Does the Theory of Evolution Win Hands Down?

[thomas t]

Every animal and living thing on this earth evolved. You evolved from a common ancestor that the chimp, gorilla, orangutan, and us share.

 

As for the argument of N15, I am not a scientist but I found this and I think it disproves your theory. Nitrogen isotopes indicate the trophic level position of various marine organisms (reflective of the time the tissue samples were taken). There is a larger enrichment component with δ15N because its retention is higher than that of 14N. This can be seen by analyzing the waste of organisms. Cattle urine has shown that there is a depletion of 15N relative to the diet. As organisms eat each other, the 15N isotopes are transferred to the predators. Thus, organisms higher in the trophic pyramid have accumulated higher levels of 15N ( and higher δ15N values) relative to their prey and others before them in the food web. Numerous studies on marine ecosystems have shown that on average there is a 3.2‰ enrichment of 15N vs. diet between different trophic level species in ecosystems. In the Baltic sea, Hansson et al. (1997) found that when analyzing a variety of creatures (such as particulate organic matter (phytoplankton), zooplankton, mysids, sprat, smelt and herring,) there was an apparent fractionation of 2.4‰ between consumers and their apparent prey.

 

In addition to trophic positioning of organisms, δ15N values have become commonly used in distinguishing between land derived and natural sources of nutrients. As water travels from septic tanks to aquifers, the nitrogen rich water is delivered into coastal areas. Waste-water nitrate has higher concentrations of 15N than the nitrate that is found in natural soils in near shore zones. For bacteria, it is more convenient for them to uptake 14N as opposed to 15N because it is a lighter element and easier to metabolize. Thus, due to bacteria's preference when performing biogeochemical processes such as denitrification and volatilization of ammonia, 14N is removed from the water at a faster rate than 15N, resulting in more 15N entering the aquifer. 15N is roughly 10-20‰ as opposed to the natural 15N values of 2-8‰. The inorganic nitrogen that is emitted from septic tanks and other human-derived sewage is usually in the form of NH4+. Once the nitrogen enters the estuaries via groundwater, it is thought that because there is more 15N entering, that there will also be more 15N in the inorganic nitrogen pool delivered and that it is picked up more by producers taking up N. Even though 14N is easier to take up, because there is much more 15N, there will still be higher amounts assimilated than normal. These levels of δ15N can be examined in creatures that live in the area and are non migratory (such as macrophytes, clams and even some fish). This method of identifying high levels of nitrogen input is becoming a more and more popular method in attempting to monitor nutrient input into estuaries and coastal ecosystems. Environmental managers have become more and more concerned about measuring anthropogenic nutrient inputs into estuaries because excess in nutrients can lead to eutrophication and hypoxic events, eliminating organisms from an area entirely.

 

Now that your argument is explained thoroughly to be totally compatible for the theory of evolution, why don't I challenge you to explain some things. If animals didn't evolve why does the Laryngeal nerve go from the brain all the way back down to the chest looping around one of the main arteries of the chest, before it goes all the way back up to the larynx? This is explained here. Also,  the Modern DNA lineage mapping and tracking wins hands down. It shows past relationships and acts as a sort of timeline clock. We can see old bits of ancient viral particles, now unused, in our genes as well as the same stuff in chimp and ape and lemur DNA. It shows identical aging artifacts and identical attributes. Also, some of our unused DNA is just "temporarily out of service" because it's no longer needed. But it can and has been reactivated in the lab and then provides functions identical to that which WAS functional in older species.

Finally, it shows when breaks were made in the lineage, and then we go look for predictable evidence of that in the fossil record, coupled with independantly verified radioisotopic dating, and guess what?

It all coincides. 

<<< removed link. >>>

 

If you still need more help revealing to yourself that evolution is a fact, read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.

 

Hello ae,

I like smaller threads so let me answer you here.

In the bolded paraghraph you mention a particular nerve, simliarities between the DNAs of different species, disabled genes and their specific functions they could be identified with and finally analogies concerning the similarities of the DNAs of different species on the one hand and the similarities shown by their respective fossile record on the other.

You follow implicitly the interpretation most people have for these well established facts which is common descendancy.

To you, this looks very nice, and everything seems to make sense to you through the interpretation given by the ToE. However, this is just one interpretation highly popular with today's world, I think. In my opinion, it can't by shown like other scientific theories can be.

 

I wish you a good day,

Thomas

[OakWood]

I think evolutionists are missing the point. A common link does NOT dispense with a creator. So what if things are linked by DNA? So what if the Laryngeal nerve goes from the brain all the way back down to the chest, looping around one of the main arteries... and so on? Can God not create a template then use one of his existing templates to create something further?

 

If I examine a series of motor cars, I will find that early cars have cylinders and pistons, camshafts and camshafts. Later models also have pistons and cylinders and camshafts. All cars have wheels. It's obvious then that the design of the early models affected the improved design of the newer models. A car made in 1900 has many similarities to a car made in 2010. There is clearly an evolutionary link between the first cars and the newest models.

So am I to assume then that cars made themselves? Am I to assume then that they had no intelligent designer?

Evolution is old hat and the fact that Atheists still use it to try and prove that God doesn't exist is not only rather stupid, but I would say rather desperate on their part. It's getting boring now. Atheists have quite gleefully and arrogantly been using the theory of evolution for over 100 years to try and disprove the existence of God, and despite their laughable failures, they are still using it today.

 

 

[OakWood]

 

I think evolutionists are missing the point. A common link does NOT dispense with a creator. So what if things are linked by DNA? So what if the Laryngeal nerve goes from the brain all the way back down to the chest, looping around one of the main arteries... and so on? Can God not create a template then use one of his existing templates to create something further?

 

That's quite true.  Gods, by definition, can do absolutely anything, including creating things one way, but making it appear as if they came about completely differently. 

 

So am I to assume then that cars made themselves? Am I to assume then that they had no intelligent designer?

 

 

The problem there is, unlike cars we see biological organisms "making themselves" (reproducing) all the time.

 

the fact that Atheists still use it to try and prove that God doesn't exist is not only rather stupid, but I would say rather desperate on their part.

 

 

Essentially, I agree.  For me, evolution has no more bearing on the existence of gods than chemistry.

 

"The problem there is, unlike cars we see biological organisms "making themselves" (reproducing) all the time."

 

I take your point, but we can now create computer programs that can effectively duplicate copies of themselves. There still existed an original programmer though. Reproduction is a similar thing, but someone (God) still created the species that was capable of reproducing in the first place.

[OakWood]

We've also seen new species evolve all on their own.  Maybe a god directed the process, but at this point we don't see any evidence of it.

True, but we don't see evidence against it.

[thomas t]

 

To you, this looks very nice, and everything seems to make sense to you through the interpretation given by the ToE. However, this is just one interpretation highly popular with today's world, I think. In my opinion, it can't by shown like other scientific theories can be.

 

 

 

So in your opinion, what bit of evidence is lacking that would convince you?

 

 

Hello Gerald,

I have no idea. Since I belive that the ToE is wrong, I don't expect it to be proven, at all.

Other theories convinced me because you can show it through repetition or test. In contrast, you can't repeat the development of the species neither can you test it as to test the whole thing, I think. 

 

Have a good day

 

Thomas

[Fez]

Nope, sure don't.  It could very well be that a god or gods are directing all or part of the process, just like it could be that a god or gods are personally assembling every single atom in the universe.

 

I'd have to question the logic and efficiency of such a process though....

From the ToS..

You may not post any material that is disrespectful of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible.

 

Although I understand that as a person denoted as "seeking" you have questions, but please remember that this is a Christian ministry site, and the outer court has a reason clearly stated. To use a statement such as  "a god or gods", is in the eyes of a believer, disrespectful. Please give this some thought in future posts.

 

God Bless!

[thomas t]

 

[...] test it by checking its necessary predictions against the available data (e.g. if common descent happened, then we should find X).

 

Look, if you actually do find X, you can't exclude any kind of theistic intervention, I think. You would have needed to prove that God isn't able to present X or let appear X while the available data remain in place....

Edited July 31, 2013 by thomas t

[MarkNigro]

The theory that everything evolved from chemicals into a cell into all the life forms through upward evolution is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

 

Those that believe this have not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, to prove their theory.

 

In fact, those that believe this have not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, that the earth the universe, and anything in the universe is older than say 6000 years.

 

But all of these theories are easily shown to be false by simple logic, math, and science.

 

 

[MarkNigro]

 

The theory that everything evolved from chemicals into a cell into all the life forms through upward evolution is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

 

Those that believe this have not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, to prove their theory.

 

At the very least, the fact that all life on earth is made up of chemicals and cells definitely supports the theory.  

 

Or God used chemicals. So it does not give any weight to either religious assumption.

 

However, the very fact that the chemicals have properties that they can form such complex cells and the extreme order and complexity of cells points more to God the Creator than random chance.

In fact it disproves the random chance theory completely.

 

Some my initial statement that there is not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, to prove their theory is still true.

 

In fact, those that believe this have not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, that the earth the universe, and anything in the universe is older than say 6000 years.

 

Perhaps you can explain how one isotope that decays via alpha decay and another that does so via electron capture--two completely independent processes--both give the same results in determining the age of ancient objects?

Or God sped up all decay processes by the same amount during the fall in the garden and during the world wide flood. At that point you would not be able to tell. However if there is any incomsitentcy between all decay processes then again God the Creator is true. Have you evidence that all decay processes are consistent and to what degree of accuracy have they been measured.

 

So my initial statement that there is not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, that the earth the universe, and anything in the universe is older than say 6000 years is still true.

 

But all of these theories are easily shown to be false by simple logic, math, and science.

 

 

Then why hasn't the scientific community seemed to notice?

 

There are many scientists who have disproved all parts of upward evolution from chemicals to mankind and long ages to the universe, they just aren't counted as scientist by those that belief in upward evolution from chemicals to mankind and long ages to the universe.

 

But wait. If I do not count anyone as a scientist who believes in upward evolution from chemicals to mankind and long ages to the universe, then there are no scientists that believe your theories. In fact all scientists then believe in a 6-day creation about 6000 years ago.

 

[MarkNigro]

Since there not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, that the earth, the universe, and anything in the universe is older than say 6000 years, how do evolutionists say that a certain creature evolved into another creature 10 million years ago?

 

In fact how do you quote any dating of over 6,ooo years for any event since there not a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, that the earth, the universe, and anything in the universe is older than say 6000 years?

Edited August 1, 2013 by MarkNigro