Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[Wolfbeckett]

See, that's a problem IMO. A bunch of farm animals on a big boat, fine. Maybe. But the entire modern world's fauna and all the dinosaurs to boot? It's like you have an obviously inadequate sized boat with X number of passengers it can't hold, and you're trying to squeeze on a bunch of dinosaurs too?

Attention one and all:

From now on, the Noah's Ark story will instead be titled Noah's Clown Car. That is all.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

I like this train of discussion because it's no longer about creationists trying to obfuscate their pseudoscience with jargon they don't even understand.

 

[classical_hero]

See, that's a problem IMO. A bunch of farm animals on a big boat, fine. Maybe. But the entire modern world's fauna and all the dinosaurs to boot? It's like you have an obviously inadequate sized boat with X number of passengers it can't hold, and you're trying to squeeze on a bunch of dinosaurs too?

The number of animals needed to brought on board is much less than what you are thinking, since the Bible talks about the kinds being brought aboard. Also you do bring fully grown adults on the ark, you bring juveniles since they are smaller and have time grow to their full size. So there is plenty of room on the ark, considering it is huge. This guy is building a life size replica of the ark.
http://creation.com/one-man-and-a-vision-johan-huibers-ark-builder-in-netherlands
So that is one massive ship and since the length of a cubit was based on the size of your forearm, it is more than likely bigger.

I mean this is why I put no stock in YEC. Just blatant illogical steps. We dont even need to address the fact that somehow Noah's descendents spread across the planet and quickly established radically different cultures. Even manage to get to the americas and make a population in the millions!

Well the issue is that most people assume that early man was not intelligent, but that is not what the Bible says. Also when you isolate a certain population, that population will start have similar characteristics, due to the limits of the genome present and that is how the "races" occurred, rather than some how people lost the ability to grow hair all over the body and lose the colour of their skin. The evolutionary story requires far more faith than the creation and biblical story of the difference peoples of the world.

You forgot the people living for 600 years, and where did Cain's wife come from?

His wife was his sister. Just like in the scenario for Evolution.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Did you just contradict yourself in the space of two paragraphs? Did you just suggest that every single land species across an entire continent went through a genetic bottleneck of two breeding adults, and suddenly explode in variation? Then, on the very next paragraph, you say that when you isolate individuals from a group and inbreed them, they lose variation?

 

[civ2]

About Cain and Abel's wifes:

Chapter 4.1

To Kayin, to his brother, to Hevel.

The word {Hebrew Ref} is repeated thrice implying additional {facts or things}. This teaches that a girl twin was born with Kayin, and two were born with Hevel. Consequently, {concerning Hevel} it says: {Lit.} "And she increased" {in giving birth}.
And before anyone starts complaining about incest, I wanna remind you that NOW and THEN are two totally different conditions/situations, in quite many aspects.
So you can't apply nowadays morality and laws to those of the first humans.

About long life terms.
Do you have any evidence against it?
Or is it just another assumption that since WE can't live for so long, THEY couldn't too?

Noah Ark.
Just another definition of "kind".
Again, micro evolution does work.
So who said, they couldn't have had some 1% of today's species that rapidly evolved after the Flood into variety we have now?
The Ark was quite huge, so I don't think there was a problem to fit a few thousands of big animals into it.
And if you interpret "kind" as "family" (or possibly "genus"), you don't get too many animals.
Again, I must repeat that I disagree with species being the threshold between micro and macro.
We know quite a few inter-species hybrids, which leads to say that it's definitely NOT the "basic unit of evolution".
Just to bring some examples of how species doesn't mean so much:
Main article about hybrids.
Liger: Same genus
Guineafowl: Same family.
Even more bird examples: Up to the same family.
And you STILL hold on to "macro being observed"???
What I say, is the opposite: The so-cherished "species" isn't so definitive AT ALL.
Which means that MICRO can be EXPANDED much more up the taxonomy.
And the reason why typically interbreeding isn't common, is NOT biological, but rather "populational": animals of the same species are "easier" to mate with, both geographically and behavior-wise.

 

[Berzerker]

And before anyone starts complaining about incest, I wanna remind you that NOW and THEN are two totally different conditions/situations, in quite many aspects.
So you can't apply nowadays morality and laws to those of the first humans.

so it was incest? If today's morality does not apply to then, does that also mean morality then does not apply to today?

 

[civ2]

Berzerker
What I meant was that NOW it's considered incest and forbidden, but THEN when there were only few humans - there simply was no other option.
But after just few generations (maximum by Noah's time) the standards become similar to those that we know.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you can't apply nowadays morality and laws to those of the first humans.

Well that's most of the core values of the Bible out of the window then. Original Sin? Busted!

 

[Leoreth]

So you can't apply nowadays morality and laws to those of the first humans.

I detect RELATIVE morals here! It's the end of the framework of mankind!

 

[civ2]

Ziggy
Jews don't consider anyone responsible for the sins of others.
Everyone is born "clean" with the fully upgraded skill of choosing freely.

Leoreth
Don't confuse RELATIVE and SUBJECTIVE morals.
The first depends on the time and situation OBJECTIVELY, while the second is an attempt to impose PERSONAL over SOCIAL.
Again, WHO would the first few humans marry anyways, if not their own relatives???


I'm more interested in what you'll say about HYBRIDS, as far as this is more on-topic of evolution.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think hybrids are a feel good short term non-solution. The future is in hydrogen cells.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hybrids? You mean two species that are vastly separated in location (and thus evolve different mechanisms for surviving their environments), but who can still interbreed because they share a common ancestor?

I'd like to know where the 5,000 year old 'proto-bear' skeletons are? You know, the ones that were on the Ark and who then diverged into all the different types of bears today? You guys are positing a rapid radiation from a common ancestor, and those ancestors would have left skeletons (not fossils). With DNA testing, you can show that these 'common ancestors' have the genetic markers for polar bear, brown bear, black bear, etc. (panda bear?), all within their genetic potential.

And, obviously, we could use a mechanism by which all the snakes got to the Amazon. Each Amazonian snake species should have a European ancestor, and some of those ancestors should still be alive in Europe. So, are there a series of 'good matches' between Amazonian and European snakes?

 

[Midgard Eagle]

Everyone is born "clean" with the fully upgraded skill of choosing freely.
(...)
Again, WHO would the first few humans marry anyways, if not their own relatives???

See, this is why I'm glad we've got you people. It would be really hard to get an overview of the Bible if you guys hadn't been critically analyzing it for 3000 years .

"Durr hurr let me create only two people (or, as in this case, kill everyone but one family), then order the survivors to be fruitful and multiply and handwave the inevitable parent-offspring incest as "flawed execution of free will", hurr de hurr".

Very funny, Yahweh. Always liked your practical jokes, didn't you.

I think hybrids are a feel good short term non-solution. The future is in hydrogen cells.

I don't care as long as they can fly.

 

[civ2]

Ignoring something, don't you???

Just to bring some examples of how species doesn't mean so much:
Main article about hybrids.
Liger: Same genus
Guineafowl: Same family.
Even more bird examples: Up to the same family.

THIS.
There are animals that interbreed not only from two different species, but even genus.
In other words, there ARE offspring of the THIRD level taxa difference.
Which means that species is NOT a definite term at all.
And the whole MACRO evolution is based on "slow change from species A to species B".
But who said there are ARE species A and B???
Due to the possibility of hybrids, I can say it's just populations, with vastly different characteristics, that USUALLY don't interbreed, though they CAN.
In other words, as MICRO as it can be.

 

[Akka]

Ignoring something, don't you???

That's something you should really refrain from saying, considering you spend 95 % of your time ignoring what others say, troll.

 

[sanabas]

Hybrids? You mean two species that are vastly separated in location (and thus evolve different mechanisms for surviving their environments), but who can still interbreed because they share a common ancestor?

I'd like to know where the 5,000 year old 'proto-bear' skeletons are? You know, the ones that were on the Ark and who then diverged into all the different types of bears today? You guys are positing a rapid radiation from a common ancestor, and those ancestors would have left skeletons (not fossils). With DNA testing, you can show that these 'common ancestors' have the genetic markers for polar bear, brown bear, black bear, etc. (panda bear?), all within their genetic potential.

And, obviously, we could use a mechanism by which all the snakes got to the Amazon. Each Amazonian snake species should have a European ancestor, and some of those ancestors should still be alive in Europe. So, are there a series of 'good matches' between Amazonian and European snakes?

Every time the discussion reaches this point, I ask how I, as a budding creation scientist, can determine which kind the koala belongs to. I have never, ever received even an attempt at an answer. Kinds are based on 'real science', it's a simple question that any schoolkid might ask, so why is it so tough to get an answer? How do I look at an animal and work out how to classify it, to which kind it belongs to?


@Civ2: Did you read the link I gave you last page? You don't have to do a bit of research, you don't have to do anything beyond click on a link and read about some compelling evidence, which is exactly what you've repeatedly ask for. Once again, it is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

And the other question you ignored again is: If, hypothetically, creation week didn't happen, do those 3000 years of ritual lose all meaning? Or can you, personally, still take meaning from the fact that your weekly ritual is the same one practiced by millions of people for the last couple of thousand years. It's a simple question, why keep avoiding it?

 

[sanabas]

Which means that species is NOT a definite term at all.

Who said it was?

Every single species has arrived thanks to a series of gradual changes. Every other human, every other animal on earth is some sort of cousin to me, some very close, some extremely distant. In both cases, there's a continuum. Chimps and I have a common ancestor a lot of generations back. Let's call him Fred. Fred had kids, and they were obviously the same species as Fred. Those kids had kids, and again, they were the same species as Fred's kids. Every set of kids is almost the same as their parents, at no point can you find a father/son pair that are of clearly different species. Yet one chain of kids results in me, and another chain of kids results in Bob the Chimp, and we're clearly different species. OF COURSE species isn't a black & white distinction, OF COURSE species is an inexactly defined term. A tiny bit of thought about what evolution says should make that obvious. Trumpeting 'but species isn't a definite term' as though it's evidence against evolution makes zero sense.

 

[civ2]

Akka
Depends what you call ignoring.

sanabas
Ok, I'll answer your question, though you already imply "what if"s, that do not apply in reality.
For me, it's not a "ritual", the word itself having a "mechanical" and not so "religious" meaning.
For me it's just one more opportunity to use my time to connect to both G-d and other people, to rest from the endless rush of nowadays.
Even totally irreligious people DO rest on weekends, don't they.
Which means, it's a need, not a burden or choice.
Except, it differs in HOW people rest, but that's secondary.
About experiments.
Bacteria again, how many times must I say, it's not a proof? Cause they're way too simplistic, all changes are on the single-cellular level. and it's not stronger than adaptation results, which sometimes are quite vast, yet not quantum leap.

EM
Ever saw the skeletons of:
Napoleon; Jean d'Arc; Washington; Genghis Khan; Budda; etc etc etc???
These are people of far closer times - and yet we don't have more than graves of some of them, let alone we ever saw a single bone of them.
How do you know history is not a scam???
And if you (like all normal people, including myself) agree that history took place in a form at least very similar to what we are taught, that's exactly taking assumptions for facts again.
Except this time it actually works.
EXPLANATION:
You didn't see a body of Washington, but you can see some of his descendants (and results of some of his actions, wouldn't apply to animals) - so you actually see the proof.
Who said, there's no "proto-bear" skeleton lying around somewhere???
NOTE:
All these "proto-animals" are the ancestors of "types" that grew out of them, not changed into something else.
I mean again, adaptation, not speciation to the level of familes.

 

[Arakhor]

Why do we have sabre-toothed tigers and woolly mammoths when the Bible doesn't mention snow at all? Where did they come from and why didn't they die of heat exhaustion on the tightly-packed Ark floating on the seas of the Near-East?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

During Darwin's time, cells were thought to be incredibly simple, now we know otherwise. I don't think a cell would appear by chance.