Sumerians show why a natural interpretation of evolution is false

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: neoholographic

From the sky could easily mean these people came from the Alps. look at Switzerland, if a person came from that region back in the bronze age, how do you think they would have been described? What if these people that taught them these things came from northern Europe, and they traveled across the Alps? If the people that taught them where ancestors (or even proto) Celts, then how would you as a person that believes that the whole world exists in your region of trade explain that?

Reading the words of the ancients and figuring out what they mean isn't that complicated, it just need for you to think logically about their situation. Read a book form the cook book for the 18th century and you'll see what I mean.

LOL, are you serious?

The Alps???

So these guys came down from the Alps and walked to Mesopatamia? Why Mesopotamia and not China or Mexico LOL?

Why did the the Sumerians and other cultures say these beings came from the sky and some even pointed out different star systems?

Why would they say these proto celts came from the sky? They didn't see them walk down the mountain LOL?

I'm sorry, but this is just so funny. It's amazing how far people will go to believe a lie.

Where's the evidence of all this advanced technology from these proto celts? Where did they get the technology and knowledge from?

This is from Wiki:

Proto-Celtic is mainly dated to approximately 800 BC, coincident with the Hallstatt culture, while the earliest possible divergence of pre-proto-Celtic dialects from Proto-Indo-European is mainly dated to between 3000 BC and 2000 BC.

en.wikipedia.org...

Why would they be any more advanced than the Sumerians? Wouldn't they have to get their knowledge from advanced beings? Where's the evidence of this advanced Atlantis in the Alps? :

These beings had vehicles that could fly. Did these Alp civilization have U.F.O.'s too?

Thanks for giving me a good laugh tonight. Like I said, when people believe these false paradigms, no amount of reason or logic matters.

a reply to: neoholographic

From: My thread here on Atlantis

In the 9300BC version of the story (the one that has been written by Plato, but relayed by Critias) the location of Atlantis must be closer to the Attica Peninsula than Africa. In fact give that a glacier was falling apart in the alps at that time, and reshaping the landscape each time, we could make a guess that the Italian region could be a possible location to the City Island of Atlantis. It could very well be placed in the Rovigo and Ferrara area.

This region in at the base of the Alps. Yes go look at the terrain and then go learn about the Würm glaciation and the effects it had on the Alps.

Atlantis could very well have been a now destroyed island at the base of the Alps then, buried by the landslide that created the Rovigo and Ferrara region now, and the King of Kings Atlas could very well have had his royal palace located in the Alps at the time.

I find it completely absurd that you will laugh at an answer to an issue that has research backing it up, but will type out the nonsense that a UFO came down and gave the people of the world everything. I guess you believe that Fukushima was destroyed because and angry god (or Alien) was taking vengeance on Japan, and totally disregard the fact that an earthquake and human error caused all the problems.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This isn't about what you believe it's about facts. The facts clearly show that these early civilizations got their knowledge from advanced beings. There's no evidence of these civilizations building this knowledge from prior human civilizations. They tell us exactly where they got this knowledge and there's no evidence to refute it. What we label as "myth" SHOULD BE SEEN AS HISTORICAL FACT!!

The 'facts' don't show anything of the sort. Are you suggesting that Mami, midwife to the gods, actually crafted humanity from clay mixed with Kingu's blood? Or are you just picking the myths that suit your own belief system?

I recommend Steven Mithen's After the Ice: A Global History 20,000 - 5000 BC, Barry Cunliffe's By Steppe, Desert and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia and Europe Between the Oceans 9000 BC to AD 1000, as well as J Bronowski's Ascent of Man and Stephen Oppenheimer's East of Eden and Out of Eden. For starters.

Myths in some cases do have a historical basis but they also usually have a clearer propagandist one that is utilised to re-enforce the values of the heirarchy. Mami created humans to work as slaves to the gods, and the gods sent down kingship, bestowing upon a human the right to rule for the gods on earth. I think that's a whopping big lie personally.

Why would they be any more advanced than the Sumerians

a reply to: neoholographic

I mean to be fair, possibly for the same reason Oxford was teaching college courses while the aztecs were still were still cutting out people's hearts for sacrifices with stone knives......

a reply to: neoholographic


You could equate their explosion of knowledge as you put it, to the explosion of technology in this past century.
I'd like to give humans some credit, but wheb you think about things like fiber optics which is literally something out of a syfy show like star trek. It makes you wonder.
I for one dont dismiss the possibility because, I believe its more likely to be the reason, then not to be the reason.
I mean here we have so much evidence showing that past humans 100% believed in a higher power from above, and yet here we have humans today who think its not possible because a fish crawled up out the ocean.
Both sound ludicrous.

The question is, which kinda bed time story do you like to tell you're kids?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: cooperton
Does it bother you that your argument makes god remarkably unlikely?

I'm curious whether your argument is more religious based or if you are happy to accept alien creators with unknown origins.

I'm curious for an answer...

originally posted by: kiliker30
a reply to: neoholographic


You could equate their explosion of knowledge as you put it, to the explosion of technology in this past century.
I'd like to give humans some credit, but wheb you think about things like fiber optics which is literally something out of a syfy show like star trek. It makes you wonder.
I for one dont dismiss the possibility because, I believe its more likely to be the reason, then not to be the reason.
I mean here we have so much evidence showing that past humans 100% believed in a higher power from above, and yet here we have humans today who think its not possible because a fish crawled up out the ocean.
Both sound ludicrous.

The question is, which kinda bed time story do you like to tell you're kids?

No, you don't have an explosion of knowledge without knowledge that comes from past civilizations. If the Sumerians don't invent the wheel, how do you get to the car? These things work in steps and then advances in science allows you to expand these steps.

How could you have Einstein without Newton?

When we look at these early modern civilizations there's no evidence of this knowledge preceding these civilization from other human civilizations.

If you didn't get humans writing down all the information about how they're society worked, then what did the Sumerians and other early modern civilizations build their knowledge on?

For instance, look at the steam engine. That didn't just happen.

An aeolipile (or aeolipyle, or eolipile), also known as a Hero's engine, is a simple, bladeless radial steam turbine which spins when the central water container is heated. Torque is produced by steam jets exiting the turbine, much like a tip jet[1] or rocket engine.[2] In the 1st century AD, Hero of Alexandria described the device in Roman Egypt, and many sources give him the credit for its invention.[3][4]

The aeolipile which Heron described is considered to be the first recorded steam engine or reaction steam turbine.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...



Did the aeolipile just appear out of nowhere?

Both Heron and Vitruvius draw on the much earlier work by Ctesibius (285–222 BCE), Ctesibius or Ktesibios or Tesibius was an inventor and mathematician in Alexandria, Ptolemaic Egypt. He wrote the first treatises on the science of compressed air and its uses in pumps.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can also trace their work to previous knowledge.

We shouldn't see astronomy with no trace of where it came from.

We shouldn't see advanced mathematics of the time, with no trace of where it came from.

We shouldn't see Ziggurats and palaces with no trace of where this knowledge came from.

Here's more:

Both time and writing, and many other aspects of our daily lives, were invented by the Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia over 5,000 years ago. Before the Sumerians, a day began with the sunrise and ended with the sunset. People went to work from when the sun was positioned at a certain height in the morning sky and returned to their homes when it set. It was the Sumerians who divided the day from the night by time, by increments of sixty-second minutes and sixty-minute hours which made up twelve hours of night and the twelve hours of the day.

www.ancient.eu...

Why, where did this come from?

Sumer was the region of southern Mesopotamia c. 5000/4500-1750 BCE corresponding to modern-day Iraq and Kuwait. The land was inhabited prior to 4500 BCE by people of unknown origin who archaeologists have designated the Ubaid people (after the site of al-Ubaid where excavations first uncovered their existence). The Ubaid are considered the first agents of civilization in the region in that they had rudimentary technological knowledge as evidenced by tools and clay artifacts they left behind.

They did not, however, possess the same kind of skill and ingenuity as the Sumerians who came after them. The Sumerians are responsible for inventing many of the aspects of modern-day life that people so often take for granted. In his work, History Begins at Sumer, Samuel Noah Kramer lists 39 `firsts’ in human civilization and culture that originated at Sumer. His list includes:

The First Schools, The First Case of `Apple Polishing’, The First Case of Juvenile Delinquency, The First `War of Nerves’, The First Bicameral Congress, The First Historian, The First Case of Tax Reduction, The First Legal Precedent, The First Pharmacopoeia, The First `Farmer’s Almanac’, The First Experiment in Shade-Tree Gardening, Man’s First Cosmogony and Cosmology, The First Moral Ideals, The First `Job’, The First Proverbs and Sayings, The First Animal Fables, The First Literary Debates, The First Biblical Parallels, The First `Noah’, The First Tale of Resurrection, The First `St. George’, The First Case of Literary Borrowing, Man’s First Heroic Age, The First Love Song, The First Library Catalogue, Man’s First Golden Age, The First `Sick’ Society, The First Liturgic Laments, The First Long-Distance Champion, The First Literary Imagery, The First Sex Symbolism, The First Mater Dolorosa, The First Lullaby, The First Literary Portrait, The First Elegies, Labor’s First Victory, The First Aquarium.

In addition to these accomplishments, of course, are the rudimentary invention of time, a system of numbers, the 360 degree circle, geometry, the first wheeled vehicles, children’s toys, writing, writing implements, harnessing the wind, the domestication of animals, agricultural developments such as irrigation, medical advances, dentistry, architectural developments, and urbanization.

www.ancient.eu...

We should be able to trace where this knowledge came from that built up to these civilizations. We can do this with our civilization.

a reply to: pthena

You said:

What exactly do you mean by "natural interpretation of evolution"?

I think that evolution occurred but it's impossible for it to have occurred naturally. So there's a natural interpretation of evolution that's a fantasy and an intelligent design interpretation of evolution.

An intelligent design interpretation of evolution can explain the following:

1. The origin of life

2. The origin of information

3. How information is encoded on the sequence of a storage medium(DNA) and it's also encoded with information to build machinary to decode the information that's encoded. Also, information to regulate the expression of coded regions is encoded in non coding regions.

4. How separate parts can evolve that are the right size, shape and come together at the right angles. This is modular design not anything natural or random.

5. How an organism that needs x ability to survive and the ability that's needed evolves.

A natural interpretation can't explain these things. It's an illogical fantasy.

How can the right information needed for an organism to survive randomly evolve via mutations?

That's just asinine!

Where does this information come from? How can anything random create the right information needed out of nowhere? Why is this information even available to the organism?

Again, look at sickle cell. When the organism is in an environment where malaria is high, a point mutation occurs which gives you the exact information that's needed for the organism to fight malaria.

That has nothing to do with anything random or natural.

Why don't you evolve an extra toe or an extra finger or a longer tongue in a malaria rich environment? Why does a mutation occur at the exact point needed to create the information needed that will give the organism the right trait to survive in that environment?

This is a false paradigm that people use as a reason to deny God.

How can anyone believe that the right information needed to survive in an environment evolves randomly when an organism is in that environment? It's impossible. Why is this information even available to the organism?

I will give you an example of natural selection.

A white moth and a black moth exists within a species. They're in an environment where it stays dark longer so the white moths can't hide from predators like black moths so more black moths will be reproduced in that environment.

You can have a mutation that gives you a black and white spotted moth and if that moth can avoid predators better than the spotted moth will reproduced more in that environment.

Darwin saw this and made the leap that this natural random process was the origin of all species.

Now, this whole natural interpretation of evolution should have been thrown into the scrapheap when we discovered DNA and the genetic code.

When we saw how much information was stored in DNA , that should have been it for Darwin and his theory.

There's no way that random mutations can just keep stumbling upon the right information needed for the organism to survive in an environment.

We see this in extremophiles. They survive in all of these different environments because they evolve the ability to survive in these environments. How can this be random?

How can you say an organism needs x ability to survive in the environment, there's no information for this ability, but then random mutations just creates information out of whole cloth that just happens to be the right information needed for the organism to survive? ASANINE!!!

a reply to: neoholographic


This one is humorous:

A white moth and a black moth exists within a species. They're in an environment where it stays dark longer so the white moths can't hide from predators like black moths so more black moths will be reproduced in that environment.

You took that out of context to make a point.

You are referring to the Peppered moth.  And you neglected to mention the evolutionary response was related to the soot produced by the industrial revolution (The black were not recorded by biologists until 1811). Or that the light colored ones reflourished in population after pollution was reduced.

And how it happens is a numbers game over the course of generations after the mutation. In a polluted industrial sh****le the white ones get eaten, where the black ones survive in greater numbers to reproduce. Which then reverses in the clean environment.

But we can also play god. Well, let a new environment play god.  They are literally hundreds upon hundreds of forced evolution studies. Screw the moths, there are tons of Italian Wall Lizards to go around.

Really cool article.

api.nationalgeographic.com...

In short: They purposely introduced a lizard to an island to see what changes occurred.

And they adapted quite rapidly, developing additional valves in their digestive tracts to handle increases in plant consumption.

It's not even up for debate.

They were released and then mutated in an indisputable manner. 

Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

Seriously, what is another reason for the digestive tract of this lizard to change other then to accommodate new habitat and food supply?

Denying it is the equivalent of a killer saying, "I don't care if the home security footage shows me breaking into this house and killing that old lady, it was my doppelganger with identical DNA and fingerprints!" 

Extra:

We see this in extremophiles. They survive in all of these different environments because they evolve the ability to survive in these environments. How can this be random?

They were all extremophiles by today's standards at first. The freaks were those new organisms using the byproduct of photosynthesis to thrive! Freaks!

a reply to: neoholographic

When we saw how much information was stored in DNA , that should have been it for Darwin and his theory.

As much as I believe in all you're saying,
Because I 100% believe we are intelligently designed.
I think you underestimate the mystery and self intelligence inside what DNA is.
Do I argue that DNA is natural? No way.
Not a chance. DNA is another one of those things that are so insanely complex that nothing short of a miracle couldve made it happen to exist, and exist the specific way it does.
But I will argue that if something evolves its DNA to suit its environment, its of its OWN will to do so. It was designed to work this way.
You underestimate the minds relationship with the body.
All consciousness can manipulate its physical self in times of need.
I do not have links to studies, but there have been studies done that prove it is possible.
You can look into it yourself if you choose so.

Placebo effect is a prime example of this.
You have hiccups, so you do the ol hang upside down and drink water, or hold youre breath or what have you.
None of those things are proven to work, but you're mind BELIEVES it works. And almost like magic youre symptoms are gone.
Another interesting example of mind over matter is a story by the mushroom guru Paul Stamets.
He cured his stutter using his mind.
That is thought seeing a task to overcome, projecting a will to execute this task, and using its physical self to accomplish said task.
Over time the more they do it, the better they become at it.
And im sure if someone who ran every day for 50 years was put up in a 1k race with someone who never ran once in their life you'd witness this mind over matter type of evolution. That is 100% a form of evolution that you'd witness as that guy got spanked in that race.
Mind over matter is a real things.
He wanted to run better, so he changed his body to do so.
( Better endurance, better muscles to do so. )

We and the creatures of earth are capable of this kind of willful changes to overcome obstacles.
Certain changes require different amounts of time to take effect.
Meaning an eyeball doesn't just learn to see at night in 100 years. It happens because we have a night and day cycle on earth, so when it was evolving it made sense to be able to see at night and the day. This probably took a really really long time.

When we see things like humans learning how to make tools out of rocks, thats an evolution that could literally happen within a single day and night.
So technilogical evolutionary advancements can be done in short amount of time.
And biological evolutions can be done, but take longer, sometimes insanely longer.
The real questions we need to ask is,
WHY?

Why did Sumerians need to learn about the stars? Or math? Or writing?
They didn't need it to survive.
Especially survive on a primitive and dangerous wildlife place like earth.
Why did we feel the need to pursue this knowledge?
If there is no reason the only explanation can be, we were given this knowledge.

Excuse my poor writing lol.
But I'm sure somewhere in there you get the points I am trying to make.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Does it bother you that your argument makes god remarkably unlikely?

Intelligent creatures are far more likely to have come from an intelligent source, rather than an unintelligent source. Let's carry this example over to artificial intelligence... what is more likely to create a mac computer... random chance? or intelligent humans?

Obviously intelligent things require intelligence to create them. Unintelligence is far, far, far, less likely (if not impossible) to have completed the task.

originally posted by: Degradation33 They are literally hundreds upon hundreds of forced evolution studies. Screw the moths, there are tons of Italian Wall Lizards to go around.

Really cool article.

api.nationalgeographic.com...

In short: They purposely introduced a lizard to an island to see what changes occurred.

And they adapted quite rapidly, developing additional valves in their digestive tracts to handle increases in plant consumption.

It's not even up for debate.

Not even up for debate? I think I'll refute your totalitarian dogma. You guys are very easily duped, it's because you want this stuff to be true so you do not care for the actual evidence.

All that happened is they found an intestinal muscle in these lizards. They never analyzed the gut prior to dispensing them on the island (or surely their prior analysis of the gut would have been included in the paper, which it was not). They themselves admit this in the paper:


"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before.

You see? They admit they didn't document the intestine structure prior to dumping them on the island. They are assuming that these intestinal muscles were not there prior to them being dumped on the island. Truth is, they have no idea if it was or not. They are simply assuming the intestinal muscles were not there prior, solely so they can bolster their own results. It's this sort of bad science that fools you guys so easily.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: neoholographic


This one is humorous:

A white moth and a black moth exists within a species. They're in an environment where it stays dark longer so the white moths can't hide from predators like black moths so more black moths will be reproduced in that environment.

You took that out of context to make a point.

You are referring to the Peppered moth.  And you neglected to mention the evolutionary response was related to the soot produced by the industrial revolution (The black were not recorded by biologists until 1811). Or that the light colored ones reflourished in population after pollution was reduced.

And how it happens is a numbers game over the course of generations after the mutation. In a polluted industrial sh****le the white ones get eaten, where the black ones survive in greater numbers to reproduce. Which then reverses in the clean environment.

But we can also play god. Well, let a new environment play god.  They are literally hundreds upon hundreds of forced evolution studies. Screw the moths, there are tons of Italian Wall Lizards to go around.

Really cool article.

api.nationalgeographic.com...

In short: They purposely introduced a lizard to an island to see what changes occurred.

And they adapted quite rapidly, developing additional valves in their digestive tracts to handle increases in plant consumption.

It's not even up for debate.

They were released and then mutated in an indisputable manner. 

Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

Seriously, what is another reason for the digestive tract of this lizard to change other then to accommodate new habitat and food supply?

Denying it is the equivalent of a killer saying, "I don't care if the home security footage shows me breaking into this house and killing that old lady, it was my doppelganger with identical DNA and fingerprints!" 

Extra:

We see this in extremophiles. They survive in all of these different environments because they evolve the ability to survive in these environments. How can this be random?

They were all extremophiles by today's standards at first. The freaks were those new organisms using the byproduct of photosynthesis to thrive! Freaks!

The article you posted supports intelligen design. Look at the title of the article.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

The changes should take millions of years-but these creatures are doing it in mere decades.

THE CHANGES SHOULD TAKE MILLIONS OF YEARS!

Why is that?

If this occurred because of a natural interpretation of evolution it should take millions of years. This is because a natural interpretation of evolution is blind and random.

It should take millions of years to evolve all of these random traits, some reach the environment, some don't help the organism survive and the traits that do help the organism survive continue through reproduction.

This happened in 36 years not millions of years.

This destroys a natural interpretation of evolution. Where are all of the dead lizards who got the traits that didn't help the lizard survive?

Why is it that the lizards needs x to survive and in only 36 years x evolves without x, y, z, a , b, c, d and more traits evolving? Again, it was x--->x. A direct hit in 36 years!!!

This is why a natural interpretation of evolution is a false paradigm.

Life doesn't take billions of years to evolve. Most of the life we see today appeared around 540 million years ago in what's called the Cambrian Explosion.

The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation[1] was an event approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period when practically all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record.[2][3] It lasted for about 13[4][5][6] – 25[7][8] million years and resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.[9] The event was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.[a]

Before the Cambrian explosion,[] most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. As the rate of diversification subsequently accelerated, the variety of life began to resemble that of today.[11] Almost all present animal phyla appeared during this period.[12][13]

en.wikipedia.org...

Let me repeat that:

Before the Cambrian explosion,[] most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. As the rate of diversification subsequently accelerated, the variety of life began to resemble that of today.[11] Almost all present animal phyla appeared during this period.[12][13]

So it's false to say evolution took 4.5 billion years because that implies that all of the diversity and all of the animals we see today took 4.5 billion years to evolve.

About 540 million years ago there was a huge download of information by our Intelligent Designer. Here's more:

The "Cambrian Explosion" refers to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of complex animals with mineralized skeletal remains. It may represent the most important evolutionary event in the history of life on Earth.

The beginning of the explosion is generally placed about 542 million years ago, during the Cambrian Period at the start of the Palaeozoic Era (the same time the Ediacarans disappear from the fossil record). While the explosion was rapid in geological terms, it took place over millions of years - the Burgess Shale, at 505 million years old, records the tail end of the event. The explosion is particularly remarkable because all major animal body plans (each more or less corresponding to a distinctive Phylum - Mollusca and Chordata, for example) appeared during this time, changing the biosphere forever.

burgess-shale.rom.on.ca...

Let me repeat that:

The explosion is particularly remarkable because all major animal body plans (each more or less corresponding to a distinctive Phylum - Mollusca and Chordata, for example) appeared during this time, changing the biosphere forever.

ALL MAJOR ANIMAL BODY PLANS!

If you think this much information just happens, you're living in a fantasy.

How did all this information get encoded in the genome through a random, natural process? Like I said, it's a false paradigm.

The Bible tells us this is what we should see. God created 3 times in Genesis 1. Verses 1, 21 and 27. In verse 20-21 it says.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God Created EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT MOVETH! This was after he created the Heavens and the Earth in verse 1.

Does science match God's Word?

Every Living Creature that Moveth and science says:

All Major Body Plans.

The title of your article sums it up.

The evolution of these lizards should have took millions of years instead of 36. This is evidence of intelligent design and I wouldn't say millions of years, I would say it's impossible.

originally posted by: neoholographic
All Major Body Plans.

The title of your article sums it up.

The evolution of these lizards should have took millions of years instead of 36. This is evidence of intelligent design and I wouldn't say millions of years, I would say it's impossible.

That too. But also they literally have no idea what their gut looked like before they dropped it off the island. They assume the intestinal muscles must be new in order to fit their narrative. In actuality, they are just guessing. It is the opposite of science.

a reply to: cooperton

They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before.

You see? They admit they didn't document the intestine structure prior to dumping them on the island. They are assuming that these intestinal muscles were not there prior to them being dumped on the island. Truth is, they have no idea if it was or not. They are simply assuming the intestinal muscles were not there prior, solely so they can bolster their own results. It's this sort of bad science that fools you guys so easily.

You know, all I see is an argument so WAAAAYYY out of context it is full of enough false dilemma and appeal to ignorance fallacy to make The History Channel envious. Somewhere, in its own land of seeing only what's filtered through various torch-lit lenses.

"Never documented before" does not imply they never did an examination of the specimen they released for an evolution study.  In context they are simply saying these digestive features were not documented before, and does not speak at all to previous documents.

You must change the contextual definition for what "never documented before" means and simultaneously argue they didn't examine the specimen thoroughly before using it in a study. It argues they didn't know the anatomy of the specimen until years after the study began.

a reply to: neoholographic

So it's false to say evolution took 4.5 billion years because that implies that all of the diversity and all of the animals we see today took 4.5 billion years to evolve.

Humorously misleading.

Even LUCA came 700 million years later.

That's our proposed distant ancestor, and also the ancestor of carrots, and strep throat causing bacteria.

It is believed to have existed around thermal undersea vents.  Which may have been that primordial environment of all things living and replicating, even viruses per coevolution hypothesis (bubble theory).

ALL MAJOR ANIMAL BODY PLANS!

If you think this much information just happens, you're living in a fantasy.

How did all this information get encoded in the genome through a random, natural process? Like I said, it's a false paradigm.

What of oxygen? Would there have been a Cambrian explosion without photosynthesis and increased levels in the gas near the surface?

There is a natural path to behold.

From LUCA to the first multicellular photosynthetic organisms 500 million years later to oxygen producing cyanobacteria 2.7 billion years ago.  Geological evidence of oxygen present in atmosphere goes back 2.4 billion years. Algae surpassed bacteria in multicellular complexity 1.2 billion years ago and then the most IMPORTANT thing to occur was the emergence/thriving of Green Algae in sunlight, which coincided with the Cambrian explosion.

But how did this all occur?

www.eurekalert.org...

The study showed that organisms containing more than two or three different cell types appeared soon after the surface environment became oxygenated around 2,300 million years ago. This was around the same time that cells became able to extract the energy from oxygen, thanks to the emergence of mitochondria.

Life forms became even more complex following the evolution of organelles able to produce oxygen. Plastids, such as chloroplasts found in plants, evolved around 1,500 million years ago. During the following 500 million years, organisms that contained up to 50 different cell types evolved. These more complex organisms included algae, which would have benefited directly from being able to produce their own oxygen, and early animals and fungi, which could use this extra oxygen to provide energy for their development.

But how did mitochondria emerge?

There are ideas here too.

www.nature.com...

Mitochondria and chloroplasts likely evolved from engulfed bacteria that once lived as independent organisms. At some point, a eukaryotic cell engulfed an aerobic bacterium, which then formed an endosymbiotic relationship with the host eukaryote, gradually developing into a mitochondrion.

The Cambrian explosion is fascinating. After billions of years of little change *something* made everything "explode". 

Green algae, and an associated runaway oxygenation event.

All major body plans did indeed come into existence in a boom, but the statement "because they all happened in certain era proves they were all created via intelligent design" is false by virtue of the same black and white fallacy the other guy used. This dismisses the role oxygen levels at the surface, the multicellular organisms that produced it, and anything contradicting the assumption played. The other options, even those more valid are ignored.

originally posted by: Degradation33

"Never documented before" does not imply they never did an examination of the specimen they released for an evolution study.  In context they are simply saying these digestive features were not documented before, and does not speak at all to previous documents.

They did not do an examination of the intestines to check for particular intestinal muscles before dropping them on the island (otherwise they would have included this in the results). They only did it after the fact because they wondered why they ate so many vegetables. So they have no original anatomical sample to compare it to. They are simply making the assumption that these tiny intestinal muscles somehow evolved by random chance in 30-some years. Science should be based on objectivity, not assumptions.

You guys are so gullible... The fact is, there are no examples of organisms evolving. Organisms can only adapt within the confines of what their genetic code allows.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: neoholographic
...
You are referring to the Peppered moth.  And you neglected to mention the evolutionary response was related to the soot produced by the industrial revolution (The black were not recorded by biologists until 1811). Or that the light colored ones reflourished in population after pollution was reduced.

Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”(1) After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.”⁠(2) The case was, of course, the peppered moth.

Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.

But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”(3)

The inaccurate claim that the peppered moth is evolving is similar to several other examples. For instance, since some germs have proved resistant to antibiotics, it is claimed that evolution is taking place. But the hardier germs are still the same type, not evolving into anything else. And it is even acknowledged that the change may have been due, not to mutations, but to the fact that some germs were immune to begin with. When the others were killed off by drugs, the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. As Evolution From Space says: “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.”⁠(4)

The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.

The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”

Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”⁠(5) (also see the subject of the law of recurrent variation as discussed by Dr. Lönnig in this article under Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.)

Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].”(6) So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.

Thus, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: “The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction.”⁠(7) And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: “All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity.”⁠(8) Scientific American also observes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.”(9) And a science writer commented: “Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs.” He concluded that mutations “cannot account for overall evolution​—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”⁠(10)

The matter of variation within a kind explains something that influenced Darwin’s original thinking about evolution. When he was on the Galápagos Islands he observed a type of bird called a finch. These birds were the same type as their parent kind on the South American continent, from where they apparently had migrated. But there were curious differences, such as in the shape of their beaks. Darwin interpreted this as evolution in progress. But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature’s genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.

Thus, what Genesis says is in full harmony with scientific fact. When you plant seeds, they produce only “according to their kinds,” so you can plant a garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are always cats. When humans become parents, their children are always humans. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? Neither has anyone else.

The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’”⁠(11)

Similarly, geneticist C. H. Waddington stated regarding the belief in mutations: “This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. . . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better.”⁠(12)

The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.”⁠(13)

References listed in subsequent comment.

a reply to: Degradation33

References from previous comment:

1. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia, 1970, Vol. 20, p. 2706.

2. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.

3. On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.

4. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 5.

5. On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8, 9.

6. Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, p. 884.

7. Molecules to Living Cells, “Simple Inorganic Molecules to Complex Free-Living Cells,” Scientific American, Section I, introduction by Philip C. Hanawalt, 1980, p. 3.

8. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, by Lynn Margulis, 1981, p. 87.

9. Scientific American, “The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus,” by Edouard Kellenberger, December 1966, p. 32.

10. Los Angeles Times, “Fishing for Evolution’s Answer,” by Irving S. Bengelsdorf, November 2, 1967.

11. The Orion Book of Evolution, by Jean Rostand, 1961, p. 79.

12. Science Today, “Evolution,” by C. H. Waddington, 1961, p. 38.

13. On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, by John N. Moore, December 27, 1971, p. 5.

originally posted by: cooperton
You guys are so gullible... The fact is, there are no examples of organisms evolving. Organisms can only adapt within the confines of what their genetic code allows.

Other than that conditions and events within, and without, our environment can lead to mutagenesis.

Because of natural selection, unfavorable mutations will typically be eliminated from a population while favorable changes are generally kept for the next generation, and neutral changes accumulate at the rate they are created by mutations. This process happens by reproduction. In a particular generation the 'best fit' survive with higher probability, passing their genes to their offspring. The sign of the change in this probability defines mutations to be beneficial, neutral or harmful to organisms.

en.wikipedia.org...

On a side note, the following is a nice article considering the consequences to our environment that the likes of Darwin and Huxley had in knocking humanity off it's pedestle of Divine Creation.

Perceiving the philosophical implications of this speciose bough, Huxley wrote:

Perhaps no order of mammals presents us with so extraordinary a series of gradations as this—leading us insensibly from the crown and summit of the animal creation down to creatures, from which there is but a step, as it seems, to the lowest, smallest, and least intelligent of the placental Mammalia. It is as if nature herself had foreseen the arrogance of man, and with Roman severity had provided that his intellect, by its very triumphs, should call into prominence the slaves, admonishing the conqueror that he is but dust.

The year these words were published, 1863, Huxley was appointed by the British government to be one of three royal commissioners investigating the state of marine fisheries. The commission had been formed to resolve a dispute between artisanal fishermen, who used hooks, lines, and crab pots, and trawlermen, who sailed larger ships, towing a net like a wide gullet, the lower jaw of which was a weighted cable that dragged along the sea floor. Over the previous two decades, the British trawling fleet had quadrupled in size, and artisanal fishermen thought the trawlers were not only extracting inordinate volumes of valuable fish, but also degrading the seafloor “garden” or “forest” that those fish relied on as habitat. Ship captains had been threatened, and their nets set ablaze.

nautil.us...