Skip to main content

Home/ Christianity and Science/ Group items tagged Fossils

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
J. B.

Living Fossils: A Powerful Argument for Creation - 0 views

creation.com/werner-living-fossils

Fossils

shared by J. B. on 24 Feb 11 - Cached
  • J. B. on 24 Feb 11
     
    Birds living at same time as dinosaurs?
J. B.

One Long Bluff: A Review of Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" - 0 views

www.uncommondescent.com/...ins-the-greatest-show-on-earth

Intelligent Design

shared by J. B. on 01 Oct 11 - Cached
  • any self-replicating mechanism must exhibit a definable minimal level of complexity, let alone the necessitude of functional, and thus sequence specific DNA and protein molecules. As theoretical biologist Howard Pattee explains in his The Problem of Biological Hierarchy: “There is no evidence that hereditary evolution occurs except in cells which already have…the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.” In order to invoke a materialistic pathway which can account for the origin of specified information in DNA, the naturalist must invoke a process that itself depends upon pre-existing sequence specific DNA molecules. Yet, the origin of these molecules is precisely what the thesis seeks to explain.
  • the formation of the first RNA molecule would have necessitated the prior emergence of smaller constituent molecules, including ribose sugar, phosphate molecules and the four RNA nucleotide bases. But both synthesising and maintaining these essential RNA molecules (particularly ribose) and the nucleotide bases is profoundly problematic to perform under realistic prebiotic conditions.
  • Theological arguments — by their very nature — cannot be defended as a scientific statement, and thus ought to be given no place in scientific discussions regarding evolution.
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • the real challenge of the Cambrian explosion is the wide variety of fossilizable forms which appeared at more or less the same instant in geological time. Every single phyla represented by modern day organisms — certainly all those with fossilizable parts — were included, yet for none is there any clearly identifiable ancestor. It is explaining the simultaneous and abrupt appearance of those which is one of the leading challenges in evolutionary biology.
  • paleontologists have discovered many Precambrian fossils, many of them microscopic or soft-bodied. As Darwinian paleobiologist William Schopf wrote in his The early evolution of life: solution to Darwin’s dilemma, “The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials…[is] now recognised as incorrect.”
  • as discussed in some detail here, the Ediacaran fauna are not generally thought to be ancestral to the modern phyla which appear explosively in the Cambrian radiation.
  • While the fitness of bacteria had increased, it had come at a cost. For instance, all the tribes had lost the ability to catabolise ribose. Some tribes had lost the ability to repair DNA. These bacteria may indeed be more fit in a lab setting, but when placed back into their environment alongside their wild-type counterparts, they would be at a selective disadvantage.
  • wild-type E. coli already possesses the genes necessary for the transportation of citrate into the cell and subsequent utilisation of it.
  • Indeed, Lenski et al. (2008) note that “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen level] conditions.” Such a scenario could take place by a loss of gene regulation (meaning that the gene is no longer expressed exclusively under low oxygen conditions) or a loss of transporter specificity.
  • the central claim of neo-Darwinism is that natural selection, coupled with chance mutation, can mimic what would normally be ascribed to intelligence.
  • The concept of common descent is crucial to the Darwinian paradigm, but its falsehood is by no means critical to the design thesis. To the design hypothesis, as a scientific model, it is a secondary issue whether the various forms of life were created independently or by modification of previously existing forms. While the latter model rejects the theory of evolution as an overall paradigm, it is nonetheless consistent with common descent. Thus, even if one were to concede that the fossil record supports common descent — a notion which I challenge — it would not by any means prove neo-Darwinism.
  • we have only fragments of Lucy’s cranium, but her lower jaw is unusually well preserved.
  • There is good evidence that the bones attributed to Lucy really did all come from a single individual…
  • Only 40% was found, and a significant percentage of the known bones are rib fragments.
  • Ironically, Lucy still represents the most complete pre-Homo known hominid skeleton to date.
  • It is an extremely difficult case to state that all Lucy’s bones are clearly from one individual of one species, and it requires some heavy assumptions.
  • Given that the much earlier fossil record from the Miocene yields bipedal apes that supposedly evolved upright-walking completely independently from the line that supposedly led to humans, it would seem that the answer is emphatically no.
  • it is almost certain that A. afarensis and other australopithecines were not adapted to a striding gait and running, as humans are. It doesn’t seem very advantageous, and therefore likely, to use bipedality as one’s primary mode of locomotion if one cannot use it to quickly run from predators.
  • ltimately, Richard Dawkins is here depending upon the utilisation of theological arguments in order to support his case. The theory of intelligent design states that certain features of the natural world exhibit indicators of intelligent design. Questions relating to the identity or skill of the designer are questions for theologians and philosophers to address, and thus stand independently from biological or scientific concerns.
  • If it can be demonstrated that there exists functional reasons for the relevant instances of apparent ‘bad design’ or if new evidence suggests a pattern of degenerative evolution (that is to say, evidence of decay of an otherwise rational and beneficial original design), then the argument would no longer hold water.
  • Biologist George Ayoub has shown, for example, that the vertebrate retina provides an excellent example of what engineers call a constrained optimisation, in which several competing design objectives are elegantly balanced to achieve an optimal overall design.
J. B.

The NASA study of arsenic-based life was fatally flawed, say scientists. - By Carl Zimm... - 0 views

www.slate.com/...all

Scientific Bias Alien Life Peer Review

shared by J. B. on 08 Dec 10 - Cached
  • It turns out the NASA scientists were feeding the bacteria salts which they freely admit were contaminated with a tiny amount of phosphate.
  • I am strongly convinced that we are
  • Any discourse will have to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as our paper was, and go through a vetting process so that all discussion is properly moderated
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The items you are presenting do not represent the proper way to engage in a scientific discourse and we will not respond in this manner.
  • If they say they will not address the responses except in journals, that is absurd," he said. "They carried out science by press release and press conference. Whether they were right or not in their claims, they are now hypocritical if they say that the only response should be in the scientific literature.
  • I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn't look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people
  • The experience reminded some of another press conference NASA held in 1996. Scientists unveiled a meteorite from Mars in which they said there were microscopic fossils. A number of critics condemned the report (also published in Science) for making claims it couldn't back up. And today many scientists think that all of the alleged signs of life in the rocks could have just as easily been made on a lifeless planet.
  • J. B. on 08 Dec 10
     
    Apparently, having your papers published in peer reviewed journals isn't all it's cracked up to be.
J. B.

bylogos: The Demolition of Adam - 0 views

bylogos.blogspot.com/...demolition-of-adam.html

Byl Creationism Adam and Eve

shared by J. B. on 11 Oct 11 - Cached
  • If humans evolved, they could not have been originally upright. Our sinfulness and selfishness are then due, not to an historical fall, but, rather, to our evolutionary heritage. This undermines the doctrine of original sin, as well as the Reformed notion of Christ's atonement as a payment for human. Dr. Schneider thus favors a universalism where all humans will be saved.
  • Dr. Waltke asserts, "We have to go with the scientific evidence…if Scripture has a collectivity represented as an individual, that doesn't bother me.”
  • The Bible, however, flatly contradicts the dubious notion that Adam and Eve were chiefs of a tribe of 10,000 evolved humans. Genesis 2-3 states: “when there was no man (5)…the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature (7)…Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone’(18)…And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman…(22)…The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living” (3:20).
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • Note that the text says: “the man became a living creature”, NOT: “the living creature became a man”.
  • After all, if mainstream science is right about the age of things, why should it not also be right about the evolutionary origin of things? If we must listen to the overwhelming majority of geologists, why must we not similarly listen to the overwhelming majority of biologists?
  • Why are so many theologians compromising on Adam? Because they have already given in to mainstream science on other aspects of Gen.1-11, thereby painting themselves into an epistemic corner.
  • We observe, en passant,  that the demand of population genetics for a minimum of 10,000 ancestors at any past time opposes also the biblical account of Noah’s Flood, with its eight survivors from whom all humans today derive (Gen.6-11; 1 Peter 2:5).
  • Using mainstream dating, the fossil record implies that suffering, disease, death, thorns, and earthquakes all existed long before Adam’s fall. These must thus all belong to God’s initial “very good” creation. This means that Adam’s fall caused no physical change in the world. Yet a major Biblical theme is that the entire cosmos was adversely affected by sin (Gen.3:17-18; Rom.8:18-25), from which it must be cleansed (2 Peter 3, Rev.21). The Biblical terms of renewal, redemption, reconciliation all imply the restoration of the world to an original good state, full of joy and harmony.
  • One cannot build an historical gospel on a non-historical Adam. Neither can one build an historical Adam on a largely non-historical Genesis 1-11.
  • In sum, the current pressure on the Biblical Adam is rooted in earlier concessions made regarding the age of the earth. This ushered in a new, flexible hermeneutic that takes its cue from mainstream science, thereby undermining Biblical authority.
  • Historical sciences, such as evolutionary biology and geology, interpret the data in terms of hypothetical past events. Worldview presuppositions play a crucial role in deciding what alleged events are plausible. Mainstream science bans the supernatural. It presumes purely natural events, constant mutation rates, and the like. Mainline science’s population estimate from genetic diversity, for example, is based on statistical arguments that infer a minimum of 10,000 to be most probable; it does not deem an initial couple to be impossible…just very unlikely.
  • It is futile for Christians to solicit credibility by bowing to worldly science. Mainstream science denies miracles. Therefore, such a quest for respectability must culminate with the plight of liberal theologian Rudolph Bultmann. Bultmann, seeking to be credible to modern man, denied all Biblical miracles, including the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is that really where we want to go? What undermines Christian faith is not Biblical consistency but, rather, unbiblical compromise. The wiser strategy is thus to boldly uphold the Sola Scriptura of the Reformation, proclaiming all that the Bible teaches. And if that causes us to lose credibility in the eyes of the worldly intelligentsia, so be it.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page