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

ppolish, you may like this: Evolution Cartoon - Waiting For That Beneficial Mutation - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-QYtxi8Bwbornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

#62 ppolish, Why do you think the evolution of fish should drive them to grow legs and colonise land? The first terrestrial tetrapods were pioneers who found plenty of habitable terrestrial niches to fill (plus safety from aquatic predators). Now those niches are no longer empty; lands are overcrowded. Fish can very well evolve in water. Look what has happened to African cichlids since the last ice age: they have radiated into about 2000 species in 15,000 years or so as they colonised newly formed great lakes with varied habitats. And then, of course, some fishes do walk on land. Mudskippers, leaping blennies, snakeheads, and many more.Piotr_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

In the video I referenced, which Zach took exception to because Dr. Jones may hold a YEC view, (I don't recall him specifically mentioning it in the video), Dr. Jones noted that "Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.”"
“For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.” Dr. Arthur Jones – did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids – Fish, Fossils and Evolution – Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark (many examples of repeated morphology in cichlids) – video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14
Although Zach and other neo-Darwinists would love to dismiss this 'lack of links' problem by simply saying that Dr. Jones is a YEC and thus can safely be ignored, the fact of the matter is that Darwinists themselves admit “links” are decidedly missing”. So this 'problem' for Darwinists is not the figment of some YEC imagination but is in fact a real problem that Darwinists have no coherent explanation for:
"Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record." Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46. "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, former Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Tom S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York; Oxford University Press, 1999), 246. - Curator of Zoological Collections "Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.” Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 187. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould "The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." R.A. Raff and T.C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 34. "Species [in the strata of the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming] that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 95.
I could cite literally dozens of more quotes by leading paleontologist saying pretty mush the exact same thing ! Thus, the 'lack of links' problem is not so easily dismissed as Zach dishonestly tries to pretend it is. Moreover, not only are links 'decidedly missing' in the fossil record, but the fossil record is actually 'upside-down' compared to what is expected in Darwinism. The Cambrian Explosion is especially good for showing the 'upside-down' pattern of disparity preceding diversity that is completely contrary to Darwinian explanations:
Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKxkUb_AAg
, as Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin's tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
The Theory - Diversity precedes Disparity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif
But that 'tree pattern' that Darwin predicted in his book is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin's theory predicted.
The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark - upside-down fossil record) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY Part 2 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from 'Darwin's Doubt' (Disparity preceding Diversity) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/its_darwins_dou074341.html “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas." James W. Valentine - as quoted from "On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine" - (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595
Moreover, there are 'yawning chasms' in the 'morphological space' between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
"Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space." Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this 'top down', disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: "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. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html
Thus contrary to the dishonest way in which Zach tried to dismiss what Dr. Jones said, the fact of the matter is that the 'lack of links problem' is real and Darwinists, as usual, have no coherent explanation for why the fossil record disagrees with their materialistic theory.bornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Zach, when I said "fish stopped evolving" I was not talking about going blind in a cave or getting smaller. I was talking about transitioning into land crawlers. And then small furry things. You know, populating the Earth evolution. It seems like they have retired from that kind of thing.ppolish_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

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)?Piotr_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Box, I think the Evo Creation Story is a bit like Genesis. There was a time for fish creation and a time for crawling thing creation etc. Then it becomes a matter of going forth and multiplying.ppolish_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

supplemental note:
Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
bornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

ppolish: this fish is a model of ID and guided purposeful evolution: http://www.nature.com/news/how.....lk-1.15778 The experiment uses artificial selection as a mimic for what was the posited natural selective pressures.Zachriel_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, quantum mechanics, contrary to what you believe, falsifies the reductive materialism upon which neo-Darwinism is based. Non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, quantum entanglement/information has now been found in molecular biology on a massive scale. i.e. In every DNA and protein molecule.
Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011 Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules. http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quantum-entanglement-hot-systems/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain - Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija - 2006 Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural - amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy - classical and quantum state, and (3) information - classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system. http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491 Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That's a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/ etc.. etc..
That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! And although Naturalists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.
"[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not." Eugene Wigner Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism By Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D Excerpt: The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism. http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952939
Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is falsified in its claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a reductive materialistic basis. Verse and Music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Bohemian Rhapsody Played by 100+ year old fairground organ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTnGI6Knw5Q
bornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Ppolish: Today’s fish are the monkeys of the future. Why have fish stopped evolving? Or are they just taking a breather?
Every day we see fish attempt their clumsy first steps at the beach. Problem is they go extinct every time. But perhaps one day ...Box_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Zach, this fish is a model of ID and guided purposeful evolution: http://www.nature.com/news/how-fish-can-learn-to-walk-1.15778 For this fish to give rise to a mammal a hundred or so million years from now would require gobs of ID. Boggles the mind.ppolish_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

ppolish: Why have fish stopped evolving? Fish continue to evolve. What makes you think otherwise? bornagain77: so Leggett’s inequality is no problem for your atheistic materialism as long as you can issue ad hominem against YECs? We didn't issue an ad hominem, but pointed out that IDers have wildly disparate and contradictory views on the historical progression. Leggett's inequality seems to undermine realism in quantum mechanics, but that's not the same as metaphysical realism. 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.Zachriel_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, so Leggett's inequality is no problem for your atheistic materialism as long as you can issue ad hominem against YECs? Non sequitur! As to monolithic beliefs, it seems atheistic evolutionists also suffer from a disparity of views. In fact so deep is the disagreement in the materialistic views of evolution that it threatens to rip neo-Darwinism asunder: Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin October 8, 2014 Excerpt: "The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis) often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders -- such as physiologists or developmental biologists -- flood into their field." (Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) ) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? (Yes! Urgently) – Oct. 2014 http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080 Darwin's Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem - video - The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin's Doubt in which 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to 'make up' for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iREO1h4h-GU&index=10&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin - April 22, 2014 Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said that view under-represents the real facts being discovered in evolutionary biology. “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.” http://www.worldmag.com/2014/04/scientists_stunned_by_the_public_s_doubt_of_darwinbornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Zach, the Earth may still have life one billion years from now. Today's fish are the monkeys of the future. Why have fish stopped evolving? Or are they just taking a breather?ppolish_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, you're a propaganda artist, i.e., a weaver of lies and deception. You argued that a historical progression was proof of Darwinian evolution. You were shown to be wrong, as usual. You are weak minded, a pathetic loser with time on his hands.Mapou_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: This is always the fun part about Intelligent Design. They can’t even agree on the obvious historical progression. Mapou: I’m an IDist and I have no problem with historical progression. Sure, but that's doesn't contradict the claim, which is that IDers have wildly disparate and contradictory views on the subject. Bornagain77 just cited a young Earth creationist, for instance. Mapou: Biology did not invent this. No, the discovery is credited to William Smith, a geologist. Mapou: Darwinists sure did not invent it. It’s there for everybody to see. Think you mean observed, not seen. The idea is that strata in different locations can be correlated.Zachriel_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Z:
Mapou: Man, that’s pure chicken feather pseudoscience. This is always the fun part about Intelligent Design. They can’t even agree on the obvious historical progression.
This is a lame and stupid strawman. I'm an IDist and I have no problem with historical progression. It's in the fossil record.
One of the most important facts in biology is that life today is not the same as the life of yesterday,
So what? Biology did not invent this. Darwinists sure did not invent it. It's there for everybody to see.
and that life today is descended from the life of yesterday.
You can spew this crap till you turn blue but it's still crap. Historical progression does not imply descent. It implies design over time. Ask any archaeologist.Mapou_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Zach at 43 states:
"They can’t even agree on whether the Earth is six thousand years old or four billion."
Zach, as a person who believes atheistic materialism to be true, you have far bigger problems than the person does who believes the earth to be young:
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!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU Do we create the world just by looking at it? - 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. Preceding quote taken from this following video; Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video) http://vimeo.com/37517080
Leggett's Inequality, the mathematics behind it, and the Theistic implications of it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:
Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449 Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
bornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

vel- I screwed up: Saving endangered species by translocation Conant, S. (1988) “Saving Endangered Species by Translocation”. Bioscience 38:254-57Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

So you are saying the paper claims they were not identical finches? Even the Conant paper? Really?
True, they changed from the orginal population, but interestingly not all the bird translocated had wider beaks , that trait seemed to be correlated with a food source.
Exactly as Spetner predicted. And exactly what Darwin's finches displayed. His finches didn't need millions of years as he thought.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Joe: Pimm, S. L., (1988) “Rapid morphological change in an introduced bird”. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 3: 290-91 Sorry find no support for your claim that" Identical finches, vel. The same species, the same markings, the same beak sizes, the same genes." In fact that would be counterproductive for the reason the birds were introduced To provide alternate viable populations. and within 17 years that all changed- beak sizes with accompanying muscles, markings- all changed. True, they changed from the orginal population, but interestingly not all the bird translocated had wider beaks , that trait seemed to be correlated with a food source.velikovskys_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

They can’t even agree on whether the Earth is six thousand years old or four billion.
The age of the Earth depends on how it was formed.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: This is always the fun part about Intelligent Design. They can’t even agree on the obvious historical progression. bornagai77: Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids (fish) Even better. They can't even agree on whether the Earth is six thousand years old or four billion.Zachriel_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30932397 Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids (fish), comments "For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing." Dr. Arthur Jones - did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids - Fish, Fossils and Evolution - Cichlids at 29:00 minute mark (many examples of repeated morphology in cichlids) - video http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/14bornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Darwin imagined bears evolving into whales- he was quite the story teller.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
They can’t even agree on the obvious historical progression.
No one can demonstrate any obvious historical progression. That would be one reason, Zachriel. Story-telling, while interesting, is not science. You need a mechanism that can account for the changes required and you don't have one.Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
One of the most important facts in biology is that life today is not the same as the life of yesterday, and that life today is descended from the life of yesterday.
Baraminology, again.
Some descendants of fish are not fish, including humans.
All descendants of fish were fish. And it will always be that way until fish go extinct. Science says fish give rise to fish. Imagination says Zachriel wants to be Mr Limpet, although not as incredible... :cool:Joe_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

ppolish: Where are the thousands and thousands of gasping crawling transitional fish species that should be around today per Evo Theory. They're extinct, and we have evidence of their existence. Mapou: Man, that’s pure chicken feather pseudoscience. This is always the fun part about Intelligent Design. They can't even agree on the obvious historical progression. One of the most important facts in biology is that life today is not the same as the life of yesterday, and that life today is descended from the life of yesterday.Zachriel_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

ppolish, you really need to let go of your common sense if you are ever going to get this Darwinism stuff down :) Maybe if you dropped some acid it would help you see the logic of Darwinism more clearly? Watch What Happens When a Portrait Artist Takes LSD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4Sb8jCJUTwbornagain77_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Z:
Some descendants of fish are not fish, including humans.
Man, that's pure chicken feather pseudoscience. Just because humans have genes or DNA sequences in common with fish does not mean that they descended from fish. It means that humans and fish had a common designer. Is the modern automobile a descendent of horse carriages because they share some common designs? Please. PS. Why do you feign stupidity, Zachriel?Mapou_{April 1, 2015
April
04
Apr
1
01
2015
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply