complexity, from microscopic to great big, that I have a problem with. Not minor variation like claw types or feather types. You can line up a group of species and demonstrate an evolutionary progression, based on comparative anatomy or geological context. You can equally conclude, based on the many examples of stasis in the fossil record, that evolution only exists within boundaries such as genus or family.
Except that wouldn't actually explain the all evidence of the fossil record. And again, genetics alone gives us enough evidence for common descent. It was a dramatic confirmation of what had been deduced from the other evidence - including the fossil record, of course.
And yet again, if you're talking about YEC, evolution is only one of the many sciences that falsify it.
-
I used to be a member of the YOC (young ornithologist's club), Gordon.
It was a non-creationist website that said the scale-to-feather theory is wrong.
And I used to be a YOC leader, Spud. The YOC was simply the young person's offshoot of the RSPB, and was focussed on creating an interest in birds amongst people under 18, particularly of school age. Are you seriously quoting someone from the YOC as an authority on bird origins? I don't remember anything of the sort but as I could obviously have overlooked something, as far as I am concerned, you will have to produce evidence from this YOC website to substantiate your claim, so that we can all look at the credentials of the person stating that the scale to feather theory is wrong, when he/she made it etc. Remember the YOC started in 1965.
-
I used to be a member of the YOC (young ornithologist's club), Gordon.
That's nice, but hardly sufficient to pontificate on evolutionary theory relating to avian species.
It was a non-creationist website that said the scale-to-feather theory is wrong.
Which one?
-
It was a non-creationist website that said the scale-to-feather theory is wrong.
I do hope you're not referring to the one you linked to before (https://m.phys.org/news/2012-01-winged-dinosaur-archaeopteryx-flight.html), that said no such thing.
-
"The chain of evolutionary development..." How do you know there is one?
Genetic comparisons, comparative morphology, predictions from the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection being repeatedly borne out by subsequent discoveries. It's, technically, a provisional understanding as all scientific claims are, but it's proven remarkably robust over the past century and a half.
The scale to feather hypothesis is not a good one, from what I've read.
It was presumption on my part, I confess, I'm not aware of any particular theories regarding the emergence of feathers.
It's the increase in complexity, from microscopic to great big, that I have a problem with. Not minor variation like claw types or feather types. You can line up a group of species and demonstrate an evolutionary progression, based on comparative anatomy or geological context. You can equally conclude, based on the many examples of stasis in the fossil record, that evolution only exists within boundaries such as genus or family.
Except that there are examples from the DNA comparisons where we can show common ancestry - DNA elements that show distinctive mutations in comparable sections in organisms as diverse as plants and mammals, that allow us to gauge when certain branches of the tree of life split off.
O.
-
I do hope you're not referring to the one you linked to before (https://m.phys.org/news/2012-01-winged-dinosaur-archaeopteryx-flight.html), that said no such thing.
From http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm
Because birds evolved from reptiles and the integument of present-day reptiles (and most extinct reptiles including most dinosaurs) is characterized by scales, early hypotheses concerning the evolution of feathers began with the assumption that feathers developed from scales, with scales elongating, then growing fringed edges and, ultimately, producing hooked and grooved barbules (Figure 6 below). The problem with that scenario is that scales are basically flat folds of the integument whereas feathers are tubular structures. A pennaceous feather becomes flat only after emerging from a cylindrical sheath (Prum and Brush 2002). In addition, the type and distribution of protein (keratin) in feathers and scales differ (Sawyer et al. 2000). The only feature shared by feathers and scales is that they both begin development as a morphologically distinct placode an epidermal thickening above a condensation, or congregation, of dermal cells (see Figure 8 below). Feathers, then, are not derived from scales, but, rather, are evolutionary novelties with numerous unique features, including the feather follicle, tubular feather germ (an elevated area of epidermal cells), and a complex branching structure
Again, my problem with the evolutionary model is its claim that some creatures apparently evolved into entirely new forms over millions of years, while others remained basically the same over the same period. The thing about the creationist model is that it makes sense of this phenomenon.
Are you seriously quoting someone from the YOC as an authority on bird origins?
No, it was a joke, Enki. I was a member but wasn't intending to imply they were teaching YEC. Sorry to cause confusion.
-
From http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm
More recently: How dinosaur scales became bird feathers (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42082489)
It's difficult to piece together exactly what happened - that's why these sorts of details keep on getting revised. This is science, the picture gets revise in line with new evidence.
And you keep on ignoring the point that this kind detail has no impact whatsoever on the mountains of evidence that exists for (macro)evolution. The pretense that picking away at something like this will call into question the theory itself is a creationist misrepresentation.
Again, my problem with the evolutionary model is its claim that some creatures apparently evolved into entirely new forms over millions of years, while others remained basically the same over the same period.
And this is another creationist misrepresentation. If you knew the first thing about the real theory of evolution, rather than the creationist misrepresentation, you'd know why this is entirely consistent with said theory. Why don't you go away and find out why some creatures stay very similar over long periods? You might even learn something.
The thing about the creationist model is that it makes sense of this phenomenon.
Literal young earth creationism is a non-starter because it is contradicted by multiple types of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines.
-
And this is another creationist misrepresentation. If you knew the first thing about the real theory of evolution, rather than the creationist misrepresentation, you'd know why this is entirely consistent with said theory. Why don't you go away and find out why some creatures stay very similar over long periods? You might even learn something.
I know why: supposedly a lack of selective pressure. In other words, while the fish were evolving into amphibians, reptiles, mammals then whales, the jelly fish were watching the whole thing and thinking, "was that really necessary?"
-
I know why: supposedly a lack of selective pressure.
Good start but then...
In other words, while the fish were evolving into amphibians, reptiles, mammals then whales, the jelly fish were watching the whole thing and thinking, "was that really necessary?"
...the creationist propaganda takes over. Here's a hint: different species have different environments, even if they live in the same geographical location. You need to forget everything you think you know from creationist sources and start again.