Please stop equating mammoth carcasses, frozen in tundra for 10,000 years, or less, with T-Rex bones, dug out of rock after 145 MILLION years.
Dave, again, Paleontologists didn’t know themselves to look for this. They’re surprised by it, they tested it, it turns out to work & and they’ve gone back and found this tissue in other fossils.
Unless you’re touting a conspiracy, this just comes back to science itself being a search for knowledge, and that we don’t know all the implications.
Astronomy made a discovery by finding there were 1000s of habitable planets hiding in data of solar systems astronomers had already scanned; are you going to be credulous of that too?
I’m skeptical of ANY “scientist” who suddenly “finds” something extraordinary that hundreds of their predecessors somehow “missed” at just the moment people begin to question the validity of their “research.”
The results have been duplicated by other teams, they’ve found the skin on other fossils, and they performed tests to confirm this process preserves skin.
There’s not much else to be said, other than “hey, that actually looks like skin, and it would confirm that the Dino was scaly, not covered in feathers.”
You’re still stuck on thermodynamics. You’re missing the point I made. Allow me to review it.
So thermodynamics is but a special case of the larger observation that disorder only increases. Metals corrode. Dropped coins scatter. Everything decays. DNA mutates (which is almost totally deleterious).
How then can anyone seriously propose that the average trend within life is toward extreme order and elegant design? It counters intuition, logic and experience.
Discussions specifically about thermodynamics aren’t directly relevant in this thread, but since you’re stuck on the closed system I can’t help but present you with a thought experiment.
Suppose you have a closed system containing an inefficient heat engine. Entropy inside is clearly increasing.
Now poke a tiny hole in the system boundary which exchanges a tiny bit of mass and energy. You no longer have a closed system.
Does entropy suddenly stop increasing?
Your “broader” point worked in the opposite direction anyway.
If DNA is accruing mutations overtime, it’s becoming more complex, not less. (and it’s damn crazy what our DNA has stored. Things CRISPR could bring back to kill us all.)
DNA is a blank tape, recording imprints from a whole variety of inputs ( not just random, genetic drift). Overtime, it also became more articulate in what it could record through varieties of proteins.
Right now, what I’m waiting from you is some sort of qualification I haven’t heard yet. Like CT and even Bahe, you likely believe Microevolution is real.
Otherwise, you’d have to be saying God is targeting poor people in Africa with plagues whenever a new strain of SARS or influenza hits, because… the Gnostics were right, and there’s an evil God controlling everything material?
If “work” is being somehow transferred to the outside, than yes. But that doesn’t apply to the Earth, which has far more heat being applied to it overtime (then turned into work), than lost to space.
BTW, the universe itself has gone from a state of low entropy to high. Order grew in more complexity, with atoms arranging themselves into heavier elements, later generations of stars attracting those elements to form satellites and different forms of planets/planetoids, all in an attempt of our own Universal system to reach Thermodynamic equilibrium.
The point? That’s nature, reaching for higher states of order right there in the cosmos. So why not here on Earth?
How many times have “fantastic proof of evolution” has been found, only to find that it was a hoax?
I think it was the brilliant (yes, I mean that seriously) atheist/scientist Stephen Hawking who said, “Evolution is unproven and unprovable, but we believe it, because the only other possibility is creation, and that is unthinkable.” [meaning, I believe, that if he allowed himself to think it, he would have to abandon his atheism].
It’s originally attributed to Sir Arthur Keith, physical anthropologist and head of the Anatomy Department at London Hospital back in the 1930s.
However, it doesn’t appear he actually said this. It’s claimed he wrote this in the forward to 100th anniversary edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, but he died 4 years before that was published, and that edition contains no word from him. He did actually write an introduction in 1928, but no where did he say this.
The entire quote appears to be fabricated, as there’s a similar quote attributed to Dr. George Wald (a Nobel laureate in Physiology):
But Dr. Wald didn’t say this either, what he said was this:
It seems to be mimetic mutation, where people are claimed to have said one thing, when it meant something else, and then variations were attributed to other people.
Evolution has been proven, Michael Behe the author of KenJackson’s book tried to deny Whales could have evolved on land because of the absence of fossils pointing to an ancestor with none-vestigial legs, only for two such fossils to be found a year later (he now admits he was wrong).
It’s beyond the pale now, because Evolution can be linked to practical science.
We can look to the Fossil record, surmise that certain genes are within an animal from an ancestor, look inside those animals genes, find the genes of the ancestor, and with CRISPR, turn those genes on.
Hence why we’ve produced a Chicken with Dinosaur legs.
The only way chickens could have genes from an animal they didn’t live alongside of, is if they were somehow related.
We didn’t put those genes there, they were already there. Serving no purpose other than as fingerprints of what time and selection does to biological design.
I’m not seeing an alternative explanation from you for how this is possible.
If not evolution, why are the genes there?
Or why do whales have hind legs they clearly don’t need?
Again, there would seem to be a qualification, you haven’t voiced yet.
If these are the bones I’m thinking of, they’ve been shown to not be vestigial legs, but actively used bones for a totally different purpose.
Close. A much bigger question is how did ANY genes get there? Ever?
Nope, not for this humpback whale, too small:
We’re not talking about just any genes.
Were talking about genes from a completely different animal, that lived millions of years ago, in one that lives today.
What is your explanation for that? What is going on?
Again, I think that you concede micro-evolution occurs, am I wrong?
The writers in both of the books you’ve cited do.
LOL. AS is scrambling around HOPING for “proof” of evolution. So far, it’s mostly BS, like that article on “chicken legs.”
Uh Dave? They actually did this:
Are you purporting a conspiracy?
The year before, this same team performed a similar genetic manipulation of a Chick’s feet:
It’s real Dave, no one is trying to trick you. They actually did this.
I finally got around to reading that paper you referenced by Nilsson and Pelger that estimates the time required for an eye to evolve. They start with a flat patch of light-sensitive cells and slowly morphed it into a “fully developed” but simple, non-human lens eye.
Taking a patch of pigmented light-sensitive epithelium as the starting point, we avoid the more inaccessible problem of photoreceptor cell evolution (…). Thus if the objective is limited to finding the number of generations required for the evolution of an eye’s optical geometry, then the problem becomes solvable.
They admit that evolving photoreceptors is a problem so they avoid it. They only deal with the shape. But they don’t even address HOW the changes in shape would happen–just the number of steps they think would be needed.
In fact, a smooth gradient of refractive index, like that in fish or cephalopod lenses, offers a superior design principle for making lenses: the optical system can be made more compact, and aberrations can be reduced considerably (…).
Did they say “a superior design principle?” Did they forget they were talking about a supposedly undirected natural process? And the discussion about the best design continues:
However, the best position for a lens to be introduced in a pinhole eye is in the aperture, clearly distal to the centre of curvature of the retina. Because the central and peripheral parts of the retina will then be at different distances from the lens, there is no need for the lense to be spherical. In fact, an ellipsoid lense is better because it can compensate optically for the difference in retinal distance.
Altogether 1829 steps of 1% are needed for the entire model sequence. Natural selection would act simultaneously on all characters that positively affect performance.
They assume that successive 1% changes in shape could each be implemented with something simple (maybe a point mutation?). Is that reasonable? It wasn’t even discussed. It’s a HUGE assumption that’s just glossed over as inconsequential, but it’s a crucial foudation of the paper.
On page 5 of 6, section 5 “Discussion”:
Eyes closely resembling every part of the model sequence can be found among animals existing today (…).
OK, so did they analyze the differences in genes for the many proteins that make up the real eyes (including photoreceptors) in animals corresponding to their model sequence? If they did, they didn’t mention it. To show evolution is possible, you HAVE TO do that comparison.
There’s no value in just showing how many steps it would take a sculptor to reshape the parts in clay, as they essentially did. You HAVE TO look at the genes.
Also, there are a lot of proteins that play crucial roles in eyes. Does the real animal with the eye corresponding to their light sensitive patch have genes to make all of the proteins in the corresponding final eye, including the new parts? That’s a CRUCIAL question. If they’re not there, you have to answer how they were added. (But note this thread’s topic and first post.)
Also on page 5 of 6, section 5 “Discussion”:
The development of a lens with a mathematically ideal distribution of refractive index may at first glance seem miraculous. Yet the elevation of refractive index in the lenses of both vertebrates and cephalopods is caused by proteins that are identical or similar to proteins with other cellular functions (…). Selection has thus recruited gene products that were already there.
In this context it is obvious that the eye was never a real threat to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
This whole paper, except for the two sentences that mention proteins and genes, could have been written in the 19th century. Even though they referenced more recent papers, optics have been thoroughly understood for centuries.
Even 24 years ago, when this paper was written, enough was probably known about eye proteins to do a proper analysis. And if they had, the threat to Darwin would have been evident.
Eyes were designed by an intelligent agent.
Either pure Darwinism through mutation or even something called Epigenetics. Changes in Phenotype, without a change in Genotype (though if confirmed over enough generations, it likely will result in the latter).
Remember how I told you Lamarck wasn’t wrong? This is part of it.
Cells change how they read the genes slightly enough to produce subtle variations in organisms, without mutation or a change in the genes themselves.
This plays a huge role in human disease: Such as how someone can have a higher instance of diabetes, when this instance first arose in their parents who lived highly sedentary lifestyles, and even though they (the child) didn’t, they still have that higher instance.
More subtly, it also plays a role in human racial differences; how our diets and geography/environment molded our skin tone and facial features (among other traits).
For this case here concerning “eyes” on small creatures, variations that changed either the pigment, or the light-sensing geometry, producing a creature that was slightly better adapted to its environment, and thus got the resources to survive & reproduce more often.
Again, Epigenetics; I think this is what you were missing. Not just mutation, but gene expression (how much of a gene, and whether its expressed at all within cells), which is less random. Gene expression creating very subtle variations, which became codified in the code when they continued to produce better results in terms of survival for several generations.
Even the paper itself states that the rate of the genes finding “better” variations is very low, 1%? Across 10s of 1,000s of years?
Keep in mind, all racial differences you see between humans, occurred within the last 3,000 years.
This is a very practical, and very doable timetable.
You’ll find the previous study mentioned in this one. Nilsson, who lead the previous study, was at the head of another study looking at the eyes of vertebrate and cephalopods. Cephalopods in particular seem to have followed the model.
Oh, and as that study points out; it’s unclear, but it may just be that eyes developed not just once, but multiple times.
Epigenetics can add traits without changing genes themselves (at least not intially). I think you should read up on it, as it again, plays role in observed human biology.
Here’s a short explanation if you’re interested:
Because it’s God’s coding? Similarities result from copying and pasting code at the point of creation. Just saying. The existence of “off” genes does not prove evolution or disprove a six-day creation.
I always marvel when someone who believes in God scoffs at the idea that God in fact may have created the earth in six days – especially with such certainty.