PDA

View Full Version : Creationism question.



SirTanTee
Aug 8th 2008, 08:40 PM
I've been doing some research on Evolution vs. Creationism and, because it seems a lot of people here are supporters of creationism, I thought you all might be a knowledgeable crowd on the subject.

I am trying to find information about current scientific creationist projects. I'm trying to find programs that are working to find affirmative evidence for creationism (as opposed to negative evidence against evolution, which is a very separate thing). Are there any research programs going on that I can take a look at? Archeological digs? Studies? Experiments? Fund grants for practical application research?

So far I've been disappointed. I've only been able to find theologically based programs (i.e. preaching sermons from the Bible); no lab work results or published papers. Does anyone know of any scientific projects along the lines I'm looking for?

Sold Out
Aug 8th 2008, 08:58 PM
I've been doing some research on Evolution vs. Creationism and, because it seems a lot of people here are supporters of creationism, I thought you all might be a knowledgeable crowd on the subject.

I am trying to find information about current scientific creationist projects. I'm trying to find programs that are working to find affirmative evidence for creationism (as opposed to negative evidence against evolution, which is a very separate thing). Are there any research programs going on that I can take a look at? Archeological digs? Studies? Experiments? Fund grants for practical application research?

So far I've been disappointed. I've only been able to find theologically based programs (i.e. preaching sermons from the Bible); no lab work results or published papers. Does anyone know of any scientific projects along the lines I'm looking for?


Here are some notable archaeological finds you can research:

Larsa-Weld Prism
Giglamesh Tablet
Adam and Eve Seal
Creation Tablet

SirTanTee
Aug 8th 2008, 09:30 PM
Here are some notable archaeological finds you can research:

Larsa-Weld Prism
Giglamesh Tablet
Adam and Eve Seal
Creation Tablet

Thanks. These made for some interesting historical research!

However, I am also searching for some more modern scientific research. In order to falsify evolution, I would think that creationists would have active research on subjects such as:

- Finding fossil records in rocks reliably dated to different times than expected. (For example, finding a dinosaur fossil dated to an unexpectedly modern time, or a modern animal fossil dated to much unexpectedly ancient time.)

- Gathering empirical evidence to support a "Young Earth" age of 6,000 to 10,000 years.

- Finding an animal that violates a proposed tenant of evolution. For example, finding an animal with homogenous bone structure to an animal that it does not share a recent common ancestor with.

- Brainstorming on how to apply creationism science to modern life in order to make scientific discoveries and enhance human life. A well-supported scientific theory can be utilized and applied in many ways! For example, principles of evolution are applied to research involving subjects live bacteria and cancer. How is creationism science being applied to make strides and help other fields?

However, I haven't been able to find anything of the sort. Most of the proposed evidence has to do with trying to debunk evolution, not trying to support creationism. So I am drawing a blank here.

Sold Out
Aug 8th 2008, 10:32 PM
Thanks. These made for some interesting historical research!

However, I am also searching for some more modern scientific research. In order to falsify evolution, I would think that creationists would have active research on subjects such as:

- Finding fossil records in rocks reliably dated to different times than expected. (For example, finding a dinosaur fossil dated to an unexpectedly modern time, or a modern animal fossil dated to much unexpectedly ancient time.)

- Gathering empirical evidence to support a "Young Earth" age of 6,000 to 10,000 years.

- Finding an animal that violates a proposed tenant of evolution. For example, finding an animal with homogenous bone structure to an animal that it does not share a recent common ancestor with.

- Brainstorming on how to apply creationism science to modern life in order to make scientific discoveries and enhance human life. A well-supported scientific theory can be utilized and applied in many ways! For example, principles of evolution are applied to research involving subjects live bacteria and cancer. How is creationism science being applied to make strides and help other fields?

However, I haven't been able to find anything of the sort. Most of the proposed evidence has to do with trying to debunk evolution, not trying to support creationism. So I am drawing a blank here.

Do you believe in a young earth (6000 yrs old)?

losthorizon
Aug 8th 2008, 11:49 PM
A well-supported scientific theory can be utilized and applied in many ways! For example, principles of evolution are applied to research involving subjects live bacteria and cancer.


Why don’t you define your concept of “principles of evolution” and we can compare it with the metaphysical Darwinian notion of *common ancestry*. Can you explain (scientifically) how the dead-end lung of a dinosaur can morph into the flow-through avian lung – what is the naturalistic mechanism and how exactly does it work? No fair claiming a long period of time (gazillions of years) and a little sprinkling of fairy dust here and there - we are looking for real scientific evidence.

Please don’t present the old worn out “evolution of the gaps” non-argument or the circular logic of the practitioners of evolutionism who amusingly “expound” on the notion that Darwinism is true because Darwinists say Darwinism is true. And don’t refer me to the many Darwinian websites that use the above “arguments” ad nauseam. Try to be original. Are you are Darwinist?

Mograce2U
Aug 9th 2008, 12:49 AM
God had some pretty good questions for Job you might want to review. Also have you seen this site:

http://www.icr.org/

RogerW
Aug 9th 2008, 03:09 AM
I've been doing some research on Evolution vs. Creationism and, because it seems a lot of people here are supporters of creationism, I thought you all might be a knowledgeable crowd on the subject.

I am trying to find information about current scientific creationist projects. I'm trying to find programs that are working to find affirmative evidence for creationism (as opposed to negative evidence against evolution, which is a very separate thing). Are there any research programs going on that I can take a look at? Archeological digs? Studies? Experiments? Fund grants for practical application research?

So far I've been disappointed. I've only been able to find theologically based programs (i.e. preaching sermons from the Bible); no lab work results or published papers. Does anyone know of any scientific projects along the lines I'm looking for?

You will find what you are looking for here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

SirTanTee
Aug 9th 2008, 05:34 AM
Thanks for the link, Mograce2U and RogerW. They have some interested works (including counter-arguments to articles that I have read) and so I will try to give them a thorough read as soon as possible.

To losthorizon: Okay, I am going to try to address all your points below. You have a lot of (rather angry sounding) questions and information in your post.


Why don’t you define your concept of “principles of evolution” and we can compare it with the metaphysical Darwinian notion of *common ancestry*.

Ookay. What I was basically referring to was the idea that standard deviations within any population produce a range of traits. Some of these traits are desirable, some don't generally matter too much, and others are useful for the members of these populations. Given time (and with the interference of natural events such as disasters, isolation of populations the bottleneck affect), natural selection will occur, making the useful traits of any given population more and more predominant, and eventually causing speciation and divergent evolution within different sectors of the given population. Please explain to me why you see the theory of evolution as metaphysical - the theory itself, by its very nature, does not address the issue of theism or abiogenisis (the beginning of life). It does not attempt to.

As I was saying in my earlier post, but I didn't elaborate on, studying evolutionary principles has helped scientists to advance many fields. They are apply knowledge currently to efforts like species conservation, solving molecular puzzles using bioinformatics and how this knowledge can be used to fight cancers and viruses more effectively using proteins like interferons, genetic engineering and germ line therapy.


Can you explain (scientifically) how the dead-end lung of a dinosaur can morph into the flow-through avian lung – what is the naturalistic mechanism and how exactly does it work? No fair claiming a long period of time (gazillions of years) and a little sprinkling of fairy dust here and there - we are looking for real scientific evidence.

I am going to preface this two warnings: this may get really long, because you asked, and also science is not my best subject (had to fight for that B in biology honors...) and so I'm just going to quote directly and hope I don't mangle anything. There is definitely controversy around the Dinosaur-to-Bird theory, but the current answer to your question is basically that the proposed ancestor of modern birds - theropods - did not have a dead-end lung. It had a flow-through lung that predated the evolution of birds. Here's some recent research on the issue of the respiratory system in modern birds versus dinosaurs:

"A recent paper in Nature (11), shows that theropod dinosaurs have vertebrae pneumatized in a way that is very similar to modern birds. The authors have investigated the well preserved fossil of a theropod dinosaur called Majungatholus atopus and have found that the vertebrae possess very close similaritiies in pneumaticity compared with an extant bird (the sarus crane).

http://www.evolutionpages.com/images/img1.gif

However, the similarity between the pneumatic features of theropod dinosaurs and modern birds was already known through a number of studies (12). So what does this new study indicate that we didn't know before? Detailed analysis of the individual vertebrae and ribs reveal a pattern of pneumaticity that is entirely consistent with the pattern in living birds - that is, the cervical air sac connect to vertebrae and ribs in the neck region of the spine, and in the thoracic vertebrae nearest the head; the abdominal air sac connects with the tail and sacrum vertebrae and the thoracic vertebrae nearest the tail; and the lung itself connects with the mid-thoracic vertebrae. This pattern is the same in all birds and is exactly what is found by detailed analysis of the vertebrae of M atopus. So it is not the discovery of pneumatised vertebrae in this fossil that is new, but the fact the pattern of pneumatisation is found to be the same as in living birds and consistent with a uni-directional flow-through breathing system. This situation is consistent for all known non-avian theropods, suggesting that it is a derived characteristic of the first theropods and spread throughout the entire clad of theropods including modern birds

Furthermore, O'Connor and Claessens point out that in order for either uni-directional or bi-directional flow-through ventilation to work, the tail end of the abdominal cavity has to change volume more than the head of the cavity. Indeed that is the arrangement in birds, and analysis of the skeleton of theropods shows that they possess the appropriate characteristics in the articulation of the ribs with the vertebrae to show that the tail end of the trunk can change volume mure than the head end, just as in birds. Indeed air sacs and associated features at the tail end of the abdominal cavity are known to have developed in chameleons, snakes and certain types of lizard and this indicates that the tail end of the lung in the entire sauropsid (a group that includes birds and most reptiles and dinosaurs) is able to develop air sacs and invade the tail end of the skeleton.

So, this recent study has shown that non-avian theropod dinosaurs had the necessary anatomy for flow-through ventilation similar to extant birds and, that in the evolution of the flow-through system, the tail end air sacs likely developed before those at the head end of the trunk."

There are definitely problems with the theory, as with any theory. For example - the difference in development between theropod and bird ankle bone morphology. However, there is enough really good evidence to give it serious consideration. In addition to the similarity in the respiratory system between modern birds and theropods, there are around 20 more fascinating anatomical congruencies as well as some transitional fossils. I will post them if you are interested, but this has taken up so much space already that I don't want to elongate it further with a list! I have to read up more on the subject; I actually knew nothing about it until you brought it up. @_@


Please don’t present the old worn out “evolution of the gaps” non-argument or the circular logic of the practitioners of evolutionism who amusingly “expound” on the notion that Darwinism is true because Darwinists say Darwinism is true. And don’t refer me to the many Darwinian websites that use the above “arguments” ad nauseam. Try to be original.

I'll try to be original, polite, present logical sound arguments and relevant scientific queries. I started this thread because I want scientifically based (not theologically based) creationist research. Feel free to inform me if you feel that I am in any way being close-minded, illogical, tin-eared, or if I have anything stuck in my teeth.


Are you are Darwinist?

Err...I don't usually define myself as such. I'm an average person who bases their beliefs on the merit of the arguments and evidence presented to me. I believe in gravity and relativity, but I don't really refer to myself as a Newtonian or Einsteinist. But if your question means "do you currently believe in the scientific argument laid out in the theory of evolution," then yes, I do.

theothersock
Aug 9th 2008, 08:17 AM
Hehe.

Oh this one is CLEVER.

Who here really believes that our friend is genuinely seeking a Creationist project?

This is one of the better subtle attempts to discredit Creationism that I have seen in a long time.

The funniest bit was regarding the practical applications of evolutionary science and asking how we can use creationist science in practical applications,

That one REALLY showed your hand.

Not being sarcastic at all though, I really do commend your cleverness and it really did give me a chuckle.

Servant89
Aug 9th 2008, 12:52 PM
<<The funniest bit was regarding the practical applications of evolutionary science and asking how we can use creationist science in practical applications. That one REALLY showed your hand.>>

Yeap, it looks like that. Because asking how can we convince the Creator to show his stuff in a laboratory (to do another miracle) is tempting God.

Rom 1:19-20 states, they have no excuse, just looking at nature is evidence enough to believe in a Creator.

DNA is the information needed to create your body, but it is not just your body, it is your body as it changes with time, so it describes your body design as it ages (thousands of designs). How many books are needed to describe that (if it were up to man to do it), including every organ, every hair that turned gray or turned lose and when in time to implement that change, how many books are needed to describe the human design? Because God did it on a one inch long string called DNA.

And how many letters are there in DNA? Pile up 1900 Bibles (longer than a basketball court) and count the number of letters (not words, letters) in those 1900 Bibles and you will have an idea of how many letters are in one molecule of DNA. Then figure out the probability of typing all that by chance in just 17 billion years. Let me give you a hint. Figure out the probability of throwing 52 pennies in the air every second and have all the coins landing with "tail-end up" in one of those throws. The universe is not old enough to get a 50% chance of that happening with 52 pennies, not in 17 billion years. And DNA has 6 billion letters. Evolutionists believe by chance those 19 Bibles can type themselves up without a Creator, in just 3 billion years. Their IQ drops below room temperature (because of their attitude) as Jesus previously stated in John 8:43. The fools say, there is no God.

There is no excuse.

Shalom

losthorizon
Aug 9th 2008, 01:24 PM
To losthorizon: Okay, I am going to try to address all your points below. You have a lot of (rather angry sounding) questions and information in your post.


Not angry my friend just prodding you to cut to the chase and leave out unnecessary preamble with your “investigative” motif – ie - get real and lay aside the fluff as you can see it makes you appear disingenuous.


Ookay. What I was basically referring to was the idea that standard deviations within any population produce a range of traits. Some of these traits are desirable, some don't generally matter too much, and others are useful for the members of these populations. Given time (and with the interference of natural events such as disasters, isolation of populations the bottleneck affect), natural selection will occur, making the useful traits of any given population more and more predominant, and eventually causing speciation and divergent evolution within different sectors of the given population.
What you appear to be describing is biological evolution – ie - small-scale changes within species and no one on this thread rejects this as science. Your vague and undefined statement - “divergent evolution” will need to be defined and maybe you can give a verifiable example for review.


Please explain to me why you see the theory of evolution as metaphysical - the theory itself, by its very nature, does not address the issue of theism or abiogenisis (the beginning of life). It does not attempt to.
Let me point out from the get-go – I make the clear distinction between biological evolution (science) and Darwinism (metaphysics) – the former is based on scientific method the latter is based on metaphysical concepts mixed with science all passed of as science.

Please allow me to correct your false notion – the Darwinian “creation mythology” does include what you refer to as “abiogenesis” – the non-scientific notion that life originated from non-life all by its lonesome. Please review the words of our Darwinist friend below (James Trefil) – it is self-explanatory. Please also note this scientific truism – the naturalistic processes of evolution cannot account for the origin of the *biological information* needed to account for the diversity of life found on this planet - thus Darwinian lore is just that - metaphysical speculation and not science. Can you account for this biological information through a strictly naturalistic mechanism as required by Darwinian theory?
Evolution of life on earth proceeded in two stages: chemical and biological. Life on earth must have developed from inorganic materials- what else was there for it to come from? The first stage in the development of life, therefore, was the production of a reproducing cell from materials at hand on the early earth. This process is called chemical evolution.... Once a living, reproducing system was present, the process of natural selection took over to produce the wide variety of life that exists today. James Trefil's, 1000 Things Everyone Should Know About Science Is this amusing statment a statment of science or a statement of philosophy based on a godless worldview? This is the crux of our disagreement, btw.


As I was saying in my earlier post, but I didn't elaborate on, studying evolutionary principles has helped scientists to advance many fields. They are apply knowledge currently to efforts like species conservation, solving molecular puzzles using bioinformatics and how this knowledge can be used to fight cancers and viruses more effectively using proteins like interferons, genetic engineering and germ line therapy.
And again I remind you that I understand and agree that evolutionary biology is science and have no problem with your statement above. But please keep in mind that the notion of common ancestry resulting from abiogenesis has nothing to do with the science of evolution but is in fact a naturalistic philosophical worldview that does not include a Creator-God and man is simply the result of a chance process that did not have him in mind.



I am going to preface this two warnings: this may get really long, because you asked, and also science is not my best subject (had to fight for that B in biology honors...) and so I'm just going to quote directly and hope I don't mangle anything. There is definitely controversy around the Dinosaur-to-Bird theory, but the current answer to your question is basically that the proposed ancestor of modern birds - theropods - did not have a dead-end lung. It had a flow-through lung that predated the evolution of birds. Here's some recent research on the issue of the respiratory system in modern birds versus dinosaurs:
I am going to give you an "A" for effort here my friend – not many Darwinists will take the time to do the research you have done - you are to be commended. And I will also agree that you are not a scientist and you may not realize the complexities of the avian lung and how it differs so completely from any other lung in the animal kingdom. I think Michael Denton (Molecular biologist) gives a good overview as to the near-impossible Darwinian notion that the avian lung morphed from that of a theropod (it can't be done no matter how much "time" Darwin's god is allowed).
Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner. ~ Michael Denton I would also direct you to the evolutionist and avian expert, Alan Feduccia (University of North Carolina) who sums up the notion of dino-to-bird evolution as having never happened. We can see that evolutionists are not only unable to explain scientifically how a dinosaur can morph into a bird but many do not even think dinos are the “common ancestor” of birds. Darwinism is rampant with such speculations (metaphysical assumptions).
"The theropod origin of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century." ~ Alan Feduccia (New Scientist)

I'll try to be original, polite, present logical sound arguments and relevant scientific queries. I started this thread because I want scientifically based (not theologically based) creationist research. Feel free to inform me if you feel that I am in any way being close-minded, illogical, tin-eared, or if I have anything stuck in my teeth.
And I appreciate your presentation and all I am asking is that your defense of Darwinism be based on science and not philosophy.


Err...I don't usually define myself as such. I'm an average person who bases their beliefs on the merit of the arguments and evidence presented to me. I believe in gravity and relativity, but I don't really refer to myself as a Newtonian or Einsteinist. But if your question means "do you currently believe in the scientific argument laid out in the theory of evolution," then yes, I do.
(Trick questions for you). Do you agree or disagree that Darwinism is heavily rooted in metaphysical naturalism that intentionally tries to eliminate a Creator-God? Are you a *creationist* – ie – do you believe God “created in the beginning”? Is the abiogenesis embraced and taught by evolutionism science or philosophy? How does your version of Darwinism differ from the Darwinism of the “fundamentalist artiest”, Richard Dawkins? Please be specific.

crawfish
Aug 9th 2008, 04:16 PM
Good luck, Sir Tan Tee. I've looked long and hard for the same type of thing for a long time, but all Creationists seem to be able to do is point to the holes and yell "See! it's impossible!"

How much of what we know today was declared impossible at some point in history? Once the prevailing thought was that human flight was impossible. Faster than sound travel? Impossible. Science cannot possible move forward if it steers away from the impossible. Otherwise, all it becomes is glorified butterfly collecting.

Here is a challenge for creationists: endogenous retroviruses. These viruses are the molecular remnants of past viral infections, that have actually "written" themselves to a random location in the DNA strand. Once written, the DNA of all that host's descendants will carry the same mark. If evolution is true, then as you move down the line, you'd expect that the retroviruses would be shared by every species that eventually evolved from that host. You would also expect that a retrovirus mark would NOT be shared by any living being outside that host's ancestry. Here is an interesting thing: humans and chimps uniquely share 16; identical marks in identical locations. That is entirely expected in evolutionary theory. Note that the random chance that one mark would be shared is essentially 1 in 3,000,000,000. The chance that sixteen marks would be randomly shared? 1 in a number so large that, according to ID, it is essentially zero chance.

Obviously, God could have placed these in our DNA. But why? Why in a way that would match so well with chimp DNA? Add this consideration as well: since retroviruses are the remains from viral infections, could they have been pre-created into A&E in the YEC view of a "perfect creation"? I don't think so! So, all of those great odds have been achieved over a period of far less than 6,000 years (since ancient human DNA that has been tested shows the same evidence).

At the VERY LEAST, this evidence implies that common descent theory has a very strong basis for further study. Either God used common descent, or God created in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from what common descent would imply. The holes will work themselves out; they will be filled, or the theory falsified.

SirTanTee
Aug 9th 2008, 04:31 PM
@ Crawfish: Thanks for chiming in. I have seen your posts and always thought you presented your arguments very well. I suspect the creationist answer to your question about endogenous retroviruses may be that God just felt like doing it that way.


Hehe.

Oh this one is CLEVER.

Who here really believes that our friend is genuinely seeking a Creationist project?

This is one of the better subtle attempts to discredit Creationism that I have seen in a long time.

The funniest bit was regarding the practical applications of evolutionary science and asking how we can use creationist science in practical applications,

That one REALLY showed your hand.

Not being sarcastic at all though, I really do commend your cleverness and it really did give me a chuckle.


Not angry my friend just prodding you to cut to the chase and leave out unnecessary preamble with your ?investigative? motif ? ie - get real and lay aside the fluff as you can see it makes you appear disingenuous.

ARGH. I am not actually on some sort of secret, trickster crusade to try to discredit creationism. I am trying to find more evidence for creationism - that's why I started the thread. Many of the material that I found before on my own was totally unimpressive (like Kent Hovind's ridiculous sermons) and so I wanted open input. *sigh* I did not even start this whole discussion of bird lungs and metaphysics, I would like to point out. And the practical application of evolutionary science is a fact. The reason evolution is becoming well-accepted, taught and more heavily studying is because it successfully funds and supports itself.



DNA is the information needed to create your body, but it is not just your body, it is your body as it changes with time, so it describes your body design as it ages (thousands of designs). How many books are needed to describe that (if it were up to man to do it), including every organ, every hair that turned gray or turned lose and when in time to implement that change, how many books are needed to describe the human design? Because God did it on a one inch long string called DNA. And how many letters are there in DNA? Pile up 1900 Bibles (longer than a basketball court) and count the number of letters (not words, letters) in those 1900 Bibles and you will have an idea of how many letters are in one molecule of DNA. Then figure out the probability of typing all that by chance in just 17 billion years. Let me give you a hint. Figure out the probability of throwing 52 pennies in the air every second and have all the coins landing with "tail-end up" in one of those throws. The universe is not old enough to get a 50% chance of that happening with 52 pennies, not in 17 billion years. And DNA has 6 billion letters. Evolutionists believe by chance those 19 Bibles can type themselves up without a Creator, in just 3 billion years. Their IQ drops below room temperature (because of their attitude) as Jesus previously stated in John 8:43. The fools say, there is no God.

There is no excuse.

For the record, I DO believe in God. I DO believe that God created life. I DO believe that God still works in the present day. And I DO believe in evolution. I am not an atheist, which seems to be your impression.
As for your main point - there are two things I would like to respond with.
A) To record the information recorded within our own DNA, we would actually only need a 2 gigabyte chip. That looks like this:

http://www.thepocketsolution.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/micro2g.main.jpg

B) It is pointless to calculate the probability of DNA arising by "chance," because the universe is not governed by chance, but by chemistry. If I'm standing on a cliff and I drop a ball, by chance it is infinitely improbable that it will fall downwards in the same direction more than one time. But the direction of the ball is not governed by chance, it is governed by gravity. In the same way, the formation of any structure into a certain state (and there are an infinite amount of states, so any state is just as infinitely improbable as any other) is controlled by the extremely strong electromagnetic force. In fact, in fields like molecular dynamics, the law of gravity is not even included in theoretical research and calculations because it is so weak next to the electromagnetic force (10^39 times weaker) that is is irrelevant in determining molecular dynamics. This is the law that governs DNA - not chance.


Let me point out from the get-go ? I make the clear distinction between biological evolution (science) and Darwinism (metaphysics) ? the former is based on scientific method the latter is based on metaphysical concepts mixed with science all passed of as science.

Please allow me to correct your false notion ? the Darwinian ?creation mythology? does include what you refer to as ?abiogenesis? ? the non-scientific notion that life originated from non-life all by its lonesome. Please review the words of our Darwinist friend below (James Trefil) ? it is self-explanatory. Please also note this scientific truism ? the naturalistic processes of evolution cannot account for the origin of the *biological information* needed to account for the diversity of life found on this planet - thus Darwinian lore is just that - metaphysical speculation and not science. Can you account for this biological information through a strictly naturalistic mechanism as required by Darwinian theory?
Evolution of life on earth proceeded in two stages: chemical and biological. Life on earth must have developed from inorganic materials- what else was there for it to come from? The first stage in the development of life, therefore, was the production of a reproducing cell from materials at hand on the early earth. This process is called chemical evolution.... Once a living, reproducing system was present, the process of natural selection took over to produce the wide variety of life that exists today. James Trefil's, 1000 Things Everyone Should Know About Science Is this amusing statment a statment of science or a statement of philosophy based on a godless worldview? This is the crux of our disagreement, btw.

And again I remind you that I understand and agree that evolutionary biology is science and have no problem with your statement above. But please keep in mind that the notion of common ancestry resulting from abiogenesis has nothing to do with the science of evolution but is in fact a naturalistic philosophical worldview that does not include a Creator-God and man is simply the result of a chance process that did not have him in mind.

No, not really. The studies of abiogenesis and evolution do NOT attempt to explain why life evolved in a philosophical sense or to twist history in a desperate attempt to hie God under a rug. Within these two fields there are athiests, agnostics, Christians and people of all faiths. What the fields do attempt to do is look at the empirical evidence, discover patterns, and create a technical explanation to explain the evidence. "God did it" may be a philosophical explanation but it is not a scientific one, therefore scientists do not use it in their works, even if they personally believe it. God and science are not mutually exclusive; science cannot explain God, therefore it does not try to, but it can explain things about God's creations.


I am going to give you an "A" for effort here my friend ? not many Darwinists will take the time to do the research you have done - you are to be commended. And I will also agree that you are not a scientist and you may not realize the complexities of the avian lung and how it differs so completely from any other lung in the animal kingdom. I think Michael Denton (Molecular biologist) gives a good overview as to the near-impossible Darwinian notion that the avian lung morphed from that of a theropod (it can't be done no matter how much "time" Darwin's god is allowed).
Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner. ~ Michael Denton I would also direct you to the evolutionist and avian expert, Alan Feduccia (University of North Carolina) who sums up the notion of dino-to-bird evolution as having never happened. We can see that evolutionists are not only unable to explain scientifically how a dinosaur can morph into a bird but many do not even think dinos are the ?common ancestor? of birds. Darwinism is rampant with such speculations (metaphysical assumptions).
"The theropod origin of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century." ~ Alan Feduccia (New Scientist)

But the point is that recent research on fossils such as Majungatholus atopus shows that it does not differ so completely. The best (very recent) work on the subject I have found is the full paper of Patrick O'Connor, which is available here: http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-oconnor/Research/PDFs/OConnor&Claessens_2005_FLV.pdf. This sort of paper is what I am looking for from the creationist side! A piece of research with heavy citations and references which as been subjected to public peer review.

I have some quick questions about your quotes: Is the Michael Denton quote from his book Theory in Crisis? Just wondering - because not only did that book fail to meet standards of peer review, but it was written more than twenty years ago, so....Also, Alan Feduccia does not support the dinosaurs-to-bird theory, he supports an alternate evolutionary theory in which birds evolved from a more arboreal ancestor. Do you support this theory, or are you just using his quote?


(Trick questions for you). Do you agree or disagree that Darwinism is heavily rooted in metaphysical naturalism that intentionally tries to eliminate a Creator-God? Are you a *creationist* ? ie ? do you believe God ?created in the beginning?? Is the abiogenesis embraced and taught by evolutionism science or philosophy? How does your version of Darwinism differ from the Darwinism of the ?fundamentalist artiest?, Richard Dawkins? Please be specific.

Oh no...tricks! *scratches chin* I disagree that the evolutionary theory is rooted in metaphysical naturalism that intentionally tries to eliminate a Creator-God. I believe that God created in the beginning. He even says it himself: "The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul." Hmmm...abiogenesis?

How is my "version" different from Richard Dawkins? Well, I believe that God, in his power, guided the development of this world however he saw fit. He did so through the process of evolution. God has created a universe that is infinitely complex, yet it is governed by very consistent rules. It would make sense for him to develop his greatest creation within the very rules he has set for himself instead of - as you put it early - "fairy dust." I believe that Genesis is a true metaphor. It is written as a metaphor so that it is easily accessible and understandable to every man, no matter what his time period or scientific knowledge. Can you imagine if it had read things like, "God make heaven and earth, and gravitational forces, and the local solar system, and dark matter, black holes, asteroid belts, three different of stars as well as planet atmospheres. And God created every living creature that moves, mainly through the processes of allopatric, sympatric, peripatric and parapatric natural selection." No one would have understood any of it! In fact, it would probably cause them to dismiss the whole thing because it sounded ridiculous. God gave us basic understanding, but his world has an abundance of evidence in it that helps up to better understand his great works.

losthorizon
Aug 9th 2008, 07:13 PM
Good luck, Sir Tan Tee. I've looked long and hard for the same type of thing for a long time, but all Creationists seem to be able to do is point to the holes and yell "See! it's impossible!"


What is being asked of you and what you have failed to date to do is provide verifiable evidences that “the impossible” has in fact happened. As has been mentioned to you many times – extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary evidences of the scientific type. If we are to push TE as viable for Christians today shouldn’t we provide science to back it up? You simply hash out the same old circular atheistic rhetoric based on the naturalistic philosophy of Dawkins et al. At least Tan Tee provides good science to evaluate. That’s all that has ever been asked of you.


Here is a challenge for creationists: endogenous retroviruses. These viruses are the molecular remnants of past viral infections, that have actually "written" themselves to a random location in the DNA strand.
LOL - can’t the creationist come back to you and say ERVs can just as easily be used to support common design as common ancestry and you are once again left at square one? Any good scientist will simply blow you out of the water with your simplistic argument found on your favorite Darwinist website and the viability of TE once again suffers. As a critique – you do not provide enough science to support your TE position.

crawfish
Aug 9th 2008, 07:49 PM
What is being asked of you and what you have failed to date to do is provide verifiable evidences that “the impossible” has in fact happened. As has been mentioned to you many times – extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary evidences of the scientific type. If we are to push TE as viable for Christians today shouldn’t we provide science to back it up? You simply hash out the same old circular atheistic rhetoric based on the naturalistic philosophy of Dawkins et al. At least Tan Tee provides good science to evaluate. That’s all that has ever been asked of you.


What I see above is that you dismissed the argument by Sir Tan Tee by quoting two people who hold an opposing viewpoint. That is hardly science. It's not even good logic. You'd do better to explain why his thesis might be wrong, rather than assuming it must be wrong because two experts disagree with it.

You also don't mention that one of your sources (Feduccia) offers an alternate solution to the common descent problem that places birds at a different point in time and place in the tree. The problem with this argument is that common descent theory does NOT depend on reptile-to-avian evolution; it is simply a possibility being explored within the overall theory framework.



LOL - can’t the creationist come back to you and say ERVs can just as easily be used to support common design as common ancestry and you are once again left at square one? Any good scientist will simply blow you out of the water with your simplistic argument found on your favorite Darwinist website and the viability of TE once again suffers. As a critique – you do not provide enough science to support your TE position.Sure they can - but the terms they use to support their side are "perhaps", "possibly", "may have" and "God could have simply made things that way". Check out articles in AIG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp) if you don't believe me (ICR doesn't have any articles on the subject). You're talking about rejecting the side that has the actual evidence - we've seen what causes ERV's - and accepting the side with untested possibilities simply because it fits your viewpoint.

I would think that any good scientist could blow either of us out of the water, even by taking the opposite side they believe in, because neither one of us is a scientist or has a deep understanding of this stuff. I tend to trust the opinions best of those who are willing to publish their results, methods and test data, and put themselves out there for solid peer review, and who pass that rigorous test. Those who aren't willing to do that are less credible in my book.

Brother Mark
Aug 9th 2008, 07:55 PM
I am moving this to apologetics. Keep it nice guys. Let's not get personal.

crawfish
Aug 9th 2008, 07:59 PM
And how many letters are there in DNA? Pile up 1900 Bibles (longer than a basketball court) and count the number of letters (not words, letters) in those 1900 Bibles and you will have an idea of how many letters are in one molecule of DNA. Then figure out the probability of typing all that by chance in just 17 billion years. Let me give you a hint. Figure out the probability of throwing 52 pennies in the air every second and have all the coins landing with "tail-end up" in one of those throws. The universe is not old enough to get a 50% chance of that happening with 52 pennies, not in 17 billion years. And DNA has 6 billion letters. Evolutionists believe by chance those 19 Bibles can type themselves up without a Creator, in just 3 billion years. Their IQ drops below room temperature (because of their attitude) as Jesus previously stated in John 8:43. The fools say, there is no God.

There is no excuse.

Shalom

Here is where your logic fails.

Imagine that you roll a dice, once per second, for 80 years. That makes 1,261,440,000 separate rolls. Let's also say that during this exact same time span, one billion other people did the same thing. All the results are recorded for each individual and concatenated together. You are left with one incredibly long sequence.

Now, tell me...what is the chance that one particular sequence will occur? Pretty astronomical, it approaches zero. Does this mean that, no matter what sequence is found, it cannot be true because it's impossible? No! You are guaranteed to generate one of the possibilities. That is one in one odds.

Also understand that on this particular forum we are ALL Christians and all believe in a personal God and creator. Please don't imply that just because we think God could have used evolution as a mechanism for creation that we don't believe in God.

losthorizon
Aug 9th 2008, 08:11 PM
What I see above is that you dismissed the argument by Sir Tan Tee by quoting two people who hold an opposing viewpoint. That is hardly science. It's not even good logic.


But aren’t you (the pot) calling the kettle black? You simply “take the word” of anyone who can get a peer reviewed paper published who agrees with your position as though the peerr review process proves everything they publish to be fact – it doesn’t of course – not even close. What gets published and what does not get published has as much to do with political correctness as it does with science – sad but true.


You also don't mention that one of your sources (Feduccia) offers an alternate solution to the common descent problem that places birds at a different point in time and place in the tree. The problem with this argument is that common descent theory does NOT depend on reptile-to-avian evolution; it is simply a possibility being explored within the overall theory framework.
I told you up-front that Feduccia was an evolutionist therefore it goes without saying he accepts common ancestry – it does not need to be reiterated. The point made was Darwinists cannot agree amongst themselves which tree who and what came from – why because common ancestry is philosophical speculation based on a little science.


Sure they can - but the terms are "perhaps", "possibly", "may have" and "God could have simply made things that way".
Then we are in agreement – ERVs to not “prove” common ancestry any more than they prove common design - therefore your *ERV challenge* is a moot challenge.

Brother Mark
Aug 9th 2008, 08:11 PM
Now, tell me...what is the chance that one particular sequence will occur? Pretty astronomical, it approaches zero. Does this mean that, no matter what sequence is found, it cannot be true because it's impossible? No! You are guaranteed to generate one of the possibilities. That is one in one odds.

In fairness, with chance, nothing is ever guaranteed. I can roll a die for eternity and never be guaranteed to roll a 6. But each time I roll it, I have a 1 in 6 chance of a 6 popping up. Chances are, I will eventually roll a 6 but it's not guaranteed.

crawfish
Aug 9th 2008, 08:36 PM
In fairness, with chance, nothing is ever guaranteed. I can roll a die for eternity and never be guaranteed to roll a 6. But each time I roll it, I have a 1 in 6 chance of a 6 popping up. Chances are, I will eventually roll a 6 but it's not guaranteed.

You misunderstand. If you roll the dice six times, you are guaranteed to have a result of some sequence of six numbers.

Let me put it this way: the odds that I roll this dice in front of me and get a 3 is 1 in 6. The odds that I just rolled a 3 on this dice is 1 in 1. :)

Brother Mark
Aug 9th 2008, 08:41 PM
You misunderstand. If you roll the dice six times, you are guaranteed to have a result of some sequence of six numbers.

I agree with that.


Let me put it this way: the odds that I roll this dice in front of me and get a 3 is 1 in 6. The odds that I just rolled a 3 on this dice is 1 in 1. :)

There are no odds on what has happened, only on what might happen. The evidence is against chance, but that doesn't keep men from believing it was chance. Some go further and declare there is a law of life like there is a law of gravity in order to remove chance.

crawfish
Aug 9th 2008, 08:43 PM
I told you up-front that Feduccia was an evolutionist therefore it goes without saying he accepts common ancestry – it does not need to be reiterated. The point made was Darwinists cannot agree amongst themselves which tree who and what came from – why because common ancestry is philosophical speculation based on a little science.


Heck, Christians don't agree with themselves about bible interpretation. Does that make the bible bunk? Does that make every theological argument moot?

You're letting facts get in the way of things to much. Science isn't about fact. It's about discovering things we don't know yet. Science is NOT glorified butterfly collecting, it is a process by which we attempt to unlock the secrets of the universe. And that process HAS worked thusfar considering how much more we know since the scientific method was introduced.

crawfish
Aug 9th 2008, 08:46 PM
There are no odds on what has happened, only on what might happen. The evidence is against chance, but that doesn't keep men from believing it was chance. Some go further and declare there is a law of life like there is a law of gravity in order to remove chance.

But that is exactly what some of ID is...figuring odds on what has happened to claim that because those odds are so great, it couldn't have happened by chance.

That really doesn't imply anything about evolution, anyway, since it is not random. Each step affects and limits the steps that can follow.

Brother Mark
Aug 9th 2008, 08:47 PM
You're letting facts get in the way of things to much. Science isn't about fact. It's about discovering things we don't know yet. Science is NOT glorified butterfly collecting, it is a process by which we attempt to unlock the secrets of the universe. And that process HAS worked thusfar considering how much more we know since the scientific method was introduced.

But isn't this where many disagreements enter in? For instance, science does present itself as fact even though it's not. It is based in philosophy to a large degree when it comes to creation. There was a time when science was more defined as what could be measured. It seems we've moved past that definition though many won't agree.

crawfish
Aug 9th 2008, 09:19 PM
But isn't this where many disagreements enter in? For instance, science does present itself as fact even though it's not. It is based in philosophy to a large degree when it comes to creation. There was a time when science was more defined as what could be measured. It seems we've moved past that definition though many won't agree.

The problem is that some have decided the measuring sticks must be wrong because they conflict with their faith.

If we depended on that narrow view of science we'd never have flown, or gone to the moon. Creationists want to challenge the very fundamentals of the things that have caused our progress over the last many hundred years; at least they want to disallow them for anything that interferes with their sense of what "must be true".

Brother Mark
Aug 9th 2008, 09:21 PM
The problem is that some have decided the measuring sticks must be wrong because they conflict with their faith.

Some may have. But others have rightly, IMO, pointed out that much of evolutionary science has moved beyond science and into the metaphysical. Instead of saying "we can't measure that and know" they come up with theories that cannot be measured or tested and call it science.

losthorizon
Aug 9th 2008, 09:47 PM
"God did it" may be a philosophical explanation but it is not a scientific one, therefore scientists do not use it in their works, even if they personally believe it. God and science are not mutually exclusive; science cannot explain God, therefore it does not try to, but it can explain things about God's creations.


But is the statement “evolution did it” any more “scientific? Philosophy is philosophy whether that philosophical worldview is theistically based or atheistically based.


But the point is that recent research on fossils such as Majungatholus atopus shows that it does not differ so completely.
Are you saying a theropod’s bellows-type lung evolved into the avian lung needed for flight – is this supported by science? What documented steps of lung evolution do you offer that can account for this miracle of nature? As pointed out the respiratory system is vital to life – how did the intermediary creatures between the theropod and the bird exist with this morphing lung and where and what were the intermediary species? Can they be identified in the fossil record or must we rely on speculation?


I have some quick questions about your quotes: Is the Michael Denton quote from his book Theory in Crisis? Just wondering - because not only did that book fail to meet standards of peer review, but it was written more than twenty years ago, so....
The Denton quote is from his work, Nature's Destiny. Are you implying Denton has never published peer reviewed papers? Is there some reason we should not consider him a reputable scientist?


Also, Alan Feduccia does not support the dinosaurs-to-bird theory, he supports an alternate evolutionary theory in which birds evolved from a more arboreal ancestor. Do you support this theory, or are you just using his quote?
As an evolutionist Feduccia believes in common ancestry – a point that goes without saying. Of the theories presented I would have to vote against Feduccia but the conclusions of all the theories are unsupported by science and one man’s speculation is as good as an others with what is known in the scientific record.


I disagree that the evolutionary theory is rooted in metaphysical naturalism that intentionally tries to eliminate a Creator-God.

I will let Michael Ruse address the metaphysical elements of Darwinism – he is the expert. But to deny that evolutionary theory is rooted in metaphysical naturalism is to deny reality.
But the simple fact of the matter is that, use language as you like or not, the fact remains that for many evolutionists – some Darwinian and some not – evolution does function as a secular religion. The creationists are right about this. The right move is to recognize this fact and to move forward, not to deny it. ...we see that evolutionism has its priests and devotees. Entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University tells us that the "evolutionary epic is mythology," depending on laws that are "believed but can never be definitively proved," taking us "backward through time to the beginning of the universe." Wilson knows that any good religion must have its moral dimension, and so he urges us to promote biodiversity, to amend our original sin of despoiling the earth. There is an apocalyptic ring to Wilson's writings, and in true dispensationalist style, he warns that there is but a short time before all collapses into an ecological Armageddon. Repent! The time is near!...

If creationism has no place in the classroom, then neither does a secular religion based on evolution. We who care passionately about science should know when to keep the science and religion separate and remember always when it is appropriate to teach the one and not the other. ~ Micheal Ruse, former professor of zoology, agnostic, former Christian and "scholar of all things Darwinian"

SirTanTee
Aug 10th 2008, 12:10 AM
In fairness, with chance, nothing is ever guaranteed. I can roll a die for eternity and never be guaranteed to roll a 6. But each time I roll it, I have a 1 in 6 chance of a 6 popping up. Chances are, I will eventually roll a 6 but it's not guaranteed.

Again, I just want to point out that the universe is not just governed by chance! Just want to reiterate that again. Speculation about probabilities when it comes to rolling dies or monkeys typing on typewriters or the chances of winning the lottery are pointless because the universe does not work like that.


But aren’t you (the pot) calling the kettle black? You simply “take the word” of anyone who can get a peer reviewed paper published who agrees with your position as though the peerr review process proves everything they publish to be fact – it doesn’t of course – not even close. What gets published and what does not get published has as much to do with political correctness as it does with science – sad but true.

Publishing is not some sort of hideous gateway guarded by brutal watchdogs. There are thousands of magazines, newspaper and flyers which are available to publish in. If your research is important and well-founded, it will get the attention it deserves, no matter what it is published in. The reason we "take the word" of people who submit their work for peer review is that by doing so, they are basically putting their reputations, careers and funding grants on the line. The scientific community is not full of loving, fluffy bunnies. A scientist had better be very, very certain of his work before he submits it, no matter what the work details, because if it is wrong he will get ripped apart. You are not guaranteed that any article published in a reputable scientific magazine like Nature will be right, but you are basically guaranteed that a huge amount of time and solid research has gone into it. You are basically guaranteed that it will have a list of reputable citations. You are basically guaranteed that if it is bunk, it will be exposed by the efforts of other, skeptical scientists. The same reliability and quality cannot be found in many other sources.


But is the statement “evolution did it” any more “scientific? Philosophy is philosophy whether that philosophical worldview is theistically based or atheistically based.

The statement "evolution did it" is certainly more scientific if there is more empirical evidence to support the statement. Which there is! Therefore, it is the most scientific theory available to us at this time. Again, I came in here looking for positive evidence for creationism that stands on its own without trying to reference the alleged flaws in evolution. That's all I want. Many creationists repeatedly say that evolution is a historical theory, therefore unprovable. However, if evolution is true, then not only should the empirical, historical evidence support the theory (which the great majority does), but we should be able to study it in modern day. And that's what scientists are doing. For example, one emerging situation with evolutionary potential is that of the timema christinae, which is found in the Santa Ynez mountains of California. The species is currently in the very early process of speciation. The population has split into two distinct groups due to reproductive isolation, and they have each developed two distinct appearances. This early change has causing the two groups to begin mating only within their own type. As this mating selectivity has continued, their DNA sequences have become more and more divergent. And this species has only been studied since 2001 - only six or seven years for changes to occur! There are other cases of this. The Italian wall lizard was introduced to a small, isolated island off the coast of Croatia, and in three decades the original population (10 lizards) has grown to 5,000 and developed a new internal organ structure, larger heads and a stronger bite than their recent ancestors. Scientists are now studying the genetic basis for the drastic changes of this species.


ERVs do not “prove” common ancestry any more than they prove common design - therefore your *ERV challenge* is a moot challenge.

Okay, so what do they prove? Nothing? The frustrating thing for those of us that believe in evolution is that while evolution is always trying to scientifically analyze and explain all new information, there is a certain point where creationists are forced to stop. I would argue that the fact that humans share a ERV pattern with other primates which is passed down hereditarily, is a highly improbable pattern to share, and which happens to be shared by no other groups of animals, implies that humans and other primates are hereditarily linked. But creationism has to stop a whole step back because the explanation is just that God did it, and we can't understand why God does things. So we should just accept that that's the way it is; he just felt like making humans and chimps share a completely unique pattern of hereditary DNA material for no particular reason. And I would disagree with that - I think that God is a being of logic. He does things for reasons.


Are you saying a theropod’s bellows-type lung evolved into the avian lung needed for flight – is this supported by science? What documented steps of lung evolution do you offer that can account for this miracle of nature? As pointed out the respiratory system is vital to life – how did the intermediary creatures between the theropod and the bird exist with this morphing lung and where and what were the intermediary species? Can they be identified in the fossil record or must we rely on speculation?

I think you're missing the point that the majungatholus atopus's lungs were not a bellows-type lung but a flow-through lung. Therefore, it would not be a miracle of nature for it to evolve into an avian lung, it would really be a very similar system already in place. Morphing would still be needed, but not any so drastic as that which you are implying. The fact that you personally cannot imagine a way for evolution to occur does not mean that there isn't a way.

For example: The first obvious step in this process, the development of a bidirectional flow-through system with air sacs positioned beyond the lung in the tail end of the trunk is strongly supported by the study of the respiratory system of the majungatholus atopus. Some may ask: How could any creature breathe while the in-between stages were evolving, while air was not yet flowing through but no longer going in and out? The answer to this is obvious: it breathes by air flowing through the lung bidirectionally - in other words it flows through and goes in and out. Even in modern birds, there is a mixture of unidirectional flow through the so-called palaeopulmonic bronchi and bidirectional flow through the so-called neopulmonic bronchi.

In addition, the issue of the respiratory system is only a small fragment in terms of the overall evidence for great similarities between certain dinosaurs and modern avians. I would be interested on your take on some of the strongest links for the theory, as so far you have only brought up what is perceived to be the weakest. You might be interested in a very recent study - April 2008 - which compared molecular proteins between dinosaurs, birds and over twenty other living animals. Modern birds were found to be the closest in makeup to dinosaurs, just as mastodons - "wooly mammoths" - were found to be the closest in makeup to modern elephants. Or in 2007, when the Mahakala omnogovae was uncovered, and appears to be a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. This is what it looks like:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/070906-dinosaurs-birds_big.jpg

There have been lots of other exciting discoveries in recent times with great potential for evolutionary science. For example, the discovery of a fossil that has a frog-salamander hybrid appearance, a snake with two small leg appendages, and a transitional crocodile fossil which has a mix of the characteristics present in ancient and modern crocodiles. New studies have revealed systems of primitive morality within primate families which are similar to our own sophisticated system of right and wrong. A "land fish" has been discovered whose anatomy includes gills, a tail fin and a body designed for water, but a head designed for land and four primitive flipper-feet with multiple digits that mimic land creatures. Interesting stuff. Many of the "gaps" that creationists cite in their skepticism are rapidly shrinking as new discoveries enhance the field.


The Denton quote is from his work, Nature's Destiny. Are you implying Denton has never published peer reviewed papers? Is there some reason we should not consider him a reputable scientist?

No, I wasn't implying that. I was just concerned that a book written over twenty years ago might be slightly out of date. I'm sure Denton has published peer review work; the question is what sort of response he got. And the response for his first book was not good. Many scientists concluded that he had some interesting ideas and points, but some of his arguments badly misconstrued information and were therefore quite off the mark.


I will let Michael Ruse address the metaphysical elements of Darwinism – he is the expert. But to deny that evolutionary theory is rooted in metaphysical naturalism is to deny reality.
But the simple fact of the matter is that, use language as you like or not, the fact remains that for many evolutionists – some Darwinian and some not – evolution does function as a secular religion. The creationists are right about this. The right move is to recognize this fact and to move forward, not to deny it. ...we see that evolutionism has its priests and devotees. Entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University tells us that the "evolutionary epic is mythology," depending on laws that are "believed but can never be definitively proved," taking us "backward through time to the beginning of the universe." Wilson knows that any good religion must have its moral dimension, and so he urges us to promote biodiversity, to amend our original sin of despoiling the earth. There is an apocalyptic ring to Wilson's writings, and in true dispensationalist style, he warns that there is but a short time before all collapses into an ecological Armageddon. Repent! The time is near!...

If creationism has no place in the classroom, then neither does a secular religion based on evolution. We who care passionately about science should know when to keep the science and religion separate and remember always when it is appropriate to teach the one and not the other. ~ Micheal Ruse, former professor of zoology, agnostic, former Christian and "scholar of all things Darwinian"

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, as it comes down to a matter of opinion. I understand that some people may choose to adopt it as their personal "world view" stance, but many people see it as a non-religious issue seeing as it does not require or dis-require a belief in the supernatural.

losthorizon
Aug 10th 2008, 05:15 PM
The statement "evolution did it" is certainly more scientific if there is more empirical evidence to support the statement.


But what about the entire Darwinian “evolutionary epic” that is only mythology dressed up like science - where is the empirical evidence? There is none. Do we embrace it as science as many do or do we call it what it is non-science? What do you call it?


Okay, so what do they prove? Nothing? The frustrating thing for those of us that believe in evolution is that while evolution is always trying to scientifically analyze and explain all new information, there is a certain point where creationists are forced to stop.
Aren’t you just erecting that same old straw man that Darwinist hacks use all the time - ie – we (Darwinists) accept evolution/science but you Christians reject evolution/science? Christians accept biological evolution as science but we reject Darwinistic mythology presented as science because it is not science. I am here to defend science - I am opposed to bad science and philosophy packaged and sold under the name of science (evolutionism) regardless of its origin and I would think you and I would be on the same page but it appears you have a weakness for the naturalistic philosophy that many call science.


I think you're missing the point that the majungatholus atopus's lungs were not a bellows-type lung but a flow-through lung. Therefore, it would not be a miracle of nature for it to evolve into an avian lung, it would really be a very similar system already in place. Morphing would still be needed, but not any so drastic as that which you are implying. The fact that you personally cannot imagine a way for evolution to occur does not mean that there isn't a way.
From the evidence presented it is “assumed” that this theropod species “may” have had a combination of a bellows-lung with rudimentary air sacs within its vertebrae. These results were not conclusive and if they are correct it would hardly be proof that dinos morphed into birds. The evidence is just as supportive for *common design* as it is common ancestry. Where are the required intermediary species in the fossil record between majungatholus atopus and birds – there should be many thousands of examples over the millions of years required? And what naturalistic mechanism can accomplish this miracle of nature – what naturalistic source created the massive infusion of *information* needed for such a complex metamorphosis? Theses are question you need to address with evidence.


Many scientists concluded that he had some interesting ideas and points, but some of his arguments badly misconstrued information and were therefore quite off the mark.
Give me specifics – what “off the mark” ideas did he promote? Did the fossil record predicted by Darwin materialize or was he way off the mark? Did he anticipate the Cambrian explosion?
"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." ~ Stephen Gould, The Panda’s Thumb


I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, as it comes down to a matter of opinion. I understand that some people may choose to adopt it as their personal "world view" stance, but many people see it as a non-religious issue seeing as it does not require or dis-require a belief in the supernatural.
We can and will agree to disagree but that does not change the reality that Darwinism is a religious program complete with its priests, devotees and creation mythology. You need to think a bit more about what is and is not science and Darwinism is not science.

SirTanTee
Aug 10th 2008, 07:42 PM
This is split into two separate posts because it exceeds the word limit. (Consider that a length-warning.) http://www.mazeguy.net/surprised/dizzy.gif


But what about the entire Darwinian “evolutionary epic” that is only mythology dressed up like science - where is the empirical evidence? There is none. Do we embrace it as science as many do or do we call it what it is non-science? What do you call it?

The "evolutionary epic" is not mythology because there is evidence to support it. How do you explain the piles and piles and piles of evidence that support it? Are they happy coincidences? I know some Christians claim that Satan planted dinosaur bones in false places to try to trick humans, but I have to say I think that's pretty loony. Science is defined as: the effort to discover more about the mechanisms of the physical world through the discovery, analysis and testing of empirical evidence. That's basically...evolution.


Aren’t you just erecting that same old straw man that Darwinist hacks use all the time - ie – we (Darwinists) accept evolution/science but you Christians reject evolution/science? Christians accept biological evolution as science but we reject Darwinistic mythology presented as science because it is not science. I am here to defend science - I am opposed to bad science and philosophy packaged and sold under the name of science (evolutionism) regardless of its origin and I would think you and I would be on the same page but it appears you have a weakness for the naturalistic philosophy that many call science.

Hoh-boy. I guess is evolution doesn't count as a science, creationism sure won't ever get there - that will disappoint a lot of people. So how is it that you "accept biological evolution" but "deny Darwinism?" Are you referring to accepting microevolution, but denying macroevolution? If so, that doesn't really work. Macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutions, therefore is microevolution is possible, then so is macro.


From the evidence presented it is “assumed” that this theropod species “may” have had a combination of a bellows-lung with rudimentary air sacs within its vertebrae. These results were not conclusive and if they are correct it would hardly be proof that dinos morphed into birds. The evidence is just as supportive for *common design* as it is common ancestry. Where are the required intermediary species in the fossil record between majungatholus atopus and birds – there should be many thousands of examples over the millions of years required? And what naturalistic mechanism can accomplish this miracle of nature – what naturalistic source created the massive infusion of *information* needed for such a complex metamorphosis? Theses are question you need to address with evidence.

Evidence? I'll try to find something. Disclaimer: I hope I don't mess any of this up. Ay ay ay.

Fossil Record:
Here are some transitional fossils you could look into. They're fairly complex, so I'll just summarize the main "discovery" that went along with each of them.
Archeopteryx - The most famous, of course. It is seen as a transitional fossil because it possessed feathers and the ability of flight (unlike most other dinosaurs) yet was not a modern avian because it shares certain distinct anatomical traits with theropods.
Eoconfuciusornis - A transitional link between Archeopteryx and the next group, which are the "Chinese" fossils. Discovered three months ago.
Caudipteryx, Protarcheopteryx and Sinosauropteryx - Bird-like theropod dinosaurs with primitive feathers and avian features.
Saurischian Dinosaurs - Are among the groups who share the important clavicles and furculas with birds.
Deinonychus - Shares many anatomical features with birds, yet would still qualify as a dinosaur, not an avian.
Confuciusornis, Enantiornithes, Ichthyornithiformes - Groups of avians which display far more primitive, dinosaur-like features than modern avians.

Here is a rough sketch of how these fossils would fit together:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/images/l_034_01_l.jpg

Shared Anatomical Features:
1. Pubis (one of the three bones making up the vertebrate pelvis) shifted from an anterior to a more posterior orientation (see Saurischia), and bearing a small distal "boot".
2. Elongated arms and forelimbs and clawed manus (hands).
3. Large orbits (eye openings in the skull).
4. Flexible wrist with a semi-lunate carpal (wrist bone).
5. Hollow, thin-walled bones.
6. 3-fingered opposable grasping manus (hand), 4-toed pes (foot); but supported by 3 main toes.
7. Reduced, posteriorly stiffened tail.
8. Elongated metatarsals (bones of the feet between the ankle and toes).
9. S-shaped curved neck.
10. Erect, digitgrade (ankle held well off the ground) stance with feet postitioned directly below the body.
11. Similar eggshell microstructure.
12. Teeth with a constriction between the root and the crown.
13. Functional basis for wing power stroke present in arms and pectoral girdle (during motion, the arms were swung down and forward, then up and backwards, describing a "figure-eight" when viewed laterally).
14. Expanded pneumatic sinuses in the skull.
15. Five or more vertebrae incorporated into the sacrum (hip).
16. Straplike scapula (shoulder blade).
17. Clavicles (collarbone) fused to form a furcula (wishbone).
18. Hingelike ankle joint, with movement mostly restricted to the fore-aft plane.
19. Secondary bony palate (nostrils open posteriorly in throat).
20. Feathers... this awaits more study. Small, feathered dinosaurs were recently found in China. It appears that many coelurosaurs were cloaked in an external fibrous covering that could be called "protofeathers."
21. (Possibly) a flow-through lung. Research underway.

Molecular Structure/Phylogenic Analysis:

1) ScienceDaily (Aug. 10) — A researcher at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington and a Japanese colleague have found similarities in bone structure suggesting that birds did, in fact, evolve from a group of dinosaurs.

The research will be published in the Aug. 10 issue of the journal Nature.
The study shows that in a group of dinosaurs called coelurosaurs, the organization of bone canaliculi - submicron-sized channels that connect bone cells and blood vessels within the bone - form in a randomly branching network. The canaliculi take circuitous, meandering routes as they make connections between the bone cells and nutrient sources. That same pattern today is found only among birds. However, in a group of dinosaurs called ornithischians, which includes horned creatures such as Triceratops, the canalicular organization follows a much more regular pattern with very direct and parallel routes, a structure similar to that in modern mammals.
The work also sheds light on another controversy - whether dinosaurs had high metabolic rates like modern birds. The researchers found evidence that bundles of collagen fibers - which bind bone minerals together in much the same way that rebar binds concrete - have an irregular structure in both birds and coelurosaurs. The layers are thicker in some places and much thinner in others, and often they disappear completely before reforming. In modern vertebrates, this type of structure only occurs in bone that forms very rapidly, as it does in birds. In mammals, such bone formation happens only at young ages or in healing bone breaks, times when bone growth rates are highest. Otherwise, among vertebrates other than birds, collagen bundles show a much more uniform pattern, with little thickness variation from one part of a layer to another because the layers are growing more slowly.
"Right now, the thing that is closest to what we see in the bones of birds is in the bones of coelurosaurs," said John Rensberger, a UW geological sciences professor and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Burke museum.
Rensberger and Mahito Watabe of the Hayashibara Museum of Natural Sciences in Okayama, Japan, made their comparisons using fossilized dinosaur bones collected from the Gobi Desert in China and from the Hell Creek geological formation in Montana. The researchers sampled about 550 cross sections of bone, ground to a few microns thick and viewed through a microscope. Most of the cross sections were prepared by 35 students in a series of undergraduate research courses, who took 10 or more samples from each major bone collected from each species. The students, selected from among the top students in a course on dinosaurs that Rensberger teaches, spent some 3,000 hours on the work over three years. The sheer volume of samples allowed the researchers to understand the variability among species, making it easier to draw conclusions from comparisons between species, Rensberger said. That was particularly important in making the observations of the differences in canaliculi and fiber bundles, since the information describing those structures in most vertebrates, and especially dinosaurs, has been limited.
Observations of some of the differences in modern species were recorded in a scientific paper published in German in 1906 and another published in Italian in 1947. But the references were very general, Rensberger said, because the scientists didn't have the breadth of data about variability in those bone structures. "It doesn't necessarily prove that birds had to derive from dinosaurs," Rensberger said of the new research. "But, at least from the data we've seen, that appears to be a logical conclusion."

2) T. Rex Protein “Confirms” Bird-Dinosaur Link
April 25th, 2008 · 1 Comment

A new study of ancient proteins retrieved from a Tyranosaurus rex fossil confirms the long-hypothesized evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and modern birds, experts say. The finding is the first molecular evidence that birds, not lizards or other reptiles, are the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, the researchers note. A close relationship between the two groups was already widely suspected, based on similarities in skeletal features. The new research follows a breakthrough study last year in which scientists reported the recovery and partial molecular sequencing of T. rex and mastodon proteins. Both dinosaur studies examined samples of collagen, the main protein component of bone. In addition to cementing the dino-bird connection, the new study provides the first molecular evidence that mastodons and elephants are also closely related.

“This shows that if we can sequence even tiny pieces of fossil protein, we can establish evolutionary relationships,” said co-author John Asara of Harvard Medical School, who also led the previous T. rex study. Chris Organ of Harvard University is the lead author of the new report, which appears in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Science. The T. rex proteins were extracted from soft tissues preserved inside 68-million-year-old fossil remains first described in 2005. The mastodon remains were much younger, dating to between 160,000 and 600,000 years ago. Using a variety of techniques, the researchers compared the T. rex and mastodon protein sequences with those of 21 living animals, including ostriches, chickens, and alligators. Such comparisons are commonly used by biologists to construct evolutionary “family trees,” since similar protein structure is a sign of shared genetic makeup.

Until very recently, however, protein sequences have not been available for ancient organisms such as dinosaurs, since most fossils do not yield proteins or DNA. The family trees of dinosaurs and other ancient vertebrates are instead known largely by comparing many fine details of skeletal anatomy. If molecular data become more widely available for dinosaurs, Asara noted, researchers will be able to fill in gaps and overcome possible errors in existing classification based on physical features. To illustrate his point, he noted that the shared ancestry of two present-day groups—elephants and shrew-like tenrecs—is known solely from DNA and protein comparisons.

“Nobody could make that connection based on bones,” he noted. “The amazing part of this study is that we could establish the dinosaur-bird connection using only 89 total amino acids [the building blocks of proteins],” Asara said.

With only a small amount of sequence data, he continued, “we can take an unidentified or fragmented fossil bone and not only identify the species but also help place it in evolution.” It remains to be seen whether even small sequences can be extracted from ancient fossils with any regularity, experts say. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University is a co-author of the new study and made the initial discovery of the T. rex soft tissue remains. She has argued that such remains may be relatively common in well-preserved fossils but are often overlooked. The new finding that the proteins are most similar to those of birds, Asara said, helps rule out the possibility of contamination from other sources such as mammals.



Now. I think it's your turn to provide scientific explanations and evidence, as it seems the burden only being given to the evolutionists - namely me and Crawfish. I can think of many issues that I would like an explanation for on how they fit in with the intelligent design theory. For a start:

1) From a creationist standpoint, can you please address with evidence why chickens have the genes required for making teeth, whales have the genes required to make legs, and humans have the genes required to make tails, fully functioning complete with vertebrate and under-skeletal muscular control? If everything was created in its current form (and the genes have not been carried over from a more primitive ancestor), why would any of these genes be necessary or present? I will provide a quote, since you like them: "Nothing in biology makes any sense, except in light of evolution."

2) From a creationist standpoint, can you please address with evidence why we can easily date the age of the Earth to more than 10,000 years just by looking at living and fossilized trees? As you may know, in their interiors, trees grow a ring for each year. By counting these rings and matching with between multiple specimens, it seems that some of the trees still around today today pre-dated the creation of the Universe. Huh.

3) From a creationist standpoint, can you please address with evidence on some of the mechanics of how animals survived on and after the journey on the Ark, if you believe that this was an actual event? There are many problems which are never addressed. For example, how did symbiotic animals and parasites survive after the Flood? How did Noah choose "male and female" pairs of animals who were either hermaphroditic, parthenogenic, asexual or reproduce through mass social colonizing? How did such wildly different degrees of genetic diversity arise within animals? If all species originally came from a single mating pair, their level of diversity would be comparable between different groups, yet it is drastically varied.

SirTanTee
Aug 10th 2008, 07:43 PM
Continued from previous post on the bottom of the last page. Go read the other one first, I guess.


Give me specifics – what “off the mark” ideas did he promote?

Here are some specifics on "off the mark" ideas. I can find many, but I'll try to pick a few of the more concise ones.

1)"Now to the fossil record. Similar to the creationists, Denton proposes that there are not enough transitional forms in the fossil record, and that what transitional forms do exist are rather dubious in nature because they do not show soft organ changes (since organs aren't fossilized) and are not intermediate in every single characteristic. Thus, Archaeopteryx lithographica, perhaps the most famous transitional form of all time, is inadequate because its wings and feathers were fully formed. Never mind that Archaeopteryx sported more reptilian skeletal characteristics than it did avian ones, and ignore the fact that its skeletal characteristics very closely match a class of wingless reptiles called therodonts that existed around the same time and in the same geographical location. It is apparent, then, that Denton's standards for labeling a fossil a "transitional form" are unreasonably restrictive.

Denton's denial of the fish-to-amphibian transition as demonstrated by Eusthenopteron (a late Devonian fish) and Icthyostega (a late Devonian amphibian) is a striking example of the excessive demands he makes on transitional forms. He echoes creationist Duane Gish's criticism that Icthyostega has well developed limbs for terrestrial movement, while Eusthenopteron has mere fins. In the first place, it is unreasonable to expect a transitional form to be transitional in every single skeletal characteristic it exhibits. Secondly, the correlation between the skull and vertebral characteristics of the two creatures is impossible to account for in a framework of typology:

The crossopterygian fish Eusthenopteron is linked to the early amphibian Icthyostega by a number of characteristics: (1) same pattern of skull bones as Icthyostega, (2) internal nostrils (found only in land animals and sarcopterygians - a taxonomic group encompassing lungfish and crossopterygians), (3) teeth like amphibians', (4) a two-part cranium (icthyostegids are the only other vertebrates that have this characteristic), and (5) same vertebral structure. (derived from McGowan, 1984, 152-153)"

2) "At the molecular level, Denton discredits himself by quoting Emile Zuckerkandl to show that "it is now generally conceded by protein chemists that most functional proteins would be difficult to reach or interconvert through a series of successive individual amino acid mutations"(Denton, 1985, p. 320). Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton. By Zuckerkandl's analysis, most advanced functional proteins cannot interconvert directly, and cannot be reached by some saltational mechanisms, but that they certainly can each be reached through gradual evolution from a common ancestor."

3) "However, what Denton pointed out was that if the percentage difference in cytochrome C structure was measured from one organism to other organisms, the changes could be highly uniform. For example, the difference between the cytochrome C of a carp and a frog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse is a very constant 13% to 14%. Similarly, the difference between the cytochrome C of a bacterium and yeast, wheat, moth, tuna, pigeon, and horse ranges from 64% to 69%.
Denton suggested this undermined the notion that fish were ancestral to frogs, which were ancestral to reptiles, which were ancestral to birds and mammals. If they were, then wouldn't the difference in cytochrome C structures be increasingly different from carp to frog, to reptile, to mammal? How could the differences in cytochrome C structure instead be "equidistant" from each other? The fallacy in Denton's argument was that there is really no such thing as a "living fossil", all modern species are cousins. A carp is not an ancestor to a frog; frogs are not ancestors to turtles; turtles are not ancestors to rabbits. The variations in cytochrome c structure were all relative to the common ancestor of these different organisms and it was not surprising that they showed a similar level of divergence.
Denton did understand this reply, but claimed that it was implausible to assume that such a molecular clock could keep such constant time over different lineages. Those familiar with molecular clocks did not agree, since calibration with fossil records shows the cytochrome c clock to be surprisingly reliable, and also found his suggestion that molecular equidistance was instead evidence of some sort of evolutionary "direction" to be a more implausible assumption than the one to which he was objecting. Critics found it difficult to accept a "directed" mechanism for changes in cytochrome C that were neutral, producing different proteins whose action was the same."

4) "Michael Denton attempts to convince his readers that something is wrong with evolutionary biology. This he does primarily by attempting to resurrect one of the positions that evolutionary biology rendered untenable in the first place, namely the typological interpretation of biological classification systems (or taxonomy). A typologist would have us believe that organisms exist in nature as members of discrete classes, in the sense that everything clearly falls under one head or another. Hence each and every group can be rigidly defined, and there can be no overlap or intermediates between them. If this be so, then it would appear that either the groups in question have not evolved, or that if they have evolved, they have done so by large and discontinuous steps -- by "saltation." Because the current version of evolutionary theory rejects genuine saltations, there would seem to be something problematic about it.

Contemporary philosophy of taxonomy has a ready answer to Denton's argument. The groups, or taxa as they are called, are not classes in Denton's sense at all. They are lineages, or branches of genealogical trees. Therefore we should not expect to "define" them at all, in the sense that an organism simply must have a given property to occupy some position on a tree. The mischief comes from efforts to translate the branching diagram into a hierarchical arrangements of groups within groups.

Denton claims that organisms always possess the diagnostic features that purportedly "define" each group. If he understands why this is so, he does not tell his readers. Of course, if you go out in the wild, and find an animal with hair, you can be reasonably sure that it is a mammal -- though perhaps you might have trouble, say, with the "hair" on a tarantula. Why should this be? For the simple reason that whenever taxonomists find a group, they go through a great deal of material, looking for characters that happen to be present in all specimens of the group. These they treat as diagnostic -- which means that they are useful in identification, like the symptoms in a doctor's diagnosis of an illness. If they later find a specimen that belongs to the group, but does not have the diagnostic feature, they decide that the feature is not diagnostic after all, and perhaps look for other ones. The whole argument is circular, as Darwin clearly explained in 1859."

Conclusion: Michael Denton might not be the greatest source to cite.


Did the fossil record predicted by Darwin materialize or was he way off the mark? Did he anticipate the Cambrian explosion?
"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." ~ Stephen Gould, The Panda’s Thumb

Actually, the fossil record causes creationists much more grief than evolutions. For example: if creationism is true, then the fossil record should show a consistent pattern of fully created organisms from every period, with no signs of evolution or change over time. Primitive mollusks should be walking hand in hand with dinosaurs and humans. According to the evolutionary theory, the fossil record should show a progression that starts within simple organisms at the deepest levels, with increasingly complex and diverse organisms being found as you look in more and more recent fossil layers. There should be complete temporal stratification and a very logical, predictable progression. If a single fossil were found out of place - for example, a canine fossil thrown in with trilobites from the Cambrian era - then evolution would be disproved. Period. Has such as discovery been made? No. Creationists demand that evolutionists produce thousands of fossils to support all the possible gaps in their theory, yet the intelligent design movement has not been able to produce the one or two fossils it would need to smash the evolutionary theory into the ground, despite having $27 million to dollars to spare on making the Creation Museum. The fossil record resoundingly supports temporal stratification and the evolutionary theory.

As for the Cambrian explosion: it is a common misconception and a "concern" that reached its peak...in the 1980's. Recent research has shown that the "explosion" was actually not much of a change; the presence of Precambrian organisms emerged gradually and did not burst into the Cambrian era. In addition, the organism's evolutionary radiation occurred much more slowly than originally thought, and there are currently many theories being researched as to what sort of natural events could have stimulated the process, such as increases in oxygen levels, an End-Ediacaran mass extinction or an arm's race between primitive predators and prey.

Also, I'm kind of confused on the quotes you keep choosing. The Panda's Thumb was written more than 25 years ago. You do realize that Stephen Gould is a full supporter of the evolutionary theory, who has campaigned enthusiastically for years against creationism? He was even called as a witness in court to argue against teaching creationism in schools. The reason his book is called "The Panda's Thumb" is because he argues that some animals are so poorly designed that it makes more sense for them to have evolved than to have been designed because, if so, God made some serious errors. http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/smilies/uhoh.gif Here's more quotes from him:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

"Creationist critics often charge that evolution cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense...They have this absurd notion that something that occurs in the past and that is not subject to direct observation is not provable. That's nonsense....There is some mystery as to how evolution occurs, but there is not a whole lot of doubt as to whether it occurs.”

"Man, I gave you a brain. Use it, okay?"

Just thought that was kind of an odd choice to try to support your argument.


We can and will agree to disagree but that does not change the reality that Darwinism is a religious program complete with its priests, devotees and creation mythology. You need to think a bit more about what is and is not science and Darwinism is not science.

And I hope you will look at some research that's more recent than the 1980's in order to make sure your viewpoint is updated with the modern, tangible, overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Alaska
Aug 10th 2008, 07:53 PM
SirTanTee's uncertainty's concerning how valid or scientific the evolution model is, should not be that hard to demonstrate to him.
He has claimed that the theory has benefitted science in some ways.
He should elaborate. Also guys, remember that clarifying the definition of evolution often squashes the claims as what they call evolution as a beneficial thing. What they claim as beneficial is often only microevolution, which is not evolution at all, but variation within a kind that the scriptures support.

The creationists claim that there is no benefit to real science as a result of the theory. And how can there be since it is a lie?
Allow SirTanTee to demonstrate how the theory has benefitted science.
The benefit , I suspect, is rather for those choosing to not believe that they have a maker. They are "benefitted" by being given an excuse to not acknowledge the existence of God, that the scriptures say only a fool would want to do.

As far as evidence to support the creationist model, this can be done by a process of eliminating the evidences used to contradict the creationist model.
If new information by way of mutations is the only source of new information in the gradual greater development of a creature, then actual experimentation should be able to be conducted to see if there is any uphill beneficial new information added to the DNA by mutations.
After many fruitflies have been nuked by microwaves etc. and many mutations have been observed, no new information has been added to the fruitflies' library.
But the route of excuses for this failure will be the same for the failure of the fossil record to show transition: "we know it is out there, we just haven't found it yet, because what else can explain the existence of the many different kinds of living things than a slow gradual process where everything gradually developed from an initial first living thing?"

By demonstrating that mutation cannot produce anything uphill and beneficial, that demonstration is a scientific approach by the process of elimination to establish what in fact cannot be the cause for the alleged gradual change over time.
Also by concluding as an absolute, that it had to be a gradual process over time, before that is proven, is putting the horse before the cart.

Let's stick to the actual proven facts to let those facts dictate what reality is:
There is no known natural mechanism for adding new uphill information to the library of any living creature.
No undisputable fossil has ever been found (after millions have been unearthed) that clearly show transition.

OK, so it takes faith to see the Biblical account as the truthful explanation of how things came to be.
But doesn't it take at least that much faith to believe that evolution is the answer when the actual evidence contradicts that faith?

But the actual evidence fits within the Biblical model, I mean, if the Bible were true then we would expect for it to be impossible to find a transitional fossil. And since by the biblical model, each separate living kind was created with all of the DNA information fully programmed into that creature, we would expect any offspring from that creature to get its share of info from the parent/s.

OK, the hocus-pocus effect:
How much different is there in believing that God literally created it in 6 literal days, than to believe that nothing exploded and resulted in all of the elements and eventually all living things that also goes against the law of biogenesis?
Sure the law of biogenesis had to operate after the first life was here, but it had to not function in order for life to get here under the evolutionary model. What gave the chemicals in the alleged soup, power to defy an established natural law of science? Even the biblical model does not contradict that law, since God is life and all life came from Him.
So both models claim what some might call hocus-pocus at the beginning.
The Biblical model at least has some intelligence behind the miracle.

SirTanTee
Aug 10th 2008, 08:03 PM
SirTanTee's uncertainty's concerning how valid or scientific the evolution model is, should not be that hard to demonstrate to him.
He has claimed that the theory has benefitted science in some ways.
He should elaborate. Also guys, remember that clarifying the definition of evolution often squashes the claims as what they call evolution as a beneficial thing. What they claim as beneficial is often only microevolution, which is not evolution at all, but variation within a kind that the scriptures support.

The creationists claim that there is no benefit to real science as a result of the theory. And how can there be since it is a lie?
Allow SirTanTee to demonstrate how the theory has benefitted science.
The benefit , I suspect, is rather for those choosing to not believe that they have a maker. They are "benefitted" by being given an excuse to not acknowledge the existence of God, that the scriptures say only a fool would want to do.

As far as evidence to support the creationist model, this can be done by a process of eliminating the evidences used to contradict the creationist model.

But the route of excuses for this failure will be the same for the failure of the fossil record to show transition: "we know it is out there, we just haven't found it yet, because what else can explain the existence of the many different kinds of living things than a slow gradual process where everything gradually developed from an initial first living thing?"


Also by concluding as an absolute, that it had to be a gradual process over time, before that is proven, is putting the horse before the cart.

Let's stick to the actual proven facts to let those facts dictate what reality is:
There is no known natural mechanism for adding new uphill information to the library of any living creature.
No undisputable fossil has ever been found (after millions have been unearthed) that clearly show transition.

OK, so it takes faith to see the Biblical account as the truthful explanation of how things came to be.
But doesn't it take at least that much faith to believe that evolution is the answer when the actual evidence contradicts that faith?

But the actual evidence fits within the Biblical model, I mean, if the Bible were true then we would expect for it to be impossible to find a transitional fossil. And since by the biblical model, each separate living kind was created with all of the DNA information fully programmed into that creature, we would expect any offspring from that creature to get its share of info from the parent/s.

OK, the hocus-pocus effect;
How much different is there in believing that God literally created it in 6 literal days, than to believe that nothing exploded and resulted in all of the elements and eventually all living things that also goes against the law of biogenesis?
Sure the law of biogenesis had to operate after the first life was here, but it had to not function in order for life to get here under the evolutionary model. What gave the chemicals in the alleged soup, power to defy an established natural law of science? Even the biblical model does not contradict that law, since God is life and all life came from Him.
So both models claim what some might call hocus-pocus at the beginning.
The Biblical model at least has some intelligence behind the miracle.

Err - quick question. Was this written before or after my two big posts that I just typed up? It seems like you haven't read my material, and I don't want to re-type everything I posted above, so I'm wondering if I should respond to your post individually or just point to everything in my last post.

By the way, I am a girl.


If new information by way of mutations is the only source of new information in the gradual greater development of a creature, then actual experimentation should be able to be conducted to see if there is any uphill beneficial new information added to the DNA by mutations.
After many fruitflies have been nuked by microwaves etc. and many mutations have been observed, no new information has been added to the fruitflies' library.By demonstrating that mutation cannot produce anything uphill and beneficial, that demonstration is a scientific approach by the process of elimination to establish what in fact cannot be the cause for the alleged gradual change over time.

I just need to point that this paragraph makes absolutely no sense, so I'm having a hard time taking your entire post seriously. You're microwaving flies in order to try to produce beneficial genetic mutations? And you didn't get any, so evolution is false? What? There are so many things wrong with those conclusion I don't know where to start. I don't think you properly understand mutations. Microwaves certainly do not cause them - they only create a slow, agonizing death for the fly. You're going to need something a heck of a lot stronger to interfere with your DNA; if your premise were true, than many of us would be sterile, our eggs and sperm mutated from over-exposure to microwaves.

Alaska
Aug 10th 2008, 08:59 PM
Sorry about the gender thing, m'lady.

I said microwave etc.. Many things were used to try to make mutations that added info. All failed. Am I missing something? Are you claiming that there is an actual mechanism for adding new uphill info, whether by mutation or otherwise?
Every newspaper and publication in the world would have been awash with the long desired much anticipated evidence if such were possible to find.

None of the transitional claims are without reasonable doubt. In fact much reasonable doubt exists for all of them. Gish's claims were valid. The fins were not half fins half leg and neither were the legs, half/half.



Macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutions, therefore is microevolution is possible, then so is macro


Microevolution is observable and testable, and it fits well in the biblical description of how things were made because the changes remain in the perameters of that same living kind. But macroevolution is not observable or testable and does not fit within the biblical description of how things were made. But it is very strongly believed in nonetheless.


Gould:
"Creationist critics often charge that evolution cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense...They have this absurd notion that something that occurs in the past and that is not subject to direct observation is not provable. That's nonsense....There is some mystery as to how evolution occurs, but there is not a whole lot of doubt as to whether it occurs.”


Let's switch words:
Evolutionist critics often charge that Creation cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense...They have this absurd notion that something that occurs in the past and that is not subject to direct observation is not provable. That's nonsense...



There is some mystery as to how evolution occurs, but there is not a whole lot of doubt as to whether it occurs.”


In other words, the actual evidence does not support it but it is believed in nonetheless. And the evidences they claim do in fact support it would be thrown out in a court of law respecting reasonable doubt.

He at least admits that there is some doubt, as indeed there should be since a stronger faith is required to keep a hold of that belief system since evidences say it can't be.

losthorizon
Aug 10th 2008, 09:32 PM
The "evolutionary epic" is not mythology because there is evidence to support it. How do you explain the piles and piles and piles of evidence that support it? Are they happy coincidences? I know some Christians claim that Satan planted dinosaur bones in false places to try to trick humans, but I have to say I think that's pretty loony. Science is defined as: the effort to discover more about the mechanisms of the physical world through the discovery, analysis and testing of empirical evidence. That's basically...evolution.


Again, I would remind you that evolutionary experts like Michael Ruse address the metaphysical elements of Darwinism. He admits that Darwinism acts as a secular religion. He admits that Darwinism is an evolutionary epic in mythology. To deny that Darwinism is rooted in metaphysical naturalism is to deny reality. You appear to be denying reality. Why?
But the simple fact of the matter is that, use language as you like or not, the fact remains that for many evolutionists – some Darwinian and some not – evolution does function as a secular religion. The creationists are right about this. The right move is to recognize this fact and to move forward, not to deny it. ...we see that evolutionism has its priests and devotees…if creationism has no place in the classroom, then neither does a secular religion based on evolution. We who care passionately about science should know when to keep the science and religion separate and remember always when it is appropriate to teach the one and not the other. ~ Micheal Ruse, "scholar of all things Darwinian"


Now. I think it's your turn to provide scientific explanations and evidence, as it seems the burden only being given to the evolutionists - namely me and Crawfish. I can think of many issues that I would like an explanation for on how they fit in with the intelligent design theory.
You appear ro be operating under the illusion that I am an apologist for ID/Creation Science but I am not. I told you already I am a defender of science and I oppose bad science and philosophy disguised as science no matter what its source. And Darwinism is bad science mixed with naturalistic philosophy.

Btw – you have many excruciatingly long posts that say much about nothing and many of them look like verbatim comments from some of the more well-known atheistic-Darwinistic websites. Can you please verify if all this stuff is your work or do you borrow liberally from others?

SirTanTee
Aug 10th 2008, 09:40 PM
I said microwave etc.. Many things were used to try to make mutations that added info. All failed. Am I missing something? Are you claiming that there is an actual mechanism for adding new uphill info, whether by mutation or otherwise?
Every newspaper and publication in the world would have been awash with the long desired much anticipated evidence if such were possible to find.

Can you provide information about this radiation experiment? A link or paper or something?

The problem with the experiment is that radiation would cause a somatic mutation, which are not inherited but caused during an organism's lifetime. While such a mutation would have an effect (aka give you cancer), they would not be passed down to your offspring, therefore it has nothing to do with evolution. (Except in plants, which can sometimes pass down somatic mutations asexually.) Even if they specifically isolated the radiation to the flies' reproductive organs, it still would most likely just kill their eggs, not produce an actually hereditary mutation. What you need to be looking at is germ line mutations, which are passed down through inheritance.

You say that a "mutation mechanism" would be huge news....not really. The causes for hereditary mutation are already well known and observed. They occur within the eggs/sperm/reproductive development of any given organism. The DNA that God has made messes up a lot. That's where mutation happens. There is a large amount of variability in type and cause of mutation - why don't I just go ahead and list it to get it all out in the clear.

Small-scale mutations,:
Point mutations, often caused by chemicals or malfunction of DNA replication, exchange a single nucleotide for another[1]. Most common is the transition that exchanges a purine for a purine (A ↔ G) or a pyrimidine for a pyrimidine, (C ↔ T). A transition can be caused by nitrous acid, base mis-pairing, or mutagenic base analogs such as 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU). Less common is a transversion, which exchanges a purine for a pyrimidine or a pyrimidine for a purine (C/T ↔ A/G). A point mutation can be reversed by another point mutation, in which the nucleotide is changed back to its original state (true reversion) or by second-site reversion (a complementary mutation elsewhere that results in regained gene functionality). These changes are classified as transitions or transversions[2]. An example of a transversion is adenine (A) being converted into a cytosine (C). There are also many other examples that can be found. Point mutations that occur within the protein coding region of a gene may be classified into three kinds, depending upon what the erroneous codon codes for:

Insertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or errors during replication of repeating elements (e.g. AT repeats). Insertions in the coding region of a gene may alter splicing of the mRNA (splice site mutation), or cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product. Insertions can be reverted by excision of the transposable element.

Deletions remove one or more nucleotides from the DNA. Like insertions, these mutations can alter the reading frame of the gene. They are generally irreversible: though exactly the same sequence might theoretically be restored by an insertion, transposable elements able to revert a very short deletion (say 1–2 bases) in any location are either highly unlikely to exist or do not exist at all. Note that a deletion is not the exact opposite of an insertion: the former is quite random while the latter consists of a specific sequence inserting at locations that are not entirely random or even quite narrowly defined.

Large-scale mutations in chromosomal structure:
Amplifications (or gene duplications) leading to multiple copies of all chromosomal regions, increasing the dosage of the genes located within them.
Deletions of large chromosomal regions, leading to loss of the genes within those regions.
Mutations whose effect is to juxtapose previously separate pieces of DNA, potentially bringing together separate genes to form functionally distinct fusion genes (e.g. bcr-abl). These include:
Chromosomal translocations: interchange of genetic parts from nonhomologous chromosomes.
Interstitial deletions: an intra-chromosomal deletion that removes a segment of DNA from a single chromosome, thereby apposing previously distant genes. For example, cells isolated from a human astrocytoma, a type of brain tumor, were found to have a chromosomal deletion removing sequences between the "fused in glioblastoma" (fig) gene and the receptor tyrosine kinase "ros", producing a fusion protein (FIG-ROS). The abnormal FIG-ROS fusion protein has constitutively active kinase activity that causes oncogenic transformation (a transformation from normal cells to cancer cells).
Chromosomal inversions: reversing the orientation of a chromosomal segment.
Loss of heterozygosity: loss of one allele, either by a deletion or recombination event, in an organism that previously had two different alleles.

By effect on function
Loss-of-function mutations are the result of gene product having less or no function. When the allele has a complete loss of function (null allele) it is often called an amorphic mutation. Phenotypes associated with such mutations are most often recessive. Exceptions are when the organism is haploid, or when the reduced dosage of a normal gene product is not enough for a normal phenotype (this is called haploinsufficiency).
Gain-of-function mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function. These mutations usually have dominant phenotypes. Often called a neomorphic mutation.
Dominant negative mutations (also called antimorphic mutations) have an altered gene product that acts antagonistically to the wild-type allele. These mutations usually result in an altered molecular function (often inactive) and are characterised by a dominant or semi-dominant phenotype. In humans, Marfan syndrome is an example of a dominant negative mutation occurring in an autosomal dominant disease. In this condition, the defective glycoprotein product of the fibrillin gene (FBN1) antagonizes the product of the normal allele.
Lethal mutations are mutations that lead the death of the organisms which carry the mutations.
Morphological mutations usually affect the outward appearance of an individual. Mutations can change the height of a plant or change it from smooth to rough seeds.
Biochemical mutations result in lesions stopping the enzymatic pathway. Often, morphological mutants are the direct result of a mutation due to the enzymatic pathway.

By inheritance
The human genome contains two copies of each gene – a paternal and a maternal allele.
A wildtype or homozygous non-mutated organism is one in which neither allele is mutated.
A heterozygous mutation is a mutation of only one allele.
A homozygous mutation is an identical mutation of both the paternal and maternal alleles.
Compound heterozygous mutations or a genetic compound is two different mutations in the paternal and maternal alleles. [3]
Conditional mutation is a mutation that has wild-type (or less severe) phenotype under certain "permissive" environmental conditions and a mutant phenotype under certain "restrictive" conditions. For example, a temperature-sensitive mutation can cause cell death at high temperature (restrictive condition), but might have no deleterious consequences at a lower temperature (permissive condition).

Spontaneous mutations on the molecular level include:
Tautomerism – A base is changed by the repositioning of a hydrogen atom.
Depurination – Loss of a purine base (A or G).
Deamination – Changes a normal base to an atypical base; C → U, (which can be corrected by DNA repair mechanisms), or spontaneous deamination of 5-methycytosine (irreparable), or A → HX (hypoxanthine).
Transition – A purine changes to another purine, or a pyrimidine to a pyrimidine.
Transversion – A purine becomes a pyrimidine, or vice versa.


Adaptive mutation

In mainstream biological thought it is held that while mutagenesis is non-random in many ways, the utility of a genetic mutation to the organism in which it occurs does not affect the rate at which it occurs. However experimental evidence exists that in some instances the rate of specific mutations arising is greater when they are advantageous to the organism than when they are not.

Back mutation is a change in a nucleotide pair of a point-mutated DNA sequence that restores the original sequence and hence the original phenotype.[5]

A frameshift mutation is a mutation caused by indels, ie. inserts or deletes a number of nucleotides that is not evenly divisible by three from a DNA sequence. Due to the triplet nature of gene expression by codons, the insertion or deletion can disrupt the reading frame, or the grouping of the codons, resulting in a completely different translation from the original. The earlier in the sequence the deletion or insertion occurs, the more altered the protein produced is.

Missense mutations or nonsynonymous mutations are types of point mutations where a single nucleotide is changed to cause substitution of a different amino acid. This in turn can render the resulting protein nonfunctional. Such mutations are responsible for diseases such as Epidermolysis bullosa, sickle-cell disease, and SOD1 mediated ALS(Boillée 2006, p. 39).

A neutral mutation is a mutation that occurs in an amino acid codon (presumably within an mRNA molecule) which results in the use of a different, but chemically similar, amino acid. This is similar to a silent mutation, where a codon mutation may encode the same amino acid (see Wobble Hypothesis); for example, a change from AUU to AUC will still encode leucine, so no discernible change occurs (a silent mutation).

A nonsense mutation is a point mutation in a sequence of DNA that results in a premature stop codon, or a nonsense codon in the transcribed mRNA, and possibly a truncated, and often nonfunctional protein product.

A point mutation, or substitution, is a type of mutation that causes the replacement of a single base nucleotide with another nucleotide. Often the term point mutation also includes insertions or deletions of a single base pair (which have more of an adverse effect on the synthesized protein due to nucleotides still being read in triplets, but in different frames- a mutation called a frameshift mutation).

Silent mutations are DNA mutations that do not result in a change to the amino acid sequence of a protein. They may occur in a non-coding region (outside of a gene or within an intron), or they may occur within an exon in a manner that does not alter the final amino acid sequence. The phrase silent mutation is often used interchangeably with the phrase synonymous mutation; however, synonymous mutations are a subcategory of the former, occurring only within exons.

Harmful mutations
Changes in DNA caused by mutation can cause errors in protein sequence, creating partially or completely non-functional proteins. To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to function in the right places at the right times. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, a medical condition can result. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder. However, only a small percentage of mutations cause genetic disorders; most have no impact on health. For example, some mutations alter a gene's DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.
If a mutation is present in a germ cell, it can give rise to offspring that carries the mutation in all of its cells. This is the case in hereditary diseases. On the other hand, a mutation can occur in a somatic cell of an organism. Such mutations will be present in all descendants of this cell, and certain mutations can cause the cell to become malignant, and thus cause cancer.
Often, gene mutations that could cause a genetic disorder are repaired by the DNA repair system of the cell. Each cell has a number of pathways through which enzymes recognize and repair mistakes in DNA. Because DNA can be damaged or mutated in many ways, the process of DNA repair is an important way in which the body protects itself from disease.

There's no need to "make" mutations, they happen well enough on their own. There are countless examples throughout history of a positive mutation being extremely beneficial to a given species.


None of the transitional claims are without reasonable doubt. In fact much reasonable doubt exists for all of them. Gish's claims were valid. The fins were not half fins half leg and neither were the legs, half/half.

Who is "Gish?"

Actually, there are many transitional fossils that are basically halfway between fish and tetrapods (four legged, land-dwelling animals.) For example, the Tiktaalik is a transitional fish-amphibian that is split almost perfectly between water and land in terms of its anatomy. It possesses lungs and gills, fins that contain primitive wrists bones and fingers, fish scales, a tetrapod neck and rib cage structure, and joint structure and an ear region which is split between land-dwelling and water-dwelling anatomy. Can you elaborate on the many doubts about them that you claim exist?


Microevolution is observable and testable, and it fits well in the biblical description of how things were made because the changes remain in the perameters of that same living kind. But macroevolution is not observable or testable and does not fit within the biblical description of how things were made. But it is very strongly believed in nonetheless.

Actually, it would be observable and testable. Very much so; all that would need to be tested would be if two speciated groups of an original species could still produce viable offspring. That's all. Therefore, microevolutions create macroevolution. The only difference between them is time and scale; they are the same thing. It simply has not happened with the lifetime of modern evolutionary science, which is about how long...seventy five years or so? I fully believe that if we took these (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/pugbug/Great-Dane-and-Chihuahua--C11759689.jpg) two canines, put both the species in the wild, and gave them some time, they would evolve into separate species. Did you know that they almost cannot breed together anymore? They certainly would never do so in a natural environment. Reproductive isolation would naturally cause them to drift further apart in an evolutionary progression to fill different ecological niches.


In other words, the actual evidence does not support it but it is believed in nonetheless. And the evidences they claim do in fact support it would be thrown out in a court of law respecting reasonable doubt. He at least admits that there is some doubt, as indeed there should be since a stronger faith is required to keep a hold of that belief system since evidences say it can't be.

Can you point out the evidence that says it can't be, as well as respond to the evidence that supports it? How would you respond to the material I posted previously, such as the fact that the distribution of the fossils in the fossil record directly supports evolution and directly contradicts instantaneous species creation?

crawfish
Aug 10th 2008, 09:49 PM
Creationists claim that common descent evolution requires faith like religion; that it is not science, but metaphysical; that it cannot be tested for or supported through evidence. This is false. Evolution has been inherently testable, through the fossil record, through DNA, through a myriad other means, any of which could falsify the whole thing. The strength of any science is through its predictive behavior; if the science is true, then it follows certain rules and will exhibit certain behavior. In other words, for evolution to be true it would have consequences that must match up with the overall theory. Evolution has proven remarkably predictive.

Here is how it works: a scientist in a particular sub-field assumes common descent and makes predictions on how that would manifest itself in the current world, in a way that can be measured. The scientist then tests for that condition, measures the results and determines if that prediction was true. Over and over and over and over again, this method has been used to generate provable science and practical applications.

Here are a few scientific predictions made from evolutionary theory that were discovered to be true (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html):


Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

It has also has been the basis of studies with a practical use (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html):


Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

In addition to these:

DNA could have been a sticky point for evolution. As the building blocks of all life, evolution's truth would DEMAND that DNA exhibit certain tendencies; that inherited traits would show through expected ancestral genes. That the closer a species was to human, the more its DNA would resemble human DNA. That ERV's would be shared among all descendant species, and not shared by non-descendant species. This has all proven to be the case - exactly as evolution would have expected.

Over and over again, the generic assumptions of common descent and macroevolution have led to scientific discovery and advancement. Over and over again, it has been challenged with the unknown only to find new evidence in before-unimagined realms of science. No theory has been more criticized, more tested, more reviled than evolution; and it has stood the test of time. It is now more strongly supported than ever. Whatever holes may need to be patched, whatever changes have been made in the specifics of how certain parts occurred, the overall theory has remained an unchallenged explainer of the evidence for nearly 200 years. It's a shame that we want to give it completely over to the atheists simply because, yet again, science has made us uncomfortable.

SirTanTee
Aug 10th 2008, 09:54 PM
Good points, Crawfish. I think Christians drive a lot of people away when they dismiss such an intelligent, well supported work of science as untrue, atheist propaganda.


Again, I would remind you that evolutionary experts like Michael Ruse address the metaphysical elements of Darwinism. He admits that Darwinism acts as a secular religion. He admits that Darwinism is an evolutionary epic in mythology. To deny that Darwinism is rooted in metaphysical naturalism is to deny reality. You appear to be denying reality. Why?
But the simple fact of the matter is that, use language as you like or not, the fact remains that for many evolutionists – some Darwinian and some not – evolution does function as a secular religion. The creationists are right about this. The right move is to recognize this fact and to move forward, not to deny it. ...we see that evolutionism has its priests and devotees…if creationism has no place in the classroom, then neither does a secular religion based on evolution. We who care passionately about science should know when to keep the science and religion separate and remember always when it is appropriate to teach the one and not the other. ~ Micheal Ruse, "scholar of all things Darwinian"

Err...so if I am disagreeing with one man's opinion, I am "denying reality?" If I bring out an evolutionary expert that says the theory does not function like a secular religion, does that mean you are denying reality? Or we're both deny reality? I'm not sure that presenting a single man's opinion as the truth is really a sound argument.


You appear ro be operating under the illusion that I am an apologist for ID/Creation Science but I am not. I told you already I am a defender of science and I oppose bad science and philosophy disguised as science no matter what its source. And Darwinism is bad science mixed with naturalistic philosophy.

Fair enough, I don't know much about your personal stance on ID or whether you promote it.


Btw – you have many excruciatingly long posts that say much about nothing and many of them look like verbatim comments from some of the more well-known atheistic-Darwinistic websites. Can you please verify if all this stuff is your work or do you borrow liberally from others?

Sorry if my posts are too "excruciatingly long," but when someone asks me to provide evidence, I am going to provide evidence. I apologize if it's hard on the eyes. I'm kind of insulted, though, that you say that my posts are "much about nothing" when I have presented a series of well-researched pieces of information, and you have not responded to a single one of them. Some of the information is long, yes, but they are detailed scientific explanations - they can't really be reduced to six word summaries. It seems like you've just immediately dismissed them with a, "Eh...atheists must have written it" without giving any concrete reply. I have responded specifically to all the points presented to me; that is why my posts get so long. I would appreciate if you would do the same, if you have time. If not, I understand. You make the blanket statement that the evolutionary theory is "bad science," but how? Why? Why is the interpretation of the fossil record bad science? Homologous structures? Transitional fish-amphibian fossils? Endogenous retroviruses? What exactly is bad science, specifically?

And yes, of course they're verbatim - they are publicly published scientific information available on the internet. That is why I have verbatim information in quotes. They are not in any way affiliated with atheism, agnosticism or any religion. The author's personal beliefs are not mentioned anywhere in the articles or on the websites.

crawfish
Aug 10th 2008, 10:07 PM
In other words, the actual evidence does not support it but it is believed in nonetheless. And the evidences they claim do in fact support it would be thrown out in a court of law respecting reasonable doubt.

He at least admits that there is some doubt, as indeed there should be since a stronger faith is required to keep a hold of that belief system since evidences say it can't be.

That's not what she is saying at all. Imagine an incomplete jigsaw puzzle:

http://i.games-here.com/jigsaw_puzzle_maker.jpg

(p.s. I wish I could find a better picture to illustrate this...ignore the bottom right corner.)

This puzzle is incomplete. You cannot discern all the details of what is contained in it. Yet, in its current state, can you doubt the overall gist of what the picture will be? It's not going to be a farm scene. It's not going to be a water scene. It will have a fork and a plate and some kind of meal on it; but so far we cannot determine exactly what the meal will be.

That is evolutionary theory. We have a great overall picture of the entire process. What we don't have is all the details in-between. As above, does the fact we don't know if it's going to be a steak or a salad or dessert make a difference to our theory (a plate of food?) Of course not! The more pieces we find and put together, the more solid our view of the entire picture will be, but we don't need nearly so many pieces to understand in a general sense what the picture will be.

crawfish
Aug 10th 2008, 10:10 PM
Btw – you have many excruciatingly long posts that say much about nothing and many of them look like verbatim comments from some of the more well-known atheistic-Darwinistic websites. Can you please verify if all this stuff is your work or do you borrow liberally from others?

So...you get onto me for not providing enough data, and on her for providing too much? While you post mostly quotes and logic? I'd be interested in hearing some actual science from you, since you seem to demand it so much. If you are truly a "defender of science", then it shouldn't be too difficult.

losthorizon
Aug 10th 2008, 10:31 PM
So...you get onto me for not providing enough data, and on her for providing too much? While you post mostly quotes and logic? I'd be interested in hearing some actual science from you, since you seem to demand it so much. If you are truly a "defender of science", then it shouldn't be too difficult.
We can all cut and paste pages and pages of data but what does it all prove. In your case you couldn’t provide any evidences. I am beginning to think the notion of common ancestry cannot be supported by evidence.

SirTanTee
Aug 10th 2008, 11:10 PM
We can all cut and paste pages and pages of data but what does it all prove. In your case you couldn’t provide any evidences. I am beginning to think the notion of common ancestry cannot be supported by evidence.

Okay, WOW. Did you even read...any of it? Or do you just not understand it?

- Confirmed transitional fossils.
- Molecular protein symmetry between species.
- Homologous anatomy between species.
- Fossil record that matches exactly with the theory of evolution.
- Confirmed cases of microevolution, reproductive isolation and rapid speciation.
- Consistent and testable natural mechanism for genetic mutations and diversity within population.
- Pattern of hereditary endogenous retroviruses inbetween species.
- Confirmed testability of the theory of evolution through prediction.
- Confirmed reliability and success of applying the theory of evolution in different fields of science.

...are, at minimum, the issues we have brought up and supported within this thread. How is this the case that Crawfish and I "couldn't provide any evidence?" We're the only ones who have provided any evidence in this entire thread! And I started this to ask creationists for evidence, for goodnessakes! If the information that we have provided does not count in any way whatsoever as evidence, then what does count as evidence? Seriously, what would qualify? A talking monkey? A fish with one and a half legs?

I'm beginning to think that you have no response to the evidence, and are therefore avoiding making a response. Your apparent inability to respond to the actual facts presented within the posts, despite being repeatedly asked to, speaks for itself. If you have a legitimate response, please post it instead of cutting and running.

losthorizon
Aug 10th 2008, 11:48 PM
I'm beginning to think that you have no response to the evidence, and are therefore avoiding making a response. Your apparent inability to respond to the actual facts presented within the posts, despite being repeatedly asked to, speaks for itself. If you have a legitimate response, please post it instead of cutting and running.
I am right here but you are the one making extraordinary scientific claims not me. The onus is on you to provide extraordinary proofs needed to support those claims and you have not. Nothing you have presented confirms any thing more than biological evolution which Christians and scientists have no problem accepting. I can make just as strong a case for common design as you can for comment ancestry with the data presented. You have not described how the huge amount of new information needed to morph a dinosaur into a bird can be explained by naturalistic means. And you have not even attempted to explain why you deny the metaphysical aspects of Darwinism which we all know are a reality. Even agnostic Darwinists accept this reality. Why should anyone accept metaphysics as science? Why is a naturalistic philosophy based on a godless worldview allowed to be taught in the public school systems? Why have hundreds of PhD scientists signed the “Dissent From Darwinism” document? Why are reputable scientists skeptical of Darwinism?
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” ~ Dissent From DarwinismBtw – you didn’t answer the question – your posts show no citing for the articles provided – are they your work or did you borrow them?

SirTanTee
Aug 11th 2008, 12:13 AM
I am right here but you are the one making extraordinary scientific claims not me. The onus is on you to provide extraordinary proofs needed to support those claims and you have not. Nothing you have presented confirms any thing more than biological evolution which Christians and scientists have no problem accepting. I can make just as strong a case for common design as you can for comment ancestry with the data presented. You have not described how the huge amount of new information needed to morph a dinosaur into a bird can be explained by naturalistic means.

I have provided some extraordinary proof, you apparently are either just ignoring it or don't understand it. And when I did provide it, you complained that I provided too much. You say that common design could explain the evidence as well as common ancestry - what about the fossil evidence which specifically supports the gradual evolution and temporal stratification of different species? Again, I would appreciate if you could specifically respond to one of my scientific points, as you have still failed to do so.

The mechanism is natural selection. It's really not that hard. New information is introduced through genetic mutations or old information is simply enhanced through a series of external factors. That is natural, observable and testable. What is the problem?

Also, I am curious as to what your belief system is. You obviously do not support the theory of evolution, yet you also stated that you are not an apologist for intelligent design or propose a separate theory. Does your personal belief make extraordinary claims? Does it have the same amount of extraordinary evidence that the evolutionary theory has? I would be impressed with a scientific truth which has managed escape the notice of some of the most intelligent people on the planet who have devoted their entire lives to studying a subject which has been growing for over a hundred years.


And you have not even attempted to explain why you deny the metaphysical aspects of Darwinism which we all know are a reality. Even agnostic Darwinists accept this reality. Why should anyone accept metaphysics as science? Why is a naturalistic philosophy based on a godless worldview allowed to be taught in the public school systems?

Uh - didn't we already cover that this was a matter of opinion? I wasn't aware that "we all know it's a reality," I was aware that you thought it was a reality. If you're going to accuse my of denying reality, then I'm going to throw that right back at you. You're denying the reality that you are ignoring a monstrous amount of evidence while clinging to the same "it's metaphysical atheism!" statement over and over again without providing anything to back it up or making any non-opinion based claims. Evolution does not equal atheism. If atheism or agnosticism were required to believe in evolution, then there would not be evolutionist Christians. But there are. Many. People that range from average scientists to great leaders in the field.


Why have hundreds of PhD scientists signed the “Dissent From Darwinism” document? Why are reputable scientists skeptical of Darwinism?[INDENT]“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” ~ Dissent From Darwinism.

Why do the Dissenters From Darwinism only constitute 0.01% of their respective fields? That's very, very low. The total amount of scientists (in relevant fields to evolution) that believe in creationism has been calculated to be...drumroll...less than 0.15%. Again: that is really, really low. Astronomically low.

Why did the counter-petition, Scientific Support for Darwinism, gather 7,733 signatures in four days, compared to the 105 total on the Dissenter petition? Why is it that fewer than 20% of the scientists who signed were actually biologists, therefore not experts on the subject? In addition, why have many never worked as scientists? Why have several of them since retracted their signatures, saying that they were misled into signing it? The answer to all of these is most likely that the Dissenters From Darwinism petition represent a fringe, extreme minority with questionable motivations and reliability. (Many of the claims within the position, such as positions people claim to have held, have been found to be outright lies.) The organization that started the petition has a religious, metaphysical bias, and therefore by your very own reasoning, does not have any place in science at all, so we can disregard it entirely.


Btw – you didn’t answer the question – your posts show no citing for the articles provided – are they your work or did you borrow them?

BTW, I did, you just missed it. This is what I said:

"And yes, of course parts are verbatim - they are from publicly published scientific information available on the internet that others are free to cite. That is why I have verbatim information in quotes. They are not in any way affiliated with atheism, agnosticism or any religion. The author's personal beliefs are not mentioned anywhere in the articles or on the websites."

If you would like me to go back and compile a list of the different sources that I used, I will be happy to do so as soon as I can.

losthorizon
Aug 11th 2008, 01:05 AM
I have provided some extraordinary proof, you apparently are either just ignoring it or don't understand it.


No – you really haven't - I can make just as strong a case for common design with the evidence presented. You have not provided the extraordinary proof needed to prove that natural processes all by their lonesome and without man in mind can take slime from a primordial pond and magically infuse life into it. You have not provided the extraordinary proof needed to prove that our slimy ancestor then magically evolved with the enormous amount of new information needed to make you and me over a few billion years. That is the extraordinary evidence you need to post and have yet to provide. You appear to not understand the enormous complexity involved in this fairytale we call common ancestry - a process that cannot be explained by naturalistic causes.


The mechanism is natural selection. It's really not that hard. New information is introduced through genetic mutations or old information is simply enhanced through a series of external factors. That is natural, observable and testable. What is the problem?
The problem is - talk is cheap. Again you have no scientific proof this is true – you are relying on Darwinian myth and circular reasoning - Darwinism is true because Darwinists say it is true – that is the old evolution of the gaps - that’s the problem. This is the very reason scientists reject Darwinian evolution – it is not demonstrated with science.

crawfish
Aug 11th 2008, 01:10 AM
I can make just as strong a case for common design with the evidence presented.
.
.
.
The problem is - talk is cheap.

*Ahem*.

Go ahead.

SirTanTee
Aug 11th 2008, 01:47 AM
*Ahem*.

Go ahead.

This is exactly what I was going to say. "Talk is cheap," eh? Then go ahead - show us something. You have said multiple times that you can make an equally good argument for common design, yet you have failed to present it yet.

And I would like to point out that for the second or third time (I can't be bothered to go back and count) you have yet again ignored my specific request for your comment on a specific issue. What about the fossil record? Extroardinary evidence is required to explain away the fact that the fossil record overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution with an amazing ladder that starts with simple animals that grow increasingly complex as time goes on. Again, it would take one fossil out of place to tear down the theory of evolution. Thousands of fossils supporting evolution have been found. The one fossil required to disprove it has not.

Alaska
Aug 11th 2008, 01:54 AM
You say that a "mutation mechanism" would be huge news....not really. The causes for hereditary mutation are already well known and observed. They occur within the eggs/sperm/reproductive development of any given organism. The DNA that God has made messes up a lot. That's where mutation happens. There is a large amount of variability in type and cause of mutation - why don't I just go ahead and list it to get it all out in the clear.

None of the changes you refer to are uphill. No NEW information is added. Duplication or defection even if it can be claimed somehow to be beneficial still only has the original library to work from. Beneficial as in if you were born with no feet you cannot get athletes feet.
Like I said at the beginning, the arguments that can be verified fall under microevolution that can be observed and which is understood to agree with reality. To extrapolate these relatively small and often downhill changes to be responsible for entirely new apparratuses takes a lot of faith since it is only speculated with no hard evidence that it ever happened. The question still remains: how is an uphill gain (not just shuffled or repeated) in the library accomplished?
It is more intellectually competent to believe that aliens deposited all life on earth than to believe it happened by itself with no mechanism to account for the alleged slow uphill gain of info.
At least the alien thing acknowledges the need for intelligence and programming.
As if we could throw a bunch of wires and such in a box and shake it up just right and come out with a 80 gig Pentium 4. Which is more likely than sitting around waiting for soup to start breathing.

Alaska
Aug 11th 2008, 02:10 AM
Can you point out the evidence that says it can't be, as well as respond to the evidence that supports it? How would you respond to the material I posted previously, such as the fact that the distribution of the fossils in the fossil record directly supports evolution and directly contradicts instantaneous species creation?

You speak as though there is only one speculative voice anywhere in the crowd and that that voice happens to belong to an evolutionist!
The flood layed down many of the fossils we have in the world. A more convincing alternative model exists of how the water dwelling critters would naturally be found deeper in the mud as opposed to the scared running-for-their-life-critters who we would expect to be found in higher stratas of mud in that catrastrophy scenario.
Whatever you want to believe can be speculated since we only have indirect evidences and those interpreting them wear different glasses through which to view and come to their conclusions.

SirTanTee
Aug 11th 2008, 02:20 AM
None of the changes you refer to are uphill. No NEW information is added. Duplication or defection even if it can be claimed somehow to be beneficial still only has the original library to work from. Beneficial as in if you were born with no feet you cannot get athletes feet.
Like I said at the beginning, the arguments that can be verified fall under microevolution that can be observed and which is understood to agree with reality. To extrapolate these relatively small and often downhill changes to be responsible for entirely new apparratuses takes a lot of faith since it is only speculated with no hard evidence that it ever happened. The question still remains: how is an uphill gain (not just shuffled or repeated) in the library accomplished?

Actually, an uphill gain is not needed to produce different traits. For example, take all your different types of dogs. Although all of these breeds have been created by man and many of them are astoundingly different, not once has the dog genome been lengthened or added onto. Significant change can be made through simple reshuffling - without any element of new genes.

Even beyond that, new genes can be created, adding information to the library, if you want to use that metaphor. What we have to understand is that a DNA strand does not "add information" in that it magically lengthens one day or something like that, but it adds information in that the information already inside it is scrambled to produce totally new information. To mimic another one of your metaphors: we have a box full of the letters of the alphabet. We have a couple of each letter. Now, we can pull them out and arrange them exactly in the order of the alphabet and produce once sequence. However, we can rearrange them in a totally different sequence and produce something entirely different, without adding anything.

One way new information is added is through the mutations I previously listed. Another is through "jumping genes," or transposons. (losthorizon wants me to cite my sources, so I will...) The fourth-edition text of Molecular Biology of the Cell states:

"Transposable elements have also contributed to genome diversity. When two transposable elements that are recognized by the same site-specific recombination enzyme (transposase) integrate into neighboring chromosomal sites, the DNA between them can become subject to transposition by the transposase. Because this provides a particularly effective pathway for the duplication and movement of exons (exon shuffling), these elements can help create new genes."

I will cite some examples of "new" genes being created. These are excerpt from an article in NewScientist magazine.

Evolution of new information

Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA, which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. Here, a single mutation has resulted in a new protein with a new and potentially vital function. New protein, new function, new information.

Although such an event might seem highly unlikely, it turns out that the TRIM5-CypA protein has evolved independently in two separate groups of monkeys. In general, though, the evolution of a new gene usually involves far more than one mutation. The most common way for a new gene to evolve is for an existing gene to be duplicated. Once there are two or more copies, each can evolve in separate directions. The duplication of genes or even entire genomes is turning out to be ubiquitous. Without a duplication of the entire genome in the ancestor of modern-day brewer's yeast, for instance, there would be no wine or beer. It is becoming clear that every one of us has extra copies of some genes, a phenomenon called copy number variation.

The evolution of more complex body plans appears to have been at least partly a result of repeated duplications of the Hox genes that play a fundamental role in embryonic development. Biologists are slowly working out how successive mutations turned a pair of protoHox genes in the simple ancestors of jellyfish and anemones into the 39 Hox genes of more complex mammals.

Can mutation really lead to the evolution of new species?

Yes. Several species of abalone shellfish have evolved due to mutations in the protein "key" on the surface of sperm that binds to a "lock" on the surface of eggs. This might appear impossible, but it turns out that some eggs are prepared to be penetrated by deviant sperm. The same thing can happen in fruit flies, and likely in many other groups too. In yeasts, the mutations that led to some new species forming have not only been identified, they have even been reversed.

The list of examples could go on and on, but consider this. Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations – a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion" is common. For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.


You speak as though there is only one speculative voice anywhere in the crowd and that that voice happens to belong to an evolutionist!
The flood layed down many of the fossils we have in the world. A more convincing alternative model exists of how the water dwelling critters would naturally be found deeper in the mud as opposed to the scared running-for-their-life-critters who we would expect to be found in higher stratas of mud in that catrastrophy scenario.
Whatever you want to believe can be speculated since we only have indirect evidences and those interpreting them wear different glasses through which to view and come to their conclusions.

But...that doesn't really make sense. If there was a giant flood, everything would be tossed around madly, not settled into neat, distinct layers. The dead corpses of all the animals (dinosaurs, humans, modern animals) would either be washed into the ocean where they would settle into a huge mass on the bottom, or they would dry up together on land, rot together, and be fossilized together.

You would expect at least one human skeleton or modern animal skeleton, seeing as how the vast majority of the entire world's population was killed and then given the perfect conditions to fossilize: millions of corpses were left in a soft, muddy environment that would cover then in sediment. There would be no possibility of interference from predators or scavengers, or for the bodies to get thrown around at all. They would just sit there, begging to be fossilized. Despite these perfect conditions, apparently not a single human specimen - or a specimen of any of the millions of modern species found today - managed to fossilize, while all the other fossils managed to somehow coordinate themselves into a synchronized ladder of complexity. We would at least expect to see one of the larger, thicker skinned modern animals, such as a modern crocodile, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, elephant, turtle or bovine. But, no luck.

Alaska
Aug 11th 2008, 02:48 AM
But...that doesn't really make sense. If there was a giant flood, everything would be tossed around madly, not settled into neat, distinct layers. The dead corpses of all the animals (dinosaurs, humans, modern animals) would either be washed into the ocean where they would settle into a huge mass on the bottom, or they would dry up together on land, rot together, and be fossilized together.

You would expect at least one human skeleton or modern animal skeleton, seeing as how the vast majority of the entire world's population was killed and then given the perfect conditions to fossilize: everything was soft and muddy after the flood, and there was no possibility of interference from predators or scavengers, seeing as how there were only 2 of every predator and scavenger left. Despite these perfect conditions, apparently not a single human specimen - or a specimen of any of the millions of modern species found today - managed to fossilize, while all the other fossils managed to somehow coordinate themselves into a synchronized ladder of complexity.


It makes complete sense since you are proving that speculation differs according to the eyeglasses through which the evidence is viewed.
That German guy that publishes much on fossils shows supposedly ancient fossils virtually identical to modern creatures.



Despite these perfect conditions, apparently not a single human specimen - or a specimen of any of the millions of modern species found today


I think the evolutionist brainwash, twisting and making-half-truth tactics must be working on you to believe that. I understand there have been many authors, evolutionist and otherwise to disagree with that. Again it is only a speculation whether or not a human fossil is pre flood. And with evolutionists, any human fossil they agree to be at least 4500 years old or so, is to the creationist an unintended admission by the evolutionists that the human fossil is in fact pre flood.

Round and round we go, only biased, faith based views will show.
We are, as all others are, biased, due to our perception of what reality is.
Being biased is evidence that the person has thought out a matter and has come to some conclusion.
It is not that we should not be biased. It is that our bias should be the result of the correct conclusions.

Alaska
Aug 11th 2008, 02:56 AM
Actually, an uphill gain is not needed to produce different traits. For example, take all your different types of dogs. Although all of these breeds have been created by man and many of them are astoundingly different, not once has the dog genome been lengthened or added onto. Significant change can be made through simple reshuffling - without any element of new genes.

See, we start with dogs and end with Dogs and somehow that is supposed to be evidence of something changing, lets say from a dog to another creature like a bear.
Using microevolution is not an evidence of macroevolution. It is evidence of the vastness of the library deposited into the dog's library.
Breed all you want; it will always come out a dog.
No new info, just a tapping of info from the available info instilled at creation and passed on from parents to offspring being influenced by evironmental pressures.
Still looking for your alleged mechanism of uphill info necessary for a critter to change into another critter.

fishbowlsoul
Aug 11th 2008, 03:14 AM
Back from California. Tanned and tired. Wading into the mire here.


You speak as though there is only one speculative voice anywhere in the crowd and that that voice happens to belong to an evolutionist!
The flood layed down many of the fossils we have in the world. A more convincing alternative model exists of how the water dwelling critters would naturally be found deeper in the mud as opposed to the scared running-for-their-life-critters who we would expect to be found in higher stratas of mud in that catrastrophy scenario.
Whatever you want to believe can be speculated since we only have indirect evidences and those interpreting them wear different glasses through which to view and come to their conclusions.

Another scientific model exists? Based on the fossil record? Explains why no human remains have been found with dinosaur fossils?


That German guy that publishes much on fossils shows supposedly ancient fossils virtually identical to modern creatures.

I think the evolutionist brainwash, twisting and making-half-truth tactics must be working on you to believe that. I understand there have been many authors, evolutionist and otherwise to disagree with that. Again it is only a speculation whether or not a human fossil is pre flood. And with evolutionists, any human fossil they agree to be at least 4500 years old or so, is to the creationist an unintended admission by the evolutionists that the human fossil is in fact pre flood.


What German guy? and do have a cite for these authors and evolutionists?



See, we start with dogs and end with Dogs and somehow that is supposed to be evidence of something changing, lets say from a dog to another creature like a bear.
Using microevolution is not an evidence of macroevolution. It is evidence of the vastness of the library deposited into the dog's library.
Breed all you want; it will always come out a dog.
No new info, just a tapping of info from the available info instilled at creation and passed on from parents to offspring being influenced by evironmental pressures.
Still looking for your alleged mechanism of uphill info necessary for a critter to change into another critter.


SirTan has posted the examples and cites on previous pages of this thread. It might help you to understand if you read it. I know its a lot of scientific jargon and hard to read but its the only way if you want to learn about how genetics works.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

SirTanTee
Aug 11th 2008, 03:23 AM
It makes complete sense since you are proving that speculation differs according to the eyeglasses through which the evidence is viewed.
That German guy that publishes much on fossils shows supposedly ancient fossils virtually identical to modern creatures.

What German guy? Please link/provide information.

It's not speculation. The process of fossilization is a testable, observable, predictable fact. Yet, despite perfect conditions and more than a million opportunities, it did not happen. I still want to know how a raging, violent flood could sort and fossilize many fossils exactly in this order:

Porifera-10 cell types
Cnidaria-14 cell types
Haemocoelic Bilaterian - 30 cell types
Arthropoda-51 cell types
Agnatha-64 cell types
Cephalopoda-75 cell types
Actinopterygii-132 cell types
Amphibia-150 cell types
Aves-187 cell types
Hominidae-210 cell types

That's a pretty neat sorting trick - I didn't know water could do that. In addition, the study of different sediment deposits does not support the idea of a recent, catastrophic flood. We consistently see layers of light sediment like limestone underneath heavy sediment like granite, whereas obviously in a giant flood, all of the heaviest sediment would have sunk to the bottom. Also, did mountain ranges like the Himalayas and Andes (projected to be millions of years old) form in the tiny amount of time before or after the flood?


I think the evolutionist brainwash, twisting and making-half-truth tactics must be working on you to believe that. I understand there have been many authors, evolutionist and otherwise to disagree with that. Again it is only a speculation whether or not a human fossil is pre flood. And with evolutionists, any human fossil they agree to be at least 4500 years old or so, is to the creationist an unintended admission by the evolutionists that the human fossil is in fact pre flood.

The issue is not human fossils pre-flood; all you would need for a pre-flood fossil would be a body, the correct conditions and a nice coffin. The issue is the mass fossilization that would have directly resulted from the flood. There is no evidence of it.


Round and round we go, only biased, faith based views will show.
We are, as all others are, biased, due to our perception of what reality is.
Being biased is evidence that the person has thought out a matter and has come to some conclusion.
It is not that we should not be biased. It is that our bias should be the result of the correct conclusions.

The last sentence I can agree on. Unfortunately, at least half of us have to be making the wrong conclusions. :P Our we're all half right and half wrong. Hopefully Jesus will forgive us all for our stupidity.

So, I guess you are an Ark literalist. Do you have any comments on the mechanics of the Ark or the problems with genetic-diversity in a post-Flood world?


See, we start with dogs and end with Dogs and somehow that is supposed to be evidence of something changing, lets say from a dog to another creature like a bear.
Using microevolution is not an evidence of macroevolution. It is evidence of the vastness of the library deposited into the dog's library.
Breed all you want; it will always come out a dog.
No new info, just a tapping of info from the available info instilled at creation and passed on from parents to offspring being influenced by evironmental pressures.
Still looking for your alleged mechanism of uphill info necessary for a critter to change into another critter.

The only thing that separates one species from another is their ability to produce a viable offspring. Macroevolution is only a series of microevolutions. The distinction is artificial; they are the same thing. They happen through the same process and for the same reasons. Again, I'll use the Chihuahua/Great Dane example. They are still canines, but do you think that if we released them into the wild and both breeds survived, that they would ever breed and become one again? No, they wouldn't. The only possible route they can take is separation. They are already drastically different, imagine how completely separate they would be in a couple thousand years.

I feel like whenever I respond to these posts, they seem to completely ignore everything I just said. Did you read it? About the massive effect gene reshuffling can produce? About how new genes can be created? About transposons? Is any of this ringing a bell?

fishbowlsoul
Aug 11th 2008, 03:27 AM
No – you really haven't - I can make just as strong a case for common design with the evidence presented. You have not provided the extraordinary proof needed to prove that natural processes all by their lonesome and without man in mind can take slime from a primordial pond and magically infuse life into it. You have not provided the extraordinary proof needed to prove that our slimy ancestor then magically evolved with the enormous amount of new information needed to make you and me over a few billion years. That is the extraordinary evidence you need to post and have yet to provide. You appear to not understand the enormous complexity involved in this fairytale we call common ancestry - a process that cannot be explained by naturalistic causes.


The problem is - talk is cheap. Again you have no scientific proof this is true – you are relying on Darwinian myth and circular reasoning - Darwinism is true because Darwinists say it is true – that is the old evolution of the gaps - that’s the problem. This is the very reason scientists reject Darwinian evolution – it is not demonstrated with science.

Lost, do you just want to us to admit that the theory of evolution is metaphysical? On what basis or evidence can we make this admission?
We cannot do quote mining. We cannot use quotes from the opinions or philosphies of creationist or evolutionists and come to an A-HA moment.
If we admit that the theory of evolution is metaphysical then we would have to admit that all scientific theories are metaphyscial. Theories like atomic theory, germ theory, Big Bang, general relativity, gravity theory, plate tectonics, quantum field, etc. All these theories have the same properties as the theory of evolution just different subject matter.

God Bless

Mark 2:3-28, 3:1-6

Luke34
Aug 11th 2008, 04:19 AM
However, I am also searching for some more modern scientific research. In order to falsify evolution, I would think that creationists would have active research on subjects such as:
I know I'm kinda late in the game here, and hopefully someone already said this (is crawfish around?), but looking for evidence specifically to falsify something is really, really terrible science. The right idea would be to gather all available information and evidence pertaining to evolution and then draw a conclusion from it,* not decide that evolution must be false and then look for evidence to support that. That's ideological pseudoscience, not methodological inquiry.

*(Actually, science beat you to it. Hint: The conclusion is that all the available evidence supports Darwinian evolution.)

SirTanTee
Aug 11th 2008, 05:18 AM
I know I'm kinda late in the game here, and hopefully someone already said this (is crawfish around?), but looking for evidence specifically to falsify something is really, really terrible science. The right idea would be to gather all available information and evidence pertaining to evolution and then draw a conclusion from it,* not decide that evolution must be false and then look for evidence to support that. That's ideological pseudoscience, not methodological inquiry.

*(Actually, science beat you to it. Hint: The conclusion is that all the available evidence supports Darwinian evolution.)

Haha. Did you read the thread? I'm one of the ones supporting evolution here. I asked for creationist research looking to disprove evolution, because that's what almost 100% of creationist "scientific" research seems to be trying to do, despite the fact that it is horrible "science" with a preconceived conclusion. However, they do not seem to have research trying to independently verify their own theory, so I was willing to take what I could get.

(P.S. - I still haven't gotten anything scientific. http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/smilies/uhoh.gif)

Athanasius
Aug 11th 2008, 02:44 PM
Haha. Did you read the thread? I'm one of the ones supporting evolution here. I asked for creationist research looking to disprove evolution, because that's what almost 100% of creationist "scientific" research seems to be trying to do, despite the fact that it is horrible "science" with a preconceived conclusion. However, they do not seem to have research trying to independently verify their own theory, so I was willing to take what I could get.

(P.S. - I still haven't gotten anything scientific. http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/smilies/uhoh.gif)

Science with a preconceived conclusion... You know this is true of both evolution and creationism, right? LostHorizon is correct, by the way, there are numerous metaphysical presuppositions within the evolutionary theory. Whether you examine Darwinian evolution (metaphysical claim: there is no God) or theistic evolution (metaphysical claim: there is a God) you can't escape the fact that both are not only scientific theorems, but also metaphysical and philosophical propositions.

Everyone here, by the way, should be agreeing in the fact that Darwinian evolution is infeasible as an explanation for obvious reasons (ex nihilo nihil "Nothing comes from nothing"). The real question being: 'Did God do it?' But anyway... Rambling.

crawfish
Aug 11th 2008, 03:06 PM
Science with a preconceived conclusion... You know this is true of both evolution and creationism, right? LostHorizon is correct, by the way, there are numerous metaphysical presuppositions within the evolutionary theory. Whether you examine Darwinian evolution (metaphysical claim: there is no God) or theistic evolution (metaphysical claim: there is a God) you can't escape the fact that both are not only scientific theorems, but also metaphysical and philosophical propositions.

There is a difference. For Creationists, it is their faith that demands a certain conclusion. For evolutionists, it is speculation that leads to a conclusion, that must stay consistent as it is tested for. A Creationist will deny any falsifying evidence because of their total faith in the truth of their conclusion; an evolutionist will alter or revise his or her conclusion based on falsifying evidence. The conclusion of the creationist is fixed; the conclusion of the evolutionist is a moving target.

This can hardly be denied. In fact, creationists use it as an example of how evolution must not be true because the ideas are constantly shifting. They tend to view the fact that their target never changes despite the evidence as a strength. Evolutionists regard the fact that they are open to changes as a strength. This is part of a huge "communication gap" between the two; something we TE's tend to see more clearly because we speak both languages.


Everyone here, by the way, should be agreeing in the fact that Darwinian evolution is infeasible as an explanation for obvious reasons (ex nihilo nihil "Nothing comes from nothing"). The real question being: 'Did God do it?' But anyway... Rambling.

You should replace "Darwinian evolution" with "atheistic evolution" and your point would be clearer. None of us disagree with God's place in creation. But at what point were all things created from nothing? On the first of seven days? Mere nanoseconds before a big bang, which set into motion God's billions-year plan to create us? If so, did God have to "seed" life on a planet to begin the evolutionary process, or did He set up some natural process by which life could emerge from nonlife? Did God make certain things impossible through natural law (life from nonlife, macroevolution, etc) or did he set them up to be possible?

In the end, there might be scant difference between the TE viewpoint of the origin of man and the atheistic one, simply because we do not assume the method by which God performed His creative act; there is nothing natural that should lead one to assume that God was not part of the process. And that, of course, is the difference between the TE and the atheist, who assumes that the more naturalistic we make the cause the less requirement for a God explanation there is. Ironic that in that, the Creationist and atheist are in full agreement.

SirTanTee
Aug 11th 2008, 03:17 PM
Science with a preconceived conclusion... You know this is true of both evolution and creationism, right? LostHorizon is correct, by the way, there are numerous metaphysical presuppositions within the evolutionary theory. Whether you examine Darwinian evolution (metaphysical claim: there is no God) or theistic evolution (metaphysical claim: there is a God) you can't escape the fact that both are not only scientific theorems, but also metaphysical and philosophical propositions.

Everyone here, by the way, should be agreeing in the fact that Darwinian evolution is infeasible as an explanation for obvious reasons (ex nihilo nihil "Nothing comes from nothing"). The real question being: 'Did God do it?' But anyway... Rambling.

Can you (or losthorizon) elaborate on the idea that evolution demands the absence of God? Since you can believe in evolution while being both an agnostic, atheist, Christian, and pagan...how is it inherently tied to the metaphysical claim of no God? :confused

I'm sure that many scientists today operate with solid preconceived notions about evolutionism while they're doing research. (Actually, I think it's almost impossible not to have preconceived notions...I would be impressed at that person's self control!) But the theory of evolution was developed by Darwin after he saw the evidence around him. He did not think up a theory, thought it sounded cool, and then tried to go find something to support it. And, as Crawfish said, the theory of evolution is constantly seeking to expand and correct its own errors. Scientists are willing to abandon their preconceived notions if the evidence demands it.

I agree with you on ex nihilo nihil - that's why I personally believe that God created the very first life, "from the dust of the ground" if you will. I think everyone here agrees that God is responsible for all life. The question is - how did he proceed after the first life? How quickly and through what method did he create the the life that is both extinct and still around? Is Genesis literal or metaphorical? That's the crux of the issue, I think...

RabbiKnife
Aug 11th 2008, 03:19 PM
See, that's why I tend to view the Gap Theory with some credence.

It doesn't require an evolutionary paradigm that is unsupportable.

Permits 2 special creations, which makes much more sense.

losthorizon
Aug 12th 2008, 02:31 AM
Lost, do you just want to us to admit that the theory of evolution is metaphysical? On what basis or evidence can we make this admission?


As I have repeatedly stated, Fish no one on this thread denies the validity of biological evolution as science – what we are discussing on this thread and the concept that separates us is the doctrine of “Darwinian evolution” – ie a naturalistic philosophy unsupported by the scientific method. This is what we all should be able to admit simply because it is true (but you can’t). I told you before I am here to defend science – I oppose bad science and philosophy presented as science regardless if it come from “creation science” or “Darwinian mythology” and you should be on board.

If you look at the facts you will see that Darwinism has done more to retard the advancement of science than any other theory in the past 100 years. This is the reason scientists signed the Dissent from Darwinism statement. They realize the damage it has caused and continues to cause. Please read the remarks from a recovering Darwinist below – he makes much sense. After 150 years of failure - Darwinism needs to be put out of its misery. Please key in on the phrase below - the notion advanced by Darwin of "design as an illusion in nature" . This is the very origin of his godless worldview of Darwinism - a worldview you and the other TEs as theists support. A theistic-Darwinist is an oxymoron if you will - a self-contradicton.
I propose to use counterfactual historiography to argue that the branches of biology that we today consider to be most advanced – molecular biology, especially in relation to genetics – would have progressed more swiftly had Darwin NOT persevered and published Origin of Species in 1859. The predominance of other scientifically respectable theories of evolution available at the time, which typically did not treat design as an illusion in nature (e.g. Lamarck’s, Wallace’s), would have provided – and indeed did provide -- a more hospitable intellectual environment for the development of lab-based branches of biology responsible for bringing us to where we are now. Moreover, I will argue that had Darwin been out of the world-historic picture, biology would not have acquired its distinctly 'historicist' character, to which philosophers have become reconciled only in recent years. Rather, genetics and molecular biology would be more closely aligned with engineering-based disciplines like bionics, precedents for which could be found in the first half of the 20th century, via systems theory perspectives and what became known as 'biophysics'. I conclude that rather than continuing to venerate Darwin, even though he would find relatively little of contemporary biological research relevant to his own studies, we would do better – in time for his 200th anniversary – to retire Darwin as The Last Great Historicist, who has earned a place alongside Marx and Freud more for reasons of cultural iconicity than scientific relevance. ~ Giving Darwin a decent burial, Steve Fuller, University of Warwick, UK

Athanasius
Aug 12th 2008, 02:53 AM
There is a difference. For Creationists, it is their faith that demands a certain conclusion. For evolutionists, it is speculation that leads to a conclusion, that must stay consistent as it is tested for. A Creationist will deny any falsifying evidence because of their total faith in the truth of their conclusion; an evolutionist will alter or revise his or her conclusion based on falsifying evidence. The conclusion of the creationist is fixed; the conclusion of the evolutionist is a moving target.

Well I'll be quick about this. If I'm going to be dealing with such broad generalizations (on both sides), then I see no reason for myself to continue.



This can hardly be denied. In fact, creationists use it as an example of how evolution must not be true because the ideas are constantly shifting. They tend to view the fact that their target never changes despite the evidence as a strength. Evolutionists regard the fact that they are open to changes as a strength. This is part of a huge "communication gap" between the two; something we TE's tend to see more clearly because we speak both languages.

I'm pretty sure there's a name for this logical fallacy... But for the life of me I can't remember it.



You should replace "Darwinian evolution" with "atheistic evolution" and your point would be clearer. None of us disagree with God's place in creation. But at what point were all things created from nothing? On the first of seven days? Mere nanoseconds before a big bang, which set into motion God's billions-year plan to create us? If so, did God have to "seed" life on a planet to begin the evolutionary process, or did He set up some natural process by which life could emerge from nonlife? Did God make certain things impossible through natural law (life from nonlife, macroevolution, etc) or did he set them up to be possible?

In the end, there might be scant difference between the TE viewpoint of the origin of man and the atheistic one, simply because we do not assume the method by which God performed His creative act; there is nothing natural that should lead one to assume that God was not part of the process. And that, of course, is the difference between the TE and the atheist, who assumes that the more naturalistic we make the cause the less requirement for a God explanation there is. Ironic that in that, the Creationist and atheist are in full agreement.

The problem I have is the foundation of your post, in syllogistic-ish form:

1. Creationists have faith which demand certain conclusions
2. Evolutionists speculate a conclusion that must constantly be tested for
3. Therefore,

1a. Creationists will deny any falsifying evidence
2a. Evolutionists will follow the argument where ever it leads


Can you (or losthorizon) elaborate on the idea that evolution demands the absence of God? Since you can believe in evolution while being both an agnostic, atheist, Christian, and pagan...how is it inherently tied to the metaphysical claim of no God? :confused

Darwinian evolution, or as Crawfish would have me call it atheistic evolution. The evolution of Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould, Daniel Dennett etc.



I'm sure that many scientists today operate with solid preconceived notions about evolutionism while they're doing research. (Actually, I think it's almost impossible not to have preconceived notions...I would be impressed at that person's self control!) But the theory of evolution was developed by Darwin after he saw the evidence around him. He did not think up a theory, thought it sounded cool, and then tried to go find something to support it. And, as Crawfish said, the theory of evolution is constantly seeking to expand and correct its own errors. Scientists are willing to abandon their preconceived notions if the evidence demands it.

The theory of evolution was 'thought up' long before Darwin arrived on the scene. Darwin merely presented a means for the theory to take hold. By the way... All the proofs of Darwin do not support macro evolutionary changes, but adaptation (micro evolution). No one disagrees in this phenomenon.



I agree with you on ex nihilo nihil - that's why I personally believe that God created the very first life, "from the dust of the ground" if you will. I think everyone here agrees that God is responsible for all life. The question is - how did he proceed after the first life? How quickly and through what method did he create the the life that is both extinct and still around? Is Genesis literal or metaphorical? That's the crux of the issue, I think...

Literal history

crawfish
Aug 12th 2008, 03:13 AM
I'm pretty sure there's a name for this logical fallacy... But for the life of me I can't remember it.

Note the word "tend".


The problem I have is the foundation of your post, in syllogistic-ish form:

1. Creationists have faith which demand certain conclusions
2. Evolutionists speculate a conclusion that must constantly be tested for
3. Therefore,

1a. Creationists will deny any falsifying evidence
2a. Evolutionists will follow the argument where ever it leads


Is this not true? What happens if, tomorrow, someone makes a discovery that casts serious doubt on the validity of a young earth, and YEC scientists have no answers? Will YEC scientists grudgingly accept that the science might be valid and force them to re-evaluate their beliefs, evaluating how the new data, if true, might fit into their overall view, or will they choose to work to discredit said evidence without ever giving it a chance? Remember, if they accept it in ANY way it challenges their religious viewpoint.

Look at the ERV problem I detailed above. The evidence it provides is HUGE for evolution; however, you look on AIG, and what it says is "perhaps ERV's have some use"..."Maybe we're evaluating the evidence wrong"...none of which have any evidence backing them, but they are accepted as probably true by AIG because the alternative would cause serious problems with their creationist view.

Come on - look in this very thread! The fact that common descent theory doesn't depend on dinosaur-to-avian evolution, when mentioned to losthorizon, elicited his response that "that is what is wrong with evolution - even the scientists cannot agree!" Isn't that simply because they are letting the evidence lead them where it may, and multiple paths are being explored to discover which is the right one?

I understand you may not agree with my thesis, but I certainly feel I've put forth enough evidence to make my point, and I feel fully justified in feeling I'm right.

losthorizon
Aug 12th 2008, 03:51 AM
Look at the ERV problem I detailed above. The evidence it provides is HUGE for evolution; however, you look on AIG, and what it says is "perhaps ERV's have some use"..."Maybe we're evaluating the evidence wrong"...none of which have any evidence backing them, but they are accepted as probably true by AIG because the alternative would cause serious problems with their creationist view.


But scientifically AIG could be correct – maybe there is a functional component unknown to science. Are you not simply criticizing AIG for daring to think outside your small little box (not very scientifically minded there Craw)- there may be some other scientific explanation? And as I mentioned – your HUGE ERV evidence for common ancestry could just as easily (and more likely) be HUGE evidence for a common designer. We all operate on presuppositions and atheistic scientists will not even consider design – remember design in nature is an illusion and evolution did not have man in mind. How do you counter that notion with the Dawkins et al – they do not allow god-talk at their table. They just laugh at you as some amusing anomaly.


Come on - look in this very thread! The fact that common descent theory doesn't depend on dinosaur-to-avian evolution, when mentioned to losthorizon, elicited his response that "that is what is wrong with evolution - even the scientists cannot agree!" Isn't that simply because they are letting the evidence lead them where it may, and multiple paths are being explored to discover which is the right one?
But common ancestry does depend on the principles related to dinosaur to bird evolution and if it can’t be supported by the scientific method (and it can not) then how in the world are you going to go from a spark in Darwin’s “warm little pond” (abiogenesis) where life arose all on its lonesome and evolved to you and me. I have asked you to support such a notion with evidence and you have drawn a blank repeatedly. I must think you have none.

Athanasius
Aug 12th 2008, 03:53 AM
Note the word "tend".

Fair enough.



Is this not true? What happens if, tomorrow, someone makes a discovery that casts serious doubt on the validity of a young earth, and YEC scientists have no answers? Will YEC scientists grudgingly accept that the science might be valid and force them to re-evaluate their beliefs, evaluating how the new data, if true, might fit into their overall view, or will they choose to work to discredit said evidence without ever giving it a chance? Remember, if they accept it in ANY way it challenges their religious viewpoint.

Look at the ERV problem I detailed above. The evidence it provides is HUGE for evolution; however, you look on AIG, and what it says is "perhaps ERV's have some use"..."Maybe we're evaluating the evidence wrong"...none of which have any evidence backing them, but they are accepted as probably true by AIG because the alternative would cause serious problems with their creationist view.

Come on - look in this very thread! The fact that common descent theory doesn't depend on dinosaur-to-avian evolution, when mentioned to losthorizon, elicited his response that "that is what is wrong with evolution - even the scientists cannot agree!" Isn't that simply because they are letting the evidence lead them where it may, and multiple paths are being explored to discover which is the right one?

I understand you may not agree with my thesis, but I certainly feel I've put forth enough evidence to make my point, and I feel fully justified in feeling I'm right.

Well even if I don't agree (even if I did agree) with your thesis, the question is: have you presented and defended a rational and logical view? Yes, I believe you have. Even if I thought your views to be the most disgusting and disagreeing thing I've ever heard (and I don't). I'd give you the acknowledgment that you've presented them validly.

That is, first and foremost, what I believe to be important. There's no use disagreeing or agreeing with anything that isn't rational or logical, it's best to toss aside such things.

AIG at one end... Richard Dawkins at the other... Feels like all anyone is doing here is pulling extremes and saying, 'HA! These people represent everyone on their respective sides".

SirTanTee
Aug 12th 2008, 03:54 AM
Darwinian evolution, or as Crawfish would have me call it atheistic evolution. The evolution of Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould, Daniel Dennett etc.

But these people can easily be identified as some evolutionists who are the most radical in basing their personal view of religion on evolution. Anyone can draw an individual, personal conclusion based on the neutral evidence. No metaphysical conclusion is demanded.


By the way... All the proofs of Darwin do not support macro evolutionary changes, but adaptation (micro evolution). No one disagrees in this phenomenon.

Okay, I have said this like five times in this thread: there is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. It is an artificially constructed barrier most commonly used by people like us - aka people who are not scientists. Science does not create a technical differentiation between the two because the only difference is time; they are one identical process, only one is longer. They happen for the same reasons and through the same mechanism. If a strand of DNA is susceptible to the gene mutations that cause microevolution, then it is susceptible to the very same gene mutations that will cause macroevolution. Admitting that microevolution is possible means that macroevolution is possible. To say that one can happen but not the other is like saying that it's possible to cook a steak half-way, but it's just impossible to cook it all the way. That doesn't make any sense.


Literal history

Then perhaps you would be interested in addressing some of the questions I posed to losthorizon earlier? Or any of the questions about the fossil record I have repeated? (All of these questions have so far been ignored by the creationists in this thread...no response...sigh.) I myself have no doubts that some parts of the Bible are literally true and other parts are metaphorically true. What do we do when the literal, physical evidence around us conflicts with what we interpret to be a literal passage?



1) From a creationist standpoint, can you please address with evidence why chickens have the genes required for making teeth, whales have the genes required to make legs, and humans have the genes required to make tails, fully functioning complete with vertebrate and under-skeletal muscular control? If everything was created in its current form (and the genes have not been carried over from a more primitive ancestor), why would any of these genes be necessary or present? I will provide a quote, since you like them: "Nothing in biology makes any sense, except in light of evolution."

2) From a creationist standpoint, can you please address with evidence why we can easily date the age of the Earth to more than 10,000 years just by looking at living and fossilized trees? As you may know, in their interiors, trees grow a ring for each year. By counting these rings and matching with between multiple specimens, it seems that some of the trees still around today today pre-dated the creation of the Universe. Huh.

3) From a creationist standpoint, can you please address with evidence on some of the mechanics of how animals survived on and after the journey on the Ark, if you believe that this was an actual event? There are many problems which are never addressed. For example, how did symbiotic animals and parasites survive after the Flood? How did Noah choose "male and female" pairs of animals who were either hermaphroditic, parthenogenic, asexual or reproduce through mass social colonizing? How did such wildly different degrees of genetic diversity arise within animals? If all species originally came from a single mating pair, their level of diversity would be comparable between different groups, yet it is drastically varied.

I'll even add another one. What is another explanation besides common descent for these facts:

- Humans and chimpanzees share a pattern of completely unique endogenous retroviruses. No other type of animals shares this pattern. It is passed down exclusively hereditarily.
- Humans and chimpanzees share approximately 98% of their 3 billion base units of DNA bases, as well as significant portions of their anatomy structure.
- Humans have one less chromosome than great apes. How can this be explained? Turns out that the genes found on the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes of the great ape match up to the genes found on the 2nd human chromosome. Coincidentally, the human chromosome is almost the exact length of the two great ape chromosomes if they had been fused together. Hmm.

Again: if the common designer just made it this way - why? Why provide an excessive amount of information the points to common ancestry if it was far from the truth?

I have started perusing and analyzing Scripture. I've been thinking that maybe I should do an essay project on what a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis would look like on paper. I've only just started, so nothing much yet. Most are very open and in different contexts.

"But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish of the sea inform you
Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the LORD has done this?
In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind."
- Job 12

"You say to God, 'My beliefs are flawless
and I am pure in your sight.'
Oh, how I wish that God would speak,
that he would open his lips against you
and disclose to you the secrets of wisdom,
for true wisdom has two sides.
Know this: God has even forgotten some of your sin.
Can you fathom the mysteries of God?
Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?
They are higher than the heavens—what can you do?
They are deeper than the depths of the grave —what can you know?
Their measure is longer than the earth
and wider than the sea."
- Job 11

"Your beginnings will seem humble,
so prosperous will your future be.
Ask the former generations
and find out what their fathers learned,
for we were born only yesterday and know nothing,
and our days on earth are but a shadow.
Will they not instruct you and tell you?
Will they not bring forth words from their understanding?"
- Job 8

losthorizon
Aug 12th 2008, 04:09 AM
Okay, I have said this like five times in this thread: there is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. It is an artificially constructed barrier most commonly used by people like us - aka people who are not scientists. Science does not create a technical differentiation between the two because the only difference is time


Ahhh – evolution of the gaps – “time” – the god of Darwinism, given enough time anything can happen - if we allow X00,00000000000000000000000000+ years for molecules to evolve into men it can happen. And how do we know it can happen – because evolutionism tells us it can happen (circular). Of course there is a difference between the two – microevolution is science and macroevolution is faith (religion).

SirTanTee
Aug 12th 2008, 04:27 AM
Ahhh – evolution of the gaps – “time” – the god of Darwinism, given enough time anything can happen - if we allow X00,00000000000000000000000000+ years for molecules to evolve into men it can happen. And how do we know it can happen – because evolutionism tells us it can happen (circular). Of course there is a difference between the two – microevolution is science and macroevolution is faith (religion).

*headdesk* Okay. You seem to not be grasping what I am saying. Let's try using another metaphor. A species' starting point is a single block. Microevolution is another block stacked on top of it; now there are two total blocks. It has progressed a small amount from the starting point. Macroevolution would be a total of three blocks stacked on top of it, progressing it even further. But you're trying to argue that while it's possible to stack one block, it's impossible to stack three? Where do you draw that line? If a species microevolves enough so that it cannot breed with its own species, is that still microevolution? What about genus? At what point would you define microevolution from macroevolution?

Micro/macro-evolution is a false distinction created solely by the creationist movement. Do you realize that, out of all of the non-religious scientific establishment in America, there is not a single one which recognizes microevolution and macroevolution as different processes?

Here's a quote from a book by Niles Eldredge, and what he had to say about the terms of micro/macroevolution.

"Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3].

Patterns of evolutionary change within species are no different in principle just milder in degree from the sorts of changes we see between closely related species. All evolutionary changes are produced by natural selection working each generation on the variation presented to it [p. 76].

The evolution of a family is no different in its basic nature, and should involve in no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described--primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection--going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species--i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life [emphasis in original, p. 76].

Microevolution and macroevolution differ only as a matter of scale, as we have seen from the connectedness of all life, and from the sliding scale of events--from the simplest, smallest evolutionary changes up through the enormous effects wrought as the aftermath of global mass extinctions [p. 88]."

By the way, I am not impressed with the fact that you have still not responded to a single one of the scientific questions I have asked. If you are not qualified to respond to them because you are unfamiliar with the material, then maybe you should consider yourself unqualified to say that evolution is wrong if you cannot even understand the most basic evidence I have presented. You asked me to avoid presenting arguments ad nauseam, but I have presented a diverse range of information. You have not. For example, again, please tell me how we could interpret a fossil record like this a different way:

Point A) Dinosaur fossils present. No bird fossils present. Some dinosaurs share vague similarities with birds.
Point B) Dinosaur fossils present. No bird fossils present. Some dinosaurs share strong similarities with birds.
Point C) Dinosaur fossils disappearing. Primitive bird fossils appear. Primitive birds and dinosaurs share strong similarities.
Point D) No dinosaur fossils present. More advanced bird fossils appear Advanced birds share strong similarities with dinosaurs.

Athanasius
Aug 12th 2008, 04:27 AM
But these people can easily be identified as some evolutionists who are the most radical in basing their personal view of religion on evolution. Anyone can draw an individual, personal conclusion based on the neutral evidence. No metaphysical conclusion is demanded.

I said as much above.

Tell me, why do you think Richard Dawkins is popular? I'm not talking because of The God Delusion but because of The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene? Immense popularity. People share his view, I've talked with quite a few of them. The same goes for Ken Ham of AiG, for instance.

You can't escape it, however. I learned in school that there was no God, why? Evolution took care of him.



Okay, I have said this like five times in this thread: there is no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. It is an artificially constructed barrier most commonly used by people like us - aka people who are not scientists. Science does not create a technical differentiation between the two because the only difference is time; they are one identical process, only one is longer. They happen for the same reasons and through the same mechanism. If a strand of DNA is susceptible to the gene mutations that cause microevolution, then it is susceptible to the very same gene mutations that will cause macroevolution. Admitting that microevolution is possible means that macroevolution is possible. To say that one can happen but not the other is like saying that it's possible to cook a steak half-way, but it's just impossible to cook it all the way. That doesn't make any sense.

Well... I suppose...

I should let you know that the terms 'macro-' and 'microevolution' were first coined by the Russian entomologist (aka, a scientist) Iuri'i Filipchenko. I believe he was an evolutionist who was trying to reconcile evolution and Mendelien genetics. Hard to define terms, but still necessary and not solely used by laymen. They are necessary terms... You can repeat that they are a false distinction as many times as you want, doesn't make it truth.

Aside from that, I disagree. I do not believe macroevolution to be reducible to microevolution - "just a bunch of microevolution plus time"



Then perhaps you would be interested in addressing some of the questions I posed to losthorizon earlier? Or any of the questions about the fossil record I have repeated? (All of these questions have so far been ignored by the creationists in this thread...no response...sigh.) I myself have no doubts that some parts of the Bible are literally true and other parts are metaphorically true. What do we do when the literal, physical evidence around us conflicts with what we interpret to be a literal passage?

I haven't been following this thread aside from the last page (maybe the last two, if the this is on a new page). Just to also say, I'm not here to address whatever questions you may have to ask. Oops, and I'm in the Apologetics and Evangelism forum!? But how could I not respond...

Simple: your mind is made up.



I'll even add another one. What is another explanation besides common descent for these facts:

- Humans and chimpanzees share a pattern of completely unique endogenous retroviruses. No other type of animals shares this pattern. It is passed down exclusively hereditarily.
- Humans and chimpanzees share approximately 98% of their 3 billion base units of DNA bases, as well as significant portions of their anatomy structure.
- Humans have one less chromosome than great apes. How can this be explained? Turns out that the genes found on the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes of the great ape match up to the genes found on the 2nd human chromosome. Coincidentally, the human chromosome is almost the exact length of the two great ape chromosomes if they had been fused together. Hmm.

Again: if the common designer just made it this way - why? Why provide an excessive amount of information the points to common ancestry if it was far from the truth?

I'm a little slow. Could you explain to me how this means we evolved from apes and chimpanzees?

Luke34
Aug 12th 2008, 04:53 AM
Haha. Did you read the thread? I'm one of the ones supporting evolution here. I asked for creationist research looking to disprove evolution, because that's what almost 100% of creationist "scientific" research seems to be trying to do, despite the fact that it is horrible "science" with a preconceived conclusion. However, they do not seem to have research trying to independently verify their own theory, so I was willing to take what I could get.
Oops, sorry about that. I guess I just assume everyone here is a creationist. But anyway, I have now, you know, actually read the thread and, good posts.

Luke34
Aug 12th 2008, 04:57 AM
Of course there is a difference between the two – microevolution is science and macroevolution is faith (religion). You do know that many instances of macroevolution (i.e., evolution of one species from another) have been observed and documented, right? I don't see how it takes faith to believe in something that has been scientifically observed dozens of times.

"Microevolution is real but macroevolution isn't" is nothing but cop-out hedging in an attempt to reconcile the fact that evolution so obviously occurs with a literal reading of Genesis.

SirTanTee
Aug 12th 2008, 05:11 AM
I said as much above.

Tell me, why do you think Richard Dawkins is popular? I'm not talking because of The God Delusion but because of The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene? Immense popularity. People share his view, I've talked with quite a few of them. The same goes for Ken Ham of AiG, for instance.

You can't escape it, however. I learned in school that there was no God, why? Evolution took care of him.

Why is he popular? Because he's controversial. Because he says crazy stuff. Why is Ann Coulter so popular? Don Imus? Kent Hovind? Sure, some people believe they're right, but a huge amount of people just tune in because they say wild things and it's amusing. People don't share his view, I've talked with quite a view of them.

I learned about God in school. I learned the Truth in Theology class. Then I went to biology and learned some more truth. I'm sorry you can't reconcile two different subjects as coexisting realities, but it's not science's job to babysit religion. Not to mention that, Constitutionally, if we taught creationism we would have to teach a lot of pagan material as well.


Well... I suppose...

I should let you know that the terms 'macro-' and 'microevolution' were first coined by the Russian entomologist (aka, a scientist) Iuri'i Filipchenko. I believe he was an evolutionist who was trying to reconcile evolution and Mendelien genetics. Hard to define terms, but still necessary and not solely used by laymen. They are necessary terms... You can repeat that they are a false distinction as many times as you want, doesn't make it truth.

Aside from that, I disagree. I do not believe macroevolution to be reducible to microevolution - "just a bunch of microevolution plus time"

Yes, I do know that a scientist coined those terms...in 1937. The scientific world has evolved tremendously since then. You say that you "believe" that macroevolution is the same as microevolution. I am curious to why your belief is more qualified than the entire scientific community, which regards them as a single process.



I haven't been following this thread aside from the last page (maybe the last two, if the this is on a new page). Just to also say, I'm not here to address whatever questions you may have to ask. Oops, and I'm in the Apologetics and Evangelism forum!? But how could I not respond...

Simple: your mind is made up.

My mind is made up based on the evidence that has so far been presented to me. I have struggled for so long to understand the reconciliation of Christianity and the fact of evolution. You think that if someone could show me real evidence that the Earth was created in six days, 6,000 years ago, I wouldn't be there in a heartbeat? You think I enjoy it when people at Church look at me strangely when I say that yes, I do believe in evolution? When I get accused of being a closet-atheist because I don't interpret Genesis as a literal account? It's not crackers and cheese cake, brother. If creationism gives me a good reason to believe in it, my heart will be open. But I do not believe that God's word contradicts with God's works; the only possible error can be in our mortal interpretation.

I'm just frustrated by the fact that the creationists in this thread have so far claimed that evolution is false, metaphysical, bad science, untrustworthy and deceptive, yet so far every one of them has refused to address the facts and questions I've presented. If the facts behind the theory of evolution count as bad science, then the facts behind the theory of creationism are hideous science, yet every time I ask a creationist to use logic and science to address an issue, they either decline, ignore the post entirely and complain that the evidence is "too long."


I'm a little slow. Could you explain to me how this means we evolved from apes and chimpanzees?

It means that we share a mind-boggling amount of traits which, in our physical world, can only be created through a family relationship. It means that we quite possibly evolved through the well-documented process of genetic mutation, natural selection and divergent evolution.

Also, I forgot to include in the previous list transitional hominid fossils. Pretty picture can be found here: http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/HominidSkulls.jpg

I'm finding myself a little slow for finding an alternate explanation for evidence like this.

losthorizon
Aug 12th 2008, 11:35 AM
Here's a quote from a book by Niles Eldredge, and what he had to say about the terms of micro/macroevolution.

"Evolutionary processes taking place in relatively small scales of space and time connect to larger-scale entities, processes, and events to produce the entire history of life from the smallest incremental evolutionary change to the vast spectrum running from the simplest bacteria on up through the complex fungi, plants, and animals--from, in other words, the small-scale changes of so-called microevolution on up through the larger-scaled changes often referred to as macroevolution. This tremendously diverse array of life, spanning at least 3.5 billion years of Earth history, is all connected by a pattern of nested sets of genetic and anatomical similarity that can rationally be explained only as the simple outcome of a natural shared descent with modification [pp. 62-3].

This quote is a statement of faith made by a man of faith (Darwinism) who rejects the concept of a Designer-God – it is not a statement based on science but based on the false premise that design in nature is an illusion. His presupposition that the outcome he observes is a “natural shared descent with modification” is simply the common design used by God to create the diversity and complexity of life on this planet. Do you see design in nature and is God the originator of that design?

losthorizon
Aug 12th 2008, 11:39 AM
You do know that many instances of macroevolution (i.e., evolution of one species from another) have been observed and documented, right? I don't see how it takes faith to believe in something that has been scientifically observed dozens of times.

"Microevolution is real but macroevolution isn't" is nothing but cop-out hedging in an attempt to reconcile the fact that evolution so obviously occurs with a literal reading of Genesis.
Anyone who understands biological science understands speciation (science) but that hardly “proves” the Darwinian philosophy of “common ancestry” - right?. Are you a Darwinist?

crawfish
Aug 12th 2008, 01:34 PM
AIG at one end... Richard Dawkins at the other... Feels like all anyone is doing here is pulling extremes and saying, 'HA! These people represent everyone on their respective sides".

I would say that AIG represents the mindset of the majority of Creationists, if not the science. Dawkins represents the science of most evolutionists, but not the mindset.

Athanasius
Aug 12th 2008, 02:34 PM
I would say that AIG represents the mindset of the majority of Creationists, if not the science. Dawkins represents the science of most evolutionists, but not the mindset.

I'm starting to think you're worse than the creationists who 'persecute'. Nothing I could ever tell you would change your mind, because you've got it all figured out :|

crawfish
Aug 12th 2008, 03:14 PM
I'm starting to think you're worse than the creationists who 'persecute'. Nothing I could ever tell you would change your mind, because you've got it all figured out :|

:confused

You (and others) have changed my mind over time. Not from my core belief, but my overall beliefs have been altered by my time on this board. I have actually softened my views on the history of the bible; I used to be nebulous about all of Genesis as history, but I'm now convinced through study (which this board and the other has guided me through) that they are historical. I am also MORE convinced that the first part of Genesis - chapters 1-10 and probably 11 - are more symbolic than historical.

Can you deny that the most important component of Creationism is to keep science in line with the bible's creation account? You accept that Genesis is God's Word to us detailing exactly how He created the heavens and the earth. Now, not all YEC's accept all of AIG's science, but unless I am completely mistaken, it should be impossible by definition for a Creationist to not hold that mindset.

On my side, I have very little problem with the science of Dawkins. What I have a problem with is his mindset - that, just because we have a lot of evidence that evolution happened, it means that the biblical account must be wrong and there must be no God. That is, as my friend losthorizon would say, metaphysical, has no place in science, and is completely contrary to my own mindset.

SirTanTee
Aug 12th 2008, 05:33 PM
This quote is a statement of faith made by a man of faith (Darwinism) who rejects the concept of a Designer-God – it is not a statement based on science but based on the false premise that design in nature is an illusion. His presupposition that the outcome he observes is a “natural shared descent with modification” is simply the common design used by God to create the diversity and complexity of life on this planet. Do you see design in nature and is God the originator of that design?

Yes, I do see the design in nature. I believe that God is the originator of that design. I also see the evidence that God has left us with that His design has grown and changed radically over time, shaped by His hand. Is there a problem with that?

I agree with Crawfish that Answers in Genesis may represent good religious metaphysics, it's guilty of bad science. And while Richard Dawkins is an example of a good technical scientist, he's guilty of bad philosophy. *shrug* They are flawed as we all are. Many creationists disagree with the work of AiG, and many evolutionists disagree with the opinions of Dawkins.

Luke34
Aug 12th 2008, 07:34 PM
Anyone who understands biological science understands speciation (science) but that hardly “proves” the Darwinian philosophy of “common ancestry” - right?. Are you a Darwinist?
You said that macroevolution was not science. Macroevolution is usually defined as evolution beyond the species level, also known as speciation. Speciation has been observed to occur. I am unsure how the scientific study of an observed phenomenon is "not science."

Common ancestry is not a "philosophy"; it is the best available explanation for the likenesses between all life on earth and the patterns of evolution seen in the fossil record.* Purely logically, it is also a reasonable extention of the fact of speciation: If species develop from one another, the simplest explanation that fits with the available evidence is that all species on earth developed from the same early lifeforms.

"Darwinist" doesn't really mean anything, but I do accept that evolution is ocurring and has occured over the billions of years of this planet's existence, and that it gave rise to all the organisms that populate or have populated it.

*(It is also accepted by pretty much one hundred percent of scientists. And don't anybody be like "but here's ten guys with degrees who are also creationists!", because "pretty much one hundred percent" can also mean 99.5% or the like. And I can't imagine that there is a scientist of any distinction who rejects common ancestry--the most well-known scientist who even supports "intelligent design," which by the way also flat-out contradicts Genesis creationism, is Michael Behe, who is mostly famous just for that. And even he accepts common ancestry as fact.)

Athanasius
Aug 13th 2008, 01:05 AM
Can you deny that the most important component of Creationism is to keep science in line with the bible's creation account? You accept that Genesis is God's Word to us detailing exactly how He created the heavens and the earth. Now, not all YEC's accept all of AIG's science, but unless I am completely mistaken, it should be impossible by definition for a Creationist to not hold that mindset.

What we discover through science or some other means using logic and rational thought must agree with scripture. Maybe that means we'll have to change our interpretation of scripture (if scripture allows for it), and maybe that means our science is at times bad. That's how it should be.



On my side, I have very little problem with the science of Dawkins. What I have a problem with is his mindset - that, just because we have a lot of evidence that evolution happened, it means that the biblical account must be wrong and there must be no God. That is, as my friend losthorizon would say, metaphysical, has no place in science, and is completely contrary to my own mindset.

Richard Dawkins' science, or evolution? Because his science stems from his mindset - there is no God. It's no different than 'denying scientific progress' to protect Creationism.

losthorizon
Aug 13th 2008, 01:59 AM
You said that macroevolution was not science. Macroevolution is usually defined as evolution beyond the species level, also known as speciation. Speciation has been observed to occur. I am unsure how the scientific study of an observed phenomenon is "not science."


Again – we need to be on the same page with our terminology. What Darwin termed as “transmutation of species” is the philosophical notion that one species (a dinosaur) can “transmute” (morph) into a bird over a gazillion years of natural selection and mutation. This is a metaphysical (religious) concept and many (including you) have great faith this took place. But in the real world of scientific method - biological evolution recognizes only “sub-speciation” – ie - variation within species as "good science". A good example of subspeciation documented by observation and the scientific method is Psophodes nigrogularis of Australia - a subspeciation caused by geographical variation/isolation…(btw subspeciation is recognized in the Bible).
Subspeciation in the Western Whipbird Psophodes nigrogularis and Its Zoogeographical Significance, With Descriptions of Two New Subspecies

R Schodde and IJ Mason

Abstract
Geographical variation in the Western Whipbird Psophodes nigrogularis is reviewed by routine morphometric procedures. Four subspecies are recognised: nominotypical nigrogularis in extreme coastal south-western Australia, oberon in the mallee heaths of eastern south-west Australia, lashmari on Kangaroo Island and leucogaster in the Murray Mallee and on Yorke and Eyre Peninsulas, South Australia. Two of the subspecies (oberon and lashmari) are described as new. The presence of two fonns (nigrogularis and oberon) in south-west Australia raises questions about their taxonomic status and parallels the occurrence of other pairs of Bassian taxa in that region. Reconstruction of the evolution of such pairs identifies the highlands about the South Australian gulfs as an important refuge and source of speciation for Bassian birds during Quaternary and perhaps later Tertiary times. Implications for conservation are reassessed.Do you have scientific evidence to support your notion of transmutation of species? Please – no Darwinian lore that relies as much on fairy dust as it does science.

losthorizon
Aug 13th 2008, 02:06 AM
That is, as my friend losthorizon would say, metaphysical, has no place in science, and is completely contrary to my own mindset.
Crawfish – I knew we would eventually find some common ground. I think before it’s over we can get you on the same page as Bishop Ussher’s creation date of the world at 4004 BC - "the night preceding October 23". Do you think Ussher's notion is sceince or metaphysics? ;)

losthorizon
Aug 13th 2008, 02:19 AM
Yes, I do see the design in nature. I believe that God is the originator of that design. I also see the evidence that God has left us with that His design has grown and changed radically over time, shaped by His hand. Is there a problem with that?


Then what do you tell your Darwinist friends who insist that evolutionism can explain the apparent design in nature (an illustion) without the existence of God (see Dawkins’, The God Delusion)? Please tell me in your own words how you would explain to me if I were an atheist-Darwinian evolutionist how there is design in nature because a Creator-God designed everything that has been created. Remember – no God of the Gaps allowed.

crawfish
Aug 13th 2008, 02:44 AM
What we discover through science or some other means using logic and rational thought must agree with scripture. Maybe that means we'll have to change our interpretation of scripture (if scripture allows for it), and maybe that means our science is at times bad. That's how it should be.

Wow...you almost sound like a TE. :D

We aren't so different after all. I know plenty of YEC's who would not make even that concession, claiming that the only reason science doesn't gibe with their view of scripture is because science is wrong. I don't think that's a healthy viewpoint; we must never assume that our understanding of scripture is perfect (and, thank God, it's not demanded).


Richard Dawkins' science, or evolution? Because his science stems from his mindset - there is no God. It's no different than 'denying scientific progress' to protect Creationism.

I've read plenty of Dawkins, and his science is pretty solid until he uses it as "proof" that there is no God. And then he goes off the deep end.

crawfish
Aug 13th 2008, 02:47 AM
Crawfish – I knew we would eventually find some common ground. I think before it’s over we can get you on the same page as Bishop Ussher’s creation date of the world at 4004 BC - "the night preceding October 23". Do you think Ussher's notion is sceince or metaphysics? ;)

We have always had common ground in the cross of Christ...and that is all the common ground we should need. I never forget that, even when you annoy me the most. :D

You've got a long way to go to convince me of 4004 B.C. Pure speculation, and bad speculation at that (Hebrew genealogies are known for skipping generations). Good luck. :lol:

losthorizon
Aug 13th 2008, 02:50 AM
I've read plenty of Dawkins, and his science is pretty solid until he uses it as "proof" that there is no God. And then he goes off the deep end.


So is a scientist who routinely mixes science and metaphysics and passes the mix off as science a “good scientist” or is he a scientist who practices “bad science”?

losthorizon
Aug 13th 2008, 02:57 AM
We have always had common ground in the cross of Christ...and that is all the common ground we should need. I never forget that, even when you annoy me the most. :D
:thumbsup:


You've got a long way to go to convince me of 4004 B.C. Pure speculation, and bad speculation at that (Hebrew genealogies are known for skipping generations). Good luck. :lol:
I think he was way off base - March 15th - Ides of March - would be much more scientically accurate based on the Babylonian calendar (lunisolar).

Athanasius
Aug 13th 2008, 03:05 AM
Wow...you almost sound like a TE. :D

We aren't so different after all. I know plenty of YEC's who would not make even that concession, claiming that the only reason science doesn't gibe with their view of scripture is because science is wrong. I don't think that's a healthy viewpoint; we must never assume that our understanding of scripture is perfect (and, thank God, it's not demanded).

To me this only makes sense.



I've read plenty of Dawkins, and his science is pretty solid until he uses it as "proof" that there is no God. And then he goes off the deep end.

I getcha.

Luke34
Aug 13th 2008, 04:38 AM
Again – we need to be on the same page with our terminology. What Darwin termed as “transmutation of species” is the philosophical notion that one species (a dinosaur) can “transmute” (morph) into a bird over a gazillion years of natural selection and mutation. This is a metaphysical (religious) concept and many (including you) have great faith this took place. But in the real world of scientific method - biological evolution recognizes only “sub-speciation” – ie - variation within species as "good science".
Nope, not true (see below). And plus, I should think that at least most of those 99% of scientists know how to do the scientific method. Evolution by natural selection can pass any scientific test you care to name. And how in the world is speciation metaphysical? It involves incremental changes in the physical DNA of a small group of organisms that eventually lead to that group being unable to breed with the original group.


Do you have scientific evidence to support your notion of transmutation of species? Please – no Darwinian lore that relies as much on fairy dust as it does science. I assume this means "no evidence based on fossils," even though every single scientist on the whole planet accepts the fossil record as legitimate evidence, and all but the tiniest handful the world has ever seen agree that it overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.

But, fine. No fossil evidence. I can't give you the URL because, you know, evolution is teh evil, but just Google "observed instances of speciation" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=observed+instances+of+speciation) and the first result contains dozens of scientifically observed and documented examples of evolution above the species level--macroevolution. And keep in mind this is not ancient history: A cursory glance reveals that most of these occured in the last century. There is no possible way to claim that macroevolution does not happen when presented with this evidence, except if you go the crazy route and claim that the scientists made it up because they are godless heathens. And I don't think anyone in this thread is going to do that.

losthorizon
Aug 14th 2008, 01:18 AM
Nope, not true (see below). And plus, I should think that at least most of those 99% of scientists know how to do the scientific method. Evolution by natural selection can pass any scientific test you care to name. And how in the world is speciation metaphysical? It involves incremental changes in the physical DNA of a small group of organisms that eventually lead to that group being unable to breed with the original group.


Once again you use generalities to make a moot point – I can use your words above and insert “creation scientists” in place of “scientists” and it would still be true...
99% of “creationist scientists” know how to do the scientific method. Evolution by natural selection can pass any scientific test you care to name. As a critique, you need to be more original if you hope to persuade. The begging questions remain - how many scientists believe in “transmutation of species”? Can you support transmutation with the scientific method? Why do you TE’s only point out Google searches for your evidences - can’t you just present your evidence here on this thread to be examined. All the OP can do is regurgitate page after page of undocumented Darwin-babble. I am asking for the extraordinary evidences required for the extraordinary claims you folks make that dinosaurs can morph into birds. From what you have presented thus far which is nothing, I doubt that you can deliver. As a “true believer”, the OP rejects the truth that Darwinism is based on philosophy. Do you agree with her? Crawfish on the other hand appears to accept the metaphysics associated with evolutionism. Are you a man of great faith?

Paul_born_again
Aug 14th 2008, 01:46 AM
I am trying to find information about current scientific creationist projects.

I haven't read this thread in its entirety, so these may have been mentioned already:

The Creation Research Society (http://www.creationresearch.org/) - many Ph.D's (that are young-earth creationists) in that organization and you can read their peer reviewed journals on their site.

This is also a very big list of creation scientists and their organizations:
http://www.creationwiki.org/Creation_Scientists
Clicking on their names will link you to their sites and/or their scientific research papers in the young-earth field.

Hope that helps! :)

Luke34
Aug 14th 2008, 04:30 AM
Once again you use generalities to make a moot point – I can use your words above and insert “creation scientists” in place of “scientists” and it would still be true...
Well, statistically speaking, there are almost no "creation scientists" (especially since "creation science" is not a real thing). And all the other scientific-method-knowing scientists, which is at least 99% of those in relavent fields and which includes all of the country's and world's top scientists, agree that "creation science" is nowhere close to being acceptable the scientific method, that evolution is a completely acceptable and valid and true scientific theory, and that "creation scientists" are deluded. It taxes the mind to believe that the world's greatest scientific thinkers for 100 years have been so completely off the mark about their area of expertise and that a tiny group of religious fundamentalist scientists with no scientific credibility whatsoever could be right on the money.


As a critique, you need to be more original if you hope to persuade. Why? I'm not a scientist. I lack the training to piece together the evidences of evolution in new and exciting ways, and I'm guessing you do too. Just because a piece of evidence for a theory has been around a while doesn't mean it's not true, especially since you haven't even bothered to attack any of them specifically with facts. Persuasiveness should not be contingent upon novelty.


The begging questions remain - how many scientists believe in “transmutation of species”? Speciation? All of them. (Except, yes, the <1% that are "creation scientists," but they're statistically insignificant.) Seriously: Write any scientific organization (particularly those associated with the biological sciences), or the biology professor at your local college*, or whoever, and ask them what their thoughts and/or the current scientific consensus on speciation is. Speciation is a fact.


Can you support transmutation with the scientific method? That's like asking "can you support sky-blueness with the scientific method?" It's an observed fact that speciation occurs. But yes, it can be tested etc., quite unlike creationist "hypotheses."


Why do you TE’s only point out Google searches for your evidences - can’t you just present your evidence here on this thread to be examined. Uh, sure. I was going to link to the site so as not to stretch my post too much, but it's an incredibly evil site that offers evidence for an area of the biological sciences, so I'm not allowed. Anyway, here is the (incomplete) list of observed instances of speciation (from the first result of said Google search): [Edit: Placed in separate post because of length issues. Please see my post directly below this one.]


All the OP can do is regurgitate page after page of undocumented Darwin-babble. So, "Darwin-babble" equals "facts"? Or just "facts that you have not bothered to even try to refute"?


I am asking for the extraordinary evidences required for the extraordinary claims you folks make that dinosaurs can morph into birds. Um, I don't think you really get speciation.


From what you have presented thus far which is nothing, I doubt that you can deliver. Wait, did you actually click on the Google search, or just dismiss it because it was, in fact, a Google search? Anyway, the evidence is right up there now.


As a “true believer”, the OP rejects the truth that Darwinism is based on philosophy. Do you agree with her?
I do. Because that is a ridiculous claim. Can you name one piece of the evolutionary theory that is in any way "metaphysical" or "philosophical"? Do you accept the truth that, you know, actual scientists know better than you do what science is and is not? Do you realize that Darwin began developing his theory after observing the adaptations of finches in different environments, which is not philosophical but a scientific observation? Do you further realize that "Darwinism" means nothing useful in this context?


Crawfish on the other hand appears to accept the metaphysics associated with evolutionism. "Evolutionism" means "the theory of evolution," not whatever you think it means. It is not a belief system. And since when does crawfish believe in non-existent metaphysics associated with evolution? Did you read the part where he accepts Dawkins' science but not his metaphysical conclusions drawn from that science?


Are you a man of great faith? Depends on what you mean. But this is rather a non sequitur question coming of off a discussion about, you know, science.



*Assuming it's not Pensacola Christian College or something.

Luke34
Aug 14th 2008, 04:31 AM
5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.



5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy



5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature



5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

Luke34
Aug 14th 2008, 04:33 AM
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.
They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.
They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.
In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.
Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.
5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster

Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.
Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).
Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.
5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila

The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.
Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.
Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.
Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.
In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.
A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.

Luke34
Aug 14th 2008, 04:34 AM
5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments



5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis,no gene flowPopulation B - geotaxis,no gene flowPopulation C + geotaxis,30% gene flowPopulation D - geotaxis,30% gene flow
Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.
Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."
5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH-75%P1 × P1-95%P2 × P2-80%P1 × P2-77%WH × P1- 0%WH × P2- 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.
Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.
For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.
5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases

So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

Athanasius
Aug 14th 2008, 04:51 AM
Luke, you wanna give a citation for that?

Luke34
Aug 14th 2008, 04:59 AM
Luke, you wanna give a citation for that?
The website TalkOrigins, in the article "Observed Instances of Speciation."

Also, all of the examples are referenced (by the original author, not me) within the posts to the original works of scientific research from which they are derived. And the original article has a "References" section, but it's rather tedious to post here.

Athanasius
Aug 14th 2008, 05:18 AM
Oh sorry, for some reason I missed that -.-

Luke34
Aug 14th 2008, 05:25 AM
Oh sorry, for some reason I missed that -.- If you're like me, it's because you read it as "blah blah houseflies blah blah reproductive isolation blah blah blah." I mean, I don't have time for all the details!

Studyin'2Show
Aug 14th 2008, 11:42 AM
But that is exactly what some of ID is...figuring odds on what has happened to claim that because those odds are so great, it couldn't have happened by chance.

That really doesn't imply anything about evolution, anyway, since it is not random. Each step affects and limits the steps that can follow.Actually, that's a misunderstanding of what ID is. It is NOT about looking at something, saying it is impossible, then concluding that God must have done it. I just listened to a podcast addressing this misconception, you can listen to it here: http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2008-08-13T15_10_06-07_00 It is rather observing the physical and assessing, based on the evidence which includes the natural laws of science (DNA etc), what is more scientifically probable.

Let me give you an example. You could stand on a cliff, hold a rock over the edge and open your hand. Is there a chance that the rock will float upwards? Yes. Though extremely improbable, the rock might be caught in a funnel cloud that just happens to appear at that moment and whisk the rock away. The however improbable off possibility does not change the fact that it is much more probable that ever time anyone anywhere at any time has opened their hand with a rock over a cliff...the rock has fallen downward.

Another misunderstanding is that IDers do not accept what has been referred to here as 'evolutionary science'. As losthorizon stated earlier in the thread, we accept the observable science. The science does not change. The science is repeatable. What I don't accept is evolutionary 'philosophy' which is for example saying this: Because I observe similarities in the anatomy of two different species, I thus conclude this came about because of common descent. You see, THAT is not science! THAT is where science moves into the realm of philosophy. Therefore, the question of the OP can easily be turned onto the darwinian evolutionist. There is no proof for either ID or darwinian evolution. Both must be accepted by faith because they can not be observed. Change does not equal darwinian evolution though the smoke screen would have one believing it does. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Aug 14th 2008, 12:03 PM
Actually, an uphill gain is not needed to produce different traits. For example, take all your different types of dogs. Although all of these breeds have been created by man and many of them are astoundingly different, not once has the dog genome been lengthened or added onto. Significant change can be made through simple reshuffling - without any element of new genes. :pp You have finally gotten the point...though you are still missing the forest for the trees. :rolleyes: There has been no additional information because they are all still dogs with simply a reshuffling of genetic information that was already present in the genome. The dogs remain dogs, the fruitflies remain fruitflies, the bacterium remain bacterium and so on. THAT is what we observe! THAT is science! What we do not observe is a species with less genetic information 'evolving' into a species with more genetic information. And btw, repeating of information does not count. ;) An addition of information not a duplication of information would be required for a single-celled organism to evolve into a multi-celled organism and for that progression to continue through to a complex organism like man. There MUST be a continual (over time) addition of genetic information for that to occur. THAT is the philosophy of evolution! Look, let's stick with the science. I'm all for that. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Aug 14th 2008, 12:26 PM
Well, statistically speaking, there are almost no "creation scientists" (especially since "creation science" is not a real thing). And all the other scientific-method-knowing scientists, which is at least 99% of those in relavent fields and which includes all of the country's and world's top scientists, agree that "creation science" is nowhere close to being acceptable the scientific method, that evolution is a completely acceptable and valid and true scientific theory, and that "creation scientists" are deluded. It taxes the mind to believe that the world's greatest scientific thinkers for 100 years have been so completely off the mark about their area of expertise and that a tiny group of religious fundamentalist scientists with no scientific credibility whatsoever could be right on the money.This is a complete misrepresentation of scientist that dissent from darwinian evolution. :rolleyes: And people wonder why young scientists who disagree with the theory don't come out of the closet, so to speak. If we have here an admitted non-scientist Christian making a judgment about people he doesn't even know and lumping them ALL into the category of crackpot, and we know that the mostly atheist scientific community is even more militant concerning their precious theory, no wonder the smart thing for a young scientist to do is to keep their heads out of the line of fire. The fact is that there are MANY accredited, intelligent scientists that do not tow the party line as far as darwinian evolution. The 'percentages' do not have to be high for something to be true. What percentage of these same scientists do not believe in the God of the Bible? If the percentage is high are we to assume that means that God does not exist? Truth is not determined by committee. ;) Noah alone in his generation served the One True God. It was much much more than 99% who did not and thought Noah was a crackpot. Oh wait, this isn't a good example for you because you probably don't believe Noah existed as a real person, do you? :hmm: Oh well, you get the point I hope. Truth is not determined by committee. :)

God bless you as you seek the Truth!

crawfish
Aug 14th 2008, 03:46 PM
Actually, that's a misunderstanding of what ID is. It is NOT about looking at something, saying it is impossible, then concluding that God must have done it. I just listened to a podcast addressing this misconception, you can listen to it here: http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2008-08-13T15_10_06-07_00 It is rather observing the physical and assessing, based on the evidence which includes the natural laws of science (DNA etc), what is more scientifically probable.

In my defense, I did say "some". And, "scientifically probable" is a moving target - there have been things that were deemed improbable that are, in reality, quite probable.


Let me give you an example. You could stand on a cliff, hold a rock over the edge and open your hand. Is there a chance that the rock will float upwards? Yes. Though extremely improbable, the rock might be caught in a funnel cloud that just happens to appear at that moment and whisk the rock away. The however improbable off possibility does not change the fact that it is much more probable that ever time anyone anywhere at any time has opened their hand with a rock over a cliff...the rock has fallen downward.


It is also more probably that the odd occurrence will happen the more chances it gets; for a one in a million chance, one toss is very unlikely to fly upwards. But if you try a billion times, you're virtually assured of having it occur multiple times. Through sheer time and sheer numbers, the probability goes up. But either way, once the improbable occurs you cannot judge it by its improbability.


Another misunderstanding is that IDers do not accept what has been referred to here as 'evolutionary science'. As losthorizon stated earlier in the thread, we accept the observable science. The science does not change. The science is repeatable. What I don't accept is evolutionary 'philosophy' which is for example saying this: Because I observe similarities in the anatomy of two different species, I thus conclude this came about because of common descent. You see, THAT is not science! THAT is where science moves into the realm of philosophy. Therefore, the question of the OP can easily be turned onto the darwinian evolutionist. There is no proof for either ID or darwinian evolution. Both must be accepted by faith because they can not be observed. Change does not equal darwinian evolution though the smoke screen would have one believing it does. ;)

God Bless!

You are misstating science with the statement above. That observation is good enough to make a hypothesis; but to get to theory stage it must go through quite a bit of rigor and testing. You must say: if that hypothesis is true, then these certain traits should be exhibited. The fossil record must follow a certain pattern. DNA must support a certain pattern. If evolution is true, there are consequences in that truth that will exhibit themselves throughout all life; therefore, evolution is inherently falsifiable. Therefore, evolution is testable. And therefore, it is a science.

I've never been too sure of how ID is falsifiable. If it's not, then it is not science.

I also think the statement "both cannot be observed" is very misleading. Misleading because ID and even YEC scientists accept many scientific ideas of things that cannot be observed over a lifetime, in fields such as geology. No, we can't directly observe a fish evolve into an amphibian over millions of years; we can, however, find evidence of that change in the fossil record. What are the measurable consequences of ID? How do you prove that something can't be brought about by natural means? What happens if you make that claim and then, as in the case of the bacterial flagellum, you find it can? No, this "observation" claim is a smoke screen that would have horrible repurcussions to science, turning it into glorified butterly collecting.

losthorizon
Aug 15th 2008, 01:58 AM
Well, statistically speaking, there are almost no "creation scientists" (especially since "creation science" is not a real thing).


But there are many scientist (living and dead) who believe God created in the beginning – including almost all of the “fathers of modern science” - Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc.


Why? I'm not a scientist. I lack the training to piece together the evidences of evolution in new and exciting waysAnd I would add that you (as a non-scientist) have a problem making the distinction between what is made know by the scientific method (science) and the personal philosophies of trained scientists (metaphysics). This failure on your part leads you to accept philosophy as science - not good.


Speciation? All of them. (Except, yes, the <1% that are "creation scientists," but they're statistically insignificant.) Seriously: Write any scientific organization (particularly those associated with the biological sciences), or the biology professor at your local college*, or whoever, and ask them what their thoughts and/or the current scientific consensus on speciation is. Speciation is a fact.
Lol - for the third time my friend – no one on this thread denies speciation – it is part of biological evolution. You are simply erecting a straw man because you have no real ‘proofs” to support Darwin’s non-scientific notion of “transmutation of species”. The scientific fact that lions can be breed with tigers and visa versa resulting in hybrids called ligers and tigons is not what we are discussing here. I am asking you to support the myth that man emerged from a common ancestor he shares with apes. Your l-o-n-g cut and paste falls way short – you are still at square one and going nowhere fast.


Can you name one piece of the evolutionary theory that is in any way "metaphysical" or "philosophical"?
Sure - molecules-to-man evolution. Why would an expert on evolution who is also a scientist and atheist like Michael Ruse admit that much of Darwinism is metaphysical in nature? Why would he dare admit that Darwinism functions as a secular religion? Why does he admit “creationists are right about this”? Why does he truthfully say Darwinism is – “the secular religion based on evolution” and it does not belong in the classroom of public schools? Why do you fail to see reality?
But the simple fact of the matter is that, use language as you like or not, the fact remains that for many evolutionists – some Darwinian and some not – evolution does function as a secular religion. The creationists are right about this. The right move is to recognize this fact and to move forward, not to deny it. ...we see that evolutionism has its priests and devotees…if creationism has no place in the classroom, then neither does a secular religion based on evolution. We who care passionately about science should know when to keep the science and religion separate and remember always when it is appropriate to teach the one and not the other. ~ Micheal Ruse, "scholar of all things Darwinian"

Luke34
Aug 15th 2008, 06:45 AM
The 'percentages' do not have to be high for something to be true. What percentage of these same scientists do not believe in the God of the Bible? If the percentage is high are we to assume that means that God does not exist? Truth is not determined by committee. I know that. But that doesn't mean a tiny fringe group of scientists who are not taken seriously by the community at large (and I know I'm generalizing, but I'm right) is just as likely to be correct as the other 99%, which includes pretty much all of those who have achieved recognition in the relavent fields. Some opinions are better than others, and though it is not impossible for the world's experts on a subject to be 180 degrees wrong and for a miniscule, invisible group with way less credibility to meanwhile be correct, it is tremendously implausible and I cannot name another time in history when it has happened.

Athanasius
Aug 15th 2008, 06:50 AM
I think as Christians we should all know better concerning 'X' amount of people who believe 'Y' thing ;) I'm not saying the minority is correct over the majority, but I wouldn't necessarily say 'X people believe in 'Y' so it's more plausible.

Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't. My opinion shouldn't be so easily swayed.

Luke34
Aug 15th 2008, 07:12 AM
But there are many scientist (living and dead) who believe God created in the beginning – including almost all of the “fathers of modern science” - Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc. Check your dates. Was Darwin's theory around when these scientists did their work? Also: Were they biologists?


And I would add that you (as a non-scientist) have a problem making the distinction between what is made know by the scientific method (science) and the personal philosophies of trained scientists (metaphysics). How is it possible for the scientific community, which is made up of millions of scientists from completely different backgrounds and environments, to have a monolithic set of "personal philosophies"? Answer: It isn't, and to say that it is renders the term "personal philosophies" utterly useless. There is no commonly accepted principle of evolution that depends on "peronal philosophy."


Lol - for the third time my friend – no one on this thread denies speciation – it is part of biological evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said that microevolution was science and macroevolution wasn't, didn't you? Macroevolution is evolution above the level of species. Speciation is evolution above the level of species. By showing that speciation occurs, I have demonstrated that macroevolution occurs. If you will type the statement "Macroevolution has been observed to happen and has been scientifically documented," I will drop the issue.


You are simply erecting a straw man because you have no real ‘proofs” to support Darwin’s non-scientific notion of “transmutation of species”. The scientific fact that lions can be breed with tigers and visa versa resulting in hybrids called ligers and tigons is not what we are discussing here. Um...no, it certainly isn't. We're discussing speciation, not hybrids. We're discussing the scientific fact that species can become other species. You just admitted that. In fact:

Transmutation of species is a term to describe the altering of one species into another.

no one on this thread denies speciation And what is speciation? Why, nothing more than the evolution of one species into another.

So, what's your argument with Darwin? It looks like you agree with him.


I am asking you to support the myth that man emerged from a common ancestor he shares with apes. Your l-o-n-g cut and paste falls way short – you are still at square one and going nowhere fast. Nope, not what you asked. You asked if I could support "transmutation" with evidence (you said "the scientific method," but that didn't quite fit), which I did. Speciation is not the same thing as "man has a recent common ancestor with apes." Know what you're asking.

Anyway, why are you asking some random college student to show you evidence for human evolution on an internet? If you don't believe the works of great scientists, you're just going to reject anything I say as "metaphysics." You are free to believe that conclusions drawn from fossil evidence and the like constitute metaphysics and personal opinion, but almost every scientist in the world accepts them as scientific evidence that man has a recent common ancestor with the apes, and their opinion on such matters is more informed, more considered--you might say better--than either of ours.

Anyway, Wikipedia will take over from here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution) You can accuse me of copy-and-paste if you want, because, well, that's what I did, but me trying to think up my own original, unique evidences for human evolution would just be pathetic. So you can either have it straight from Wikipedia or in a summary by me, and only one of those options precludes more Office-watching on my part.



Sure - molecules-to-man evolution. Why would an expert on evolution who is also a scientist and atheist like Michael Ruse admit that much of Darwinism is metaphysical in nature? Why would he dare admit that Darwinism functions as a secular religion? Why does he admit “creationists are right about this”? Why does he truthfully say Darwinism is – “the secular religion based on evolution” and it does not belong in the classroom of public schools? Why do you fail to see reality? And since when does Michael Ruse (or Richard Dawkins or etc.) represent all scientists on the issue of evolution-metaphysics relationship? Why do you choose to listen to him, and not to Francis Collins (U. of Michigan professor, head of the Genome Project, and author of The Language of God), or Joan Roughgarden (Stanford professor and author of Evolution and the Christian Faith), or Ken Miller (Brown professor, biology textbook author, and author of Finding Darwin's God)--all at least as scientifically accomplished as Ruse, and all of them Christians who would vehemently deny his claims of evolution-as-religion? If you're going to automatically accept the things this one guy says about evolution, why don't you accept what all scientists completely agree on?

Luke34
Aug 15th 2008, 07:15 AM
I think as Christians we should all know better concerning 'X' amount of people who believe 'Y' thing ;) I'm not saying the minority is correct over the majority, but I wouldn't necessarily say 'X people believe in 'Y' so it's more plausible. It's not just the number, but the quality. Not taking either into consideration leads us to such ridiculous conclusions as that the guy on the morning radio who thinks that the world began in 1970* deserves the same consideration as the Yale University Dept. of History, because, hey, they're not right just because there's more of them!


*I made him up, just so you know.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 15th 2008, 02:44 PM
I know that. But that doesn't mean a tiny fringe group of scientists who are not taken seriously by the community at large (and I know I'm generalizing, but I'm right) is just as likely to be correct as the other 99%, which includes pretty much all of those who have achieved recognition in the relavent fields. Some opinions are better than others, and though it is not impossible for the world's experts on a subject to be 180 degrees wrong and for a miniscule, invisible group with way less credibility to meanwhile be correct, it is tremendously implausible and I cannot name another time in history when it has happened.There is not simply some tiny fringe group. But hey, even if there were that does not change truth. The truth is that there are MANY, MANY intelligent, accredited scientist and other intelligent, educated people who don't buy into darwinian evolution (singe-celled to every thing else). The truth is that neither is observable, repeatable or truly falsifiable. (in response to crawfish) So now what? In my view we'll have to agree to disagree and find out when we watch the dvd in glory. ;)

Go Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Aug 15th 2008, 02:45 PM
It's not just the number, but the quality. Not taking either into consideration leads us to such ridiculous conclusions as that the guy on the morning radio who thinks that the world began in 1970* deserves the same consideration as the Yale University Dept. of History, because, hey, they're not right just because there's more of them! Who judges quality? You? Me? :hmm:

Luke34
Aug 15th 2008, 09:15 PM
There is not simply some tiny fringe group. But hey, even if there were that does not change truth. The truth is that there are MANY, MANY intelligent, accredited scientist and other intelligent, educated people who don't buy into darwinian evolution (singe-celled to every thing else). Intelligent people, maybe. Probably. Scientists, no. Here're some numbers:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And, since I'm not clear on whether you believe in creationism or "intelligent design," here're some excerpts from a poll of science teachers at the colleges and universities of Ohio:

Question 1. Are you aware of any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution?
1) Yes: 4%
2) No: 93%
3) Not sure:2%

Question 2. The concept of “Intelligent Design” is that life and the universe are too complex to have developed without the intervention of a purposeful being or force to guide the development of life. Which of the following do you think best describes “Intelligent Design”?
1) It is strongly supported by scientific evidence: 2%
2) It is partly supported by scientific evidence: 5%
3) It is not supported at all by scientific evidence: 90%
4) Not sure: 3%

Question 3. Do you think the concept of “Intelligent Design” is primarily a religious view?”
1) Yes: 91%
2) No: 5%
3) Not sure: 4%

Question 6: 6. Do you use the concept of Intelligent Design in your research?
1) Yes: 2%
2) No: 97%
3) Not sure: 1% Those are fantastically lopsided poll results. There is no getting around that. You can reject evolution by natural selection if you wish, but there is no way to claim that the vast majority of scientists do not both accept it and reject all competing "hypotheses."


The truth is that neither is observable, It's rather obvious that we can't "observe" something that happened in the billions of years before our kind even existed, and to claim that any attempts to find out are unscientific because of this fact is not really logical. Anyway, all the mechanics of evolution have been observed.



repeatable I'll let TalkOrigins explain this one:

Science requires that observations can be replicated. The observations on which evolution is based, including comparative anatomy, genetics, and fossils, are replicable. In many cases, you can repeat the observations yourself.
Repeatable experiments, including experiments about mutations and natural selection in the laboratory and in the field, also support evolution.

or truly falsifiable. Of course it is. What if we found out that a human skeleton was dated to the Cretaceous period, or that mutations never produce beneficial results, or that species do not respond to evolutionary pressure?

Alaska
Aug 15th 2008, 09:43 PM
It is said that that old serpent decieves the whole earth as spoken in Revelations.
Is it any wonder that mainstream science teaches a hocus pocus fairytale under the guise of proven fact when it is impossible to prove and while many evidences exist to disprove it?

And while they point the finger of hocus pocus at Creation, they themselves need plenty of it to make their story work.
There was another religion in the 1500's that many strongly believed in. People would even give money to the priests to get their dead relatives out of purgatory, while as there is no such thing as purgatory.

The greatest crime and intent of the theory is to falsify the scriptures.
Death came by Adam is the claim of The Book. Yet "Adam" was the result of death is claimed by the theory.
What need is there of a saviour to redeem us from the clutches of death if death was not something that mankind was at one time not clutched by?
Satan deliberately designed the theory to destroy faith in reality.
Satan was in Darwin reconciling the world unto himself.

losthorizon
Aug 16th 2008, 12:26 AM
Check your dates. Was Darwin's theory around when these scientists did their work? Also: Were they biologists?


You’re missing the point – the fathers of modern science believed God “created in the beginning” – ie they were not naturalistic atheists as most Darwinists today are. The presuppositions of individual scientist influence their science (or lack thereof). An evolutionary biologist who is also an atheist will never see design in nature as anything other than an illusion – why - because in their mind there is no Designer. But you and I (and the “fathers of modern science) can see God’s hand in the design we see in he universe – would you not agree?


How is it possible for the scientific community, which is made up of millions of scientists from completely different backgrounds and environments, to have a monolithic set of "personal philosophies"? It is made possible by two simple words “naturalistic atheism” (the religion of Darwin) – not too hard is it? Most evolutionists are atheists. Why do you think this is the case? Do you deny that atheists have "personal philosophies”? Do secular humanists (men and women of faith) have a religion? Are all secular humanists also atheists? I would submit that Darwinian evolution is the religion of secular atheism complete with it creation mythology – Darwin’s “transmutation of species” sitting on the shoulders of abiogenesis - life from non-life all by its lonesome without man in mind. A religion I might add that you and others on this thread have swallowed hook, line and sinker -how sad. The notion of transmutation of species originating through natural processes is not supported by the scientific method – why – because life has never been observed by the scientific method to have originated through any natural process.

Darwin’s “transmutation of species” - the philosophical notion that one species (a dinosaur) can “transmute” (morph) into a bird over a gazillion years of natural selection and mutation is what you are asked to support through the scientific method on this thread and thus far you and the OP have presented your cut and paste repertoire ad nauseam but not one shred of evidence to support the myth of Darwinism. I am looking for the extraordinary evidences that is required to support you extraordinary claims – claims I might add that are not science but metaphysics. If you ever find you yet missing in action evidence post them here for review.;)

Luke34
Aug 16th 2008, 05:34 AM
You’re missing the point – the fathers of modern science believed God “created in the beginning” – ie they were not naturalistic atheists as most Darwinists today are. It doesn't matter if they were creationists--there was no superior hypothesis to creationism around for them to accept. Nowadays, there is. Also, none of them were biologists, and thus they were not speaking as experts on the origins of life.

And Newton believed in alchemy and wrote over a million words about it--does that mean it's not ridiculous pseudoscience?


The presuppositions of individual scientist influence their science (or lack thereof). An evolutionary biologist who is also an atheist will never see design in nature as anything other than an illusion – why - because in their mind there is no Designer. You're assuming, with no basis that I can see, that all or nearly all biologists are atheists. But according to a survey (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/), only 41 percent of biologists do not believe in God. That leaves, let's see, 59 percent that do. And I'm assuming that you concede that this larger number has a very different set of philosophical assumptions than atheistic biologists do, and yet acceptance of evolution is uniform across the board within the biological disciplines.

So it's looking like religious belief doesn't influence science nearly as much as you thought it did--and indeed, pretty much all scientists would be extremely poor at their jobs if they allowed faith or the lack thereof to influence their scientific objectivity to such a degree. Are you really cynical enough to believe that pretty much every biologist in the world is completely terrible at what they do?


But you and I (and the “fathers of modern science) can see God’s hand in the design we see in he universe – would you not agree? Well, no, not exactly. Not that God can't be found in nature, but I see it as rather unimaginative and frankly rather purpose-defeating to look at something and go "Ah. It's complex. I guess God did it." God can indeed be found in the beauty and complexity of nature, but these are aesthetic and not scientific concerns. When it's time to look at complexity from a scientific standpoint, you set aside aesthetic and religious viewpoints and look at it purely objectively, and you don't resort to cop-outs like "Well, I can't immediately see how this came into being. Must've just been created outta nothing."

And for the record, when I talk about finding God in the complex beauty of nature, that goes for the processes of evolution as well.


It is made possible by two simple words “naturalistic atheism” (the religion of Darwin) Ah, nope. Darwin was a theology student at Cambridge University and almost took Holy Orders. He maintainted his faith during the period of his great writings (he even makes a direct and explicit reference to God in one of them, I believe The Origin of Species), but later became agnostic due to non-evolution-related events such as his daughter's death. He was never an atheist.

And he didn't renounce evolution on his deathbed, by the way, in case anyone was going to say that.


Most evolutionists are atheists. Nope, not true. I already gave you the numbers on biologists' beliefs, and a poll of Americans (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml) indicates that thirty percent are theistic evolutionists, while only fifteen are naturalistic evolutionists (i.e., evolution proceeded without God's involvement, something which is not neccessarily contradictory to Christian belief, I might add). That means at least two-thirds of civilian evolutionists believe in God. (Fifty-one percent are creationists, which I find kind of sad.)


Why do you think this is the case? Since I just demonstrated that it wasn't: Why do you think this is not the case?


The notion of transmutation of species originating through natural processes is not supported by the scientific method – why – because life has never been observed by the scientific method to have originated through any natural process. You're conflating evolution and abiogenesis; they are not the same thing and the truth of one is not contingent upon the truth of the other. Evolution is one of the most widely researched, well-supported theories in all of science. Abiogenesis is not, any scientist will be the first to admit, but the current frontrunner is a version based on the Miller experiments (which, despite creationists' desperate objections, were indeed successful under a wide variety of atmospheric conditions, including those now thought to be closest to the actual prebiotic atmosphere). It is churlish to complain that "we haven't seen abiogenesis happen!!", because this would take millions of years to directly observe (an obvious impossibility), and even more foolish to claim that lack of something happening right before our eyes means that to think it happened is a religious belief. It is a scientific fact that complex organic molecules can form from abiotic surroundings, and the best understanding we have of the early history of the world is based both upon this fact and upon other observational evidence. Creating a falsifiable hypothesis based upon available evidence is precisely the scientific method, and not "religion" which you for some weird reason want to believe that it is. Histories of the planet are neither perfect nor set in stone, and are likely to evolve (see what I did there?) as scientific knowledge increases, but that doesn't make "Oh, whatever, God did it" any less ridiculuous as a scientific hypothesis.


Darwin’s “transmutation of species” - the philosophical notion that one species (a dinosaur) can “transmute” (morph) into a bird over a gazillion years of natural selection and mutation is what you are asked to support through the scientific method on this thread Do you remember the part where I asked you to know what the things you want actually are? I doubt that you did, because you also would have seen the part where "TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES" IS EQUIVALENT TO SPECIATION, THE OCCURENCE OF WHICH IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT. So I don't know why you want more evidence of the same thing. What, precisely, do you want? Evidence of the specific dinosaur-to-bird evolution? Or just a demonstration that something like it is plausible? Both exist, obviously, but I can't give you evidence if I don't know what you want, and I don't know why you disdain copy-and-paste, unless you expect the OP and me to have better knowledge of evolution than every other source on the internet. Which, I'm flattered, but until I get a doctorate in biology (which I won't) I will continue to either summarize the work of experts or reproduce it here wholesale.

Luke34
Aug 16th 2008, 05:53 AM
A general addendum: I find it to be rather insulting and smug when creationists with no scientific training presume to (indirectly) lecture scientists on what the scientific method is and is not, what constitutes scientific evidence, and even what is and is not science. It's startlingly, even insultingly anti-intellectual, for one thing: It assumes that the opinion of a random stranger on the internet is just as valid as those of all the scientists in all the laboratories and universities in the world. Why even bother getting a fancy-schmancy Ivy League doctorate in biology, when any random person can determine that evolution is a ridiculuous lie in five minutes by going "Oh, we didn't see it happening. That's not science"?
It might be hard to hear, but: Some people's opinions on subjects are worth more than others'. Biologists have studied way more science than random forum posters, and their opinions on biological issues are automatically more worthy than those of a random creationist who thinks s/he's outsmarted them all in ten minutes. Sorry.

Also, it smacks almost of personal insult, or at least smugly patronizing condescencion: "No, I haven't gotten three degrees in this field and dedicated my life to become an intellectual giant in it like you have, but let me tell you why your expert conclusions are a religious fairy tale that only gullible fools believe."

Just to be clear: This post is not directed at anyone in particular, just against a particular mindset.

losthorizon
Aug 16th 2008, 03:42 PM
It doesn't matter if they were creationists--there was no superior hypothesis to creationism around for them to accept. Nowadays, there is. Also, none of them were biologists, and thus they were not speaking as experts on the origins of life.


And there still is no "superior hypothesis" and it does matter – most Darwinists today do not believe “God created” and Darwin did not originate the concept of "evolution" – it floated around in different forms long before The Origin was even a thought. I think it warrants repeating – the fathers of science were not naturalistic atheists – they were Christians.


You're assuming, with no basis that I can see, that all or nearly all biologists are atheists. But according to a survey, only 41 percent of biologists do not believe in God.
Wrong – I specifically said “evolutionary biologists” – ie – that sub-field of biology that deals with the origin of species from a common ancestor. Those are the scientists that I refer to as almost exclusively agnostic or atheistic (no difference).


Are you really cynical enough to believe that pretty much every biologist in the world is completely terrible at what they do?
I prefer to think of it as being pragmatic enough to realize that every biologist in the world was suckled on the teat of Darwinian mythology – some are true believers like you and many have delineated and rejected the mythological parts of Darwinism - see my quotes from the philosopher of science, Michael Ruse – he knows religion when he sees it and he sees much religion being taught as science in schools today – all in violation of church and state. Do you think religion should be taught as science? Do you think there is such a thing as "a secular religion based on evolution"?
If creationism has no place in the classroom, then neither does a secular religion based on evolution. We who care passionately about science should know when to keep the science and religion separate and remember always when it is appropriate to teach the one and not the other. ~ Micheal Ruse, Darwinist

Well, no, not exactly. Not that God can't be found in nature, but I see it as rather unimaginative and frankly rather purpose-defeating to look at something and go "Ah. It's complex. I guess God did it."
Well – you are entitled to your odd opinion but I will agree with Kepler who saw God's design throughout the cosmos…
“I had the intention of becoming a theologian … but now I see how God is, by my endeavours, also glorified in astronomy, for ‘the heavens declare the glory of God” ~ Johannes Kepler


Ah, nope. Darwin was a theology student at Cambridge University and almost took Holy Orders. He maintainted his faith during the period of his great writings (he even makes a direct and explicit reference to God in one of them, I believe The Origin of Species), but later became agnostic due to non-evolution-related events such as his daughter's death. He was never an atheist.
Darwin died an atheist and a cynical old man who despised the Christian faith and rejected the Savior who he once claimed to embrace - sad but true.


You're conflating evolution and abiogenesis; they are not the same thing and the truth of one is not contingent upon the truth of the other
Wrong. Darwin’s “warm little pond” (abiogenesis) is essential to his notion of common ancestry – Darwinism is simply the attempt to explain a cosmos without allowing any role for providential activity.


What, precisely, do you want? Evidence of the specific dinosaur-to-bird evolution? Or just a demonstration that something like it is plausible?
I simply want your empirical demonstration and documentation in support of your extraordinary Darwinian claims. Point me to the scientific law that allows one kind of creature (dinosaur) to morph though naturalistic means into a completely different kind (bird). You continually commit the fallacy of “materialism of the gaps” and expect me to buy your wares – sorry – I need real-world scientific evidence. But thus far you have only presented the same old worn out cut and paste non-evidence that the OP presented. Again, no one denies biological evolution (science). We are discussing the metaphysical aspects of Darwinism that you want us to believe is science but you just can’t seem to find the evidence needed to make your notion a viable part of science. Maybe, just for a short moment you might want to think you might be wrong. I would also ask you to consider that your worldview sounds a lot like “scientism”.
Scientism

"Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality… Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." (Faith & Reason Org)

Alaska
Aug 16th 2008, 08:52 PM
Well, no, not exactly. Not that God can't be found in nature, but I see it as rather unimaginative and frankly rather purpose-defeating to look at something and go "Ah. It's complex. I guess God did it."


Well, I see rather a whole lot of imagination necessary to extrapolate observable "variation within a kind", often referred to as microevolution, to account for the unobservable and therefore unaccountable (except in theoretical mental gymnasticism) for the increase in information necessary for macroevolution.

It's not: "Ah. It's complex. I guess God did it." Rather it is that the extremely unscientific and embarrassing claims that contradict the laws of science cannot be permitted to account for the high tech obviously intelligently designed wonders of technology seen in the natural world.

The creationists acknowledge that at the beginning, the natural laws such as the law of biogenesis had not yet become a reality because there was not a living creature to account for life only being able to come from preexisting life.
The evolutionists must also agree to the claim that the law of biogenesis could not have been a binding reality before the introduction of initial life.
(As if that were not a problem.)
The advantage of the creationist view is that there is a higher intelligent power in that model that had to initially create life with the ability to reproduce after its own kind.
The evolutionist view does not have that to work with so they are forced to provide a naturalistic explanation for the ability for life to come from non-life in contradiction to a major law of science impossible to disprove in the existing natural world.
So at the beginning, life was able to spring from non living chemicals, yet now further in the alleged progress of evolution, chemicals are no longer able to become alive?
The law of biogenesis is declared to be a lie by the theory unless they also provide for themselves a supernatural cause for the beginning.
Believing in aliens depositing life here would be more intellectually competent and would fit the testimony of the fossil record as opposed to the theory which requires fairy-tale like acceptance in conflict with actual hard evidence and against concrete laws of science.

Yet the die-hard faithful will continue to scramble to shore up the crumbling embarrassments of their religion using all the desperate reasoning and adhock theories imagineable.



A general addendum: I find it to be rather insulting and smug when creationists with no scientific training presume to (indirectly) lecture scientists on what the scientific method is and is not, what constitutes scientific evidence, and even what is and is not science.


I think alot of folks here see it rather smug for someone who in their eyes is obviously indoctrinated into a religion that even a child can see makes no sense, to presume to lecture them with evidences that are half truth manipulations. It is further seen as smug for the said lecturer to become offended that his hearers refuse to see any credibility whatsoever in such an indefensible and confused claim of scientific validity.

crawfish
Aug 17th 2008, 02:16 AM
A general addendum: I find it to be rather insulting and smug when creationists with no scientific training presume to (indirectly) lecture scientists on what the scientific method is and is not, what constitutes scientific evidence, and even what is and is not science.

I completely agree with this. And it's not just the creationists who do it. From time to time, I frequent atheist boards and enter discussions about scripture. It's amazing how they can tell me what I believe and quote scripture to prove why I believe it; when I try to engage them into studies of contextualization and the like, I am met with much venom because "they can plainly read what the text says". There is a certain mindset that makes its decisions beforehand and refuses to hear any alternative that would require a change to that mindset. They KNOW what they know, and if you oppose that then obviously you are wrong.

As I've said many times before, the science promoted by creationists is a glorified butterfly collecting. Measuring, cataloging, recording. Theorizing based on trends, patterns and statistics is out of the question because it takes us into the realm of the metaphysical; and no matter how overwhelming those trends, patterns and statistics are, they are still regarded as unknowns because of their lack of directness. But even creationists don't buy this, really; they accept the same types of science in areas where it doesn't challenge their view of scripture.

You are correct in that there is definitely an anti-intellectualism that pervades the church. A friend I know heard his preacher say something once that questioned the traditional view of our denomination and said "Well, looks like college has ruined another preacher". For some reason, we revel in our lack of formal training, preferring to hold to traditions and comfortable knowns. We hate things that make us question what we know.

losthorizon
Aug 17th 2008, 04:52 PM
It might be hard to hear, but: Some people's opinions on subjects are worth more than others'. Biologists have studied way more science than random forum posters, and their opinions on biological issues are automatically more worthy than those of a random creationist who thinks s/he's outsmarted them all in ten minutes. Sorry.




What I find to be sorry and “insultingly anti-intellectual” are those TE’s who want to tell Christians they must accept Darwinian mythology because Darwinists says it is true science (circular) and then suggest that on the matter of “biological issues” Darwinists are automatically “more worthy” (a crock). Your Darwinian mythology - the same worldview promoted by Dawkins et al tells us that some unknown “naturalistic process” mysteriously originated somewhere in the cosmos “out of nothing” and is responsible for the emergence of complex life on this planet from nonlife (abiogenesis).

This religious worldview takes much more faith to swallow than any world religion I have ever studied. Even the Hindu myth of the giant cobra floating on the primordial waters before time began is more imaginative. Again, the begging question - what naturalistic law of nature is accountable for creating such complex order from disorder? What naturalistic process creates life from death? The scientific answer - there are no such naturalist processes - there is no law of nature that supports such a non-scientific fallacy. Darwinian evolution has failed the scientific test for 150 years. How much more time before it is discarded.

losthorizon
Aug 17th 2008, 05:01 PM
You are correct in that there is definitely an anti-intellectualism that pervades the church.


Do you not also find a certain "anti-intellectualism" in the “secular religion based on evolution” (Darwinism) that pervades the classroom today as admitted by Darwinists like Michael Ruse? Do you just reserve anti-intellectualism rhetoric for creationism or do you apply it equally to the metaphysics of Darwinism passed off as science? You appear to have that certain bias that one would expect to see from those who are not concerned with defending science from religion – a type of anti-intellectualism of its own. Where is you passion for preserving science from incursions of naturalistic philosophy? Your consistency appears to be rather weak and self-defeating. :hmm:

crawfish
Aug 17th 2008, 06:14 PM
Do you not also find a certain "anti-intellectualism" in the “secular religion based on evolution” (Darwinism) that pervades the classroom today as admitted by Darwinists like Michael Ruse? Do you just reserve anti-intellectualism rhetoric for creationism or do you apply it equally to the metaphysics of Darwinism passed off as science? You appear to have that certain bias that one would expect to see from those who are not concerned with defending science from religion – a type of anti-intellectualism of its own. Where is you passion for preserving science from incursions of naturalistic philosophy? Your consistency appears to be rather weak and self-defeating. :hmm:

No, the problem in the secular world is an uber-intellectualism that dismisses the possibility or need for a supernatural force. Rather than being hostile to intellectualism like many Christians, they lean on it too strongly.

I am probably the least biased person in this thread, btw. I am one of the few who does not have a preconceived notion of how things will end up or what is possible; I simply hold that the evidence for once side dramatically outclasses the evidence for the other side, and the scriptures are delivered in a way where neither side breaks their continuity. I have not totally dismissed pure ID or even YEC science, even though I feel they have scant evidence supporting them; but most creationists here have completely dismissed the possibility of common descent evolution. I see little evidence in yoru posts that you are much different, from the three or four quotes you seem to love repeating. :)

crawfish
Aug 17th 2008, 06:20 PM
And, by the way - I'd have little problem agreeing with you if we were only talking about the overzealous sale of scientific theory in our society and its treatment as "religion" by many. However, you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater; I have no trouble separating the theory itself from its overzealous reporters.

losthorizon
Aug 17th 2008, 06:36 PM
No, the problem in the secular world is an uber-intellectualism that dismisses the possibility or need for a supernatural force. Rather than being hostile to intellectualism like many Christians, they lean on it too strongly.

I am probably the least biased person in this thread, btw. I am one of the few who does not have a preconceived notion of how things will end up or what is possible; I simply hold that the evidence for once side dramatically outclasses the evidence for the other side, and the scriptures are delivered in a way where neither side breaks their continuity. I have not totally dismissed pure ID or even YEC science, even though I feel they have scant evidence supporting them; but most creationists here have completely dismissed the possibility of common descent evolution. I see little evidence in yoru posts that you are much different, from the three or four quotes you seem to love repeating. :)
Lol - I think even the most self-proclaimed purists have presuppositions – the one’s who deny this are the ones I consider to be self-deceived and struggling with reality - which is far worse than holding to presuppositions. Do you agree or disagree that Darwinism is in many ways a “secular religion based on evolution”. Do you think religion belongs in the classroom or do you agree with me that we should do all we can to preserve science?


but most creationists here have completely dismissed the possibility of common descent evolution
As the self-proclaimed, "least biased person in this thread" do you not admit that many respected scientists also dismiss the possibility of common descent evolution for scientific reasons – most are not “creationists” as you pejoratively use that term ad neuseum in all your posts – some are even non-theistic. ;)

losthorizon
Aug 17th 2008, 06:44 PM
And, by the way - I'd have little problem agreeing with you if we were only talking about the overzealous sale of scientific theory in our society and its treatment as "religion" by many. However, you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater; I have no trouble separating the theory itself from its overzealous reporters.
But I don’t throw out the baby – I have no problem with biological evolution – it is science. I only oppose religion in the science classroom and I would think we would be on the same page.

crawfish
Aug 17th 2008, 09:01 PM
Lol - I think even the most self-proclaimed purists have presuppositions – the one’s who deny this are the ones I consider to be self-deceived and struggling with reality - which is far worse than holding to presuppositions. Do you agree or disagree that Darwinism is in many ways a “secular religion based on evolution”. Do you think religion belongs in the classroom or do you agree with me that we should do all we can to preserve science?

Religion does not belong in the science classroom. Biological evolution and common descent belong in the science classroom when taught as science, with a full explanation of the scientific method and what it entails, and with an accounting of the evidence for evolution and the things it has not yet answered. When one adds opinions on how any truth of evolution affects religious thought or supernatural possibilities, then they have gone beyond the realm of science and beyond what should be taught.



As the self-proclaimed, "least biased person in this thread" do you not admit that many respected scientists also dismiss the possibility of common descent evolution for scientific reasons – most are not “creationists” as you pejoratively use that term ad neuseum in all your posts – some are even non-theistic. ;)

If by "many respected scientists" you mean "a very few scientists", and by "most are not creationists" you mean "most are creationists", then yes, I agree. :)

crawfish
Aug 17th 2008, 09:04 PM
But I don’t throw out the baby – I have no problem with biological evolution – it is science. I only oppose religion in the science classroom and I would think we would be on the same page.

I think we disagree on what is science and what is not. You seem to want to throw theoretical work completely - at least any theoretical work that doesn't agree with a literal reading of Genesis 1.

losthorizon
Aug 17th 2008, 10:49 PM
I think we disagree on what is science and what is not. You seem to want to throw theoretical work completely - at least any theoretical work that doesn't agree with a literal reading of Genesis 1.
I don’t think I ever required a literal reading of Genesis 1. It is my understanding that we are discussing science and the book of Genesis is based on religion so you are simply erecting another straw man. I told you I am not here to defend creation science, ID or TE. I am here to defend science and preserve it from the infiltration of metaphysics dressed up like science (Darwinism). And taking the conversation a step further your theistic evolution position is also a religious belief system and not science – ie any worldview dependent on miracles is not science. Taking it one more step - Darwinian mythology is not science because it too relies on the unknown miracle of “naturalistic processes” mysteriously originating in the cosmos “out of nothing” and this “force” gave birth to the complexity of life found on this planet from nonliving and unknown elements (abiogenesis).

If you are to convince me that Darwinian myth is anything more than simple mythology you will need to show me what naturalistic law of nature is accountable for creating such complex order from disorder? What naturalistic process creates life from death? The scientific answer I have found is simply this - there are no such naturalist processes and Darwinian evolution remains a religion and it remains in the classroom – religion being taught as science. Do you have verifiable evidence to support you Darwinian metaphysics that you refer to as science?

crawfish
Aug 17th 2008, 10:52 PM
I don’t think I ever required a literal reading of Genesis 1. It is my understanding that we are discussing science and the book of Genesis is based on religion so you are simply erecting another straw man. I told you I am not here to defend creation science, ID or TE. I am here to defend science and preserve it from the infiltration of metaphysics dressed up like science (Darwinism). And taking the conversation a step further your theistic evolution position is also a religious belief system and not science – ie any worldview dependent on miracles is not science. Taking it one more step - Darwinian mythology is not science because it too relies on the unknown miracle of “naturalistic processes” mysteriously originating in the cosmos “out of nothing” and this “force” gave birth to the complexity of life found on this planet from nonliving and unknown elements (abiogenesis).

If you are to convince me that Darwinian myth is anything more than simple mythology you will need to show me what naturalistic law of nature is accountable for creating such complex order from disorder? What naturalistic process creates life from death? The scientific answer I have found is simply this - there are no such naturalist processes and Darwinian evolution remains a religion and it remains in the classroom – religion being taught as science. Do you have verifiable evidence to support you Darwinian metaphysics that you refer to as science?

So, you're saying I'm right. ;)

Alaska
Aug 17th 2008, 11:44 PM
What I find to be sorry and “insultingly anti-intellectual” are those TE’s who want to tell Christians they must accept Darwinian mythology because Darwinists says it is true science (circular) and then suggest that on the matter of “biological issues” Darwinists are automatically “more worthy” (a crock). Your Darwinian mythology - the same worldview promoted by Dawkins et al tells us that some unknown “naturalistic process” mysteriously originated somewhere in the cosmos “out of nothing” and is responsible for the emergence of complex life on this planet from nonlife (abiogenesis).

This religious worldview takes much more faith to swallow than any world religion I have ever studied. Even the Hindu myth of the giant cobra floating on the primordial waters before time began is more imaginative. Again, the begging question - what naturalistic law of nature is accountable for creating such complex order from disorder? What naturalistic process creates life from death? The scientific answer - there are no such naturalist processes - there is no law of nature that supports such a non-scientific fallacy. Darwinian evolution has failed the scientific test for 150 years. How much more time before it is discarded.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Amen and Amen

lendtay
Aug 18th 2008, 01:37 AM
I am curious about how the earth could be only 6,000 years old. This just doesn't seem right to me. And its not just because of carbon dating, either.

My husband believes that for God, one day might equal a thousand or million years.

losthorizon
Aug 18th 2008, 02:16 AM
So, you're saying I'm right. ;)
If you are agreeing with me that Darwinian metaphysics is not science - that there is no law of nature that allows for the creation of complex order from disorder – and if you agree that life does not arise from death. If you do then welcome to reality. ;)

losthorizon
Aug 18th 2008, 02:30 AM
I am curious about how the earth could be only 6,000 years old. This just doesn't seem right to me. And its not just because of carbon dating, either.

My husband believes that for God, one day might equal a thousand or million years.
If we discard radiocarbon dating what is it that would compel us to think the earth was older than 6,000 years or 10,000 years or 30,000 years?

crawfish
Aug 18th 2008, 03:03 AM
If you are agreeing with me that Darwinian metaphysics is not science - that there is no law of nature that allows for the creation of complex order from disorder – and if you agree that life does not arise from death. If you do then welcome to reality. ;)

I'm referring to the fact you seem to be in opposition to teaching scientific theory.

I believe that if God wants to set up a law of nature that allows life to emerge from nonlife, then he is entirely capable of doing so. I also believe that we do not have a valid explanation for how this might occur naturally - yet. But we might someday, and if we do, it is because God has willed it. If we already knew everything there was to know about natural law, there would be scant need for science, now would there?

crawfish
Aug 18th 2008, 03:07 AM
If we discard radiocarbon dating what is it that would compel us to think the earth was older than 6,000 years or 10,000 years or 30,000 years?

Common sense, for one. Taking an item that is measurable and constant and assuming it has always been so. Looking at geologic formations and figuring out how long it would take for it to reach that state, if measured from present time. Studying the layers of cave formations, seeing how quickly they grow, and carrying that growth back at a constant rate. There are many things that point to an ancient earth besides radiometric dating.

Not to mention, carbon dating is only one method of dating, and is not even considered the most reliable.

losthorizon
Aug 18th 2008, 03:21 AM
I'm referring to the fact you seem to be in opposition to teaching scientific theory.


Darwinism is not science – it is philosophy and such atheistic religious indoctrination taught as science in classrooms is wrong.


I believe that if God wants to set up a law of nature that allows life to emerge from nonlife, then he is entirely capable of doing so. I also believe that we do not have a valid explanation for how this might occur naturally - yet. But we might someday, and if we do, it is because God has willed it. If we already knew everything there was to know about natural law, there would be scant need for science, now would there?
Then we are in agreement there is not a law of nature known to science that can explain how complex order can arise from disorder? And we can agree there is no naturalistic process known to science that creates life from death? When Darwinists speculate about such matters they are relying on philosophy and not science. Are we in agreement that is it important to carefully distinguish between science and philosophy?

crawfish
Aug 18th 2008, 03:28 AM
Darwinism is not science – it is philosophy and such atheistic religious indoctrination taught as science in classrooms is wrong.

Which still doesn't answer the question. I'm waiting...



Then we are in agreement there is not a law of nature known to science that can explain how complex order can arise from disorder? And we can agree there is no naturalistic process known to science that creates life from death? When Darwinists speculate about such matters they are relying on philosophy and not science. Are we in agreement that is it important to carefully distinguish between science and philosophy?

Are you saying that since we don't know of one now that we never will?

For the record, I do not support the teaching of any of the abiogenesis hypotheses as fact. Unlike common descent evolution, there is no evidence to support a particular one to that level. The only thing we can agree on is that there must have been some form of simple life present at some point in time, because a) we have evidence of that life through the fossil record, and b) the preponderance of evidence demands that there must have been simple life there.

losthorizon
Aug 18th 2008, 03:44 AM
Which still doesn't answer the question. I'm waiting...


Which answer do you seek?


Are you saying that since we don't know of one now that we never will?
I don’t think I said that – I am discussing today’s reality not pie in the sky.


For the record, I do not support the teaching of any of the abiogenesis hypotheses as fact. Unlike common descent evolution, there is no evidence to support a particular one to that level. The only thing we can agree on is that there must have been some form of simple life present at some point in time, because a) we have evidence of that life through the fossil record, and b) the preponderance of evidence demands that there must have been simple life there.
We are not in dispute that the fossil record shows evidence for simple life. I am encouraged to see you reject abiogenesis taught as fact in the classroom but its teaching continues. As for your philosophical notion that one species (a dinosaur) can “transmute” (morph) into a bird over a gazillion years of natural selection and mutation I am still waiting for your yet missing in action evidence – have you found it yet? :)

crawfish
Aug 18th 2008, 01:58 PM
Which answer do you seek?

It's very simple. Do you support the teaching of scientific theory?



I don’t think I said that – I am discussing today’s reality not pie in the sky.

Alright, then here's another question: if we assume that something is impossible and so don't study it, what are the chances that we'll discover a natural cause if there really is one?



We are not in dispute that the fossil record shows evidence for simple life. I am encouraged to see you reject abiogenesis taught as fact in the classroom but its teaching continues. As for your philosophical notion that one species (a dinosaur) can “transmute” (morph) into a bird over a gazillion years of natural selection and mutation I am still waiting for your yet missing in action evidence – have you found it yet? :)

Multiple people have tried to tell you this multiple times - the theory of common descent evolution does not include any theory of abiogenesis. It starts with a simple form of life and leads to the diversity of life we see today. There is no solid theory of biogenesis yet; however, just as for years people saw the Nile but didn't know where it's source was, they KNEW there must be a source because the river demanded it.

I'll accept the explanation given earlier in this thread (I think). You did no scientific dismissal, just said "nice try", "do not cut and paste" and some obscure post unrelated to the material by someone who said it was impossible. You do some work and PROVE what he posted was wrong; using actual science and fact. You demanded such from him or her; it is only right that, once provided, you extend the same courtesy.

losthorizon
Aug 19th 2008, 01:28 AM
It's very simple. Do you support the teaching of scientific theory?


Well – I guess I will have to ask you to define your term – believe it or not it does mean different thing to different people. I understand a scientific theory to be a summary of a scientific hypothesis that can be supported with the scientific method. If you agree with my definition then I answer your question above in the affirmative.


Alright, then here's another question: if we assume that something is impossible and so don't study it, what are the chances that we'll discover a natural cause if there really is one?Oh, I am not opposed to the study of the impossible (who determines what is impossible?) as long as we do not confuse philosophy with science and I think from your prior posts that you blur the line between the two. There is a big difference between what one might think is true and what reality tells us is true.


Multiple people have tried to tell you this multiple times - the theory of common descent evolution does not include any theory of abiogenesis.
But it does include abiogenesis – it has to. You cannot arrive at descent with modification if you do not have the basic building blocks from the get-go (life). What do you think Darwin was referring to with regards to his “warm little pond” – goo-to-me and you? To deny that abiogenesis is not part of Darwinian evolution is to deny reality.


I'll accept the explanation given earlier in this thread (I think). You did no scientific dismissal, just said "nice try", "do not cut and paste" and some obscure post unrelated to the material by someone who said it was impossible. You do some work and PROVE what he posted was wrong; using actual science and fact. You demanded such from him or her; it is only right that, once provided, you extend the same courtesy.
Let me be honest with you, Crawfish - I am not the one pushing the fairytale of transmutation of species and I have stated repeatedly that I do not know of a law of nature found in any science textbook that can explain how complex order can arise from disorder and there are no naturalistic process known to science that creates life from death. I reject your pie-in-the-sky speculation (materialism of the gaps). The burden rest with those of you who make extraordinary claims to prove your speculative philosophical notion that a dinosaur can morph into a bird over a X years. I am still waiting for your evidence and thus far you have not even presented a mediocre defense of your worldview.

crawfish
Aug 19th 2008, 04:45 AM
Well – I guess I will have to ask you to define your term – believe it or not it does mean different thing to different people. I understand a scientific theory to be a summary of a scientific hypothesis that can be supported with the scientific method. If you agree with my definition then I answer your question above in the affirmative.

Your definition of "scientific theory" is different than any a scientist would give you. A theory is more than just an amalgamation of a set of hypotheses. It is a large-scale idea that has been tested, peer-reviewed and subjected to years of scrutiny. It must also have no falsifiable evidence against it.


Oh, I am not opposed to the study of the impossible (who determines what is impossible?) as long as we do not confuse philosophy with science and I think from your prior posts that you blur the line between the two. There is a big difference between what one might think is true and what reality tells us is true.


You are determining what is impossible. I never suggested the idea. Philosophy is a mind game; science is based on evidence, study and experimentation.


But it does include abiogenesis – it has to. You cannot arrive at descent with modification if you do not have the basic building blocks from the get-go (life). What do you think Darwin was referring to with regards to his “warm little pond” – goo-to-me and you? To deny that abiogenesis is not part of Darwinian evolution is to deny reality.


You admit that we know there were simple forms of life found very early in the process. That is evidence that there WAS life. Again, just because they didn't know the source of the Nile didn't mean that the source didn't exist.


Let me be honest with you, Crawfish - I am not the one pushing the fairytale of transmutation of species and I have stated repeatedly that I do not know of a law of nature found in any science textbook that can explain how complex order can arise from disorder and there are no naturalistic process known to science that creates life from death. I reject your pie-in-the-sky speculation (materialism of the gaps). The burden rest with those of you who make extraordinary claims to prove your speculative philosophical notion that a dinosaur can morph into a bird over a X years. I am still waiting for your evidence and thus far you have not even presented a mediocre defense of your worldview.

So, let me get this straight: since you, in your mind, feel that you're not making extraordinary claims, that means that you do not have to justify your beliefs scientifically, or scientifically dispute anybody else's claims (all you need to do is dismiss them with a wave of your hand)? If I thought you might take it seriously, I might make the effort to post something. As it is, you must prove yourself by putting your OWN science on the line first. Otherwise, it ain't happening. You can beat the dinos-to-birds strawman all you want, I think it is just your way of avoiding revealing the fact that your bag is empty. (Said in all kindness, of course. :) )

Luke34
Aug 19th 2008, 05:14 AM
My apologies: I am moving into my room at the university tomorrow and will subsequently be extremely busy with orientation and whatnot. I will not have time to reply to the eight pages of new posts that will surely be here by the time I get settled, so I have to drop out of this thread. Don't worry, I'll be in the next evolution thread that comes up.

If you start to miss me unbearably, which is perfectly normal and happens to everyone, just read my last couple posts since nothing in them has actually been specifically argued with and since any subsequent posts I would make would probably just be rewordings of the exact same things I keep saying. Also everything crawfish says is right, so you can just pretend he(she?)'s me.

losthorizon
Aug 20th 2008, 01:07 AM
Your definition of "scientific theory" is different than any a scientist would give you. A theory is more than just an amalgamation of a set of hypotheses. It is a large-scale idea that has been tested, peer-reviewed and subjected to years of scrutiny. It must also have no falsifiable evidence against it.


A hypothesis is simply a guess based on educated observation that can be disproven (or supported) by the scientific method – I don’t think that would be an idea rejected by a scientist.


You are determining what is impossible. I never suggested the idea. Philosophy is a mind game; science is based on evidence, study and experimentation.
If you can support the impossible with science then go for it - but can you? And where exactly does Darwin’s warm little pond fit into the “evidence, study and experimentation”? Is it science or philosophy - you have never answered? Can life arise from death all by its lonesome? Can order come from disorder? It appears to be impossible - what do you think?


You admit that we know there were simple forms of life found very early in the process. That is evidence that there WAS life. Again, just because they didn't know the source of the Nile didn't mean that the source didn't exist.
But God created in the beginning – isn’t that where the simple life forms came from. But your Darwinist friends do not allow for God. Remember – in their small world, design in the cosmos is an illusion. Darwinian theology demands that life came from death without purpose and without man in mind but where is the law of nature that can work such a “miracle”? Let me guess - you also not have that missing evidence. I have searched but cannot find such a law in the science books.


So, let me get this straight: since you, in your mind, feel that you're not making extraordinary claims, that means that you do not have to justify your beliefs scientifically, or scientifically dispute anybody else's claims (all you need to do is dismiss them with a wave of your hand)?
What I am saying is that I am not the one trying to convince you to believe Darwinian mythology as science. I know the difference between the two and you appear to not understand the differences. Your mythology is based on an atheistic worldview that states (by faith) that all of the complexity found in the cosmos including life on this planet can be explained by an unknown process that did not have man in mind. This philosophy would appear to even the casual observer to be an anti-theistic notion without scientific support. If you do have science to support your notion then the onus is on you to provide a scientific evaluation of your non-scientific position. Is that impossible too? :)

losthorizon
Aug 20th 2008, 01:20 AM
My apologies: I am moving into my room at the university tomorrow and will subsequently be extremely busy with orientation and whatnot. I will not have time to reply to the eight pages of new posts that will surely be here by the time I get settled, so I have to drop out of this thread. Don't worry, I'll be in the next evolution thread that comes up.


Luke – best wishes with your studies – looking forward to your return to the forum. I have enjoyed reading your posts – you have a good head on your shoulders.


Also everything crawfish says is right, so you can just pretend he(she?)'s me.
You do however have a few weaknesses by putting your faith in "everything" anyone says - crawfish does have a weakness for confusing science and religion but he/she does make good points when the distinction between the two can be maintained. ;)

crawfish
Aug 20th 2008, 04:37 PM
A hypothesis is simply a guess based on educated observation that can be disproven (or supported) by the scientific method – I don’t think that would be an idea rejected by a scientist.

Yes...and a theory is based off hypotheses that have been thoroughly tested, reviewed and critiqued. They have survived the rejection process to move from "educated guess" to "idea supported by evidence".


If you can support the impossible with science then go for it - but can you? And where exactly does Darwin’s warm little pond fit into the “evidence, study and experimentation”? Is it science or philosophy - you have never answered? Can life arise from death all by its lonesome? Can order come from disorder? It appears to be impossible - what do you think?

Entropy seems to indicate that it would be impossible. But we rarely find pure entropy in the systems we deal with; they are affected by outside influences. No system, if left to its own devices, will become more ordered or improve significantly; they will move towards chaos. Outside influences, however, can cause great improvements.


But God created in the beginning – isn’t that where the simple life forms came from. But your Darwinist friends do not allow for God. Remember – in their small world, design in the cosmos is an illusion. Darwinian theology demands that life came from death without purpose and without man in mind but where is the law of nature that can work such a “miracle”? Let me guess - you also not have that missing evidence. I have searched but cannot find such a law in the science books.


But non-atheist/agnostic evolutionists DO allow for God. The difference between you and I isn't in God's influence, but in determining exactly where God placed His finger. Did God invent a natural process from which life could emerge from nonlife? (Not death, btw - that is different. Death still involves organic material.) If God did use a natural process, then in all likelihood it is discoverable; and if you are determined to deny that such a process can exist because of your faith, then what does it say when your faith led you wrong?

No matter where that original life came from - spontaneous life from nonlife, a meteor, alien seeding or God's intentional creation - evolutionary theory uses that original life to generate the diversity we see today.


What I am saying is that I am not the one trying to convince you to believe Darwinian mythology as science. I know the difference between the two and you appear to not understand the differences. Your mythology is based on an atheistic worldview that states (by faith) that all of the complexity found in the cosmos including life on this planet can be explained by an unknown process that did not have man in mind. This philosophy would appear to even the casual observer to be an anti-theistic notion without scientific support. If you do have science to support your notion then the onus is on you to provide a scientific evaluation of your non-scientific position. Is that impossible too? :)

What I am saying is that you have avoided direct scientific criticism of the evidence that has been presented to you, choosing instead to invoke the strawman of some obscure quote or simply dismiss it entierly with no reason. You also seem to equate the message with the messenger; if I find a TalkOrigins article that I find has particular truth, you choose to dismiss it because it is from "that site" rather than offer your own scientific reasons why it is not true. You, who claim to be "defending science" and demand it from us, seems to be awfully reluctant to post any of your own scientific beliefs. It makes me wonder why that is.

crawfish
Aug 20th 2008, 04:39 PM
You do however have a few weaknesses by putting your faith in "everything" anyone says - crawfish does have a weakness for confusing science and religion but he/she does make good points when the distinction between the two can be maintained. ;)

That would be "he".

:OFFT:

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 12:10 AM
Yes...and a theory is based off hypotheses that have been thoroughly tested, reviewed and critiqued. They have survived the rejection process to move from "educated guess" to "idea supported by evidence".


And your transmutation of species has never made it to the plateau of an “idea supported by evidence". It appears to be based on something other than reality.


Entropy seems to indicate that it would be impossible. But we rarely find pure entropy in the systems we deal with; they are affected by outside influences. No system, if left to its own devices, will become more ordered or improve significantly; they will move towards chaos. Outside influences, however, can cause great improvements.
What “outside influences” are you suggesting? Surely not God of the gaps – Dawkins et al will not permit god-speak. The truth is there is no law of science that can account for the origin of the biological information needed to morph lizards into birds – it can’t be done – can it?


But non-atheist/agnostic evolutionists DO allow for God. The difference between you and I isn't in God's influence, but in determining exactly where God placed His finger. Did God invent a natural process from which life could emerge from nonlife? (Not death, btw - that is different. Death still involves organic material.) If God did use a natural process, then in all likelihood it is discoverable; and if you are determined to deny that such a process can exist because of your faith, then what does it say when your faith led you wrong?
I agree we do not know the mechanism God used to create – it may have been naturalistic processes and it could have been a *supernatural event* not discoverable through the tools of science. What do “99%” of your evolutionary scientists believe (by faith)? Do they buy into your notion that God could “invent a natural process from which life could emerge from nonlife”? Do your think Darwinists can present scientific evidence that God was not involved in the creation of life on this planet?

I find it rather odd and self-defeating that you repeatedly take the side of Darwinists who do not hesitate to tell us there is no Creator-God, and then turn around when you think no one is looking and state Darwinism is God's method of creating. To even the causal observer it would appear you are engaged in some type of major self-contradiction. ;)


No matter where that original life came from - spontaneous life from nonlife, a meteor, alien seeding or God's intentional creation - evolutionary theory uses that original life to generate the diversity we see today.But once again, Darwinists must have basic life forms to “evolve” from and they can’t seem to put their finger on that one either and if we accept life originating on Earth from a meteor or alien seeding we are still faced with explaining where the seeded life originated – was it from God or from spontaneous combustion (so to speak).


What I am saying is that you have avoided direct scientific criticism of the evidence that has been presented to you, choosing instead to invoke the strawman of some obscure quote or simply dismiss it entierly with no reason.
In all honesty, Crawfish you have not provided any evidence to dismiss.


You also seem to equate the message with the messenger; if I find a TalkOrigins article that I find has particular truth, you choose to dismiss it because it is from "that site" rather than offer your own scientific reasons why it is not true.
You can go back and read over the cut and paste evidence presented from your favorite Darwinist website but none of it supports common ancestry – the science presented only supports biological evolution mixed with mythology.


You, who claim to be "defending science" and demand it from us, seems to be awfully reluctant to post any of your own scientific beliefs. It makes me wonder why that is.
Again, it is you who tries to compel others to accept the religion of Darwinism. I am here to debunk philosophy being passed as science – you have already admitted that much of Darwinism is not science. The onus is on your shoulders – I don’t know of any other way to put it. Do you have the evidence to support your notion? Did life really come from death without purpose and without man in mind?

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 12:37 AM
What “outside influences” are you suggesting? Surely not God of the gaps – Dawkins et al will not permit god-speak. The truth is there is no law of science that can account for the origin of the biological information needed to morph lizards into birds – it can’t be done – can it?

Your body is a closed system. It would die in no time without an influx of food and water - outside influences. What you eat and drink also determines how well your body grows and reacts - that what we eat and drink is controlled by our environment, an even bigger closed system. External influences to our environment affect how our environment prospers.

The earth is a closed system, and the moon is an external influence that causes tides - like a big swizzle stick - that roils up our seas and makes our planet more volatile than it would be otherwise. The sun is another external influence that feeds us light, warmth and energy.

And so on. That is what I refer to as an "outside influence to an internal system".


I agree we do not know the mechanism God used to create – it may have been naturalistic processes and it could have been a *supernatural event* not discoverable through the tools of science. What do “99%” of your evolutionary scientists believe (by faith)? Do they buy into your notion that God could “invent a natural process from which life could emerge from nonlife”? Do your think Darwinists can present scientific evidence that God was not involved in the creation of life on this planet?

I find it rather odd and self-defeating that you repeatedly take the side of Darwinists who do not hesitate to tell us there is no Creator-God, and then turn around when you think no one is looking and state Darwinism is God's method of creating. To even the causal observer it would appear you are engaged in some type of major self-contradiction. ;)


You really don't get it. I DON'T CARE WHAT ATHEISTS SAY ABOUT COMMON DESCENT. There are tons of scientists who believe in both God and common descent. You've tied the method with the belief of some of its proponents.



But once again, Darwinists must have basic life forms to “evolve” from and they can’t seem to put their finger on that one either and if we accept life originating on Earth from a meteor or alien seeding we are still faced with explaining where the seeded life originated – was it from God or from spontaneous combustion (so to speak).


You won't get any argument about this from me. But if common descent only depends on that SOME life be present at some point, and you admit that it is there no matter how, then it hardly amounts to a problem.


In all honesty, Crawfish you have not provided any evidence to dismiss.

Then I guess we're even.



You can go back and read over the cut and paste evidence presented from your favorite Darwinist website but none of it supports common ancestry – the science presented only supports biological evolution mixed with mythology.

...and you've never bothered to try and justify that claim.


Again, it is you who tries to compel others to accept the religion of Darwinism. I am here to debunk philosophy being passed as science – you have already admitted that much of Darwinism is not science. The onus is on your shoulders – I don’t know of any other way to put it. Do you have the evidence to support your notion? Did life really come from death without purpose and without man in mind?

You're grasping at straws is what you're doing. You're not challenged much here because most of the people here agree with your basic premeses so don't give your arguments much scrutiny. You'd be eaten alive on any scientific message board (or even this Christian one (http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=143): register and post your ideas here. There are Christians who are actual scientists in all fields there, and they will work to meet your challenge).

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 01:06 AM
That is what I refer to as an "outside influence to an internal system".


So the warmth of the sun, tidal influences of the moon and the consumption of broccoli can explain common ancestry?


You really don't get it. I DON'T CARE WHAT ATHEISTS SAY ABOUT COMMON DESCENT. There are tons of scientists who believe in both God and common descent. You've tied the method with the belief of some of its proponents.
But mainstream Darwinists will not allow god-speak remember – again, your defense of Darwinism appear to be a self-contradiction from my perspective and I think the Dawkins group would concur.


You won't get any argument about this from me. But if common descent only depends on that SOME life be present at some point, and you admit that it is there no matter how, then it hardly amounts to a problem.But it is a big problem for Darwinists not for me. By faith I believe God created basic life forms but Darwinists by an equally strong faith do not believe God exists. Where do they get the basic life forms? It is your theory not mine.


You're grasping at straws is what you're doing. You're not challenged much here because most of the people here agree with your basic premeses so don't give your arguments much scrutiny. You'd be eaten alive on any scientific message board (or even this Christian one: register and post your ideas here. There are Christians who are actual scientists in all fields there, and they will work to meet your challenge).
Been there done that – not eaten alive. Their “proofs” were not based on science either.

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 03:20 AM
So the warmth of the sun, tidal influences of the moon and the consumption of broccoli can explain common ancestry?

You aren't really that dense, are you? :confused


But mainstream Darwinists will not allow god-speak remember – again, your defense of Darwinism appear to be a self-contradiction from my perspective and I think the Dawkins group would concur.

A lot of evolutionists are believers. They are as mainstream in the belief as any atheist, and they DO allow God-speak. Should I make an assumption that you a young-earth creationist because you don't believe in evolution? Do only the extremes exist?



But it is a big problem for Darwinists not for me. By faith I believe God created basic life forms but Darwinists by an equally strong faith do not believe God exists. Where do they get the basic life forms? It is your theory not mine.

Why would I answer for them? Why is it my problem?

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 03:21 AM
Been there done that – not eaten alive. Their “proofs” were not based on science either.

That's just what I knew you'd say. :)

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 03:44 AM
You aren't really that dense, are you?


Just pulling your leg, partner. I don't even like broccoli but my wife says it is good for me.


A lot of evolutionists are believers. They are as mainstream in the belief as any atheist, and they DO allow God-speak. Should I make an assumption that you a young-earth creationist because you don't believe in evolution? Do only the extremes exist?
In the field of evolutionary science atheists rule the roost and TEs pay obeisance under the table and whatever you do not use the that 12 letter word – “supernatural” - it's anathema.


Why would I answer for them? Why is it my problem?
You share their Darwinian worldview do you not?

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 05:16 AM
In the field of evolutionary science atheists rule the roost and TEs pay obeisance under the table and whatever you do not use the that 12 letter word – “supernatural” - it's anathema.

The supernatural has nothing to do with science - it's not verifiable, repeatable or falsifiable. Science must restrict itself to natural explanations or it has no use.



You share their Darwinian worldview do you not?

I'm still not sure what you mean by "Darwinian". Sometimes I think it's your term for "atheist evolutionist", and no, I don't share that worldview.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 21st 2008, 10:21 AM
The supernatural has nothing to do with science - it's not verifiable, repeatable or falsifiable. Science must restrict itself to natural explanations or it has no use. How supernatural does one ned to be to believe that non-living material with no DNA coding simply came alive and wrote its own code? That's not verifiable, repeatable, or falsifiable either. :hmm: Or even that one living cell, that you don't know how it got there or how it came alive, produced the genetic code by whatever means to advance itself to the point of complex multi-celled organisms. Not verifiable, repeatable, or falsifiable either. I agree that the supernatural need not be on the table, scientifically. So, get ALL of it off the table and use science as it should be used. Not as some supernatural whatif philosophy. Hey, I'm a geek that loves science! So, it absolutely blows me away that so many (myself included for most of my life) buy into the fallacy that darwinian (one-cell to everything else) evolution has somehow been proven. :dunno:

God Bless!

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 11:34 AM
The supernatural has nothing to do with science - it's not verifiable, repeatable or falsifiable. Science must restrict itself to natural explanations or it has no use.



Now you’re talking science. Science should be completely neutral with respect to theistic or atheistic views - but why do Darwinists insists that evolution is a purely naturalistic process without purpose that did not have man in mind? Are these statements science or religion?
"Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material." G.G. Simpson , The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man

"In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion." ~ J.S. Huxley

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 01:48 PM
How supernatural does one ned to be to believe that non-living material with no DNA coding simply came alive and wrote its own code? That's not verifiable, repeatable, or falsifiable either. :hmm: Or even that one living cell, that you don't know how it got there or how it came alive, produced the genetic code by whatever means to advance itself to the point of complex multi-celled organisms. Not verifiable, repeatable, or falsifiable either. I agree that the supernatural need not be on the table, scientifically. So, get ALL of it off the table and use science as it should be used. Not as some supernatural whatif philosophy. Hey, I'm a geek that loves science! So, it absolutely blows me away that so many (myself included for most of my life) buy into the fallacy that darwinian (one-cell to everything else) evolution has somehow been proven. :dunno:

God Bless!

Again, evolution refers to the point after which simple life already exists. There is a mountain of evidence in the fossil record, DNA and elsewhere that supports it, and no evidence has yet falsified the overall theory (although many hypothesized steps have).

Any biogenesis talk is still in the hypothesis stage, being tested. If any biogenesis hypothesis is untested or unfalsifiable, then it will be rejected offhand. That is the scientific method. Again, just like they knew the Nile had a source before they knew where the source was, we know that at some point life was introduced to the earth because of the river of evidence that follows. Was it supernatural? I don't know. But I'm not resting my faith in God on it.

crawfish
Aug 21st 2008, 01:54 PM
Now you’re talking science. Science should be completely neutral with respect to theistic or atheistic views - but why do Darwinists insists that evolution is a purely naturalistic process without purpose that did not have man in mind? Are these statements science or religion?
"Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material." G.G. Simpson , The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man

"In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion." ~ J.S. Huxley

...and so we start from the beginning yet again. I think that common descent evolution has tons of science behind it. You think that it isn't because "common descent can't be true because we can't explain how birds evolve from reptiles" and some philosopher says that some scientists treat evolution like religion. I think that common descent is based in pure science and some scientists go too far by proclaiming that God cannot be a part of the picture, while you claim that common descent is based on pure atheism and some scientists fool themselves into believing in it and God.

Circles and circles and circles...

BTW, those quotes are opinion.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 21st 2008, 03:19 PM
Or even that one living cell, that you don't know how it got there or how it came alive, produced the genetic code by whatever means to advance itself to the point of complex multi-celled organisms. Not verifiable, repeatable, or falsifiable either.


Again, evolution refers to the point after which simple life already exists. There is a mountain of evidence in the fossil record, DNA and elsewhere that supports it, and no evidence has yet falsified the overall theory (although many hypothesized steps have).

Any biogenesis talk is still in the hypothesis stage, being tested. If any biogenesis hypothesis is untested or unfalsifiable, then it will be rejected offhand. That is the scientific method. Again, just like they knew the Nile had a source before they knew where the source was, we know that at some point life was introduced to the earth because of the river of evidence that follows. Was it supernatural? I don't know. But I'm not resting my faith in God on it.crawfish, one living cell evolving into multi-celled organisms is NOT abiogenesis. It is basic darwinain evolution. And it is not verifiable, repeatable, or falsifiable either. So, why do you consider it science? :hmm:

losthorizon
Aug 21st 2008, 10:38 PM
...and so we start from the beginning yet again. I think that common descent evolution has tons of science behind it...


Crawfish, my brother – you repeatedly mention this elusive “tons of science” that demonstrates the Darwinian myth of molecules to man evolution but you forget the most important part of such a boast – you post none of it for examination. Where is it? About the only thing you can muster up in support of your position is ERVs but if we understand virus transfer we see it fits nicely with the concept of “common designer” - as well if not better than it does for "common ancestry". You will need to do much better than this with the “tons” of evidence you claim to have if you are to convince me or anyone else who combines reason with scientific evidence. This is why we see hundreds of PhD scientists rejecting common ancestry – not on religious convictions but for purely scientific reasons (lack of evidence). I think your house of cards is falling down around you...:hmm:


Circles and circles and circles...
Here is the circular logic I see being employed on this thread – common descent evolution has tons of science behind it because Darwinists say it has tons of science behind it and 99% of Darwinists cannot possibly be wrong because they have been indoctrinated into Darwinian mythology since the second grade.


BTW, those quotes are opinion.
You are correct and I would take it a step further and see if you will agree with me once more – those “opinions” are theological in nature – Darwinism is the religion of atheistic humanism – per the Humanist Manifesto. What do you think? Do you agree with philosophy of science guru, Michael Ruse (atheist) and me that atheistic religion (Darwinism) should not be taught in public schools? Do you have children in the public school system?
Secular Humanism is an attempt to function as a civilized society with the exclusion of God and His moral principles. During the last several decades, Humanists have been very successful in propagating their beliefs. Their primary approach is to target the youth through the public school system….education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school's meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?" ~ Charles F. Potter, "Humanism: A New Religion" (1930)

slynx
Aug 28th 2008, 08:10 PM
Then what do you tell your Darwinist friends who insist that evolutionism can explain the apparent design in nature (an illustion) without the existence of God (see Dawkins’, The God Delusion)? Please tell me in your own words how you would explain to me if I were an atheist-Darwinian evolutionist how there is design in nature because a Creator-God designed everything that has been created. Remember – no God of the Gaps allowed.

I suggest you read the book "Dawkins Delusion?", which shows that Dawkins book is nothing more than atheist polemics devoid of scientific evidence to back up his claims.

losthorizon
Aug 28th 2008, 10:28 PM
I suggest you read the book "Dawkins Delusion?", which shows that Dawkins book is nothing more than atheist polemics devoid of scientific evidence to back up his claims.
I have picked it up for a quick look but will not spend money for his nonsense – thanks for the reference. Like some on this forum – he does not distinguish between science and philosophy. He is also a rabid anti-theist who hates the faith of Jesus Christ.

SirTanTee
Aug 28th 2008, 11:02 PM
:pp You have finally gotten the point...though you are still missing the forest for the trees. :rolleyes: There has been no additional information because they are all still dogs with simply a reshuffling of genetic information that was already present in the genome. The dogs remain dogs, the fruitflies remain fruitflies, the bacterium remain bacterium and so on. THAT is what we observe! THAT is science! What we do not observe is a species with less genetic information 'evolving' into a species with more genetic information. And btw, repeating of information does not count. An addition of information not a duplication of information would be required for a single-celled organism to evolve into a multi-celled organism and for that progression to continue through to a complex organism like man. There MUST be a continual (over time) addition of genetic information for that to occur. THAT is the philosophy of evolution! Look, let's stick with the science. I'm all for that. ;)

Addition of information is absolutely not a necessity; no scientist would make such an off-base claim. The amoeba has more genetic information than you do. An onion has 12 times more DNA than you do. So, nope, no information would be needed to be added, since many simple organisms actually have more DNA than complex organisms. Actually, an omission of information would fuel evolutionary mutations, and DNA deletions happen quite often in the process of reproduction.

Losthorizon, you yourself have been swinging in the "circles and circles" you claim to protest. Those of us who are arguing for the theory of evolution have provided immense numbers of references and different types of evidence to try to support our points, yet all of your posts are basically repetitious, immediate dismissals that address almost none of the specific scientific topics. You claim that evolution is philosophy, but evolution can be proven false, philosophy cannot.

For example, I have asked you repeated times for specific comment on the fossil record. What will this time be - the fourth? Fifth? Is there a reason why you have completely avoided this issue?


How would you respond to the material I posted previously, such as the fact that the distribution of the fossils in the fossil record directly supports evolution and directly contradicts instantaneous species creation?


By the way, I am not impressed with the fact that you have still not responded to a single one of the scientific questions I have asked. If you are not qualified to respond to them because you are unfamiliar with the material, then maybe you should consider yourself unqualified to say that evolution is wrong if you cannot even understand the most basic evidence I have presented. You asked me to avoid presenting arguments ad nauseam, but I have presented a diverse range of information. You have not. For example, again, please tell me how we could interpret a fossil record like this a different way:

Point A) Dinosaur fossils present. No bird fossils present. Some dinosaurs share vague similarities with birds.
Point B) Dinosaur fossils present. No bird fossils present. Some dinosaurs share strong similarities with birds.
Point C) Dinosaur fossils disappearing. Primitive bird fossils appear. Primitive birds and dinosaurs share strong similarities.
Point D) No dinosaur fossils present. More advanced bird fossils appear Advanced birds share strong similarities with dinosaurs.


This is exactly what I was going to say. "Talk is cheap," eh? Then go ahead - show us something. You have said multiple times that you can make an equally good argument for common design, yet you have failed to present it yet. And I would like to point out that for the second or third time you have yet again ignored my specific request for your comment on a specific issue. What about the fossil record? Extroardinary evidence is required to explain away the fact that the fossil record overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution with an amazing ladder that starts with simple animals that grow increasingly complex as time goes on. Again, it would take one fossil out of place to tear down the theory of evolution. Thousands of fossils supporting evolution have been found. The one fossil required to disprove it has not.


I'm beginning to think that you have no response to the evidence, and are therefore avoiding making a response. Your apparent inability to respond to the actual facts presented within the posts, despite being repeatedly asked to, speaks for itself. If you have a legitimate response, please post it instead of cutting and running.

On other points...



Here is the circular logic I see being employed on this thread – common descent evolution has tons of science behind it because Darwinists say it has tons of science behind it and 99% of Darwinists cannot possibly be wrong because they have been indoctrinated into Darwinian mythology since the second grade.

I think you meant to say that 99% of American scientists agree, not Darwinists.

But I have to say, you're right. This is so, so true of our modern scientific community. Heck, they claim that gravity exists. They claim that the stars are giant balls of gas, but the only evidence I've ever seen was offered by hundreds of thousands of scientists who'd been indoctrinated with gravity and solar system mythology. I dismiss such evidence. If they support the theory, then they must have been brainwashed and the evidence can automatically be disregarded.

Again, abiogensis =/= evolution. The evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis, it could have been started by a divine power or it could have been started by aliens. Evolutionary explanations apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 29th 2008, 12:48 AM
Addition of information is absolutely not a necessity; no scientist would make such an off-base claim. The amoeba has more genetic information than you do. An onion has 12 times more DNA than you do. So, nope, no information would be needed to be added, since many simple organisms actually have more DNA than complex organisms. Actually, an omission of information would fuel evolutionary mutations, and DNA deletions happen quite often in the process of reproduction.Once again you are missing the point. The point was that no darwinian evolution is required for microevolutionary changes. They happen everyday but in no way does their occurrence somehow support the hypothesis that you and that onion have a common ancestor.

Look, I understand and respect your position. Not to long ago I held it. But you seem to have some disdain for my position. :hmm: Why is that? I am a 40 year old, college educated professional that if you met in person, you would not likely question my intelligence. Yet, in this format you seem to have no trouble addressing me as if I am clueless. :hmm: Why is that? I have come to my opinion through years of study. I make no apologies if it doesn't fit into your standards. :dunno:

God Bless!

crawfish
Aug 29th 2008, 02:00 AM
Once again you are missing the point. The point was that no darwinian evolution is required for microevolutionary changes. They happen everyday but in no way does their occurrence somehow support the hypothesis that you and that onion have a common ancestor.

"Darwinian evolution" encompasses everything from small, day-to-day changes all the way to common ancestry. You are accepting PART of Darwinian evolution, not an alternate theory. Which makes you a partial Darwinist. :)

Of course, few really call themselves "Darwinists" anyway. Most prefer to be called evolutionary biologists. Evolutionary theory has moved far beyond Darwin. Some want to make him the "Jesus" of evolution, who not only started it but still defines it, but in truth a better comparison is with Copernicus and astronomy. He is the one that spurred the paradigm shift in thinking about his subject.

losthorizon
Aug 29th 2008, 02:15 AM
I think you meant to say that 99% of American scientists agree, not Darwinists.


No – you are putting words in my mouth – I spoke the truth - 99% of Darwinists say Darwinism is correct because the Darwinism they were taught in public school said Darwinism is correct. This is simply the circular reasoning that Darwinism stands on – the science is not there.


Again, abiogensis =/= evolution. The evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis, it could have been started by a divine power or it could have been started by aliens. Evolutionary explanations apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.
But you are missing the truth that Darwinist believe by faith and teach by error that life came from death all by it lonesome by blind chance without man in mind. You need to study reality a bit more.

losthorizon
Aug 29th 2008, 02:20 AM
"Darwinian evolution" encompasses everything from small, day-to-day changes all the way to common ancestry. You are accepting PART of Darwinian evolution, not an alternate theory. Which makes you a partial Darwinist.


I would tend to disagree with your notion – we can all embrace biological evolution (science) but we should all question the mythologies of Darwinism taught as science. I would think you would embrace this truth. ;)

SirTanTee
Aug 29th 2008, 03:27 AM
Once again you are missing the point. The point was that no darwinian evolution is required for microevolutionary changes. They happen everyday but in no way does their occurrence somehow support the hypothesis that you and that onion have a common ancestor.

Look, I understand and respect your position. Not to long ago I held it. But you seem to have some disdain for my position. :hmm: Why is that? I am a 40 year old, college educated professional that if you met in person, you would not likely question my intelligence. Yet, in this format you seem to have no trouble addressing me as if I am clueless. :hmm: Why is that? I have come to my opinion through years of study. I make no apologies if it doesn't fit into your standards. :dunno:

Okay, so microevolutionary changes occur. We can all agree on that. However, at what specific point do the changes become improbable? If one "microevolution" occurred that resulted in a mutation that kept two populations from breeding with each other, then that would also classify as speculation and the process of macroevolution. So, if changes within a species are possible at what point do certain macroevolutionary changes become impossible?

I'm sorry you feel that I'm questioning your intelligence, I'm really not. I apologize and hope you can forgive me, I do tend to get a bit heated in debates. It is frustrating for me, sometimes, because when I try to defend evolution I get accused of being an atheist, or at least being closely affiliated with atheists. It gets me a little riled up!


No – you are putting words in my mouth – I spoke the truth - 99% of Darwinists say Darwinism is correct because the Darwinism they were taught in public school said Darwinism is correct. This is simply the circular reasoning that Darwinism stands on – the science is not there.

Darwinist implies belief in Darwinism, so wouldn't 100% of Darwinists believe in Darwinism? And the point that I was trying to make was that not only do 99% of Darwinists believe in Darwinism, but more than 99% of the entire scientific community of the United States supports the evolutionary theory.


But you are missing the truth that Darwinist believe by faith and teach by error that life came from death all by it lonesome by blind chance without man in mind. You need to study reality a bit more.

1) No, evolutionary theory rests on the basis that life existed, at whatever beginning, existed. It does not say that life came from death, or any particular God, or that it spontaneously generated itself. All it says is that in the beginning there were building blocks off life. Speculation on how the original life is abiogenesis, it is a separate (albeit related) field. That's simply the definition.

2) As I have stated twice before in this thread, the argument that life arose by "chance" is erroneous. The universe is not governed by chance, molecular dynamics are not governed by chance, therefore it is grossly mis-stating the evolutionary theory to say it claims life arose by "chance."

3) "Without man in mind" is a personal opinion and crosses into the realm of theology. Physical science is not concerned with theology, therefore physical science does not speculate on whether man was an end goal. DNA mutations do appear to be random, but it is left up to individual to decide whether it is a self-induced process or whether it is guided by a theistic being.


I would tend to disagree with your notion – we can all embrace biological evolution (science) but we should all question the mythologies of Darwinism taught as science. I would think you would embrace this truth. ;)

Losthorizon....you keep repeating the same exact thing. And, once again, you ignored my previous request (this will be the sixth time?) to address a specific issue of the fossil record. Since you like the topic of macroevolution, how are you distinguishing between micro and macroevolution? Where is the boundary between acceptable physical mutation and unacceptable physical mutation? Since factual genetic mutation would result in both processes, why is one possible while another one is not?

Question to creationists: What is your theory on intermediate fossils? Were there millions of species originally that have sense died out? How do they work into the puzzle, especially considering that it is unlikely that many of them would have coexisted?

Alaska
Aug 29th 2008, 06:11 AM
1) No, evolutionary theory rests on the basis that life existed, at whatever beginning, existed. It does not say that life came from death, or any particular God, or that it spontaneously generated itself. All it says is that in the beginning there were building blocks off life. Speculation on how the original life is abiogenesis, it is a separate (albeit related) field. That's simply the definition.

2) As I have stated twice before in this thread, the argument that life arose by "chance" is erroneous. The universe is not governed by chance, molecular dynamics are not governed by chance, therefore it is grossly mis-stating the evolutionary theory to say it claims life arose by "chance."

See how the same tactics by hypocritical religion is employed here?
"Abiogenesis" is dressed up in different garb and somehow pretends to be something other than abiogenesis. [Like divorce is excused by the Catholics under the guise of "annulment".]
"Chance" also changes meaning as if to say in a little circular unending rotation of mental gymnastics that it is not by chance, it is by evolution.
Simple, take all the wording that employs the word "chance" and replace that with the word "evolution" and all your problems of how everything got here is eternally solved. Never mind that there are no scientific mechanisms for transition and numerous miracles have to be accepted in blind faith without the assistance of a higher, conscious, intelligent designer.



So, if changes within a species are possible at what point do certain macroevolutionary changes become impossible?



When the direction goes "uphill' as in acquiring new information, not just a loss or corruption of already existing information. The fossil record appears to have living creatures fully programmed and ready to go at their initial instant creation. Speciation or variation within a kind (micro evolution) only deals with what that organism has from its parents.
There is no mechanism (other than imaginary) for uphill acquisition of new information.
A cow is not born with a beak. An extra leg however is not new. It already has the coding for legs. An extra leg is not uphill. It is neutral at best and is a detriment in the wild. It is a defect, a corruption of the code.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 29th 2008, 10:35 AM
"Darwinian evolution" encompasses everything from small, day-to-day changes all the way to common ancestry. You are accepting PART of Darwinian evolution, not an alternate theory. Which makes you a partial Darwinist. :)

Of course, few really call themselves "Darwinists" anyway. Most prefer to be called evolutionary biologists. Evolutionary theory has moved far beyond Darwin. Some want to make him the "Jesus" of evolution, who not only started it but still defines it, but in truth a better comparison is with Copernicus and astronomy. He is the one that spurred the paradigm shift in thinking about his subject.Microevolution is that which can be observed, studied, and repeated. All else is simply conjecture. As I've said before, I used to be a full-on darwinist. And btw, there are plenty who call themselves darwinist. As for the 'Jesus' connection, I didn't start that. You pull up behind someone with a bumper sticker of a 'Jesus-fish' with legs on it and the name Darwin inside, and then tell me who is making him the 'Jesus' of evolution. :rolleyes:

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Aug 29th 2008, 11:04 AM
Okay, so microevolutionary changes occur. We can all agree on that. However, at what specific point do the changes become improbable? If one "microevolution" occurred that resulted in a mutation that kept two populations from breeding with each other, then that would also classify as speculation and the process of macroevolution. So, if changes within a species are possible at what point do certain macroevolutionary changes become impossible?

I'm sorry you feel that I'm questioning your intelligence, I'm really not. I apologize and hope you can forgive me, I do tend to get a bit heated in debates. It is frustrating for me, sometimes, because when I try to defend evolution I get accused of being an atheist, or at least being closely affiliated with atheists. It gets me a little riled up!The point macroevolutionary changes would become 'science' is when they are observable and repeatable. Until them they are merely philosophical and that's absolutely fine for me. Let science stick with true science and label scientific philosophy and not as scientific fact. It is 'possible' that aliens brought life to our planet but no one would call that 'science', would they? :D

Forgiveness is not a problem as I did not take offense. :) I was just wondering why. No need to be frustrated, not one person on this forum knows the state of your heart. Only God knows that and it is only what He calls you that should rile you up, so to speak. ;) I would never question your faith because of your evolutionary philosophy. I was in your position just six or so years ago and I KNOW that I was saved. :pp

God Bless!

crawfish
Aug 29th 2008, 07:13 PM
Microevolution is that which can be observed, studied, and repeated. All else is simply conjecture. As I've said before, I used to be a full-on darwinist. And btw, there are plenty who call themselves darwinist. As for the 'Jesus' connection, I didn't start that. You pull up behind someone with a bumper sticker of a 'Jesus-fish' with legs on it and the name Darwin inside, and then tell me who is making him the 'Jesus' of evolution. :rolleyes:

God Bless!

I didn't say you did start it...but it's become popular because it gives the image that evolution is a religion with a figurehead in the middle, which is wrong - Darwin is viewed by scientists as a guy who was smart enough to observe the nature around him and not be blinded by the traditional thinking. He's not the guy who came up with the idea first and he's not the guy who has progressed it the farthest - he just shook up the traditional thinking.

And, for the record, I've long been tempted to put a Jesus and Darwin fish kissing on the back of my car. :)

Also, according to science "macroevolution" is just a lot of microevolutionary steps taken over a long period of time. So, there is no real difference between the two. "Darwinism" encompasses that entire process. And, even if I were to admit that they WERE two different things, you'd still have to admit that Darwin's work was the seminal event in the eventual acceptance of both of them. I stand by my claim.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 29th 2008, 08:04 PM
I didn't say you did start it...but it's become popular because it gives the image that evolution is a religion with a figurehead in the middle, which is wrong - Darwin is viewed by scientists as a guy who was smart enough to observe the nature around him and not be blinded by the traditional thinking. He's not the guy who came up with the idea first and he's not the guy who has progressed it the farthest - he just shook up the traditional thinking.

And, for the record, I've long been tempted to put a Jesus and Darwin fish kissing on the back of my car. :)

Also, according to science "macroevolution" is just a lot of microevolutionary steps taken over a long period of time. So, there is no real difference between the two. "Darwinism" encompasses that entire process. And, even if I were to admit that they WERE two different things, you'd still have to admit that Darwin's work was the seminal event in the eventual acceptance of both of them. I stand by my claim.But you haven't addressed who actually started the imagery or why. Darwin has become the messiah of many atheists and they do treat it as their religion. Just the fact that they have taken a symbol of our faith and attempted to mock it speaks volumes. :rolleyes:

If you do get two fish for your car, please remove the 'Darwin' from the fish with legs, as Darwin does not need to be put on the same level as Jesus.

But microevolutionary changes are changes that can be observed and repeated. Macroevolution are changes that can only be philosophied (if it's not a word, it should be:D). Even Darwin said that if all these little change had actually occured, the fossil record should be riddle with examples all alomg the way. That is just not what has been found. A few extinct animals championed as a missing link does not make a good substitution for the progressive fossils that should be evident in the fossil record. For you to say, "This is what I 'believe' happened based on xyz", is absolutely fine and gets absolutely no flack from me. However, for you or anyone else to say, "This is what happened", is just not science.

God Bless!

crawfish
Aug 29th 2008, 10:15 PM
But you haven't addressed who actually started the imagery or why. Darwin has become the messiah of many atheists and they do treat it as their religion. Just the fact that they have taken a symbol of our faith and attempted to mock it speaks volumes. :rolleyes:

You must know different atheists than I do, because they would bristle at that claim.


If you do get two fish for your car, please remove the 'Darwin' from the fish with legs, as Darwin does not need to be put on the same level as Jesus.

Actually, the reason I won't do it is because I don't think Jesus should be put on the level with a fish. Those are silly things. The empty fish should be more than enough. It's like the flag ribbon thing...one time, I saw someone who had four of them on their car...they HAD to be more patriotic than someone with three, right?

However, if I had to, perhaps a Jesus fish with legs would be better? :)



But microevolutionary changes are changes that can be observed and repeated. Macroevolution are changes that can only be philosophied (if it's not a word, it should be:D). Even Darwin said that if all these little change had actually occured, the fossil record should be riddle with examples all alomg the way. That is just not what has been found. A few extinct animals championed as a missing link does not make a good substitution for the progressive fossils that should be evident in the fossil record. For you to say, "This is what I 'believe' happened based on xyz", is absolutely fine and gets absolutely no flack from me. However, for you or anyone else to say, "This is what happened", is just not science.

God Bless![/quote]

"Macroevolutionary" changes can and have been observed. When they do they get ignored by creationists because, in their minds, a "macroevolutionary change" would constitute a reptile giving birth to a mammal (which would actually be completely against the ToE).

Studyin'2Show
Aug 29th 2008, 10:31 PM
"Macroevolutionary" changes can and have been observed. When they do they get ignored by creationists because, in their minds, a "macroevolutionary change" would constitute a reptile giving birth to a mammal (which would actually be completely against the ToE).I don't ignore anything. Really! I love science. We just see the evidence differently. There's no conspiracy here! :lol:

Seriously though, a reptile or amphibian giving birth to a mammal would have to have happened at some point right? The fossil record should be littered with not just one possible missing link here and there but literally thousands, even millions of them in clear stages of development. But the fossil evidence of such changes just is not there. :dunno:

losthorizon
Aug 30th 2008, 12:31 AM
Darwinist implies belief in Darwinism, so wouldn't 100% of Darwinists believe in Darwinism?
No – about 1.2% are re-thinking Darwinian lore to the point they are now defecting from the religion of Darwinism (even some of the Steve’s) along with hundreds of PhD scientists from other fields who agree that philosophy taught as science is not kosher. I am still waiting for my friend, Crawfish to get on board – Darwinism as science is dying – Darwinism as religion is growing along with mysticism, stone peeping and crystal “science”. Choose your side carefully.

crawfish
Aug 30th 2008, 12:35 AM
I don't ignore anything. Really! I love science. We just see the evidence differently. There's no conspiracy here! :lol:

Seriously though, a reptile or amphibian giving birth to a mammal would have to have happened at some point right? The fossil record should be littered with not just one possible missing link here and there but literally thousands, even millions of them in clear stages of development. But the fossil evidence of such changes just is not there. :dunno:

Fossilization is a very rare event. The sheer numbers of fossils we've found of creatures that no longer exist today is huge; yet, they probably reflect a tiny percentage of all the species that have ever existed. What the fossil record shows is progression; we might not know the exact path, but we do know some of that path's nodes. No fossil has been unearthed that disproves the overall theory; they all fit well within it. That is pretty strong evidence in itself.

crawfish
Aug 30th 2008, 12:37 AM
Darwinism as science is dying

True. Unfortunately for you "the Theory of Common Descent through Evolution" is progressing quite strongly.

;)

Studyin'2Show
Aug 30th 2008, 03:14 AM
Fossilization is a very rare event. The sheer numbers of fossils we've found of creatures that no longer exist today is huge; yet, they probably reflect a tiny percentage of all the species that have ever existed. What the fossil record shows is progression; we might not know the exact path, but we do know some of that path's nodes. No fossil has been unearthed that disproves the overall theory; they all fit well within it. That is pretty strong evidence in itself.crawfish, there are plenty of animals that no longer exist today that were here just 50 years ago. It's called extinction and unfortunately happens all to often. However, Darwin predicted that if his theory were indeed correct, there would be a plethera of transitional fossils showing all the stages of development. That just is not there. BTW, the onus is on a scientific theory to prove itself before it should be accepted as fact. Not that others must disprove it. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Aug 30th 2008, 03:16 AM
True. Unfortunately for you "the Theory of Common Descent through Evolution" is progressing quite strongly.As a philosophy. :D However, being philosophically accepted does not equate automatically with being true. ;)

crawfish
Aug 30th 2008, 03:12 PM
crawfish, there are plenty of animals that no longer exist today that were here just 50 years ago. It's called extinction and unfortunately happens all to often. However, Darwin predicted that if his theory were indeed correct, there would be a plethera of transitional fossils showing all the stages of development. That just is not there. BTW, the onus is on a scientific theory to prove itself before it should be accepted as fact. Not that others must disprove it. ;)

God Bless!

You've heard of the term "falsifiable"? Science works by putting forth theories of how things work based on the evidence, and the way those theories are disproven is by coming up with evidence that proves they cannot be true. You cannot absolutely "prove" a theory because you cannot possibly gain all the evidence.

Imagine that every single duck we ever saw was black. Science might declare a theory that all ducks are black, but it must leave the option open because it would only take one non-black duck to disprove it. However, if we had seen millions of ducks and every single one was black, the non-scientific statement "all ducks are black" would be considered absolutely true.

As I said before, there is a definite progress shown in the fossil record, and it falls along lines that evolution would predict. Not only that, but the DNA record also supports what evolution would predict. As the prevailing theory, it is the onus of its detractors to present falsifiable evidence in order for it to be dismissed - and it has to be more than just indicating what we don't yet know. That is the scientific method; the way science works and has always worked, and it has led to nearly every breakthrough we've made. Paths must be purposefully closed rather than assumed closed.

ID or creationism CANNOT be falsified; because in any case where the evidence disagrees with it, a supernatural force can be offered up as defense. Age of the earth more than 6,000 years? It's because God made it look that way. Problems with the flood? God protected things supernaturally to make His will possible. ID and creationism cannot possibly be science because there is no way to disprove them. That doesn't mean they can't be true; but they go beyond what we are capable of studying. They are a matter of faith, and I have no problem with that. Just don't assume that they are scientific when they cannot possibly be.

crawfish
Aug 30th 2008, 03:16 PM
As a philosophy. :D However, being philosophically accepted does not equate automatically with being true. ;)

Philosophy works without evidence - a pure act of the mind. Common descent is only derived because of its supporting evidence.

losthorizon
Aug 30th 2008, 06:56 PM
Philosophy works without evidence - a pure act of the mind. Common descent is only derived because of its supporting evidence.
Lol – and where is that evidence to support your philosophy, Crawfish? You looked all over and were not able to find it in the past – has it now been found? Please present it for review – reminder, no Darwinian myth allowed – just science, please. ;)

SirTanTee
Aug 30th 2008, 08:39 PM
Seriously though, a reptile or amphibian giving birth to a mammal would have to have happened at some point right? The fossil record should be littered with not just one possible missing link here and there but literally thousands, even millions of them in clear stages of development. But the fossil evidence of such changes just is not there. :dunno:

:eek: A reptile giving birth to a mammal? What?! That's not what the theory of evolution proposes at all.

There are thousands of examples of missing links. The discovery of transitionary fossils between primitive water-dwelling and then land-dwelling animals has been filling out richly. I quoted some examples earlier in this thread; I could do more research and provide examples if you like. Is there a particular branch you'd be interested in?


"Chance" also changes meaning as if to say in a little circular unending rotation of mental gymnastics that it is not by chance, it is by evolution. Simple, take all the wording that employs the word "chance" and replace that with the word "evolution" and all your problems of how everything got here is eternally solved. Never mind that there are no scientific mechanisms for transition and numerous miracles have to be accepted in blind faith without the assistance of a higher, conscious, intelligent designer.

Sorry - I can't quite understand this paragraph, it's worded a little confusingly. :confused: The part of my post you responded to simply stated that molecular structures do not evolve by chance; sure, there are probabilities involved, but the interaction of both molecular structures as well as environmental structures are not random. They are governed by specific natural laws.


A cow is not born with a beak. An extra leg however is not new. It already has the coding for legs. An extra leg is not uphill. It is neutral at best and is a detriment in the wild. It is a defect, a corruption of the code.

Whales also have coding for legs and chickens have coding for teeth; why do you think that is?

crawfish
Aug 30th 2008, 09:21 PM
Lol – and where is that evidence to support your philosophy, Crawfish? You looked all over and were not able to find it in the past – has it now been found? Please present it for review – reminder, no Darwinian myth allowed – just science, please. ;)

I assume that you will be the filter of what is science and what is not? You've never given me a definition of how you differentiate between the two (some evidence matters, some does not), so I can't be sure if I'm going to post something acceptable. (Although I suspect that any evidence I post contrary to your worldview will be objected to.)

OK. Let's start here: is evidence of the evolution of new genes through gene duplication (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020304081153.htm). According to rebuttals of evolutionary biology, this is impossible; you cannot add information to a gene. If the study above is true, then it pretty much kills that objection, and supports the basis for the possibility of common descent.

losthorizon
Aug 30th 2008, 10:48 PM
I assume that you will be the filter of what is science and what is not? You've never given me a definition of how you differentiate between the two (some evidence matters, some does not), so I can't be sure if I'm going to post something acceptable.


Actually, Crawfish I have given you my definition of both science and metaphysics on this thead and I don’t recall you disagreeing with them. Maybe you can provide your definitions so we can remain on the same page.


OK. Let's start here: is evidence of the evolution of new genes through gene duplication. According to rebuttals of evolutionary biology, this is impossible; you cannot add information to a gene. If the study above is true, then it pretty much kills that objection, and supports the basis for the possibility of common descent.
I don’t think you have proven much in the way of support for transmutation of species. Is it your position that added information to a gene must come only through common ancestry? The article has many non-committal terms such as “may”, “apparently”, and “suggests” – these terms certainly do not provide concrete evidence for your philosophical worldview of molecules-to-man evolution. When the same gene is present in different species it may suggest inheritance through a common ancestor and it could just as easily suggest it arrived there by jumping from one species through the process of lateral gene transfer among other possibilities – ie - viral gene copying through horizontal transmission, etc. Again, it was an interesting article (a wee bit outdated) but nothing there to support your Darwinian lore. As far as a "proof" of common ancestry I would give it a D- grade because of the multiple other equally good explanations. What else did you find?

crawfish
Aug 30th 2008, 11:54 PM
Actually, Crawfish I have given you my definition of both science and metaphysics on this thead and I don’t recall you disagreeing with them. Maybe you can provide your definitions so we can remain on the same page.


I don’t think you have proven much in the way of support for transmutation of species. Is it your position that added information to a gene must come only through common ancestry? The article has many non-committal terms such as “may”, “apparently”, and “suggests” – these terms certainly do not provide concrete evidence for your philosophical worldview of molecules-to-man evolution. When the same gene is present in different species it may suggest inheritance through a common ancestor and it could just as easily suggest it arrived there by jumping from one species through the process of lateral gene transfer among other possibilities – ie - viral gene copying through horizontal transmission, etc. Again, it was an interesting article (a wee bit outdated) but nothing there to support your Darwinian lore. As far as a "proof" of common ancestry I would give it a D- grade because of the multiple other equally good explanations. What else did you find?

I just wondered if you would use actual science to rebuff a claim. Congratulations, I guess there is a first time for everything. :)

I'm still not convinced it's worth my time, tho. It's not any single bit of evidence...it is the amalgamation of evidence. Even if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers and a bill, you can still come up with "alternate explanations" of each individual item. Only the strength of all the evidence in combination tells you that it must be a duck.

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 12:48 AM
I just wondered if you would use actual science to rebuff a claim. Congratulations, I guess there is a first time for everything. :)


I only spend my time reviewing and commenting on real science – not the OPs copy and paste nonsense from her favorite Darwinian website controlled by those elements who strongly dislike the Christian faith. Just between me and you - I was suprised to see that you also quote their rhetoric. ;)


I'm still not convinced it's worth my time, tho. It's not any single bit of evidence...it is the amalgamation of evidence. Even if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers and a bill, you can still come up with "alternate explanations" of each individual item. Only the strength of all the evidence in combination tells you that it must be a duck.
But what you have provided in support of your worldview doesn’t even put feathers on your duck – your amalgamation of evidence is still missing in action rendering your philosophy dead on arrival - yes? I would recommend you stop accepting the Darwinian party-line and ask yourself this question – "after 150 years of Darwinian lore am I simply wasting my time trying to make sense of something that Darwinians will never be able to explain. I think it is time to allow Darwinian "science" to die a peaceful death so real science can move forward into the 21st Century...
I propose to use counterfactual historiography to argue that the branches of biology that we today consider to be most advanced – molecular biology, especially in relation to genetics – would have progressed more swiftly had Darwin NOT persevered and published Origin of Species in 1859. The predominance of other scientifically respectable theories of evolution available at the time, which typically did not treat design as an illusion in nature (e.g. Lamarck’s, Wallace’s), would have provided – and indeed did provide -- a more hospitable intellectual environment for the development of lab-based branches of biology responsible for bringing us to where we are now. Moreover, I will argue that had Darwin been out of the world-historic picture, biology would not have acquired its distinctly 'historicist' character, to which philosophers have become reconciled only in recent years. Rather, genetics and molecular biology would be more closely aligned with engineering-based disciplines like bionics, precedents for which could be found in the first half of the 20th century, via systems theory perspectives and what became known as 'biophysics'. I conclude that rather than continuing to venerate Darwin, even though he would find relatively little of contemporary biological research relevant to his own studies, we would do better – in time for his 200th anniversary – to retire Darwin as The Last Great Historicist, who has earned a place alongside Marx and Freud more for reasons of cultural iconicity than scientific relevance. ~ Giving Darwin a decent burial, Steve Fuller, University of Warwick, UK

SirTanTee
Aug 31st 2008, 12:54 AM
The point macroevolutionary changes would become 'science' is when they are observable and repeatable. Until them they are merely philosophical and that's absolutely fine for me.

Okay, so microevolutionary changes are possible. That mechanism includes microevolutionary changes that prevent two organisms or representative populations from breeding with each other, even if they used to be able to. If microevolutionary mutations continue to happen to the no-longer-interbreeding populations, further altering them, then what is there to stop them from drifting further and further apart?


As I said before, there is a definite progress shown in the fossil record, and it falls along lines that evolution would predict. Not only that, but the DNA record also supports what evolution would predict. As the prevailing theory, it is the onus of its detractors to present falsifiable evidence in order for it to be dismissed - and it has to be more than just indicating what we don't yet know. That is the scientific method; the way science works and has always worked, and it has led to nearly every breakthrough we've made. Paths must be purposefully closed rather than assumed closed.

I agree that the onus is on the detractors, or, in this case, the significant minority. Some people don't believe the earth is round. Some people don't believe that the earth revolves around the Sun. But, as the significant minority making a challenging claim, the burden is on them to support their arguments independently of any other theories.


Question to creationists: What is your theory on intermediate fossils? Were there millions of species originally that have sense died out? How do they work into the puzzle, especially considering that it is unlikely that many of them would have coexisted?

I posted this earlier. Any takers? Anyone? Halloo? Anyone have opinions on the intermediary seacow? :lol: Studyin'2Show, you have stated that there is no evidence of transitional fossils. Is there a particular branch we could narrow down and discuss? Horse evolution is one particularly close to my own heart. Pretty reference picture found here: http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=55003&rendTypeId=4

By the way, if anyone wants to have a look at the timeline proposed by the ToE, I would recommend this PBS site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/index.html

EDITED:

I only spend my time reviewing and commenting on real science ? not the OPs copy and paste nonsense from her favorite Darwinian website controlled by those elements who strongly dislike the Christian faith. Just between me and you - I was suprised to see that you also quote their rhetoric. ;)

Golly, you got me. All of the evidence that I provided (which I suspect you never read because you never responded specifically except to complain that it was "too long") was indeed straight from websites such as www.weareallathiests.com and www.bloodsacrificesfordarwin.com.

No. Those articles were from...University of California at Berkeley. Wikipedia (gasp), a plethora of well-established scientific journals such as Nature and Scientific Daily, and, finally, sites such as Evolution vs. Creation and TalkOrigins, which are devoted to archiving the arguments for both creationism and the theory of evolution. I know I am dastardly. The atheists are pulling all the strings.

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 02:06 AM
I agree that the onus is on the detractors, or, in this case, the significant minority. Some people don't believe the earth is round. Some people don't believe that the earth revolves around the Sun. But, as the significant minority making a challenging claim, the burden is on them to support their arguments independently of any other theories.


What do you think Crawfish – is the OP correct - is the minority always wrong or is that fallacious thinking? Is the onus really on the moss-back “detractors” to prove Darwinism is really mythology dressed up in high heels and the Earth really is spherical? I will leave it up to you because I respect your interest in science – did the OP present anything from her Darwinian sources in the page after page of cut and paste “debating” that warrants us to investigate further something that might possibly support transmutation of species?

SirTanTee
Aug 31st 2008, 03:07 AM
What do you think Crawfish ? is the OP correct - is the minority always wrong or is that fallacious thinking? Is the onus really on the moss-back ?detractors? to prove Darwinism is really mythology dressed up in high heels and the Earth really is spherical? I will leave it up to you because I respect your interest in science ? did the OP present anything from her Darwinian sources in the page after page of cut and paste ?debating? that warrants us to investigate further something that might possibly support transmutation of species?

Please re-read my post and do not twist my words; I did not even remotely claim that the minority is always wrong. That would be a very foolish thing to claim because it's obviously not true; there are many examples of the minority turning out to be right, both in science and in other wordly matters. However, the burden of proof is on the minority when there is general agreement among the majority. Let's use a theological analogy. On this board, there is general consensus that abortion is wrong, since life begins at conception. There are of course people here and there who disagree, but the vast majority tend to agree - maybe even 99%. They have made their decision based on what they think is solid Scriptural evidence. Suddenly, I come in saying that no! Abortion is perfectly acceptable, and you're misinterpreting the Bible. As the accusing minority, I must substantiate my claim with evidence. If the majority can't convince me that doesn't make me right by default; I have to support my argument.

I feel like I'm in a catch-22 here. If I didn't provide reference information, then I would be accused of not supporting any of my claims. When I do provide reference information, it's too long, it's biased, it's unacceptable, it's easily dismissed and it doesn't count as "real" debating. :confused You repeatedly demand evidence for molecules to man evolution, then refuse to even look at it based on the fact that it was "copied and pasted" from a source, despite the fact that you've spent this entire thread copying and pasting quotations from random book authors to justify your position. I just don't get it.

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 03:44 AM
I feel like I'm in a catch-22 here. If I didn't provide reference information, then I would be accused of not supporting any of my claims. When I do provide reference information, it's too long, it's biased, it's unacceptable, it's easily dismissed and it doesn't count as "real" debating. :confused You repeatedly demand evidence for molecules to man evolution, then refuse to even look at it based on the fact that it was "copied and pasted" from a source, despite the fact that you've spent this entire thread copying and pasting quotations from random book authors to justify your position. I just don't get it.
Actually, it's more like the Twilight Zone. There is no rule that shoulders the burden of proof on the minority – that is a fallacy. I think the burden of proof rests on those who make the extraordinary claim that something exists – aliens, Sasquatch, a country without taxes, etc. You Darwinian enthusiasts are the ones on this thread making wild philosophical claims and then pass it off as science – ie -dinosaurs morphing into ducks, life arising from death and other such miraculous happenings in nature without man in mind. And as they say – “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences” and your cut and paste repertoire didn’t really "prove" anything.

SirTanTee
Aug 31st 2008, 04:19 AM
Actually, it's more like the Twilight Zone. There is no rule that shoulders the burden of proof on the minority ? that is a fallacy. I think the burden of proof rests on those who make the extraordinary claim that something exists ? aliens, Sasquatch, a country without taxes, etc. You Darwinian enthusiasts are the ones on this thread making wild philosophical claims and then pass it off as science ? ie -dinosaurs morphing into ducks, life arising from death and other such miraculous happenings in nature without man in mind. And as they say ? ?extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences? and your cut and paste repertoire didn?t really "prove" anything.

1) No, there is no "rule" that the minority must always prove everything. But if the majority has reached a consensus because there is reasonable proof to support that consensus, then the minority must justify their position with reasonable proof as well.

2) You say that I didn't prove anything with my copying and pasting nonsense. I have one question: did you read it? Any of it? I did. I want to know the truth. I read every word of every source that I posted to see if it was worthy of consideration. And I read every word of your sources, too. In fact, I researched them further to learn more about them. Yet you apparently did not deign to even look at my information, as evidenced by your words here:


I only spend my time reviewing and commenting on real science ? not the OPs copy and paste nonsense from her favorite Darwinian website controlled by those elements who strongly dislike the Christian faith.

I'm sorry, but that's just insulting. Just because you don't have good sources to draw on doesn't mean you can dismiss mine point-blank without even looking into them. My sources are NOT atheistically affiliated, they are NOT run by amateurs, they were NOT thrown together in three and a half minutes.

In addition, I'm sorry if you take offense to copying and pasting but this is the Internet. What is the best way to accurately transcribe complex information and show it to another person who has requested it? Copying and pasting! I'm not quite sure what your beef is with that particular keyboard function; I suspect it's because you have yet to formulate rebuttals to any of the actual scientific evidence.

Losthorizon: Let's move this debate somewhere, as it's been circling on both sides for a while now. I have tried repeatedly to get your response on certain issues; perhaps you missed my six previous requests because it seems you don't read my posts. I'll try a new one: Would you be interested in discussing the merits (or lack therein of) of the proposed evolution of horses, from Hyracotherium to Equus?

slynx
Aug 31st 2008, 05:45 AM
I have picked it up for a quick look but will not spend money for his nonsense – thanks for the reference. Like some on this forum – he does not distinguish between science and philosophy. He is also a rabid anti-theist who hates the faith of Jesus Christ.

I think you misunderstood my post. I was not suggesting you get Dawkin's book, "The God Delusion". I was suggesting you get the critique of his book which shows why is is worthless.

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 12:55 PM
Losthorizon: Let's move this debate somewhere, as it's been circling on both sides for a while now. I have tried repeatedly to get your response on certain issues; perhaps you missed my six previous requests because it seems you don't read my posts. I'll try a new one: Would you be interested in discussing the merits (or lack therein of) of the proposed evolution of horses, from Hyracotherium to Equus?
I have examined many “evidences” for what Darwin philosophically termed “transmutation of species” and the alleged “sequence” used to “prove” horse evolution is one of the poorer examples - you may want to try something more credible. The truth is hyracotherium, was not a horse. Please note - the scientific name "hyracotherium" does not include the name “equus caballus” (horse). Why – because hyracotherium and all the other fossils in the “scientific” sequence that make up “horse evolution” were not horses – the use of names such as “therium”and “hippus” (mesohippus) instead of “equus” clearly proves they were not horses. They are only “horses” in the desperate fairytale world of Darwinian mythology. The truth is they were simply creatures created by God who are now extinct but they were never horses.

If you are interested in further research I would suggest you read the book, Horses by evolutionist George Simpson who researched the “horse evolution” myth and came to the startling conclusion that 3rd graders had been duped over the years by the “straight-line” sequence taught as science to generations of school children (at public expense). Shortly after his book was published the American Museum of Natural History removed their “showroom” horse fossil exhibit from the main lobby and quickly hid it in a back room in the basement out of embarrassment. But not to worry this totally misleading sequencing can still be found in many biology textbooks as the Darwinian deception continues. ;)

Why don’t we do a study on the frauds perpetrated over the past 150 years to promote the theory of evolution. Why don’t we do a study on Ernst Haeckel and his "recapitulation theory" – his fraudulent attempt to prop up the weak Darwinian theory of his day with fake embryonic drawing that presented a human embryo that was identical to other mammals and went through a sequence where it sprouts “gills like a fish” and “a tail like a monkey”. Of course real science came to the rescue - the so-called "law of recapitulation" has been thoroughly discredited by morphologists and biologists. The truth is real science is the mortal enemy of Darwinian lore as the house of Darwin falls down. Btw – if you would like to see Haeckel’s fraudulent work it is surprisingly still found in some biology text books (at public expense). The deception goes on and on – why – because without such deceptions Darwinism would have died a natural death long ago. But I ramble…

SirTanTee
Aug 31st 2008, 03:38 PM
The truth is hyracotherium, was not a horse. Please note - the scientific name "hyracotherium" does not include the name “equus caballus” (horse). Why – because hyracotherium and all the other fossils in the “scientific” sequence that make up “horse evolution” were not horses – the use of names such as “therium”and “hippus” (mesohippus) instead of “equus” clearly proves they were not horses. They are only “horses” in the desperate fairytale world of Darwinian mythology. The truth is they were simply creatures created by God who are now extinct but they were never horses.

Wow, you really are grasping at straws. The theory is discrediting because scientists gave them different names? Quick! Someone tell the scientists it can't be true...they have different names! Not only is that an extremely poor argument, but you didn't even get your information right. :rofl: So the fact that they use "hippus" instead of "equus" proves the two aren't related? Hmmm...

Hippus means horse. It comes from the Greek hippos. The hippopotamus, for example, means water-horse. C'mon now. At least try to do some research before making blatantly inaccurate claims. I looked that up in like three and a half seconds. :rolleyes:

Hyracotherium - "Hyrax-like creature"
Orohippus - "Mountain Horse"
Mesohippus - "Middle Horse"
Miohippus - "Lesser Horse"
(Going to skip a few stages here, such as Parahippus, Pliohippus and Plesippus
Equus - The Modern Horse.

I'm going to formulate another post in a bit to present evidence on the subject; I'm not going to do it in this one for the sake of size and time.


If you are interested in further research I would suggest you read the book, Horses by evolutionist George Simpson who researched the “horse evolution” myth and came to the startling conclusion that 3rd graders had been duped over the years by the “straight-line” sequence taught as science to generations of school children (at public expense). Shortly after his book was published the American Museum of Natural History removed their “showroom” horse fossil exhibit from the main lobby and quickly hid it in a back room in the basement out of embarrassment. But not to worry this totally misleading sequencing can still be found in many biology textbooks as the Darwinian deception continues. ;)

Have you actually read the book Horses? Again, you have made an odd choice in trying to support your point. George Simpson was the father and main supporter of the elaborately branched modern horse evolution theory. He simply modified the theory from straight-lined to a complex branching, recognizing that the modern horse was one lineage of the genus that managed to survive, but not the only lineage that ever existed. ;) Smart man. Funny that you try to invoke him as evidence on your side when he is directly responsible for the "totally misleading sequencing still found in many biology textbooks" that you go on to mention. Here are some awesome quotes from him!

"The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…"

'The history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved...'

"'There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact. The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative."


Why don’t we do a study on the frauds perpetrated over the past 150 years to promote the theory of evolution. Why don’t we do a study on Ernst Haeckel and his "recapitulation theory" – his fraudulent attempt to prop up the weak Darwinian theory of his day with fake embryonic drawing that presented a human embryo that was identical to other mammals and went through a sequence where it sprouts “gills like a fish” and “a tail like a monkey”. Of course real science came to the rescue - the so-called "law of recapitulation" has been thoroughly discredited by morphologists and biologists. The truth is real science is the mortal enemy of Darwinian lore as the house of Darwin falls down. Btw – if you would like to see Haeckel’s fraudulent work it is surprisingly still found in some biology text books (at public expense). The deception goes on and on – why – because without such deceptions Darwinism would have died a natural death long ago. But I ramble…

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Both creationists and evolutionists have been guilty of fraud. However, I believe that it's creationists who take the prize of using incorrect science for the most. If you want, I can elaborate on some of the simply awful science used by famous creationist icons like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham, the President of Answers in Genesis. They are noted for making such asinine statements as, "One drop of water can cover the Earth, if you spread it real thin!"

....I would argue that if not for the lame "faux-science" attempts of certain creationists, then the young earth creationist theory would have died a natural death a long time ago.

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 04:33 PM
Hippus means horse. It comes from the Greek hippos. The hippopotamus, for example, means water-horse. C'mon now. At least try to do some research before making blatantly inaccurate claims. I looked that up in like three and a half seconds. :rolleyes:


I see – the "water-horse" is really a horse in disguise. Are we to assume under your logic that dragons are real because Anisoptera goes by the common name "dragonfly"?

Have you actually read the book Horses? Again, you have made an odd choice in trying to support your point. George Simpson was the father and main supporter of the elaborately branched modern horse evolution theory.
You are missing the point per usual – I specifically identified Simpson as an evolutionist and have used his quotes on this thread before becuase he was a good scientist (blinded by Darwinism). The point you naively miss is the fact that 3rd graders were duped over the years by the “straight-line” sequence taught as science when all along it was known by many to be a hoax – this is the reason the American Museum of Natural History removed their horse fossil exhibit immediately after Simpson’s book was released – they were caught with their pants down (so to speak) - yet textbooks today continue to use photos of that exhibit as "science" just as Darwinists perpetuate the fraud of Haeckel's "recapitulation" illustrations yet today to promote a weak theory. As another famous atheist stated – "the end justifies the means." And the Darwinian deception continues and you appear to be clueless. It is really all about the integrity of the science – and Darwinism makes a mockery of it and must rely on hoaxes to stay afloat. Why?


Both creationists and evolutionists have been guilty of fraud. However, I believe that it's creationists who take the prize of using incorrect science for the most. If you want, I can elaborate on some of the simply awful science used by famous creationist icons like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham…
Why do you not criticize real scientists who were creationists like Galileo, Newton, and Kepler? I have mentioned numerous times I oppose bad science regardless of who promotes it as we all should – the distinction between science and philosophy should always be maintained and Darwinists don’t get it – and you don’t appear to either.

SirTanTee
Aug 31st 2008, 05:36 PM
I see – the "water-horse" is really a horse in disguise. Are we to assume under your logic that dragons are real because Anisoptera goes by the common name "dragonfly"?

Obviously not. But, as any intelligent person can make the distinction, the "water-horse" was named centuries ago by people who looked at the creature and made a rough visual comparison to the horse because they both had four legs. That's a little different than scientists comparing the minute details of anatomy between different fossils and naming them "horse" specifically because they illustrate a progression of ancestry towards the modern Equus.


You are missing the point per usual – I specifically identified Simpson as an evolutionist and have used his quotes on this thread before becuase he was a good scientist (blinded by Darwinism). The point you naively miss is the fact that 3rd graders were duped over the years by the “straight-line” sequence taught as science when all along it was known by many to be a hoax – this is the reason the American Museum of Natural History removed their horse fossil exhibit immediately after Simpson’s book was released – they were caught with their pants down (so to speak) - yet textbooks today continue to use photos of that exhibit as "science" just as Darwinists perpetuate the fraud of Haeckel's "recapitulation" illustrations yet today to promote a weak theory. As another famous atheist stated – "the end justifies the means." And the Darwinian deception continues and you appear to be clueless. It is really all about the integrity of the science – and Darwinism makes a mockery of it and must rely on hoaxes to stay afloat. Why?

Textbooks continue to use photos of fossils exhibited at the American Museum of Natural History because...drumroll...they're good reference pictures of fossils. Biologists do not literally subscribe to Haeckel's illustrations from 1866. This is practically an ancient artifact of the evolutionary theory; although it has some rough merit, it has been severely revised over the last 150 years. ;) Care to address more recent theories instead of picking on outdates ones?


Why do you not criticize real scientists who were creationists like Galileo, Newton, and Kepler? I have mentioned numerous times I oppose bad science regardless of who promotes it as we all should – the distinction between science and philosophy should always be maintained and Darwinists don’t get it – and you don’t appear to either.

I don't criticize Galileo, Newton and Kepler because they used good science on the basis of what was available to them. Therefore, there is nothing really to criticize them on. Some of their ideas were wrong, but were reasonably hypothesized at the time. The creationists I criticized before were worthy of criticism not because they were creationists, but because they absolutely mangled science even when they had tons of resources available to them. And they were regarded as some of the "best" creationist scientists around. That's why they get criticized.

But, hey. Let's stay on track with scientific facts and not wander back into those well-worn statements about philosophy and conspiracy you have repeated again and again. Back to horse evolution: so, if evolution were true, then we would expect to see a series of consistent developments from an ancient, horse-like creature towards the modern equine in the fossil record. Which is exactly what we find. An illustration below:

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=55003&rendTypeId=4

Here is a close-up of the proposed evolution of the foreleg, highlighting the reduction in the number of toes and foot bones. The fossils progress from Hyracotherium, Miohippus, Merychippus and then Equus:

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horse_series_icon.gif

The branching map illustrates the horse evolution was far from a linear progression; many of the lineage lines branched out but did not continue. However, there are clear keystones in development along the path, which are noted through the development of the leg structure. Some modern horses still retain the genes to create the ancient "side toe." The same path of development can be seen in the skull.

http://www.critters-2-go.com/prehistoric/horse-evolution-florida.jpg

Creationists will often try to claim that the "first" horse, the Hyracotherium, has more similar to modern Hyraxes than modern horses. This is not supported by the structure of their skulls as well as their overall anatomy, the top being Hyracotherium and the bottom being Hyrax:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/hyracoth.jpg
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o246/evolutionist65/Hyracotherskel.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/hyrax.jpg
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o246/evolutionist65/Procaviaskeleton2.jpg

In fact, the namer himself was quite clear on this matter:

"Without intending to imply that the present small extinct Pachyderm was more closely allied to the Hyrax than as being a member of the same order, and similar in size, I propose to call the new genus which it unquestionably indicates, Hyracotherium, with the specific name leporinum." (Owen 1841)

From a creationist standpoint, what do you attribute homogenous anatomies to? Why is there such a logical progression?

Studyin'2Show
Aug 31st 2008, 07:11 PM
:eek: A reptile giving birth to a mammal? What?! That's not what the theory of evolution proposes at all.

There are thousands of examples of missing links. The discovery of transitionary fossils between primitive water-dwelling and then land-dwelling animals has been filling out richly. I quoted some examples earlier in this thread; I could do more research and provide examples if you like. Is there a particular branch you'd be interested in?Then you have clearly missed the point. If a reptile can only give birth to a reptile and an amphibian can only give birth to an amphibian and so on, then no matter how many microevolutionary changes you put together there could be no common descent. So, you see you surprise at the possibility only proves the point. You would be correct in your assessment that it does not work that way, becuase it doesn't. Nothing like that has ever been documented and thus should not be considered science. :D

As for your list of thousands of missing links, just because someone calls something a missing link does not mean that's what it is. In just the past twenty years hundreds of species have gone extinct right before our eyes. Can you begin to fathom how many have gone extinct in the past 20 centuries? Or in your case, the past 20 million years? :hmm: The numbers are huge. So how can you or anyone else tell which of these so-called transitional fossils are indeed transitional, and which are merely extinct? :confused

Oh, and crawfish, yes I am familiar with falsifiability. ;)

God Bless!

crawfish
Aug 31st 2008, 07:24 PM
Then you have clearly missed the point. If a reptile can only give birth to a reptile and an amphibian can only give birth to an amphibian and so on, then no matter how many microevolutionary changes you put together there could be no common descent. So, you see you surprise at the possibility only proves the point. You would be correct in your assessment that it does not work that way, becuase it doesn't. Nothing like that has ever been documented and thus should not be considered science. :D

The point is, only small changes exist at any point in time. Thus, the trail from amphibian to reptile, for instance, is long and gradual.


As for your list of thousands of missing links, just because someone calls something a missing link does not mean that's what it is. In just the past twenty years hundreds of species have gone extinct right before our eyes. Can you begin to fathom how many have gone extinct in the past 20 centuries? Or in your case, the past 20 million years? :hmm: The numbers are huge. So how can you or anyone else tell which of these so-called transitional fossils are indeed transitional, and which are merely extinct? :confused


I don't understand why "transitional" or "extinct" would be a distinction. The reason that a transition happens is to adapt towards environmental changes; thus, it is very likely that the species before transition would disappear. Species that naturally disappear tend to do so because they could not or did not adapt. Even today.

They are considered "transitional" because they have properties of earlier species and properties of later species; or something that looks like a step in-between. Your question is akin to seeing two puzzle pieces that seem close but don't connect, and assume they must be unrelated individuals. The truth is, we have a lot of nodes on the evolutionary tree; only the small fraction that the fossil record allows us, but a significant amount anyway.


Oh, and crawfish, yes I am familiar with falsifiability. ;)


Then you'll understand why your question was irrelevant. ;)

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 08:06 PM
Obviously not. But, as any intelligent person can make the distinction, the "water-horse" was named centuries ago by people who looked at the creature and made a rough visual comparison to the horse because they both had four legs. That's a little different than scientists comparing the minute details of anatomy between different fossils and naming them "horse" specifically because they illustrate a progression of ancestry towards the modern Equus.


You operate by faith in a mythological notion that there is a progression in a straight line from a now extinct creature – Hyracotherium to the modern horse. But when we examine the facts we find – drum roll – Hyracotherium was not buried with its birth certificate so there is no verifiable line of descent between that creature and modern horses. All such *speculation* is based on Darwinian circular reasoning. The truth of the matter is Hyracotherium was not a horse at all but a creature of God’s design that became extinct.
Dinosaurs are fossils, and, like all fossils, they are isolated tableaux illuminating the measureless corridor of Deep Time...no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact. Henry Gee, Senior Editor of Nature
From a creationist standpoint, what do you attribute homogenous anatomies to? Why is there such a logical progression?
From a scientific viewpoint homology in organisms can simply be attributed to homoplasty – ie – the concept that different organisms sharing common environmental conditions can have similar anatomies. From a biblical viewpoint homogeneous structures are simply evidence of a common Designer. Do you believe by faith there exists such a Designer?

Darwinism has been guilty of circular reasoning for over 150 years – and the notion of homogeneous structures in support of common ancestry is just one more example of this fallacy. Darwinists use common ancestry to “prove” homogeneous structures and turn around and use homogeneous structures to “prove” common ancestry – there is no science there at all just circular reasoning. But true believers fail to realize this error in logic because they do not understand circular logic and they wish so badly to believe by faith that Darwinism is true – but it is not.

You will need to do better and you have never provided any scientific evidence to show how transmutation of species really works outside of Darwinian myth. What are the mechanisms needed to work such miracles of nature? And what about the Darwinian notion that life evolved from non-life without man in mind – how did it happen, exactly. Real science says it never happened but Darwinists must have basic life to have transmutation of species. Your work is cut out for you and please do not copy and paste Darwinian lore – I am only interested in science. You need to support your position from non-life on earth and what sparked the ooze from Darwin’s “warn little pond” to come to life and then we can discuss the blind progression of molecules becoming men and women over a few gazillion years.

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 08:25 PM
The point is, only small changes exist at any point in time. Thus, the trail from amphibian to reptile, for instance, is long and gradual.


Or such a trail could simply be non-existent - there is no science that proves it true. Does your worldview allow for other possibilities? Is it possible that amphibians were always amphibians and reptiles were always reptiles? Would that be un-scientific in your worldview?


I don't understand why "transitional" or "extinct" would be a distinction. The reason that a transition happens is to adapt towards environmental changes; thus, it is very likely that the species before transition would disappear. Species that naturally disappear tend to do so because they could not or did not adapt. Even today.
But such adaptations and extinctions do not prove the notion of common ancestry at all.


They are considered "transitional" because they have properties of earlier species and properties of later species; or something that looks like a step in-between. Your question is akin to seeing two puzzle pieces that seem close but don't connect, and assume they must be unrelated individuals. The truth is, we have a lot of nodes on the evolutionary tree; only the small fraction that the fossil record allows us, but a significant amount anyway.
But these look-alike "transitionals" can easily be explained by a common designer can they not? Do you believe by faith there is a Designer who exists outside of nature or is design just an illusion as Darwinist claim by an equally strong faith?

SirTanTee
Aug 31st 2008, 09:15 PM
You operate by faith in a mythological notion that there is a progression in a straight line from a now extinct creature – Hyracotherium to the modern horse. But when we examine the facts we find – drum roll – Hyracotherium was not buried with its birth certificate so there is no verifiable line of descent between that creature and modern horses. All such *speculation* is based on Darwinian circular reasoning. The truth of the matter is Hyracotherium was not a horse at all but a creature of God’s design that became extinct.
From a scientific viewpoint homology in organisms can simply be attributed to homoplasty – ie – the concept that different organisms sharing common environmental conditions can have similar anatomies. From a biblical viewpoint homogeneous structures are simply evidence of a common Designer.

Okay, I'll play along. If these are all creatures of God's design, why the mass extinctions? Why would he create billions of animals who were so poorly designed for their world that the vast majority of them could not survive? Why create ecological chaos which meant inescapable suffering and doom for 99% of the creatures in it? Do you believe he created them all at once, or did he stagger their creation?


You will need to do better and you have never provided any scientific evidence to show how transmutation of species really works outside of Darwinian myth. What are the mechanisms needed to work such miracles of nature? And what about the Darwinian notion that life evolved from non-life without man in mind – how did it happen, exactly. Real science says it never happened but Darwinists must have basic life to have transmutation of species. Your work is cut out for you and please do not copy and paste Darwinian lore – I am only interested in science. You need to support your position from non-life on earth and what sparked the ooze from Darwin’s “warn little pond” to come to life and then we can discuss the blind progression of molecules becoming men and women over a few gazillion years.

Earth to losthorizon! We've gone over these same things about seventy times, you are taking us in circles every time I try to bring up a legitimate course of discussion. Abiogenesis is NOT evolution, no matter how much you claim it is. It is not relevant to this discussion because the theory of evolution does not claim that life came from non-life.

I would still like to focus on horse evolution. I am trying very hard to discuss scientifically relevant information, but it's kind of funny how you always dodge having to actually address information I post. :hmm: I wonder if you like to hide behind repetitious generalizations because you have no factual response. Please address how the different "horse-ancestors," as we'll just call them right now, could have functioned together in an ecosystem, and what would be the purpose of creating animals who progressively displayed small differences?


Then you have clearly missed the point. If a reptile can only give birth to a reptile and an amphibian can only give birth to an amphibian and so on, then no matter how many microevolutionary changes you put together there could be no common descent. So, you see you surprise at the possibility only proves the point. You would be correct in your assessment that it does not work that way, becuase it doesn't. Nothing like that has ever been documented and thus should not be considered science. :D

No, you are the one who has misunderstood. The theory of evolution never proposes that a reptile could just give birth to a kitten. It does propose that a reptile could give birth to a slightly different reptile. And that the reptile lineage could continue on for years, changing ever so slightly with new births. After this continues for a couple thousand years, then the reptile could maybe have changed enough to be classified as a reptile-like mammal, or a mammal-like reptile. That's why the process (which has been documented and is considered science) would take millions of years. Because it's very slow, it's not a single miraculous pregnancy that produces a new animal. That is the most basic of basic evolutionary tenents; why do you not understand that after self-proclaimed "years of research."


As for your list of thousands of missing links, just because someone calls something a missing link does not mean that's what it is. In just the past twenty years hundreds of species have gone extinct right before our eyes. Can you begin to fathom how many have gone extinct in the past 20 centuries? Or in your case, the past 20 million years? :hmm: The numbers are huge. So how can you or anyone else tell which of these so-called transitional fossils are indeed transitional, and which are merely extinct? :confused!

Because there is no possibility that all of the different animals could have coexisted together. There simply would not have been enough ecological niches to fill; if God had created them all at the same time he would have been, to put it bluntly, supremely stupid. It would have led to mass suffering and complete chaos among the ecological systems. In addition, the fact that fossils are clearly layered in the Earth in a very specific timeline gives us a clear picture of when they did and didn't roam the planet. We're still waiting to find a wolf and a T-rex fossil together, but it just hasn't happened.

Again, question to creationists: Why does the fossil record directly contradict the idea that all animals were created at the same time? Why don't we find modern animal fossils along with extinct, ancient fossils?

Studyin'2Show
Aug 31st 2008, 09:28 PM
The point is, only small changes exist at any point in time. Thus, the trail from amphibian to reptile, for instance, is long and gradual.

I don't understand why "transitional" or "extinct" would be a distinction. The reason that a transition happens is to adapt towards environmental changes; thus, it is very likely that the species before transition would disappear. Species that naturally disappear tend to do so because they could not or did not adapt. Even today.

They are considered "transitional" because they have properties of earlier species and properties of later species; or something that looks like a step in-between. Your question is akin to seeing two puzzle pieces that seem close but don't connect, and assume they must be unrelated individuals. The truth is, we have a lot of nodes on the evolutionary tree; only the small fraction that the fossil record allows us, but a significant amount anyway.

Then you'll understand why your question was irrelevant. ;)No matter how gradual, no matter how many changes, there would have had to be a point where there is indeed a crossover. The instant the reptile in transition ceases to be a reptile and begins being an amphibian. No matter how difficult it would be to explain, it would HAVE to have happened at some point. Is that falsifiable? How can I PROVE that it did not happen? How can you PROVE that it did? Guess what? I can't! Guess what else? You can't either!

The reason there's a difference between extinct and transitional is that extinct species do not evolve, at least I guess according to you they don't anymore. I guess you believe they used to then but now they just die out leaving no trace or transition of themselves. You see, even in evolutionary theory there would have to be some species that simply died off without passing along their dna at all. So, how does one distinguish those from these supposed transitionals? The only logical answer is that you can't. That being said, unless it could be documented, there is absolutely no way to know. Therefore it is NOT falsifiable. To say it is would be at the very least misleading.

crawfish
Aug 31st 2008, 09:30 PM
Or such a trail could simply be non-existent - there is no science that proves it true. Does your worldview allow for other possibilities? Is it possible that amphibians were always amphibians and reptiles were always reptiles? Would that be un-scientific in your worldview?

Well, here is the question: why did an intelligent designer create different species of animals at different times? Why would the ID create fish first, then millions of years later create amphibians, millions of years later create reptiles, then millions of years later create birds and mammals? Why were the sea mammals created after the land mammals? Why are there some fossils that show attributes of two different species? And why were those transitional fossils created in-between the phases of those different species?

If an ID created the way you suggest, then that ID worked very hard to make it look otherwise.



But such adaptations and extinctions do not prove the notion of common ancestry at all.

You really need to learn the difference between "proof" and "evidence". If you have 1000 pieces of evidence, none might be strong enough to offer proof on its own; but the coincidence of all 1000 that match the theory grows so remote in possibility that the theory approaches fact.

Adaptations/extinctions are just one little piece of evidence. What has always hit me is that the items used in evidence of common descent all point the same way; the alternatives presented by ID and others tend to point in many different directions. It is always good enough to come up with alternatives to make evolutionary theory seem weaker, and not important to make sure all the alternatives support each other. THAT has always been why Creationism seems like a pipe dream.


But these look-alike "transitionals" can easily be explained by a common designer can they not? Do you believe by faith there is a Designer who exists outside of nature or is design just an illusion as Darwinist claim by an equally strong faith?

Again, you can explain ANYTHING with an ID. I could say that the universe doesn't really extend past the solar system, but an all-powerful intelligent designer is supernaturally making it seem that it does. If that is the case then fine; an ID can do whatever he wants to do. But if nature has been left to us to discover then we can never be wrong in investigating it and coming to conclusions.

I believe, by faith, that there is a designer. I believe, by faith, that God has made nature discoverable by man and science will inevitably lead us to the truth of the nature of creation. I accept that the theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence, well-attested by scientists, well-tested against, and most likely the method that God used to create the diversity of life - including man - on the earth. I hold that this majority view could be wrong, but its support is so great that it will take an incredible explanation to replace it.

I also believe, by faith, that the creation story as presented in Genesis 1-3 is not literal, and as such, it really doesn't matter how things were created. This means that I can just let science play out and not worry about its effect on my personal theology.

crawfish
Aug 31st 2008, 09:36 PM
No matter how gradual, no matter how many changes, there would have had to be a point where there is indeed a crossover. The instant the reptile in transition ceases to be a reptile and begins being an amphibian. No matter how difficult it would be to explain, it would HAVE to have happened at some point. Is that falsifiable? How can I PROVE that it did not happen? How can you PROVE that it did? Guess what? I can't! Guess what else? You can't either!

More likely, there would be transitional species with elements of both (which we have found). All that is needed to falsify is for existence of a creature long before its "phase" - something that utterly broke the rules set forth, and than cannot be explained by an alternate presentation of the data. Guess what? That hasn't happened yet.


The reason there's a difference between extinct and transitional is that extinct species do not evolve, at least I guess according to you they don't anymore. I guess you believe they used to then but now they just die out leaving no trace or transition of themselves. You see, even in evolutionary theory there would have to be some species that simply died off without passing along their dna at all. So, how does one distinguish those from these supposed transitionals? The only logical answer is that you can't. That being said, unless it could be documented, there is absolutely no way to know. Therefore it is NOT falsifiable. To say it is would be at the very least misleading.

Who says creatures no longer evolve? They are evolving at the same rate as they always have.

Your supposition is right, and scientists account for it. Wasn't it just recently that they declared that the neanderthal was not in the direct human line, and probably died out?

Common descent evolution IS falsifiable. Just not easily falsifiable, because there is a huge amount of evidence supporting it right now. It would take a very large effort to put together a coherent picture that caused the direction of that evidence to be reconsidered. ID proponents are welcome to try.

Studyin'2Show
Aug 31st 2008, 09:43 PM
I hold that this majority view could be wrong, but its support is so great that it will take an incredible explanation to replace it.Which is why it is still up for discussion. ;)

Studyin'2Show
Aug 31st 2008, 10:10 PM
More likely, there would be transitional species with elements of both (which we have found). All that is needed to falsify is for existence of a creature long before its "phase" - something that utterly broke the rules set forth, and than cannot be explained by an alternate presentation of the data. Guess what? That hasn't happened yet.

Who says creatures no longer evolve? They are evolving at the same rate as they always have.

Your supposition is right, and scientists account for it. Wasn't it just recently that they declared that the neanderthal was not in the direct human line, and probably died out?

Common descent evolution IS falsifiable. Just not easily falsifiable, because there is a huge amount of evidence supporting it right now. It would take a very large effort to put together a coherent picture that caused the direction of that evidence to be reconsidered. ID proponents are welcome to try.It is impossible to find anything before its 'phase' because there is no timestamp on fossils. But guess what, there have been species found alive that according to the fossil record scientists were certain had long died out. The fact is that the layers are not a simple timeclock as some would have you believe.

I didn't say that you said creatures no longer evolve. I was speaking specifically of species that have gone extinct in our lifetime. They are gone without a trace....ALL of them! They are not transitioning. That is the case with ALL the species that have died out in the last 50 years. Or would you say that there is a species that has gone extinct that is still evolving? :hmm:

losthorizon
Aug 31st 2008, 10:37 PM
Well, here is the question: why did an intelligent designer create different species of animals at different times? Why would the ID create fish first, then millions of years later create amphibians, millions of years later create reptiles, then millions of years later create birds and mammals? Why were the sea mammals created after the land mammals? Why are there some fossils that show attributes of two different species? And why were those transitional fossils created in-between the phases of those different species?


I guess the begging question still remains – many folks assume their speculations to be true by faith, and others actually offer experimental proof for what they believe to be true through the scientific method – you appear to be in the former group. I will however be more than happy to review any experimental proofs you wish to present to prove your assumptions made above. You have provided very little thus far and nothing you have presented supports common ancestry. Btw - you didn’t answer my question – would it be against any scientific law that you know for amphibians to have always been amphibians and for reptilians to have always been reptiles?

Is it against any scientific law you know for one fossil to show attributes of two different species without the need for common ancestry? I mentioned above the scientific concept of “homoplasty” where different organisms share common environmental conditions and for this reason have similar anatomies. Is it all about common ancestry in you worldview? Do you keep an open mind or are you more akin to the Darwinian true believers on this thread?


Again, you can explain ANYTHING with an ID. I could say that the universe doesn't really extend past the solar system, but an all-powerful intelligent designer is supernaturally making it seem that it does. If that is the case then fine; an ID can do whatever he wants to do. But if nature has been left to us to discover then we can never be wrong in investigating it and coming to conclusions.
I suspect I can explain anything philosophically through a Creator-God but not scientifically. You attempt to explain everything through Darwinism and that too may not be scientific. Henry Gee correctly stated – “Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact”. You think you know Deep Time events through the eyes of Darwinism but Darwinism simply relies on mythology and circular reasoning. In essence I can say the same of you – “you can explain ANYTHING through Darwinism”. It tends to work both ways.


I also believe, by faith, that the creation story as presented in Genesis 1-3 is not literal, and as such, it really doesn't matter how things were created. This means that I can just let science play out and not worry about its effect on my personal theology.
But if your faith is incorrect and Genesis was written to be taken literally as many fine minds have believed over the past many centuries are you not committing an egregious error?

crawfish
Sep 1st 2008, 12:03 AM
It is impossible to find anything before its 'phase' because there is no timestamp on fossils. But guess what, there have been species found alive that according to the fossil record scientists were certain had long died out. The fact is that the layers are not a simple timeclock as some would have you believe.

But it's not just the layers. Carbon-14, potassium/argon, uranium track, amino acid racemization, paleomagnetic, electron spin and thermonuclesis are other methods of dating that show the same progression. And all give consistent views, within a margin of error, of the same data. Contrast that to ID challenges to dating - the 68 most common methods used to deny a billions-year-old earth average an age of 3.4 million years (median: 200,000 years). YEC simply hasn't come up with a compelling argument against dating.


I didn't say that you said creatures no longer evolve. I was speaking specifically of species that have gone extinct in our lifetime. They are gone without a trace....ALL of them! They are not transitioning. That is the case with ALL the species that have died out in the last 50 years. Or would you say that there is a species that has gone extinct that is still evolving? :hmm:

Sorry, I didn't understand what you said. I'm sure there are plenty of terminated branches in evolution - in fact, I'd expect it. I'd think the absence of so many species would be troubling to a YEC anyway...the limited time frame packs those extinctions into a far lesser timeframe.

SirTanTee
Sep 1st 2008, 12:18 AM
I swear I posted in this thread a while ago. :confused Did it get deleted or did my computer eat it?


Is it against any scientific law you know for one fossil to show attributes of two different species without the need for common ancestry? I mentioned above the scientific concept of “homoplasty” where different organisms share common environmental conditions and for this reason have similar anatomies. Is it all about common ancestry in you worldview? Do you keep an open mind or are you more akin to the Darwinian true believers on this thread?

What doesn't make sense about the transitional fossils being different creatures which all existed at the same time is that the planet would simply not be able to support them. There would have not been enough ecological niches to fit them all; there would have been mass starvation and suffering within the first year of their creation. Simple logic dictates that their coexistence would have been impossible. Or, theologically, it makes no sense for God to create a natural system inescapably destined to painfully fail within...what, a couple years or so of its creation? The planet's resources simply would not have been able to withstand that sort of competition.


In essence I can say the same of you – “you can explain ANYTHING through Darwinism”. It tends to work both ways.

Not really. It would be supremely easy to disprove the evolutionary theory, but it has not yet been done. As was famously said - what would disprove evolution? "A fossilized rabbit in the Precambrian era." It could be disproved by finding that humans and apes had no genetic similarities. It could be disproved by concluding that speciation does not occur. It could be disproved by finding absolutely no transitional fossils. It could be disproved by not finding nested hierarchies. It could be disproved be irreducible complexity. The theory of evolution is really quite easy to disprove, yet it has withstood deep scrutiny for decades.

So, do any creationists here have opinions on the humanoid fossil record? :hmm: I notice that no one has been eager to bring that up yet.

Also, here's a good video on whale evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY
And here's a hypnotically animated illustration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cn0kf8mhS4&feature=related

For example, as Ken Miller alludes to in this video, one way to have disproved whale evolution would have been to look at the transitional fossils and see that the inner ear had not developed to an aquatic type. Bam. Would have disproved that theory. But the puzzle pieces fit. *shrug*

crawfish
Sep 1st 2008, 12:48 AM
I guess the begging question still remains – many folks assume their speculations to be true by faith, and others actually offer experimental proof for what they believe to be true through the scientific method – you appear to be in the former group. I will however be more than happy to review any experimental proofs you wish to present to prove your assumptions made above. You have provided very little thus far and nothing you have presented supports common ancestry. Btw - you didn’t answer my question – would it be against any scientific law that you know for amphibians to have always been amphibians and for reptilians to have always been reptiles?

Again, this isn't my natural area of study so to put my thoughts together in an organized fashion would take a lot of time, and you've shown over and over again that there would be no payoff. There is no "simple evidence" that you'd accept. And it's not any "simple evidence" that convinces me. I think the evidence I mentioned above, plus the fact that God working that way has no scriptural support, makes it unlikely from the scientific standpoint and unsupported from the biblical one.


Is it against any scientific law you know for one fossil to show attributes of two different species without the need for common ancestry? I mentioned above the scientific concept of “homoplasty” where different organisms share common environmental conditions and for this reason have similar anatomies. Is it all about common ancestry in you worldview? Do you keep an open mind or are you more akin to the Darwinian true believers on this thread?

Homoplasty seems to be a bit of grasping at straws. At best, it could only explain a small percentage of the data; common ancestry would explain 100% of them. You'd need to do better than that.

As far as how open-minded I am; I see one side where the truth will eventually be found, and one side that would eliminate entire realms of possibility from consideration. I choose the side that seeks the truth.


I suspect I can explain anything philosophically through a Creator-God but not scientifically. You attempt to explain everything through Darwinism and that too may not be scientific. Henry Gee correctly stated – “Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact”. You think you know Deep Time events through the eyes of Darwinism but Darwinism simply relies on mythology and circular reasoning. In essence I can say the same of you – “you can explain ANYTHING through Darwinism”. It tends to work both ways.

I think you cannot explain anything supernatural scientifically. Common descent hardly explains everything...it is limited in scope...and all you have to do to terminate it is to provide strong evidence that it could not happen. People have been trying to do that for 200 years now; Creation science supporters have dedicated millions and millions of dollars to the effort. Like I said before, if you can do it, then do it. I'll believe when you come up with compelling evidence.



But if your faith is incorrect and Genesis was written to be taken literally as many fine minds have believed over the past many centuries are you not committing an egregious error?

But if their faith is incorrect and Genesis was not written to be taken literally as many fine minds have believed over the past many centuries, then are they not committing an egregious error?

Fine minds, but literalists, whom I respect have often committed egregious errors:


[Nicolaus Copernicus is] an upstart astrologer…. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

losthorizon
Sep 1st 2008, 01:39 AM
Again, this isn't my natural area of study so to put my thoughts together in an organized fashion would take a lot of time, and you've shown over and over again that there would be no payoff. There is no "simple evidence" that you'd accept. And it's not any "simple evidence" that convinces me. I think the evidence I mentioned above, plus the fact that God working that way has no scriptural support, makes it unlikely from the scientific standpoint and unsupported from the biblical one.


Crawfish - I find your response very revealing and a bit ironic. You’re the guy who has repeatedly told me there are mountains of evidence to support your Darwinian lore but now – reading between the lines – I see you don’t have any good reason for believing what you claim to believe. Basically, all you can muster up is the excuse most Darwinist clings to – “common ancestry could happen, therefore it did happen.” The only problem with this approach is you provide no evidences - just a gut feeling – that my friend is not science and it reinforces the truth that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against Darwinism.


Homoplasty seems to be a bit of grasping at straws. At best, it could only explain a small percentage of the data; common ancestry would explain 100% of them. You'd need to do better than that.Homoplasty is at least as good an explanation as common ancestry and supported by science. When we couple homoplasty with common design we have the best answer. There is no need for your unsupported mythology that you can never find the evidence to support. You need to re-think.


As far as how open-minded I am; I see one side where the truth will eventually be found, and one side that would eliminate entire realms of possibility from consideration. I choose the side that seeks the truth.
After 150 years Darwinism is weaker than it was when Darwin started. It is past time to let science move forward unfettered by the metaphysics that you call science. My hope is that some day you can at least peek out of your box and see a bit of daylight.


I think you cannot explain anything supernatural scientifically. Common descent hardly explains everything...it is limited in scope...and all you have to do to terminate it is to provide strong evidence that it could not happen. People have been trying to do that for 200 years now; Creation science supporters have dedicated millions and millions of dollars to the effort. Like I said before, if you can do it, then do it. I'll believe when you come up with compelling evidence.
So in the meantime you will cling to a dying theory that lacks the science to go anywhere and you will help perpetuate philosophy in the name of science – very sad.


But if their faith is incorrect and Genesis was not written to be taken literally as many fine minds have believed over the past many centuries, then are they not committing an egregious error?
And God knows who commits that error my brother - He knows.

Pinewoods
Sep 1st 2008, 02:17 AM
You can prove a theory, that is how we have "The Laws of Gravity" it is a set of theories that were proven over time and then they become laws. Also if you can not prove a theory it can no longer be called a theory. There are gaps in the fosil record, and there is alot of guess work that goes into studying fosils. Most time they look at the fosil determin what that modern animal it is "a relitive of" abase there finding on that guess.

SirTanTee
Sep 1st 2008, 02:35 AM
You can prove a theory, that is how we have "The Laws of Gravity" it is a set of theories that were proven over time and then they become laws. Also if you can not prove a theory it can no longer be called a theory. There are gaps in the fosil record, and there is alot of guess work that goes into studying fosils. Most time they look at the fosil determin what that modern animal it is "a relitive of" abase there finding on that guess.

Theories by definition cannot be proven. Gravity is a theory, atoms are a theory. Again, I would give the benefit of the doubt to people who devote their lives to studying fossils probably spend a lot more time researching and less time "guessing," or their jobs would be a whole lot easier for them! By the way, fossil has two s's, not one.

If anyone is interested, there is a great lecture by Ken Miller up on Youtube. The first part is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5qZ9g4VHL4. The first one or two parts are a little slow to get going, but he address a lot of really relevant scientific points within his lecture as well as his personal views on religion. Just if anyone is interested. If anyone has any good lectures they know of, please point me to them! I love listening to them and I have a three day weekend right now. ;)

crawfish
Sep 1st 2008, 03:42 AM
Crawfish - I find your response very revealing and a bit ironic. You’re the guy who has repeatedly told me there are mountains of evidence to support your Darwinian lore but now – reading between the lines – I see you don’t have any good reason for believing what you claim to believe. Basically, all you can muster up is the excuse most Darwinist clings to – “common ancestry could happen, therefore it did happen.” The only problem with this approach is you provide no evidences - just a gut feeling – that my friend is not science and it reinforces the truth that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against Darwinism.

I'm not the one pushing the theory. I'm not the scientist. I've read the claims by biological evolutionists. And I've read the claims by creationists. I find more to question in the latter than in the former. I've read the claims, the counter-claims, and the counter-counter claims. I can tell who is grasping at straws and who is not. Your side is almost random in their anti-claims; you don't even care if your counter-claims conflict with each other, as long as they support your goal of discrediting the actual science. And you offer no consistent alternatives of your own.


Homoplasty is at least as good an explanation as common ancestry and supported by science. When we couple homoplasty with common design we have the best answer. There is no need for your unsupported mythology that you can never find the evidence to support. You need to re-think.

What percentage could it explain? Circumstances have to be pretty specific for it to take place, which isn't always evident. There is no way it is a better answer. The BEST answer is common descent via common designer - it explains everything 100%, and doesn't rely on the supernatural input of the designer.


After 150 years Darwinism is weaker than it was when Darwin started. It is past time to let science move forward unfettered by the metaphysics that you call science. My hope is that some day you can at least peek out of your box and see a bit of daylight.


You are delusional. I doubt you can even see my box from the tight one encompassing you. ;)


So in the meantime you will cling to a dying theory that lacks the science to go anywhere and you will help perpetuate philosophy in the name of science – very sad.


I think I added my "delusional" comment too soon. Common descent is more solid today than ever. It has moved so far beyond Darwin and has been supported by evidence he couldn't even conceive (DNA). Most honest creationists admit that they have a long way to go to disprove it. It is sad that you let your religious philosophy blind you to the validity of this theory.


And God knows who commits that error my brother - He knows.

Fortunately for you, I don't think God cares either way. He counts it as credit to your faith that you would hold to a literal viewpoint despite the evidence. He counts it as credit to my faith that I hold onto my faith in Him despite my acceptance of it. God is less concerned with our level of knowledge than with the heart behind it. I'm sure God credited Martin Luther for holding onto the belief of geocentricism; I'm sure he'll do the same for those of you who hold onto creationism. ;)

Pinewoods
Sep 1st 2008, 05:05 AM
I think this and a lot of things boil down to what do have faith in. I beilev that God created the life, how he did it does not matter to me. My faith in God's creation will not be shaken if the find the missing link. I don't care how God went about forming life or how it has change over time. It boils down to this God caused the first spark of life, he then shaped that spark into what we have today.

SirTanTee
Sep 1st 2008, 05:17 AM
I think this and a lot of things boil down to what do have faith in. I beilev that God created the life, how he did it does not matter to me. My faith in God's creation will not be shaken if the find the missing link. I don't care how God went about forming life or how it has change over time. It boils down to this God caused the first spark of life, he then shaped that spark into what we have today.

I think that is something that we can all agree on. :pray:

losthorizon
Sep 1st 2008, 01:29 PM
I'm not the one pushing the theory. I'm not the scientist. I've read the claims by biological evolutionists. And I've read the claims by creationists. I find more to question in the latter than in the former.


But your posts speak to the contrary, Crawfish – you are a pusher of Darwinian theology (a secular religion) on this forum – a theology that in its most basic form has been the creation story for the atheistic religion of Humanism for over 100 years.
If creationism has no place in the classroom, then neither does a secular religion based on evolution. We who care passionately about science should know when to keep the science and religion separate and remember always when it is appropriate to teach the one and not the other. ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist

I'm not the scientist. I've read the claims by biological evolutionists. And I've read the claims by creationists. I find more to question in the latter than in the former. I've read the claims, the counter-claims, and the counter-counter claims.
You only think Darwinists hold the high ground but the truth is the real scientific evidence is not there as you believe. When Darwinists look at their own facts they see the gaping hole of missing evidence. It is only the naive junior Darwinists that see these "mountains of evidence" that in fact do not exist outside of their minds. You have yet to point me to the scientific law that allows one kind of creature (dinosaur) to morph though naturalistic means into a completely different kind (bird). Where is your evidence? I don't think you have any. The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould made the truthful admission that the data Darwinists view is “so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study question.” I think the picture you paint regarding the mountains of evidence resides in your head only – this is why you have not been able to find any to post.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

What percentage could it explain? Circumstances have to be pretty specific for it to take place, which isn't always evident. There is no way it is a better answer. The BEST answer is common descent via common designer - it explains everything 100%, and doesn't rely on the supernatural input of the designer.
Let me just ask you one follow up question - do you even understand the science of homoplasty?


I think I added my "delusional" comment too soon. Common descent is more solid today than ever. It has moved so far beyond Darwin and has been supported by evidence he couldn't even conceive (DNA). Most honest creationists admit that they have a long way to go to disprove it. It is sad that you let your religious philosophy blind you to the validity of this theory.
What amateur Darwinists like you fail to understand is the nature of the beast you profess – the notion of common ancestry is a historical theory and as such it really cannot be falsified – therefore it is nothing more than pseudoscience and you only dream that it is “more solid today than ever”. That my friend is an oversimplification – an error you make all too often.
We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific.... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ~ Colin Patterson (deceased), former Senior Paleontologist at British Museum of Natural History

Fortunately for you, I don't think God cares either way.
I will respectfully disagree - God does care how we handle His word. Jesus refers to the Genesis creation and the Flood as though they were literal – I think God does care how we interpret His word. He does take note.

crawfish
Sep 1st 2008, 03:08 PM
But your posts speak to the contrary, Crawfish – you are a pusher of Darwinian theology (a secular religion) on this forum – a theology that in its most basic form has been the creation story for the atheistic religion of Humanism for over 100 years.

I am a pusher of openness - let the science work itself out. Bad science cannot possibly stand against the truth of nature. If ToE is untrue, it will work itself out...

...but there is no need for Christians to be concerned either way. We are giving an entire field of study away to the atheists because we're uncomfortable with our own beliefs, and we put our faith in things that may not be true. If people have become religious about evolution it's because some Christians have polarized it and forced it that way.


You only think Darwinists hold the high ground but the truth is the real scientific evidence is not there as you believe. When Darwinists look at their own facts they see the gaping hole of missing evidence. It is only the naive junior Darwinists that see these "mountains of evidence" that in fact do not exist outside of their minds.

And holes in the evidence is not proof against. You're looking at the space in-between the trees and denying there's a forest.



Let me just ask you one follow up question - do you even understand the science of homoplasty?

Slightly. Seems to me the formation of like tissue due to environmental issues doesn't explain the similarity of organisms from disparate environments. It also doesn't imply the same DNA signatures, only the same structure and purpose.



What amateur Darwinists like you fail to understand is the nature of the beast you profess – the notion of common ancestry is a historical theory and as such it really cannot be falsified – therefore it is nothing more than pseudoscience and you only dream that it is “more solid today than ever”. That my friend is an oversimplification – an error you make all too often.

Keep on saying this and maybe it'll come true someday. :)

BTW, you do need to understand that 30- to 50-year-old quotes about the gaps in the fossil record are really not relevant.


I will respectfully disagree - God does care how we handle His word. Jesus refers to the Genesis creation and the Flood as though they were literal – I think God does care how we interpret His word. He does take note.

Sure God cares. He is making a theological point that He does not want us to miss. I'm sure He's disappointed that some use his word to deny the truth of His creation; whether it's geocentricism, or young earth, or evolution; but I don't think He holds it against you. Christians have always held on to the past beliefs until they untruth can no longer be denied...and only then does it become clear to them that the reasons they held on to said belief were in error, and they move on in faith.

For example: you cannot prove a heliocentric model from the scripture; it overwhelmingly suggests a geocentric one. Only when we knew that it was wrong did we re-read the text to understand that they were referring to a matters of perspective, with a liberal use of poetic license, and should not be interpreted otherwise. That pattern has carried itself through the last 2,000 years, and will carry itself forward as long as we try to use scripture to define science when it was not intended for that purpose.

Jesus spoke of creation and the flood, true; but His use never requires literalness. They are known by his audience and useful for illustration; whether or not He thought they were true, I have no idea (Jesus was all man and all God, but I don't know if He was privy to information outside His immediate needs that He wouldn't have otherwise.)

SirTanTee
Sep 1st 2008, 04:49 PM
Keep on saying this and maybe it'll come true someday. :)

BTW, you do need to understand that 30- to 50-year-old quotes about the gaps in the fossil record are really not relevant.

Crawfish I think that this discussion may have to come to a close. :rolleyes: So far in this debate, Losthorizon has:

- Chanted the same mantras no matter what the topic is in the classic "stay the course/if I say it fifty three times it will come true" strategy.

- Not bothered to provide any evidence except for certain quotes on people's opinions, all of which were 15 to 150 years old, many of which were taken out of context in blatant quote mining.

- Conveniently ducked responding to any of the specific scientific facts, such as the fossil record, examples of whale evolution or the fact that the ecology could not have supported all of these species at the same time. S/he has openly admitted to not reading evidence provided.

If there are any other creationists who want to talk, I'd love to, but I can see that Losthorizon unfortunately has a closed mind on this subject is going to refuse to make any logical progress...anywhere. I have neither seen a good offense against evolution or a good defense for creationism on this thread.

losthorizon
Sep 1st 2008, 07:07 PM
I am a pusher of openness - let the science work itself out. Bad science cannot possibly stand against the truth of nature.


Well I hope you mean this, Crawfish and I think you do. As I explained before – I oppose philosophy being passed off as science regardless of the camp it comes from – Creationism or Darwinism and I hope you join me. I also hope you will consider the fact that common ancestry – unlike “microevolution” - is an “historical theory” about events that are “one-time events” – ie – they are not repeatable and testable. This being true common ancestry is not falsifiable and therefore not part of science it is a philosophy program.


And holes in the evidence is not proof against. You're looking at the space in-between the trees and denying there's a forest.
It is encouraging to see Darwinists such as yourself realize and publically acknowledge Darwinism has many holes that have never been filled after 150 years and millions upon millions of public dollars later. Unlike the OP who appears to be the true believer with the “deer-in-the-headlights” look – you recognize reality with an open mind and I think you acknowledge the religious aspects of Darwinism. I also appreciate the fact that if you do not have the evidence to support your position you do not resort to posting pages and pages of cut and paste rhetoric that no one will read.


Slightly. Seems to me the formation of like tissue due to environmental issues doesn't explain the similarity of organisms from disparate environments. It also doesn't imply the same DNA signatures, only the same structure and purpose.
I would recommend you look at it a bit closer – it works very well with the idea of common design at the exclusion of common ancestry. There are – believe it or not – other scientific avenues besides Darwinian lore to explain what we observe in our examination of biological evolution.


BTW, you do need to understand that 30- to 50-year-old quotes about the gaps in the fossil record are really not relevant.
Actually, the quote from Gould is not that old and I believe he went to his grave realizing the fossil record was probably the biggest scam perpetrated by Darwinism within its many scams. And Colin Patterson's quote is as true today as it was the day he made it - some quotes are timeless...


Jesus spoke of creation and the flood, true; but His use never requires literalness.
Do you not think Jesus spoke of the “First Adam” as a literal historical figure? Isn’t it a fact that the biblical teaching there existed a literal first Adam and a literal “Second Adam” (Christ) something that becomes essential to God’s plan to save mankind?
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive…”

crawfish
Sep 1st 2008, 07:59 PM
Do you not think Jesus spoke of the “First Adam” as a literal historical figure? Isn’t it a fact that the biblical teaching there existed a literal first Adam and a literal “Second Adam” (Christ) something that becomes essential to God’s plan to save mankind?
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive…”

I've discussed this in other threads...that is actually Paul writing. I don't think his intent is to testify to a particular history. No, Paul's comments are wrapped in diatribe; he is using accepted history to demonstrate the effect of Christ's sacrifice.

losthorizon
Sep 1st 2008, 09:25 PM
I've discussed this in other threads...that is actually Paul writing. I don't think his intent is to testify to a particular history. No, Paul's comments are wrapped in diatribe; he is using accepted history to demonstrate the effect of Christ's sacrifice.
Diatribe. Well that explains it all. Were Noah and Moses merely poetic characters wrapped in diatribe? ;)

crawfish
Sep 2nd 2008, 12:32 AM
Diatribe. Well that explains it all. Were Noah and Moses merely poetic characters wrapped in diatribe? ;)

Now you're just being obtuse.

losthorizon
Sep 2nd 2008, 12:39 AM
Now you're just being obtuse.
If you find any interesting information to support Darwinian lore - please post.
Obtuse: rounded at the free end. (2008 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

crawfish
Sep 2nd 2008, 02:34 AM
If you find any interesting information to support Darwinian lore - please post.
Obtuse: rounded at the free end. (2008 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

I see your online dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtuse) skills are every bit as acute as your logic skills. ;)

losthorizon
Sep 2nd 2008, 03:24 AM
I see your online dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obtuse) skills are every bit as acute as your logic skills. ;)
You Darwinist guys have no sense of humor - you must be one whose common ancestor was a sourpuss before he morphed into a monkey.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sourpuss

crawfish
Sep 2nd 2008, 08:34 PM
You Darwinist guys have no sense of humor - you must be one whose common ancestor was a sourpuss before he morphed into a monkey.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sourpuss

Apologies. I really shouldn't post when my patience is thin (nothing to do with this board).



Homoplasty is at least as good an explanation as common ancestry and supported by science. When we couple homoplasty with common design we have the best answer. There is no need for your unsupported mythology that you can never find the evidence to support. You need to re-think.

Well, I've asked a few people about this because I have been a bit confused about your use of this term with respect to evolution. I think you may be confusing or improperly combining the sciences of homology and convergent evolution? Homology refers to shared traits through common ancestry; convergent evolution refers to external/environmental stimuli that lead to similar traits in divergent species. For instance, insect wings/bat wings/bird wings; all have similar form and function, but all are very different in genetic makeup.

Feel free to expand on this thought if needed. At this point, it seems like only a small fraction of genetic similarity could be explained through convergent evolution, while 100% is explained through common descent. Sounds like quite a chasm to call the former "as good an explanation".

losthorizon
Sep 3rd 2008, 12:38 AM
Apologies. I really shouldn't post when my patience is thin (nothing to do with this board).


Not to worry, brother - we have all been there before.


Well, I've asked a few people about this because I have been a bit confused about your use of this term with respect to evolution. I think you may be confusing or improperly combining the sciences of homology and convergent evolution? Homology refers to shared traits through common ancestry.
No confusion on my part. I understand homology and I also understand how Darwinists connect it to common ancestry but as I mentioned earlier it fits in with a common designer much better. I would suggest you study the pre-Darwinian concept of “ideal archetypes” – the idea that a Designer used the most efficient design model as His pattern throughout the Creation. Sequence homology (morphological similarities) - the idea of common function - can better be explained by a common design than a common ancestor – however both ideas are strictly philosophical – science has not answered that question and it may never be able to answer that question. Look at the many classes of echinoderms – they share many morphological similarities but science has never been able to find “intermediate forms” between these classes – why – because they most likely do not have a shared ancestor – but we both know they have a common designer - the Creator-God.

Crawfish, I want to let you know I have come to a philosophical impasse with the board management (nothing to do with this thread) and have decided it is time for me to move on. This will be my last week posting here. I wanted to say that I have enjoyed our exchanges and if I have frustrated you from time to time it was strictly intentional. I believe you have a first-class mind and a sincere interest in science. I think in the beginning you were very dogmatic about your Darwinian views but I now see a softening. I think you realize at least some of Darwinism is nothing more than metaphysical and I hope in the future you will point out that error to others. As you have said before – we are united in our faith in Jesus Christ and in the end that is what matters. God bless. :)

crawfish
Sep 3rd 2008, 02:11 PM
Not to worry, brother - we have all been there before.


No confusion on my part. I understand homology and I also understand how Darwinists connect it to common ancestry but as I mentioned earlier it fits in with a common designer much better. I would suggest you study the pre-Darwinian concept of “ideal archetypes” – the idea that a Designer used the most efficient design model as His pattern throughout the Creation. Sequence homology (morphological similarities) - the idea of common function - can better be explained by a common design than a common ancestor – however both ideas are strictly philosophical – science has not answered that question and it may never be able to answer that question. Look at the many classes of echinoderms – they share many morphological similarities but science has never been able to find “intermediate forms” between these classes – why – because they most likely do not have a shared ancestor – but we both know they have a common designer - the Creator-God.

Crawfish, I want to let you know I have come to a philosophical impasse with the board management (nothing to do with this thread) and have decided it is time for me to move on. This will be my last week posting here. I wanted to say that I have enjoyed our exchanges and if I have frustrated you from time to time it was strictly intentional. I believe you have a first-class mind and a sincere interest in science. I think in the beginning you were very dogmatic about your Darwinian views but I now see a softening. I think you realize at least some of Darwinism is nothing more than metaphysical and I hope in the future you will point out that error to others. As you have said before – we are united in our faith in Jesus Christ and in the end that is what matters. God bless. :)

Sorry to see you're going. Good luck wherever you end up!

BTW, I'm no more or less dogmatic than I was when we started. I've never been dogmatic, in fact; but I'm no less convinced that common descent is deeply ingrained in evidence than I was before. Perhaps the only thing that has softened is my rhetoric. :)

God bless.