Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    676
    Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper

    I agree that mechanisms are at work to help protect us from the ravages of mutation - and one such mechanism is natural selection. My question would be - is natural selection a sufficient protection to prevent the accumulation of errors with each passing generation.

    Originally posted by Richard
    Is it not obvious that natural selection is sufficient? It takes somewhere between 10-100 thousand years for cavefish to lose their eyesight. The only difference between them and the surface fish is natural selection.
    Natural selection protects the creatures in the light, but what is unknown is how long it can protect them. Your argument seems to say -

    1. fish have been around for millions of years
    2. if natural selection were not maintaining their eyes, then they would quickly become blind like cave fish
    3. Because they can still see, then natural selection must have been 100% effective over millions of years.

    It is a good argument, but I would prefer to use current mutation rates as an empirical measurement rather than assume that fish have been around for millions of years. I just want to be as empirical as possible.


    Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper

    The only reason that size might be related to fitness, is that fit creatures would live longer, and so they would grow for longer, and hence reach bigger sizes. This is particularly so for reptiles that continue to grow through out their lifespans

    Posted by Richard
    There is a correlation between size, metabolism, and longevity. You can read one study here. But there are other factors as you well know. For example, insects and plants are much bigger in the tropics. Environmental factors play an important role.
    My point is that the ancient tropical plants and insects are so much bigger than the modern ones. I am comparing like for like.



    Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper

    I would say that devolving organisms loose their functions quicker - ie they die younger before reaching a large size.
    But is there any science backing you up?

    Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper

    So even if size is not a cause of fitness, I would still argue that size is an effect of fitness. I would say that size is also an effect of the fitness of the environment for life. In a very supportive environment creatures might grow much bigger, ie in paradise conditions. Often, when I look at the fossils of bigger plants, bigger insects, bigger fish, bigger reptiles and bigger mammals I
    get the impression that the environment was so much more supportive then because it allowed life to floursh so much more.

    Richard Posted
    Again, I think it's just because it was more tropical.
    I would say that the tropical then was bigger than the tropical now.


    Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper

    Devolution is the same as ageing, but on a species scale. There would be a maintenance of vital functions until near the end.

    Richard Posted
    I could see similarities perhaps between aging and devolution. But there is no evidence for this actually happening as far as I know.
    The only evidence I would present would be -
    • larger, stronger creatures in the past
    • records of increased longevity in the past
    • current mutation rates
    • current extinction rates vs rate that new species appear


    The biggest problem with your thesis is that the smaller animals are not descendants of the larger ones that went extinct. E.g. smaller modern elephants are not the descendants of the mammoths. Horses are not descended from the giant horse but rather from much smaller horses that evolved into bigger modern horses. Etc.

    The most difficult thing about your theory is that it directly contradicts the entire body of evolutionary science. How could you have any confidence that it is correct?
    I am not saying that we are descended from giants, I am suggesting that we might be. I think that DNA is the only way we will ever know for sure how these larger creatures are related to us. Though I could add that the Indian traditions of the Yugas support my idea that we are descended from them.

    Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper

    I would say that random mutation operates in both light and dark, but natural selection removes harmful mutations in the light, but does not do so in the dark. So I agree that natural selection slows down the process of devolution.

    Again, you seem to have a false understanding of "harmful and beneficial" mutations. Did you watch that video that explained how evolution is a random exploration of genetic phase space? It explains why evolution is as certain as the second law of thermodynamics.
    I have not seen the video yet. But I will look at it before I post again.

    The strangest thing in all this is that I don't get the impression that you actually have any real understanding of the science you are seeking to overthrow. How is your project any different than a school kid thinking to overthrow relativistic cosmology?
    I don't want to overthrow anything. I just want to find the truth. Sometimes, the unclouded perception of a child can contribute.

    Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper

    But the question still remains as to whether natural selection can HALT devolution or even REVERSE it. Such a question can only be answered by counting harmful mutation rates between each generation for a chosen species.

    Richard posted :
    You assumption that "devolution is a fact" is very problematic.
    I would not assume that devolution is a fact. It is an idea that can be tested.

    But if it were true it would mean that tens of thousands of working biologists have missed something that you have found. Doesn't that seem a little unlikely?
    I am hardly on my own with the idea of "devolution". It seems to me that devolution is naturally suggested by religious texts, and by the king lists of many nations, all of which I cannot claim to have discovered - the data has always been there. Perhaps it is possible that -

    1. Currently, evolution is the main paradigm taught to trainee biologists, and consequently this has the effect of teaching them that the creation-evolution debate is over.

    2. Not all biologists are too bothered - career advancement is their main goal, rather than risking their careers following esoteric ideas that their superiors might disagree with.


    Great chatting!

    Craig
    Last edited by Craig.Paardekooper; 06-03-2013 at 07:05 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Exactly what number of human giants have been found or the number of remains of very large animals which have been fossilized. With all the supposed millions that have lived, what percentage have we found? Are we talking hundreds or thousands of the same type? Exactly what is the sum of the evidence found in the fossilized record? We can have thousands upon millions of small fossilized things, just as we find millions of sea shells on the sea shores. We are comparing the likes of billions of ants with thousands of large creatures and those numbers are reflected in the numbers of the types of fossils found. I am trying to get this into perspective as to how many giants and how may large creatures might have existed on the earth to explain the remains which have been found.

    It is conceivable that Dinosaurs and man lived on the earth at the same time and Dinosaurs were not a threat to man any more than a lion was a threat. We are not told of these sorts of things in the Genesis record. The Flood was a good enough reason to end a part of creation and the destruction which occurred (in God's wisdom) could have resulted in the fossil fuels that we have.

    Coal has to be formed quickly if it is to be formed from trees. We can imagine the earth totally covered by forests of very large trees before the Flood. The Flood combined with large seismic activity would account for the coal deposits. A similar reason can be used for explaining oil and gas deposits. How else does history or Evolution account for coal deposits? There is no reason for the after effects of the Flood to appear uniform throughout the earth. We do not know just what seismic events took place and where at the time of the Flood. Inverted layers and all manner of peculiar results could have been caused by the Flood. We have seen what the damage of one tsunami can do, imagine what a prolonged succession of tidal waves could do or just the effect of vast amounts or water sloshing all over the planet. The weight of water when it is moving is highly destructive. This would be a difficult thing to model, but if it could be done, then the results could be surprising. A computer model is only as good as the programmer can devise.

    We are left with many imponderables and the scientific evidence is not as conclusive as it is made out to be.


    David

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Exactly what number of human giants have been found or the number of remains of very large animals which have been fossilized. With all the supposed millions that have lived, what percentage have we found? Are we talking hundreds or thousands of the same type? Exactly what is the sum of the evidence found in the fossilized record? We can have thousands upon millions of small fossilized things, just as we find millions of sea shells on the sea shores. We are comparing the likes of billions of ants with thousands of large creatures and those numbers are reflected in the numbers of the types of fossils found. I am trying to get this into perspective as to how many giants and how may large creatures might have existed on the earth to explain the remains which have been found.
    Hey David,

    There have been more than 6,000 human fossils that have been found. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

    It has been estimated that there is roughly 250,000 species in the fossil record. The fossil record is largely incomplete. Most animals have left behind no fossils and some are still waiting to be found.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It is conceivable that Dinosaurs and man lived on the earth at the same time and Dinosaurs were not a threat to man any more than a lion was a threat. We are not told of these sorts of things in the Genesis record. The Flood was a good enough reason to end a part of creation and the destruction which occurred (in God's wisdom) could have resulted in the fossil fuels that we have.
    No it is not conceivable. There is simply no evidence to support that idea. We do not see any dinosaurs fossils in any rocks that are dated to periods when humans existed. The most recent dinosaur fossils we see are about 65 million years old. It really is not up for debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Coal has to be formed quickly if it is to be formed from trees. We can imagine the earth totally covered by forests of very large trees before the Flood. The Flood combined with large seismic activity would account for the coal deposits. A similar reason can be used for explaining oil and gas deposits. How else does history or Evolution account for coal deposits? There is no reason for the after effects of the Flood to appear uniform throughout the earth. We do not know just what seismic events took place and where at the time of the Flood. Inverted layers and all manner of peculiar results could have been caused by the Flood. We have seen what the damage of one tsunami can do, imagine what a prolonged succession of tidal waves could do or just the effect of vast amounts or water sloshing all over the planet. The weight of water when it is moving is highly destructive. This would be a difficult thing to model, but if it could be done, then the results could be surprising. A computer model is only as good as the programmer can devise.
    There was no global flood. There is no evidence of such a flood.

    http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html





    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We are left with many imponderables and the scientific evidence is not as conclusive as it is made out to be.
    Yes, it is true we are left wondering about many things. But there is no doubt that evolution is FACT and that there was no global flood.

    Watch the videos. There is no reason to to keep asserting there was a flood, when we know and have evidence that proves there wasn't.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello L67

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Hey David,

    There have been more than 6,000 human fossils that have been found. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils
    I was hoping for more evidence of giants and the like, not much of the same with tenuous links.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    It has been estimated that there is roughly 250,000 species in the fossil record. The fossil record is largely incomplete. Most animals have left behind no fossils and some are still waiting to be found.
    We can only consider the evidence we have and not what might be found when equally, it migh never have existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    No it is not conceivable. There is simply no evidence to support that idea. We do not see any dinosaurs fossils in any rocks that are dated to periods when humans existed. The most recent dinosaur fossils we see are about 65 million years old. It really is not up for debate.
    some things might not be up for debate, but you have a lot of explaining to do anyway. It is perhaps wrong to use the scientific term "fossil fuels" if the fuels are not from fossilised remains. Coal if it is from trees (wood) show no resemblance of the original trees. Where an outline of a fossilized plant or animal is found in coal, then that needs explaining.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    There was no global flood. There is no evidence of such a flood.
    There is evidence, but I agree is not always in the way that it is presented by non-scientists basing their ideas on what might have happened. I also think the video presenter is also arrogant in debunking the flood and his simple experiment in the tank of water no way represents the water flowing over the planet for months and waves upon waves of tidal activity. No way can man replicate this. As for the Grand Canyon wash out, the flood only provides some answers and not to the general layering that remains.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Yes, it is true we are left wondering about many things. But there is no doubt that evolution is FACT and that there was no global flood.
    That is your opinion to believe what you want to, it is not the belief I have come to even though we are left with many unanswered questions. It is what Genesis does not tell us that we have to make assumptions. Geology has its theories but by no means are certain as to the events that caused those things to happen in the way they are thought to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Watch the videos. There is no reason to to keep asserting there was a flood, when we know and have evidence that proves there wasn't.
    I have watched the videos and I will have to wait for his explanation of how fossilized trees are found going through layers millions of years old. Until otherwise proven beyond doubt, there is evidence of a Flood but not giving the answers to explain everything we find. If we allow for the The Flood being more than just rain falling and consider that violent earthquakes and movement in the earth's crust also took place, that would give us more reason to explain why things are as they are. Maybe there is too much to explain that we do not have enough time to find the answers. Either the earth will have evolved and disappeared before man finds the answers, or God's kingdom will be here on earth and the new beginnings will have begun and those in the kingdom will give no consideration to what might have happened in the past. The secret things belong to God and unless God reveals his secrets, we have no way of finding out. Man, without God, has no choice, but to make up theories.

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 06-05-2013 at 02:50 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •