Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(14-05-2013 02:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-05-2013 02:36 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  But the very photo you posted is a "reconstruction" based on several different partial skeletons from several different sources, right? Wrong?


Here's one example of what I mean:

http://phys.org/news202456660.html

Which underscores my contention that vestigial organs and limbs are not real things in our biosphere. I've been doing more reading from secular sources on evolution. I imagine you did not post the kiwi photo because you know its wings represent degenerative loss or devolution and not evolution.


Read the first sentence again and you'll get to the crux of Christian "special pleading" on this issue. We can date the strata itself, or if we don't like those dates that are generated, date the strata based on the presumed age of the fossil within...


I don't believe in Theistic Evolution, either. I understand that "mechanistic random processes" is another way of saying "genetic drift, mutation, migration, extinction, catastrophe, etc., etc." -- that is, all natural processes. I understand that specific stimuli initiate evolution.

The just so comes in with the lack of empirical evidence for stimulia for the Cambrian explosion and other explosions in their diversity and rapidity. "Maybe a meteorite just so" or "Maybe global cooling just so" and etc.

I have every right as a Bible person who uses logic to call out "just so" when I see it. I see DOZENS of threads here weekly that accuse God just so of being omnisicient or subsuming free will or being capricious. DOZENS of them without giving one iota of reference to any scripture from any religious tradition or even doing the courtesy of looking at available, millennia-long philosophy on the facts. Pot and kettle.

There must thousands of just so examples between a sightless animal and a sighted species. Do you disagree? What is your estimate on mutation rates for every billion creatures? And how many anomalies have to happen to develop an eye and the attachments to the brain to make it work?

So, have you read any of the books recommended to you? Consider

Wait. You mean he can read ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 03:48 PM (This post was last modified: 14-05-2013 04:20 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(13-05-2013 01:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:"I did see those things in the records and have looked for them-I just mentioned how wearying and frustrating it is to learn how the whale bones and a dozen other smoking guns of macro-changes have been debunked."

Please show me where they have been debunked.

Here's one example that frustrated me. You mentioned the whale antecedents a few times, so I said to myself, "Okay, that's interesting. I want more about this whale set of changes." Typically and time permitting, I read data from both sides on something like this. I was so frustrated when I compared A and B bone structures for Ambulocetus at this page that it's hard to tell you just how I felt:

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-c...-evolution

Really looking at Lucy's bones, what bones are added to dinosaur finds elsewhere, proto-human theories, etc. it really never ends.

Quote:"Taking species with different sized skulls or different sized appendages and placing them in lines of order and hierarchies, even genotype relationships, does not show ANY of the tens to thousands to millions of generational steps. Not to mention that we can't show common ancestry or hierarchies anymore and merely, relationships!"

These relationships are shown as though in family trees. Your comment is akin to being unable to believe your own family tree because it contains people in it who were not exactly like you in size, shape, hair color, and gender.

And common ancestry is shown in any given phylogenetic tree. You think it is a common thing for an organism to be placed in the fossil record and just as common for the species you want to be fossilized too. Fossilization not only requires unique surface conditions, but it also require opportunity. Often times, only species with sufficiently large numbers are preserved and/or recovered from the rocks.

I understand, nor am I looking for some kind of straight line of descent. I understand the difference between modern phylogenies and some kind of hierarchy straw man argument from 100 years ago. And please understand (I'm not sure why you don't already) that I know enough to know how rare and unusual fossilization is. Having said that, how many modern and ancient species of birds are preserved as fossils in museums now? More specifically (or generally) aren't there thousands upon thousands of bird fossils in museums, even millions? How many of them have... wait for it... three wings, four wings, five wings or one? In statistics, millions of iterations without a single deviation are taken as... no deviations exist.

Quote:"In math we are taught as children to show all work/steps. This nowhere exists for evolutionary theory as touching these kinds of macro changes. Yes, I read your point about baby birds. I was also a fetus with certain parts and a child that went through puberty and changed per my genetic encoding. And?"

This isn't math. Not every step is preserved. I don't know what to tell you. But you no more need every step to determine evolution, than you need to show a mathematical proof for 1 + 1 = 2, and I mean more than just the previously shown equation.

As for the baby birds, it shows you the purpose of a "half-formed" wing. They use their wings functionally for something other than flight. The wing that is useless for flight, is still useful for something else.

That's a half-formed wing of a non-adult bird. We all know that puberty bring significant physiological and brain chemistry, etc. changes. That's doesn't prove that they didn't rapidly or slowly evolve through a half-formed wing stage and doesn't prove they did not, either.

Quote:"I'm very honestly trying to understand how macro-changes are possible, plausible, probable, etc. I'm getting the sense, however, that there are no realistic ways to falsify the theory in your opinion(s), which proves its unfalsifiability."

First off, what do you mean by "macro" changes? Do you mean speciation? You are aware of our observations of speciation in the modern, right?

Also, it would be quite simple to falsify evolution. Find one instance of an organism that predates its ancestor in the rock record. One rabbit in the Cambrian. One reptile in the Ediacaran. One tetrapod in the Archean. It would be very simple to falsify it with a simple and single credible and verifiable discovery in the rock record. And that is but one example of how to falsify evolution using fossils.

Genetics support evolution too. Had different organisms or even different kingdoms of life had different methods for coding proteins and their cells, it would have demonstrated no common ancestry. But all life shares the same genetic basis.

That's not true for several reasons IMO:

1. I wonder how many on this forum realize we often don't date the rocks fossils are preserved in but date adjacent strata.

2. I admit and hope you will too that ones that fall outside the accepted limits are falsified. We've changed the dates geologic ages began and ended before rather than falsify evolution.

3. The Cambrian and other explosions are making a lot of secular scientists doubt the party line. Your statement completely contradicts the anomalies of the species explosions in the same record.

1. We all know that.
The oldest method is stratigraphy, studying how deeply a fossil is buried. Dinosaur fossils are usually found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock layers (strata) are formed episodically as earth is deposited horizontally over time. Newer layers are formed on top of older layers, pressurizing them into rocks. Paleontologists can estimate the amount of time that has passed since the stratum containing the fossil was formed. Generally, deeper rocks and fossils are older than those found above them.
Observations of the fluctuations of the Earth's magnetic field, which leaves different magnetic fields in rocks from different geological eras.
Dating a fossil in terms of approximately how many years old it is can be possible using radioisotope-dating of igneous rocks found near the fossil. Unstable radioactive isotopes of elements, such as Uranium-235, decay at constant, known rates over time (its half-life, which is over 700 million years). An accurate estimate of the rock's age can be determined by examining the ratios of the remaining radioactive element and its daughters. For example, when lava cools, it has no lead content but it does contain some radioactive Uranium (U-235). Over time, the unstable radioactive Uranium decays into its daughter, Lead-207, at a constant, known rate (its half-life). By comparing the relative proportion of Uranium-235 and Lead-207, the age of the igneous rock can be determined. Potassium-40 (which decays to argon-40) is also used to date fossils.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,568 years. That means that half of the C-14 decays (into nitrogen-14) in 5,568 years. Half of the remaining C-14 decays in the next 5,568 years, etc. This is too short a half-life to date dinosaurs; C-14 dating is useful for dating items up to about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago (useful for dating organiams like Neanderthal man and ice age animals).

Radioisotope dating cannot be used directly on fossils since they don't contain the unstable radioactive isotopes used in the dating process. To determine a fossil's age, igneous layers (volcanic rock) beneath the fossil (predating the fossil) and above it (representing a time after the dinosaur's existence) are dated, resulting in a time-range for the dinosaur's life. Thus, dinosaurs are dated with respect to volcanic eruptions.
Looking for index fossils - Certain common fossils are important in determining ancient biological history. These fossil are widely distributed around the Earth but limited in time span. Examples of index fossils include brachiopods (which appeared in the Cambrian period), trilobites (which probably originated in the pre-Cambrian or early Paleozoic and are common throughout the Paleozoic layer - about half of Paleozoic fossils are trilobites), ammonites (from the Triassic and Jurassic periods, and went extinct during the K-T extinction), many nanofossils (microscopic fossils from various eras which are widely distributed, abundant, and time-specific), etc.

2. If a fossil falls out side of the current scheme every effort it made to understand why. Every case is unique, and almost all of them were due to dating errors.

3. The ediacaran fossils transition to the Cambrian explosion, and show a progressive evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Also Retroviruses and other evidence from DNA makes evolution more than assertion, or inferences.



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
14-05-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(14-05-2013 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-05-2013 02:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  So, have you read any of the books recommended to you? Consider

Wait. You mean he can read ?

I may be assuming facts not in evidence. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Your creationist, anti-evolutionary friends are lying to you.



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
PJ, seriously, read the Jerry Coyne book, Why Evolution Is True. He explains how natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation work among other things. Also explained are now recent advances in molecular biology and continuing archaeological findings are supporting evolution.. Biology is not my strong point, and the book explains the science behind it better than I ever could. Several others here suggested it and for good reason. You asked for good book recommendations, and this one is an excellent one for non-scientists to learn more about it. I won't get into debating the subject with you, but merely echo the suggestions to read this book and decide for yourself.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjs's post
15-05-2013, 07:49 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(14-05-2013 02:36 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:When a website takes a partially complete skeleton and then someone argues for a differing interpretation for the use of the limbs, it doesn't gain them any ground. If they had a legitimate argument for it, they could publish it as science in a peer-reviewed journal. They haven't.

But the very photo you posted is a "reconstruction" based on several different partial skeletons from several different sources, right? Wrong?

Quote:This is why I can't take you seriously. Your arguments require a suspension of the most basic tenants of physics. They are the ramblings of someone who is rehashing the creationist special pleadings while ignoring the arguments by science refuting those claims.

Here's one example of what I mean:

http://phys.org/news202456660.html

Quote:I have already shown you how the wings of other birds not used for flight are still used.
Which underscores my contention that vestigial organs and limbs are not real things in our biosphere. I've been doing more reading from secular sources on evolution. I imagine you did not post the kiwi photo because you know its wings represent degenerative loss or devolution and not evolution.

Quote:They are defined off of the either the fossil assemblage in most cases (like the first appearance of a particular trace fossil for the base of the Cambrian), or in some cases by the deposition of certain types of strata (like cap carbonates in the Cryogenian). After the boundary is set as the occurrence of a fossil or deposition of a layer, the boundary is dated. As we explore more rocks and more outcrops, we find things like the first appearance of a fossil in older strata than we had previously. This means shifting the age of the boundary.

Read the first sentence again and you'll get to the crux of Christian "special pleading" on this issue. We can date the strata itself, or if we don't like those dates that are generated, date the strata based on the presumed age of the fossil within...

Quote:No one believes in "mechanistic random processes" in terms of evolution. Where are you getting this from? When have I said that. Where is that mentioned in any of the books you have read on evolution?

I don't believe in Theistic Evolution, either. I understand that "mechanistic random processes" is another way of saying "genetic drift, mutation, migration, extinction, catastrophe, etc., etc." -- that is, all natural processes. I understand that specific stimuli initiate evolution.

The just so comes in with the lack of empirical evidence for stimulia for the Cambrian explosion and other explosions in their diversity and rapidity. "Maybe a meteorite just so" or "Maybe global cooling just so" and etc.

I have every right as a Bible person who uses logic to call out "just so" when I see it. I see DOZENS of threads here weekly that accuse God just so of being omnisicient or subsuming free will or being capricious. DOZENS of them without giving one iota of reference to any scripture from any religious tradition or even doing the courtesy of looking at available, millennia-long philosophy on the facts. Pot and kettle.

There must thousands of just so examples between a sightless animal and a sighted species. Do you disagree? What is your estimate on mutation rates for every billion creatures? And how many anomalies have to happen to develop an eye and the attachments to the brain to make it work?

"But the very photo you posted is a "reconstruction" based on several different partial skeletons from several different sources, right? Wrong?"

[Image: AmbulocetusBonesPhoto.jpg]

And then, when you find that you have the same bones that have the same shape and they are from the same rocks, you can assert that you have the same animal and begin to look at completing the fossil. The fact that incomplete specimens have been found, doesn't negate the reconstructions that are based off of more than one specimen.

"Here's one example of what I mean:"

http://phys.org/news202456660.html


"Jenkins and Fischbach collaborated with Peter Sturrock, a professor emeritus of applied physics at Stanford University and an expert on the inner workings of the sun, to examine data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on the rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes silicon-32 and chlorine-36. The team reported in the journal Astroparticle Physics that the decay rate for both isotopes varies in a 33-day recurring pattern, which they attribute to the rotation rate of the sun's core."

Which discusses how the decay rate can vary by minor amounts in a few isotopes, at the surface, in regular intervals. This has no bearing on the decay rates of any system we use to date rocks. Like U-Th-Pb, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Nd-Sm, Rb-Sr, etc

"Which underscores my contention that vestigial organs and limbs are not real things in our biosphere. I've been doing more reading from secular sources on evolution. I imagine you did not post the kiwi photo because you know its wings represent degenerative loss or devolution and not evolution."

I didn't post the kiwi because I didn't think of it. The kiwi's vestigial wings are indeed an example of evolution, which includes the loss of structures not being used, which you termed as "devolution."

Your, and other creationists, charge is that "half a wing" is useless. That is demonstrably false. You only need one kidney to survive. So, what good is half a kidney? More use that no kidney. You can live with a partial liver transplant. So, what use is half a liver? About half as much as a full liver. What you coin as traits that serve no purpose, is because you only see wings as serving one purpose, under the assumption that wings are designed. Once again, your hands have been adapted for gripping, but you use them for writing, typing, driving, and I am sure numerous other activities. Wings don't serve a single function, and never have.

"Read the first sentence again and you'll get to the crux of Christian "special pleading" on this issue. We can date the strata itself, or if we don't like those dates that are generated, date the strata based on the presumed age of the fossil within..."

You're still missing the point. We don't date the strata by the fossils that are in it. We can assign them to a particular period since most only live for short windows of time. But the ages of the boundaries are not defined by the fossils, the location is defined by the fossils.

We define the beginning of the Cambrian as the first occurrence of a particular vertical burrow. This homogenizes everything so that when someone in China talks about the early Cambrian, they are talking about the same interval of time as everyone else. After defining the geologic/fossil basis for the boundary, radiometric dating is then used to constrain the age of the boundary.

The fossil doesn't define the number value of the age. At all.

" don't believe in Theistic Evolution, either. I understand that "mechanistic random processes" is another way of saying "genetic drift, mutation, migration, extinction, catastrophe, etc., etc." -- that is, all natural processes. I understand that specific stimuli initiate evolution."

It isn't, because there isn't anything random about evolution. There are chaotic processes going on around life (like catastrophes) but chaotic does not mean random. Genetic drift and mutation are not evolution. They are sources of variability in the gene pool. Migration can splinter a population, like all the different tribes of native americans in the US.

"The just so comes in with the lack of empirical evidence for stimulia for the Cambrian explosion and other explosions in their diversity and rapidity. "Maybe a meteorite just so" or "Maybe global cooling just so" and etc."

You are ignoring the observation, and trying to discredit the causes that have been given. Causes by the way, that have evidence to support them. Whenever we discuss things like climate change in the fossil record, we can use stable isotopes (like carbon and oxygen). So, we can indeed tell what the climate was doing. The isotopes of sulfur, molybdenum, and carbon can give indications of atmospheric O2 levels.

Regardless of whether someones explanation of the cause for the Cambrian Explosion is correct, the observation is sound and the amount of time it took has been well established through multiple authors.

I will be the first to admit that there are researchers out there pushing some incredibly stupid and unfounded "just-so" stories. But they are not the views that most share, because they are typically unfounded. But, if those people bring credible data to the table to support their claim, I'll listen.

"I have every right as a Bible person who uses logic to call out "just so" when I see it. I see DOZENS of threads here weekly that accuse God just so of being omnisicient or subsuming free will or being capricious. DOZENS of them without giving one iota of reference to any scripture from any religious tradition or even doing the courtesy of looking at available, millennia-long philosophy on the facts. Pot and kettle."

We can leave the bible out of it if you like, because the bible's "just-so" stories don't have any credible evidence to corroborate them.

"There must thousands of just so examples between a sightless animal and a sighted species. Do you disagree? What is your estimate on mutation rates for every billion creatures? And how many anomalies have to happen to develop an eye and the attachments to the brain to make it work?"

This is the kind of fodder that makes me either think you didn't read any of the books you claim to have, or that you didn't comprehend any of it as you skimmed the pages.

Sight only needed to evolve once in the history of any lineage.

You're still equating mutation with evolution. Mutation is one source of variability in the gene pool. So is having two sexes.

You jump back to the eye, and continue to make the irreducible complexity argument. There are plenty of nocturnal animals that don't use their eyes in same way we do. Plenty of deep-sea creatures that receive no light, and still use their eyes in some way, but not the way we do. They have not lost their eyes because they provide an advantage. And, the eye only needed to be present in their ancestor.

As for the attachments between the eye and the brain, we can observe organisms that have simple neural networks and no brain. They still react to external stimuli. Select for quicker reactions, and you select for better neural networks. Keep doing that, and as the generations pass, the networks become more robust and more complex as features are adapted to new purposes.

As with all evolution, it takes time and pressure (selectional pressure).

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:PJ, seriously, read the Jerry Coyne book, Why Evolution Is True. He explains how natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation work among other things.
I understand how they work. These lead to new and extinct species. There is some irreducible complexity (and transitions missing in the fossil record) regarding species becoming land to sea animals and/or vice versa, abiogenesis, etc. using these given, real principles of evolution.

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 09:22 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:Your, and other creationists, charge is that "half a wing" is useless.

Yes, because there is no creature in the fossil record with half a wing, only animals with forelimbs that are assumed to be vestigial or ancilliary wings.

You keep responding to questions I didn't ask/misreading my posts, so I'll try to be briefer and more clear:

You didn't look at the photo I suggested. Both photos you posted of ambulocetus are what are known as fossil reconstructions. One of the photos you posted is labeled as such! I was frustrated beyond words when I saw the photo I posted the URL to that you never looked at.

I know you know this is standard practice is paleontology, but for the lay readers here I'll assist - scientists find 15 oe 20 or 50 bones of a creature presumed to have 200 bones, and create the rest. Then they often even add feathers and skin to their models when none were discovered. Therefore, what was taken to be an ancient whale with forelimbs was likely a reptile and never a sea creature at all.

The same, I mentioned is true of Lucy and many proto-human and transitory fossil forms. You did not address that fact.

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 09:23 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(15-05-2013 09:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Your, and other creationists, charge is that "half a wing" is useless.

Yes, because there is no creature in the fossil record with half a wing, only animals with forelimbs that are assumed to be vestigial or ancilliary wings.

You keep responding to questions I didn't ask/misreading my posts, so I'll try to be briefer and more clear:

You didn't look at the photo I suggested. Both photos you posted of ambulocetus are what are known as fossil reconstructions. One of the photos you posted is labeled as such! I was frustrated beyond words when I saw the photo I posted the URL to that you never looked at.

I know you know this is standard practice is paleontology, but for the lay readers here I'll assist - scientists find 15 oe 20 or 50 bones of a creature presumed to have 200 bones, and create the rest. Then they often even add feathers and skin to their models when none were discovered. Therefore, what was taken to be an ancient whale with forelimbs was likely a reptile and never a sea creature at all.

The same, I mentioned is true of Lucy and many proto-human and transitory fossil forms. You did not address that fact.

Thanks.

I'm done. You read what you want, but you don't try to understand any of it. No book recommended to you will do a bit of good to help show you where you are wrong.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
15-05-2013, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2013 09:41 AM by nach_in.)
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(15-05-2013 09:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Your, and other creationists, charge is that "half a wing" is useless.

Yes, because there is no creature in the fossil record with half a wing, only animals with forelimbs that are assumed to be vestigial or ancilliary wings.

You keep responding to questions I didn't ask/misreading my posts, so I'll try to be briefer and more clear:

You didn't look at the photo I suggested. Both photos you posted of ambulocetus are what are known as fossil reconstructions. One of the photos you posted is labeled as such! I was frustrated beyond words when I saw the photo I posted the URL to that you never looked at.

I know you know this is standard practice is paleontology, but for the lay readers here I'll assist - scientists find 15 oe 20 or 50 bones of a creature presumed to have 200 bones, and create the rest. Then they often even add feathers and skin to their models when none were discovered. Therefore, what was taken to be an ancient whale with forelimbs was likely a reptile and never a sea creature at all.

The same, I mentioned is true of Lucy and many proto-human and transitory fossil forms. You did not address that fact.

Thanks.

you're aware that wings didn't evolve to be wings right? they evolved from arms, so "half a wing" is just a deformed arm.

Actually that's a point that creationists miss many times, not everything is at its peak of complexity just because we're in the present, many things that are "irreducibly complex" could've been even more complex before (a "reducibly" complexity) and had seen its complexity reduced since then.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: