Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. What I have presented is very disturbing evidence if you are an evolutionist. ...
The Moon is slowly getting farther away from Earth. This was known from radar measurements even before the Apollo astronauts placed a laser reflector on the Moon, allowing even more precise measurements.
Millions of years from now, the Moon will be farther away from Earth than it is now. But that means millions of years ago the Moon must have been closer to the Earth than it is now.
Many people have done the calculations and discovered that the Moon’s orbit would have equaled the Earth’s radius less than 3 billion years ago.
You've never heard of the explanation of the existence and orbit of the Moon being due to its colliding with Earth a long time ago and eventually coming to rest in its present orbit? I think that explanation is the scientific consensus these days. To translate: You're blowing smoke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
//
Today, the giant impact hypothesis for forming the Earth–Moon system is widely accepted by the scientific community. In this hypothesis, the impact of a Mars-sized body (Theia) on the proto-Earth is postulated to have put enough material into circumterrestrial orbit to form the Moon. Given that planetary bodies are believed to have formed by the hierarchical accretion of smaller bodies to larger ones, giant impact events such as this are thought to have affected most planets. Computer simulations modelling this impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system, as well as the small size of the lunar core. Unresolved questions regarding this theory have to do with determining the relative sizes of the proto-Earth and impactor, and with determining how much material from the proto-Earth and impactor ended up in the Moon. The formation of the Moon is believed to have occurred 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago, about 30–50 million years after the origin of the solar system.
//
Furthermore, using the state of planetary science as a basis for questioning the biological Theory of Evolution is quite suspect. Learn some biology and you will help yourself immensely.
That's incorrect. Changes in "genetic information" can be quite common depending on several factors. A change in a single nucleotide can lead to drastic change in the resulting polypeptide (protein precursor). The following are two examples, but many more are possible:
1. The codon that starts every polypeptide is adenine followed by thymine/uracil, followed by guanine (A[T/U]G) - a conserved sequence in all organisms. If the initial adenine undergoes a transition mutation (to guanine) or a transversion mutation to cytosine or thymine then the sequence is drastically altered since this sequence will not be translated into a polypeptide.
2. The codon UAG is one of several "STOP" codons that stops transcription. If the trailing guanine is mutates into an adenine the mutation is likely silent; that is, it's still a STOP codon and will have the same effect. However, if the trailing guanine is instead mutated into a uracil then the codon now codes for the amino acid Tyrosine. This means that the polypeptide will have changed; it will be longer and may have a novel function(s) which may be detrimental, neutral, and/or beneficial depending on many factors.
The point here is that genes within a population pool are not fixed. Among different populations of the same species geneticists may find different genetic markers among these populations.
Also, please note that evolutionary theories are not concerned with the origin of life; that is the study of abiogenesis. Evolution describes the change in frequencies of alleles within a population over [evolutionary] time.
NEW 'SPECIES'?
New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila, the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new 'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome — technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.
To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations — they degrade information.
Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.)
To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations — they degrade information.
Not necessarily, perhaps a mutation that merely rearranges existing genetic material. You've entered a technical subject matter area, so you'll have to provide a more technical explanation. To translate: what a crock.
New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila, the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new 'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome — technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.
To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations — they degrade information.
Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.)
I think I've already addressed this topic on this thread. You're more than welcome to join the debate but I'm not going to reiterate the same stuff over and over because someone thinks they have 'new' evidence.
You've never heard of the explanation of the existence and orbit of the Moon being due to its colliding with Earth a long time ago and eventually coming to rest in its present orbit? I think that explanation is the scientific consensus these days.
Of course I have heard of it, and no, I'm afraid that is not the "scientific consensus" these days. That was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the problem. You see, anytime facts have been found that pose a problem to evolution, the scientific community quickly dreams up all possible scenarios that would "explain" away the facts.
The hypothesis you mentioned is an example of this.
The actual scientific consensus, if you would like to know, has to do with what is being called the dark matter field fluid model. I won't get into all the details of this, but let me just say that for this theory to work we need to disregard Newton's laws of motion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
Furthermore, using the state of planetary science as a basis for questioning the biological Theory of Evolution is quite suspect. Learn some biology and you will help yourself immensely.
Really? Science is science, is it not? Are you saying that if discoveries are made in areas of science other than biology that disprove evolution, then we should disregard it?
Well, we could always do what the scientists do. That is, come up with a new idea that would accept the currernt data but still give us the only "acceptable" conclusion that evolution is true.
Follow the evidence where it leads...unless it interferes with our own paradigms.
Guys, If you wanna debate this topic, you're certainly welcome and encouraged to do so. But the back-handed insults and insinuations are getting pretty old....on both sides. So please, talk about the topic without addressing what you feel is the lack of someone else's education and/or intelligence. This will be the only warning.
I think I've already addressed this topic on this thread. You're more than welcome to join the debate but I'm not going to reiterate the same stuff over and over because someone thinks they have 'new' evidence.
Having a rich imagination doesn’t make an event repeatable, but it does demonstrate that non-repeatable events of the past are subject to speculation, which is what evolution is.
"Of course I have heard of it, and no, I'm afraid that is not the "scientific consensus" these days. That was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the problem. You see, anytime facts have been found that pose a problem to evolution, the scientific community quickly dreams up all possible scenarios that would "explain" away the facts."
Gimme a break! Sounds like sour grapes to me. This is simple anti-scientism. You lose.
You know I recently read somewhere (I don't have the link, I'm sorry) that they're going to change the ToE to the LoE... The 'L' being "Law". Isn't that wonderful?
Evolution is noted in the Bible. Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 2, you need to do some serious Bible translation / word definition but it is there, and it is true.
(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The word "was" in verse 2 is far more accurately translated to "become" or "became." "hâyâh" the word in the Hebrew language means to "be or become or come to pass" It is always emphatic, and not a mere copula (coupling word) or auxiliary word.
Verse 1 - God creates Heaven and Earth, both are absolutely perfect. During verse 2 Lucifer rebels against God and is thrown out of Heaven, to Earth and destroyed what God had made perfect. The earth sat in a state of chaos for millions of years, and finally started pulling out of that state as "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" For you farm boys (and girls) think of a brooding hen watching over her eggs.
Over the next 24 verses God works at getting earth repaired and reorganized. And finally, in verse 26 creates Adam and Eve, in His likeness.
Between verse 1 and verse 26 are millions of years with very little written about.
I guess some folks can find almost anything they want, even really complicated things like evolution, in the Bible. But I've never found in the Bible the formula for making something as simple as a bar of soap, so maybe this means that the Almighty was happy to allow mankind to walk around filthy and dirty for generation to generation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
