"Young Earth" creationist discovers 60MM year old fossil

[zyxt9]

Ok, cool. I appreciate the discussion and thank you for the inspiring debate.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So what official organizations say it's not a fact?
This is from the National Academy:http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=11

 

[zyxt9]

I'm sure you caught how that link supports both of our arguments. Lol. It seems this is an issue many in science are attempting to come to terms with. I just hold to the more strict, old-school definitions, while many in science have taken the "its just a theory" by lay people as a reason to change the way these things are defined, and consequently have labeled theories as facts. I get the reason, I guess I'm just too old school. To me theories are still in development, even if the core is factual and the only studies are in answering the final 1% of questions and predictions. That's all. I am not disputing the factual information.

When it cones to the process, yes, that is proven and therefore that is factual. The questionable part that is yet proven by experimentation is the necessity for all life to have a single ancestor, which I believe to be false and need experimental proof that a lab created lifeform has 0% similarity with any lifeform inhabiting Earth. Sorry, I need proof on that and science is still a few years away from providing that factual answer. I also would like the predictions for more complex organisms branching off a new species to be proven. These are the biggest remaining questions I have, and why I still categorize it as theory, despite some claims that there is nothing left to prove and is therefore a scientific fact.

These I think are taken by champ as assertions that Evolution is a falsehood, when in reality they are scientific questions that will one day be answered and thereby bringing the theory closer toward a 100% complletion, at which time it changes from theory to fact because all hypothesies about evolution have been answered scientifically.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So that "Evolution is a theory and a fact" link...if you keep reading it gets into religion and there's a dead link to a project that can be googled. There's a statement on accepting evolution and modern science signed by 13,000 clergy. It goes so far as to say that teaching evolution as one theory among others is to transmit ignorance to our children and that a failure to employ critical thought is a rejection of the will of our Creator. The guy behind the project maintains a list of 1,000 scientists that have agreed to act as technical consultants for clergy members with questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project

 

[zyxt9]

UM...ok...what does religion have to do with my views on Evolution? My scientific questions are solely that, requests for a couple hypotheies to reach their conclusions which have dramatic importance on the theory.

Is it possible for more complex beings to spin off new species or is there a point where the evolutionary progress makes it impossible to advance off a species due to complexity? Sort of like building with just bricks vs concrete vs steel...does an end point exist that only allows the complexity to advance to a limit, or can it continue indefinitely, and if it is limited, what is the method for identifying that limit. There shoukd be at a minimum some rough math to base it off, with an error around 10 million years. ;P

And the issue of single vs mutiple originators has to be considered a piece needing to be answered as well. Does it apply to all living organisms, or just the ones we are linked with? This has universal connotations.

These are not trivial pieces that should be casually dismissed. Scientists shoukd not change the status from theory to fact when these types of hypothesies remain unanswered.

Why is it such a terrible thing to maintain that Evolution is still in the theory stage? Yes, a vast amount of facts have been discovered, that doesn't mean everything is complete.

I'm not attacking the theory!!!! I have not once made any comment about the biblical creationists being correct, because I do not believe they are remotely right and have oft defended the science of evolution against such crack pots. All I am saying is there remain unresolved hypothesies, one's that have considerable impact on the final way Evolution is presented as Scientific Fact. All scientists should be demanding the same, and the fact so many are being so flippant and casual is a disgrace, IMHO. Scientists need to follow the rules of science and not be Frustrated because of bible thumping crack pots.

Yes, this IS about integrity. If we casually blur the line with evolution, then where does the line move to? Suddenly mere hypothesies become scientific fact simply because scientists do not wish to debate or finish the appropriate work on a subject. It is, IMO, disgraceful that so many feel it is acceptable to change a yet finished theory into a fact simply because lay people attack the word theory due to being uneducated.

Sorry, just tired of people assuming I am pro-religious creationist about this instead of understanding the questions I pose are purely scientific. I care not what religious people think about the topic or their opinions, whether they accept the theory or not is of zero importance to me.

 

[zyxt9]

The importance of verifying single vs multiple is there because it dramatically alters the evolution timeline. If we all came from a single ancestor, then after the mass extinction events the repopulatiin of species meant a very fast spinning off of species, even relatively complex ones. If multiiple, then the repopulatiin after mass extinctions does not require as drastic degree of spinning off species.

As for the end point of speciation, this plays a role on whether we will ever witness spin off activity from older lines like tortoise, turtle, alligator, and crocodile aged species. Yes there are variants of each of thise types, obviously. I'm talking about drastic changes that present a higher degree of change, like in the number of gene pairs and such. Will any of them advance to the level humans/mammals have in terms of using tools and communicating with humans.

These are important aspects to understand but are yet unanswered. How difficult is it for evolution to create human level intelligent life? This brings about the probability of human level intelligent life in the galaxy and universe. These are not trivial questions being posed.

 

[Gulo Blue]

UM...ok...what does religion have to do with my views on Evolution?

That wasn't directed at you. It was a step back towards the original topic.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Is it possible for more complex beings to spin off new species or is there a point where the evolutionary progress makes it impossible to advance off a species due to complexity?

We'll find out around 2045, right?

 

[Michchamp]

So that "Evolution is a theory and a fact" link...if you keep reading it gets into religion and there's a dead link to a project that can be googled. There's a statement on accepting evolution and modern science signed by 13,000 clergy. It goes so far as to say that teaching evolution as one theory among others is to transmit ignorance to our children and that a failure to employ critical thought is a rejection of the will of our Creator. The guy behind the project maintains a list of 1,000 scientists that have agreed to act as technical consultants for clergy members with questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project

Wow. it only took the more progressive elements of organized religion ~ 150 years to catch up to scientific thought.

or to say "catch up to scientific thought" another way: "realize increasingly large #'s of the population found them completely irrelevent, and decided they needed to shore up their image in order to improve the bottom line ($$$)."

 

[zyxt9]

That wasn't directed at you. It was a step back towards the original topic.

Ah, ok...it was a bit of a drastic change in direction that I missed...my bad.

 

[zyxt9]

We'll find out around 2045, right?

By then we will have the 2030 prediction of everyone having brain chips and the entire world will be operating as one massive cyborg system with the ULTIMATE COMPUTING POWER AT HAND!!!! BWAHAHAHHAHAHA....ooops, sorry. But if that happened, that amount of computing power might provide an answer a little sooner than 2045! lol

 

[Gulo Blue]

Wow. it only took the more progressive elements of organized religion ~ 150 years to catch up to scientific thought.

I suspect you know that's BS, but if you don't, that's BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#History_of_evolutionary_thought

 

[Michchamp]

I suspect you know that's BS, but if you don't, that's BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#History_of_evolutionary_thought

Wow, yeah, it's more like 165-170.

"In 1842, Charles Darwin penned his first sketch of what became On the Origin of Species."
​

thanks for the link.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Wow, yeah, it's more like 165-170.

"In 1842, Charles Darwin penned his first sketch of what became On the Origin of Species."
​

thanks for the link.

The Catholic Church never attacked the theory of evolution. We were on board from the start.

The first full-fledged evolutionary scheme was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's "transmutation" theory of 1809[41] which envisaged spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life that developed greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency, and that on a local level these lineages adapted to the environment by inheriting changes caused by use or disuse in parents.[42][43] (The latter process was later called Lamarckism.)

Catholic

In 1865, Gregor Mendel reported that traits were inherited in a predictable manner through the independent assortment and segregation of elements (later known as genes). Mendel's laws of inheritance eventually supplanted most of Darwin's pangenesis theory.

Mendel was a Catholic friar who conducted his research in a monastary.

 

[Michchamp]

The Catholic Church never attacked the theory of evolution. We were on board from the start.

Catholic

Mendel was a Catholic friar who conducted his research in a monastary.

please tell me more about how the Catholic Church has been such a progressive influence on humanity.

 

[Gulo Blue]

please tell me more about how the Catholic Church has been such a progressive influence on humanity.

Ok. I assume this source is progressive enough for you.

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/10/pdf/progressive_traditions6.pdf

 

[mhughes0021]

why did our brain size grow astronomically in such a short period of time? Aliens. Were all Aliens!!!!!!!

 

[Michchamp]

Ok. I assume this source is progressive enough for you.

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/10/pdf/progressive_traditions6.pdf

wow... I didn't know!