Origin of Creation

[OldTrees]

There is a slight problem with the Meteor AFTER the dinosaurs. We can demonstrate that the rate of mutations in humans and in micro organism is too slow to account for the genetic difference between the two during only the time after the dinosaurs. Such a meteor could have happened long before the dinosaurs but not after.

Or could have been the same meteor, taking the micro organism many years to even have its own structure.
multiple possibilities.

Let me be more clear. Micro organisms and Humans have a common ancestor. The genetic difference between humans and micro organism is twice the difference between humans and the common ancestor. 65 million years is not long enough for humans to have evolved from that common ancestor. So no the source of humans and the death of the dinosaurs were not the same.

[Flayne]

There is a slight problem with the Meteor AFTER the dinosaurs. We can demonstrate that the rate of mutations in humans and in micro organism is too slow to account for the genetic difference between the two during only the time after the dinosaurs. Such a meteor could have happened long before the dinosaurs but not after.

Or could have been the same meteor, taking the micro organism many years to even have its own structure.
multiple possibilities.

Let me be more clear. Micro organisms and Humans have a common ancestor. The genetic difference between humans and micro organism is twice the difference between humans and the common ancestor. 65 million years is not long enough for humans to have evolved from that common ancestor. So no the source of humans and the death of the dinosaurs were not the same.

So, you're saying that humans could have existed in the time of dinosaurs?
or that they could never have existed in the time of dinosaurs?
If they existed with dinosaurs, they would have died alongside them, so that doesn't make sense.
Couldn't have existed before dinosaurs since Dinosaurs are proven to have lived a long time before the common homosapien evolved in its preferred habitat. (No sulphur air or less nitrogen)
So that means they could have either commenced evolving either at the time of dinosaurs death or afterwards.
if you're saying that 65 million years is not long enough for humans to evolve from that common ancestor, when do you think they started evolving? if you say not long enough, then we might as well have not evolved yet, either it doesn't makes sense or i'm not understanding your implication.

[OldTrees]

There is a slight problem with the Meteor AFTER the dinosaurs. We can demonstrate that the rate of mutations in humans and in micro organism is too slow to account for the genetic difference between the two during only the time after the dinosaurs. Such a meteor could have happened long before the dinosaurs but not after.

Or could have been the same meteor, taking the micro organism many years to even have its own structure.
multiple possibilities.

Let me be more clear. Micro organisms and Humans have a common ancestor. The genetic difference between humans and micro organism is twice the difference between humans and the common ancestor. 65 million years is not long enough for humans to have evolved from that common ancestor. So no the source of humans and the death of the dinosaurs were not the same.

So, you're saying that humans could have existed in the time of dinosaurs?
or that they could never have existed in the time of dinosaurs?
If they existed with dinosaurs, they would have died alongside them, so that doesn't make sense.
Couldn't have existed before dinosaurs since Dinosaurs are proven to have lived a long time before the common homosapien evolved in its preferred habitat. (No sulphur air or less nitrogen)
So that means they could have either commenced evolving either at the time of dinosaurs death or afterwards.
if you're saying that 65 million years is not long enough for humans to evolve from that common ancestor, when do you think they started evolving? if you say not long enough, then we might as well have not evolved yet, either it doesn't makes sense or i'm not understanding your implication.

Take a modern microorganism like E. coli, compare its genome with a human. Quantify the difference. Divide the difference by 2 and you will have the difference between Humans and the Common Ancestor. From there you can easily predict how long ago those two branches diverged. In the case of E. coli and Humans that split occurred long before the Dinosaurs even existed.
E. coli   Humans
    \            /
     \    Small Mammals   -- Dinosaurs die out
      \        /
       \      /
        \    /
         \  /
          \/
Common Ancestor

The meteor that killed the Dinosaurs (a very fragile set of species) could not have carried microorganism that would have evolved into humans by now. Since humans are here and are genetically related to E. coli, a common ancestor must have occurred long before then. However just to give the ballpark estimate: 2 billion years.

TLDR:
Humans did not exist at the time of the Dinosaurs but a distant ancestor (some small rodent probably) did.
Lots of species survived the mass extinction. Dinosaurs were a very fragile set of species (large body mass requires lots of food).
Humans are related to E. coli but require closer to 2 billion years to account for the differences. 65 million is not enough hence our common ancestor did not arrive on the 65mya meteor.

[Neopergoss]

It seems almost like there are large questions arising in areas, and nobody's stepping forward to run experiments to resolve them because maybe it would be a risky move for their careers.  I don't know enough about this to draw any concrete accusations.

I am often dismayed by the tendency of the average person to accept what Science! says without question.  Seems we too often forget that scientific methods are being practiced by humans, and however brilliant they might be, they are still prone to error, and perhaps even corruption (remember the peppered moth fiasco?).  I tend to evaluate most things I'm told before I accept them, and to be skeptical until I am convinced.

I agree with you that most people aren't aware of just how incomplete our science-based understanding of the world is. There is certainly a lot of room for refinement of theories like evolution. I would like to point out, though, that just because there are a few things that we don't understand doesn't mean the whole theory of evolution falls apart.

Some evidence supports it, some flies in its face.  On the one hand, we have a seeming progression of fossils, on the other hand we have things like observed genetic decay/dilution that would vastly outweigh any beneficial mutations, making the uphill climb from protozoa to hominids counter to scientific intuition.

There are ideas out there attempting to explain this. One that I'm aware of (without being an expert or anything) is that Lynn Margulis believes that symbiotic relationships between organisms of often different phyla or kingdoms (such as the relationship between different cells that caused organelles to exist in eukaryotic cells) are the driving force of eukaryotic evolution. The mainstream position seems to be that beneficial mutations were the driving force, but Lynn shares your skepticism of this view.

Then we have carbon dating on the one hand, which clocks some expired organisms at millions of years, and on the other hand we can reverse-project the intensity of the sun's radiation, the earth's magnetic field, other similar factors, and that makes an earth so ancient look very inhospitable to the kind of life we find in fossils.

We also don't know how the Egyptians built the pyramids. Are you also skeptical of the belief that they did it without help from magic or aliens? The fact is that things were so different in these situations that we can't simulate or even imagine how events that we know happened could have occurred. Just because we can't imagine how life could've existed in such harsh conditions doesn't mean it was impossible.

[johannhowitzer]

I would like to point out, though, that just because there are a few things that we don't understand doesn't mean the whole theory of evolution falls apart.

It's not that evolution has holes.  It's been well established on the small-scale.  But the larger picture - the "protozoa-to-hominid" picture, which is what people think of (incorrectly) when you say the word "evolution" - doesn't have holes either.  Holes are lack of information.  What we have is information that conflicts directly with that larger picture.

There are ideas out there attempting to explain this.

That is philosophy, not science.  Science was very backward until people stopped putting the cart before the horse - the classical system of four elements, the concept of "humour," etc. are all examples of people coming up with ideas of how things work, then looking at the world to confirm their hypothesis.  Science is done properly when the world is observed, then what we see is described.  When you reverse that, you throw the door wide open to speculation and error.  It is a natural tendency - it's easy to form opinions about how the world might work, but it takes a lot more work to go out there and look at it in-depth.  Leave the pedants to their speculation; we need none of it.

We also don't know how the Egyptians built the pyramids. Are you also skeptical of the belief that they did it without help from magic or aliens?

Fallacy of false dilemma.  I never said I thought species just magically appeared, that's your assumption.  Say this were a court case, and we have a murder defendant.  So much evidence points to the idea that he was in the room at the time of the murder, holding the weapon... but he has an airtight alibi.  Do we say pixies killed his alleged victim?  Do we say he was in two places at once?  No, we begin looking for another possible explanation by looking for more evidence we may have overlooked.

I've read several hypotheses about the construction of the pyramids, and perhaps one of them is true, but perhaps none of them are true.  That doesn't mean they did it with magic (although that could be an explanation, if the physical "laws" were different then, and their methods would be impossible today), it just means we haven't come across the right explanation yet, and more investigation will be necessary.

[Neopergoss]

There are ideas out there attempting to explain this.

That is philosophy, not science.

There is actually evidence that this force drives evolution to some extent (for example, the widely accepted idea of endosymbiotic theory, or the origin of organelles). There's some contention about how great a force this was, but it's not like this is some totally unfounded idea like the bodily humours. You said random mutation wasn't enough, so I mentioned another mechanism that could drive evolution.

We also don't know how the Egyptians built the pyramids. Are you also skeptical of the belief that they did it without help from magic or aliens?

Fallacy of false dilemma. 
...
I've read several hypotheses about the construction of the pyramids, and perhaps one of them is true, but perhaps none of them are true.  That doesn't mean they did it with magic (although that could be an explanation, if the physical "laws" were different then, and their methods would be impossible today), it just means we haven't come across the right explanation yet, and more investigation will be necessary.

Fair enough. But the point I was making was that it's going to be very hard for any theory to explain what happened when the Earth was so young, so it's not really fair to use that against evolution. The magic comment was off-base, I will agree.

[johannhowitzer]

There is actually evidence that this force drives evolution to some extent (for example, the widely accepted idea of endosymbiotic theory, or the origin of organelles). There's some contention about how great a force this was, but it's not like this is some totally unfounded idea like the bodily humours. You said random mutation wasn't enough, so I mentioned another mechanism that could drive evolution.

That is why I only quoted the first sentence of that paragraph - I was addressing the "ideas attempting to explain" part.  The unknowns we are aware of must needs drive the investigation process, but there's a difference between attempting to explain things by coming up with ideas in a "think tank," and looking back for more evidence with an open mind.  Too often scientists look for proofs of their pet theories instead of just exploring what's out there; I didn't mean to include symbiosis in this.

Fair enough. But the point I was making was that it's going to be very hard for any theory to explain what happened when the Earth was so young, so it's not really fair to use that against evolution. The magic comment was off-base, I will agree.

Skepticism to a healthy degree fosters accountability, that's all - it's what I do my best to espouse.  If there is an apparent incongruity in the evidence, we owe it to ourselves to hold off on as many "verdicts" (a.k.a. philosophical conclusions - science is only evidence and observation) as possible until we've discovered new things that shed light on the old.

[Neopergoss]

Fair enough. But the point I was making was that it's going to be very hard for any theory to explain what happened when the Earth was so young, so it's not really fair to use that against evolution. The magic comment was off-base, I will agree.

Skepticism to a healthy degree fosters accountability, that's all - it's what I do my best to espouse.  If there is an apparent incongruity in the evidence, we owe it to ourselves to hold off on as many "verdicts" (a.k.a. philosophical conclusions - science is only evidence and observation) as possible until we've discovered new things that shed light on the old.

Again, fair enough. I don't consider the aforementioned incongruities as serious as you do, but I see where you are coming from. I have an emotional reaction when I hear evolution and skepticism in the same sentence, though, because so many of its opponents believe in things like this, (http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#History_of_dinosuars) which is I think why I felt the need to respond.

I have a real appreciation for your intellectual integrity even if I may not always agree with you. Back-and-forths on these forums almost never go so smoothly, which I credit to your reasonableness.

[Flayne]

There is a slight problem with the Meteor AFTER the dinosaurs. We can demonstrate that the rate of mutations in humans and in micro organism is too slow to account for the genetic difference between the two during only the time after the dinosaurs. Such a meteor could have happened long before the dinosaurs but not after.

Or could have been the same meteor, taking the micro organism many years to even have its own structure.
multiple possibilities.

Let me be more clear. Micro organisms and Humans have a common ancestor. The genetic difference between humans and micro organism is twice the difference between humans and the common ancestor. 65 million years is not long enough for humans to have evolved from that common ancestor. So no the source of humans and the death of the dinosaurs were not the same.

So, you're saying that humans could have existed in the time of dinosaurs?
or that they could never have existed in the time of dinosaurs?
If they existed with dinosaurs, they would have died alongside them, so that doesn't make sense.
Couldn't have existed before dinosaurs since Dinosaurs are proven to have lived a long time before the common homosapien evolved in its preferred habitat. (No sulphur air or less nitrogen)
So that means they could have either commenced evolving either at the time of dinosaurs death or afterwards.
if you're saying that 65 million years is not long enough for humans to evolve from that common ancestor, when do you think they started evolving? if you say not long enough, then we might as well have not evolved yet, either it doesn't makes sense or i'm not understanding your implication.

Take a modern microorganism like E. coli, compare its genome with a human. Quantify the difference. Divide the difference by 2 and you will have the difference between Humans and the Common Ancestor. From there you can easily predict how long ago those two branches diverged. In the case of E. coli and Humans that split occurred long before the Dinosaurs even existed.
E. coli   Humans
    \            /
     \    Small Mammals   -- Dinosaurs die out
      \        /
       \      /
        \    /
         \  /
          \/
Common Ancestor

The meteor that killed the Dinosaurs (a very fragile set of species) could not have carried microorganism that would have evolved into humans by now. Since humans are here and are genetically related to E. coli, a common ancestor must have occurred long before then. However just to give the ballpark estimate: 2 billion years.

TLDR:
Humans did not exist at the time of the Dinosaurs but a distant ancestor (some small rodent probably) did.
Lots of species survived the mass extinction. Dinosaurs were a very fragile set of species (large body mass requires lots of food).
Humans are related to E. coli but require closer to 2 billion years to account for the differences. 65 million is not enough hence our common ancestor did not arrive on the 65mya meteor.

I see your point now OT, So it could have been a meteor from the past, before dinosaurs, which caused a microorganism that started evolving, meanwhile the dinosaurs came to exist afterward.

[johannhowitzer]

Again, fair enough. I don't consider the aforementioned incongruities as serious as you do, but I see where you are coming from. I have an emotional reaction when I hear evolution and skepticism in the same sentence, though, because so many of its opponents believe in things like this, which is I think why I felt the need to respond.

So you're an "evolutionary evangelist?"  (just kidding.)  Seriously, though, I don't get why people pigeonhole others into stuff like, "you believe X, so I'm not going to give credence to anything you say."  That's why I keep my personal belief system out of discussions - the moment you put it out there, people will either claim you on their side or shun you as part of the "other side."  Some people on this forum have speculated that I'm a hardcore god-hating atheist evolutionist, others have speculated I'm a Bible-thumping literal 6-day creationist.  Does it matter?  No, what matters is whether what I say makes sense.  Keeping my personal views out of it forces people to address my statements by themselves.

It is very important to take to heart the concept that a set of evidence may have several different conclusions drawn upon it - and that those conclusions are not science.  The evidence is the science part... the conclusions are more akin to philosophy.  So when you find someone who disagrees with you, instead of having the gut reaction most people do ("you're ignoring the evidence, therefore you must be stupid"), realize they have reasons for believing as they do - and those reasons may or may not be supported by the evidence itself.  Often they are, though few if any of us have ALL the discovered evidence at our fingertips.

Every side practices this.  6-day Creationists like to claim everyone else is ignoring the possibility of the supernatural.  Evolution-fanatics like to call Creationists ignorant of the evidence, or say they're using God as a crutch to fill in the blanks.  That may be true of people on the fringes, but many, many people closer to the middle are really using their brains and trying to work things out for themselves.  By definition, you cannot believe that which you do not think is most likely to be true.

[Neopergoss]

Again, fair enough. I don't consider the aforementioned incongruities as serious as you do, but I see where you are coming from. I have an emotional reaction when I hear evolution and skepticism in the same sentence, though, because so many of its opponents believe in things like this, which is I think why I felt the need to respond.

So you're an "evolutionary evangelist?"  (just kidding.)  Seriously, though, I don't get why people pigeonhole others into stuff like, "you believe X, so I'm not going to give credence to anything you say."

I see your point about ad-hominem, but I hope you see where I'm coming from. I'd have the same reaction if you said you were skeptical of global warming, and I don't think such reactions are unwarranted. You mentioned "think tanks" earlier -- well those are two big think tank areas.

[johannhowitzer]

If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from?

Sure, but if we're going to do that, we have to be fair and ask where the quantum singularity that was allegedly the seed for the "Big Bang" came from.  Evolutionist or Creationist, the problem of origin poses an infinitely steep wall brought on by our concept of causation.  How far back do you go before something didn't have to have a cause?  Some would say the universe is going through repeated phases of expansion and contraction, that there were other Big Bangs before the one that brought forth the universe in which we exist - but this isn't any better than claiming a deity who is self-causing or eternal.

I'd have the same reaction if you said you were skeptical of global warming, and I don't think such reactions are unwarranted.

Talking to my dad once about 9/11, I mentioned it looked very much like it wasn't the plane crashes that brought the buildings down.  Using the words "controlled demolition" changed his facial expression to one of amused surprise.  He went on a tirade and it was obvious I'd immediately lost all respect in that discussion - even though I was operating with all the evidence I had at the time.  I later saw a documentary that explained in detail how certain features of the wreckage could have been produced directly from the crashes, which switched the likelihood of various explanations in my mind, making the terrorist attack itself seem more likely the cause.

You used the word reaction - be careful how you react.  Reactions are emotional.