All that your text example proves is that micro changes are possible between two states.
No, I understand the concepts perfectly.
I also understand that the fossil record is in capable of providing a verifiable transition.
Even if we were to observe a species evolve from one form to another over the course of a human life time, snapshots of that species at various times would not be "verifiable transition"
To verify transition, you need more than snapshots. You need to actually observe the change.
The best you can do with snapshots (fossils or otherwise) is put together possible transformation.
The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.
I think you're assuming I have misconceptions that I have don't necessarily have.
If you want to discuss my views, I'd rather we stick to the topic of my views :)
Or more specifically, if you want to debunk that article, I'd rather we discuss that article :)
(the equip.org article)
I won't say I don't have any misconceptions... that would be a foolish thing for anyone to say
But please don't start by lumping me in with "creationists"... while I am technically a creationist, since I believe the Universe was created by a divine being, you'll probably see from my answers on Cx.SE, that I hold a minority "creationist" view.
So assuming "creationist view" == "filmzy's view" is going to prove to be a false premise more often than not.
BTW, only slightly related... I've recently been reading a book recently that discusses recent scientific work that shows that humans (and other animals) are far more adaptable than the traditional natural-selection would have indicated.
Based on environmental factors, many (perhaps most or all) animals can adapt within just a generation or two in ways that were previously only thought possible by "random mutation + natural selection"
the implication being that the time necessary for biological evolution to have "interesting" results may be much much shorter than previously thought
I like this phrase on that last page you linked: " Transitional fossils, for example, provide plausible links between several different groups of organisms"
It seems to support my earlier claim that those transitional fossils do not provide "verifiable transition"... but only "plausible links"
Anyway... I'm not going to finish reading that now... it's after 4am where I am
basically the Carnivora, a species living 42M years ago developed into cat-like and dog-like species
so if you would have lived 42M years ago until now, you could have seen the transition ;)
"Rather, they dispute the occurrence of major evolutionary changes over long periods of time, which by definition cannot be directly observed, only inferred from microevolutionary processes and the traces of macroevolutionary ones."
@Flimzy We have observed changes, through fossils. We never know anything with 100% certainty, but evolution is the best explanation we have for what we see.
another point is that altough we have found many fossils, fossilization is generally highley unlikely and more unlikely for transitional species that are imperfect and lived only a relatively short time in a narrow geographical range
the next point on that seite "ape-men" is connected with that fact, just because it's difficult to find one hominidae-fossil, evolution is yet the best explanation like @CiscoIPPhone mentioned ;)
btw, just to be sure, we didn't evolve from chimpansees or gorilla or other apes that live right now, we just have an common ancestor that evolved at some time to other species that today are humans and chimpansees
the next point of that site about "chance" misses the theory of evolution completely
evolution is not chance, and explains nothing with it
it's the process of variation of every population and the natural selection of those organisms with the most beneficial traits
Imagine that a biologist watches a cat climbing a very small tree. Then someone shows the biologist timestamped photos of a cat at various heights up a very tall tree. It's a reasonable conclusion that the cat climbed up the tall tree. more importantly, there's nothing that disproves that it climbed up the tall tree, so there's no reason to say 'I don't believe it climbed up the tree'.
2
So how I'm comparing this to evolution is: cat climbing small tree = observed instances of 'micro-evolution' (within our lifetime) and we understand the mechanism. photos of cat climbing tall tree = fossils.
@Jonathon Byrd. The YEC belief, as I understand it, is: "God is a fond of practical jokes." I can understand why other Christians could see that view as unbiblical.
@TRiG Could it be that scientists deliberately refuse to look at any evidence of young earth because everything that they stand for DEPENDS on an old earth?
@JonathonByrd. I really really shouldn't get drawn into this, but no. You're wrong. This'll be a quick summary.
1. Words have different meanings in different contexts. "Intelligent Design" is emphatically not a theory in the scientific sense of the word, so don't say it is.
2. ID has no predictive power. You cannot say, if ID is true, we will find this, that, or the other evidence, and then go to look for it. As such, ID cannot be tested. Therefore, it doesn't have any findings to pursue.
If evolution was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false and the evidence could not be contested by anybody. Then scientists would have to admit that they were wrong. Which doesn't sound like it would be a bad thing for a scientist (this is how they work) but you must also understand that telling a highly intelligent person that they're wrong after they were so dogmatic about their belief, would piss some people off and put them to shame.
ok well I guess we'll save the rest for creationism chat
@JonathonByrd scientists love to be proven wrong. Their entire body of work basically exists to prove things wrong. They know very little, basically most of their determinations are what they do not know.
@JonathonByrd Where do scientists disallow ID? We do think it is complete bullshit, but there is no prohibition of performing any kind of research in ID.
@Fabian. Well, you see, that's yet another thing that Right Wing Christians tell barefaced lies about, such as the "documentary" Expelled, so our friend Jonathon may well think that it's "prohibited", or some such nonsense.
one of the heavy emphases we got in my science education (4 semesters of college physics, 2 of chem) is that science doesn't prove anything. (the phrase "science proves" drive me nuts now). What science does do is show, model and try to describe how the world works.
its does it pretty darn well.
attacking science as a bunch of conspirators really doesn't get you anywhere, because if someone could actually disprove macro-evolution they would be heroes of the field.
but they would have to actually do it instead of starting from a preconceived notion and working backwards.
@TRiG calm down there buddy. we're having a friendly 'Christian' conversation. I have no care to tell anybody that they are wrong. I simply hold to my beliefs.
@waxeagle I would agree with that.
I'm not looking to attack anybody from any 'conspiracy' angle.
I think it would be hard for a scientist to say "God did this" and stop there. Most scientist are way more interested in the how than the what or the why.
@ElendiaStarman Well, off the top of my head. I would say that if the literal interpretation of the Bible were true, then we would find some kind of evidence of things coming into existence in an instance.
based off of our understanding of software programming, bits and bytes, I predict that the actual DNA strand is just a storage mechanism for a programming language that is written on those bits
@waxeagle I haven't really done anything with genetic algorithms. I've thought about them often though. Certainly to see if the idea of evolution was valid.
@JonathonByrd We understand pretty well how DNA codes for proteins and how translation works, there are of course details we don't know yet but the fundamentals are well understood.
@Fabian agreed. if you looked at bits on a HDD you could easily match which bits would output a certain command. But there would be layers of understanding that you wouldn't be able to comprehend. This is how we understand dna
You'll have to get more specific, are you talking about the actual mechanisms of transcription and translation or about the function of the resulting proteins? Or are you talking about the function of non-coding RNA?
I am not trying to be argumentative, this is an earnest question, as this question got me in huge trouble when I was a kid, and actually one of the things that lead my away from the church as a teenager: It is about the speed of light, if the speed of light is constant and we can see objects that are millions or billions of light years away how can we account for a young age of the universe?
aceinthehole - You can only account for it by postulating that God created the light from distant stars already in transit, along with the stars that would have given that light. Or you have to assume that pretty much all of physics is different.
@aceinthehole The only method that we can truly use to get the distance of stars is incredibly unreliable. NOT SAYING that just because it shows things far away is it unreliable. I'm saying that it's like trying to see a parking sign on a flat earth from here to china. It's nearly impossible.
It's easy to see that there is light from at least many millions of years ago without having to do anything more than assume the physics that creates stars is the same everywhere. Because you can see individual stars in other galaxies, and you know how bright stars can be.
Back on the topic of triangulation, we understand how to quantify errors very well; it's relatively straightforward mathematics (and measurement) which every physics undergraduate, at least, is expected to master. So we know how inaccurate our triangulations are.
@JonathonByrd In the same way that an awesome and incredibly complex computer program "gives glory" to the programmer. Also, I have been reminded of cellular automatons in the past...
@JonathonByrd How does it detract from his glory? The universe is awesome whether God created it in 7 seconds/7days/700 billion years. What difference does it really make.
@ElendiaStarman If you were God, why would you take a million years to create something you could do in a few days? Don't you think doing it in a few days and then showing your kids what you did would bring you far more glory?
@JonathonByrd I would remember what God said to Job in the last few chapters of the book of Job. Who are we to put God in a box and tell him how he could or could not have created the universe? I think that the discoveries that science/humanity have made and will continue to make about the universe will defy our understand and bring greater glory to God.
I can think about it hypothetically. For example, I think that if we are to be impressed by the speed of creation, 7 hours is more impressive than 7 days, and 7 milliseconds is more impressive yet. This suggests, logically, that if God created the world and conveyed the information to us via Genesis, that impressing us with speed was not the primary consideration.
@JonathonByrd Because I personally find it far cooler that He could set up such a system that He could put into motion and a few billion years later, here we are...(perhaps with several nudges). To clarify on that parenthetical statement, I believe that God created the first life forms with DNA, that He probably had something to do with the Cambrian Explosion, and that He created Adam and Eve's souls to set them apart from other humanoids, thus creating the first modern humans.
@ElendiaStarman You should check out 'so your mad about something on the internet' notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2011/08/03/… ... its not super safe for work (depending on where you work)
@TRiG Same folks mostly :) I would suggest that it's because the format better fits what you're trying to do some of the time, on the site sometimes you are fighting the format as well as the difference of beliefs.
@JonathonByrd good to see you in here again--seems like I keep missing you. It's a bit hard to jump into this chat room at the tale end of long, drawn-out conversations, but if it's anything like the stuff I read the other day it probably wasn't terribly helpful anyways. The reason I'm hoping to catch you in here is that young earth creation, evolution, etc. are hugely fascinating to me and I think we could have some cool conversations.
Anyways if you're curious sometime hit me up. My basic take is that I was raised in a young earth creationist perspective, got really into it and learned a ton about it, but then later came to believe something different. Don't want to ruin a good story, but let's just say I was hugely humbled/blessed by the experience of having my mind changed, and that it was an awesome boost to my faith.
