Printed on August 27, 2007
NGC Forums
Not a Member? Register Now!
Forgot Password
Evolution - General Discussion
The discussion of Evolution and competing theories (you know who you are!) can often get heated. Everyone, no matter your beliefs, is invited to comment here. We only ask that you keep it clean and keep it respectful!
270 Replies
January 15, 2009 5:01 PM
I've always been partial to the theory that evolution and creationism can work together. So God created the Earth in seven days. 1 day in heaven could be the equivalent of thousands of years on Earth! Of course, I've always been the mediating type to try to appease both sides. May explain my Libertarian-leaning tendencies!
January 15, 2009 6:02 PM
I could acknowledge the theory of a prime creator which "set things in motion", as the Theists believed, but I find that taking the predominantly fable-like Old Testament creation stories and reconciling them against scientific theories and facts really does both a diservice.
Additionally, creation stories are full of symbolism but the "story" never really changes (unless new texts are found). Evolutionary theories, meanwhile, are backed up by well-grounded research and years of data, but are also continuously stirred by new scientific breakthroughs into mitochondrial DNA and other developments. Aligning scientific explanations into religious texts restricts the scientific view as much as it harms the purity of the religious text.
Ultimately, you are free to choose what you wish to believe and accept, but the purpose of science is to use the scientific method and facts to attempt to explain how things occurred. Science is founded on reason while religion is based on faith, and it's fundamentally nigh on impossible to truly blend them without polluting their purposes. It's dangerous to ignore a scientific explanation because it conflicts with a religious one, just as it can be philosophically damaging to ignore the potential comforts offered by religion. Both seek to explain the reason why we're here, but neither of them guarantee easy answers.
February 6, 2009 9:59 PM
I think people need to specify what they mean when they talk about evolution. The theory of evolution in the micro-sense is something that even the Bible supports...a variation within a species is predicted and found to be true by both creationists and evolutionists.
The problem comes with the idea of macro-evolution...or the idea that one species can morph into an entirely different species. That requires as much faith--or more--to believe in than to believe in God.
How can something create itself or simply pop into existence..or pop into an entirely different thing altogether--such as a dinosaur to bird?
Faith is also not just a wishy-washy hope thing based on nothing... but rather..faith grows stronger with evidence. Belief in God should be able to stand up to reason.
February 7, 2009 12:18 AM
Hey Curious,
quote-----------------------------------------------------
I think people need to specify what they mean when they talk about evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I'll be specific: when I talk about evolution I use the term as used in the science of evolutionary biology and not as used in some creationist fantasy land.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
Or, as Darwin said, it is descent with modification.
I'll also be specific and state that anyone that uses a definition that is NOT used by evolutionary biologists, then they are not talking about the same thing.
Thus the only VALID definition to use is the scientific one when discussing the science.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
The problem comes with the idea of macro-evolution...or the idea that one species can morph into an entirely different species. That requires as much faith--or more--to believe in than to believe in God.
----------------------------------------------------------
This is that fantasy land version of evolution I was talking about above. This version that only exists in creationist minds, and would be better called "creolution" than evolution.
All "macroevolution" involves is the seperate evolution of reproductively isolated populations, eventually forming new species from parent populations, and ultimately resulting in nested hierarchies of relationships of species.
The evolution along every branch of those nested hierarchies is by "microevolution" and as each isolated population has different mutations and inhabits different ecologies, with different opportunities and inhibitions, the different populations will inevitably evolve to be more and more different as time passes.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
How can something create itself or simply pop into existence..or pop into an entirely different thing altogether--such as a dinosaur to bird?
----------------------------------------------------------
This is more fantasy land creolution.
Would you like to try to find where either of the links above say that?
quote-----------------------------------------------------
Faith is also not just a wishy-washy hope thing based on nothing... but rather..faith grows stronger with evidence. Belief in God should be able to stand up to reason.
----------------------------------------------------------
I agree. So then why do you suppose that creationist websites feel they need to lie to you about evolution? What it is, how it happens, what macroevolution really involves, instead of presenting rather silly falsehoods?
quote-----------------------------------------------------
The theory of evolution in the micro-sense is something that even the Bible supports...a variation within a species is predicted and found to be true by both creationists and evolutionists.
----------------------------------------------------------
In other words, you really agree with evolution, you just don't know it.
The real difference of opinion is not about evolution, but about descent from a common ancestral population and what that population consisted of.
Enjoy.
February 7, 2009 5:13 PM
Hi Razd,
Thanks for your response.
The difference between micro and macro-evolution is definately something that we need to better understand. The Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview seem to be in disagreement and I think it is due to confusion. Certainly you cannot be saying that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution and that there is no real difference.
Micro-evolution involves adaptation and change within a species, while macro-evolution involves the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.
Micro-evolution is plainly observable throughout nature, but macro-evolution is only a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist will argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, when it comes to things observable, there really is no disagreement between the creationist and the evolutionist.
The point of contention comes not based on what is observed, but on the interpretations of what is observed or not observed.
Evolutionists will argue that over time species will change slightly and then eventually become something else entirely--a brand new species. And since the fossil record does not support such a hypothesis--they have come up with the idea of "morphing."
Remember that natural selection only removes DNA information but never adds new information. So with that in mind, how would one species with its set of DNA suddenly morph into something else without the DNA information already present?
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Darwinian evolution and micro-evolution are the same thing because they are not. When a Christain says that they do not believe in evolution, they are not refering to changes within specific traits or variations within a species, but they are speaking specifically against macro-evolution which requires going beyond the DNA limitations of a species.
February 8, 2009 8:56 AM
Thanks Curious,
quote-------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between micro and macro-evolution is definately something that we need to better understand. The Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview seem to be in disagreement and I think it is due to confusion. Certainly you cannot be saying that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution and that there is no real difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strangely not only can I be saying that, but that macroevolutoin really is microevolution in different lineages resulting in greater difference in the lineages as time passes.
Further I can (dogmatically for CollinBaker) state that if the Christian view is different, then they are wrong. They are wrong because they are not evolutionary scientists using the terms of evolutionary science.
Communication involves using the terms of the discussion with the same meaning, so if there is confusion it is due to people not using the scientific meanings for the scientific terms.
quote-------------------------------------------------------------------
Micro-evolution involves adaptation and change within a species, while macro-evolution involves the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microevolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The traits any organism has are composed of traits inherited from their parents and new traits due to mutations, and each individual is composed of a mixture of many traits, resulting in a phenotype.
Selection operates on the phyenotype, the fully expressed development of the genotype and it's interaction with the environment during develpment.
This is the only way change in populations occurs, through the shift in hereditary traits from generation to generation as the population reacts to the ecological opportunities and hindrances.
Macroevolution is not a separate mechanism, and it is not a seperate mechanism for one very simple reason: there is no way to get change into the genotype except through mutation and recombination of parental traits.
The "addition of new traits" occurs by adaptation of existing traits through microevolution over many generations.
The transition to a new species occurs through reproductively isolated populations reacting to different ecological opportunities and hindrances in the selection of hereditary traits that are more advantageous to reproduction and survival in the different ecologies.
All microevolution involves is the formation of nested hierarchies through descent from common ancestral populations.
If you think macroevolution is different than this, then please define what you think it means.
quote-------------------------------------------------------------------
Micro-evolution is plainly observable throughout nature, but macro-evolution is only a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist will argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, when it comes to things observable, there really is no disagreement between the creationist and the evolutionist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And one of the facts that creationists ignore is what macroevoluiton really involves. We have observed evolution and speciation, and these are the basic mechanisms needed to form nested hierarchies.
quote-------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of contention comes not based on what is observed, but on the interpretations of what is observed or not observed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic point of contention is that scientists are doing science, and creationists are not.
The basic point of contention is that scientists use scientific terms as defined in the science, and creationists are not.
Science is based on improving our understanding of reality, through testing concepts against reality and rejecting concepts that are contradicted by the evidence of reality.
If creationists want to use a different interpretation, then they need to (a) do the science that shows their explanation covers all the evidence as well or better than the explanations of science, and (b) discard concepts that are invalidated - such as an earth younger than billions of years.
quote-------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionists will argue that over time species will change slightly and then eventually become something else entirely--a brand new species. And since the fossil record does not support such a hypothesis--they have come up with the idea of "morphing."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually you are wrong on two counts here: (1) speciation has been observed, it is a fact, and (2) scientists consider "morphing" to be an old and invalidated concept. The only ones talking about "morphing" of organisms are creationists.
quote-------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember that natural selection only removes DNA information but never adds new information. So with that in mind, how would one species with its set of DNA suddenly morph into something else without the DNA information already present?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another false statement. We have actual observe evolution of new traits, new abilities of organisms. The logical conclusion is that either (a) this represents the addition of new "information" or (b) the addition of new "information" is not relevant to evolution.
The biggest problem with this creationist canard of "information" is that they never present a definition of what they mean, and the second problem is that they have never developed a methodology to actually measure the amount of "information" in an organism so that increase or decrease can be (gosh - what a thought) actually documented.
quote-------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Darwinian evolution and micro-evolution are the same thing because they are not. When a Christain says that they do not believe in evolution, they are not refering to changes within specific traits or variations within a species, but they are speaking specifically against macro-evolution which requires going beyond the DNA limitations of a species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curiously you are telling me to ignore science in favor of misrepresentation of science. Can you tell me how that leads to improved knowledge and understanding of reality?
There are no mechanisms to limit what can change in DNA and what cannot other than survival and reproduction of the individual phenotypes. Claiming that there is some vague undefined "limitation" does not make it true - what you need to do is demonstrate that there is a limitation, you know, do the science, rather than skip the science and jump to a preconceived conclusion.
Enjoy.
February 8, 2009 10:42 AM
While everything you say might sound right to you, I have seen no support for any of it. You also seem somewhat "hostile" so I am not sure how far I will be willing to go in discussing this with you. Keep your cool and lose the insulting language against creationists because all that does is show a weakness in your position. People who are confident in their beliefs do not need to resort to such tactics as they can rest assured that the merits of their argument will stand alone.
Creationists are not misusing terminology or misrepresenting the meaning of anything as you claim. I think you are the one who might be doing that. While you might believe that evolutionists have proven that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution, the fact is that the jury is still out. No one has a monopoly over science, either. Creationists are studying the very same evidence as the evolutionists are, using the very same scientific methods. What is different are the interpretations.
How can natural selection favor the evolution of something for which there is no evident use? That question was asked by Alfred Russel Wallace who discussed the theory of evolution with his friend Charles Darwin for many years. Wallace, for example, had a very hard time seeing how natural selection could have brought about the human mind with its virtually infinite power of reasoning and morality and how the human mind could be counted as the product of a strict utilitarian force. For Wallace, the human brain was simply too exquisite an organ to be the product of natural selection in the simple business of day-to-day survival. I think he raised very good questions. How could natural selection give rise to the human brain so that someone like Beethoven could soar to musical genius? Consider the human foot which under closer inspection is clearly too perfect for the needs of a savage man. (See "A Thread of Life" by Roger Lewin).
There is a fact about genetics showing that trait changes have a limit. This is a big obstacle to your theory of micro-macro evolution. With all of the genetic data between two people--even filling volumes and volumes of books--and even considering that these two people could have as many children as they dared [theoretically, even if they had as many children as there are grains of sand] with no two being exactly alike, there is still a limit to how far each trait can change and to the number of trait variations. Trait changes are the result of a rearranging of the genetic code already present. When the genetic code is mixed around it will produce variation, to a limited degree. It cannot produce change to anything that isn't already present in the DNA. Even under mutation, which always leads to disease or defect, skin will still be skin and hair will still be hair and eyes, well, they will still be eyes--even if the color can change. Natural selection ultimately thins the gene pool and never adds new information or DNA to the genetic code...and this is a huge problem to your idea that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. Macro-evolution..like Dinosaur to bird, which requires brand new genetic information to be added. So where does that information come from? Also, the term "Morphed" is not a creationists' term or theory. I'll be tuning in toNational Geographics' documentary -titles "Morphed" about turkeys, being aired today.
February 8, 2009 9:48 PM
Hi Curious, I'm posting this in bits, as the full reply was zapped into moderator netherland (held for approval by a moderator that appears to be absent when you click on the links) - presumably for length of the reply.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
While everything you say might sound right to you, I have seen no support for any of it. You also seem somewhat "hostile" so I am not sure how far I will be willing to go in discussing this with you.
----------------------------------------------------------
If I appear hostile, which I don't feel I am, it would be hostility towards presenting false positions as truth, and maintaining that they are true in spite of evidence that invalidates positions. Especially when it is easy to validate the fact that these positions are false.
For instance, I have presented definitions of evolution as used by two universities teaching evolution, and if you, for instance, persist in maintaining that these terms mean something else, I have to wonder what it will take for you to understand reality.
Here are the sites again:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html
This information covers what is actually taught by these universities to students earning degrees in biology. This information is what the science of evolution actually covers. They both define what modern biological evolution means by "microevolution" and "macroevolution" and if you are going to argue another definition, then you need to provide the definition, and the source of the definition.
If find it incredibly sad that creationists seem to feel that they need to use false representations of reality to argue against evolution -- all they end up doing is looking foolish when the positions are shown to be false, not involve evolution at all, and that all they have done is "prove" that a falsehood is false.
I find it humorous\sad when people like ColinBaker feel a subset of cherry-picked quotes taken out of context are used to support a position while ignoring all the evidence from the same authors that shows the position is a false one.
end p1
February 8, 2009 9:52 PM
p2
quote-----------------------------------------------------
Keep your cool and lose the insulting language against creationists because all that does is show a weakness in your position.
----------------------------------------------------------
LOL - you just attack my character and then tell me to keep my cool.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
People who are confident in their beliefs do not need to resort to such tactics as they can rest assured that the merits of their argument will stand alone.
----------------------------------------------------------
And I have to wonder why, if Creationism is even slightly true, why then do creationists need to lie to support it? Why do creationists need to misrepresent evolution?
end p2
February 8, 2009 9:53 PM
p3
quote-----------------------------------------------------
Creationists are not misusing terminology or misrepresenting the meaning of anything as you claim. I think you are the one who might be doing that. While you might believe that evolutionists have proven that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution, the fact is that the jury is still out.
----------------------------------------------------------
You are free to present one creationist website definitions of evolution that matches the ones given by those university websites.
Until then I remain unconvinced of your argument.
UMich states: (macroevolution is) "The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity." This is (micro)evolution leading to speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies of organisms related by common ancestry.
BerkelyU states: (macroevolution is) "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses ... large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)." This is (micro)evolution leading to speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies of organisms related by common ancestry.
When you apply these definitions to what has been observed in the real world as well as in the laboratory, then yes, macroevolution has been observed, speciation has been observed and the formation of nested hierarchies has been observed.
Neither of these definitions suggest individual organisms morphing into new types of organisms. Neither of these definitions suggest that the new species following a speciation event are significantly different from each other or different from their parent species, just that they are different enough that they no longer interbreed to produce viable offspring.
end p3
February 8, 2009 9:54 PM
p4
quote-----------------------------------------------------
No one has a monopoly over science, either. Creationists are studying the very same evidence as the evolutionists are, using the very same scientific methods.
----------------------------------------------------------
In science we call these interpretations theories, theories supported by evidence, theories that make predictions to test the interpretations, theories that can be falsified by contradictory evidence or considered a tentative approximation of reality as long as they remain un-falsified.
The Theory of Evolution is simple - that the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation can result in speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies - is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
This theory is massively tested and every test has validated the theory rather than contradicted it.
To do science you use evidence, not quotes, not false definitions of scientific terms, and not making ad hoc explanations to cover evidence that falsifies interpretations.
There are true interpretations and there are false interpretations, science takes the next step by making predictions based on the interpretations and then testing to see if these interpretations hold up when compared to reality. Scientists also take the final step when testing an interpretation falsifies it by discarding those that are falsified.
This brings our approximate knowledge of reality closer to reality.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
What is different are the interpretations.
----------------------------------------------------------
Scientists assume that the evidence is a true representation of reality. An alternate interpretation is that the evidence is false - is that the type of interpretation you mean?
This does seem to be the pattern of creationist "science" where they try to show that dating methods, for an easy example, present false information about the actual age of the earth.
end p4
February 8, 2009 10:23 PM
p5a
quote-----------------------------------------------------
How can natural selection favor the evolution of something for which
there is no evident use?
----------------------------------------------------------
If it is not deletereous -- disadvantageous to the organism survival or reproduction -- and it has no obvious benefit, it is what evolutionary scientists call neutral.
It is neutral because it doesn't affect the selection of those with or without it.
Most mutations are neutral, in that they don't express differences in the phenotype during development of the fully formed organisms or afterwards for the survival and reproductive ability of the organism.
Mayr says neutral mutations are not evolution because they are not subject to selection, and while this is true if the mutations stay neutral, they do (1) provide opportunity for further mutations to make a selective alteration (as observed in one lineage of e.coli that resulted in a beneficial ability to use alternative food sources), and (2) they can become subject to selective pressures when the ecology changes.
Most of the variation you see within populations (such as eye color) are neutral.
end p5a
February 8, 2009 10:27 PM
p5b
quote-----------------------------------------------------
That question was asked by Alfred Russel Wallace who discussed the theory of evolution with his friend Charles Darwin for many years. Wallace, for example, had a very hard time seeing how natural selection could have brought about the human mind with its virtually infinite power of reasoning and morality and how the human mind could be counted as the product of a strict utilitarian force. For Wallace, the human brain was simply too exquisite an organ to be the product of natural selection in the simple business of day-to-day survival. I think he raised very good questions. How could natural selection give rise to the human brain so that someone like Beethoven could soar to musical genius? Consider the human foot which under closer inspection is clearly too perfect for the needs of a savage man. (See "A Thread of Life" by Roger Lewin).
----------------------------------------------------------
Another argument from authority.
The evolution of the human brain is very simply explained by selecting for creativity in mating behavior, through run-away sexual selection.
Female mates are selected for youthful appearance:
The evidence for this includes the continued pursuit of youthful appearance in females, makeup, shaving of hair, trophy wives, etc. etc. etc.
Male mates are selected for creative originality:
The evidence for this includes the very real sexual attraction, even today, for creative people (rockstars, artists, musicians, dancers) to be found sexually attractive, and a lack of correlation of sexual appeal to intelligence. Such creative originality also leads to superior survival and ability to provide, which also leads to sexual selection.
One of the "give-away" traits of run-away sexual selection is that it results in features that have a skewed distribution in the population rather than a normal distribution. Studies have been done on the "ideal appearance" of mates, and they consistently show attractiveness of younger looking women to the point that the attraction is to the lower limit of reproductive ability. Likewise we can look at the skull of the human head and the physical limits of further increasing the size of the brain, the increase in folds and interconnections within the functional part of the brain to the point where further expansion of brain capacity impacts survival of mother and infant.
end p5b
February 9, 2009 10:26 AM
It would be nice if creationsists were using the same scientific method as is used by science. Starting from what is claimed to be revelaed knowledge is not science. Stating that any evidence which does not support that revealed knowledge is false is not science. Claiming that the answer to any question cannot be 'we don't know right now but must be "God did it" is not science.
The dishonesty around the claims of using scientific principles is one of the most harmful things that creationists do.
February 10, 2009 11:35 AM
LFIC, what is dangerous and dishonest is your description of what Creation Science is and what it is about. You should educate yourself about it before you speak out against it. You are clearly in the dark. But I don't blame you. It's been the goal of evolutionists to keep you there.
February 8, 2009 9:58 PM
p6
quote-----------------------------------------------------
There is a fact about genetics showing that trait changes have a limit. This is a big obstacle to your theory of micro-macro evolution. With all of the genetic data between two people--even filling volumes and volumes of books--and even considering that these two people could have as many children as they dared [theoretically, even if they had as many children as there are grains of sand] with no two being exactly alike, there is still a limit to how far each trait can change and to the number of trait variations.
----------------------------------------------------------
And yet this has no bearing on how evolutionary traits can evolve in populations of organisms. Your "limit" may apply to what two mating individuals could accomplish, but it has no effect on what populations of organisms can accomplish.
Strangely, evolution occurs in populations of organisms, not in individuals.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
It cannot produce change to anything that isn't already present in the DNA.
----------------------------------------------------------
This is another creationist canard. DNA is composed of four amino acids in a variety of combinations. Mutations change those combinations, but they are still formed of four amino acids in a variety of combinations. Thus the DNA in a bacterial cell has the same amino acids as the DNA in every multicellular life form, in the same basic combination.
By rearranging one you can generate the other, for every living organism.
In this regard the DNA of every oganism is "already present in the DNA" of any other organism. In other words it is a tautology, and meaningless.
end p6
February 9, 2009 10:20 AM
An additional thought
In discussing what causes phenotypes to appear - it is also useful to look not just at the genes but the various systmes that interact with those genes. For example - the work done with foxes where those with lower stress hormone levels were chosen for breeeding. Over time, by selecting for that trait other traits also appeared in the population - changes in coat color, floppy ears, etc.
Selection occurs at the phenotype level so these different mechanisms expand the possibilities of change in populatiosn over time.
February 9, 2009 1:50 PM
Thanks LFIC
For those interested in what this is about, google "Russian fox farm experiment" - a program of selective breeding done to make the farm foxes easier to handle, but that showed startling changes in 40 years to foxes that were much more like dogs in appearances and behavior. You can also search youtube for some of the videos showing these doglike foxes.
What appears to have happened, is that the selection for less aggressive foxes actually selected for foxes with lower adrenaline levels, and adrenaline is a hormone that affects the development of the fetus.
This is one of the considerations of the "evo-devo" field within evolution, and curiously gets back to Lamarck and some of his work other than acquired traits.
Enjoy
February 9, 2009 10:39 AM
Thanks for all of your opinions RAZD. I appreciate the time you took to respond with all of those posts. But unless you are willing to understand what Creation Science really is and what evolution has really proved and what it has not proved, it is a waste of time to contiue. You make alot of false claims about Creation Science, about what is micro and macro evolution and about what is science verses faith. You can't just demand that creation can't be considered because it is a religion when that is not true. Creation Science is no more religious or based on faith than Darwininan evolution (Macro) is...and Evolution in that respect is no more scientific than creation since neither model can actually be tested or repeated in a laboratory.
Thank for the discussion, though. I won't be hanging around this forum for much longer because it seems no one here really has an honest understanding about what Creation Science really is.
February 9, 2009 1:41 PM
Curious,
Thank you for your time and patience. I understand where you are coming from and the difficulty one has confronting evidence that contradicts ones world view. I don't claim to be immune, however there is a difference between science and religion in how knowledge is treated - only one involves faith, the other has different levels of confidence in tentative approximations to reality, and I'll leave you to sort out which is which.
If you -- or anyone else here -- wants to continue this discussion, I can be found roaming the Evolution vs Creationism forum at
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=ta
This is a forum that does not censor posts, although there are guidelines posted for behavior that is not allowed, and this is enforced to keep the forum civil.
Enjoy.
February 10, 2009 10:47 AM
I am sorry to hear that your world view is compromised, but in truth...both world views can't be right and if we must be stuck with one over the other I think the creation world view is so much more hopeful. I mean, who can really be happy believing that they are nothing more than the byproduct of something that popped-up out of a puddle of sludge long ago by some highly improbable string of events and circumstance that resulted in life by chance? Where's the love in that?
February 9, 2009 1:47 PM
I can't speak for RAZD, but I am definitely willing to understand Creation Science. In fact, I have made some effort to try to understand alternate opinions, like Intelligent Design, but got nowhere. It seems that people can describe what ID is, but no one can explain how it works. This has been a huge obstacle for me in understanding ID. You see, one of the powerful things about Darwin's theory, and pretty much all scientific theories, is that they propose a mechanism to explain the evidence. That mechanism can then be used to predict future discoveries. In Darwin’s theory, for example, that mechanism is natural selection. Darwin explained how it worked, showed evidence for it, and predicted future discoveries.
I can’t find what mechanism Intelligent Design proposes - in other words I can’t find the hypothesis for ID theory. It’s a big secret I guess that the ID community is not willing to share with outsiders, even the Judge at the Dover, PA trial couldn’t figure it out. Creation Science should also be able to propose a hypothesis which can be tested and used to predict future discoveries; otherwise, it's un-testable, and ultimately useless as a theory of anything. It would be just an opinion.
Having said that, can you please explain Creationist Science – what it is and how it works? What contention does it make? What evidence supports that contention? What is the hypothesis? Can the hypothesis be tested and ultimately used to predict future discoveries about the course of natural history on this planet? I have searched the internet and so far found only people's opinions that were often conflicting and made no general sense. Am I missing something?
February 9, 2009 7:24 PM
On Creation Science there is alot of misinformation and misunderstanding.
Evolution--assumes that the universe is self contained, and that the origin and developement of all its complex systems (the universe, living organisms, man, etc..) can be explained solely by time, chance, and continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy.
Creation--maintains that the universe is not self-contained, but that it must have been created by processes which are *not* continuing as natural processes in the present.
All things either can--or cannot--be explained in terms of a self-contained universe by ongoing natural processes. If they can, then evolution is true. If they cannot, then they must be explained, at least in part, by completed extra-natural processes in a universe which itself was created.
Many evolutionists say that, since creation requires a creator, whose work of creation cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory, that that very fact removes it from the domain of science. Even though it may be true.., they will say it is not scientific and therefore should not be taught in school science courses.
Darwinian evolution cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory any more than creation. Evolution in the vertical sense--that is, "macroevolution," transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism--cannot be observed even if it is true, since it presumably requires immense spans of time. No instance of such macroevolution has ever been observed, in all recorded history, by any human being. Thus if creation is excluded from science because it cannot be observed in action, so must evolution be excluded on the same basis.
Science means "knowledge,' not speculative philosophy or naturalism. The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation, repeatability. The great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, stresses that "falsifiability" is the necessary criterion of genuine science. That is, a hypothesis must--at least in principle--be testable and capable of being refuted, if it is truely scientific.
Clearly, neither model of origins--creation or evolution [macro]--is scientific in this sense.
"Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer."
"Horizontal variations" (e.g.., the different variety of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, nor are "mutations," which are always either neutral or harmful, as far as all known mutations are concerned. A process which has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called science!!
In the creation model we would expect to see a great array of complex funtioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose in creation. Different organisms would exibit an array of similarities, and differences--similar structures for similar funtions, different structures for different functions.
This is, of course, exactly what we do see. Everything in the world of living organisms correlates, naturally and easily, with a creation origin. Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at the submicroscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handiwork of their creator.
The evolution model, on the other hand, could never "predict" even the simplest living thing, since there is no known natural process that can generate organized complexity. All real processes tend to go in the opposite direction, from organization to disorganization, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death. To believe that chance processes could somehow produce life from nonlife requires a high degree of credulity. "The notion that.... the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order!" (Sir Fred Hoyle., 1981)
Evolution and creation are the only two comprehensive worldviews, defining diametrically opposing concepts concerning the origin and developement of all things. If evolution is true, there must be a universal principle operating in nature that brings organization to random systems and adds information to simple systems. Over the ages, if evolution is true, primeval particles have evolved into molecules and galaxies, inorganic chemicals have developed into living cells, and protozones have developed into human beings, so there must be some grand principle of increasing organization and complexity functioning in nature.
On the other hand, creation implies two universal principles, one of conservation of quantity, the other one of decaying quality. That is, horizontal changes (e.g., one form of energy into another, one state of matter into another, one variety of plant or animal into another) are predicted as a conservational device, enabling the total entity to be conserved even though enviromental effects cause it to change in form. Vertical changes, however, are predicted to have a net downward impact (e.g., energy degraded into nonusable heat energy., materials wearing out, useful organs becoming atrophied, species becoming extinct). Any apparent vertically upward change requires an excessive input of ordering energy, matter, or information into the system, and can be maintained only temporarily, and at the cost of decay of the overall system outside.
Now these predictions from the creation model have been precisely and universally confirmed. The two most universal laws of science are the laws of conservation and decay, exactly as predicted. In the physical realm they are called the first and second laws of thermodynamics., but they have their analogues in every realm.
The evolution model not only cannot "predict" the decay law; it seems to exclude it.
"One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more order." (Roger Lewin)
The above excerpts come from "What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker.
This book will do a great job at explaining what creation Science is--and what it isn't, how it is studied, its hypothesis and it also gives examples of some of the experiments and findings..
February 10, 2009 11:09 AM
I'm sorry, but you lost me. Is it possible for you to explain creation science without talking about evolution? This should be simple - if evolution doesn't support your theory then why mention it at all. Your explenation would be much clearer. Also, why do I have to read an entire book to understand Creation Science? The explenation should be no longer then a paragraph. The hypothesis should be a single sentence where you state your contention. For example it should say something like "if the evidence shows this, then the mechanism to explain the evidence is this..." If I then want more evidence that supports this conetntion, I will read the book.
February 10, 2009 11:31 AM
The person I had this discussion with did not respond to the post, so I still don't know what Intelligent Design is and how it works. It's still a big secret I guess...
February 10, 2009 11:51 AM
I'm talking about the post below from another discussion....
February 10, 2009 12:20 PM
I am sorry that my post was so difficult for you. I took the time to type that for you because i thought you were seriously interested. But I get the feeling that you are being disingenuous. Why should you read a book about What is Creation Science? I thought you wanted to know what it is. That's why.
I actually posted the hypothesis or Creation Model within my post, but I quess it was too difficult to follow. Also, showin g the weekness of evolution supports the strength of Creation--since these are the only two models that we really have. Unless if you know of another?
Not only does the creation model predict clearcut gaps between basic types in the living world; it also predicts the same thing in the fossil world. Evolutionists should expect to see transitional forms in the fossil record, which supposedly recorded the history of life during the geological ages of the past. In fact, if evolution, in the macrosence, was taking place during all those ages, it would seem that all forms ought to be transitional forms.
The fact is, however, that the same kinds of gaps exist in the fossil record as in the living world.. All of the great phyla (the basic structural plans) of the animal kingdom seem to have existed unchanged since the earliest of the supposed geological ages, including even the vertebrates. There are no true transitional forms (that is, in the sense of forms containing incipient, developing or transitional structures--such as half scales/half feathures, or half legs/half wings) anywhere among all the billions of known fossil forms.
Evolutionists infer that the lack of transitional forms is because of "rapidly evolving populations that leave no legible fossil record." But what they are effectively saying is that no one sees macroevolution take place today because it proceeds too slowly, and no one sees macroevolution in the record of the past because it went too fast. In reality, there is no evidence of macroevolution anywhere! Period.
What we actually see is exactly what creationists predict from the creation model. Therefore, in terms of either past or present systems and processes, creation is more scientific than evolution.
The concept of vestigial organs (evolutionary leftovers) even resulted in "evolutionary medical malpractice." Young children once had their healthy (and helpful, disease-fighting) tonsils removed because of the widespread belief that they were only useless vestiges. That idea actually slowed down scientific research for many years. If you believe something is a useless, nonfunctional leftover of evolution, then you don't bother to find out what it really does.
Fortunately, other scientists didn't take this view. Sure enough, studies have shown that essentially all180 organs once listed asevolutionary vestiges have quite important functions in human beings.
Anyway, the scientific examples and studies for Creation are contained within this book and if I had the time to type it out for you, I still wouldn't. If you are seriously interested in really knowing what it is, then you will get the book.
"What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker
February 10, 2009 5:28 PM
I assure you – I am definitely not trying to be insincere in any way. I genuinely want to understand the science behind what you are describing. I think we have to very differing opinions of what science is. And I understand that you are referring to this book, but I’m not certain that I will find an explanation here either. I’ve read similar books - so far without success. I asked if you could explain your understanding of Creation Science without referring to Evolution, because in your original explanation, especially where you state “Evolution and creation are the only two comprehensive worldviews” your hypothesis seems to be that: If life could have been created only by either “Evolution” or “Creation”, and there is no evidence for “Evolution”, then life must have been created by “Creation.” I know that this is a logical fallacy. There are a number of opinions on this subject, mainly Intelligent Design, which is different from Creation Science. Intelligent Design accepts a form of Darwin’s natural selection as a fact of nature. From your post I ascertained that Creationist Science does not accept Darwinism. So that’s why I asked if you could explain Creation without talking about Evolution.
You also mentioned several very specific claims which aren’t clear to me, like…
“In the creation model we would expect to see a great array of complex functioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose in creation. Different organisms would exhibit an array of similarities, and differences--similar structures for similar functions, different structures for different functions.”
I don’t know what the “creation model” is, so this claim may not be true. I have no idea, since I have nothing to go by. How exactly does creation work to create a great array of complex functioning organisms? The same applies to your statement, “creation implies two universal principles” This seems like a very specific point of view. Would all Creation Scientists agree with this? Can you show someone like myself, who is completely ignorant of Creation Science, why this statement is true? I’m sorry if I’m being very critical of your explanation. I’m just a very skeptical person. I need to understand the logic behind ideas. You can see this in my later posts where I very logically explain the science behind evolution, and I receive a positive response from people who were very critical of evolution. I was just wondering if someone can explain alternate viewpoints in this logical way. I’m sorry if I insulted you in any way or wasted your time.
February 10, 2009 6:58 PM
If you want to genuinely understand, then read the book. It really is not that complicated. I cannot explain it all to you. I am not a scientist and I am not willing to simply post the book by typing it word for word to you. It's too much work. Creation Science accepts the idea of natural selection as long as you are willing to recognize that this selection is limited to a variation within a species. Darwin seemed to be suggesting that natural selection could be the mechanism behind macroevolution, change from one speciies into another. There is simply no evidence for that.
You are asking for the cause of creation, how creation started. But in all fairness, you don't seem to be asking that evolution explain their cause, or how evolution began. Why is that? Creation Science deals in the study of the evidence left behind after the fact, just like evolution does. There is no reason why created objects and order cannot be studied.
February 10, 2009 8:17 PM
If you can't explain how life started, then that's fine. I can't either. You said that you support Creation Science. I'm just asking how does it work? And you're telling me that I have to go read a book. To be honest, I think that you don't really know how Creation Science works - otherwise, why wouldn't you tell us?
February 11, 2009 10:16 AM
I feel that I have tried to give you an understanding of just what Creation Science is. At least you seem to understand that it is not a study of the Creator or God or of origins. Thank you for that much.
Neither the creation model of the [macro]evolution model can be tested in a laboratory, or by repeatability since we cannot repeat the history of origins. The universe, the origin of life, the origin of man and all such events took place in the past and cannot now be studied in a lab.
This does not mean, however, that their results [the evidence left behind] cannot be observed or tested. That is, we can define two models of origins, and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if evolution is true, and conversely, if creation is true. The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things which we then find to be true on observation is the model most likely to be true, even though we cannot prove it to be true by actual scientific repetition.
Creation Science is not dealing with origins, or the Creator/Designer responsible for setting things in motion any more than evolution is dealing with origins and what it believes set things in motion.
Creation Science is a study of the evidence, looking for signs of created order, completed supernatural processes in an open universe, rather than evolution by continuing natural laws and processes operating in a self-contained universe.
I already gave examples of how the fossil record better supports the creation model and how the law of decay also supports the creation model.
Let's try this one.
All communities, metallurgy, ceramics, construction, written language, and so on--appeared at essentially the same time, only several thousand years ago in the Middle East. Yes? There is an abundance of archaeological evidence to this effect. It is anomalous that evolutionists believe man's physical body evolved more than a million years ago, and yet also believe that man began to evolve culturally only a few thousand years ago.
Furthermore, human populations also conform to a recent origin. If the world's original population was only one man and one woman, and the population began to increase geometrically (which was Darwin's approach to population studies) at a rate of only 2 percent per year (which is the present worldwide rate), it would take only about 1,100 years to attain the present world population. If man has been on the earth a million years or more, untold trillions of men and women must have lived and died on the earth by now. Where are their bones?
There is also scores of physical evidence that the earth is young. Some of these include the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the build up of atmospheric radiocarbon, the influx of helium into the atmosphere, the influx of uranium, nickel, and other chemical elements and ions into the ocean, the break up of comets, the influx of cosmic dust, and many others, all indicating (even with the standard uniformitarian assumptions) that the earth could only be a few thosand years old. You may want to debate these things, but that is exactly the point. They are worthy of debating and studying and comparing.
February 10, 2009 11:18 AM
If you need more information about what I'm asking, the post below is from another discussion I had in another forum where I asked someone to explain Intelligent Design...
"Usually in science, the standard is that an explanation of any theory should be stated in a logical sentence, preferably in the form of a hypothesis. Since you are making a contention, you should use "if" to state your observation and "then" to talk about your interpretation of that observation. (I'm not making this up. You can verify it by looking up the definition of a "hypothesis" online) For example, "If variation exists within populations, and some variables have a greater reproductive rate than others, then those variables with more reproductive success will be favored in future generations." I can understand this sentence because it describes an observation, and then argues for an interpretation of that observation. The interpretation is the observer's opinion. It is very clear, and anyone then can go out and disprove this contention if they want, because the opinion is entirely based on an observation, and therefore on facts. I can disprove it by finding something wrong with the observation, or by finding that there is no logical connection between the observation and the contention. When you say something like "Intelligent design is the design of the lower world that God creates and in which we live..." it is your opinion only, and it cannot be tested or disproven, since you didn't state your observation and interpretation of that observation. It would be like me saying, "Vanilla fudge is the most common substance in the universe." This statement is entirely my opinion. In order for this to be a testable hypothesis, I would have to state my observation first; In other words I would have to say, "If research has shown that most matter in the universe consists of vanilla fudge, then vanilla fudge is the most common substance in the universe." This is a contention that can be tested and verified or disproven. Your statement about ID cannot.
Using the above method, anyone can hold Darwin's theory accountable to the same standard. His theory of speciation is based on a number of contentions:
1) Variation exists within populations.
2) Variation is the result of mutations which occur during reproduction.
3) Extinction exists in nature.
4) The environment can pressure a population to change by selecting favorable inherited traits.
5) Speciation (the creation of new species) is the result of populations changing over time due to variation, extinction, and environmental pressure.
Since Darwin's theory is based on these observations, it is testable, and can be proven wrong. All you have to do is disprove any of the points above.
1) Variation: You could show that there is no variation within populations, if let's say you could prove that all living things are actually clones.
2) Mutation: You could show that genetic information cannot mutate and that it remains unchanged when organisms reproduce. You could do this by showing that we are all exact copies of one of our parents, rather than a mix of both.
3) Extinction: You can show that there is no such thing as extinction and that all plants and animals in the fossil record are still alive today, or were never alive to begin with and the fossil record does not represent an accurate history of life on this planet.
4) Environmental pressure: You can prove that the environment has no effect on living things by showing that climate change, like droughts or ice ages, or geographic isolation, disease, or global natural disasters, like volcanic activity or asteroids colliding with Earth have no affect on plant or animal populations and cannot cause their extinction.
5) Change over time: You could find species out of order in the fossil record. For example, finding modern human remains in 460 million year old rock would cast doubt on the the chronology of evolution. Also, disproving any of the 4 points above (variation, mutation, extinction, and environmental pressure) would automatically disprove this last argument as well."
February 10, 2009 12:43 PM
I think I have given you a good answer to your question, "What is Creation Science?" Reread it if you need to. I also added another response to your second request. That should be enough.
But I will address just one thing, and that is mutations.
No one would argue that the destruction of the earth's ozone layer is a good thing because it increases mutation rates and therefore, speeds up evolution, would they? No of course not. That is because mutations are harmful. Even if one small helpful thing did occur, it would be drowned out by a sea of harmful changes. Mutations are not a good example of proof of evolution in the macro-sense.
February 10, 2009 5:48 PM
My question was - what is Creation Science and how does it work?
"can you please explain Creationist Science – what it is and how it works?
February 10, 2009 7:03 PM
I already did. But if you can't grasp it, what should I do? Creation Science is a study of the same evidence that evolutionists study. Their hypothesis is different, their predictions are different and their findings are different. Compare the two when you feel up to it. Read the book.
February 10, 2009 8:20 PM
What hypothesis does this book give? You can't just tell me? I have to read it? Why is there so much secrecy here?
February 10, 2009 9:19 PM
Hey JerNYC,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is there so much secrecy here?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you tell when someone is playing "hide-the-pea" ? When they won't show you what is under the shell.
Enjoy.
February 11, 2009 10:40 AM
I did tell you. Here it is again:
Evolution--assumes that the universe is self contained, and that the origin and developement of all its complex systems (the universe, living organisms, man, etc..) can be explained solely by time, chance, and continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy.
Creation--maintains that the universe is not self-contained, but that it must have been created by processes which are *not* continuing as natural processes in the present.
All things either can--or cannot--be explained in terms of a self-contained universe by ongoing natural processes. If they can, then evolution is true. If they cannot, then they must be explained, at least in part, by completed extra-natural processes in a universe which itself was created
February 11, 2009 12:08 AM
Also, it appears that you have a skewed idea of what mutation is when it comes to the theory of evolution. Anytime two organisms reproduce by exchanging genetic material, mutations occur. In other words, anytime a child is born, that child will have obtained 50% of his or her genes from the father and 50% of his/her genes from the mother. Do to this mutation of the gilds genetic makeup, that child will have a completely unique set of inherited characteristics that no one else will have (unless that child has a twin). This is what is meant by mutation when it comes to evolution. Those who criticize evolution will say that mutation here refers to diseases like skin cancer, but this is a total lie, and makes no sense in terms of evolution, because skin cancer can not be passed down to future generations. Mutations like height or eye color, for example, can.
February 11, 2009 10:35 AM
This format is getting increasingly harder to follow. I don't like it. So I am not going to continue to post in these threads, they are getting ridiculously exagerated and long and skinny. I am sure I am missy many reponses due to the nature of this forum.
All I can say, again, is that I recommend the book, "What is Creation Science?" if you really want to understand.
Mutations are not supportive of macroevolution because they are limited to work within the framework of specific species and can never lead to anything but variation within that species, and usually more harmful variations at that. Mutations could never lead a fish to turn into a man.
February 8, 2009 10:00 PM
p7
quote-----------------------------------------------------
Even under mutation, which always leads to disease or defect, skin will still be skin and hair will still be hair and eyes, well, they will still be eyes--even if the color can change. Natural selection ultimately thins the gene pool and never adds new information or DNA to the genetic code...and this is a huge problem to your idea that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. Macro-evolution..like Dinosaur to bird, which requires brand new genetic information to be added. So where does that information come from?
----------------------------------------------------------
Of course natural selection only operates on the available variation within the population, however that variation is provided by mutation and recombination of traits in generation after generation.
This mutation and recombination of traits within populations has been observed to provide new traits in populations that did not exist in the ancestral population, so no matter how many times you tell yourself that this doesn't occur, the only one you are deceiving is yourself.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
Also, the term "Morphed" is not a creationists' term or theory. I'll be tuning in toNational Geographics' documentary -titles "Morphed" about turkeys, being aired today.
----------------------------------------------------------
Now you are confusing journalism with science. Hype is not science.
Want to bet whether they show a single organism "morphing" into a new organism, or whether they show the accumulation of adaptive selection of existing traits availble in populations over many many generations, traits that continue to vary with new mutations?
Enjoy.
so far only p5 is held for moderator approval
February 8, 2009 10:30 PM
p5 had the word s-x in it and was held. p5a and p5b had this omitted and were posted.
Censorship.
The censored line was
In a very real sense s-x has made us human.
Enjoy.
February 9, 2009 1:25 AM
Yeah, you're right. My post was removed because I mentioned s_xual reproduction as responsible for variation among populations.
February 11, 2009 10:29 AM
The point is that mutations do not support the idea of macroevolution...not mutation will ever lead to the formation of an entirely new species. Humans will always be humans, and they laways have been humans.
October 14, 2009 6:31 AM
I've seen in this forum creationism being exposed as an opponent to evolutionism, but for something to envolve it has to somehow project itself into the next level, and so, it is a process of auto-creation. Still, I do not believe that, has I've been reading here our planet was created in 7 days or that the old testament should be interpreted with the nowadays vocabolary, like some say, the last time people tried to mix religion with science people got burned at the stake. And then, I think by the way that people tend to just take the old testament as the number one and only source of religious opinion about evolution from a religious perspective... there are so many religions around the world that has something to say about evolution itself and creationism, and a lot of them disagree with the old testament one so, I really don't find the fact that someone believes in divinity something that crashes against the fact that evolution happened the way we already know and that Earth became the planet we know in more than 7 days.
September 19, 2009 5:10 PM
Science is founded on reason while religion is based on faith, and it's fundamentally nigh on impossible to truly blend them without polluting their purposes.
I find it awesome how often Science forgets it lives in faith. One would consider "Real Facts" when they have been redifined by a man accepted and standardized as fundamental education. It still at one time was defined by a single man, and going on the fact that a device can verify. What he has said is faith even if it is in the machine calibrated to acheive the repeated result or the systematic process needed to come to common conclusions. Respectfully I almost have to spit at those who claim to have knowledge of the modern world. All we as a society have done is redefine virtually everything and everyone. I.E. Science will take two different methods to define something as simple as the color Red. In short it has a frequency number, but also is actually every other color than red when veiwed by the human eye. If this perspective is the most common in all feilds of Science, it grows more apparent that it is only a fame based feild. One where people strive to have there name published. It also eludes the simple fact that Red is still defined and that is faith based. Everyone has faith even if you dont beleive in a diety you beleive in yourself or your base.
If one is to keep their perception of the world to a 2000 thousand year-old book, there well be no progress. Why is it in this day of modern science, must we still be held back by such archaic belief systems as religion.
On the contrary that old book you refer to spark the ideals that set in motion freedom as we know it today! To discredit this only shows you haven't applied yourself to the foundations of that book. If everyone did follow those works just as they where written then this world would be far better off but even you had something to say against it.
Whats sad is that is a highly biased statement like most evolutionist. The claim as always, an attack on Christ. This goes well with the common self worship of Science!!! If it wasnt an attack on Christianity then why is it only 2k yrs old? Pretty sure the Old Testament dates further back, also it isn't an attack on religion, its only on the Hebrews God. Most common in the evolutionist of this sad world. I cant wait to see how right you are when the world takes the self worshipping veiw of Science!
pls excuse any grammer i had to do this fast the mission feilds call me to feed the children left helpless in this world!
January 24, 2009 2:35 PM
NO EVOLUTION:
Genesis 1:24-25
Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring OF THE SAME KIND—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of THE SAME KIND. And God saw that it was good.
"THE SAME KIND" is stressing the fact that one species cannot, I repeat, cannot, evolve into another species. Their can be variations within a species microevolution (tiger/cat), but one animal does not evolve into another macroevolution....God saw that it was good (his work).
IMAGE OF MEN:
Genesis 1:27
So God created human beings[c] IN HIS OWN IMAGE. IN THE IMAGE OF GOD he created them; male and female he created them.
Common folks there is no way man could have evolved from ape. God created us in HIS OWN IMAGE. So it is slander to speak and thinks such thing that violate the work hand of the Lord, which is perfect.
-Don't be so naive to be deceived-
February 2, 2009 8:16 PM
I know people can belive in whatever they want, but please quoting the bible is rediculous. The bible is the most contradictory book ever written..i do not understand how a book full of stories and contradictions can be the word of god and why people believe everyone must follow it. Evolution is obvious just look out your window...i think the plants and animals have changed over these past millions of years no? at what point does god wave a magic wand to make a new species? and why hasnt anyone seen this occurance.
--"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you.
He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good BS story. Holy Sh*t!"- George Carlin
February 3, 2009 5:51 AM
That was his shtick. He often closed his HBO specials with God Bless, and help a homeless person. God managed to pop through. He was just a strong advocate of critical thinking and wanted people to think then believe.
February 5, 2009 2:41 PM
Sweetloumoney23- It's not very Scientific to make unsubstantiated blanket claims (The Bible is ridiculous, full of contradictions) and I disagree with your 'Evolution is obvious' assertion. It is most certainly NOT obvious. Has it ever been observed, tested, studied? No, it is a theory based on an interpretation of evidence AFTER the fact. Life forms change but are always the same species. You can breed dogs, flowers, etc to have differant characteristics but they are still dogs & flowers. The problem with evolutionary theory is that is NOT scientific. It does not account for how nothing produced something. How inannimate produced life. How the 2nd law of thermodynamics was circumvented. There are explanations but they are NOT science, mere speculation, hope, dare I say it?- faith.
February 6, 2009 1:45 AM
"Has it ever been observed, tested, studied?" Actually, yes, it has.
February 6, 2009 11:04 AM
You're claiming that evolution has been observed? Not it's supposed results- but the actual process of evolution? The change that has taken millions & billions of years has been observed in the last 150yrs? Or even last 1500 yrs? Please provide some sort of documentation beyond and empty assertion.
February 7, 2009 12:42 AM
Hey Hardwood83
quote-----------------------------------------------------
You're claiming that evolution has been observed? Not it's supposed results- but the actual process of evolution?
----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the actual process of actual evolution. Actual evolution is the kind actually studied in the biological science of evolution, and it involves the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, or descent with modification, to use Darwin's formulation. This is observed every day in every population of species. You have some hereditary traits different from either of your parents, for instance.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
The change that has taken millions & billions of years has been observed in the last 150yrs?
----------------------------------------------------------
Now YOU are confusing the natural history of what actually occurred with the process of evolution, YOU are confusing the resulting record of evolution with the process.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This is observed in life today, and it is observed in the fossil record, and it is observed in the genetic record.
The process of evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is that this simple process is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it from the life around us, from the historical record, from the archeological record, from the fossil record and from the genetic record.
So far not one piece of evidence of the actual development of life on this planet has contradicted that theory.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
Please provide some sort of documentation beyond and empty assertion.
----------------------------------------------------------
Can you provide an example of a single population where it is NOT occurring?
Not just evolution, but the evolution of reproductively isolated populations resulting in speciation has been observed.
Do a google on [observed speciation events] and read up.
Enjoy.
February 7, 2009 5:45 PM
Yes. Natural selection has been observed in a number of experiments. The process occurs exactly as described by Darwin 150 years ago. It's old news. M. Behe talks about natural selection as a fact of nature in his latest book and specifically refers to this experiment (in the link below) on his website.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3
February 8, 2009 8:56 AM
Gentleman- sorry, I should have been more precise- I was referring to MACRO-evolution, not the changes in populations we all recognize from generation-generation but the supposed accumulation of these changes into a new form i.e. simpler to complex. But then, I think you knew that. So I reiterate my point- no one has observed Macro-evolution- a more complex form descending from a simpler form. So it is NOT a fact. I rejoin that there is no record of it in history, again of a vertical change that results in a more complex form. In fact we have observed a lot of animals/plants becoming extinct and that is a loss of genetic information, again the opposite of macro-evolution. I am arguing that macro-evolution/natural selection/Darwinsim is not happening currently (that anyone has ever seen) and it is not evident that it has happened in the past (that anyone has found) so it is not a reliable theory for the diversity of life as you claim. All the acculmated changes you reference as observed have produced nothing 'new' only variants of the originial- but they ARE still the 'same' as the original, not a new form. A dog may have the genetic potential to be a chiahuhua or a great dane- but it will always BE a dog- regardless of the number of generations or enviroment. We can breed fruit flies forever and they'll still be fruit-flies. What has anyone SEEN (tested/observed- not posited) that refutes that or for that matter even explains why/how 'Nature' would direct this process in?
February 8, 2009 11:17 PM
Hello Hardwood83
quote-----------------------------------------------------
sorry, I should have been more precise- I was referring to MACRO-evolution, not the changes in populations we all recognize from generation-generation but the supposed accumulation of these changes into a new form i.e. simpler to complex. But then, I think you knew that. So I reiterate my point- no one has observed Macro-evolution- a more complex form descending from a simpler form. So it is NOT a fact. I rejoin that there is no record of it in history, again of a vertical change that results in a more complex form.
----------------------------------------------------------
But what you are describing is not macroevolution, at least not as the term is used in evolutionary biology.
Macroevolution is speciation followed by diverging evolution within each daughter species as they selectively react to the different opportunities and hindrances of their different ecologies and different new mutations. It is the creation of nested hierarchies, not the full spectrum of evolutionary history.
Macroevolution as defined and used by evolutionary biology scientists has been observed and is fact.
This does not mean that every macroevolutionary episode has been observed, only enough to show that the process does in fact occur.
That nobody has observed the evolution of a zebra from a bacteria does not mean that macroevolution has not been observed.
All you are doing is moving the goalposts of what you consider sufficient evidence until you can tell yourself that it has not been observed so therefor it has not occurred, and this is called cognitive dissonance.
This is also a logical fallacy. One does not need to see every branch on a tree grow after observing one to know how it happened. One does not need to be at a murder to know that a gun-shot killed a person, and what hand held the gun when it was fired.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
In fact we have observed a lot of animals/plants becoming extinct and that is a loss of genetic information, again the opposite of macro-evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------
No, that is NOT the "opposite" of macroevolution. It IS plain vanilla evolution: selection of those that are fit by their ability to breed and survive by the removal of those that do not survive and breed.
quote-----------------------------------------------------I I am arguing that macro-evolution/natural selection/Darwinsim is not happening currently (that anyone has ever seen) and it is not evident that it has happened in the past (that anyone has found) so it is not a reliable theory for the diversity of life as you claim.
----------------------------------------------------------
Curiously you can argue this until you are blue in the face and it will not change the fact that evolution occurs, that it has been observed, that speciation occurs, that it has been observed, that the formation of nested hierarchies has occurred, that it has been observed, and that these add up to the macroevolution as defined and used in the science of evolutionary biology.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
All the acculmated changes you reference as observed have produced nothing 'new' only variants of the originial- but they ARE still the 'same' as the original, not a new form. A dog may have the genetic potential to be a chiahuhua or a great dane- but it will always BE a dog- regardless of the number of generations or enviroment. We can breed fruit flies forever and they'll still be fruit-flies.
----------------------------------------------------------
Strangely this is what evolution in general and macroevolution in specific also claim as these terms are used in the science of evolutionary biology.
Descendants of dogs will always be descendants of dogs, not matter how many branches of nested hierarchies are formed.
This is also what the fossil evidence shows. The pattern of nested hierarchies of relationships between species through common ancestry from parent populations, and that all of them are descendants of their parent populations.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
What has anyone SEEN (tested/observed- not posited) that refutes that ...
----------------------------------------------------------
Evolution has been tested and observed, and this fact refutes your claim that it is not tested/observed.
Speciation has been tested and observed, and this fact refutes your claim that it is not tested/observed.
The formation of nested heirarchies has been tested and observed, and this fact refutes your claim that it is not tested/observed.
This is macroevolution. This is descent with modification and the formation of new species through common descent.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
... or for that matter even explains why/how 'Nature' would direct this process in?
----------------------------------------------------------
'Nature' does not "direct" any process, nor does evolution say that it does - this is just one more creationist misrepresentation.
Evolution is a response mechanism. Evolution occurs in response to changes in existing ecologies or to different ecologies; it responds to opportunities and hinderances of those different ecologies through the selection of those that are better at survival and breeding; it responds by different selection of different mutations that occur in populations living in different ecologies.
This different evolution within different populations produces diversity, speciation and nested hierarchies.
What have you seen\observed that refutes this?
Enjoy.
February 5, 2009 10:09 PM
Just wondering which contradictory Bible verses you're talking about because I've been reading the Bible for years and haven't found one... if you're going to act like a scientist and disprove the Bible than please back it up with facts, NOT opinions. I'm also pretty sure you haven't found, nor seen any REAL transitional lifeforms, (if you have please reveal this evidence)... Do you know where the first simple cell came from (remember NO theories or opinions only hard facts). Do you know exactly where the earth came from (Real Evidence, NO theories), where did life begin? Please explain and give me real evidence to back up your theories, sorry I mean assumptions, oh wait I mean your opinions... whatever you call it, those things you put all your FAITH in!
Yes you do have a good point, RELIGION puts a lot of rules on people, rules which are not even in the Bible and yes there are a lot of money hungry hypocrites in this world, but if you really did read the Bible you would understand that Jesus himself was also against these money hungry hypocrites also. Oh and did you know that the Bible has over 2000 predictive prophecies, in which over 1500 have come true to the exact letter, more than 10 have been fulfilled within the last 60 years, and the rest are predicted to happen in the future, maybe the very near future! (I can back this up with evidence if you would like). There's an enormous amount of archaeological evidence proving the stories that are in the Bible (I can back this up with real evidence) Also, everything the Bible claimed would happen to me AFTER I was born again happened, (I can explain my real life testimony if you would like). So to conclude, the Bible has a 100% accuracy rate... So you can either put your FAITH in man made {theories}, or you can put your FAITH in the Bible. I would say my odds are much better.
February 7, 2009 5:54 PM
"So you can either put your FAITH in man made {theories}, or you can put your FAITH in the Bible. I would say my odds are much better." Modern science and medicine is based on these man-made "theories". When you break your leg, you can go home and pray. I'm going to the emergency room.
February 9, 2009 2:30 AM
Not to mention Norman Borlaug who used artificial selection to engineer better farm crops and saved millions of starving people worldwide. Or Jonas Salk, who used his understanding of natural selection to develop the polio vaccine, and effectively saved the lives of millions of people - mostly children.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/salk.html
February 6, 2009 10:05 PM
Don't you agree that it is even more ridiculous to believe that life created itself...that it suddenly and yes, magically, popped into existence by itself, than to believe God or a Creator caused it?
February 4, 2009 10:26 PM
Josh - which God are you invoking to fit your world-view? What makes your God's creation myth "true", and the hundreds of others "false"? Given that your obscurantism breeds obscurantist views - I maintain that your creation myth is just that, whereas the Buddhist/Hindu creation metaphors are the real thing. Or of course, we might read "Supercontinent" and "Nature's clocks" to get a better appreciation for a far better explanation of how it can have happened.
February 9, 2009 12:33 AM
"Common folks there is no way man could have evolved from ape. God created us in HIS OWN IMAGE. So it is slander to speak and thinks such thing that violate the work hand of the Lord, which is perfect."
First of all, human beings did not evolve from apes. Apes and human beings share a common ancestor.
I fail to see how it is slanderous to acknowledge an overwhelming body of evidence that illustrates the evolution of life on this planet. Asserting that "there is no way man could have evolved from ape" does not make it so. If you wish for your bronze-aged-mythology-of-choice to be acknowledged as an accurate discription of the world then by all means study the existing body of evidence, provide a viable alternative explanation for it, and submit your findings for peer review.
February 5, 2009 3:35 PM
That seems like a nice sentiment, but I would disagree. The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God. If it is completely wrong in something as fundamental as origins why would you believe anything it claims? Same for evolution (not science)- it is diametrically opposed to the Bible and if it's wrong by billions of years and bungles all the evidence then why accomadate it in your world-view? They are mutually exclusive.
February 6, 2009 5:08 AM
At the outset, this seems plausible. However, an attentive reading of the original Hebrew text indubitably shows that the writer meant to convey that the world was created in six literal, twenty-four hour days. This is shown by the writing style, which is that of a historical narrative, as well as the particular word choices and syntax used in denoting the days.
January 16, 2009 9:59 AM
One of the strongest arguments against evolution is that it's imposible for the eye to evolve from nothing. As I understand it, the eye can evolve from light-sensative nerves, but it's impossible for those light-sensative nerves to be selected for unless the already exist. Could you discuss this theaory?
January 21, 2009 8:37 PM
Hello EyO,
Eyo: "One of the strongest arguments against evolution is that it's imposible for the eye to evolve from nothing."
One should be careful not to use a PRATT as a "strongest argument" as it has already been refuted a thousand times.
Index to Creationist Claims
edited by Mark Isaak
Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
"This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. ... All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today."
EyO: "... but it's impossible for those light-sensative nerves to be selected for unless the already exist."
Curiously your opinion is not able to impede nature in any way, nor prevent natural things from occurring.
Selection of course only operates on features that exist, but that does not mean that we had to start with light sensitive nerves.
When you feel warmth on your skin, you are feeling the energy from the sun. Single cell bacteria and archea are able to sense sunlight and react to it, and all they need to do, is to react to a higher level of energy on one side than on the other.
Enjoy.
February 5, 2009 2:51 PM
RAZD- I don't know what a PRATT is- and I don't know that I agree the eye is the single best arguement against evolution- but you didn't answer or refute it you merely changed the venue. What's so 'simple' about a single cell organism? And how did they evolve the ability to sense energy? I think the point was how do complex systems evolve in natural selection? I am curious too.
February 7, 2009 12:55 AM
Hi Hardwood83,
A "PRATT" is a "point refuted a thousand times" - a hoary old already invalid argument, the kind of thing that science eliminates when they discard invalidated theory.
This is a list of PRATTs
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
This deals with the "eye" argument
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
Dawkins also discusses how the eye could evolve in simple stages, as have many other people.
And when you look at the eye in detail it is a better argument for evolution than for design or creation. Why? because the "design" is imperfect, slap-dash and make do. The human eye retina faces away from the light. The octopus eye retina faces it. The human eye retina is pierced by the nerve chord and arteries and veins right at the point of best focus from the lens (the common "blind spot" is the result of this design feature). These are the kinds of things that are inherited by a lineage of development and adaptation of existing features, rather than by a top-to-bottom design.
Enjoy.
February 8, 2009 9:21 AM
Thanks for the info, I learned something (def of 'pratt'). I did peruse some of the info on talkorigins.com & I'll spend some more time with it. Regarding the human eye- you appear to claim it's an inferior design therefore likley developed by chance/accumulated adaptations. You are welcome to your opinion, but as you noted in earlier posts, opinions has no bearing on reality/truth. Furthermore, Richard Dawkins & others ideas about how the eye, etc MAY have developed are really immaterial unless there is evidence to back them up, as far as I can tell their is no evidence of partially developed eyes (or anything else) in existence.
February 8, 2009 4:31 PM
Hardwood83
I know that you really aren't interested in any answers to your questions, but just in case anyone is reading this discussion who is interested, I'd like to throw this out there.
If you look into molluscs you will find eyes of various stages.
Everything from simple light sensitive cells to a more developed "camera" eye. It's a beautiful example of the stages that eye evolution worked through.
January 22, 2009 12:57 AM
The moderator here refers to competing theories of evolution. Does anyone know what these other theories are? As far as I understand, Darwin’s theory proposed natural selection as a mechanism that drives speciation. What do other theories propose as the mechanism for the creation of new species, and do these other mechanisms better explain the fossil record?
February 7, 2009 12:58 AM
Lamarck's theory of acquired traits is one. Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation is another ... I'm not sure why we need to go into any greater detail on these theories than textbooks normally do.
Enjoy.
February 8, 2009 7:36 PM
RAZD, I totally agree with you.
January 22, 2009 1:44 AM
Darwin’s theory of speciation, in one form or another, has withstood intense scrutiny for the past 150 years. The mainstream scientific community holds the theory as a well established fact; Yet some polls suggest that up to 50% of Americans do not believe in, or disagree with the theory. This must be a disheartening statistic for scientists to hear. Most of the controversy surrounding evolution among the general public seems to stem from a poor understanding of the theory. Some of the arguments made against evolution suggest a completely distorted view of what the theory is and how it works. What can teachers and scientists do to better educate the public, not just about Darwin’s theory, but science in general?
January 22, 2009 1:48 AM
Please ignore my post here - - moving it to the Q&A section.
January 24, 2009 2:33 PM
NO EVOLUTION:
Genesis 1:24-25
Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring OF THE SAME KIND—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of THE SAME KIND. And God saw that it was good.
"THE SAME KIND" is stressing the fact that one species cannot, I repeat, cannot, evolve into another species. Their can be variations within a species microevolution (tiger/cat), but one animal does not evolve into another macroevolution....God saw that it was good (his work).
IMAGE OF MEN:
Genesis 1:27
So God created human beings[c] IN HIS OWN IMAGE. IN THE IMAGE OF GOD he created them; male and female he created them.
Common folks there is no way man could have evolved from ape. God created us in HIS OWN IMAGE. So it is slander to speak and thinks such thing that violate the work hand of the Lord, which is perfect.
-Don't be so naive to be deceived-
January 26, 2009 3:08 AM
The power of Darwin’s ideas lies in their ability to predict. Darwin used his theory to infer that humans and apes share a common ancestor in their evolutionary past. In the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, while working in Africa, the Leakey’s and D. Johansson began finding fossilized remains of strange looking species, which shared physical characteristics of both modern humans and apes. But they weren’t completely taken by surprise. They knew exactly what they were looking at. Darwin had predicted the existence of these fossils a hundred years earlier. And again in 2005, when the human genome project mapped the DNA sequence of both humans and chimpanzees and discovered that both modern species share 96% of their DNA, no one was really surprised. Darwin’s ideas have been persistently tested for the past 150 years, and have withstood the challenge. The theory of evolution stands not only as a testament to the power of science, but as a triumph of rational thought. If Genesis could better explain these discoveries and predict future ones, then we wouldn’t waste our time with science.
January 27, 2009 6:35 AM
On the Origin of Species: ... all organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. There is grandeur in this view of life that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Just providing quotes from a book written hundreds of years ago does not prove you right. As JerNYC has said, Darwins theory has proven the test of time, and stood up to countless arguements.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Origin of Species (1859) p.189
As Darwin says here, prove his theory wrong, with irreputable evidence, and we will stand down, beaten.
February 3, 2009 6:03 AM
If DNA is damaged it tries to repair itself. If it fails the cell may die.
If a spontaneous mutation occurs the cell may die.
Darwin's theory relies on neither of these things happening, that a mutation results in viable offspring for the niche they occupy.
February 7, 2009 4:21 AM
Of course, scopes, you are completely right. Darwins theory of natural selection does not rely on DNA or gene mutation one bit. This could mean Darwin was completely wrong, of course it could also mean that DNA was not totally realised until 1919, and the fact that it carries genes was not realised until 1928. DNA's role in heredity wasn't discovered until 1952, almost 100 years after Darwin published on the origin.
Darwins book talks about evolution on a grand scale, animal A with a certain feature will be better suited to its environment than animal B in its species without that feature. Therefore, when it comes to breed, animal A will have a better chance of producing offspring than animal B, therefore the trait will continue.Darwin didn't know, and never claimed to know why this happened, but it was clear that it does. Newton discovered Gravity, but didnt have a clue about black holes, etc, that doesnt mean he was wrong about gravity does it.
One other point i'd like to make is when people say Darwinism. This implies believing Darwins theory and forsaking all further research, I would prefer Evolutionist myself.
Now on to the dreaded intermediate species. This is one that is thrown around alot, why aren't there 'fish/frogs' or 'chicken/lions'.
Sounds stupid doesnt it, thats because it is. EVERY creature on this planet is an intermediate. I am, You are, our pets are. I am the intermediate of my mother and my father, they are thier parents intermediates, and so forth. To have a continuous line of evolution to watch it in action, every creature that has ever lived will have to fossilise, and preferably next to each other. This would show every slight mutation (in its general physiology in any case). Of course, fossilisation is an extremely rare occurence, roughly 98% of life never ends up in a position that favours fossilisation.
As for intermediates, here are two Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik. Before people start, no-one has claimed these creatures are direct descendants of current life forms, but they are most certainly 'cousins' and show generally how the evolutionary proces has formed them and us.
February 5, 2009 2:59 PM
My 5th grade Science teacher told me that Scientific theories had to prove THEMSELVES, not stand as default Truth until unquestionably disproven. My point is the onus is on Darwinism to prove itself. And I would strongly disagree that it has held up against all scrutiny. Just as many on this board decry adherents to 'Religion' as irrational and closed-minded, I believe most evolutionist hold their belief inspite of the evidence, not because of it.
February 6, 2009 1:53 AM
Why is it so difficult to believe that evolution has stood up to 150 years of intense scrutiny? Show us a single instance where evolution has been proven wrong. If it were wrong then it would be thrown out and replaced with a better idea. This is how science works.
January 30, 2009 7:13 AM
Hey Josh,
Seems you posted twice, with the same comments. Not the only one, so likely a glitch in the software.
Josh: "Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring OF THE SAME KIND—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened."
Are you sure you have interpreted that correctly? It could mean the same type, the same sort, the same kind, just as today all species reproduce the next generations of their species, but this does not rule out evolution over many generations.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. To do that, they must breed within the population, that is how populations of individuals go about accumulating mutations and selecting ones that improve survival and reproduction and eliminating ones that inhibit survival and reproduction.
Josh: ""THE SAME KIND" is stressing the fact that one species cannot, I repeat, cannot, evolve into another species. Their can be variations within a species microevolution (tiger/cat), but one animal does not evolve into another macroevolution....God saw that it was good (his work)."
This is interpretation, hypothesis, opinion. Curiously opinion has no effect on reality, it does not restrict nature in any way from proceeding as it has for the last several billion years. Opinion that ignores reality is mistaken, deluded, wrong.
Species have been observed to evolve, with a parent population dividing into reproductively isolated daughter populations, new species now free to evolve their own path in their different ecologies.
Ring species, like Asian Greenish Warblers, show how little difference is needed to result in reproductive isolation.
Dog breeds show how much can be changed with reproductive isolation and strong selection.
Convergent evolution shows that there is no barrier to evolution for one type, sort, kind of animal to evolve to be similar to another type, sort, kind of animal.
Flying Squirrels and Sugar Gliders
Bats and Pterodactyls and Birds
Sharks and Killer Whales
These organisms come from very different ancestral populations after diverging from some remote common ancestor population, coming from high level taxons that include very different types, sorts and kinds of animals.
If these are all one "kind" then all life is one "kind" and if they are different "kinds" then there is no limit in their "kinds" to what can evolve.
Reality is that simple.
Enjoy.
February 1, 2009 8:51 AM
RAZD: Convergent evolution shows that there is no barrier to evolution for one type, sort, kind of animal to evolve to be similar to another type, sort, kind of animal.
Very good point. This is one that I have failed to see any theist try to counter.
What I would like to know is (from theists), if there is no such thing as "macro-evolution" despite the fact that micro-evolution is true, beyond any doubt, then what is the "magical" barrier that stops an animal's DNA from changing after a certain point, just so that we humans won't consider it a different "species?" What stops one from adapting and developing the necessary traits that one needs to survive according to the environmental pressures that one is subject to? The concept of species, after all, is nothing but a human invention that we made up for our own aesthetic purposes of classifying what we perceive as different kinds of plants, animals, and microorganisms. But nature does not adhere to our whims, and if you doubt evolution just because it contradicts Genesis, then you must believe that nature conforms itself to our demands instead of the other way around. I, for one, can't swallow that idea, just because it's written in some old book that was produced by archaic men who didn't even know that the earth was round. Especially when such ideas contradict all known sciences that clearly state otherwise.
Basically, if "micro-evolution" is true, then macro-evolution must also be true, unless there is some magical barrier that's in place for the specific purpose of preventing macro-evolution from being true. And I don't believe that there is.
February 6, 2009 1:09 PM
Simple enough the barrier is not magical at all it is very real and biological. Things don't just 'change' into other things THAT is magic. And you're right species is a confusing term- let's agree that it applies to forms that can interbreed, ok? Under that definition 'new' species DO arise- a mule for example. But that mule can't breed & pass on that DNA, it's the opposite of Darwinism. And FYI the Bible clearly states that earth is round- in it's oldest book Job 26:10 & again in Isaiah 40:22. Not that it will change your mind but I'm sure you want to be accurate in your accusations.As a bonus check out the accurate description of a couple of dinosaurs in Job 40:15-24 & chap 41, written over 1000 years BC.
February 7, 2009 1:26 AM
Hey Hardwood83
quote-----------------------------------------------------
Things don't just 'change' into other things THAT is magic.
----------------------------------------------------------
Of course, but that would be creolution not evolution.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. It does not occur in individuals, rather each individual is a test of which phenotypes are the best for survival and reproduction within the population. The successful tests reproduce more and the resulting population is different from the previous population.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
And you're right species is a confusing term- let's agree that it applies to forms that can interbreed, ok?
----------------------------------------------------------
Or we could use a definition like what is used in science.
A species is a population of organisms that reproduce members of their species.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
Under that definition 'new' species DO arise- a mule for example. But that mule can't breed & pass on that DNA, it's the opposite of Darwinism.
----------------------------------------------------------
Which just demonstrates that your definition is impractical.
This is not how new species arise, rather it is the result of speciation in the past: the horse and the donkey are related by a common ancestor population of equids, a population that divided into ~four reproductively isolated populations - what became horses, what became donkeys, what became zebras and what became onagers. Each of these species reproduce members of their species, but they can also breed with the others to form hybrids. All the hybrids are normally sterile, although not always.
This sterility is due to the seperate reproductively isolated evolution of each daughter species, and this is the last stage of speciation, making the reproductive isolation of the daughter populations permanent.
Enjoy.
February 8, 2009 4:39 PM
RAZD
I love "creolution".
Never heard that one before.
I'll be using it often and with much smarm.
January 31, 2009 4:36 PM
If God created us after his own image and he is so perfect, why is it that man is imperfect? Are you saying that God is a man as well?
February 6, 2009 5:14 AM
The whole of creation was perfect at first, but then it was imperfected by man's rebellion against God.
January 29, 2009 10:10 PM
I find it funny that most people believe evolution is a mere hypothesis. It is both a theory and fact. A fact in a sense that we know for sure that species change over time, and have been changing for a few billion years. And I also find it funny that religious people consider evolution to invalidate their belief system when Pope John Paul II admitted in 1996 that he believed in evolution. From a religious perspective, God was the one who got the universe started (big bang) and could have guided evolution towards intelligence.
January 30, 2009 12:28 PM
With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. Ignoring the examples of solidarity and cooperation created by God in nature, he maintained that all living things were engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. On the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever, he even claimed that this same ruthlessness applied to human societies. When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene.
Some people suggest that Social Darwinism was born in the second half of the 19th century and lost its influence during the second half of the 20th. But this theory has had far more permanent and damaging adverse effects. Atwisted world view, in complete contradiction to religious moral values, has spread, alleging that life is a “struggle for survival,” and that people need to compete in order to succeed in that struggle, or at the very least to survive. New lifestyles emerged that were the source of totalitarian and bloody ideologies like communism and fascism, ferocious capitalism that ignores social justice; racism, ethnic conflicts, moral degeneration, and many more disasters that inflicted catastrophes on humanity
http://www.darksideofdarwinism.com/
January 31, 2009 3:13 AM
This is sad, and has nothing to do with science. This on the other hand does...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47
January 31, 2009 9:05 AM
Hey cosmosteel, I see you have some "issues" here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosmosteel:
"With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. ... When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene."
"Some people suggest that Social Darwinism was born in the second half of the 19th century and lost its influence during the second half of the 20th. ..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the definition from
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
social Darwinism
A theory arising in the late nineteenth century that the laws of evolution, which Charles Darwin had observed in nature, also apply to society. Social Darwinists argued that social progress resulted from conflicts in which the fittest or best adapted individuals, or entire societies, would prevail. It gave rise to the slogan “survival of the fittest.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dawkins argues for the evolution of "memes" within populations
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
meme
n. A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.
[Shortening (modeled on gene) of mimeme, from Greek mimēma, something imitated, from mimeisthai, to imitate; see mimesis.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words a belief or a behavior that is subject to modification and selection and that is passed from one generation to the next.
At face value, aren't these essentially the same concept?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cosmosteel:
"But this theory has had far more permanent and damaging adverse effects. Atwisted world view, in complete contradiction to religious moral values, has spread, alleging that life is a “struggle for survival,” and that people need to compete in order to succeed in that struggle, or at the very least to survive. New lifestyles emerged that were the source of totalitarian and bloody ideologies like communism and fascism, ferocious capitalism that ignores social justice; racism, ethnic conflicts, moral degeneration, and many more disasters that inflicted catastrophes on humanity"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also seen where christianity and other religious beliefs have been used to inflict catastrophes on humanity, thus an open-minded skeptic would not conclude that a philosophy, per se, leads to behavior, rather that behavior adopts some tenets of a philosophy as a justification for the behavior. The same applies to racism and other forms of discrimination. Such self justification comes more from cognitive dissonance than from philosophy.
So is the "catastrophic" behavior really the result of Social Darwinism or is it the result of claiming one thing while doing another?
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwanism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwinism and Hypotheses of Social Change
Hypotheses of social evolution and cultural evolution are common in Europe. The Enlightenment thinkers who preceded Darwin, such as Hegel, often argued that societies progressed through stages of increasing development. Earlier thinkers also emphasized conflict as an inherent feature of social life. Thomas Hobbes's 17th century portrayal of the state of nature seems analogous to the competition for natural resources described by Darwin. Social Darwinism is distinct from other theories of social change because of the way it draws Darwin's distinctive ideas from the field of biology into social studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus the enlightenment, American society and the Constitution are a result of "Social Darwinism" and the selection of beneficial "memes" for social behavior. LIkewise the continued evolution of government to be more equitable and less totalitarian, and the continued defeat of totalitarian regimes.
Is this a bad thing?
Perhaps next we can discuss your views on the science of evolution and the descent of new species from previous species by modification and natural selection from generation to generation -- to state Darwin's theory, rather than an adaptation of it to social dynamics.
Enjoy.
February 1, 2009 9:05 AM
Oh, but let’s not forget that Hitler was inspired by the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, aka the Father of Protestantism. Try reading Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies”. And let’s not also forget that it was the SBC that promoted the idea that God condoned the slavery of blacks and used the bible itself as “proof” of this. And it was the primary reason that the Southern Baptists denomination was established. Furthermore, unless you can provide some evidence that Darwin was racist because of his evolutionary theory, then you have no legs to stand on, and your argument is nothing but biased, rhetorical propaganda meant to foster hatred of both Darwin himself and his theory of evolution.
I rather think that it is religion that is primarily responsible for racism, the Abrahamic religions in particular, because of their belief that man was created in the "image of God". For the differing races of the human species that exist contradicts that idea, and there must be some excuse made for it so that their faith can remain strong in the face of this contradictory evidence that rather supports evolution. So they invented the "Curse of Ham". And the primary reason behind anti-Semitism lies in the Jews' refusal to accept Jesus as their messiah, another faith-shaking idea that many Christians haven't been able to handle without getting nasty about it.
February 8, 2009 9:56 AM
Your claims are preposterous (and outside the scope of biological evolution). Hitler was 'inspired' by Luther? The SBC is somehow responsible for slavery? Hitler was raised a nominal catholic/ became an overt occultist and believed strongly (obviously) in Eugenics and Darwinism. The SBC was founded in 1845- thousands of years after slavery was well-established all over the world and a couple hundred after it existed in America. Furthermore to answer your challenge about Darwin's racism I quote from Descent of Man: "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178)." That reflects some of the thinking of his time- overtly racist. As for your diatribe about religion causing racism- I can't speak for 'religion' but Christ taught 'love your neighbor' and 'dwell peacefully with all men' and 'overcome evil with good' among much else and He is a Jew. If self-proclaimed believers to Him disobey His commands, who is responsible for that? Is Darwin responsible for the actions of his adherents Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Hitler & Pol Pot?
February 9, 2009 3:08 AM
Darwin discussed race, or variation among human populations, in the same terms as he discussed variation among any other species. I believe that all biologists did this back then. They weren’t very big on political correctness I guess...
February 9, 2009 3:19 AM
Also this new book which is just coming out shares some interesting insight on the subject....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/books/review/Benfey-t.html?_r=3&ref=science&pagewanted=all
January 31, 2009 4:31 PM
Evolution is obviously true. Basically all it is is the change in genetics and adaptations over millions of years. In my opinion, if you belief in Creationism (God creating the heavens and the earth and Adam and Eve) you're saying that you were born from incestuous siblings and that there is no such thing as genetics or people of other races. If people all shared the same ancestor they would all look almost identical and its obvious that isn't true. I guess you could say that as the human population grew they spread out and adapted to their new environments and added new genes to the pool, but that would be going against the "fact" that everything is the same as it was when God created it.
February 1, 2009 2:19 AM
I believe that all people do share the same ancestry. For me, common descent is the basis of human evolution, and is actually being documented in National Geographic’s “Genographic” project by people like Spencer Wells. For the past few years, Wells has been building a map of human ancestry by analyzing changes in mitochondrial DNA. See...
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
Wells believes that all people alive today are descended from a very small group of individuals who left Africa about 200,000 years ago and eventually settled the rest of the globe. Variation arose within these populations because of their geographic isolation. Eventually mechanisms like genetic drift and the pressure to adapt to a particular environment led to the diversity in human populations we see today.
February 3, 2009 5:04 AM
To all.
The diversity of opinion on this subject profoundly illustrates the superiority of the evolutionary theory. The way in which all of us take sides on issues, or sit on the fence, is living proof that evolution is at work. Sadly, in time, the Darwinists will win more and more converts until religion and creationism is extinct. The reason is clear, for it is irrefutable. Natural selection is the only way that plants and creatures can continue to inhabit our planet.
For religion to survive the creationists will have to realise that faith and religious belief is a natural need for humankind. It does not need to justify itself by acknowledging a God as the creator of all. The process is already underway. As human intelectual power increases, acceptance of plausible, but unproveable legends, will find less and less favour. Therefore, to perpetuate the argument of creationism versus evolution is to hasten the end, or extinction , of the human animal. For without religion mankind will intelectualise itself into oblivion.
Your, Efbee.
February 3, 2009 6:22 AM
Certainly, if humans evolved as a byproduct of a sterile molten rock planet 4.5 billion years ago, it should be no less plausible that a God evolved by chance from nothing over the preceeding eternity.
Makes as much sense as Adam and Eve. They are both absurd.
God's homework assignment is to keep trying the truth is in there somewhere.
February 5, 2009 1:44 AM
Darwin never claimed that “humans evolved as a byproduct of a sterile molten rock.” It’s typical of creationists to invent ridiculous claims, like humans evolved from rocks or monkeys, and then mock those claims. If you’re a creationist, you can pretty much claim anything. God created the world in 6 days, or 56 days. It doesn’t matter. There’s no consequence to your claims. There’s no peer-review process. You don’t have to be logical. And you don’t have to prove anything. Science doesn’t work that way. According to Darwin, modern humans did not evolve from rocks but from less modern humans - just as the fossil record shows. It’s easy to mock ridiculous claims. It’s a lot harder to debunk actual facts.
February 5, 2009 3:13 PM
You are creating a straw-man, and it begs the question then- where did the 'less modern humans' come from? And those ancestors? And then? At some point in your argument, you come a sterile molten planet. I am curious where that came from too? And please use all the peer-reviewed sources available.
February 6, 2009 1:43 AM
I’m not really creating this argument. It’s been around since 1859. But I think you’re hinting that evolution can’t explain how life started, and I totally agree. Evolution can’t explain this because it only deals with change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. This means that evolution on this planet didn’t start happening until organisms began to reproduce by exchanging genetic material. This process can’t explain what happened before organisms started reproducing in this way. But if you think that we should throw out the theory because it can’t explain how life began, or how the universe was created, then I disagree, because it does explain a bunch of other things that no other theory can.
February 3, 2009 9:36 PM
this proves god does no exist
but still im very happy to see the new episodes and morphs.
i am looking forward to seeing if humans really did evolve from apes...you never know and never will if you dont find out
February 3, 2009 11:31 PM
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution. Go to Darwinconspiracy.com
February 4, 2009 9:46 PM
Welcome to the fray Karen,
quoting Karen: -----------------------------------------------------------------
But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are, of course, free to express you opinion, however opinions have been totally ineffective in preventing reality from doing what you think it can't.
Gene duplication has been observed in plants and animals, and the most common example is polyploidy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy
One should be careful when saying that something has not occurred, and you should check the facts first.
quoting Karen: -----------------------------------------------------------------
... Go to Darwinconspiracy.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now that you know that this website has lied to you, you will cease to trust any information they have, as an intelligent and open-minded skeptic would do, yes?
An open-minded skeptic does not take information from only one side of the debate, just because it appeals to their beliefs, rather they try to challenge their beliefs by looking at all possible answers and the evidence there is for them.
Looking only for answers that agree with your beliefs is called Confirmation Bias.
Rejecting answers that conflict with your beliefs is called Cognitive Dissonance.
Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance do not add up to Open-Minded Skepticism, and this simple fact applies to everyone.
Enjoy.
February 5, 2009 6:33 PM
"Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance do not add up to Open-Minded Skepticism, and this simple fact applies to everyone."
Including your good self RAZD.
In fact I notice you have failed to respond to my reply to your earlier question about differences between micro and macroevolution.
On the question of gene mutation it is clear that living cells are not the passive victims of random forces of chemistry and physics. Rather they devote lots of resources to suppressing random genetic variation.
Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies:
"there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously - and every reason to believe they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible."
The question of why many cling to this gene mutation dogma has been addressed by Barry Commoner, senior scientist and director of the Critical Genetics Project at the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College, City University of New York in "Unravelling the DNA Myth".
Without wanting to offend RAZD, please consider if this applies to you sir:
"To some degree the theory has been protected from criticism by a device more common to religion than science: dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact, is a punishable offence, aheresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism. Much of this bias can be attributed to instiutional inertia, a failure of rigour, but there are other, more insidious, reasons why molecular geneticists might be satisfied with the status quo: the central dogma has given them such a satisfying, seductively simplistic explanation of heredity that it seemed sacrilegious to entertain doubts. The central dogma was simply too good not to be true."
Respectfully yours, ColinBaker
February 9, 2009 2:02 PM
Hi ColinBaker
[quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance do not add up to Open-Minded Skepticism, and this simple fact applies to everyone."
Including your good self RAZD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/quote]
Definitely. That would be why I said everyone. The task is to try to minimize it, to recognize it and to alleviate it.
[quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact I notice you have failed to respond to my reply to your earlier question about differences between micro and macroevolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/quote]
Actually I had a long post that was "held for moderator approval" and which has not yet appeared. I have received no email nor have I been dircted to any list of guidelines to show cause for such censorship I dislike censorship that is not done with reason and where the reason is given, particularly when it can mean that people have responded to me and I cannot see what they said.
I will be leaving this forum for one that is better than this, in the moderation (you are always told when it happens, and the guidelines are published and referenced in moderation)
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=ta
I invite all who have participated here to join us, especially the creationists, as it is one of the more civil boards I know of. I found this forum through a post on that forum, so I am returning the favor.
Enjoy.
February 3, 2009 11:45 PM
I read in this forum man was created in God's image. God's image was sinless, not based on physical appearance!
February 4, 2009 8:45 AM
How hard is it to understand that both sides work together? God through the Big Bang -'God created the heavens and the Earth' started the chain of events. the fall of satan- 'I saw satan fall like lightning to the Earth' was a catastrophic event that turned the 'earth void'. from there God created every living thing. then the flood came and God spared life. From the flood there is evolution. also we are created in God's image but that does not negate humans evolving either. before the flood (and toxic man-made impurities) humans lived significantly longer. long enough to breed and mix into the various stages, skin colors (the mark of Cain - Abel's murderous brother), bone structure etc. After the flood there is evolution of our species, do not exclude the Nephilim- the offspring of fallen angels. there are sooo many factors to consider that as a Bible believing Christian I cannot be closed minded to the God created mind of Darwin. Darwin did not disprove God's existance - if anything he spurned the discussion of it.
February 4, 2009 12:20 PM
Evolution? Why of course there is evolution. Think about the creation of the worm, that worm that changes into a beautiful worm. Dosen't a polywog become a frog?
God being alpha and omega of everything created .... and that God mind exists in all of us. God is energy. Our thoughts have energy and we change with thought.
The Bible was the inspiration of thought and did not stop there. Science is part of that too, it is not separate from the devine mind.
February 4, 2009 12:21 PM
Sorry, I meant to say the worm that changes into a beautiful butterfly.
February 4, 2009 12:25 PM
Evolution? Why of course there is evolution. Think about the creation of the worm, that worm that changes into a beautiful butterfly. Dosen't a polywog become a frog?
God being alpha and omega of everything created .... and that God mind exists in all of us. God is energy. Our thoughts have energy and we change with thought.
The Bible was the inspiration of thought and did not stop there. Science is part of that too, it is not separate from the devine mind.
February 4, 2009 4:55 PM
Apart from the few that sit on the fence, every argument or dispute will produce two major camps. Those who agree, and those who disagree. Each will gather ever increasing amounts of evidence in order to make their case more powerful. The believers in the theory of evolution will continue to unearth more facts, and forensically prove their significance; And the creationists will continue to inerpret and expound the writings that led to the publication of the Bible. Physical evidence will always win against circumstantial or theoretical evidence. Therefore, the evolutionists will win. In failing to understand this church leaders will continue alienate folk from the church. Yet, one has to ask what the fate of humankind will be if evolution eventually wins over the whole human race. By then, to coin a phrase, the baby will have been thrown out with the bath water. In finally accepting that there is no god, and never was, the likelihood is that religion will have been sucked down the plughole too. That will be a sad day for all humankind. For there will be nothing that binds us together; No creed that gives structure to society, and no faith to shield ourselves from the things that can disolve our calm and wreck our intentions. As indicated by other contributers to this forum, we have to accept that whilst creationism is an extinct phylosophy, religion is part of the human psyche and must continue to be nurtured and promoted. Religion has to evolve and become the tool of human liberation; Not a regime of oppression that stifles progress and adventure; That is stuck in a time warp that effectively strangles independant thought and discovery. To remain entrenched in the dogma of 2000 years ago will only hasten the extinction of the human race.
Yours, Efbee.
February 7, 2009 4:42 AM
[will be a sad day for all humankind. For there will be nothing that binds us together; No creed that gives structure to society, and no faith to shield ourselves from the things that can disolve our calm and wreck our intentions.]
I actually think the opposite will occur. Once people start to realise that religion is a falsehood (one that was once necerssary, I will admit), people will start to look at the bigger picture. Rather than argue over which God is the right one, we will see true nature and how we fit into it. Lets face it, pretty much every war has been to do with religion. With no religion, any altercation will be purely territorial, more natural. All animals fight for territory, humans are animals and will fight for territory, but without religion, it will be over once one side has dominance.
Of course that is just an opinion.
February 4, 2009 9:30 PM
Infernus asked a really good question about micro vs macro evolution. Many here seem to agree with his basic assumption that they are bascially the same.
It is such an important thing to discuss as indeed it also forms the foundations of the naturalistic worldview.
The question was:
"What I would like to know is (from theists), if there is no such thing as "macroevolution" despite the fact that microevolution is true, beyond any doubt, then what is the "magical" barrier that stops an animal's DNA from changing after a certain point, just so that we humans won't consider it a different "species?"
Leaving aside a theistic answer, and approaching this from the view of geneticists and biologists, there is firstly the point to be made that among scientists themselves this is NOT by any means a settled arguement. Far from it.
AP Hendry and MT Kinnison in "An Introduction to microevloution: rate, pattern, process, Genetica" state:
"Are macroevolutionary events simply the cumulative outcome of microevolutionary mechanisms or does macroevolution require some qualitatively different mechanism? The history of this debate is long, convoluted and sometimes acrimonious."
Darwinists such as John Maynard Smith state that "there is no theoretical reason that would permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens" (The Major Evolutionary Transitions).
What evidence that there is in fact points in the opposite direction. The vast majority of mutations observed in the laboratory have deleterious effects. Cell biologist EJ Ambrose studies have shown that only 1 in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious. Thus even with the simplest of new genetic structures involving only 5 genes, the chance of 5 non-deleterious mutations occuring is 1 in 10(15). Or 1 in a million billion (UK billion I think here).
Paul Erbrich adds that the "mutation-selection mechanism is an optimization mechanism" - meaning it enables an already living system to adapt to changing environmental conditions, but that it does not create anything radically new.
And this really gets to the key point here. Microevolution concerns observable phenomena and so is open to the methods of inductive science. It is observable and repeatable.
Macroevolution on the other hand is not open to either. Because it is largely concerned about unrepeatable past events it's methodology does not carry the same kind of authority as that rightly enjoyed by microevolution.
Finally, given this distinction, a concerned microevolutionist might ask a believer in Darwinian macroevolution the following question:
"Where is the fossil evidence for your belief?"
Darwin of course raised this very issue in The Origin of the Species saying "The number of intermediate varieties should be truly enormous. Geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
Stephen Jay Gould states that "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaentology". American Museum of National History palaentologist Niles Eldridge concludes: "We palaentologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradually adaptive change knowing all the while it does not. (Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria)
I trust this answers the question of Infernus (and others), and that it might provoke some discussion on the fossil evidence for macroevolution.
Respectfully yours,
Colin Baker
February 4, 2009 10:12 PM
Welcome to the fray ColinBaker.
I could quote your bits and pieces of information, but I would rather ask you if you have taken these comments from the original sources, in context, or are you just blindly copying information from a creationist website that is repeating falsehoods?
The quote from Darwin and the quote from Gould are give-aways in lists like this: those are quote-mines, not representative of their real positions, and they are presented like this to give a false impression.
This kind of dishonest behavior by creationists is well known, and has resulted in at least one web-page dedicated to just this problem:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
Have you read Darwin?
Enjoy.
February 4, 2009 10:29 PM
Thanks RAZD, but why is it "the fray"? Can't scientific debate be civil?
To answer your questions, yes, I have read Darwin (in fact I teach about him). Talkorigins is also something I'm very familiar with, having read much of the material there.
And, no, I did not copy info from some creationist website. Rather I was answering an earlier question about micro and macroevolution using relevant quotes from scientists.
Now that I've answered your questions, permit me to observe that you have not answered mine. Instead apparently I am indulging in some sort of "dishonest behaviour".
Please sir, point out how this is so and to which points you object. I would also like to hear what you think about the question of the fossil evidence.
Looking forward to some reasoned discussion with you.
Respectfully yours,
Colin Baker
February 5, 2009 2:17 AM
What exactly do you teach about Darwin? If it’s anything related to science then God help us. When Darwin wrote about the lack of transitional fossils, he was writing in the 1850’s. Since then, more fossils have been found. But creationists still desperately cling to these quotes as proof of the lack of evidence for evolution. But the opposite is true. No fossil has yet been discovered that could debunk Darwin’s claims.
This is a comprehensive list of the hundreds of transitional fossils that have been found in the past hundred years... “I wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year….”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
You can also check out this list of the more famous transitional fossils on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Or you can read Neil Shubin’s new book “Your Inner Fish” written about what has now become the most famous transitional fossil of all – Tiktaalik.
February 5, 2009 2:40 AM
Personally, I think fossil evidence is probably the weakest argument against Darwin. All one has to do to challenge evolution is find a fossil out of place in the fossil record. This would definitively disprove Darwin’s chronology of “descent.” In other words, all you have to do is find a modern human skeleton fossilized in 400 million year old rock next to some primitive ammonites. The whole theory would be thrown out. No one in the past 150 years has been able to do this.
February 6, 2009 11:20 AM
Really? So you are claiming the 'fossil record' is a neat chronology that starts with complex and becomes 'simpler' the deeper it goes, just like in a science book with NO exceptions that would disprove it's validity, where has this been demonstrated? And if that were true why do simple forms still exist?
February 7, 2009 7:51 AM
Another PRATT ... like the old "If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around? " question.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html
These "simpler forms" are around because they still fit their ecological niche better than "more complex forms" and indeed you could not live without them.
Enjoy.
February 8, 2009 10:15 AM
Ok,for discussion I'll grant that only some forms accumulate hereditary changes and evolve- while others, inexplicably, do NOT change at all for millions & possibly billions of years. They must REALLY be well-suited for that biological niche (that has apparently not changed either over eons of time!) I'll grant that with a healthy dose of incredulity. That still does not explain the complete lack of a fossil record that shows steady- gradual macro-evolution. I've seen the charts that show 'simple' forms at the bottom/oldest strata and man at the top/newest- problem is this is imaginary and exists no where. I'll conceed that the fossilization process is dynamic and there are bound to be gaps/inconsistencies. But the record is consistently of an 'explosion' of fully formed life at the 'lowest' levels followed by extinctions = REDUCTIONS in diversity, with a notable lack of transitionary forms- The complete opposite of evolutionary prediction.
February 8, 2009 5:05 PM
Hardwood83
Your knowledge of the fossil record seems to be a little behind the times. I'd say between 150 and 200 years behind.
I would hope that you allow yourself to accept reality at some point in your life.
We all say and do things that should be embarassing to us later. The lucky ones have the opportunity to look back and feel silly about it.
The show airing tonight appears to be just the sort of thing you should see. I would assume that it will feature some very interesting transitional fossils.
Perfect examples of what you are refering to as macroevolution. One "kind" of animal becoming another "kind".
Good luck
February 7, 2009 4:46 AM
By coincidence, Ive just bought that book JerNYC. Not had a chance to look at it yet, but sounds like a very interesting read.
February 7, 2009 6:02 PM
It's a really good book and easy to read. It's also required reading for this year's incoming freshman class at UPenn.
February 8, 2009 5:57 AM
wow, check me out reading uni work. I just study it as an amateur, would love to it properly
February 5, 2009 9:28 PM
Hi ColinBaker,
Sorry I've been so busy to get back to this earlier.
Let me start off by saying that you have already proven that you do not know what evolution is:
quote: ColinBaker - Evolution Q&A ----------------------------------------
How does natural selection work when there is no nature to select from? In other words how does macroevolution explain the origin of life from nothing to something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who has studied this issue for any length of time should already know:
(1) the origin of life is outside of the study of evolution, as evolution only deals with existing life. The origin of life science is abiogenesis. This is the way science uses the terms, and any other usage is thus not talking about the science but a misrepresentation of it, a straw man, a fake.
(2) macroevolution is nothing more than the formation of nested hierarchies, branches of species from common ancestor species.
(3) that Darwin's book "the Origin of Species by Natural Selection" is not about the origin of LIFE but about the division of species into related populations, related by common ancestry. The title is origin of SPECIES rather than origin of LIFE.
You say you have read Darwin and teach about him. I am curious how you can do that if you don't understand him.
Now to the issue of your quote-mines. Whenever I see a quote like this:
quote: ColinBaker February 4, 2009 9:30 PM ------------------------
Stephen Jay Gould states that "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaentology". American Museum of National History palaentologist Niles Eldridge concludes: "We palaentologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradually adaptive change knowing all the while it does not. (Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I know that you have either not understood that punkeek is about finding evidence of transitions for speciation, or are intentionally misrepresenting what he was talking about as meaning something else.
Gould was rather upset by all the creationists taking him out of context and distorting what he said. Certainly when discussing macroevolutionary transitions Gould states that there are plenty of examples to show what has evolved.
Gould, S. J. (1990) "An earful of jaw." Natural History 3: 12-23.
This is about the transition from a reptile ear and jaw to the mammalian ear and jaw.
Punkeek is rather about missing transitionals between a squirrel and a new species of squirrel.
So when you imply that he is saying that transitions of the level of reptile ear and jaw to mammalian ear and jaw, you are obviously misrepresenting his work, and that is either through ignorance or it is intentionally dishonest (I'll leave out stupidity and insanity, as I don't believe those apply). Ignorance is curable.
Curiously Wallace anticipates Gould and Eldridge with "Wallace's Rule" that predicts punkeek evolution.
The other issue I have with your post is that it is all quotes, there is no discussion of evidence. This is known as the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, so even if all your quotes are in context they mean squat when compared to reality. Opinion, no matter whose, has proven rather ineffective at changing reality.
In reality we have observed evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Thus evolution is a fact. We don't need fossil evidence to show this is true.
In reality we have observed speciation - the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations evolving along different paths to adapt to different ecologies. Thus speciation is a fact. We don't need fossil evidence to show that this is true.
The fossil record is the natural history of what occurred in the past, it is not theory, but fact. Any attempt to explain the fossil record needs to explain all of it.
Evolution plus speciation does that.
All evolution is "microevolution" - it is always within populations of organisms. The different evolution of different populations of organisms reacting to different ecologies is "macroevolution" - it is the diversity that evolves with reproductive isolation of the different populations.
Enjoy.
February 5, 2009 3:28 PM
Since you don't like what he says it's assumed to be 'taken out of context' and 'dishonorable behavior'? I recommend you go about dsiproving his points as you claim you could. Do you want to persuade people or bully them with your arrogance and condescending attittude? When did 'honor' evolve by the way?
February 5, 2009 8:53 PM
It is easy to disprove these arguments because they have been disproved numerous times. It’s the same dated “there is no fossil evidence for evolution” argument over and over. The entire fossil record supports evolution. It shows that primitive plants and animals existed before modern ones. This is where the entire idea for evolution comes from. Why would anyone consider this to be evidence against evolution?
Gould said that he was surprised by the lack of transitional fossils because he was looking at the total fossil mass. For example, if you have a million fossils, and 500 you consider to be transitional fossils, then transitional fossils make up only about 5% of your total fossil mass. To Gould, 5% is a low number. Does this mean that the fossil record lacks transitional fossils? No - you’re still left with 500 transitional fossils that support evolution!
February 5, 2009 8:57 PM
(Or how about a 10,000 total fossil mass)
February 6, 2009 12:01 PM
Ok, I'll cut to the chase and make it easier for you to 'easily disprove' my reasons for not believing macro-evolution.1) I've never seen it- no one has. (a key point in Science, I think). 2) It's not demonstrated in the fossil record (the weakest arguement as you mentioned above.) which should have incredible numbers of transitional forms- it has none- and is NOT in the order Darwinsim would predict at all. 3) How does evolution work? What is driving these changes that are astoundingly positive and complex? In the face of entropy no less! 4)And THE question for me is, how does living matter originate from non-living? Or how did ANY matter originate? I know you already admited above that naturalism has no answer for this but that is a lynchpin, I would think. I will acknowledge that I do not have all the answers, that discrediting evolution is not necessarily proving Creationism and that I am not totally objective. However, I am fairly rational and welcome your reply.
February 8, 2009 7:46 PM
Hi Hardwood83,
I've posted my understanding of natural selection and how it relates to macroevolution below. I hope you get a chance to read it.
February 9, 2009 1:21 AM
It appears that my original post here was censored so let me try again. I can tell from your arguments here against evolution that you don't know what the theory is and how it works. You are basically mocking something that you don’t understand. I hope you can give me a few minutes to try to explain my understanding of the theory. Maybe we can then understand where both sides are coming from, and reach some common ground for disscussion.
Evolution happens when one species turns into another species over time. There are a number of ways in which this can happen, but the easiest to understand is natural selection. I first realized how natural selection works back in my freshman year of college a few years ago, when I took an introductory class in evolution. My professor used this slide, which is available on Berkeley’s website in the link below.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
It starts out by showing a population of beetles. The beetles all look different because they reproduce by exchanging genetic information. (Every beetle that’s born received 50% of its DNA from its mom and 50% from its dad) In that way each beetle carries a unique set of inherited characteristics. In other words, every beetle is different. Some are large, some small, some green and some brown. This is called “variation” within the beetle population. Along comes a bird and eats all the green beetles. The bird doesn’t eat the brown beetles for any number of reasons – maybe they taste bad, maybe they blend into their environment and the bird can’t see them, who knows. But now only brown beetles are left. The brown beetles now have no competition for food from their green counterparts, which allows them to multiply like wildfire. The diagram basically illustrates how a population of green beetles can change, or “evolve” into brown beetles to avoid being eaten. This is called speciation (creation of new species) by natural selection.
Now this process doesn’t stop there. The birds are now out of food and will either have to evolve (or rather adapt) to eating brown beetles or face starvation, and ultimately extinction. If the birds adapt, the brown beetles will have to in turn evolve into another form of beetles or face being eaten again. This is the classic predator-prey relationship and the process could go on forever.
Some people will argue that natural selection (as described above) cannot explain where the first life form came from, therefore green beetles cannot evolve into brown beetles - but as you can see in the diagram, that fact has no bearing on a population of green beetles changing into brown beetles. People will also argue that evolution cannot occur without some intelligent designer, because how else would the green beetles know that they are supposed to turn into brown beetles to avoid being eaten? But as you can see, the process requires no intelligent designer or heavenly intervention. The new brown beetle population evolved regardless - without the assistance of an intelligent designer.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples of this occuring in nature. One example is pesticide resistance. In the United States, cotton fields were sprayed with the pesticide “Roundup”, which killed off the weed Amaranthus palmeri (amaranth). However, because of variation within the amaranth population, a very small portion of the amaranth plants had a resistance to Roundup - just as some beetles were brown and avoided being eaten by the bird. These amaranth plants survived after being sprayed. The farmers didn’t see these very few and scattered survivors and assumed that their cotton fields were completely free of amaranth. With all of the competition gone from other amaranth plants, these few survivors now took over the cotton fields, multiplied, and passed on the Roundup-resistance gene to each new amaranth offspring. When the farmers came back to spray their fields again, it had no effect. Every amaranth plant in the cotton field now had this Roundup-resistance gene. Amaranthus palmeri evolved into a new species that is now resistant to the Roundup pesticide. In other words, one species changed into another – again without the intervention of magic or an intelligent designer.
You can also argue that natural selection can only account for beetles, or amaranthus, turning into another form of beetles or amaranthus (microevolution), but not into another completely different species (macroevolution), but Darwinists disagree because that’s not what we see in nature, or in the fossil record.
Recently Nat Geo aired a special about a unique bear that was found in the Canadian arctic. The bear had 50% Grizzly DNA and 50% polar bear DNA. Although they are completely different species, grizzlies and polar bears are genetically similar enough to, in this very rare instance, be able to reproduce. Their lineages must have split off fairly recently in their evolutionary past to still be so similar. Using the logic of natural selection, I can imagine a scenario where a population of grizzlies lived in the arctic a few thousand years ago, when the climate was warmer. Because of variation, some of these grizzlies had dark brown fur while others had lighter fur. As climate changed, the arctic got colder and froze over. The darker brown grizzlies had a harder time blending into their new icy environment while hunting and were unable to feed their offspring. They died out, taking their genes for dark brown fur coloration with them. The lighter grizzlies had an easier time, were able to feed their kids, and passed on the gene for lighter fur to all future generations. In this way, the environment favored lighter and lighter fur. After thousands of generations, the only bears that were left in the Arctic were white-furred bears. These Arctic bears were so different from their original grizzly cousins that they would be classified as a new species - Ursus Maritimus (polar bear). You can look this story up on Nat Geo’s website.
February 9, 2009 2:04 AM
How genetically similar do these bear species have to be in order to be able to reproduce? 98% to 99%? The human genome project discovered that modern humans and chimpanzees share 96% of the DNA. That means that any hominid that split from the common ancestor of both species must have shared 97% to 99% of its DNA with each of them. So what’s preventing australopithecines from changing into modern humans through a purely “microevolutionary” process?
February 9, 2009 4:02 PM
I appreciate your time, that is a well-thought out and logical explanation. To refine the discussion I'll set aside the origin of life(although I think that is very compelling in a naturalism-creationist debate) and the other issues I mentioned and focus on your post. To be clear I do not dispute Natural Selection/Micro-evolution,I don't know anyone that does, it is evident and pervasive. So your beetle/bear/weed examples are understood & accepted. Another post mentions cold/flu viruses- a fine example of micro-evolution as well. Where I part ways with you is that the beetle (or anything else) can & has changed into another species. How does the beetle become another species through natural selection? Color & Characteristics, I understand, but the beetle contains the genetic potential to eventually be something else entirely? Something more complex with entirely differant characteristics? And doesn't that mean the ancestors of the beetle had to contain all this genetic material? I am no geneticist but how does enviroment/selective breeding introduce genetic code? I see how natural selection refines a population- but I don't get how it turns into a new form. And then isn't it entirely logical that by going back far enough to whatever the initial life was that is must have also contained the genetic potential to result in ALL subsequent decendants & forms of life? So sure bears have the potential to change colors/characteristics based on local population- but they are still bears. How does that explain that given enough time/enviroment a 'simple cell' (that anyone taking biology knows is not simple at all) results in the incredible diversity of life we see now and in the past? Where did that genetic information come from and how is it altered to allow new species to arise (even after extended time)? I understand how Natural selection refines a species I do not see how it explains the new species that become more complex. It's been a while since I took biology,anatomy or chemistry so what am I missing?
February 9, 2009 11:10 PM
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. I hope you are starting to understand where I’m coming from. Regarding your comments about genesis - the debate of how life originated would be mostly based on opinion, not science, so I would want stay out of that debate. I don’t want to press my opinion on anyone unless it’s supported by absolute facts and can be verified by research. God may very well have created life on Earth – it’s certainly just as plausible as life appearing out of some primordial stew, or being delivered to Earth by comets. The current theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about genesis. Also, the “naturalism” you mention seems to me more like a social philosophy rather than actual science. I believe that biologists like Richard Dawkins who cross the boundary between science and religious philosophy are doing evolutionary biology a huge disservice, and are alienating the general public from understanding evolutionary theory. So I will not engage in this sort of debate either. Having said that, I’m glad that you can appreciate the logic of natural selection. I think this is the first huge leap for anyone studying evolution (it was for me), as the rest of the theory is based on this same logic. One very important thing to keep in mind is that my explanation of the process was very simplistic. In nature, the process isn’t as “linear” as I described and doesn’t necessarily involve only one trait (like coloration) at a time. The actual process is much more complex, consisting of many populations constantly shifting over time. These populations develop many traits simultaneously. In polar bears, for example, it wasn’t just fur color that changed. Their entire skeletons changed. Polar bears got larger. Their paws became wider (an adaptation to walk on snow) and their heads became more streamlined (an adaptation for swimming). To illustrate my point I am including these two links – one shows a polar bear skull and the other a grizzly skull.
sibar.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/bc-100-lg.jpg
www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/bc-26-lg.jpg
Now this is a neat trick. If you open each link in a separate window and stretch the windows to the exact same size, and then overlap them exactly - one on top of the other, you will be able to quickly flip back and worth between the images and witness morphology in action. You can see that the grizzly skull is more robust, while the polar bear skull is narrower and more elongated (more streamlined). When you flip these two images back and worth, you’re looking at morphological differences caused by about 100,000 years of evolution. Can you imagine how different the skulls would look after 500,000 years, or even a million years of evolution? You said that this only shows that a bear can change into another bear, but I absolutely disagree. First you have to realize that the term “bear” or the genus “ursus” is just a label applied to separate animals into groups by these morphological differences. This barrier can be easily broken if the animal continues evolving and changing its shape. I’ll give you an example from nature. When you are flipping the two skulls back and forth, you may notice that they look different, but they actually have one very important thing in common. Both grizzlies and polar bears share the same triangular premolars. They use these for grinding down tough food, like vegetation. This allowed them to be omnivores (eat both meat and vegetation). Why would the entire skull change, while this one trait remained the same? Being able to eat more food is obviously a huge advantage. Once it appeared in the bear population, the triangular premolar stuck. This tooth was so successful that it remains virtually unchanged in all modern bears, regardless of skull shape. Not only that, the premolars remains unchanged in the fossil record (in extinct bears) as well. Paleontologists can actually trace the ancestry of grizzly and polar bears through the fossil record, by following this one tooth. The trail takes you from the modern polar bears and brown bears (grizzlies), to ursus etruscus 2.5 million years ago, to ursus minimus 3.5 to 5 million years ago, to Protursus 10 million years ago to Ursavus 20 million years ago. This trails is shown here…
www.donsmaps.com/bear.html
But this is where the triangular premolar tooth trail stops. So basically the fossil record tells us that the premolar first appeared some time 20 million years ago in the Ursavus elemensis population. It was so successful that it was passed down to every subsequent generation, all the way up to the modern grizzly and polar bear. (think of the pesticide resistance being passed on to every subsequent generation of amaranth) What I just did is is basically how paleontology works. Common traits like this are traced through the fossil record. This is done with every living and extinct species, from birds to dinosaurs. The fossil record shows that Ursavus, living 20 million years ago, looked absolutely nothing like a modern polar bear, except that it had the exact triangular premolar that all bears share. This premolar appears only in this bear lineage and nowhere else. This is how paleontologists know that Ursavus, polar bears, grizzleys, and all other bears after Ursavus were related.
I hope this gives you some new insight into “macroevolution.” I’m using bears here as an example, but you could do this with virtually any species in the fossil record. I picked bears particularly because the National Geographic Channel just aired a special on bear evolution. It aired last Sunday, but I think it will be on again this Thursday at 10pm Eastern Time. You should check it out.
February 9, 2009 11:29 PM
"Being able to eat more food is obviously a huge advantage"
Here I meant to say "Being able to eat a greater variety of food" instead of "more" food. Having teeth adapted for consuming a greater variety of food, rather than just meat, would obviously be a huge adventage, and it would stay within the bear populations as they evolved (because the bears who lost this tooth would have a harder time feeding than bears who had the tooth and could therefore eat anything)
February 9, 2009 11:38 PM
Sorry - I forgot to label the links -
"bc-26-lg.jpg" shows the robust grizzly skull
"bc-100-lg" shows the streamlined polar bear skull
February 10, 2009 12:02 AM
You can also clearly see the same triangular premolar in the photos of both skulls. It's also shown in this diagram...
www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/online/wildlife/trapping-regulations/images/drawing-bear.jpg
February 10, 2009 10:08 AM
Another interesting point to mention is that polar bears are the first bears in this lineage to live exclusively in an arctic environment. If you compare the two skulls again, you’ll see that the upper triangular premolar is virtual unchanged, however, the other adjacent molars differ. In the grizzly bear jaw, the molars just barely touch when the jaws are closed, and grizzlies take advantage of this to grind down vegetation. However, in the polar bear skull, the jaw has deformed so much that these teeth no longer come in contact, and the polar bear lost this adaptation for an omnivorous diet. In other words, the polar bear lost its ability to grind down vegetation – even though they evolved from grizzlies. This jaw deformation however has not hampered the polar bear’s survival, because it hunts on the ice and its diet consists mostly of seals and virtually no vegetation.
I think this clearly illustrates the idea that in bear evolution (and in the evolution of all species), natural selection doesn’t move towards some perfect form of bear. Rather, it’s just an adaptation to the bear’s particular environment. If it doesn’t hamper the bear’s survival, it will stick around as the bear changes.
I think another example of this idea is the evolution of the hind legs of a kangaroo. If you look closely at a photo of a kangaroo, its hind legs look completely deformed and out of scale with its front limbs.
www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/lagniappe/pictures_san_antonio_zoo_3/6_Red_Kangaroo_02.jpg
The hind limbs changed in the same way that the bears’ skulls changed. But in kangaroos they changed so much that the animal lost its ability to run and now has to get around by hopping. There are no major predators in Australia that could outrun the hopping kangaroo and take it down (other than humans) so this deformation has not hampered the kangaroo’s survival. As bizarre as this deformation is, it has remained within its lineage. There are virtually hundreds of other examples of this in nature.
February 10, 2009 10:17 AM
“Because of its long feet, it cannot walk correctly. To move at slow speeds, it uses its tail to form a tripod with its two forelimbs. It then raises its hind feet forward, in a form of locomotion called "crawl-walking." The Secret Life of Kangaroos. Penny, Malcolm. 2002.
February 5, 2009 6:08 AM
To paraphrase from PBS, "If we saw someone falling up, that wouldn't disprove the Theory of Gravity and Newtonian Physics. Instead, we would look for ways to fit it into the current theory. If we did see someone falling up, there would be now way it would make sense to just throw out hundreds of years of physics, just due to that one example".
Just because there may be some aspects of a scientific theory that remain ambiguous, does not disprove the theory as a scientific fact. Evolution occurs, and evolution is what gives us in terms of scientific advancement in genetic research and medical breakthroughs.
February 5, 2009 12:19 PM
Wow, this is all very intriguing and a great read for an online discussion forum. Most controversial discussion boards have a lot of insults flying back and forth at each other, which distracts from its original topic and ends up being a complete bore to read.
I don't really know much about Darwin's theory, only what I can remember from middle school (hmmm, which isn't much) and I would really like to learn more about this theory. Can anyone point me in the right direction for books that touch on all issues/controversies/questions/etc. of Darwin's theory? Is there not anyone else who has thought of this as well or was Darwin the only one?
Also, I have a copy of the bible at home and find it a very interesting read- but just as that. It is, to me (I'm not knocking anyone else who believes) a form a literature written by men- and added to by others over time, branched off into different verisons and so forth- to what we see it as today, in its many forms, all over the world. I think some interesting pieces about religion are is potential to bring people/communities together and its diverse perspectives and ways of practice. I am a creative person who loves to imagine and I think the bible was written by people, as humans evolved, who needed an explanation from somewhere as to why we are here on this earth and this was a creative explanation. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but I mean this by saying we can also learn a lot from the many different religious beliefs and how the human minds worked (and still work) by looking at all forms of literature. Also, some people need a focus or goal in life to work towards and religion is their focus or goal that helps them go through life. Although I am not one who looks to religion per se, I find that fascinating as well.
But I am also a hands-on, practical person and for me, the creation of 'man' is not practical. There are too many contradictions and controversies that just don't add up, nor do they explain HOW we got here. Life is so complex: conception, the development of the fetus in the womb, child birth, the human body, animals, plants, organisms, parasites, molecules, etc; these are all so very complex in itself, much more so than a "breath" of life that took only 7 days to create by one creator (who, depending on your religion, could be flower or a book or a tree or a woman or a man or an ape or or a god/goddess or an alien), who no one has seen nor heard.
I love religion and learning about every single one of them all and seeing them work POSITIVELY in societies and in the world. By all means, let's keep religion. It's a great way to build community, family, support systems; keep a sense of self identity and belonging, heritage and culture.
But when it comes to facts, I really would like to know more about the sciences. I love looking at the pieces slowly come together and make sense and try to logically explain answers to unanswered questions. This is so fascinating as well as educational. We also need science for this.
February 6, 2009 5:26 AM
For your reading list, I'd suggest the following: "Refuting Evolution 2," by Jonathan Sarfati, and "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis," by Michael Denton. You'll have to ask someone on the other side for recommendations on the opposite perspective.
February 8, 2009 9:42 PM
Suggested reading
The Ancestor's Tale- still a classic from Dawkins
Evolution What the Fossils Say And Why It Matters- Prothero
Your Inner Fish- Shubin
At The Waters Edge- Zimmer
Why Evolution Is True- Coyne
I could go on and on.
February 5, 2009 12:31 PM
JerNYC - the scientists I quoted are alive today and are talking about the current fossil record.
On looking at your link to talkorigins, the intro to that is very defensive indeed. In asking "Why are there still gaps?" it includes statments such as:
"- There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found.
- the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!)"
So, to summarize:
Even if there are large breaks, and if records are between 3% and 75% complete in the ones we have, should we not be flooded nonetheless with transitionary fossils?
The scientist who was involved with the famous Archaeopteryx at the Natural History Museum (and given as evidence of a transitionary fossil on the talkorigins site), Colin Patterson, said: "There is not one ancestral or transitional fossil for which one could make a watertight arguement".
Further the talkorigins site goes on to say:
"- Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document.
- fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened."
Notice here that it gives reasons why there are no fossils, and uses phrases like "there could have been a smooth transition" and "or the species could have arrived suddenly", before concluding - "we can't tell which way it happened".
And this is exactly my point. Macroevolution does not have the weight of evidence behind it that microevolution does. This is reflected in the reasons given for gaps in the fossil records and explosions of fossils appearing rather than slow and steady appearances. This indeed is a heated debate between those like Simon Morris of Cambridge University, a believer in punctuated equilibrium, and others like Richard Dawkins who hold steadfast to the gradualist approach.
Morris states: "biologists are much more impressed by the discreteness of organic form, and the general absence of intermediates" (as opposed to an orderly Tree of Life).
Finally, another palaetologist again, this time of the marine variety. Paul Chien found some recent well preserved sponge embryos in the Precambrian near Chengjiang, China. His finds create a real problem for macroevolutionists trying to explain away the lack of the fossil record. In this regard talkorigins says:
"- To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record."
However Chien concludes:
"If the Precambrian strata are capable of preserving soft-bodied embryos of organisms why do they not also contain the precursors to the Cambrian animals? Does not the preservation of soft embryos make more likely the preservation of the fully mature animal?"
Respectfully yours, ColinBaker
February 9, 2009 10:26 AM
I think that the majority of our fossil record was created in one large swoop--some sort of catastrophic event in which everything was fast-frozen, so-to-speak, in its tracks. The record is what it is. Something like a world-wide flood would better explain the whys' of the fossil record than to believe in slow gradual burial over eons of time.
February 10, 2009 12:45 AM
You just made this up. I think that you should acknowlege that it is your opinion only.
February 10, 2009 10:32 AM
JerNYC, who are you kidding? Aren't we all offering our opinions here?
You should know though, that many scientists agree that the fossil record was more likely formed suddenly and quickly, that there are signs that point to that rather than to a long slow forming of these fossils. Look into it.
"Surprisingly enough, just about everybody—creationist, evolutionist, and everyone in between—agrees that individual fossil specimens themselves begin to form very, very rapidly! If a plant or animal just dies and falls to the ground or into the water, it’s quickly broken up and decomposed by scavengers, wind and water currents, even sunlight. Fallen logs, road kills, and dead aquarium fish don’t just become fossils, nor did the millions of bison slaughtered in America’s move west.
Most fossils are formed when a plant or animal is quickly and deeply buried, out of reach of scavengers and currents, usually in mud, lime, or sand sediment rich in cementing minerals that harden and preserve at least parts of the dead creatures. Evolutionists and creationists agree: the ideal conditions for forming most fossils and fossil-bearing rock layers are flood conditions. The debate is just whether it was many “little floods” over a long time, or mostly the one big Flood of Noah’s time. In fact, until Darwin’s theory came along, most educated laymen and scientists—including the founding fathers of geology—assumed that fossils were the remains of plants and animals buried in Noah’s Flood.
Although professionals understand how fast fossils begin to form under flood conditions, the general public often does not. ...."
[Answers in Genesis]
I would post a link but i am getting the idea that doing that slows the posting process here.
Anyway, as you can see, while we are all dealing in opinion, I did not "make-up" the ones I hold to.
February 10, 2009 10:29 PM
This is a discussion, so I just think everyone should be held accountable for the statements that they make. I try to back up my opinions with facts, but others here just post statements for the sole purpose of mocking other people’s beliefs. I see that you responded by posting some evidence for your claim, and I have no problem with this. All I meant initially was that everyone should be held accountable to what they post here.
February 10, 2009 10:53 PM
And no, I wasn’t kidding. I would like to point out that there are other ways that skeletons can be fossilized besides catastrophes… like when marine animals die and sink to the bottom of the ocean. They get buried into the soft clays, mud or sediments. Some of the most common fossils in the fossil record are of underwater animals, like the trilobites, so even though you backed up your claim with evidence, your giant catastrophe or flood theory relies on questionable logic. Also, your evidence comes from a questionable source, which certainly doesn’t seem objective.
February 5, 2009 8:04 PM
Mr. Baker - I never questioned that some of the other scientists you’ve misquoted aren’t alive today. I’m questioning the intent behind your quotes. And I say this because, for example, the quote regarding “extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record” was used by Gould when he talked about punctuated equilibrium. To Gould, punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary process, consisting of quick bursts of rapid evolutionary change followed by long periods of stasis. It is definitely not evidence against evolution, as you suggest. As Gould himself pointed out in “Ever Since Darwin”, evolution’s critics almost always take his writings on punctuated equilibrium out of context as false evidence against evolution. So any time I see someone writing that there is no evidence for macro evolution in the fossil record, and stating that even prominent evolutionary biologists like Stephen Gould agree, I know that I’m being deceived.
But if we’re having a battle of quotes then I would like to add one, “Some groupings are so strong that, for all intents and purposes, we consider them fact… Our fish-to-human framework is so strongly supported that we no longer try to marshal evidence for it – doing so would be like dropping a ball fifty times to test the theory of gravity… You would have the same chance of seeing your ball go up the fifty first time you dropped it as you would finding strong evidence against these relationships.” (Shubin, “Your Inner Fish” 2008)
February 5, 2009 9:44 PM
Hey JerNYC,
quote------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if we’re having a battle of quotes then I would like to add one, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another little tid-bit:
No quote has ever falsified a single theory.
What falsifies a theory is contradictory evidence.
The "theory of evolution" can be briefly stated as the theory that evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation) plus speciation (the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated populations) are sufficient to explain all the diversity of life as we know it - from the world around us, from history, from prehistory, from archeology, from geology and paleontology, and from genetics.
There is no evidence known today that contradicts the theory of evolution.
quote ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I say this because, for example, the quote regarding “extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record” was used by Gould when he talked about punctuated equilibrium. To Gould, punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary process, consisting of quick bursts of rapid evolutionary change followed by long periods of stasis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, he is talking about the transition from squirrel species to squirrel species to squirrel species to squirrel species and not about the overall trend of all those squirrel species.
Missing pieces in a jigsaw puzzle do not mean that the puzzle could not have been complete in the past, nor that you cannot figure out what the picture was.
Enjoy.
February 6, 2009 1:20 AM
You said, “Yes, he is talking about the transition from squirrel species to squirrel species to squirrel species to squirrel species and not about the overall trend of all those squirrel species” I on the other hand understand punctuated equilibrium differently. I think of it in terms of phenomena like allopatric speciation - or geographic speciation - where species within a large gene pool go through very little change, then a small cross section of that species gets physically cut off from the larger parent population and goes through a short period of rapid evolution as it adapts to it’s new environment, then becomes stable again, as an entirely new population, and the whole process is repeated. I think that Gould’s theory definitely addresses the overall trend of the population, and not just variation within a population, as you stated. I also don’t think that allopatric speciation or punctuated equilibrium is in conflict with Darwin’s view of speciation, and I don’t believe that Gould did either, but I’m sure someone will disagree. This is definitely a good topic to debate though.
February 7, 2009 1:56 AM
Hey JerNYC
quote-----------------------------------------------------
I on the other hand understand punctuated equilibrium differently. I think of it in terms of phenomena like allopatric speciation - or geographic speciation - where species within a large gene pool go through very little change, then a small cross section of that species gets physically cut off from the larger parent population and goes through a short period of rapid evolution as it adapts to it’s new environment, then becomes stable again, as an entirely new population, and the whole process is repeated.
----------------------------------------------------------
Precisely, and that small population returns to the ecology of the main population with some superior trait, it outcompetes the previous population and replaces it, using the same resources.
But this is still speciation of similar organisms, not the formation of whole new forms of organisms, as implied by ColinBaker and his reference to macroevolution.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
I think that Gould’s theory definitely addresses the overall trend of the population, and not just variation within a population, as you stated.
----------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you better read what I said again. Consider "squirrel" as a genus with several species within it. One squirrel species replaces another and is in turn replaced by another new species.
quote-----------------------------------------------------
I also don’t think that allopatric speciation or punctuated equilibrium is in conflict with Darwin’s view of speciation, and I don’t believe that Gould did either, but I’m sure someone will disagree. This is definitely a good topic to debate though.
----------------------------------------------------------
It isn't. The gradualistic model occurred after Darwin. Wallace also anticipated punkeek with the "Wallace Effect"
If we could show pictures here I would show this picture
http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pelycodusevolutionec7.jpg
Based on Fig 10 in Phil Gingrich's paper
SYSTEMATICS, PHYLOGENY, AND EVOLUTION OF EARLY EOCENE ADAPIDAE (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES) IN NORTH AMERICA
Vol. 24, No. 22, p. 245-279 (13 text-figs.) August 15,1977
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/48489/2/ID339.pdf
Where I have drawn the lines in color. The black bars represent the variation in the populations at each level, and the colored lines represent the branching (forming a nested hierarchy) of the populations. Here we see arbitrary speciation along the general trend line (red) and non-arbitrary speciation at each of the branches. The first two show open gaps similar to what Gould meant, the third one shows what the fossil record of a punkeek event would look like if you had fossils of the transition period.
Enjoy.
February 9, 2009 12:21 AM
RAZD, you said “Perhaps you better read what I said again. Consider "squirrel" as a genus with several species within it. One squirrel species replaces another and is in turn replaced by another new species.”
I thought it was ironic that you specifically chose squirrels to illustrate your point. Are you arguing for some sort of linear and gradual squirrel evolution from one squirrel species to another? Is this your example of overall gradualism? That’s how I interpreted your initial statements. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I think diversification of squirrels in the fossil record actually illustrates the basic idea of punctuated equilibrium. This is from a 2003 Duke study:
“According to fossil records, the first squirrels arrived in Africa shortly after that former island continent collided with Eurasia about 18-20 million years ago, the Duke researchers said. And their DNA evidence shows the first branchings in the lineages of modern African ground and tree squirrels date to shortly after that. "So squirrels seem to have arrived in Africa and begun their diversification shortly after land animals first had access," Roth said. At about 11 million years ago, their research points to what Roth called "an explosive diversification of genera of squirrels" that now inhabit the islands and continental land masses of Southeast Asia. That divergence coincided with extremely low local sea levels, perhaps caused by geological changes in the ocean floor or perhaps by the final formation of the Antarctic ice sheet, Mercer said.”
I won’t post the link to the website here because I fear censorship, but if you google the study, it will come up.
Also, Gingerich’s study (which you used as an example) is usually presented as evidence for phyletic gradualism. Gingerich was very critical of PE and particularly of Gould. I think at one point he accused Gould of being madly obsssessed with the theory. Are you saying that Gould argued for PE in Gingerich’s results? Do you know where I can find more information on this, or is this your own insight? Thanks.
February 9, 2009 2:16 PM
reply held again by censors. probably for linking to the same website several times (spam filter)
I will be leaving this forum for one that is better than this, in the moderation (you are always told when it happens, and the guidelines are published and referenced in moderation)
www-evcforum-net
I invite all who have participated here to join us, especially the creationists, as it is one of the more civil boards I know of. I found this forum through a post on that forum, so I am returning the favor.
Enjoy.
February 12, 2009 11:05 PM
I believe there are two reasons why posts are being censored. Your post will be removed if you...
1) mention s-e-x
2) post a link with h t t p : / / in front of it.
If you want to prevent your post from being censored, remove the h t t p : / /
I hope that we can continue this discussion. It's probably the more civil one in this forum.
Looking forward to your reply.
February 5, 2009 11:21 PM
RAZD, I agree with you that evolution has nothing to say about first causes. Darwin is indeed saying that all life evolved - except the first life. This is a point that needs emphasised.
Your arguments are very dogmatic in nature, with 100% assurance that you are correct. In approaching a topic like this in that way you are clearly over-reaching and are in danger of falling into the trap outlined above by Commoner of religious dogma.
(The quote you provide JerNYC about no need for evidence confirms this suspicion too).
For example, do you really believe that there is "no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution"?
How then do you reconcile the following facts:
1) Some Darwinists hold to punctuated equilibrium (Gould), and some do not (Dawkins).
2) Many Palaentologists do not see the evidence for it (I like your assertion that a fossil record as evidence is not needed!). If you think I'm fabricating Chien's research then check it out for yourself. The quotes I have given are the often the conclusion from a scientific study, not random statements with no factual basis.
3) Francis Crick and others involved in the genome project, indeed many connected with the study of DNA, struggle with the irreducible complexity of even proteins. How did they evolve by random chance?
The unwillingness to even acknowkledge that countless scientists have huge misgivings about macroevolution is in fact startling. And that is before we even mention where most physicsists and cosmologists stand on the idea of naturalism.
Perhaps you might be more open to the conclusions of Dawkins. He at least was able to admit the following (I wonder if you can), when he said:
"If it can be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". If such an organism were found he would "cease to believe in Darwinism" (The Blind Watchmaker)
Molecular evolution is such an area. There has been no publication in prestigious scientific journals or books that describe how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did or might have occured. Of course there are assertions that evolution has occured here (and that is the easy, faith-like answer is it not to say "evolution did it"), but there are none supported by experimentation. In short molecular evolution has never been able to answer how complex structures evolved. Biochemists such as Shapiro amd Cavalier-Smith openly state that no detailed Darwinian biochemical models exist.
Now, showing that a system appears irreducibly complex is not the same I grant you as proving it is (just as Dawkins tries to explain away how so much of biology is "apparently designed" - his words).
But it does at least suggest that your faith in macroevolution might have some problems associated with it if it has no answer to the first life, has no need for fossil evidence, and has no studies in the field of molecular evolution.
The last paragraph you wrote above is in fact quite revealing:
"Missing pieces in a jigsaw puzzle do not mean that the puzzle could not have been complete in the past, nor that you cannot figure out what the picture was."
Yes, but COULD is not the same as WAS. Certainly, the more the missing pieces, the more doubt is cast. And with recent discoveries in DNA, proteins etc.... more and more doubt is being cast.
Respectfully yours, ColinBaker
February 6, 2009 2:44 AM
Mr. Baker, you said that you have a hard time reconciling the fact that “Some Darwinists hold to punctuated equilibrium (Gould), and some do not (Dawkins).” In other words, you’re saying that the disagreement with the specifics of exactly how macroevolution works proves that macroevolution is wrong? To me, this seems like a logical fallacy. But I’m very interested in finding out exactly what you are arguing for here, because the way you're tearing apart Darwin, it seems like you're arguing for something pretty big. Are you proposing a new theory of biology? Has everyone else for the past 150 years been fooled with this evolution thing? Have you come up with something better? As I said in my first post in this forum…
“The moderator here refers to competing theories of evolution. Does anyone know what these other theories are? As far as I understand, Darwin’s theory proposed natural selection as a mechanism that drives speciation. What do other theories propose as the mechanism for the creation of new species, and do these other mechanisms better explain the fossil record?”
I’m very interested in knowing what your new theory of biology is and how it works.
February 6, 2009 2:09 PM
I don't speak for ColinBaker, but I don't believe the point is 'since evolutionists disagree on details the whole theory is invalid'. I think his point is there are major questions about how this supposed process works, even among it's staunchest proponents and the evidence is not at all clear, even to these brilliant minds that are desperate to make it fit their pre-conceived framework.
RAZD is terrified of 'quotemines' but misses the point, these quotes aren't purporting that the sources are refuting or denying Darwin, to the contrary, it confirms that they are not at all objective or genuine in seeking the truth. The state misgivings but claim they have the answer (Darwinism) regardless of the question (evidence) and create any number of ridiculous biological gymnastics (punctuated equillibrium) to support it, often with NO proof or indication. That is not even faith, it is wishing. You repeatedly assert that Darwinism has stood the test of time against repeated attempts to refute it- I concur, but that is despite logic and the preponderence of evidence. You seem to say that because most scientists accept Darwinism (in some form) it MUST be true. I would ask, if it is so apparent then why is it still a mystery with so many questions and problems despite years of research, technological advances & brilliant minds committed to validating it? Darwinism starts with the solution (God didn't do it so what did?) and demands the evidence fit. Does this alone disprove Darwin? No, but it sure isn't science.
February 8, 2009 8:59 PM
Why do you think that Darwinism is illogical? Is it illogical to you because you don’t understand it? I know how natural selection works and to me it makes perfect sense. It is a fact of nature. Darwin was correct when he described it as a mechanism for speciation. You say that there is a lack of evidence for Darwinism (speciation through natural selection) but that statement is simply not true. Natural selection has been studied in laboratories and witnessed in the field.
Also, the fact that all scientific institutions, the National Science Foundation, The Academy of Sciences, all major universities, peer-review publications, and basically all of the mainstream scientific community agree that evolution is a fact certainly gives the theory a lot of weight, but it’s not my main reason for knowing that evolution is a fact. I know it’s a fact because it’s based on logic, the mechanisms have been witnessed in nature, and no one has yet been able to disprove them. Like with anything in science, until someone comes up with a better idea that makes more sense, I will continue believing in the current theory.
I really hope that you take the time to understand the theory, what it is and how it works. If it interferes with your religious believes then I hope that you are able to reconcile those differences, and that they don’t interfere with your scientific reasoning.
February 8, 2009 11:36 PM
Please Hardwood83, lets stop with the implied insults eh?
quote ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAZD is terrified of 'quotemines' but misses the point, these quotes aren't purporting that the sources are refuting or denying Darwin, to the contrary, it confirms that they are not at all objective or genuine in seeking the truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I am highly amused at the contortions that creationists go through to try to piece together evidence that evolution is in trouble. They have to resort to quote-mines because they have no other evidence.
Curiously, all the cherry-picking of quote mines shows is confirmation bias, when the same authors contradict the implication that the creationist tries to pretend is real.
Darwin, for example, uses a rhetorical approach, where he presents a perceived "problem" and then answers it, so creationists quote the problem as evidence that Darwin had trouble explaining it.
What invalidates theory is contradictory fact, not opinions, not beliefs, not quotes from various authorities, not false definitions, not denial, and if you HAVE facts that contradict a theory you don't need opinions, beliefs, quotes, mis-definitions or denial to invalidate the theory.
Enjoy.
February 7, 2009 6:30 PM
I might be wrong, but I believe that the claim that evolutionary theory posits no suggestions about how life began, is a fairly new thing.
Somewhere in the back of my menory I can recall that old primordial soup thing, though am not sure that Darwin ever spoke about it particularly. The truth is, though, that His theory points to the idea that life can somehow just spontaneously pop-up out of nothing through time and chance...leaving the idea that no cause for life--or Creator or God is necessary.
February 8, 2009 5:14 PM
Hi Curious
Darwin didn't address the question of how life began. His theories were an attempt (a very successful one) to explain the diversity of life once it was present.
You're thinking of abiogenesis.
There are some interesting ideas in that field, but nothing nearly as concrete as Darwin's theories on evolution.
Really fun stuff though. Cutting edge.
February 9, 2009 7:52 AM
Thanks for your comments
I realize what you are saying, but the fact remains that his theory eliminates the need for a God or creator and has indeed led many away from God because if evolution in the Darwinian sense is true, then God's Word is wrong. The way we know God is through His Word. We trust it for spiritual, historical and even scientific matters--if addressed. Scripture reveals creation, not evolution--except for the kind of evolution that is a variation *within* a species.
The hypothesis behind evolution may not address origins, but neither does the hypothesis behind creation. Each model does, however, lead us to a certain conclusion.
February 6, 2009 2:18 PM
The scientific Evidence for the Existence of GOD already Exists!!! So, What are you doing about it?
www.quantumactivist.com
www.amitgoswami.org
check it out, this highly regarded quantum physicists explains how God can be proved using the revelations revealed through the study of quantum physics.
Evolution is driven by a consciousness, not a bumbling series of mishaps, Life is sacred, not profane.
February 7, 2009 7:54 AM
Thank you mitri.
So you are saying that evolution is gods way of creating, a common position known as theistic evolution?
February 9, 2009 12:10 AM
"God of the gaps" arguments do not constitute as scientific evidence.
February 8, 2009 6:37 PM
Did anyone see 'The Virus Hunters' and have a comment on the possible effects to evolution? I only saw part of it, tried to record it, bungled it, and can't tell when it may be on again.
It seems like an amazing possibility.....
February 8, 2009 9:06 PM
No, I didn't. What do you think of this program about whales? Hard
to believe they were descended from land animals. Isn't it?
February 8, 2009 9:11 PM
It's reasonable, but it never occured to me about that. I wonder what the bears evolved from(later show).
February 9, 2009 12:42 AM
I have always been struck by the similarity in appearance of the eye in both whales and hippos. It's eerie. You can look it up on google image search. In the closeup shots I can't tell the difference between the two.
February 8, 2009 9:43 PM
Censorship?
I've received the following notice a couple of times:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for replying.
Your reply has been received and held for approval by the forum administrator.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be nice if there were some guidelines for WHY this happens, so that anyone that spends the time and effort to provide a reply can be enabled to provide a reply that fits in the guidelines.
Has anyone else experienced this>
February 8, 2009 9:47 PM
Yes. When you include links to external websites in your post, they get held up for a few hours, but eventually get posted. I think it's just a way to keep out spam.
February 8, 2009 9:49 PM
But I've had posts that never appeared.
February 8, 2009 9:57 PM
I've also had posts added immediately with links and posts held without links. So much for that theory.
February 9, 2009 12:14 AM
RAZD, are you saying that there are gaps in my theory? I based it on solid solid logic. It's a theory AND a fact.
February 8, 2009 9:58 PM
OK some posted that evolution can't be observed. Well because we can't see a Platypus become a Spotted Leopard, people think it didn't happen. But there is one kind of evolution we actually see every winter. The Flu and Cold virus constant mutate and evolve. Aids was a virus that only effected Chimps till it evolved to infect humans. MRSA was evolved from a Staph Bacteria that evolved to be Antibiotic resistant. While yes this is on a Microlife forms it is still life that evolves and changes with it's enviroment.
February 9, 2009 12:30 AM
Yes - species can adapt to environmental pressure through natural selection, but what evidence could you possibly have to support your claim that a platypus has evolved into a spotted Leopard?
February 9, 2009 12:00 AM
It almost does not matter what facts you tell people. You can never tell anyone what they believe. But thats all it is. A belief. Most people who argue against evolution dont have a good knowledge on what they are arguing against. Tell me if you have ever heard any of these. The eye is too perfect to happen by chance. It had to be created. The Cambrian Explosion, The Big Bang Theory and the gap in the fossil record. The gap in the fossil record is being shortened. The big bang theory has a great explantion. They are borrowing the idea from something that is happening now. Super nova's. It is a fact and a theory. Fact is these things happen now and theory it was how the universe started. The Cambrian Explosion and eye also have well supported theories. I say educate your selves on the subject and then talk!
February 9, 2009 2:13 PM
"Made in his own image, then God must be a velociraptor..."
I was disappointed by the amount of religious dogma that was brought out through this discussion. It just goes to show, that a millennium ago, they would have burned these remarkable scientists as heretics & completely suppressed their findings. And once again, thrown humanity back to the dark ages - as only religion can.
Regardless of anyone's opinion, humanity is evolving. I myself - have an extra vertabre in by back. One more than anyone in my family, and not uncommon within the population.
February 9, 2009 7:48 PM
Great point Tactical Physist. The amount of dogma and point scoring that goes on here does shame to a scientific discussion.
In answer to your earlier question JerNYC, the fact that many in the scientific field cast serious doubt on macroevolution is not a new idea of biology.
For example, convergent evolution is yet another aspect challenging the random nature of forces as proposed by Gould et al. It still proposes elements of "classical" macroevolution, but shows, yet again, even within the macroevolution framework, that there is no agreement on the exact way it occured.
Given this, not to mention the many scientists I've listed above who are skeptical of the evidence for macroevolution, what is the most surprising of all among many of the posters here is inability of many to even admit the slightest possibility of dissent with the supposed orthodox position.
This does indeed smack of religious dogma. Clearly it is not a scientific approach. Indeed it reminds one exactly of the reaction when Galileo challenged the scientific dogma of the time which held that Aristotle was correct. The secular authorities and some churchmen would not even look into his telescope.
This is therefore clearly not a scientific view, but a worldview approach. As famously studied by Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", tensions arise when scientific evidence conflicts with the accepted scientific evidence within which most scientists in a given field are working.
Where we stand today therefore, we have in the field of biology especially an orthodoxy that holds macroevolution to be true.
Doubt are being cast on this by other biologists, those in the field of molecular evolution, and palaentologists to name those I've addressed above.
If we were to delve into the field of physics, especially cosmology, we would find not a murmur of dissent, but a vast chorus singing out the evidence against a natualistic view of the universe.
This is something not even the most ardent supporter of Darwinian macroevolution on this forum could not but acknowledge.
In the end though, the most compelling scientifiic evidence of all against any naturalistic theory of random chance is found in the field of mathematics.
Here a quote from Dawkins is quite revealing:
"You don't need to be a mathematician or a physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck."
Here the arguement for random chance seems to have moved on from the claim by Huxley in 1860 that apes typing randomly could eventually type out a Shakespeare poem, down to the smaller phrase chosen by Dawkins: "Methinks it is like a weasel" (from Hamlet).
The probablity of that is 1 in 10(40). To narrow the odds down of this Dawkins (remember he claims natural selection is blind, mindless and unguided and yet can produce biological information) he introduces 2 mechanisms to do so - to compare the key-strokes of the blind apes so as not to repeat a correct stroke. So much for unguided then!
Mathematician David Berlinski calls this "an achievement in self-deception".
It is therefore from the fields of statictics and probability that the evidence against Darwinian macroevolution becomes overwhelming - to those prepared to look at it.
To his credit, recently at least one life-long convinced naturalist was prepared to do so. After denying his whole life any evidence of design, the so-called "high prince of Atheism" Anthony Flew, reached a startling conclusion.
In a BBC interview he announced that so statistically improbable is the evidence for the origin of life and complexity of nature, that s superintelligence is the only good explanation.
Now, whether you believe that intelligence was a seeding by aliens that Dawkins famously recently admitted, or some other intelligence, clearly there is a lot of evidence in science pointing towards design.
To those with minds closed to scientific evidence this view will be attacked as heretical to established dogma. It is a shame on a scientific forum that this is so.
However, to those who are willing to follow where the science leads I wish you fair winds and good seas on your voyage.
Respectfully yours, ColinBaker
February 9, 2009 11:42 PM
"Here a quote from Dawkins is quite revealing: 'You don't need to be a mathematician or a physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck."
That is a nice quote mine. Certainly an eye (for example) relying on "sheer higgledy-piggledy luck" would take "here to infinity to self-assemble." That is where natural selection comes in.
"The probablity of that is 1 in 10(40). To narrow the odds down of this Dawkins (remember he claims natural selection is blind, mindless and unguided and yet can produce biological information) he introduces 2 mechanisms to do so - to compare the key-strokes of the blind apes so as not to repeat a correct stroke. So much for unguided then!"
Where are you getting this probability from? Also, statements like this and the last one I quoted seem to indicate that you have some misunderstandings about the concept of natural selection. I am not familiar with the keyboard analogy that you are talking about here but the idea that selection would prevent a "correct" blind keystroke from being retained seems wrong. If this is an analogy for natural selection then the analogy would make more sense if correct keystrokes are selected for.
"Now, whether you believe that intelligence was a seeding by aliens that Dawkins famously recently admitted, or some other intelligence, clearly there is a lot of evidence in science pointing towards design."
Dawkins does not believe that aliens seeded life on this planet. When Dawkins has discussed panspermia it has been within the context of the question, "how could Intelligent Design be true." In other words Dawkins explains that if ID were to be the case then it would have had to occur through an intelligent agency that had evolved on another planet. He does not believe that panspermia is the case, he is just presenting a scenario for how ID could possibly be correct.
Color me curious.. what scientific evidence is "pointing towards design"? How does one test for design?
February 10, 2009 10:37 AM
Physics, Cosmology, Palaentology are rife with scientists disputing macroevolution on the evidence they see. JerNYC and others may point to evidence for it, but scientists in these fields see evidence the other way too.
Why is it that not one person on the this board who supports Darwinian macroevolution, and supposedly values science, can not acknowledge the large numbers of scientists who hold contrary views?
Mathematics provides the final proof in statistics, as I've said. The 1 in 10(40) number is the possibility of 26 letters in the alphabet, plus a space, getting 27 right characters in the right order for the famous apes to type the phrase Dawkins chose. Thus 27x27x27 etc... or less than one in a trillion-trillion-trillion.
If we consider that the human genome is over 3 billion letters then we see the absolute impossibility of random chance of this occuring.
Dawkins cleverly introduces 2 self-correcting and checking mechanisms into the formula for the typing apes to reduce the A,C,G and T in the human code to a 1 in 80 attempt.
But this is not natural selection. How can it display evidence of intelligence in self-design when it is undirected and blind (to use Dawkins phrase)?
Thus, mathematics clearly show the impossibility of random chance mutations developing into even the simplest protein, never mind the human genome. Famous French mathematician Schutzenburger (in likening mutations as typographical errors) states that "evolution could not be an accumulation of such typographical errors".
He analyzed Dawkins and the famous typing apes and said that Dawkins model is out of touch with biological realities as, from a mathematical perspective, it "lays entirely to the side the triple problems of complexity, functionality and their interactions."
Evidence then as requested. Or is mathematics not acceptable as proof?
Respectfully yours, ColinBaker
February 11, 2009 12:35 AM
"Physics, Cosmology, Palaentology are rife with scientists disputing macroevolution on the evidence they see. JerNYC and others may point to evidence for it, but scientists in these fields see evidence the other way too.
Why is it that not one person on the this board who supports Darwinian macroevolution, and supposedly values science, can not acknowledge the large numbers of scientists who hold contrary views?"
Who? What are their views? I ask because creationists, cdesign proponentsist, and design proponents are notorious for quote mining and making it appear that certain scientists hold positions that they do not hold (as you have already demonstrated with Dawkins). Even if it were so that "large numbers" of scientists hold contrary views, then it is up to them to provide testable alternatives to be submitted for peer review. If they are correct, then the scientific enterprise will eventually vindicate them.
"Mathematics provides the final proof in statistics, as I've said. The 1 in 10(40) number is the possibility of 26 letters in the alphabet, plus a space, getting 27 right characters in the right order for the famous apes to type the phrase Dawkins chose. Thus 27x27x27 etc... or less than one in a trillion-trillion-trillion.
If we consider that the human genome is over 3 billion letters then we see the absolute impossibility of random chance of this occuring."
Once again, I would agree with you (as would Dawkins) that "getting 27 characters in the right order" through random chance would be highly improbable. Luckily, natural selection helps us (as Dawkins might say) "scale mount improbable." Correct keystrokes are selected for while incorrect keystrokes are discarded.
"Dawkins cleverly introduces 2 self-correcting and checking mechanisms into the formula for the typing apes to reduce the A,C,G and T in the human code to a 1 in 80 attempt.
But this is not natural selection. How can it display evidence of intelligence in self-design when it is undirected and blind (to use Dawkins phrase)?
Thus, mathematics clearly show the impossibility of random chance mutations developing into even the simplest protein, never mind the human genome."
Once again, random chance mutations alone will not produce a protein or a genome. This is a straw man. Random chance mutations comprise of one way to increase genetic diversity. Recombination and gene flow, for example, are other ways to increase genetic diversity. Natural selection acts on this genetic diversity.
February 11, 2009 8:26 AM
Drawk, in reply to your question when I posted:
"Why is it that not one person on the this board who supports Darwinian macroevolution, and supposedly values science, can not acknowledge the large numbers of scientists who hold contrary views?"
You aked: "Who? What are their views?"
Please look at all my previous posts further up this list. Biologists, palaentoligists, mathematicians of note are listed.
This indeed is just the tip of the iceberg. If we were to include the number of physists and cosmologists who question the evidence for naturalism, we would be posting name after name after name (and I do have them if you'd like to check their credentials and research).
If you are familiar with mathematical algorithisms and the information coded in DNA you'll be aware of the flaws in thinking natural selection can develop DNA mutations.
Yes, I too saw the PBS TV show last night and the Intelligent Design folks shot themselves in the foot by picking a school board with such flawed members in Dover. They made it easy for the judge to decide that way.
However (aside from the slanted actor depictions of the various characters) when they actually looked at the science involved they did a decent job, to a point. They stopped at the really critical point of showing how the plague device could have evolved into the bacterial flagellum, and they seemed to be making the claim that DNA supports macroevolution without showing any evidence of molecular evolution (the 24 to 23 example is not in this catagory).
What the ID people (and, boy, do I hate that term - why is it even needed? they should stick to a purely science based critique of Darwin without trying to develop a contrary theory. Views on macroevolution will develop eventually as the weight of scientists worldwide begins to tell, no need to jump to the end-game so soon!) should have done is to bring to the stand Anthony Flew.
Of course, he'd never have appeared, but it is exactly his credentials (as an avid opponent of design his whole life), his expertise (as a world-renowned statistician), and his conclusion as to where the evidence of science points (towards design) that they needed.
Respectfully yours, ColinBaker
February 11, 2009 11:50 PM
"Please look at all my previous posts further up this list. Biologists, palaentoligists, mathematicians of note are listed.
This indeed is just the tip of the iceberg. If we were to include the number of physists and cosmologists who question the evidence for naturalism, we would be posting name after name after name (and I do have them if you'd like to check their credentials and research)."
Fair enough. Let us take a peak at some of the scientists that you have mentioned in your previous posts:
"Colin Patterson, said: 'There is not one ancestral or transitional fossil for which one could make a watertight arguement".
This is not an argument against evolution, or macroevolution. Patterson is merely pointing out that it is difficult to be certain about a fossil's direct ancestral line. If Patterson were denying macroevolution then why would he write the following:
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
Patterson 1978. "Evolution"
"Stephen Jay Gould states that 'The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaentology".
I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that Gould is arguing against macroevolution with this. He is not. I'll let him defend himself here:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
-Gould 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York W.W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260
"Darwin of course raised this very issue in The Origin of the Species saying 'The number of intermediate varieties should be truly enormous. Geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
That seems to be quite a mangled quote. Here is what Darwin's Origin (Ch. 10 1st ed.) says:
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Your quote reads like a confession while the actual quote is a set-up to part of a broader discussion on the imperfection of the geological record.
Finally, I am aware of religious scientists like Francis Crick and his contributions to the field of biology. I am also aware of crackpots like David Berlinski who try to link "Darwinism" to the Holocast. Speaking of fellows of the Discovery Institute, I also see that you mentioned Paul Chien in one of your previous posts (who, by his own admission, has no credentials in the field of Paleontology). While I commend these two (Chien and Berlinski) for educating themselves I could care less about what they have to say about evolution. Their critiques do not advance our understanding of how the natural world works. If they (and the rest of the ID community) really want to prove that they are correct then create a testable hypothesis and compete in the academic arena.
February 10, 2009 12:59 AM
Mr. Baker, I've listed an example of “macro evolution” in an earlier post. I can literally list a hundred more. But let me guess… you will continue saying that there’s no such thing as macro evolution regardless of how much evidence there is to the contrary.
February 9, 2009 2:18 PM
To all: goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
I am leaving this forum for one that is better (IMHO) than this, in both structure and in the moderation (you are always told when it happens, and the guidelines are published and referenced in moderation)
www-evcforum-net (replace the - with .)
I invite all who have participated here to join us, especially the creationists, as it is one of the more civil boards I know of. I found this forum through a post on that forum, so I am returning the favor.
Enjoy.
February 11, 2009 2:06 AM
Curious, you said earlier “what is dangerous and dishonest is your description of what Creation Science is and what it is about. You should educate yourself about it before you speak out against it. You are clearly in the dark. But I don't blame you. It's been the goal of evolutionists to keep you there.”
You say that people here are “in the dark” and refuse to educate themselves about Creationist Science, but I don’t believe that’s entirely true. How can anyone educate themselves about the subject if it is inaccessible to them? I would really appreciate if someone explained it to me in a logical way. What is Creationist Science and how does it work? I’ve explained Darwinism here in a very logical way that’s accessible to everyone. The explanation was a few paragraphs long, I stated the hypothesis, and then I supported the argument with examples from nature. I’ve received feedback from evolution's critics who said that my explanation makes sense to them. Why can’t the opposing theories of Creation Science be explained this way as well? Why the double standard? Why the lack of transparency? Why give me the run-around and send me off to chase down other sources without even a basic explanation of how the theory works? All I got earlier was your opinion of what you think Creation Science is. There was no logical explanation of how it works – at least one that I could follow. You say it’s my fault for not being able to understand it? Am I not smart enough to get it?
You say that you’re not a scientist so you can’t give me even a basic explanation of your viewpoint. If you can’t explain it to anyone, then why are you posting here? Did you come here only to attack other people’s believes? What point of view are you arguing for? If you’re here to just mock other people’s views than I believe you are the one who is engaged in unethical, and as you said “dishonest” behavior.
February 11, 2009 10:53 AM
With all the time you spend here, reading these impossible threads, you could have already read the book, "What is Creation Science?" by Morris/Parker. It does a great job at explaining the scientific proceedures, studies and results. I have offered plenty of samples including why the fossil record, and the laws of decay support creation over evolution and I have offered an example of the two-model approach wich also includes a hypothesis. maybe uoi missed it? Not sure, but I do know that you seem unwilling to really understand. I am far to busy to keep banging my head on the wall here. Read the book, or don't.
February 11, 2009 2:44 PM
There are virtually thousands of books like this, each with their own opinions of how life began on earth. I’ve read quite a few of them. (Darwin’s Black Box, Discovery Institute publications) They mostly trash Darwin and evolution, but they provide absolutely no alternative mechanism for speciation. It’s just someone’s opinion. This is definitely not science. You’re saying that your book is different? You keep stating here your opinion of what Creation Science is, without any explanation of how it works, and you want people to just accept it. Why? Is this your form of logic? To me that’s not what science is. Science works by drawing logical connections between hypothesis and evidence. Your opinion of Creation Science is just that – an opinion. You state that, “Creation--maintains that the universe is not self-contained, but that it must have been created by processes which are *not* continuing as natural processes in the present.” Why does Creation assume this? Is this so absolutely obvious to everyone that it needs no logical explanation? Until you can explain how the process works, this statement is your opinion only. Someone else might come along and give me a totally different opinion. Someone else might say that “Creation maintains that the universe is in fact very much self-contained and anyone that disagrees is wrong.” How do I know which opinion is right? You gave me no logic to follow where I can trace your opinion back to your evidence. In other words you gave me no hypothesis. Then you go on to say “All things either can--or cannot--be explained in terms of a self-contained universe by ongoing natural processes. If they can, then evolution is true. If they cannot, then they must be explained, at least in part, by completed extra-natural processes in a universe which itself was created.” But as I keep saying, this statement is a logical fallacy. It’s an illogical statement. It makes no sense to people who use reason and think logically. You must not understand what logic is if you keep maintaining the same false assertion over and over. It’s like trying to prove that my car is green by saying… “Well, if my car isn’t red or blue, then it must be green.” It makes no sense.
February 11, 2009 3:14 PM
You also keep maintaining that you posted a hypothesis in this discussion, but that is definitely not true. You gave no hypothesis anywhere. As I keep explaining, your opinion about something is not a hypothesis.
February 11, 2009 5:39 PM
hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do
Date: circa 1656
1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
I have clearly stated what the creation model is about, its hypothesis. You are calling it my opinion, but it isn't mine, it is a stated model from within the creation Science community. The book goes on to show all the tests and studies done to support their hypothesis and to see if it bears out.
You can keep wasting time complaining about the book or you can obtain and read it. Whatever you do, it's your choice. The book does not spend anytime trying to explain how life began nor does it deal with the Bible. Look into it or not.
February 11, 2009 6:09 PM
Exactly. As the definition which you provided here states, a hypothesis is “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.” Like I said before, a hypothesis should allow anyone to logically trace your opinion (tentative assumption) back to your evidence (empirical consequences), just as the definition here indicates. Your explanation, which is opinion alone, does not do this. It is not a hypothesis.
More definitions of a hypothesis:
A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. A Hypothesis is … always a statement with an explanation following it. (wikipedia)
February 11, 2009 6:18 PM
It's just a simple sentence. "If the evidence indicates this, then it means this." But apparently I have to read an entire book to find this one sentence because you are not willing to share it with us here.
February 11, 2009 9:18 PM
The book is filled with example after example supporting the hypothesis I offered you. But in order for you to see it, you'll have to read it because I am not about to type out all this information. I gave you plenty of examples of how the evidence supports the creation model over evolution. I shared some examples of the fossil evidence and the law of decay...specifically the second law of thermodynamics and how evolution can never predict that, but creation does.
You can claim that I didn't offer a hypothesis all you want. I gave you not only the model description, but quite a few examples of hypothesis that predict exactly what we do find in the evidence..
If your interest isn't peeked, then forget about it. But don't sit around complaining about how you can't find any information explaining Creation Science, because now you can't use that excuse to cover your lack of understanding. The information is there if you are really interested, which I doubt that you are. You can keep on attacking the science blindly if you need to. It doesn't impress me, though.
February 11, 2009 9:49 PM
Right… You come into this forum and bash everyone for not understanding Creation Science. You boast about how superior it is to everyone else’s views and how dumb we all are for not understanding it. Then someone comes along and asks you to logically explain what it is and how it works, and you totally freeze up. You can’t even give me a single hypothesis for the theory? You can’t give me a single prediction that the theory makes? Why even believe in this theory if it can’t predict anything? You tell me that I have to read an entire book to understand it? What kind of theory makes you do that? Even the basic idea of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity can be explained in a single sentence. You’re saying that the theories of Creation Science are so much more complicated than general relativity that they can’t even be explained by any single hypothesis? It can only be explained by reading an entire book? What kind of theory is this? Sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me. That’s not science - it’s charlatanism. And if you don’t know what that means, here is the definition…
char·la·tan:
One making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability. (Merriam Webster)
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud; a swindler. (dictionary.com)
A person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretence or deception. (wikipedia)
February 11, 2009 9:59 PM
You also keep saying over and over that you offered a hypothesis but that's just not true. You offered no hypothesis, or even a logical explanation. And repeating it over and over will not make it true. I keep asking, give us a hypothesis. But I'm now convinced that you don't even know what a hypothesis is. Let me guess what your response will be.... read the book?
February 11, 2009 10:03 PM
You also keep saying that you don't have the time to type out the entire book. But why would you have to type out the entire book? All you have to do is type out a sinlge hypothesis - it's just one sentence.
February 12, 2009 11:17 PM
"You can keep on attacking the science blindly if you need to."
I was literally just asking questions. Do Creation scientists view too many questions as a form of attack? Is this the first time that Creation Science has been confronted by someone who thinks critically?…. the theory immediately falls apart?
February 12, 2009 10:38 AM
You are comically melodramatic. I have hardly bashed anyone nor have I called anyone dumb. I have also offered long explanations about what is Creation Science as well as a few hypothesis. The fact that you can't see that just proves that you are not really reading or comprehending anything that I have posted so far.
Creation--maintains that the universe is not self-contained, but that it must have been created by processes which are *not* continuing as natural processes in the present. The basis for the creation model is that at least some things must be attributed to completed supernatural processes in an open universe.
In the creation model we would expect to see a great array of complex funtioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose in creation. Different organisms would exibit