Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Exactly. Beaks, feathers, talons, two legs, wings. Those are the main identifiers of "birds".

There were dinosaurs with all these features. Not one avian apomorphic character there. Microraptor had all these.

Well, it was either a dinosaur with feathers or a full-blown bird with teeth. It can't be both and it certainly isn't proof of a transitional specimen from one to the other.

Either way, a dinosaur...or a bird. Take your pick.

[We_Are_VENOM]

In the sense of "anything's possible," but it's on par with the possibility that leprechauns live in my shoes or that the moon is made of cheese.

Well, "my fairy tale is better than your fairy tale".

No. That's what creationist apologists would have you believe, but it's not. What "we" do is painstaking analysis to derive mathematical relationships that resolve into relationship trees. If you'd like to see one of the analyses involving Microgui species, you can download a dry, boring-as-church, 200-page report from the American Museum of Natural History. The detailed report describes each genus included, as well as descriptions of each character included in the analysis. This is the same technique that evolved into molecular phylogenetic analysis using DNA. "We" can't do molecular analysis with fossils (lack of DNA and all), but molecular techniques have since validated the cladistic techniques used in the linked report by overwhelmingly producing the same results for living organisms as we get when we include fossils.

If you are comfortable believing that DNA analysis can reliably match you to other members of your family, then you should be just as sure about this. It's essentially impossible that the patterns revealed by these kinds of analyses are mere coincidence. Evolution not only neatly explains them, but nothing else comes close. If God created Microraptor gui as a separate kind from other dinosaurs and birds, then He did so in such a way that it looks exactly like evolution is at fault. "We" aren't fishing for evolutionary explanations or peering in any glass darkly, but are looking at the smoking gun, the hand in the cookie jar, and the fifth ace and the only conclusion "we" can reasonably draw is that evolution dunnit.

Um, that is what YOU think. That is what EVOLUTIONISTS think. That is not what I think. That is not what Kent Hovind think. That is not what Kevin Ham think. That is not what Johnathan Wells think. That is not what members of BAND (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) think.

So in other words, to us, he (God) did so in such a way that looks exactly like intelligent design is at fault. Not evolution.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes, clearly impossible. It's even worse than that though. Noah and crew entered the ark on his 600th year on the 17th day of the second month. (Gen. 7:10) They didn't exit the ark until his 601st year on the 27th day of the second month. (Gen. 8:13-14) Noah and crew would have to feed and water the animals for over a year. That's like more than twice as impossible.


Tcg

Sooo, Jesus (God) fed 5,000 people with 2 pieces of fish and 5 loaves of bread with everyone being fully fed and with fish and bread left to spare...but somehow feeding the animals on the ark is supposed to be difficult?

SMH.

[Tcg]

Yes, clearly impossible. It's even worse than that though. Noah and crew entered the ark on his 600th year on the 17th day of the second month. (Gen. 7:10) They didn't exit the ark until his 601st year on the 27th day of the second month. (Gen. 8:13-14) Noah and crew would have to feed and water the animals for over a year. That's like more than twice as impossible.


Tcg

Sooo, Jesus (God) fed 5,000 people with 2 pieces of fish and 5 loaves of bread with everyone being fully fed and with fish and bread left to spare...but somehow feeding the animals on the ark is supposed to be difficult?

SMH.

Not difficult, impossible. As would be feeding 5,000 people with a Filet-O-Fish or two.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

There were dinosaurs with all these features. Not one avian apomorphic character there. Microraptor had all these.

I had to Google that...and definitely looks like a bird to me. But what do I know...only evolutionists are allowed to determine what is what and the unbeliever just has to sit back and enjoy the show.

Every animal is a distinct separate creature.

Sure, but there are levels to this. A wolf and a coyote are "distinct and separate creatures", but when compared to a giraffe, they may as well be identical twins.

Clearly a reptile. Lots of reptile apomorphic characters. No avian ones, though.

I agree.

Nope. The platypus bill is soft and broad, unlike that of a duck, which is hard, keratinized, and narrow.

Not remotely like that of a duck.

Who said it has to be a modern day duck? It could have been in evolving into a completely different kind of duck and/or aquatic bird.

This is how the evolutionist thinks.

Nice try...but if you do a Google search of "ducks bill", you will find ducks of whose bills more closely resembles that of the platypus' bill, as opposed to the one you selectively chosen here.

That is evolution for you, though...all kinds of deception and trickery.

And the vast number of skeletal differences would quickly make it clear that it wasn't even a eutherian, much less a beaver. But it would clearly indicate that it was a mammal.

The fact that it is "evolving" would make up for the differences. That is what evolution is about, right? Change. Well, the differences are the "changes".

Shoulder girdle, for example. It has the complex reptilian form, but otherwise mammalian. Pretty much a tip-off that it's a monotreme.

Its called "change within time". That is the holy grail of evolution, right? What, my scenarios has no evidence to support it, and it is just me making it up as I go along? Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

You're still confusing homologous structures with analogous structures.

If the entire theory is false, does it matter?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I know, which is why I raised the total by only 75%, taking into account those species that don't require a partner to reproduce. If I simply doubled the amount it would have been 17.4 million---there being an estimated 8.7 million species in all.

What? Bro, it wasn't a million of anything. What are you talking about??

1. Well the Bible certainly tells us how big the boat was: 450 x 75 x 45 feet.

Which is exactly why I said "at that point, with the exception of #1, all we can do is speculate". Geez.

2. As I figured it out, the number of sets (pairs) would have been 3,262,500. (6,525,000 forms of life required males and females to reproduce.)

Bro, where are you getting these astronomical figures from, and why?

3. I recall that the average size was said to be that of a rat, but I think it's much smaller.

Which helps my case that all animals were able to fit inside the ark even more.

In any case, to house and feed 15 million species, no matter what their size, would have been a herculean task, and one preformed for at least 150 days by only eight people.

Still trying to figure out where you are getting 15 milly from....and you just simply fail to account for a very important fact here..."....one performed for at least 150 days by only eight people".

Just completely left out the Almighty God from the equation. LOL. I was almost tempted to reread the entire story to make sure if my memory served me correct; which is that an Almighty God had orchestrated the affairs.

Because the way you people are talking, it is as if Noah did the entire thing by his lonesome....no God, no nothing...just a 600 year old man, some wood, and some animals...and LOTS of water.

So what do you think his way was to insure that we now have 8.7 million species on Earth? Pack 15 million into a boat 1/9th the cubic size of the Titanic.

SMH.

Nope. I don't see any god as existing. However, I don't see why an inefficient god would have any less chance of existing than an efficient god.

And what are these "chances" based upon?

After all, who would think a god would make mistakes, but there we have it in the Bible, Jehovah making mistakes in Genesis 6:6 and 1 Samuel 15:35

Check out various commentaries on the whole "repent" business. It may not mean what you think it means.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Actually, the story contradicts itself. Not unusual in biblical tales.

Genesis 6:19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

"20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it."

The additional seven of every clean animal were for sacrificial purposes, and the command to bring this "batch" of animals were in addition to the original command of "two of every kind".

Second, the amount of "clean" animals (from a quantity standpoint) fails in comparison to the amount of other animals on board...so in other words, there wasn't that many to consider; and they weren't on board that long once sacrificed.

Third, think about it; why would the author just completely contradict himself in a matter of one chapter...as if he didn't know that he originally said two at first, and now he is saying seven.

Cmon now, people. I see that you addressed this below, but still...if you would have known my response, you might have kept it to yourself.

Perhaps this is an editing artifact. We get to the end of the flood and Noah sends out birds to find dry land. Quite risky if you've only got two of each kind. Even more so, Noah sacrifices some of the clean animals and clean birds. Not a good idea if you only brought two.

The two (of the clean animals) that were brought on board were for reproducing purposes after the flood..the seven of the clean animals were brought on board for sacrificial purposes. No problems here.

Perhaps someone saw this problem and added the Genesis 7 bit. Or perhaps this is evidence of the melding of two flood stories. Not the first time we see something like that in the Bible.

Or perhaps there are some things here that you failed to consider. No worries, that is what I am here for.

In any case, the Genesis 7 bit, pretending it is true, would increase the need for room.

I think that after the clean animals were sacrificed, the space on the ark would increase. Don't you?

Maybe the ark had a slide-out like modern RVs do just to resolve this issue. Or, just maybe, there is no truth to any of the tale.

Tcg

Maybe dogs will only produce dogs.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not difficult, impossible. As would be feeding 5,000 people with a Filet-O-Fish or two.


Tcg

I feel you. Well, let me put it to you this way; there was 5,000 hungry people...but only 5 loaves of bread and 2 pieces of fish.

At the end of the day, they all went home with full bellies. End of story.

[brunumb]

Sooo, Jesus (God) fed 5,000 people with 2 pieces of fish and 5 loaves of bread with everyone being fully fed and with fish and bread left to spare...but somehow feeding the animals on the ark is supposed to be difficult?

Propping up one fiction with another fiction is just too funny. The number of extra doses of God-magic required to fill in all the plot holes makes Yahweh look like a complete doofus for choosing to flood the earth according to that story. In any case, the biblical flood has been thoroughly debunked. It never happened.

[Difflugia]

Well, it was either a dinosaur with feathers or a full-blown bird with teeth. It can't be both and it certainly isn't proof of a transitional specimen from one to the other.

Either way, a dinosaur...or a bird. Take your pick.

Evolution doesn't require a bright line. Creationism posits some sort of discontinuity between "kinds," but evolution doesn't. That's the rub.

You're talking as though you can define away a transitional species, but it's you that has to pick some sort or either/or that makes sense. Creationism requires discontinuities between kinds that just aren't there.

In the sense of "anything's possible," but it's on par with the possibility that leprechauns live in my shoes or that the moon is made of cheese.

Well, "my fairy tale is better than your fairy tale".

But, it's not. You've just asserted a "possibility" with no evidence behind it. Simply being able to imagine something doesn't somehow shape the real world to fit. Dinosaurs (or anything else) being created separately just plain doesn't fit with the pattern we see from phylogenetic analysis, whether the data are character-based or molecular. You can assert anything you'd like, but if it's going to be "better than [my] fairy tale," it has to offer a better explanation for the pattern and creationist apologetic arguments don't.

If the various kinds were separate creations, then based on what you've said about genomic comparison, you should be able to find a consistent level of discontinuity between them that corresponds to a creation moment, but I happen to know that you can't. I've looked. You could, too, if you'd like.

If you are comfortable believing that DNA analysis can reliably match you to other members of your family, then you should be just as sure about this. It's essentially impossible that the patterns revealed by these kinds of analyses are mere coincidence. Evolution not only neatly explains them, but nothing else comes close. If God created Microraptor gui as a separate kind from other dinosaurs and birds, then He did so in such a way that it looks exactly like evolution is at fault. "We" aren't fishing for evolutionary explanations or peering in any glass darkly, but are looking at the smoking gun, the hand in the cookie jar, and the fifth ace and the only conclusion "we" can reasonably draw is that evolution dunnit.

Um, that is what YOU think. That is what EVOLUTIONISTS think. That is not what I think. That is not what Kent Hovind think. That is not what Kevin Ham think. That is not what Johnathan Wells think. That is not what members of BAND (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) think.

So in other words, to us, he (God) did so in such a way that looks exactly like intelligent design is at fault. Not evolution.

Those guys are grievously wrong and you can prove it to yourself. I'm going to quote myself from an earlier thread:

I've mentioned this before, but if it's worth the effort to you to prove it to yourself, the data are available to you. GenBank is a massive database of DNA sequences, containing just shy of a billion entries from bacteria to bananas to blue whales. If you're willing to learn the basics of phylogenetic analysis, that database offers orders of magnitude more information (and corresponding certainty) than all of the fossils ever found. One open-access (free) textbook is available here (the publisher's website is in German, but the book is English; click on "Open access PDF" to see the download button).

If you're willing to do a little legwork, you can be one of the ones that knows and you'll never have to take anyone else's word for it again.

The problem right now is that you have to pick somebody to trust and you've gone with those professing to be Christians. If you don't understand the basics of phylogenetic analysis, me telling you that those guys are wrong is just so much noise. The data are available to you, though, to know for yourself. The pattern is there, I've seen it, and you can, too. If you'd like, I can help you set up the software to generate and view phylogenies from the data.

Which leads into:

That was an excellent read...clear and concise. However, I obviously have to disagree with what you said above...as I think genomic relationships ARE actually very strong evidence for a common designer.

The reason genetics is good evidence for intelligent design is because of the fact that it is coded information...and information can only come from an informant, and codes have programmers.

Even if you're completely correct about all of this, it could be evidence for a designer, but not the common designer of a recent creation involving multiple, unrelated kinds. The pattern in the "coded data" still doesn't show the discontinuities that we should expect from such a recent creation. Even so, you're simply asserting without evidence that the existence of the information requires an intelligent agent. It's one of those "common sense" creationist (or intelligent design, in this case) arguments that breaks down if you understand the chemistry behind it (not even information theory).

in this case, we can just carry on with the alphabet analogy...because it is the arrangements of each letter than makes every word different...and the same is true our own DNA.

This is the first place that your analogy breaks down. DNA "words" are often quite long (tens to hundreds of "letters"). Because of the way both RNA and protein molecules fold, there are often long portions of DNA "words" where the exact sequence doesn't matter very much (like just in overall net charge, for example). They can be replaced with many different sequences and still mean the same thing. While some base positions matter more than others, DNA "words" are much more tolerant to changes than English ones. Furthermore, the way DNA maps to amino acid coding is such that many single nucleotide changes don't even change the coded protein in the first place. There are analogies that can be made between English and DNA, but there are differences that greatly affect your argument.

Now...lets take..

1. Theory (python)
2. Theoretical (anaconda)
3. Theorize (boa)
4. Theories (cobra)

Now, what the evolutionist wants us to believe is that, the words which makes up the snake "kind", was somehow changed to...

1. Tape (parrot)
2. Taped (pigeon)
3. Taping (crow)
4. Tapes (eagle)

When you compare the words related to "theory" and "tape"...you see similarities...as they all have some of the same letters in common, but the words are completely different and mean completely different things.

"Theory" doesn't become "tape"..."theorize" doesn't become "taping". It just doesn't happen. It never happens.

The biggest problem here is that your language is sloppy. You're making what amounts to a common-sense argument from incredulity based on analogies that may not hold and assertions that may not be true. Which genes "mean completely different things" between pythons and parrots or anacondas and pigeons? What is an example of a genetic change that "just doesn't happen?" We also know the mechanisms behind DNA changes through time, so do you have any evidence that those mechanisms are insufficient to account for the differences between pythons, parrots, and a common ancestor? You not understanding the "somehow" isn't evidence that nobody does. Or even that I don't. Nor is it evidence that the "somehow" is insufficient.

Not only that, but as mentioned before, look at the information; it has been said that one cell is more complex than a space shuttle. The more complex it is, the more intelligent design is needed.

If a space shuttle was designed, then it only logically follows that something more complex than it would also have to be designed....

It doesn't "logically" follow. You've given one example where complexity follows from design, but you haven't shown that complexity always requires a designer. In fact, this is trivially false. A beach of sand grains, each of which is different than the others and in a specific pattern that would be nearly impossible to accuratly replicate is incredibly complex, but there's no reason to think that a designer was necessary to bring about that exact pattern. That's why the cdesign proponentsists invented concepts like "specified complexity," but were never able to successfully define them in a way that excluded complexity that was obviously naturally occurring, while also necessarily applying to the things for which they wished to demonstrate a non-human designer.

the naturalist would rather not agree with this, which is nothing more than the taxi cab fallacy.

I'm honestly baffled about how you think it applies. If it's important to your argument, please explain what you mean.

So I said all of that to say this; genetics actually proves intelligent design.

If it does, you haven't presented a valid argument showing such.