Just as whales are still mammals.
1 Like
Why can’t you verify it?
It’s a rather obvious prediction. If cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammals then there should have been species at some point that had a mixture of cetacean and terrestrial mammal features. We can look at fossils to see if there are any that have that mixture of features.
What changes are you looking for?
Again, what changes are you looking for?
Given your stubbornness in other posts, I doubt that you would even count that as a verification.
It’s just a matter of want-to and time. If you want to learn this material there is nothing stopping you.
You can prove the overarching concept of evo to be wrong. It is a very falsifiable theory. The link I gave you lists 29 such potential falsifications. Here is an example:
In other words, the tree of life based on the physical characteristics did not correlate with the tree of life based on DNA sequence then the theory would have been proven wrong.
You can do the same with the distribution of physical characteristics in both living and fossil species and the DNA sequences of genomes from living and extinct species. This type of data can be used to test conclusions within the theory of evolution. It is all observable and repeatable.
The mixture of features in fossils is observable and repeatable. The theory of evolution makes predictions about which mixtures of features you should and should not see.
And humans are still apes, still primates, still mammals, still amniotes, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes.
YEC is misrepresenting how science is done. They incorrectly claim that you should be able to observe the hypothesis. That isn’t how science is done. Observations and hypotheses are separate things. Everything we use to test the theory of evolution is observable right now.
2 Likes
In fact I don’t see you doing that. How are you verifying your Christian beliefs the way Thomas did? That’s effectively what I was asking before.
Let’s rewrite it so it might be a bit clearer. For one I’m not trying to verify my Christian belief in this forum.
Thomas had to put his fingers in the wounds of Jesus to verify for himself Jesus was resurrected.
I verify and acknowledge that fossils of pakicetus and ambulocetus exist, by what I have seen on youtube. I’m not doing exactly what Thomas did for him to be satisfied with his doubts, but I have cleared my doubts of the existence of those fossils by what I have seen on youtube, so I don’t need to touch them.
What I am saying now is the evidence that one animal became another animal isn’t clear to me and the method Im using to verify the link between the 2 animals has failed. All I see are 2 animals that once lived are now extinct. That part I accept and believe to be true based on what I have seen on youtube. The changing of fossils of Pakecetus I haven’t seen on youtube, so that method of verification has failed to verify the changes. I can however imagine it.
I haven’t, I accept and believe he is alive. That is where john 3:16 kicks in. I understand from that scripture, I don’t have to go out and verify Jesus having lived, died and was resurrected. The reality of that though, is I also could be wrong which I fully acknowledge. This is where faith then kicks in.
This is the difference with evolution as it isn’t a belief it is a fact as I am constantly told, but I can’t go out and verify it, it seems from where I’m sitting, I can only accept and believe what I am told about it “mainly historical science”. I accept and believe in observable sciences. If I wanted to, I could conduct an experiment like Darwin’s finches and probably get roughly a similar result.
All I can do with Pakicetus and Ambulocetus is observe the bones but I can’t observe the changes. That is when my imagination does that for me and that isn’t suppose to be part of science. If scientist said we believed that pakicetus evolved to be Ambulocetus, then I would have no issue with that.
Perfect.
Not so perfect. You still have to accept , trust and believe what these scientist say. Unless we can personally verify something, then it does come back to accept trusting and believing what we are told.
I do accept that they maybe right, but that is all I can do, I can’t test it like I can test drive a car
You haven’t verified a thing, you have gone through a process that verifies the condition of the car, and you are satisfied with it, based on trust, but this report could also be false. That is the reality of it. We know that happens.
[[quote=“peterkp, post:217, topic:43863”]
I have verified it in this case precisely by trusting the testimony of someone who does know. But I haven’t believed yet. That only happens when I decide to pay over the money and buy the car.
[/quote]
That’s back to front. [Unless you have written this wrong by accident] I do accept “trusting the testimony of someone who knows”, but you don’t “believe” the cars good because you decided to hand the money over. That’s not rational.
You hand the money because you believe the verification report is accurate and trustworthy and good, that is what you believe it to be true, then you hand the money over. You will get yourself into a lot of trouble doing it your way. Even still under the best methods, people still get sold a lemon.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It might be better to say that there are the facts of evolution which is all of the data we find out in nature. This includes the physical features (i.e. morphology) of both living and fossil species and the DNA sequences found in genomes. These are the facts. The theory of evolution explains why we see these facts and not others. For example, the theory of evolution explains (theory) why we see fossils species with a mixture of whale and terrestrial mammal features (facts).
Fossils are observable.
You don’t have to imagine the features found in these fossils. You can directly observe them and see if they match the predictions made by the theory.
Scientists don’t believe that. Both pakicetus and ambulocetus could have been side branches, and it could be that neither are direct ancestors of any living or known fossil species. Scientists are not claiming any direct ancestor to descendent relationships. What they are claiming is that these fossils contain mixtures of features that we should see if cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammals. As Darwin put it:
Both Pakicetus and Ambulocetus could very well be collateral descendants, side branches of the tree that went extinct but still carried the transitional features found in the direct ancestral path.
The fossils are available to the public. You can verify all of their findings.
3 Likes
You must be looking at something different to me. Thewissen showed the tip of the snout was missing on ambulocetus. He didn’t know if the nasal opening was at the tip or where he decided to put it, which was 1/3 of the way up the upper jaw. I’m assuming kutchicetus came after Ambulocetus and the nasal opening was at the tip of the snout, so he said it himself that the nasal opening for Ambulocetus was also probably at the tip of the snout.
incorrect placement. These ones were in museums and the nasal opening was falsely assumed to be evolving upto the the top of the head.
Based on kutchicetus post ambulocetus, this probably more accurate.
Actually the deformation rates without breaking have been tested in laboratories. Some are fragile enough that no results have yet been obtained, or at least hadn’t when I was taking geology courses.
So from when you stopped geology classes you don’t have an accurate observation eg of crystal deformation rates on younger rocks, so is it an assumption what the original condition of the crystals in the older rock are. As you said you know what the original conditions of the older rocks were, but currently nothing to compare with known aged rocks. Is that how it is, or am I missing something.
John 14:17 (ESV)
It is a spirit first and yes it is a distinct entity Who acts, thinks, speaks which is a personal spirit which dwells within a persons physical body. Seems to clear to me.
No, it isn’t an assumption because crystals aren’t formed already deformed, it takes formation and then the application of pressure to make them deformed.
Laboratory work shows how fast various crystals can deform without breaking, which allows the determination of minimum ages of deformed rocks.
This sounds as though you’re saying that there is a holy spirit in each person, and that this spirit only exists in persons. That is not the same as the Holy Spirit being a Person Who can dwell in multiple people.
1 Like
I’m a bit confused, so you can see the non-deformed crystals in new rocks?
No separate from people, but can and does dwell within people. Is the holy spirit in everyone.? I don’t know, I don’t think so, to be honest I don’t know, or exactly how it works. I never asked for it, didn’t even know what it was, but something started talking to me at one of my lowest points and gave me the option to follow it or continue on down the slippery slope I was on. I chose to listen and follow. The bible give’s an explanation and understanding of it, which I understood and made the most amounts of sense compared to a variety of explanations I have come across… i keep myself open to learning about it. I trusted it now for over 30yrs and I’ve cleaned out a lot of rubbish in my life because of it, so it has worked, but I can’t say what it is, but I can only say what I believe it is., that being jesus. The holy spirit had been released after Jesus ascension, so based on that, it is him, the comforter, the 3rd part of the triune.
And in old non-deformed rocks.
1 Like
This isn’t making sense. So you can see non deformed crystals in new rocks and old non-deformed rocks. Is that correct. What then is a non-deformed rock compared to a deformed rock.
Well of course you don’t have to verify anything in life - that’s a free choice we all have. But I am curious, because for me the whole issue is our contrasting definitions of verify and believe. Thomas’s story shows us that verifying the truthfulness of Christianity is a good thing to do. If we talk about what verifying means in that different setting, it will help both of us understand each other better.
And this for me is the perfect illustration of what I’ve just said. And where we differ. I do have to go out and verify Jesus having lived, died and was resurrected. To verify is to confirm the truthfulness of. For you and me, the methodology of confirmation differs from Thomas’s method, because we are in a different place historically from him. But verification is still a thing, and believing because we have verified is still a thing. A good thing.
So again, I’m challenging you on definitions. You say, unless we can personally verify something… And I say: Wrong. There’s more than one way to verify something. It doesn’t always have to be personal. Verification can include trusting others who have done the work.
That’s why I gave you the car purchase example. You may be able to test drive a car, but I can’t. As I said, I know nothing. So what do I do? I suppose I could buy a car randomly from a car yard by tossing a coin, but we both agree that would be irrational. It would be blind faith. But those are not my only options. I could get someone else who does know cars to check it out for me. That too would be a verification, as I understand the meaning of the word.
As I said: I have verified it. By getting someone who knows about cars to do it for me. And of course that can go wrong, whether it’s me or someone else checking. But what we don’t do is completely redefine words. If it later turns out that the car was a dud, the original test was still a verification. It just turned out to be a bad verification for that car.
This is why I made the distinction between verify and believe. And I didn’t accidentally mis-record my definitions:
Verifying that the car is good = Taking whatever steps I consider necessary to conclude intellectually that it’s a good car. Some of those steps may be mine; some may be delegated to better people than me.
Believing that the car is good = buying it!
And if the car turns out to be a dud, then I will admit that the verification was badly done. But it was still a verification. I will also admit that I had a misplaced belief. But it was still a belief. Otherwise you and I are having a conversation where we use the same words but attach completely different meanings to them.
Sometimes, when there is a confusion of words, it can help both people to try new words in the conversation. So for example, is it helpful to ask you about reasonable and unreasonable beliefs? For example, is it reasonable to believe in Christianity? Or is it the case, as some atheists say, that you and I have an irrational faith, a faith in spite of the contrary evidence? I don’t think so. I consider my faith to be based on reasonable grounds. What about you?
4 Likes
Ok Peter, I put my hand up, I got the definition of verification wrong. I see it, it is basically due diligence. Using the eg of buying a car, you use your due diligence, by getting other people to investigate the car to make sure it is safe and viable to buy. This is where the accept and belief and trust comes in, once a report and approval of the car comes in from the external source, which as we both written in our eg, could be wrong, so I think that put’s us on the same page with the verification.
Not everyone can go out and verify Jesus though, that’s why belief comes first as it doesn’t matter if you can’t verify it, you simply may not be able to. The main thing is you believed, whatever the reasons may be. Verification is not necessary, but it is there if one needs to, like doubting Thomas and yes it is a good thing.
My methods of verifying the life, death and resurrection of Jesus maybe a bit different to most, Once I read and understood about Jesus resurrection and the release of the holy spirit after his ascension, that was the vital piece of information regarding the holy spirit I was seeking to understand, it was like the missing piece of the puzzle.
There is much more to it, but that became key to understanding my initial experiences I had gone through with the holy spirit for that 1st 6 years as I had no clue what it was or where it came from in those early stages.
Agreed.
I agree, I’ll split my explanations and experiences and the grounds in which I place my faith on, into 2 different times. Pre spirit led and post spirit led. The difference between the 2 continually widen apart, not a time based widening, but how I live, think and view my life, the world and all that goes on inside it. Pre spirit, there was no such thinking at all. I was simply trying to function as a human being but struggled to achieve that basic goal.
The holy spirit has led me to this insight of myself and the world around me. It isn’t just the words of the bible that I’m grounding my faith in, but the walk that has unfolded in front of my eyes that cements it in place. The 2 together have built the foundations. One without the other and my fear is it would start to crumble as I can use that 1st 6 years of a spirit led life without the bible knowledge and see where I was heading, which could easily of been catastrophic in it’s own right.
I thank the spirit for getting me into a church to start those lessons and I thank the spirit again for showing me the inner readings of the bible and who he is and I now know I can thank Jesus who is that spirit. That is my belief from all I have experienced, read, understood and accept as the truth.
This is why I think the eg of Thomas and later peter walking on the water tells us we need more than just words, but there has to be an experience to back it up if one requires it. In my case the experiences came first then the words which tied it altogether for me. Without that knowledge though. I could compare a non biblical spiritual life style is like taking over a airborne plane having never read the manual.
Creationists point to echolocation as a complex sense that involves cooperation of different aspects of whale physiology, with the usual “what good is evolving blah if you do not have yet blah”. The idea that a unified functionality would involve common selection pressures is just so hard for YEC to get.
Have you ever taken a phone call, and just from the reverb of the voice, knew that the caller was in an completely empty room or new build? That is a start, but this new article on the Scientific American site took it further for even us humans, featuring coordination between training and brain plasticity.
Anyone Can Learn Echolocation in Just 10 Weeks—And It Remodels Your Brain
After training, both groups showed increased auditory cortex activation in response to sound in general, as well as higher gray matter density in auditory areas.
Most surprisingly, after training, both blind and sighted participants also showed visual cortex activation in response to audible echoes.
We show here, for the first time, functional and structural brain changes in primary sensory areas V1 and A1 in blind and sighted people who learn click-based echolocation in adulthood. These results are a key finding with respect to previous studies that found plasticity in blind and sighted adult people primarily in higher-order sensory areas
Whales, of course, are in an environment for which the relative importance of sound is more pronounced, as water transmits sound better than air, and light is more diminished. Given that, selective pressure would favor adaptations which convey auditory information. Sonar is not some sense that comes out of nowhere, and there are no irreducible barriers to evolving physiological traits that work together.
3 Likes
Interesting stuff on echolocation. I usually play with opening the house door into our garage and guessing whether the garage door is open or not based on the sound quality when zipping up the house for the night.
3 Likes
It is worth mentioning recent evidence for rudimentary echolocation in hippos.
https://brill.com/view/journals/beh/155/2-3/article-p231_6.xml
3 Likes
Yes. And when you have deformed or broken crystals in old deformed rocks, that can be used to calculate minimum ages of the deformed old rocks.
1 Like
How long does it take for crystals to become deformed or broken?
It depends on the crystal, with factors such as the strength of molecular bonds, the lattice arrangement of the atoms, and the heat and pressure involved. Generally, the more complex the lattice the more brittle it is, just as the higher the heat and pressure the more malleable it will be.
I don’t recall the various deformation rates for different crystals, but thinking about it does remind me that it is quite possible to have a rock where some crystals are deformed without breaking while others have broken, which would give two rough dates, an upper limit and a lower limit – in other words, the broken crystals would tell us that the rocks bent at least rate x while the unbroken ones would tell us that the rock bent at no more than rate x + k.
That BTW reminds me there’s another way to rough-date deformed rocks, one that depends on river-worn inclusions. I’m having a sudden spell of brain-fog at the moment and can’t wrangle the words to describe how that works.
1 Like
You’re doing well. I’m trying to ask question that don’t sound stupid and I don’t know if they are or not. Anyway.
So deformed crystals without breaking give a rough date at the lower limit. Does that means younger or older age?, and broken crystals give a date at the opposite limit. ?
So how do you figure out the lengths of time for unbroken and broken crystals [those higher and lower limits]. in r/e to the heat and pressure and how do you determine the strength of molecular bonds, and the lattice arrangement of the atoms to figure out those times.
[also, how do you determine what the heat and pressure was during the course of the rocks time through to today? Did it stay a constant and how do you determine that?],
I’m not sure if my questions are even relevant, but I’m trying to draw a picture in my mind of what you’re are saying, so it is clearer for me. We’ll see how we go.
Thanks though for answering some of my questions, even if what you say doesn’t make much sense. I still appreciate it.
How did they get the different rates for different crystals
rate x would give
while rate x+k
Brain fog is worse; I can’t put together a sentence about those. But I’ll think it through by writing.
Broken crystals tell us the rock bent at least as fast as x, while unbroken crystals tell us the rock didn’t bend faster than x + k. To use an analogy, broken crystals are thus like a runner going at least 8kph, but the unbroken ones say the runner isn’t going faster than 10kph. In time t, unbroken will go farther than broken.
I’ve never had this problem with rates before – dang! Someone jump in here while my brain is on idle on rate problems?
Very, very extremely sensitive equipment in the laboratory. Ones that break fast are easy, ones that break slow can be next to impossible.
Bond strength and lattice arrangements can be found on charts or seen with an electron microscope (this is the point at which I dropped getting a geology degree; knowing all the different crystal arrangements and how they can transform had students who passed the course on crystals sleeping only four or five nights a week, something I decided I wasn’t going to do to myself [my roommate took the course and was up all night memorizing crystal structures three nights a week]).
Pressure can be calculated from the depth in a geological formation; it’s pretty much a direct function of the mass of the rock above. Temperature generally comes from the same information plus some physics – lots of math involved here.
The fun comes in when – as was done in two geology courses – you’re handed a rock and told to date it but without information about where it came from. Depending on the rock type good estimates as to depth and temperature can be made. You look for bent but unbroken crystals, broken crystals, amount of various minerals in the rock, any veins of minerals however tiny, evidence of metamorphism, and other details.
That can be determined by the stratum they’re in and what’s above them, which requires figuring out what kinds of deposits are involved and how long it takes the rock of the various strata to become rock, plus looking at any heat sources in the formation.
I draw such things in graphs, but the graphs for this will be in more dimensions than three, which is why computer modeling is so useful; a computer doesn’t care if it has an array in three, four, seven, eleven, or any other number of variables/dimensions.
As above, stress measurements done in labs with extremely sensitive equipment.
There were a lot of doubters in one of my classes and we insisted on examining the relevant gear (or at least a diagram) and assessing for ourselves if the numbers in the charts could be correct. I remember being amazed at how tiny the units involved were; I’d be probably more amazed today since they can now measure in wavelengths of light. I was also impressed at the patience of geologists who tried such measurements before there were computers to do the boring work of monitoring and repeating with dozens+ of different crystals!
1 Like