|
|
|
User loginNavigationSyndicate |
Do you believe in evolution?Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 11/01/2007 - 10:08.
|
|
|
|
|
User loginNavigationSyndicate |
Do you believe in evolution?Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 11/01/2007 - 10:08.
|
?????
Of course, it helps if you actually have an open mind and examine the evidence...
What scientific evidence? By definition, evidence is something that can be duplicated in the laboratory. The fundamental theory of evolution cannot.
It’s too late to get into a discussion of micro vs. macro evolution. While microevolution is a fact (it can be observed in a laboratory environment), macroevolution simply cannot be confirmed. That’s all.
Just prove it. That’s all I have to say. Simply saying that “scientists agree” is not proof. Millions of flies think that dog feces tastes good. They can’t all be wrong, right?
Come on!
While antievolutionist make many mistakes and use many tactics one of the favorite false claims is that no speciation event has ever been observed. Let’s be very clear, this is false.
It has been observed in nature and has been induced in the lab.
TalkOrigins . org has plenty of facts regarding evolution including references to partial and full speciation events. See the site TalkOrigins FAQ on speciation for great examples. Link...
In the lab, selection has been use to produce from an initial population of animals two subsequent populations which do not and in some cases cannot interbreed.
It should be noted that even arguing about species with antievolutionist is a mistake as Darwin himself demonstrated that there is a human made arbitrariness to what constitutes many species. Nevertheless, if two daughter populations cannot interbreed they can hardly be called the same species any more, even by any antievolutionist’s measure.
Another nice disproof of the absolute nature (or god given nature) of spices are the so called ring species, plants and animals that interbreed with their neighbors but do not bread with their more distant neighbors. Examples can be found around mountain chains as a ring, thus the name. Again, TalkOrigins.org has examples.
See section three at this link: Link...
In short, claims that evolution does not occur is as wrong as are claims that the earth is flat and only someone who has not looked at the facts of either could be so mistaken.
Let’s not confuse micro-evolution with macro-evolution. While micro-evolution is true and can be demonstrated in the laboratory, that does not mean then, by default, macro-evolution is true. You still have to prove it. Bacteria forming other kinds of bacteria in the lab do not prove that ocean dwellers gave rise to land dwellers. Not even the fossil record supports such a fallacy.
The simple fact is macro-evolution has not been proven, yet many are willing to blindly accept it as fact because they believe, by default, creationism cannot be true.
This is science?
Really? On a day when many members of the GOP are going to celebrate their stupidity by having an ill advised party for a judge under judicial review - you are going to chime in on evolution? You've have been on this site a considerable number of times since that was posted - why react today?
Maybe so you can draw attention away fake degrees and poorly timed GOP pep rallies?
Why don't you take the rest of the day and visit National Geographic to find out what tribe your from; Link... Or you can drive down to Dayton, dig up John Scopes and try him again.
Dear phinney,
As a physicist and not a biologist I may be mistaken, but for purposes of discussing whether evolution is happening or not there is no distinction between "micro-evolution with macro-evolution". With in the biological scientific community the terms are used, but not, as I believe, you are using them.
If macro evolution is not simply the accumulation of micro evolution, then tell us what barrier there is preventing micro-evolution accumulating into macro-evolution? If you claim there is one can you be specific? I suspect that for any definition you come up with, the known facts of scientist will always be able to site counter examples.
I anticipate that you fail to understand that the definition of species is largely an artificial human made distinction. There is a continuum between all living and non living multi cellular creatures. That continuum is the legacy of having a common ancestor.
One of the nicest fossil stories of evolution is that of the whale.
Link...
For still living creatures the ring species of salamander shows evolution with a special distribution.
From: Link...
Ensatina is a nice example of obvious accumulation of small changes into a change of species. With Ensatina the distribution with distance around the San Joaquin valley corespondes to what for whale species is distance in time. The Ensatina can breed with their neighbors around the valley, but not across the sothern gap in the San Joaquin valley.
You can learn even more from the wonderful book by Richard Dawkins,
Link...
Even by the middle of the 19th century there was no longer any excuse for doubting evolution.
Forrest Erickson
I don’t understand the logic behind taking the leap from micro-evolution to macro-evolution. I understand that science considers macro-evolution to be an accumulation of micro-evolution. While science can prove micro-evolution, you are expected to simply “take their word” that the same holds true for macro-evolution. I want proof. You may be able to cite 1,000 scientists who all believe that macro-evolution is true; however, you still have not proven it to be so. You have simply proven that there are 1,000 scientists who believe that it is so.
The salamander story is fascinating; however, what is it evolving into? Nothing; it’s still a salamander.
The whale story is fascinating; however, what is the whale evolving into? Nothing; it’s still a whale.
The barrier that is preventing micro-evolution from accumulating into macro-evolution is simple: proof and observation. If you think that micro-evolution accumulates into macro-evolution, prove it. Citing 1,000 scientists who agree is not proof. Utilize the scientific method and prove it.
The problem with the story of evolution is that it is just that; a story. The evolutionist explains evolution as if it were true. Then he steps back to analyze his argument. He concludes that his argument must be true since he was able to explain it in those terms. This is circular logic.
Might I suggest "Bones of Contention", by Marvin Lubenow. In the book, Lubenow uses the fossils themselves to disprove the leading misconceptions of evolution. Evolution relies on fallacies that simply are not supported by the fossil record. Lubenow sheds light on these fallacies.
And to disagree with WhitesCreek below; evolution and God (the Bible) are two diametrically opposed ideas. Both cannot be true simultaneously.
Lester Phinney
I voted yes, but I would make the claim that "evolution" is not a belief system.
Darwin's theory on the origin of species makes the best and most complete explaination of a myriad of observations in the fossil record.
May I suggest "The Lying Stones of Marrakesh" by Stephen Gould as a pleasant read that illuminates the burning scientific questions of Darwin's time and why his theory answered them so well, then and now.
There will be people in every time who choose to study ignorance and think Science must be opposed because it contradicts god. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science merely sheds light on our natural world, and it appears that the natural world itself contradicts the supernatural.
Dear phinney,
Please explain what you mean by this non-sequitor,
I provided specific examples. The northern species of salamander is continuous with the south western and south eastern salamanders but the south western and south eastern salamanders can not breed with each other. They are distinct species by the criteria of sexual fertility. This shows that micro-evolution has become macro-evolution and you do not have to time travel to observe it.
.
This example overturns, what I believe to be, your assertion.
Perhaps you need to clarify your assertion.
Forrest Erickson
My assertion is that macroevolution requires time in order to account for significant evolutionary changes. This is the leap of faith (pardon the pun) that you are willing to make.
You witness a salamander turning into another kind of salamander that cannot reproduce with the previous version. In my mind, I still see the salamander. He hasn’t changed into anything other than a salamander. In your mind, you conclude that such an observation proves that single cell amebas have given rise to modern day human beings through a process called evolution.
I require a little more proof before making such a leap.
Lester
Dear Phinney,
Lets be clear what the story of the salamander in California tells us.
The salamanders are all linked in a common gene pool. That is, genes (the elements of the "recipes" which create cells which in turn multiply and differentiate into muliticellular offspring) can move from one individual say E.e. klauberi in the south west through successive matings and offspring north, then east then south and ending with successful mating with E.e. escholtzil.
However individuals of E.e. klauberi and E.e. escholtzil can not directly mate.
Are they of the same species or are they not? By the criteria of sex, they are separate species, yet they are in the same gene pool. If all the salamanders in the north would be wiped out then, E.e. klauberi and E.e. escholtzil become isolated and genes would no longer travel between the two populations. This is lovely case just as Charles Darwin's Origin of Species predicts.
In response to the lesson of the salamander, you say you "still see a salamander" to indicate that you fail to see that evolution of species has occurred and is occurring around us now. I must then ask you what difference do you see between Humans and Chimps? You can not simply say it is obvious, if it is obvious you should be able to list difference. Just how are Humans and Chimps less alike than the two salamander species which are unable to directly breed? Just what genes do Humans have that cannot, by small changes, have been in the same gene pool with Chimps?
Humans and Chips had a common ancestor about 5 to 7 million years ago which if the average generation is 25 years is at about 200,000 generations for each branch. So if we could travel in time and pick out about 20,000 individuals at about 20 generation intervals, we could form an interbreeding gene pool between humans today and chimps today. This pool would be much smaller in population than Maryville TN.
Forrest Erickson
You ask me to list differences between chimps and humans other than the obvious. What does this mean? What differences other than the obvious are there? I mean, they’re chimps. Can you not look at them and see the difference?
You ask,” Just what genes do Humans have that cannot, by small changes, have been in the same gene pool with Chimps?” - My answer. All of them. That’s the flaw with the concepts of human evolution. You believe that chips, through genetic mutations, have evolved into modern day humans. Prove it.
1. You cannot prove that the genetic mutations occurred. Where’s the evidence? It doesn’t exist in the fossil record.
2. Despite the fact that most genetic mutations are negative, what is the probability of a positive genetic mutation actually occurring? (Infinitesimally small)
3. If a positive genetic mutation does occur, what is the probability that enough of them occur over a required period of time resulting in the outcome you believe is the correct one. (Infinitesimally small)
Again, I don’t understand the point of the salamander example. So one salamander can evolve into another salamander that cannot mate with the original version. What have you proven? It is still a salamander. The salamander will never evolve into anything other than a salamander. Now, if your example involved a salamander evolving into, say a turtle; then I would be impressed.
The “evolution that is occurring around us”, as you say, are animals giving rise to other kinds of like animals. Salamanders give rise to other kinds of salamanders. Dogs give rise to other kinds of dogs. Cats give rise to other kinds of cats. What you do not see “occurring around us” are salamanders giving rise to cats, dogs giving rise to salamanders, and cats giving rise to dogs.
You simply cannot prove that one animal turns into an entirely different animal. Because you cannot prove your point, you contend that since I “still see a salamander” then I obviously “fail to see that evolution of species has occurred and is occurring around us now.” I mean no disrespect to you, personally. That is the dilemma I usually face with the opposing view point. Most evolutionists refuse to even debate evolution because, after all, there is no debate, right? Others who will debate it ultimately conclude that my inability to understand evolution is responsible for my failure to admit that it is true. How convenient.
You say, “Humans and Chips had a common ancestor about 5 to 7 million years ago…” - Again, an improvable theory that cannot be tested; yet you cite it as proven fact.
Lester
Lester,
It may be easier if you just prove evolution didn't happen. Maybe you'll see pretty quickly that you can't (I wonder why!). That's your problem, right there. I have a friend that swears the world is 6,000 years old, he is still searching for evidence. I've warned him there is none, his search continues.....
By the way, evolution doesn't say and has never said we evolved from chimps. Educate yourself before you attempt to discuss a topic you know nothing about. You sound like Huckabee on evolution......
Huckabee said if people want to believe they descended from a primate, that's up to them....... Well, I wanted to believe I descended from a primate -- like my mother and father. Oh well, some people don't know when to not speak.
Ok you see salamanders.
Well when I look at the human and the chip I see apes.
The most naked of apes we call "Human" and one of the species of not so naked apes we call "Chimps".
What is the difference?
You never said!
Some pictures from Wikipedia for your contemplation.
Link...
A hairless dog with long nose.
Link...
A hairy dog with long nose.
Link...
A short hair, short nose dog.
Link...
Hairless Apes with short muzzles, er noses.
What was the difference between Humans and Chimps again?
Forrest (Naked Ape) Erickson
I guess the difference between humans and apes would be the same difference between all other life forms on the planet. The difference between humans and apes is the difference between dogs and cats, I guess. If you are looking for an answer other than the obvious, I cannot help you.
You may call the naked ape a human; I call it a naked ape. But that’s just me.
Your thought process operates under the premise that all current life forms originated from one common life form. You have accepted that premise as true without any hard evidence to support it. You cannot understand my thought process because I have accepted by faith that creationism has occurred. The irony is that you also have accepted by faith that the position you hold is true.
Lester
OK we are making progress here...
Mountains are moving.
Phinney said,
The point is that evolution of species occurred. You just admitted it. Evolution happened! Just as Darwin said, species change into other species by natural methods.
Congratulations you have taken a first small step into a larger world.
Forrest Erickson
So, because a salamander can evolve into another salamander that cannot mate with the original version, obviously, people originated from orangutans? That’s your argument?
Your “evolved” salamander then evolves back into a version that is the same as the original version. What does that prove? That evolution is a mindless cult?
Lester
Interesting discussion.
The fundamental disconnect is, I think, that evolution is science, which by definition is constantly questioned, tested, improved, and advanced, versus faith, which by definition is generally not open to questioning.
Scientists generally don't take much of anything on faith, and faithful believers by definition reject science that might call their faith into question.
There's probably a middle ground somewhere, but I'm not smart enough to figure out where it is.
I like to think, though, that I am smart enough, or at least open minded enough, to continue questioning, testing, improving, and advancing my very limited understanding of life, the universe, and all those sorts of things.
While I'd agree that people like Mr. Phinney may give the impression that many if not most faithful believers reject science, I'd quibble with the "by definition" clause. There are also faithful believers who think that there should be no conflict between science and faith - after all, it is perfectly possible to believe in fossil evidence and God at the same time.
What fossil evidence? There are no transitional fossils in the fossil record. You need these “missing links” to prove the very idea that you claim exists.
Obviously, scientists accept evolution by faith because there is no hard evidence.
Since evolution and creationism cannot be true simultaneously, and since scientists, by default, demand a definition other than God, evolution has to be true. If you forbid the consideration of creationism, there is no other alternative.
Lester
There's plenty of fossil and geological evidence showing that the earth is far more than 6,000 years old - so the "young earth" brand of creationist is obviously wrong. Not only wrong, but IMO "doing wrong" - by putting up an unnecessary (and invalid) stumbling block they may actually be preventing people who can see this fossil and geological evidence from believing in God. Remember that verse about the millstone around the neck?
Actually, there are many people - Christians, even - who believe that evolution and creationism can be true simultaneously. You can find an interesting discussion here:
Link...
See above.
No, that's not quite right. First of all, there's no monolithic group called "scientists" who all think the same thing. Second, what scientists on average think is that you shouldn't ignore plain, honest, scientific evidence - which is vastly different from demanding something other than God.
“There's plenty of fossil and geological evidence showing that the earth is far more than 6,000 years old” – This “evidence” depends on which dating method you use. I can cite flaws in all of them because they rely on a closed system. Fossils are not formed in a closed system. One dating method has been used on living organisms and have shown them to be millions of years old. If a particular dating method shows that a living organism is millions of years old, clearly there are flaws in the method.
I wouldn’t put any faith in anything I read from religioustolerance.org. This cite actually promotes the idea that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.
Genesis specifically says that man was created in the image of God. To believe in theistic evolution is to believe that man has evolved into a more advanced image than what was originally created, which is to believe that we are now more advanced than the original image of God. How arrogant is that?
Theistic evolution is a cop-out. It attempts to harmonize theism with atheism.
“First of all, there's no monolithic group called "scientists" who all think the same thing.” – Actually, evolutionists always point to the “consensus” regarding evolutionary thought.
“Second, what scientists on average think is that you shouldn't ignore plain, honest, scientific evidence” – In theory, that is true. In practice, they consider the “consensus” regarding evolution to be evidence. That is where I have a problem. I do not consider a consensus proof.
Scientists do want an explanation other than God. They demand a postulate that can be analyzed utilizing the scientific method. I accept this. The irony this is they do not demand the same of their own theory of evolution. Why is that?
Lester
The question do you believe or disbelieve evolution makes little sense. Do you accept evolution or not? Since evolution is true and an actual fact based on what makes a fact, it's not about believing it or not.
Most people accept that the earth circles the sun, most accept that germs cause disease, and most accept the theory of gravity. The fact of evolution is every bit as convincing as the other three theories. But it seems some people can't accept it. Isn't it ironic that religious dogma with zero evidence is chosen over a simple, proven fact? I pity those that find themselves stuck in that dark hole. The real world is much more fulfilling.
Evolution is a simple fact, how it happened is still debated. Nonetheless, it still happened regardless of whether one can accept it or not.
You have no idea just how insane the statement you just made really is. “I know evolution occurred: I just cannot prove how it happened.” What an ignorant statement. The “how it happened” IS evolution. Evolution attempts to explain what happened. However, without an explanation of “how”, you cannot prove the “what”. The “what” is dependant on the “how”.
In a previous post you asked if I could prove that evolution didn’t happen. That is called a fallacious argument. You cannot prove a negative. Can you prove that I am not a millionaire? You cannot. However, what is interesting is the fact that there are only two possible explanations accounting for the existence of life. Either life was created naturally or supernaturally. Either evolution or creation is true. Since they are both diametrically opposed ideas, only on of them can be true. Therefore, if one is true, the other must be false. Thus, evidence against the one is automatically evidence for the other. By addressing the fallacies of evolutionary thought (and there are infinitely many), I indirectly establish a stronger case for creation.
You seem to accept evolution and are willing to compare its truthfulness to the earth’s orbit around the sun, germs causing disease, and the physics behind the earth’s gravitational pull. Another fallacy because while the three examples you gave are observable, you cannot observe a chimp giving rise to a human.
Lester
I have an idea, How about; The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man; Genesis 2:22
Women came from the rib of man. Much more sane that all that new-fangled DNA science stuff.
Here I will take a stab at this one.
Regarding:
It works like this. We can know that the earth goes around the sun with out knowing how gravity works. Once we figure out how gravity works then we have a deeper understanding that one explains the other.
Fossils show us that the fact that the evolution of species happened. Darwin developed a theory that explained how it naturally happened. There was no special creation.
Certainly, the mythology in Genesis cannot be an explanation because it is at odds with the facts such as the age of the Earth, Moon and Sun. Not to mention the logical problem that Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2.
Forrest Erickson
You have just introduced a red herring fallacy. We have proof that the earth orbits the sun. We do not have proof confirming the myths of evolution. Understanding gravity helps you to understand the earth’s orbit: an undisputable fact. You assume that evolution is fact. You explain observations in terms that validate your assumption. Then, since most agree with your conclusion, you conclude that your assumptions are true. You have established a circular reference; you have not established proof of evolution.
“Fossils show us that the fact that the evolution of species happened”
That statement is incorrect as there are no transitional examples in the fossil record. The fact is everywhere life appears in the fossil record it appears all at once, fully formed, and fully functional. Almost like it was created or something.
Also, keep in mind how the age of the earth, moon, and sun are calculated. Flaws in the dating methods used account for artificially old ages. My post below explains this.
Finally, Genesis 1 and 2 are in perfect harmony with each other as there are no contradictions.
Lester
Lester, Do you really believe that the Earth is only 6k years old?
Lester
Lester, You say,
You also say,
See: Link...
And
Link...
Surly if "... life appears in the fossil record it appears all at once, fully formed, and fully functional. Almost like it was created or something." you can show us such fossils.
Can you show us any flowering plant from any of the paleozoic fossil assemblies?
Can you show us any ape from any of the paleozoic or mesozoic fossil assemblies?
Is it just possible they have evolved since?
Or did the creator constantly muck around with the whole ecology as if she regretted every version of it she tried?
Bingo
Isn’t it more ironic that many do not know the definition of a proven fact?
Lester
For those of you who don't believe in Evolution and want to argue "creation" or "intelligent design" this is for you......If you believe that the criterion for proving Evolution is to duplicate it in a lab, show me how creationism or intelligent design has been or can be duplicated in a lab?
And by the way, Evolution can be duplicated and proven in a lab using microorganisms. This has been done hundreds of times.
If creationism or intelligent design could be duplicated in the lab, then it would not be creationism or intelligent design; it would be evolution.
Nice try, though.
Lester
Lester, you are making two mistakes. First, you are confusing science with history. History need not be recreated in a lab, and the progression of forms as life evolved on this planet is a historical matter.
Second, you are asking for proof of something scientists do not believe happened, a rapid change from one form to another. Some salamander momma didn't just one day hatch a baby lizard. Salamanders hatch salamanders, which is an impressive feat not to be discounted. Now, a salamander population expanding into drier habitats might gradually, over generations, develop skin less prone to dessication until it finally sheds its dependence on moist environments. This new creature could then populate the dry world where salamanders never could go, proliferating into the big and small and varying forms we call lizards. Only by taking the long, historical perspective and comparing animals separated by thousands of generations could you say, "This salamander evolved into this lizard."
The proof of these historical hypotheses lies in the massive anatomical and cellular similarities shared by sister taxa.
That brings us to the real weakness of your position. You have no alternate explanation for why salamanders and lizards share so much in common, nor do you even have a way to define which critters are salamanders and which are something else. In other words, your position is purely destructive and regressive.
The confusion seems to lay with you, my friend, for not understanding the context of the discussion. Your premise is to define evolution as history. Without any proof, you cannot make that leap. You consider evolution a historical matter. That is your prerogative. I consider creationism a historical matter.
Your argument seems to be that massive anatomical and cellular similarities between “taxa” are in, and of themselves, proof of evolution. In other word, you are saying, “We know evolution is true; here we are as a result of it.” That is called a circular reference and is indicative of a fallacious argument. Not to worry though; fallacy is the only thought evolutionists are capable of.
Your argument is rather common place. In your second paragraph you simply explain what “could” have happened over a period of a very long time. How convenient. By introducing the postulate of such a grand period of time, you have established a parameter which cannot be tested. You have created a situation that cannot be examined via the scientific method. Thus, evolution is not truly science.
Lester
I should have been more clear. There is the science of evolution, and there is the history of life on Earth. Evolution is a tool for understanding that history.
The science of evolution is built on the fundamental chemistry of life, DNA and RNA molecules as agents of information storage and transmission, cellular machinery, communication among cells, tissues and organs, etc. This stuff is all eminently approachable in the lab, and biologists have been exploring and elucidating the chemical basis of evolution for more than a century.
There is also a mathematical foundation for evolution based in population biology and thermodynamics, and this piece of the theory has also been explored and developed using the standard scientific approach.
When you start talking about origins and transitions among forms, you step into the realm of history. You are asking for scientific proof of historical events, a nonsensical demand. The best you can expect of history is a narrative consistent with science. Macroevolution is, indeed, a narrative consistent with science. It falls short where the historical evidence is lacking, but you want to pretend those shortcomings are failures of science. You are wrong.
Evolution was proven with the discovery of the shared genetic code and cellular mechanisms common to all life on Earth. No theory of comparable explanatory power has ever been proposed. Those who allege to be trying actually invest about 99 percent of their effort in distorting and abusing science, which is why creationism in all its forms remains scientifically void.
There are several flaws in your logic.
First. No one is denying the existence of DNA or RNA. The evolutionary belief is that these molecules were originally created by chance. Prove it. The fact that most scientists believe it does not make it so.
Evolutionists believe life was created by chance. The laws of probability hold that this is impossible since such probability is infinitesimally small.
You cite thermodynamics. How interesting since evolutionary thought contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.
You blew your own argument by admitting that historical events cannot be proven. Yes they can. I can prove that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. Evolutionists hold the fossil record up as scientific proof of this “history” of which you speak. Yet, the fossils contain no transitional examples. Why is this so?
Your last paragraph is yet another circular reference. The discovery of shared genetic code did not prove evolution. Evolutionary thought “assumes” that since genetic code is shared, one organism must have originated from the other. Evolutionary thought is built on the premise that life originated from one common life form. Then it sets out to explain everything in terms of this evolutionary believe system. If such an explanation is accepted by other “scientist,” then it is held up as fact. Indeed, one thing evolution is not is science.
You are really making this too easy.
Lester
You are really making this too easy.
Actually, you are just taking the easy way out by ignoring half of what I say and leaning on stale creationist tripe. Claiming evolution contradicts thermodynamics is beneath stupid and so long discredited it can't be taken seriously. No one who has made an effort to understand either evolution or entropy would make that statement. It is as easy to disprove as pointing to the Sun in the sky.
There are countless examples of transitional forms in both the fossil record and among living creatures. None of them are good enough for creationists, of course, but not because creationists have any standards or guidelines by which to judge. They are just prejudiced against evolution and more than happy to lie, deny, distort and distract to keep their ignorance festering.
What else can they do? They have no facts or science on their side. Lester, get back to me when you can recreate the signing of the Declaration of Independence in a laboratory.
Actually, every one of your so-called points were addressed and disposed of.
Clearly, you know little about science.
Entropy is simply the occurrence of deterioration. Essentially, it is order giving rise to disorder or chaos. By definition it contradicts the fanaticisms taught by the myths of evolution. I can’t dumb it down any more than that.
You believe there are countless examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record yet you strategically chose not to cite any of them. Sheer genius!
Nothing in the fossil record suggests evolution. Everywhere life appears in the fossil record it appears all at once, fully formed, and fully functional. Almost like it was created or something.
How’s this for science.
The speed of light in the universe has been decreasing since it was first accurately measured. The changing rate in the speed of light is inconsistent with the “scientifically” accepted age of the universe.
Matter decays on the surface of the earth and contributes to the thickening of top soil on the earth’s surface. The thickness of the layer of top soil on the earth’s surface is inconsistent with the “scientifically” accepted age of the universe.
Current dating methods are inaccurate. Among the most popular, K-Ar dating assumes a closed system. Fossils are not formed in closed systems. Most existing fossils are formed in sedimentary rock layers. You know where sedimentary rock layers form, don’t you? Under water. That means most existing fossils, even fossils found in extremely dry areas, were originally formed under water. Almost like there was a big flood or something. Anyway, since potassium easily dissolves in water, and since fossils are formed under water, and since fossilization does not occur in a closed system, it just stands to reason that potassium levels cannot be accurately measured. Therefore, the result obtained from such dating methods will be a date that is too old.
The age of the universe is based on the theory of the origin of the universe. The current “scientifically” accepted age of the universe is based on the Big-Bang theory. Scientists are gradually beginning to shy away from this myth as well. They are trying to come up with another theory. The problem is they are trying to derive a theory that is consistent with the commonly believed age of the universe. This cannot be done since age is dependant on the theory of origin. Luckily, they won’t allow logic to stifle their studies.
The age of the universe is important for it provides the evolutionist with the time needed for evolutionary fantasies to occur. You cannot prove that macroevolution occurs over a vast amount of time. You will not acknowledge this. Why?
Finally, as I mentioned in a prior argument, since there are only two possible explanations for the existence of life, evidence against the one is automatically evidence for the other.
It’s been fun.
Lester
I can’t dumb it down any more than that.
That would have been true if you had stopped typing right then.
If your entropy argument were valid, it would mean not only that evolution is impossible, but that life is impossible. Your argument is flagrant nonsense, of course. Since you seem to think you have a defensible position on that count, there is little sense in attempting to communicate with you.
If you have a good conspiracy theory about Ilya Prigogine's Nobel Prize, however, I'd love to hear it!
“If your entropy argument were valid, it would mean not only that evolution is impossible, but that life is impossible.”
You are absolutely right. Life cannot form in a way that is consistent with what we know about entropy.
“Since you seem to think you have a defensible position on that count, there is little sense in attempting to communicate with you.”
Ah, the classic “you-are-not-smart-enough-to-understand-evolution” argument. I was wondering when that card would be played. Translation – “I cannot defend my position; therefore, I will place the blame on your inability to understand.” Sheer genius!
Lester
I'm not saying that you are not smart enough to understand; I'm saying that you have deliberately chosen to be ignorant and oblivious.
Look at yourself! You jumped on someone for using the logical fallacy of proving a negative, saying they can not prove you are not a millionaire, yet the very core of your argument is "there is no hard evidence," "there are no transitional fossils," etc. Negatives are all you've got, fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy. You are smart enough to understand logic, but incapable of applying it to your own argument.
And not only are the negatives you assert illogical, they are also flagrantly wrong. There are literally libraries and museums full of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. It's like we are both standing under a night sky full of stars, and you are insisting they are not there because I can't place one in your hand. Someone who is not smart enough to pass an astronomy class wouldn't be that stupid. Your failings do not result from lack of ability, but from the philosophical knot into which you tied up your brain.
You said, "Life cannot form in a way that is consistent with what we know about entropy." That is inaccurate. The correct statement is that life cannot form in a way that is consistent with what you know about entropy. What you know about entropy has no relationship to what science knows about entropy. You have invented your own definition to support the void you call an argument.
Your problem is not a lack of intelligence, but that you have used your intelligence to swallow itself. I'm actually quite impressed with your ability to thoroughly isolate yourself from reality. You are far too wrong about far too much for it to be the result of stupidity.
In your eyes, I chose to remain ignorant and oblivious simply because I do not accept your argument.
Previously, when I was asked if I could prove that evolution didn’t happen, I simply pointed out that you cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to prove that evolution did happen, not on me to prove that evolution did not happen. When I make the statements “there is no hard evidence” or “there are no transitional fossils;” these are positive statements. As such, they are either right or wrong. For instance, there are a finite number of discovered fossils in the world today. Among these known fossils, there are no transitional examples. Now, this is a factual statement. It is not an opinion. In order to prove me wrong, all you have to do is cite one example of a transitional fossil. It’s that simple.
These “libraries of evidence” of which you speak contain “evidence” in your eyes. Evidence is proof that something has happened. There is no evidence to prove that evolution has taken place. There are books written from the viewpoint of such a myth taking place and there are many scientists who believe that evolution has taken place. However, such a belief system does not in and of itself represent proof. The fact that most scientists agree that evolution is true does not make it so. These “libraries and museums” display findings in such a way as to artificially suggest that evolution has occurred. Such an example is the fossil record. Fossils that are discovered are arranged in such a way as to subjectively suggest that evolution has occurred. When a fossil is discovered that does not fit the mold, it is thrown out.
The “night sky full of stars” example is a red herring fallacy. I can plainly see that stars, I cannot plainly see evolution.
Again, the entropy argument is straight forward. Entropy is simply deterioration, a breaking down. That’s not my definition, look it up. Entropy is order giving rise to chaos. Evolution is disorder giving rise to order, non-living giving rise to living, and inorganic giving rise to organic. Entropy and evolution are two diametrically opposed ideas. As such, they cannot exist simultaneously.
“You are far too wrong about far too much for it to be the result of stupidity.” – My wife would probably agree.
Lester
Entropy is not a simple concept. In fact, the only precise definition is a differential equation (dS = [dQ/T, where [ is the integral between initial and final state of the system). You are the one who needs to look up the defintion. Follow this link to Physics Myths, then scroll down a bit to find the simple disproof of your stale claim. Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize decades ago for deriving the principle of evolution from the laws of thermodynamics.
It is more accurate to say that entropy fuels evolution. As with most of your claims, you are spectacularly wrong. You are so wrong, in fact, that correcting you seems to require teaching you great swaths of physics, organic chemistry and biodiversity. That is something you need to pursue on your own, should you ever tire of the dishonesty and hatred inherent in creationism.
As far as transitional fossils go, if you have any definition at all of what a transitional fossil is, it is surely as bogus as your defintion of entropy. Most fossils and most extant creatures are examples of evolutionary transitions. For example, moths can be viewed as a transitional state between caddisflies and butterflies.
The question you are likely to respond with ("Why are there still moths?") demonstrates how poorly you understand evolution, because evolution is something that happens to populations, not individuals. Part of a population can diverge from the remainder and give rise to a new species while the ancestral forms remains. Your notion that moths can only evolve into butterflies if moths cease to exist is just plain nonsense.
Also, you are right about the night-sky example being a red herring, but it is YOUR red herring, not mine. You are the one creating absurd hurdles and tests analogous to "I will only believe in stars if you can put one in my hand."
Oh, the “hatred” argument. The argument used by the angry evolutionist when the “you-are-not-smart-enough-to-understand-evolution” argument fails. That’s right, I do not believe in evolution because I am filled with “hate.” What a well reasoned argument.
Now to begin with the shredding of yours:
1. “It is more accurate to say that entropy fuels evolution.” – False. Evolutionists cling to the idea that entropy occurs in an open system to explain evolution, yet insist that fossils form in a closed system. They insist on having both ways so that the template of evolution will remain valid. How convenient. In actuality, it doesn’t matter whether it is an open system or not, either result is inconsistent with evolution. Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. Raw energy alone cannot generate the specified (key word here) complex information required in living things. Prigogine simply studied dissipative systems and observed chaotic structures that could develop into more organized systems. More precisely, he studied entropy as it related to the forming of chemical compounds. He then insinuated a link between the forming of these bonds and the mythological notions of evolution. However, he did not prove evolution my dear naïve friend.
2. “Most fossils and most extant creatures are examples of evolutionary transitions.” – False. A transitional fossil is a fossil that documents the transformation (transition) of one different type of organism to another. Again, not my definition. No fossils in the fossil record today show any actual transitions. Such transitions are implied based on the sequence with which they are displayed. The assumption is that they are the result of evolution.
3. “For example, moths can be viewed as a transitional state between caddisflies and butterflies.” – False. They are transitional only because you believe them to be not because it has been proven to be. Then there is the obvious question. How do you prove that butterflies come from moths which come from caddisflies when all exist simultaneously? I know; my inability and hatred are shining through again.
4. “Part of a population can diverge from the remainder and give rise to a new species while the ancestral forms remains.” – Prove it.
5. “Also, you are right about the night-sky example being a red herring, but it is YOUR red herring, not mine.” – You brought it up, I didn’t.
6. “You are the one creating absurd hurdles and tests analogous…” – Sure. Demanding that you utilize the scientific method. How absurd! Hahaha
You are making this too easy.
Lester
How do you prove that butterflies come from moths which come from caddisflies when all exist simultaneously?
It is their existence which makes that historical hypothesis amenable to scientific inquiry. Because they exist, we can study their anatomy, ontogeny, genetics and life histories, explore patterns of variation, distinguish homology from convergence, etc. Existence is a very useful property.
Is there anything in existence that affirms your position?
“Because they exist, we can study their anatomy, ontogeny, genetics and life histories, explore patterns of variation, distinguish homology from convergence, etc.” – You’re right. You can study all of that. You just cannot prove that they are derivatives of each other. Way to go!
“Is there anything in existence that affirms your position?” – I get so tired of repeating myself. Read some of my other posts.
Lester
Read some of my other posts.
I have. You've got nothing but a bunch of false negatives and a cheap intellectual parlor trick that you think exempts you from having to provide positive proof of your incoherent void of a theory.
You don't even understand the theory you are criticizing. You can't tell the difference between your own ignorance and an actual absence of evidence. You think that if a moth evolves into a butterfly, moths must vanish. Do you have any idea how many families, genera and species of moths there are? Why would Arctiid moths vanish because some Saturnid species begat butterflies? Your ideas are nonsense. There is no point in discussing transitional fossils with someone who doesn't even know what an evolutionary transition is.
If your goal is to spread the good news, spewing prideful and envious wrath against science is poorly chosen strategy.
You’re right. I should just go to a museum. If I could see the fossils as they have been arbitrarily displayed by the evolutionist so as to suggest evolution, and if I could listen to the explanation given by the evolutionist suggesting that one animal evolved from another, then I would become a believer. What a brilliant suggestion.
“You've got nothing but a bunch of false negatives and a cheap intellectual parlor trick that you think exempts you from having to provide positive proof of your incoherent void of a theory.” – Nice generalization. You just cannot cite one statement I made as being false.
“You don't even understand the theory you are criticizing.” – I know the “you’re-too-dumb-to-understand-evolution” argument. That is tired. Do you have anything else?
“You think that if a moth evolves into a butterfly, moths must vanish.” – False. I think that if you believe that a moth evolves into a butterfly, the burden is on you to prove it.
“There is no point in discussing transitional fossils with someone who doesn't even know what an evolutionary transition is.” – I gave you the precise definition of a transitional fossil. Since you cannot point to one transitional fossil, you naturally assume that I don’t know what one is. Sheer genius!
“…spewing prideful and envious wrath against science…”- Sure. Hang on to the evolution-is-science argument. Evolution, my naive little friend, is not science.
Lester
I gave you the precise definition of a transitional fossil
Yes, you did, and your definition is crap. It is crap because you don't understand what an evolutionary transition is. This isn't about moths and butterflies. They are an example chosen to illustrate a point; however, trying to get you to understand anything is clearly a fool's errand. You have enveloped yourself in an impenetrable fog of confusion and ignorance.
If you want to shut yourself off from one of the most elegant theories in science and dismiss the beauty of creation, that is your business, but you really ought to keep it to yourself. No one, not even yourself, is served by your dishonesty and intellectual violence. Your comprehension of entropy is so flawed that you literally disprove yourself with every breath you take. Maybe you should prove your commitment to your up-is-down, death-is-life oblivion by dying. Succumb to entropy, Lester!
Being an obstacle to knowledge and understanding is much easier than pursuing truth, and it is a shame you have chosen such a tawdry ambition.
While there are "missing" links maintaining evolutions "theory" Link... status, the big hiccup why it has not been further accepted in the United States, is because of the 28% at the top of this thread. Science has methods that bring a whole new light to how most folks define "theory". Scientific theory is supported by facts - volumes in the case of evolution. "Intelligent" Design is based on a creator. A creator is something Christians have "faith" exists. Faith is defined as a strong belief in something you can't prove. So, why should/would faith ever need to be interjected in a science class? Social studies or history maybe, but not science.
Ever notice, the 28% is the same number that still believes George W. Bush is telling them truth? Link... The tactic of scaring the piss out of people appears to be a shared tactic. Hell/Terror + Give me 10%/ Give me civil liberties = salvation.
But days are numbered for this minority. Whether it's Clinton, Obama, or McCain - the time of the evangelicals maintaining a stranglehold on societal advancements are done. Although, one of these candidates will not have the luxury of blaming a failed presidency by stating he/she are doing what their doing because of divine intervention. Link...
One last question; Say you needed a heart surgery. In the world, there are two doctors that can provide assistance. One doctor is an atheist and has operated 100 times, 95 successfully. The other, a Christian, did well in Seminary before he got into medicine. With less experience - his record is 4 surgeries, 2 successful.
Who would you want to operate on you? If you choose the more experienced surgeon, are you putting your faith in science or God?
Perhaps you could cite one example of a Bush lie. Be careful, though. If you do not understand the definition of a lie, I will shred your argument to pieces.
Lester
God wanted George W. Bush to president. Is that a lie or did God confirm this with you?
Your 30% just turned out to make your Evangelical leader the winner in Tennessee. Which insured the next Republican Presidential nominee will be McCain. Which ensured the next President will be liberal. Nice strategy.
Waiting for an answer. Does God have you on hold?
Bush claims that God wants him to run for president and that is your example of a lie? I’m sorry. I didn’t realize it was going to be that easy.
A lie is a false statement that you deliberately make while knowing it to be untrue at the same time. Therefore, since Bush claimed that God wanted him to run for president, can you prove that God either told him not to run for president or that Bush knew that God told him not to run for president?
Lester
Your right. It was a trilateral meeting between God, the tooth fairy and Santa. They all told George to run and that you should be the poster boy for science. Keep up the good work.
Another well reasoned argument from the Bush-lied nuts.
Lester
Because God, Santa and the Tooth Fairy told you to?
Do you believe in Zeus, Bacchus or Allah?
If you want to hold Evolution to a certain level of criteria then you must hold creationism to a level of criteria too. Don't just throw this circular debate at us. My point is you believe in Creationism based on faith (no proof, just a belief). You do not require any more than that. However, you want us, who believe in Evolution to give you examples. This page is full of examples and yet you still are going to stick with faith only. That's why one is a scientific theory and one is a religious faith. It's sort of like comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is for the science class and creationism is for religion class. We won't talk about Evolution in your bible class and please show us the same respect, don't talk about creationism in our science class.
mrsbrad04
For the record, there is a rapid change that occurred in England during the industrial revolution. A light colored moth who lived on the the bark of light colored bark trees survived for years prior to factories. Once factories produced smog and darkened the bark of the trees, these light colored moths stuck out like a sore thumb. They were eaten by birds. Those that did survive produced offspring that developed darker scales on their wings and therefore would blend in with the darker barked trees. Because of this they survived and were not eaten as often by birds. This occurred over a short period of time, due to the shortened life span (more generations in a shorter time). With more advanced organisms, i.e. mammals, changes occur at a much slower pace. Simple.
mrsbrad04
They were still moths, right? They were eaten by birds but didn’t evolve into birds, right? See, that’s what I mean. You evolution fanatics make it easy to disprove evolution.
The fact is I don’t care if you believe in evolution. You can believe in the tooth-fairy for all I care. When you insist on teaching this garbage as fact to my kid at school, then you will come up against me. When you treat evolution as fact, I have a problem with that. You are not entitled to redefine the word fact.
Courts are ruling that it is unconstitutional to even question evolution is a biology class. That is classic communism/socialism. You win the argument by preventing your opponent from arguing his case. How classy is that. I do, however, appreciate the debate. Many evolutionists will not lower themselves to arguing the validity of evolution.
Lester
You have a bad habit of responding to one portion of someones arguments and not to the other. Earlier in one of your posts you stated that you wanted to see something that did not take thousands of years to occur. I bring one up and now you say because the moth did not turn into a bird you don't want to hear it. Also, its a simple statement; keep your faith based belief out of the science class and I'll keep my science out of your bible class. Like I said it's just a circular debate you keep having and really with yourself. Your kind are all alike, you're all for teaching religion in the classroom as long as it's your religion. So, my dear friend, you want to teach your garbage to your children, have at it. I'll give my children a proper education!
mrsbrad04
“Earlier in one of your posts you stated that you wanted to see something that did not take thousands of years to occur”
That is incorrect. I want you to prove that something will occur or has occured in thousands of years. Apparently, you do not understand the scientific method. Science demands that you form a postulate that can be independently verified. These aren’t my rules. You make the claim that evolution occurs over vast time periods. You cite an example of a moth? Come on? What do you tell your kids when they ask, “Mommy, how does a moth changing its colors prove that I came from an orangutan?” I’m laughing as I’m typing.
I don’t want religion taught in the school system. I want facts. Everything you believe to be a so-called “fact” of human evolution I can disprove utilizing only scientific, mathematical, and logical arguments. Yet it is you who would ban my objections from the classroom. Are you so insecure about your own belief system that you cannot even allow an argument?
Evolution may be a lot of things; however, science, it is not. You want to use the police powers of government to prevent children from being told that a supreme being may have created them as opposed to developing from a lightning bolt striking a primordial ooze deposit on the shore of an ancient ocean.
Well, why don’t you teach this garbage to your children and I will guarantee my children a proper education.
Have a really nice day.
Lester
Sounds like I detect some frustration there. Oh, that's right you're frustrated that the courts have actually upheld the separation between church and state thing. You just keep living in your little religious world there Lester.....By the way, I'm having a great day, we're about to have either a woman or a black man for president and my child is learning Evolution in the public school system!!! Sorry, things aren't going as well for you, but we must take responsibility for our own happiness.
mrsbrad04
No, I am frustrated that the courts have invented a separation between church and state. Perhaps you could quote the exact location in the constitution that references the separation of church and state. It is not there. But that’s right; you are not concerned with the notion of proof. “If the majority of people believe it, that’s good enough for me.” You probably also believe that fecal matter tastes good. After all, millions of flies can’t all be wrong.
Also, it makes perfect sense for you to be happy that either a black man or a woman may win the office of president. Clearly, both of these individuals lack any experience. Period. Yet liberals, who claim to be the voice of progress, are more concerned with the skin color and genitalia of the person running for office than with their actual qualifications. Interestingly, conservatives are the ones who dream that one day we will be judged not by the color of our skin or our genitals but by the content of our character. So much for progress.
As far as your child is concerned, let’s hope that constantly telling him he was derived from a fish doesn’t do him too much psychological harm. And let’s hope that he doesn’t ask for proof. You know how stubborn those independent thinkers can be. We wouldn’t want him questioning the status quo.
Congratulations on teaching your child that there is nothing greater than he. And the mother of the year award goes to …
hehehe
Lester
Darwin knew of your condition as far back as 1872 Link...
More Link...
If you trust the voodoo that doctors do, maybe you should go see one.
Are you saying that the amendments aren't part of the constitution? Because the PRINCIPLE of separation of church and state comes straight from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
As evidence that this is indeed what the founding father's intended, the PHRASE separation of church and state was used by that famous wordsmith, Thomas Jefferson himself, as can be seen here:
Link...
Thanks for the link to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist, I especially like the last paragraph....
Oh, the infamous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association as “proof” of the separation idea. What is interesting is, for some strange reason, the original letter from the Danbury Baptist Association to the President is never referenced. I wonder why that is. The association was concerned that government may try to influence and control religion much like England had done after the protestant reformation. The wall of separation was to prevent government out religion, not to keep religion out of the public square (something liberals would love to see happen). Notice the wording of the first amendment, it specifically forbids government from affecting religion. However, it places no restrictions on religion. Therefore, this “wall of separation” he referred to was intended only to keep government out of religion, not vice versa. Liberals, given their inability to think rationally, have interpreted this to mean that evolution in the science class cannot be questioned.
Keep in mind that this same man also stated in an earlier document that such rights we have to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were endowed by our creator. I believe he was referring to a supernatural being and not an evolutionary predecessor.
Still, a clear reading of the text shows that the first amendment simply says that the federal government will not establish an official religion. Note that at the time the states first ratified the constitution, a few of them actually had in place official state religions.
Lester
Keep in mind, this man also owned slaves. Sometimes our ideals exceed our practice. You really want to hang your hat on the supernatural?
Mr. Erickson has posted something you should attend Link.... Maybe you can spend time over the next month building your case, so you can explain to the experts how wrong they are.
You've clearly made this into a personal issue. You are so typical of what the Republican party has turned into. Any true Republican would be embarrassed of your religious right beliefs. Obviously, you only have so many arguments that you are now repeating yourself. I believe if you look back over your responses you've already used the "millions of flies on feces" analogy.
Also, looking back on my response to you, you'll see that no where did I use quotes when referring to separation between church and state in the Constitution. But that's not important to you, since you hear what you want to hear. This is obvious in your entire debate. No where have you shown us the evidence or proof that you so desire or require for Evolution when referring to intelligent design. Oh, that's right because there isn't any, it's based on faith. And let's not get into who's qualified since you voted for dumbass (I would be referring to George W.) You know the same man that you should be so proud of since God told him to run for President (scary). Again, contrary to what you automatically think, you can still believe in a higher power AND Evolution. I'm not sure who told you that you couldn't, must have just been one more thing that you refuse to listen to.
Hey, in case you're interested they're having a Darwin week at UT. Maybe you could open your mind enough to consider going. By the way, I have a feeling my child will turn out just fine. It's been real Lester.
mrsbrad04
“You've clearly made this into a personal issue.” – You’ve made it personal. Apparently, you lack the aptitude to substantiate your own views. That’s not my problem.
“Also, looking back on my response to you, you'll see that no where did I use quotes when referring to separation between church and state in the Constitution.” – What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
“No where have you shown us the evidence or proof that you so desire or require for Evolution when referring to intelligent design.” – Did you even read the title of the thread? It