Plan B Forum

Christian apologists should abandon the big bang

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (About this sound lemaitre.ogg (help·info) 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble[1][2]. He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[3][4][5][6] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Gregor Mendel, a monk, discovered the basic principles of heredity which now forms the underlying mechanism and basis for evolution. Neither one was able to reduce the anti-science fanaticism of Christianity.

yrs,
rubato

Neither Gregor Mendel nor anyone else has ever documented or explained in any cogent way how one species can "evolve" into another species (different DNA). String beans are still string beans at the end of the day.

But cabbage is not kale is not kolrabi is not cauliflower is not brussel sprouts, and yet all of them are descended from the wild cabbage, genetically engineered by farmers by doing nothing more complicated than selecting for certain attributes when cultivating them.

So much for "evolution from one species to another has never been observed", eh?

dgs49 wrote:Neither Gregor Mendel nor anyone else has ever documented or explained in any cogent way how one species can "evolve" into another species (different DNA). String beans are still string beans at the end of the day.

"Species" is a concept. Not a 'thing'. That might help you.

How new species have evolved is well explained and documented in the scientific literature.


But you'll have to overcome an aversion to reading to figure that one out.







yrs,
rubato

Scooter wrote:But cabbage is not kale is not kolrabi is not cauliflower is not brussel sprouts, and yet all of them are descended from the wild cabbage, genetically engineered by farmers by doing nothing more complicated than selecting for certain attributes when cultivating them.

So much for "evolution from one species to another has never been observed", eh?

Not really: Those examples do not involve "one species [and] another"; they involve one species.

Wild cabbage is Brassica oleracea.

Kale is Brassica oleracea.

Kohlrabi is Brassica oleracea.

Cauliflower is Brassica oleracea.

Brussels sprouts are Brassica oleracea.

(See, e.g., The Oxford Companion to Food (1999) at pp. 120, 425, 434, 147, and 110.)

An argument for "evolution from one species to another" would be rather more persuasive if it actually involved more than one species.

Is it wrong that this thread is making me hungry?

Scooter wrote:But cabbage is not kale is not kolrabi is not cauliflower is not brussel sprouts, and yet all of them are descended from the wild cabbage, genetically engineered by farmers by doing nothing more complicated than selecting for certain attributes when cultivating them.

So much for "evolution from one species to another has never been observed", eh?

Ah the old intelligent design argument! Well put sir, well put!

(But do let me know when one of those becomes a potato)

Meade

Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto! Let's call the whole thing off!

Is it wrong that this thread is making me hungry?

If talk about kale, kohlrabi, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts is making you hungry, than yes it's wrong....very wrong....

Now go sit in the corner and wallow in your wrongness....

dgs49 wrote:Neither Gregor Mendel nor anyone else has ever documented or explained in any cogent way how one species can "evolve" into another species (different DNA). String beans are still string beans at the end of the day.

No, that's just plain false. Over the last 20 years, genome sequencing techniques have provided a staggering amount of information detailing the process of DNA divergence resulting in speciation in a variety of organisms. For example, a recent DNA study concenring elephants has in fact demonstrated the evolution of different species, conclusively documenting that Asian elephants are more closely related to mammoths than they are to African elephants, and that among African elephants, the forest and savanna groups are more deeply divided genetically than previously thought and should be considered separate species.

Lord Jim wrote:

Is it wrong that this thread is making me hungry?

If talk about kale, kohlrabi, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts is making you hungry, than yes it's wrong....very wrong....

Now go sit in the corner and wallow in your wrongness....

Dude, I love vegetables! That's why I keep coming back here!!!

Asian elephants are more closely related to mammoths than they are to African elephants, and that among African elephants, the forest and savanna groups are more deeply divided genetically than previously thought and should be considered separate species.

That sounds reasonable. Big mammal beasties with flappy ears, tusks, flat feet, a trunk - related to each other in some way. So what? Provides no evidence whatsoever that life arose spontaneously/accidentally or that one kind of animal develops into other kinds of animals. From horrible heffalumps you get other horrible heffalumps - although some may be heffable horralumps.

Mind you, there is a possible genetic connection to Italians - Mastodon Corleone.

Meade

MajGenl.Meade wrote: Big mammal beasties with flappy ears, tusks, flat feet, a trunk - related to each other in some way.

Then you also have things like this and this being more closely related to those big mammal beasties than other big mammal beasties.

There is a wealth of information that gives us a pretty good picture of how the different species evolved and how closely, or distantly, related they are to other species.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:So what? Provides no evidence whatsoever that life arose spontaneously/accidentally or that one kind of animal develops into other kinds of animals.

dgs49 asserted that no one "has ever documented or explained in any cogent way how one species can 'evolve' into another species (different DNA)." The elephant sudy I linked quite explicitly documents and explains how genetic divergence results in different species -- i.e., different DNA: mammoths are different animals than Asian elephants, which are different than African elephants, which are different as between savanna and forest elephants. The elephantidae as a whole are quite different animals than the mastadons (mammutidae) and, as Grim points out, the hyraxes and sea cows, all of which are "outgroups" down that particular evolutionary line.

Moreover, the genetic divergence of the "modern" elephant family is a product of only the most recent 25 million years or so, with African elephants then splitting off about 7.6 million years ago and Asian elephants diverging from mammoths about 6.7 million years ago (and that's not even counting several other forms of elephants along the way, now extinct). If you accept that all these clearly different animals evolved from common ancestry down one small branch of the mammalian family tree in just the last 25 million years, why can you not accept that there were similar processes of genetic divergence in operation for the 4 billion years before that?

Grim Reaper wrote: Then you also have things like this and this being more closely related to those big mammal beasties than other big mammal beasties.

small modern hyraxes share numerous features with elephants, such as toenails, excellent hearing, sensitive pads on their feet, small tusks, good memory, high brain functions compared to other similar mammals, and the shape of some of their bones

Bloody heck! I'm a rock hyrax! And so is my wife! No but seriously, known as "dassies" in Afrikaans, these oversize guinea pigs have been known to stampede, overturn tourist cars and attempt to have sex with VW Beetles.

"Can't help it bru! It's in our DNA" said one hyrax who requested anonymity

Meade

Sue U wrote: If you accept that all these clearly different animals evolved from common ancestry down one small branch of the mammalian family tree in just the last 25 million years, why can you not accept that there were similar processes of genetic divergence in operation for the 4 billion years before that?

Easy - I don't accept that they are clearly different animals. That is (before mockery ensues - oh damn, too late) I can see there is difference of appearance between a mammoth, an African elephant and an Indian elephant. But I have no difficulty in seeing the common features that (to me) indicate the family resemblance.

Now when I look at a rock hyrax (and there are lots here) I see no resemblance whatever and the same with sea elephants (granted trunky thing and big teeth). Those are clearly different animals. But since I don't accept their evolution from mammoths or mastodons this does not bother me.

I think humans share lots of DNA with earthworms don't they? It's hardly surprising that animals utilise similar structural materials and plans since there was one maker.

Meade