Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Talk about religion here
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules carefully before you post.

If you like AnimorphsFanForum.com, please consider making a donation. Any donation will go towards the cost of the hosting, the domain and any other running costs.
User avatar
ko ko
Warrior
Warrior
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:28 pm
Gender: [Female][/Female]
Location: the tropics

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by ko ko » Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:43 pm

it is also thought that the eye may have evolved in multiple instances due to the differences in the mammal eye as compared to other eyes such as the insect eye or the crustacean or mollusk eye (most specifically the squid)
me and the shift key, we had a falling out

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Tobias_Marco » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:43 pm

<The video the Current linked to said that only the Mantis can turn his/her head, so why aren't there more creatures that look very much like the mantis who can't turn their head?>
<Another thing is the eye, if you are right then the eye, being as complex as it is formed many times, without a designer.>
<From what I can tell complex things do not exists without a designer.>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Blu » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:59 pm

Again, with the mantis example I must point out that your arguement is basically that two species have different features and that this is exactly what evolution predicts. If indeed the mantis is the only insect capable of moving its head, then it or its recent ancestors must have evolved said ability.

You ask 'what good is half an eye', but I must then ask: would you be better off being able to tell light from dark than not at all? Addressing the main idea of your point though, your arguement is flawed in that the premise that there must be a half-eye is incorrect. Nowhere is there a creature with a half-eye, but creatures with less specialised eyes.

The eyes of creatures likes humans and insects both rely on similar mechanisms, and likely all evolved from a common ancestor, for want of a better phrase. They all use similar photoreceptor cells, and even today we have creatures with simple patches of photoreceptors. The eye evolution is very well documented.

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Tobias_Marco » Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:10 pm

<Very well.>
<Let me ask you this: If the largest stalagmite in the world is 62.2 metres (204 ft) high and is located in the cave of Cueva Martin Infierno, Cuba.
Spoiler:
Fothergill, A. et al. (2006) Planet Earth, London, BBC Books, pages 184-185
Then how long did it take to form?>

<There is a picture (published in the October 1953 edition of National Geographic) you can see a stalagmites that formed quickly. If you look closely you can see a bat encased in this structure. This stalagmite formed so quickly that the bat was not exposed long enough for it to rot away. This was discovered in Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico. (Mason Sutherland, Carlsbad Caverns in Color, National Geographic, October, 1953, p. 442.)>
Image
"How long does it take for a stalactite to grow? Many people, impressed by repeated statements of the extreme duration of geologic time, have made statements to the effect that it takes dripstone practically forever to grow appreciably. However there is more than a little evidence that growth is considerably rapid. First of all, stalactites are found in man-made tunnels that are only a few years old…. Second, certain conditions are so favorable to dripstone growth that as much as several cubic inches a year may be deposited in a single stalactite…. Third, there are many examples of large stalagmites growing on blocks of stone that have fallen from cave ceilings."
Hendrix, Charles E., The Cave Book (Revere, Massachusetts: Earth Science Publishing Co., 1950). p 26 (Taken from the book: "That their words may be used against them")
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ne ... th?image=2
Hall of Giants, Carlsbad Caves, New Mexico
In Sequoia Caverns, stalactites protected from tourists from 1977-1987 grew 10 inches, or 1 inch per year. At this rate they could have grown 300 ft in just 3600 years.
Large Formation at the "Hall of Giants", 1942
Many caves do have slow stalactite and stalagmite growth rates today. However there is evidence which suggests that caves were formed rapidly by sulfuric acid dissolution rather than weaker and slower carbonic acid. This process would not only have sped up cave formation but also the growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites.
The Crystal King, the largest Stalactite in the Ohio Caverns, a show cave located 30 miles from Dayton, Ohio near West Liberty, in the United States.
The hydrogen sulfide could come from several sources, including anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, oxidation of sulfide deposits, volcanic activity and others. There are disputes galore about how long these incredible formations take to form, but in some instances it hardly seems to matter because they are so stunning to look at.
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Current » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:14 pm

Tobias_Marco wrote:<The video the Current linked to said that only the Mantis can turn his/her head, so why aren't there more creatures that look very much like the mantis who can't turn their head?>
My first guess, and do take into account I am not a biologist, when the mantis ancestors developed the ability to turn their heads, they beat those that could not in the competition for resources. Thus, proto-mantids that couldn't turn their heads died out.

Also, mantids reproduce sexually, so you'd have head-turners reproducing with non-head-turners (before speciation, anyway). That results in a mix of head-turner and non-head-turner offspring, but the latter die more, so over time the proportion of head-turners increases in the population.

All of the above is a first guess without any research on the evolutionary history of mantids, i.e. just a way it could have happened, not saying it's how it actually did happen. It's pretty much the basic concept of natural selection, you don't expect a perfect continuum of variations.
<Another thing is the eye, if you are right then the eye, being as complex as it is formed many times, without a designer.>
<From what I can tell complex things do not exists without a designer.>
Evolution pretty much says that accumulating small changes plus a selection process can result in complex (or complex-seeming) machinery with no designer intervention. If we accepted the premise that complexity equals design, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Which is to say: I disagree, complex things without designers exist. If you want to use that argument, please take a step back and show why complexity equals design.

On the second post:
Stalactites can form quickly, therefore evolution is false? I'm missing something here.
(as an aside, not all stalactites are created equal, the speed depends on what it's made of)
What is not the answer to this question?

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Tobias_Marco » Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:35 pm

<It is one of the big problems that I have.>
<If the stalactites form at the speed that these do, then that means that the Earth would have to be a lot younger then evolution would have us believe.>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Current » Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:56 pm

That's under the assumptions that
a) all stalactites form at the same speed (false, see my post above or here)
b) the age of the oldest stalactites we've found provides the basis for reasonable estimation of the age of the Earth. As a matter of fact, they only provide a lower bound, i.e. the Earth certainly cannot be younger than the oldest stalactite on Earth, but there's no reason it can't be far older. Stalactites didn't start forming right away, those that formed before can get broken, and it's likely even bigger stalactites exist that we just haven't found because they aren't in accessible locations.
What is not the answer to this question?

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Tobias_Marco » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:33 pm

<All VERY good points.>
<So tell me this: What is the age of the oldest stalactite known to human beings, and how do we know how old it is?>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Current » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:10 pm

I could tell you there are stalactites about 250,000 years old, see here. Older than the Noachian Flood, dated with 3 different methods, none of them assumes anything about speed of formation.

But since I'm not a geologist, or particularly knowledgeable about stalactites, I don't know if those are old, young, or average, and I'd have to do some research to begin to get a general idea of what the oldest ages are. You're welcome to do this yourself, if you are truly curious.
What is not the answer to this question?

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6057
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Where Evolution falls short - Please read first post

Post by Tobias_Marco » Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:56 pm

<Sadly it will not show me the whole article, and the abstract is hard to read, but I will look it over some more.>
and a-spectrometric U-Th age of not, vert, similar 255 ka.
U-Pb dating has no upper limit and, hence, materials of Quaternary age older than 0.6 Ma can be analysed to investigate landscape development, paleoclimate, hominid evolution or hydrogeochemistry in carbonate terrains.
<We seem to have 255000 year old stalactites. That is somewhat older then I say that the flood happened.>
<Given that I have already said that I believe that the Earth is about 6100 to 6500 years old.>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20