Are Natural Systems Smart

[Subsea]

The biggest reason that I embrace natural systems is because I am smart enough to emulate success. After 47 years of reefkeeping, I am all about being a minimalist. I want to enjoy my display without it controlling my time or pocketbook. For that purpose, natural systems work well. Using scientific principals of “Dynamic Equilibrium” nitrogen gas is a main source of nitrogen into a marine ecosystem using “nitrogen fixation” Cynobacteria. In my quest to understand carbon dosing, I have come to realize that organic carbon dosing in reef tanks grows bacteria. Nature carbon doses differently. Carbon dioxide gas readily dissolves in water forming carbonic acid which combines with carbonate alkalinity to form bicarbonate alkalinity which when coupled to photosynthesis produces glucose which is carbon for the reef.

Let’s talk about algae filtration @Scrubber_steve . After reviewing BRS TV films on algae filtration and the integration into Triton Method, I am convinced that macro algae transfer DOC to water column to the bettermeant of corals. To recycle nutrients back & forth is a good thing.
..





?


.
.

.

.
.

 

[Subsea]

Why do religious people seem to think science is out to prove god doesn’t exist? I don’t think science is about that. Science is about knowledge.

You can’t prove god doesn’t exist, but you also can’t prove that the universe is not sitting on the back of a giant tortoise. Sometimes common sense just needs to prevail.

I think we can prove that the universe is not sitting on the back of a turtle. This is not kindergarten.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Let’s talk about algae filtration @Scrubber_steve . After reviewing BRS TV films on algae filtration and the integration into Triton Method, I am convinced that macro algae transfer DOC to water column to the bettermeant of corals. To recycle nutrients back & forth is a good thing..

Well subsy, algae filtration is as controversial for some as discussions on the existenance of supernatural beings & evolution.
You can read all about what I think hear https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/a...roteins-carbohydrates-and-metabolites.359116/

 

[Scott Campbell]

Well subsy, algae filtration is as controversial for some as discussions on the existenance of supernatural beings & evolution.
You can read all about what I think hear https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/a...roteins-carbohydrates-and-metabolites.359116/

Maybe more so. <lol>

 

[Subsea]

Well subsy, algae filtration is as controversial for some as discussions on the existenance of supernatural beings & evolution.
You can read all about what I think hear https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/a...roteins-carbohydrates-and-metabolites.359116/

I read that thread more than once. I was confused because Randy was the OP. You & Randy got too technical for me. It seemed he was more irritated that Triton made clams that they didn’t back up with scientific research articles.

Algae shouldn’t be controversial.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I read that thread more than once. I was confused because Randy was the OP. You & Randy got too technical for me. It seemed he was more irritated that Triton made clams that they didn’t back up with scientific research articles.

Algae shouldn’t be controversial.

Triton are pathetic & a disgrace that they have not responded in that thread.
I pass wind in their general direction.

 

[Jase4224]

I think we can prove that the universe is not sitting on the back of a turtle. This is not kindergarten.

Well I feel the same about god as I’m sure most people feel about the turtle.. how would anybody actually believe that?

Have you watched the talk Julian Sprung did at MACNA I think it’s called small stories 2 (or something like that) it’s on the BRS YouTube channel. Apart from being enjoyable to watch the end is very interesting as Julian talks about a marine biologist (can’t remember the name) has studied natural reefs and come to the conclusion that macro algae is harmful to coral and reduced the health and growth of coral. Julian points out the fact that reefers use algae to FILTER our aquariums and our corals thrive! I found this very interesting and thought you might too. Sorry I don’t have a link but it’s worth searching for.

Yes I can totally have two conversations at once lol

 

[DCR]

From your previous post, I understood that you said that there is no absolute truth. I also understood that you said that truth is relative. Both are concepts that I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Science cannot be reduced from what it is because we have clearly defined what it is. People can practice it poorly, but it is not reduced.

I apologize for the confusion. I certainly believe that there is absolute truth. I also believe that we possess the ability to apply reason and logic to seek the truth, as in the case of science. What I am saying is that materialism, the view that that everything can be completely defined by naturally occurring physical processes, which all atheists, evolutionists, and most scientists believe, is not compatible with our ability to seek the truth through reason and the scientific method itself. Materialism could never produce it. I think the fact that people do possess reason, seriously discredits materialism and this why I believe it cannot be true. If materialism is true, then our ability to reason and science is invalid as it is just a random natural process and there is no reason to believe that the results of it are truth.

 

[Paul B]

Paul, when are we going to do the beach party with the krill soup and clam bake. Don’t forget to invite the Dallas Cowgirls

It's a little cold now, 29 degrees so that will have to wait until summer. But the Cowgirls can come anytime.

 

[Subsea]

It's a little cold now, 29 degrees so that will have to wait until summer. But the Cowgirls can come anytime.

It is 31 degrees here and I am drinking coffee in front of fireplace.

I understand that the cowgirls like grazing on Red Ogo. I will bring a crate of Red Ogo and a sack of crawfish the first week in May.

 

[Subsea]

@Paul B ,
With respect to super models, I had a flashback with models doing a photo shoot for a fishing tournament sponsored by casinos in Biloxi, Miss. I was working a 14 day on / 14 day off schedule on a Transocean semisubmersible in 1500’ of water, 150 miles south west of Biloxi. This was 25 years ago and it was my first purchase of Gulf of Mexico live rock from Tampa Bay Saltwater. Over a three day period, I exchanged emails with Richard. Before the final transaction, he mentioned a small delay with delivery because he was in a fishing tournament out of Biloxi. Later, when we talked on the phone, I asked him if his boat was in sight of a drilling rig. When he said yes, I laughed and asked him the name of his boat. From our vantage point, we could see who was catching fish. When he said Deep Eddy, I told him to come off of our starboard bow because of the giant tuna in the shadow of our rig. As part of the tournament, a boat full of models provided photo shoots when someone caught fish. For the rest of the time, sunbathing models circled our drilling rig providing entertainment for everyone. When the yacht would come by, you could hear the music. The boys on the rig would wave and whistle and the models waved back with their bikini tops. It was very disruptive for productive work on deck, but it was good for morale.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

I just have a few questions about evolution and the fossil record. Darwin expected to find fossil evidence of trans-species life but none has ever been found to support the idea of one common ancestor. Many of the skeletons on display at various natural history exhibits contain less than 10% of the animal skeleton yet science wants us to believe that this depiction is representative of a complete animal. If you want to claim settled science on a small incomplete observation that is called a leap of faith not science.

I worked in and managed a dental laboratory for years successfully. We depended on science to give us repeatable results for each patient we treated. So we had to depend on the laws of gravity, acceleration, gases, expansion and contraction, and materials science to work the same way every time to get those repeated results. This all depended on certain natural laws that are in fact truths. Gravity, transpiration and respiration, thermal dynamics, laws of physics, all these are examples of immutible truths in science that we call natural laws. Without these and other constants science would not exist and neither would we. So the idea that there is no truth is proven wrong every time we draw a breath or step outside and our feet remain on the ground instead of floating off in space. So what is the origin for these natural laws? They had to be in play before life could exist or life as we know it could never exist. All the conditions for life had to exist before it could exist. Seams like some organization of these laws would have to proceed either evolution or creation before life could exist. Science along cannot prove or disprove God or intelligent design just as religion alone cannot disprove science. For a better explanation maybe we should be willing to say somethings are currently beyond our understanding.

In this discussion we are allowed to enter into evidence our experience as evidence. As a result many of us have experienced spiritual life and growth that leads us to believe in God. Our experience should not be criticized or belittled by those who are ignorant of our experience. Nor should we who have this experience belittle or criticize those who do not share our experience. There should be the ability to have civil discourse. Remember a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I have found many answers to life in science and belief in a higher power. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive but they work in harmony. One enhances the other and is supported by my personal observations and experiances.

Wishing you all a great day no matter where you find your self in this discussion!

 

[Lowell Lemon]

I think there mounting evidence to indicate "smart natural systems". The question is do we have any real evidence yet on how entangled these natural systems are? We are just starting to glimpse things like quantum entanglement now.

 

[Jase4224]

I just have a few questions about evolution and the fossil record. Darwin expected to find fossil evidence of trans-species life but none has ever been found to support the idea of one common ancestor. Many of the skeletons on display at various natural history exhibits contain less than 10% of the animal skeleton yet science wants us to believe that this depiction is representative of a complete animal. If you want to claim settled science on a small incomplete observation that is called a leap of faith not science.

I worked in and managed a dental laboratory for years successfully. We depended on science to give us repeatable results for each patient we treated. So we had to depend on the laws of gravity, acceleration, gases, expansion and contraction, and materials science to work the same way every time to get those repeated results. This all depended on certain natural laws that are in fact truths. Gravity, transpiration and respiration, thermal dynamics, laws of physics, all these are examples of immutible truths in science that we call natural laws. Without these and other constants science would not exist and neither would we. So the idea that there is no truth is proven wrong every time we draw a breath or step outside and our feet remain on the ground instead of floating off in space. So what is the origin for these natural laws? They had to be in play before life could exist or life as we know it could never exist. All the conditions for life had to exist before it could exist. Seams like some organization of these laws would have to proceed either evolution or creation before life could exist. Science along cannot prove or disprove God or intelligent design just as religion alone cannot disprove science. For a better explanation maybe we should be willing to say somethings are currently beyond our understanding.

In this discussion we are allowed to enter into evidence our experience as evidence. As a result many of us have experienced spiritual life and growth that leads us to believe in God. Our experience should not be criticized or belittled by those who are ignorant of our experience. Nor should we who have this experience belittle or criticize those who do not share our experience. There should be the ability to have civil discourse. Remember a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I have found many answers to life in science and belief in a higher power. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive but they work in harmony. One enhances the other and is supported by my personal observations and experiances.

Wishing you all a great day no matter where you find your self in this discussion!

Firstly I’m personally not that bothered by people having spiritual feelings or beliefs about something creating everything. Organised religion teaching kids earth is 7000 years old is a bit different though as there is no excuse.

Responding to your first paragraph, you you mean to say there is no missing links between species? There are more examples of trans species life than we can even find time to study.. so many dinosaur species are now being split up into separate species as new details are being found on their bones.. slight changes but enough to deduce that there is a new species. This makes sense as the skeletons of an individual ‘type’ of dinosaur could have been from animals living 100’s of thousands of years apart. This shows that over time small evolutionary changes were occurring.

Also you should look up Tiktalik the history behind the finding of that creature is fascinating. It’s a fish with legs found at the correctly predicted time that would have required such a creature to exist in both biological and geological time periods.

The problem people have with evolution is that they don’t understand it. There is an INFINITE number of factors that influence the evolution of any given species. I have seen many religious people focused on random mutations and deduce (rightfully) that they don’t add up with how long the fossil record shows us certain creatures took to evolve. But it’s irrelevant because that’s only one tiny piece of the puzzle.

Also as for the incomplete skeleton, if you have studied thousands of skeletons from hundreds of species then it is ok to make educated assumptions on how the rest of a creature may look based on 10% of its skeleton because nature tends to repeat itself. Of course even any given creature may have features we are unaware of but we do understand that when we draw an entire creature from a small amount of physical evidence that we are comparing what we have previously seen to be true.

 

[Jase4224]

Also people talk about gaps in the fossil record with is not really a good argument against evolution given how absolutely minuscule the chances of any creature being fossilised.. and then being found really is. It would be safe to say we will only ever scratch the surface of what has previously lived and yet the if you look at the family trees of some groups of creatures the evolution is obvious. Look at late theropods in the micro raptor group for example as many complete skeletons have been found.

Also for a more modern example look at moths and how there can be many species that all look the same to you and I but entemolagists are able to find slight differences within a group that is actually many species.

Darwin was long ago he only gave us a glimpse. We have moved on and now there is far more evidence to prove evolution than it’s even worth arguing. It’s cement.

Biology, geology and physics all points to the same conclusion. Of course science should always be re examined constantly.. which lead to the theory of evolution.

 

[User1]

@Paul B ,
With respect to super models, I had a flashback with models doing a photo shoot for a fishing tournament sponsored by casinos in Biloxi, Miss. I was working a 14 day on / 14 day off schedule on a Transocean semisubmersible in 1500’ of water, 150 miles south west of Biloxi. This was 25 years ago and it was my first purchase of Gulf of Mexico live rock from Tampa Bay Saltwater. Over a three day period, I exchanged emails with Richard. Before the final transaction, he mentioned a small delay with delivery because he was in a fishing tournament out of Biloxi. Later, when we talked on the phone, I asked him if his boat was in sight of a drilling rig. When he said yes, I laughed and asked him the name of his boat. From our vantage point, we could see who was catching fish. When he said Deep Eddy, I told him to come off of our starboard bow because of the giant tuna in the shadow of our rig. As part of the tournament, a boat full of models provided photo shoots when someone caught fish. For the rest of the time, sunbathing models circled our drilling rig providing entertainment for everyone. When the yacht would come by, you could hear the music. The boys on the rig would wave and whistle and the models waved back with their bikini tops. It was very disruptive for productive work on deck, but it was good for morale.

And in todays political and social media climate would get you banned from hosting the Oscars....

 

[Lowell Lemon]

@Jase4224 "Also as for the incomplete skeleton, if you have studied thousands of skeletons from hundreds of species then it is ok to make educated assumptions on how the rest of a creature may look based on 10% of its skeleton because nature tends to repeat itself. Of course even any given creature may have features we are unaware of but we do understand that when we draw an entire creature from a small amount of physical evidence that we are comparing what we have previously seen to be true."

Number one we agree that there are very few complete skeletons to study in the fossil record...fact. Number two nature repeats itself on this we agree. But nature does not cross the Genera boundary. That is where a huge hole is in the single origin ancestry theory.

There are parts of skeletons that is all we can agree to. What they belonged to is in question due to the lack of complete skeletons. Even Paleontologist agree on this point. So it becomes a guess at best. I agree with you on that. Try that on you next space trip to the moon...a guess at best...you want to experience space travel or flight in our atmosphere based on a best guess? I would prefer science in that endeavor how about you? Let's just be honest and say we have less than 10% of the animal and it may or may not look this way.

So now educated assumptions are settled science? Is that what you are trying to get me to believe? Then you are trying to talk me into having faith in your understanding of how the animal looked or behaved based on less than 10% of the evidence. Seems more like religion than what you want to call science. Let's be honest evolution is religion and not science to the masses who believe in the astronomical possibility for organized chaos without any boundaries or natural laws to govern those boundaries. Tell me how many evidences are there for spontaneous generation? That is right absolutely none and it is a disproved theory. But if evolution of that type did exist there should be some evidence. Does gravity not work the same way in every observable part of our world, solar system, or observed universe? So that is more science than guessing with only 10% or less of the observable information. How about mathematics does the answer ever change to the simple rules applied to addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division? If it did we could not depend on our science at all...it would be based on a guess not a repeatable result.

You assume I do not believe in some form of evolution and that is not true. I believe we are seeing mutation all the time and that is evolution. However there are no proven mutations in recorded history that have become a new Genus. This is where the evolutionary tree is rotten to the core and falls on its own weight. New species is another animal all together. Look at all the designer Clownish that are available today that never existed in the wild. Look at the designer Guppies as another example. Ever witness a cross between a monkey and a fish? I know a Monk-fish right? They are quite tasty with lobster butter too.

You also assume that the bible and all organized religion teaches the earth is 6000-7000 years old. That is false period. The bible is silent on the time between creation and the fall of man. No time period is given. Also no time period is given between that and the establishment of cultures that are verified by historical record such as Babylon. There was an attempt to make the genealogy listed in Genesis into a estimated guess as to the approximate age of human activity on the Earth. Again what about the time before creation? Even the bible records something being here before the creation story. So even the record of the bible is silent as to the age of the Earth. Humans made one of those educated assumptions you mentioned above to arrive at that period of time. And like you they depend on faith to make it work. To be honest we do not know how old the Earth or humanity is on the planet. The elements that make up our earth and life forms could be quite old and since the bible is silent on that it is of very little import to the main message contained there. This does not diminish the possibility of God or creation in any way shape or form. We honestly just don't know period. There is a lot in science and religion that is a
mystery. We can agree on that.

The problem with creation is that people don't understand it either just like your claim about evolution. Again you miss the point of no trans-species fossils. In other words there are no fossils crossing Genera. From a fish to a monkey or related. There are fish today that have limbs like the African Lung Fish...so you point is? I have never seen one develop into a dog have you? There is the Platypus but are there any instances of it becoming a duck? Can it mate outside of its species...nope. See the problem I have with macro evolution or single source ancestry? It like spontaneous generation has never been observed or recorded in fossil or historical documents.

Biology, Geology, and Physics only point to man's understanding of the subject. Again not a proof against creation at all. Creation is a possible answer to all these disciplines and could be the result of intelligent design. In fact the laws of probabilities actually favors creation over the randomness needed for single origin evolution. You are advancing dogma not settled science. Because it depends on faith in human interpreters to have gotten the evolutionary tale just right and then goes looking for evidence to support its assumptions. Like the O.J. Simpson trial you want me to accept the fallacy of the assumed premise. There is no creator so only evolution can answer the question. That is just as much a faith based quest as you claim I am on. Science is a development of men to try and describe what they cannot control or completely understand. Kind of sounds like religion to me how about you? It is anything but concrete and settled. If you doubt that take a long hard look at the history of science. It was not to long ago in terms of time that the earth was flat and settled science. In my life time many theories of science have been disproved and replaced with actual results and observation. In my life time the Human Genome was mapped and what was not understood was called "junk DNA" now we call it Epigenetics. None of this disproves or proves creation or evolution as an incontrovertible truth period. It is just two schools of thought as to how we arrive at where we are today. I prefer to believe one that ennobles Humanity as children of the Creator versus a result of accidental slime. Which picture is more ennobling and uplifting? Which one actually portrays us as equals that deserve respect, civility, nurture, and hope of a future? Versus survival of the fittest...the most base, coarse, lie ever perpetrated on the human race. One leads to selfless living and the other to selfish living. I know which one is better in that outcome. I know which area of thought will ensure my children's and your children's survival and it is not survival of the fittest. Let's admit freely that we all choose to believe one way or the other and neither is settled. That is probably the only true agreement we can have on this subject. I will not convince you and you will not convince me. There it is settled.

Now what difference does it make? If I am wrong I have lived my life with a hope for a future and lived a life with respect to others. I have gained a good life. If you are wrong you missed out on the greatest adventure in the universe, living with and meeting someone who can answer all your questions and provided you all you needed to arrive there safe and happy. You will miss out on the actual realization of what love is and what love does. Which one of us has the most to lose? See there is an end to all our experience on earth and we agree no one avoids it. But what if there is something more?

 

[Jase4224]

@Jase4224 "Also as for the incomplete skeleton, if you have studied thousands of skeletons from hundreds of species then it is ok to make educated assumptions on how the rest of a creature may look based on 10% of its skeleton because nature tends to repeat itself. Of course even any given creature may have features we are unaware of but we do understand that when we draw an entire creature from a small amount of physical evidence that we are comparing what we have previously seen to be true."

Number one we agree that there are very few complete skeletons to study in the fossil record...fact. Number two nature repeats itself on this we agree. But nature does not cross the Genera boundary. That is where a huge hole is in the single origin ancestry theory.

There are parts of skeletons that is all we can agree to. What they belonged to is in question due to the lack of complete skeletons. Even Paleontologist agree on this point. So it becomes a guess at best. I agree with you on that. Try that on you next space trip to the moon...a guess at best...you want to experience space travel or flight in our atmosphere based on a best guess? I would prefer science in that endeavor how about you? Let's just be honest and say we have less than 10% of the animal and it may or may not look this way.

So now educated assumptions are settled science? Is that what you are trying to get me to believe? Then you are trying to talk me into having faith in your understanding of how the animal looked or behaved based on less than 10% of the evidence. Seems more like religion than what you want to call science. Let's be honest evolution is religion and not science to the masses who believe in the astronomical possibility for organized chaos without any boundaries or natural laws to govern those boundaries. Tell me how many evidences are there for spontaneous generation? That is right absolutely none and it is a disproved theory. But if evolution of that type did exist there should be some evidence. Does gravity not work the same way in every observable part of our world, solar system, or observed universe? So that is more science than guessing with only 10% or less of the observable information. How about mathematics does the answer ever change to the simple rules applied to addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division? If it did we could not depend on our science at all...it would be based on a guess not a repeatable result.

You assume I do not believe in some form of evolution and that is not true. I believe we are seeing mutation all the time and that is evolution. However there are no proven mutations in recorded history that have become a new Genus. This is where the evolutionary tree is rotten to the core and falls on its own weight. New species is another animal all together. Look at all the designer Clownish that are available today that never existed in the wild. Look at the designer Guppies as another example. Ever witness a cross between a monkey and a fish? I know a Monk-fish right? They are quite tasty with lobster butter too.

You also assume that the bible and all organized religion teaches the earth is 6000-7000 years old. That is false period. The bible is silent on the time between creation and the fall of man. No time period is given. Also no time period is given between that and the establishment of cultures that are verified by historical record such as Babylon. There was an attempt to make the genealogy listed in Genesis into a estimated guess as to the approximate age of human activity on the Earth. Again what about the time before creation? Even the bible records something being here before the creation story. So even the record of the bible is silent as to the age of the Earth. Humans made one of those educated assumptions you mentioned above to arrive at that period of time. And like you they depend on faith to make it work. To be honest we do not know how old the Earth or humanity is on the planet. The elements that make up our earth and life forms could be quite old and since the bible is silent on that it is of very little import to the main message contained there. This does not diminish the possibility of God or creation in any way shape or form. We honestly just don't know period. There is a lot in science and religion that is a
mystery. We can agree on that.

The problem with creation is that people don't understand it either just like your claim about evolution. Again you miss the point of no trans-species fossils. In other words there are no fossils crossing Genera. From a fish to a monkey or related. There are fish today that have limbs like the African Lung Fish...so you point is? I have never seen one develop into a dog have you? There is the Platypus but are there any instances of it becoming a duck? Can it mate outside of its species...nope. See the problem I have with macro evolution or single source ancestry? It like spontaneous generation has never been observed or recorded in fossil or historical documents.

Biology, Geology, and Physics only point to man's understanding of the subject. Again not a proof against creation at all. Creation is a possible answer to all these disciplines and could be the result of intelligent design. In fact the laws of probabilities actually favors creation over the randomness needed for single origin evolution. You are advancing dogma not settled science. Because it depends on faith in human interpreters to have gotten the evolutionary tale just right and then goes looking for evidence to support its assumptions. Like the O.J. Simpson trial you want me to accept the fallacy of the assumed premise. There is no creator so only evolution can answer the question. That is just as much a faith based quest as you claim I am on. Science is a development of men to try and describe what they cannot control or completely understand. Kind of sounds like religion to me how about you? It is anything but concrete and settled. If you doubt that take a long hard look at the history of science. It was not to long ago in terms of time that the earth was flat and settled science. In my life time many theories of science have been disproved and replaced with actual results and observation. In my life time the Human Genome was mapped and what was not understood was called "junk DNA" now we call it Epigenetics. None of this disproves or proves creation or evolution as an incontrovertible truth period. It is just two schools of thought as to how we arrive at where we are today. I prefer to believe one that ennobles Humanity as children of the Creator versus a result of accidental slime. Which picture is more ennobling and uplifting? Which one actually portrays us as equals that deserve respect, civility, nurture, and hope of a future? Versus survival of the fittest...the most base, coarse, lie ever perpetrated on the human race. One leads to selfless living and the other to selfish living. I know which one is better in that outcome. I know which area of thought will ensure my children's and your children's survival and it is not survival of the fittest. Let's admit freely that we all choose to believe one way or the other and neither is settled. That is probably the only true agreement we can have on this subject. I will not convince you and you will not convince me. There is it settled.

Now what difference does it make? If I am wrong I have lived my life with a hope for a future and lived a life with respect to others. I have gained a good life. If you are wrong you missed out on the greatest adventure in the universe, living with and meeting someone who can answer all your questions and provided you all you needed to arrive there safe and happy. You will miss out on the actual realization of what love is and what love does. Which one of us has the most to lose? See there is an end to all our experience on earth and we agree no one avoids it. But what if there is something more?

You seem to have taken everything I’ve said out of context and just reworded your own version of my words.

And genera are where we as humans place a group of animals that are most closely related.. you seem to be saying that genera are boundaries that evolution has not crossed well that’s just flat out wrong.

Look and Centropyge and Paracentropyge and tell me how different you think they are?? Humans have classified them in different genera based on tiny details. Look at all of the basletts and anthias genera and tell me are they so different they could not have evolved and crossed genera during evolution? They have. It’s just that for our cataloguing convenience we place them into named genera.

 

[Subsea]

@Jase4224 "Also as for the incomplete skeleton, if you have studied thousands of skeletons from hundreds of species then it is ok to make educated assumptions on how the rest of a creature may look based on 10% of its skeleton because nature tends to repeat itself. Of course even any given creature may have features we are unaware of but we do understand that when we draw an entire creature from a small amount of physical evidence that we are comparing what we have previously seen to be true."

Number one we agree that there are very few complete skeletons to study in the fossil record...fact. Number two nature repeats itself on this we agree. But nature does not cross the Genera boundary. That is where a huge hole is in the single origin ancestry theory.

There are parts of skeletons that is all we can agree to. What they belonged to is in question due to the lack of complete skeletons. Even Paleontologist agree on this point. So it becomes a guess at best. I agree with you on that. Try that on you next space trip to the moon...a guess at best...you want to experience space travel or flight in our atmosphere based on a best guess? I would prefer science in that endeavor how about you? Let's just be honest and say we have less than 10% of the animal and it may or may not look this way.

So now educated assumptions are settled science? Is that what you are trying to get me to believe? Then you are trying to talk me into having faith in your understanding of how the animal looked or behaved based on less than 10% of the evidence. Seems more like religion than what you want to call science. Let's be honest evolution is religion and not science to the masses who believe in the astronomical possibility for organized chaos without any boundaries or natural laws to govern those boundaries. Tell me how many evidences are there for spontaneous generation? That is right absolutely none and it is a disproved theory. But if evolution of that type did exist there should be some evidence. Does gravity not work the same way in every observable part of our world, solar system, or observed universe? So that is more science than guessing with only 10% or less of the observable information. How about mathematics does the answer ever change to the simple rules applied to addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division? If it did we could not depend on our science at all...it would be based on a guess not a repeatable result.

You assume I do not believe in some form of evolution and that is not true. I believe we are seeing mutation all the time and that is evolution. However there are no proven mutations in recorded history that have become a new Genus. This is where the evolutionary tree is rotten to the core and falls on its own weight. New species is another animal all together. Look at all the designer Clownish that are available today that never existed in the wild. Look at the designer Guppies as another example. Ever witness a cross between a monkey and a fish? I know a Monk-fish right? They are quite tasty with lobster butter too.

You also assume that the bible and all organized religion teaches the earth is 6000-7000 years old. That is false period. The bible is silent on the time between creation and the fall of man. No time period is given. Also no time period is given between that and the establishment of cultures that are verified by historical record such as Babylon. There was an attempt to make the genealogy listed in Genesis into a estimated guess as to the approximate age of human activity on the Earth. Again what about the time before creation? Even the bible records something being here before the creation story. So even the record of the bible is silent as to the age of the Earth. Humans made one of those educated assumptions you mentioned above to arrive at that period of time. And like you they depend on faith to make it work. To be honest we do not know how old the Earth or humanity is on the planet. The elements that make up our earth and life forms could be quite old and since the bible is silent on that it is of very little import to the main message contained there. This does not diminish the possibility of God or creation in any way shape or form. We honestly just don't know period. There is a lot in science and religion that is a
mystery. We can agree on that.

The problem with creation is that people don't understand it either just like your claim about evolution. Again you miss the point of no trans-species fossils. In other words there are no fossils crossing Genera. From a fish to a monkey or related. There are fish today that have limbs like the African Lung Fish...so you point is? I have never seen one develop into a dog have you? There is the Platypus but are there any instances of it becoming a duck? Can it mate outside of its species...nope. See the problem I have with macro evolution or single source ancestry? It like spontaneous generation has never been observed or recorded in fossil or historical documents.

Biology, Geology, and Physics only point to man's understanding of the subject. Again not a proof against creation at all. Creation is a possible answer to all these disciplines and could be the result of intelligent design. In fact the laws of probabilities actually favors creation over the randomness needed for single origin evolution. You are advancing dogma not settled science. Because it depends on faith in human interpreters to have gotten the evolutionary tale just right and then goes looking for evidence to support its assumptions. Like the O.J. Simpson trial you want me to accept the fallacy of the assumed premise. There is no creator so only evolution can answer the question. That is just as much a faith based quest as you claim I am on. Science is a development of men to try and describe what they cannot control or completely understand. Kind of sounds like religion to me how about you? It is anything but concrete and settled. If you doubt that take a long hard look at the history of science. It was not to long ago in terms of time that the earth was flat and settled science. In my life time many theories of science have been disproved and replaced with actual results and observation. In my life time the Human Genome was mapped and what was not understood was called "junk DNA" now we call it Epigenetics. None of this disproves or proves creation or evolution as an incontrovertible truth period. It is just two schools of thought as to how we arrive at where we are today. I prefer to believe one that ennobles Humanity as children of the Creator versus a result of accidental slime. Which picture is more ennobling and uplifting? Which one actually portrays us as equals that deserve respect, civility, nurture, and hope of a future? Versus survival of the fittest...the most base, coarse, lie ever perpetrated on the human race. One leads to selfless living and the other to selfish living. I know which one is better in that outcome. I know which area of thought will ensure my children's and your children's survival and it is not survival of the fittest. Let's admit freely that we all choose to believe one way or the other and neither is settled. That is probably the only true agreement we can have on this subject. I will not convince you and you will not convince me. There is it settled.

Now what difference does it make? If I am wrong I have lived my life with a hope for a future and lived a life with respect to others. I have gained a good life. If you are wrong you missed out on the greatest adventure in the universe, living with and meeting someone who can answer all your questions and provided you all you needed to arrive there safe and happy. You will miss out on the actual realization of what love is and what love does. Which one of us has the most to lose? See there is an end to all our experience on earth and we agree no one avoids it. But what if there is something more?

Interesting parrelel with “survival of the fittest” as the foundation for Evolution. Both Hitler & Stalin attempted their own version of that.

 

[Jase4224]

It should be called ‘survival of the most adaptable’