1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    30 Jul '13 14:22
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html#firstCmt

    When new evidence comes in, we roll with it. It's still evolution though.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    02 Aug '13 02:33
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html#firstCmt

    When new evidence comes in, we roll with it. It's still evolution though.
    So now the tests show that millions of years of evolution is not true, so you must redefine the meaning of evolution again. I wonder when you guys are going to concede the process is not bottom-up, but top-down from an intelligent designer and that it was only a little over 6,000 years ago that it began and macrevolution a.k.a evilution did not happen.

    The Instructor
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    02 Aug '13 07:201 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So now the tests show that millions of years of evolution is not true, so you must redefine the meaning of evolution again. I wonder when you guys are going to concede the process is not bottom-up, but top-down from an intelligent designer and that it was only a little over 6,000 years ago that it began and macrevolution a.k.a evilution did not happen.

    The Instructor
    So now the tests show that millions of years of evolution is not true,

    That is not what the link says. Perhaps you just read the first quote: “Our understanding of how animals on the planet evolved may be wrong, “ and equated this with saying evolution didn't happen? -if so, read the rest of the link and come back to us.
    so you must redefine the meaning of evolution again

    nothing in that link challenges how we define the meaning of the word evolution.
    If you deny this, please quote which part does this....
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    02 Aug '13 20:152 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    So now the tests show that millions of years of evolution is not true,

    That is not what the link says. Perhaps you just read the first quote: “Our understanding of how animals on the planet evolved may be wrong, “ and equated this with saying evolution didn't happen? -if so, read the rest of the link and come back to us.
    [quote] so you ...[text shortened]... ine the meaning of the word evolution.
    If you deny this, please quote which part does this....
    One quote from the findings is as follows:

    "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. The only exceptions to the rule are groups that were wiped out at times of mass extinction. These groups tend to have 'flat topped' and 'top-heavy' evolutionary trajectories overall."

    Notice he says, "there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups" and "these limits" are early. That is, one kind is prevented or limited from changing into another kind. That is just what we YECs have been saying all the time.

    Then he says, "The only exceptions to the rule are groups that were wiped out at times of mass extinction." Maybe this is referring to the time of the worldwide flood. I suppose he means they can not check these groups because they went extinct.

    Finally he says, "These groups tend to have 'flat topped' and 'top-heavy' evolutionary trajectories overall." This means evolution is top-down and not bottom-up as the Darwian evolutionists have been trying to convince us to believe. That is why the article says evolution is being turned on its head.

    The Instructor 😏
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78675
    02 Aug '13 20:30
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    One quote from the findings is as follows:

    "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. The only exceptions to the rule are groups that were wiped out at times of mass extinction. These groups tend to have 'flat topped' and 'top-heavy' evolutionary tra ...[text shortened]... y the article says evolution is being turned on its head.

    The Instructor 😏
    Well done, you've managed to make a post in the Science Forum that actually argues using scientific language. Although this stuff isn't in competition with the main idea of natural selection driven evolution. In the theory they are espousing there is a rapid evolution due to some stresses like a near call with extinction - such as old earth theorists believe happened to humanity 70,000 odd years ago due to a super-volcano eruption. One gets rapid radiation of species followed by slow refinement. It's actually less easy to reconcile with your variation of creationism as you have to have multiple repetitions of this in the 1600 odd years between the creation and the flood. Old earth IDers would be happy with the work.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    02 Aug '13 20:511 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    One quote from the findings is as follows:

    "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. The only exceptions to the rule are groups that were wiped out at times of mass extinction. These groups tend to have 'flat topped' and 'top-heavy' evolutionary tra y the article says evolution is being turned on its head.

    The Instructor 😏
    see: Evolution vs Creationism/I.D. consolidation thread.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    03 Aug '13 09:02
    Originally posted by humy
    see: Evolution vs Creationism/I.D. consolidation thread.
    This transferring everything on evolution or Intelligent Design to one thread may get confusing, but we can try it.

    The Instructor
  8. Joined
    29 Mar '09
    Moves
    767
    08 Aug '13 00:51
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html#firstCmt

    When new evidence comes in, we roll with it. It's still evolution though.
    One can glean from this that the evolution of an animal type happened quickly to an efficient form and needed little change to survive and pass the traits on except for catastrophic extinction. Another person may glean from this that the form of the animals were designed early on and and that is why there exists little if any change due to genetic mutation over the "millions of years". Take for example the therapods. A bunch of different animals fit into that sub order. The fossil record does not show transformation from any common ancestor. The fossil record does show the coelophysis, but again no transformational evidence is to be found that it is a common ancestor to anything. The geologic column dating and other methods used to date things is highly questionable at this time. This is at the heart of the scientific leap of faith which most scientists accept with little to no question of its reliability. The creationists will find bible passages that confirm to them what they believe in their leap of faith.
  9. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    21060
    08 Aug '13 01:16
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    One can glean from this that the evolution of an animal type happened quickly to an efficient form and needed little change to survive and pass the traits on except for catastrophic extinction. Another person may glean from this that the form of the animals were designed early on and and that is why there exists little if any change due to genetic mutati ...[text shortened]... onists will find bible passages that confirm to them what they believe in their leap of faith.
    Perhaps the fossil evidence has not yet been uncovered to show links to other specie. Mutations are random. Most lead to early death before reproduction can take place. Mutations that do help a specie reproduce more successfuly can be negated by all sorts of random ocurrances that might seem minor. Check out "The Beak of the Finch". Peter and Rosemary Grant spent decades on a small island in the Galapagos studying how small environmental changes and minute differences in beaks determined how successful individuals within a specie became. Very interesting. The "Butterfly Effect" can influence changes.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    08 Aug '13 17:23
    Originally posted by Phranny
    Perhaps the fossil evidence has not yet been uncovered to show links to other specie. Mutations are random. Most lead to early death before reproduction can take place. Mutations that do help a specie reproduce more successfuly can be negated by all sorts of random ocurrances that might seem minor. Check out "The Beak of the Finch". Peter and Rosemary G ...[text shortened]... ls within a specie became. Very interesting. The "Butterfly Effect" can influence changes.
    We are in the middle of the biggest mass extinction event in the past 65 million years, all due to mankind. So we are in a race to save what we can through our greed and bungling.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    09 Aug '13 04:30
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    We are in the middle of the biggest mass extinction event in the past 65 million years, all due to mankind. So we are in a race to save what we can through our greed and bungling.
    I don't think it is necessary to believe in evilution and in millions of years of history to make scientific advances today. We can do just as well believing in a young Earth with only about 6000 years of history.

    The Instructor
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    09 Aug '13 07:016 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't think it is necessary to believe in evilution and in millions of years of history to make scientific advances today. We can do just as well believing in a young Earth with only about 6000 years of history.

    The Instructor
    That's right. It is not necessary to rationally believe the scientific facts about the past to make scientific advances today and would do just fine doing that delusionally believing ancient absurd fairy tales that have long since been exposed as nonsense by modern science.

    However, we will continue to be rational and not believe such nonsense and nothing you say here could ever change that.
    So you are wasting your time here -take this to the Spirituality forum where it belongs.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12737
    09 Aug '13 08:07
    Originally posted by humy
    That's right. It is not necessary to rationally believe the scientific facts about the past to make scientific advances today and would do just fine doing that delusionally believing ancient absurd fairy tales that have long since been exposed as nonsense by modern science.

    However, we will continue to be rational and not believe such nonsense and nothing y ...[text shortened]... that.
    So you are wasting your time here -take this to the Spirituality forum where it belongs.
    I said nothing that was spiritual there. I was just stating an opinion that you apparently don't like.

    The Instructor
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    09 Aug '13 08:401 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I said nothing that was spiritual there. I was just stating an opinion that you apparently don't like.

    The Instructor
    Young-Earth crap is religious creationists dogma that belongs to the Spirituality forum and NOT here.
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    09 Aug '13 10:33
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I said nothing that was spiritual there. I was just stating an opinion that you apparently don't like.

    The Instructor
    So you figure there is nothing religious in the motivation for such statements that the Earth is 6000 years old? You must think we are as weak willed as all you religious young creationist right wing nutters if you think we can't figure out where you are coming from with such absurd statements.
Back to Top