Update on "Ida" - not ancestor-link at all

[Believer1997]

Eventually all these so called missing links will be proven phony.

There is a slightly greater probability that Christianity will be proved wrong than that evolution through natural selection will be proved wrong.

Well, maybe not, but evolution has more basis in fact and has more evidence than the sun is the center of our solar system. (You DO believe that the sun is the center of the solar system, don't you??)

I do not understand your sarcasm. Are you a Christian? Just wondering.

There was no sarcasm intended.

Do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun? A simple question. Some people don't! I do.

I do not believe in the supernatural - so, no, I'm not a Christian.

Yes, I believe that our Creator mastered the solar system and created the Sun and that the Earth does revolve around it. I do not believe in supernatural either. Goody - we've found something we have in common!! See - I knew we could!!!

[ConScience]

Yes, I believe that our Creator mastered the solar system and created the Sun and that the Earth does revolve around it. I do not believe in supernatural either. Goody - we've found something we have in common!! See - I knew we could!!!

There are lots of pints that we probably agree on.

Not so long ago, scientists were thrown in prison for saying the sun is the center of the solar system.

Now the debate is about evolution.

There is a lot more evidence for evolution than there ever was for the theory of the solar system.

Why pick and choose?

[nebula]

There is a slightly greater probability that Christianity will be proved wrong than that evolution through natural selection will be proved wrong.

Well, maybe not, but evolution has more basis in fact and has more evidence than the sun is the center of our solar system. (You DO believe that the sun is the center of the solar system, don't you??)

So, I'm wondering -

What do you think about all the scientists et al who jumped the gun and published/presented "Ida" as an ancestor-link?

[ConScience]

What do you think about all the scientists et al who jumped the gun and published/presented "Ida" as an ancestor-link?

I tend not to think of it of it in black and white terms.

I never talk about Ida, or any other single piece of evidence. I've heard people getting all excited about, say, finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones, but usually it's a lot less interesting than we think. People often make big claims so that they can get attention (and research grants). Therefore, like all good scientists, I am skeptical of new discoveries. the more radical and improbable they are, the more I'm skeptical.

The way that I think about it is as a family tree (albeit very large, all-encompassing). I don't think about ancestors, but CONcestors. In that way of thinking, there is no 'missing link', as such. Evolutionary change is so slow and so divergent and fossils so rare, that finding it's incredibly improbable that we have the evidence that we have. But there is a lot of evidence there, and if God created it all, he has a terrible sense of humor!

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun? A simple question. Some people don't! I do.

Yes, but do you believe that sometimes the earth goes three hours backwards in it's rotation?

Peace,

Dave

[ConScience]

Grace to you,

Do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun? A simple question. Some people don't! I do.

Yes, but do you believe that sometimes the earth goes three hours backwards in it's rotation?

Peace,

Dave

Off-topic - a mod should know better!

I'd be glad to answer it in an appropriate thread.

Briefly, backwards? No.

[spiritman]

Eventually all these so called missing links will be proven phony.

There is a slightly greater probability that Christianity will be proved wrong than that evolution through natural selection will be proved wrong.

Well, maybe not, but evolution has more basis in fact and has more evidence than the sun is the center of our solar system. (You DO believe that the sun is the center of the solar system, don't you??)

Hi, I don't think I know you, but nice to meet you. I would like to take this time to stop any misconceptions about exactly what we believe and don't believe in terms of Evolution.

The reason I'm saying this is because i've seen several misunderstandings, and by looking at your comment, you seem to fall into this category.

I point to your statement above that says that Christianity will be proved wrong than that evolution through natural selection. First off the differences between Micro-Evolution,

and Macro-evolution.

Micro-Evolution : is small changes to an organism brought on by environment ( like that which occurred on the island where Darwin set foot and found the finches to have different beaks); you can also refer to this as natural selection. Hereditary ( like for example two brown eyed parents having a blued eyed daughter)The gene for the blue eyes can lay dormant for a few generations, then all of a sudden show up. The gene for the blue eyes was always present, so no new information was added to the DNA; or breeding; ( a pickapoo,a , Pekingese with a poodle ).

Now let me introduce to you the difference between a Kind, and a species. A kind and a species are the same thing.

a variation in a kind or species : is a poodle, it's kind or species, is dog. another is a tabby cat, its kind or species is cat another is a Pygmy chimp, it's kind or species is chimp.

All the examples above are examples of Mirco-evolution. christians do not have a problem with this. However we do not believe in Macro-evolution.

This is brief: For example: a common ancestor, changing into a man. Unless you can show us an air tight transitional fossil, of one Kind changing into another.

Here are some of the reasons why evolution just doesn't work

1. One of the Big reasons why Macro-evolution is impossible scientifically; is that the DNA only has that information necessary to build the organism it's assigned to. For example the DNA only holds just the right amount and the right information to build a chimp; if it were to build a human, it would have had to have had more information added, even over a long period of time. It just isn't done.

2. Most of the Transitional forms found have either proven to be fakes or mistakes, there is no air tight argument for transitional forms.

3. all the scientific methods of measuring dates are flawed. They are full of assumptions, and can't be proven because there is no historical science to back them up.

[ConScience]

Eventually all these so called missing links will be proven phony.

There is a slightly greater probability that Christianity will be proved wrong than that evolution through natural selection will be proved wrong.

Well, maybe not, but evolution has more basis in fact and has more evidence than the sun is the center of our solar system. (You DO believe that the sun is the center of the solar system, don't you??)

Hi, I don't think I know you, but nice to meet you. I would like to take this time to stop any misconceptions about exactly what we believe and don't believe in terms of Evolution.

The reason I'm saying this is because i've seen several misunderstandings, and by looking at your comment, you seem to fall into this category.

I point to your statement above that says that Christianity will be proved wrong than that evolution through natural selection. First off the differences between Micro-Evolution,

and Macro-evolution.

Micro-Evolution : is small changes to an organism brought on by environment ( like that which occurred on the island where Darwin set foot and found the finches to have different beaks); you can also refer to this as natural selection. Hereditary ( like for example two brown eyed parents having a blued eyed daughter)The gene for the blue eyes can lay dormant for a few generations, then all of a sudden show up. The gene for the blue eyes was always present, so no new information was added to the DNA; or breeding; ( a pickapoo,a , Pekingese with a poodle ).

Now let me introduce to you the difference between a Kind, and a species. One kind is a dog, another is a cat, another is a chimp.

Species: One species is a poodle, it kind is dog. another is a tabby cat, its kind is cat another is a Pygmy chimp, it's kind is chimp.

All the examples above are examples of Mirco-evolution. christians do not have a problem with this. However we do not believe in Macro-evolution.

This is brief: Unless you can show us an air tight transitional fossil, of one Kind changing into another.

Here are some of the reasons why evolution just doesn't work

1. One of the Big reasons why Macro-evolution is impossible scientifically; is that the DNA only has that information necessary to build the organism it's assigned to. For example the DNA only holds just the right amount and the right information to build a chimp; if it were to build a human, it would have had to have had more information added, even over a long period of time. It just isn't done.

2. Most of the Transitional forms found have either proven to be fakes or mistakes, there is no air tight argument for transitional forms.

3. all the scientific methods of measuring dates are flawed. They are full of assumptions, and can't be proven because there is no historical science to back them up.

Well, it seems to me that there are actually a range of beliefs on evolution issue, but I won't open a can of worms.

Thanks SpiritMan - I'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from. And nice to meet you, too.

And I think you explained your point of view succinctly and articulately. I've never thought of it quite like that, so I'll have to go away and ponder for a while.

1. I believe evolution was incredibly slow, and the transition from one form to another so minute that it took a VERY long time.

2. Yes, several of them have been found to be horrible hoaxes, and they are the ones that get all the attention (actually, scientists shouldn't have got all excited about them in the first place, because the bigger the find, the more we should be skeptical).

3. Dendrochronology is incredibly robust, but it doesn't work for all areas on the globe, so I would agree with you that it is flawed in so far as we need what amounts to overlapping tree rings (I think of them like tree fingerprints) to date anything. Sadly, not many places on earth have well-preserved trees going back into history. It works where it works, and we're clear about where that is. And it is not everywhere!

Edited October 23, 2009 by ConScience

[spiritman]

Eventually all these so called missing links will be proven phony.

There is a slightly greater probability that Christianity will be proved wrong than that evolution through natural selection will be proved wrong.

Well, maybe not, but evolution has more basis in fact and has more evidence than the sun is the center of our solar system. (You DO believe that the sun is the center of the solar system, don't you??)

Hi, I don't think I know you, but nice to meet you. I would like to take this time to stop any misconceptions about exactly what we believe and don't believe in terms of Evolution.

The reason I'm saying this is because i've seen several misunderstandings, and by looking at your comment, you seem to fall into this category.

I point to your statement above that says that Christianity will be proved wrong than that evolution through natural selection. First off the differences between Micro-Evolution,

and Macro-evolution.

Micro-Evolution : is small changes to an organism brought on by environment ( like that which occurred on the island where Darwin set foot and found the finches to have different beaks); you can also refer to this as natural selection. Hereditary ( like for example two brown eyed parents having a blued eyed daughter)The gene for the blue eyes can lay dormant for a few generations, then all of a sudden show up. The gene for the blue eyes was always present, so no new information was added to the DNA; or breeding; ( a pickapoo,a , Pekingese with a poodle ).

Now let me introduce to you the difference between a Kind, and a species. One kind is a dog, another is a cat, another is a chimp.

Species: One species is a poodle, it kind is dog. another is a tabby cat, its kind is cat another is a Pygmy chimp, it's kind is chimp.

All the examples above are examples of Mirco-evolution. christians do not have a problem with this. However we do not believe in Macro-evolution.

This is brief: Unless you can show us an air tight transitional fossil, of one Kind changing into another.

One of the Big reasons why Macro-evolution is impossible scientifically; is that the DNA only has that information necessary to build the organism it's assigned to. For example the DNA only holds just the right amount and the right information to build a chimp; if it were to build a human, it would have had to have had more information added, even over a long period of time.

It just isn't done.

Well, it seems to me that there are actually a range of beliefs on evolution issue, but I won't open a can of worms.

Thanks SpiritMan - I'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from.

And I think you explained your point of view succinctly and articulately.

I've never thought of it quite like that, so I'll have to go away and ponder for a while.

No problem. when I first got into these discussions I was a bit confused between the difference. I used to think all evolution was a lie. until I studied it a little more.

Most Evolutionist and atheists that i've met mix a little truth, along with a lot of lie. You know sorta like rat poison; Rat poison consists of 99 percent good food. and 1 percent poison. it's the 99 percent that draws the rat, and 1 percent that kills him.

One of their biggest tricks is to point to the truth first. for example. Micro-evolution: Atheists say; " Well you see super virus that's resistant to anti-biotics, that's a example of evolving from an inferior, virus into a superior virus. The victim; usually checks it out, or is taught it in school and sees that it is true and makes sense. so in his mind he says;

" yea, that's true, it makes sense, the virus used to be killed by anti-biotics, but now it's no longer susceptible, wow this is one kind evolving into another";

But what they don't tell you is; instead of having new information added to the DNA to make this virus actually evolve to a more superior virus, the fact is if you study it.

there is for this example I'll use the term slot on the virus, and the anti-biotic has a slot as well that fits the slot on the virus; this slot actually allows the anti-biotic to link up with the virus thus killing it, well instead of getting new information into the virus to make it more advanced, the virus actually lost the slot. The only reason why the anti-biotic, can't kill the virus, is because it can't link up with it anymore.

And while this seems to be an advantage, for the virus in the short term. In the long term this situation actually cuts the virus life span, so that it no longer can live as long as a normal virus. thus the virus actually de-evolved ( what evolutionists would call a mutation). All mutations subtract information out of the DNA; To have Macro-evolution Information must be added to the DNA

Good luck on study.

[ConScience]

No problem. when I first got into these discussions I was a bit confused between the difference. I used to think all evolution was a lie. until I studied it a little more.

Most Evolutionist and atheists that i've met mix a little truth, along with a lot of lie. You know sorta like rat poison; Rat poison consists of 99 percent good food. and 1 percent poison. it's the 99 percent that draws the rat, and 1 percent that kills him.

One of their biggest tricks is to point to the truth first. for example. Micro-evolution: Atheists say; " Well you see super virus that's resistant to anti-biotics, that's a example of evolving from an inferior, virus into a superior virus. The victim; usually checks it out, or is taught it in school and sees that it is true and makes sense. so in his mind he says;

" yea, that's true, it makes sense, the virus used to be killed by anti-biotics, but now it's no longer susceptible, wow this is one kind evolving into another";

But what they don't tell you is; instead of having new information added to the DNA to make this virus actually evolve to a more superior virus, the fact is if you study it.

there is for this example I'll use the term slot on the virus, and the anti-biotic has a slot as well that fits the slot on the virus; this slot actually allows the anti-biotic to link up with the virus thus killing it, well instead of getting new information into the virus to make it more advanced, the virus actually lost the slot. The only reason why the anti-biotic, can't kill the virus, is because it can't link up with it anymore.

And while this seems to be an advantage, for the virus in the short term. In the long term this situation actually cuts the virus life span, so that it no longer can live as long as a normal virus. thus the virus actually de-evolved ( what evolutionists would call a mutation). All mutations take information out of the DNA; To have Macro-evolution Information must be added to the DNA

Good luck on study.

Question is: I thought the DNA was pretty much a 'fixed length, no?