We are told: Some species are evolving far more quickly than Darwin ever imagined.

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 31, 2015

Evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

For example, Discover:

Mosquitoes that colonized the London Underground in 1863 are now so different they can no longer mate with their above-ground relatives. Chinook salmon from Alaska to California needed just a human generation to become smaller and shorter-lived after an increase in commercial fishing in the 1920s. Adaptation is happening right under our noses, in our lifetimes.

But all of this can be accounted for within the genome of the species without any new information.

Put another way, if it is true that 1863 Tube mosquitos can no longer bred with above-ground mosquitoes, does that not signal a loss rather than a gain in information? Or are we not supposed to ask any more?

Comments

Arthur Jones is a young Earth creationist, which is contradicted by a wide variety of scientific evidence.
YECs can understand biology as well as anyone.Joe_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Piotr, Please learn how to read. I did not say a planet's rotation is a mystery. I said the earth's is. Ours is very conducive of life. And it is also very different from the other rocky planets in our system. And again given the nature of collisions there is no reason for our rotation to be what it is.Joe_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Yes, Piotr, the reason why earth’s rotation is what it is is a mystery. There isn’t any reason for it given the nature of collisions.
Joe, think twice before you post. A planet that does not rotate at all would be something of a miracle. Perhaps, if you concentrate your mental powers, you will see why.Piotr_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

That atheistic view is in the 'early life' section of the cite. In later life, from the same cite, he leaned towards pantheism. Hinduism is not atheism! Thus, after a life working in cutting edge science, he switched from atheism to a pantheistic view, Thus, you clearly severely distorted the truth in order to make it seem Wigner was atheist. Once again, I rest my case. I find you to be severely disingenuous and dishonest to the evidence at hand and have much better things to do than watch you chase your tail in a circle trying to defend your preferred atheistic belief system. as to: "That’s not a claim I make." Then don't butt into my conversation with a neo-Darwinist.bornagain77_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, Wigner was not an atheist. So you lied.
From his Wikipedia entry:
On religious views, Wigner was an atheist.

If you do not hold Mind and information to be emergent from a material basis, as is held in neo-Darwinian thought, please clarify
What's to clarify? That's not a claim I make.daveS_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

daveS, Wigner was not an atheist. So you either lied or severely distorted the truth. If you do not hold Mind and information to be 'emergent' from or reducible to a material basis, as is held in neo-Darwinian thought, please clarifybornagain77_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, ‘Wigner’s friend’ is certainly no friend of materialistic atheists. At the 8:30 minute mark of the following video, Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner’s Friend are highlighted:
I wasn't referring to the thought experiment, but merely the fact that you cited him earlier. In any case, "atheist" does not imply "materialist", as I'm sure you are aware.daveS_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

daveS, 'Wigner's friend' is certainly no friend of materialistic atheists. At the 8:30 minute mark of the following video, Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner's Friend are highlighted:
Divinely Planted Quantum States - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCTBygadaM4#t=156s
Moreover, Wiki states that Wigner leaned toward Hinduism later in life not atheism:
Near the end of his life,,, He became interested in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, particularly its ideas of the universe as an all pervading consciousness. In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Wigner also conceived the Wigner's friend thought experiment in physics, which is an extension of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. The Wigner's friend experiment asks the question: "At what stage does a 'measurement' take place?" Wigner designed the experiment to highlight how he believed that consciousness is necessary to the quantum-mechanical measurement processes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner#Later_years
Also of note:
"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays" "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'
Of supplemental note to the preceding Wigner 'consciousness' quotes, it is interesting to note that many of Wigner's insights have now been experimentally verified and are also now fostering a 'second' revolution in quantum mechanics,,,
Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution - Anton Zeilinger - Sept. 2014 Conclusion It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics, http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2014/15/epjconf_wigner2014_01010.pdf
Thus, since Wigner’s insights into the foundational role of the ‘conscious observer’ in Quantum Mechanics are bearing fruit with a ‘Second Quantum Revolution’, then that is certainly very strong evidence that his ‘consciousness’ insights are indeed true. Moreover, Wigner, to the extent that you would try to classify him as an atheist, (Hinduism is classified as pantheism by the way), Wigner certainly had no qualms in ruffling atheistic/materialistic feathers by referring to the correspondence of math to physics, and the human mind's ability to discern that correspondence, as a 'miracle'. Moreover, he even severely questioned the ability of Darwinism to account for our reasoning ability:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Of related note, Einstein, who was also Jewish like Wigner, also leaned towards an 'abstract' Hindu notion of God:
The God of the Mathematicians - Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pantheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,,, http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/
For further clarification please see:
Christianity and Panentheism - (conflict or concordance?) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xki03G_TO4&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g
bornagain77_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Remember, Mind and Information belong to the ID camp so ‘you’, as an atheist, can’t appeal to those entities!
How about your atheist friend Eugene Wigner? :-)daveS_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, you claimed that a YEC would... "impacts many fields of study, including biology." Yet your own neo-Darwinian belief has severely hampered biological research. Particularly the false predictions of Junk DNA and vestigial organs has been a severe impetus to biological research and even the cause of medical malpractice in the case of the erroneous belief in vestigial organs. Those are not minor negative consequences in science. Moreover, to the extent that Darwinian ideas have permeated society at large, those ideas have had drastically negative consequences ranging from abortion, to eugenics, to providing the 'moral justification' for Hitler's holocaust. The negative consequences of YEC, in science and society, are not even in comparison to Darwinism's negative consequences. Moreover, viewing biology as Intelligently Designed provides a fruitful heuristic in science, not a negative one as Darwinism does. A positive influence that is presently bearing fruit in systems biology.
"It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology." David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design podcast: "David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-11T17_19_09-07_00 podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-13T16_30_01-07_00 How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design - David Snoke - 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3
In regards to the creation of the entire material universe and the falsification that finding presented to materialism in general, schizophrenic you states in response,,, "That is not 'our' position" Exactly what entity besides energy/matter and randomness does schizophrenic you wish to appeal to in order to explain the origin of the entire material universe (including space-time)? Remember, Mind and Information belong to the ID camp so 'you', as an atheist, can't appeal to those entities!bornagain77_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

bornagain77: You complain that a YEC view will negatively impact biology. A young Earth (thousands of years) is substantially different historically than an old Earth (billions of years). Arthur Jones is a young Earth creationist, which is contradicted by a wide variety of scientific evidence. bornagain77: Now, as to the creation of the universe specifically, this is obviously a major falsification of your materialistic belief that ‘dirt has always existed’. That is not our position.Zachriel_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, You complain that a YEC view will negatively impact biology. Need I remind you of the false predictions of neo-Darwinism that have negatively effected, and continue to negatively effect, biology? i.e. Junk DNA and vestigial organs, not to mention eugenics, etc..! Willful blindness to your own weaknesses does not make you a stronger person but makes you look like an idiot in a debate Zach! Now, from a cosmological point of view, I personally believe that the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago and that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. As well, I do not believe those dates are written in stone as it were, but I also don't think that those 'billions of years' dates will change substantially from what they currently are estimated to be. Now, as to the creation of the universe specifically, this is obviously a major falsification of your materialistic belief that 'dirt has always existed'. This obviously has major implications as to how you, and all other materialists, approach all of science since we are in fact talking about how all of reality itself came into being (and how it continues to exist). Thus, how do you square the falsification of a major materialistic prediction, i.e. that the universe has always existed, with the fact that you still believe in materialism which is now shown to be a false conception of reality? Of note: from a Quantum Mechanical view, I believe the universe to be 10^-43 seconds old Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/we-are-told-some-species-are-evolving-far-more-quickly-than-darwin-ever-imagined/#comment-557166bornagain77_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

No one knows how old the earth is. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.Joe_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: In the limited YEC ‘flood hypothesis’ he postulated he ran a successful test! Moreover he is supported by geology. As already pointed out, IDer can't even agree whether the Earth is six thousand years old or four billion years old. This is obviously an important scientific question, and impacts many fields of study, including biology. How old is the Earth?Zachriel_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, as I pointed out, leading paleontologists readily acknowledge that Dr. Jones criticism that ‘“links” are decidedly missing”’ is right. Moreover, according to leading paleontologist, the fossil record is ‘upside-down’ compared to what Darwin himself predicted, with ‘disparity preceding diversity’. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/we-are-told-some-species-are-evolving-far-more-quickly-than-darwin-ever-imagined/#comment-557188 Zach, Why do you pretend as if the fossil record supports your ‘gradual’ position when it clearly doesn’t? If you were truly ’scientific’, you would follow the evidence wherever it leads instead of trying to use cheap rhetorical ploys to support your atheism! As well, your link to Dr. Jones’s essay does not have him mentioning the specific age of the earth, but has him discussing a test he ’successfully’ ran to support his ‘flood hypothesis’ for cichlids.
I hypothesized that all, or at least most, fish kinds that survived the Flood must be able to survive both seawater and fresh, and much mixing of the two. After the post-Flood diversification within the kinds we should still find that, in marine kinds, there are some species that can tolerate much fresher water and, in freshwater kinds, some species that can tolerate much saltier water. With my cichlids I found that this was indeed the case. I was able to keep some species in pure seawater for more than two years with no harmful effects—they lived and reproduced normally. Literature searches again revealed that this was a common pattern throughout the fish classes. http://creation.com/arthur-jones-biology-in-six-days
A successful test he ran based on his flood hypothesis refutes his flood hypothesis how exactly? You would have to refer to geology to try to refute him on his ‘flood hypothesis’. But if you did that, once again, you would find that the evidence does not clearly support your atheistic position of no global flood, but is actually turning out to support his position. Specifically, there is now mounting evidence for global catastrophic flooding 13,000 years before the present:
Humanpast.net Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding - in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124) What happened, at around 13,000 years ago, was that the long period of uninterrupted warming that the world had just passed through (and that had greatly intensified, according to some studies, between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago) was instantly brought to a halt - all at once, everywhere - by a global cold event known to palaeo climatologists as the ‘Younger Dryas’ or ‘Dryas III’. In many ways mysterious and unexplained, this was an almost unbelievably fast climatic reversion - from conditions that are calculated to have been warmer and wetter than today’s 13,000 years ago, to conditions that were colder and drier than those at the Last Glacial Maximum, not much more than a thousand years later. From that moment, around 12,800 years ago, it was as though an enchantment of ice had gripped the earth. In many areas that had been approaching terminal meltdown full glacial conditions were restored with breathtaking rapidity and all the gains that had been made since the LGM were simply stripped away…(124) A great, sudden extinction took place on the planet, perhaps as recently as 11,500 years ago (usually attributed to the end of that last ice age), in which hundreds of mammal and plant species disappeared from the face of the earth, driven into deep caverns and charred muck piles the world over. Modern science, with all its powers and prejudices, has been unable to adequately explain this event. (83) http://humanpast.net/environment/environment11k.htm
Thus Zach, why did you cite Dr. Jones essay? In the limited YEC ‘flood hypothesis’ he postulated he ran a successful test! Moreover he is supported by geology. Thus as far as evidence itself is concerned, it is of no comfort for your atheistic position. Do you think, because of your metaphysical prejudice, that merely citing his essay refutes his YEC position? Science is about evidence, not about metaphysical prejudice! Now I’m not saying that YEC is not refuted, but to refute it decisively, you have to go outside areas of Dr. Jone’s expertise. To areas such as cosmology, General Relativity, radiometric dating, and such as that. But even then, specifically in cosmology and General Relativity, we find overwhelming evidence for a beginning of the universe. Which is, once again, absolutely no help for your atheistic materialism. Why don't you follow the evidence instead of playing stupid games Zach? Do you think that by being purposely obstinate to the evidence that you will change the evidence? If so, you are sorely mistaken! Science will go on whether you decide to be reasonable or not! If need be science will march right over your grave:
"Science progresses one funeral at a time." -- Max Planck
bornagain77_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

That’s called evolution.
That's called equivocation.
That process took millions of years,...
Hiding behind father time is a sure sign your position isn't scientific.
Melting resets the radiological clock.
So when ice melts the radiological clock resets?Joe_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

ppolish: when I said “fish stopped evolving” I was not talking about going blind in a cave or getting smaller. That's called evolution. ppolish: I was talking about transitioning into land crawlers. That process took millions of years, and nowadays, those niches are already occupied, so it's not something that would be expected to occur. bornagain77: took exception to because Dr. Jones may hold a YEC view http://creation.com/arthur-jones-biology-in-six-days bornagain77: Evolution Cartoon – Waiting For That Beneficial Mutation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-QYtxi8Bw Interesting cartoon, but it left out the evolution part. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY Mapou: Simple logic tells you that if evidence A is advanced for hypothesis X, A can no longer be used as evidence for X if it is also evidence for competing hypothesis Y. Assuming that A is *entailed* in both X and Y, that is correct, though other evidence may be able to eliminate on or the other hypothesis. Nonetheless, you misrepresented our position. Piotr: Will it melt the planet you are “making”, or not? Melting resets the radiological clock.Zachriel_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Yes, Piotr, the reason why earth's rotation is what it is is a mystery. There isn't any reason for it given the nature of collisions.Joe_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

#75 ppolish, Are you serious when you say that the reason why planets rotate is poorly understood? Or is it still 1 April in your time zone?Piotr_{April 2, 2015
April
04
Apr
2
02
2015
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

Joe, vel- I screwed up: No problemo.velikovskys_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Piotr, the formation of the earth is not fully scientifically understood yet. When it started to rotate and give rise to the concept of "earth day" is even less understood. Time as measured as "earth year" is dependent on motion. A "day" as 24 hours is a man made calculation from current rotation/motion - and changing btw.ppolish_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Piotr, The way your position has the earth being made is by accretion of cosmic material, including comets, meteors and asteroids. So what is your issue? No, I don't know if the planet would be molten- ie hot enough to ensure all crystals were melted. As I said it all depends on how the earth was formed.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

#69 Joe, I'm intrigued. How do you make a planet out of old meteorites, comets and asteroids? Today, the total mass of the asteroid belt of the inner Solar system is about 0.05% of the mass of the Earth, so to make an Earth-size planet you would need 2000 times more asteroids than are available today. Let's suppose, however, that there are enough of them, and you transport them somehow from all over the Solar system to one place. Gravity will pull them together, and they'll bump into one another -- say, about 6000 huge asteroids as massive as Ceres, or, if you prefer, billions of smaller ones. Can you estimate how much thermal energy will be released in the process? Will it melt the planet you are "making", or not?Piotr_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

There are many independent characteristics required to be fulfilled for any planet to host advanced carbon-based life. Two popular books have been written, 'The Privileged Planet' by Guillermo Gonzalez and 'Rare Earth' by Donald Brownlee, indicating the earth is extremely unique in its ability to host advanced life in this universe. Privileged Planet, which holds that any life supporting planet in the universe will also be 'privileged' for observation of the universe, has now been made into a excellent video.
The Privileged Planet – video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ohuG3Vj_48&list=PLbzQ4aXdqWD-9kjFsSm-cxNlzgrkJuko7 Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate approx. equals 10^324 longevity requirements estimate approx. equals 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. equals 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. equals 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) – video https://vimeo.com/118304005 Still Taking Aim at Eric Metaxas, the Media Underestimate the Degree to which Physicists See Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - January 13, 2015 Excerpt: "Earth is a precious jewel possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for sustaining life. Lucky Planet investigates the idea that good fortune, infrequently repeated elsewhere in the Universe, played a significant role in allowing the long-term life-friendliness of our home and that it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe." London astrobiologist - David Waltham, Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional -- and What That Means for Life in the Universe (Basic Books, 2014), p. 1.) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/still_taking_ai092671.html Eric Metaxas - Does Science Argue for or against God? – (2015) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjGPHF5A6Po
bornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

Piotr, although 'planet formation' certainly does not line up with a YEC view, if you were fair, you would also acknowledge that planet formation is turning out to be very mysterious to naturalistic models as well: Many people simply presume that solar system formation is fairly well understood by modern science but that simply is not the case:
Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets; Excerpt: “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110223b Astronomers Discover Planet That Shouldn't Be There - Dec. 5, 2013 Excerpt: Weighing in at 11 times Jupiter's mass and orbiting its star at 650 times the average Earth-Sun distance, planet HD 106906 b is unlike anything in our own Solar System and throws a wrench in planet formation theories. "This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see," said Vanessa Bailey, who led the research. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205141629.htm Are Saturn’s Rings Evolving? July - 2010 Excerpt: Not all is well in theories of planet formation, though. Astrobiology Magazine complained this week that many of the exoplanets discovered around other stars do not fit theories of the origin of the solar system. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100710a Lava World Baffles Astronomers: Planet Kepler-78b 'Shouldn't Exist' - Oct. 30, 2013 Excerpt: Kepler-78b is a planet that shouldn't exist. This scorching lava world circles its star every eight and a half hours at a distance of less than one million miles -- one of the tightest known orbits. According to current theories of planet formation, it couldn't have formed so close to its star, nor could it have moved there. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131030142915.htm New study sheds new light on planet formation - July 4, 2012 Excerpt: The study,, began with a curious and unexpected finding: Within three years, the cloud of dust circling a young star in the Scorpius-Centaurus stellar nursery simply disappeared."The most commonly accepted time scale for the removal of this much dust is in the hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions," said study co-author Inseok Song,,, "What we saw was far more rapid and has never been observed or even predicted. It tells us that we have a lot more to learn about planet formation.",,, "Many astronomers may feel uncomfortable with the suggested explanations for the disappearance of the dust because each of them has non-traditional implications," Song said, "but my hope that this line of research can bring us closer to a true understanding of how planets form." http://phys.org/news/2012-07-planet-formation.html Our Very Normal Solar System Isn't Normal Anymore by Robert Krulwich - May 07, 2013 Excerpt: As of this month, we've discovered 884 planets, 692 planetary systems, 132 of them with more than one planet and, strange to tell, almost none of them look like us.,,, "Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply." We had our frost line. We knew how solar systems formed. "It was a really beautiful theory," he says. "And, clearly, thoroughly wrong.",,, "It really is something that I find deeply weird," he (an astronomer) writes. "What does it all mean? I don't know. I am certain that this single-minded emphasis on planets-in-habitable-zones is making people forget that there is still a lot of weird stuff happening out there and that we still don't even understand the basics of how we ourselves got here." http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/05/06/181613582/our-very-normal-solar-system-isn-t-normal-anymore Ancient alien planets shake up view of our early universe - March 2012 Excerpt: Astronomers have discovered a planetary system that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than has been thought. The system consists of a star called HIP 11952 and two Jupiter-like alien planets. It is just 375 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Cetus (the Whale). The planets are likely the oldest yet found; at 12.8 billion years old, they're just 900 million years younger than the universe itself, according to the commonly accepted Big Bang theory.,,, It is widely accepted that planets coalesce from the swirling disks of dust and gas that surround young stars. Classical models of planet formation hold that metal-poor stars are unlikely to harbor planets, while worlds should form far more easily around metal-rich suns. But recent discoveries, including the HIP 11952 system, have astronomers rethinking these models. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46910290/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T3dzpdX5a6N Medium size worlds upset “Earth is not unique” planet modelling - January 2012 Excerpt: But what has puzzled observers and theorists so far is the high proportion of planets — roughly one-third to one-half — that are bigger than Earth but smaller than Neptune. These ‘super-Earths’ are emerging as a new category of planet — and they could be the most numerous of all (see ‘Super-Earths rising’). Their very existence upsets conventional models of planetary formation and, furthermore, most of them are in tight orbits around their host star, precisely where the modellers say they shouldn’t be. https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/medium-size-worlds-upset-earth-is-not-unique-planet-modelling/ "If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our 'Garden of Eden', that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances." Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000)
bornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Z:
Mapou: You argued that a historical progression was proof of Darwinian evolution. Um, no. Science doesn’t deal in proof, but evidence. The term “Darwinian evolution” is ambiguous. Nor is a single line of evidence considered sufficient to support evolution.
Man, give it a rest. Simple logic tells you that if evidence A is advanced for hypothesis X, A can no longer be used as evidence for X if it is also evidence for competing hypothesis Y. But since you insist on being many people in one, it goes without saying that simple logic is not your forte, eh Z.?Mapou_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

No, there isn't any evidence for such an age for the earth, not even in the Bible. But say, for example, the earth was made out of old material. If the earth was never totally molten it would be possible to preserve the decay chain that had begun billions of years ago when the meteor, asteroid or comet first formed. Then we come along and think that is the age of the earth when it is only the age of the material that made the earth. Again your position is the earth is the result of cosmic collisions- must have been some just-so collisions...Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Joe, can you suggest a mechanism of planet formation which would make it possible to claim that the Earth formed in the year 4004 BC?Piotr_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Fish continue to evolve.
Into fish. Fish evolved from fish and will continue to evolve into fish. That is what the evidence says.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Piotr:
Maybe we should have a show of hands: how many people here accept the modern scientific consensus on the age of the Earth (about 4.5 billion years)?
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron. In order to determine the age of the earth you have to first determine how it was formed. No one has made such a determination. In order to get fish to evolve into tetrapods you need a mechanism capable of producing such a transformation. No one has ever demonstrated such a mechanism exists.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply