Creation vs Evolution

[jbourke]

Originally posted by DennisG
You & I, Paul, believe that this is an oxymoron - I'm very curious as to how someone as obviously intelligent as Jim can find 'scientific validity' in creationism.

Neither creation or evolution are "science" per se because they deal with history. The competing models have scientific aspects but neither are "scientific" in total. Or, I suppose I should say, that either both are scientific or both are not, absent a circular argument that presumes evolution to be the only possible scientific model. I say that evolution is valid scientifically using one definition of the word "science" and invalid scientifically using another definition.

Creationism and Evolutionism are so vaguely defined by their titles that a lot of strawman arguments can be made. Patience, attention to detail, and a fair, open mind are critical to understand my position. Put frankly, I do not see the crowd as having those qualities. Some individuals, yes, but not the group.

The few that understand evolution on a technical basis are outnumbered by the masses who believe it because they were taught it in school, yet ironically assert that their opponents just believe what they were taught in church. To believe strongly in evolution, as I did, and to reject it, as I have, required in my case that I first realize just how little I knew on the subject. If you can first come to terms with just how little you actually know, versus how much you pride yourself on thinking you know, then you will have taken the first step toward a fair look at the subject.


Jim - I really don't mean to pick on you, it's just that your comment is what got me interested in this discussion in the first place. Although, you have yet to chime in on this thread.
Obviously, you'd be of the minority opinion in this particular thread, and that must be intimidating.


It's not intimidating. It's time-consuming. Everyone involved in this thread already knows evolution but most have no idea of what creationism actually is. The task in front of me is huge and requires a great deal of education before any debate can even begin.

I'll take up the issue when I have suitable time in front of me and a single opponent who is up to the task. But a thread like this doesn't interest me because I know that I can't keep up with the volume of mistakes being made.

Jim

[DennisG]

Fair enough, Jim.
I do, however, consider myself possessed of "patience, attention to detail, and a fair, open mind". Especially the last two, which is my real motivation for wanting to hear the opposing view.
I was taught evolution, and have only gleaned knowledge of creation.
I do, however consider myself agnostic and not atheist. I don't believe there is no God, but I also don't believe there is a God ;) .
I believe I don't know, and probably never will. Unless there truly is an afterlife, in which case we're all screwed! :D
Anyway, this really can be a tiring debate -
We just have to keep it like this :D and not let it get like this :mad: .
;)
Later.

[me11owman]

What do you mean evolution isn't happening now??

It most certainly is! have any of you heard of bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics?....As the population of bacteria is subjected to enviormental pressure.....(the anti-biotics that are killing them)...the ones that are less "suitable" to the new enviorment die and are not present to pass there genes on to the next generation. after a few generations of that, you have "evolved" a resistant strain of bacteria. Continue that over and over ......and what do you have?

The same thing goes for insects that are becoming resistant to insecticides.......

this stuff is going on all the time,just because it's time frame makes it hard to observe, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Does "Creationism" also debunk Geology? Have any of us actually seen a mountain range lifted up and created by geological forces? Or eroded away... or limestone like the white cliffs of Dover deposited? Sandstone ?


Jim

[me11owman]

Winds up!! gotta go to the slope :D (important stuff must come first ya know:D )

Jim

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by DennisG
SparkyPaul - I agree with you as always :D
Your opinions on this matter are the most in line with my own.
(also, from reading your posts, I do believe that you know everything;))
:)
.

I wish!:)
One thing I do know is what I don't know, so I'm always looking for answers when I get interested in something new or find a new slant on something old.
.
I think this evolution/creation thing wouldn't get the interest it does, if the past history of religion didn't show such an awful treatment of "unbelievers" when faith-based people are running the cultures.
It's the continuous attempts by these religions to get their ideas back into main-stream education, and then back into main-stream society that need to be watched for and questioned.
We don't need any more auto-de-fes or crusades.
.
The Founding Fathers had close hand experience with state-sponsored religions and the attendant horrors, which are glossed over by the zealous today. But we need look no further than any Islamic country to see how bad it can be, when the religious have supremacy over civil affairs.
Stupid, hateful, vicious acts of incredible cruelty abound, where "faith" rules instead of common sense and law.
.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by jbourke

...


It's not intimidating. It's time-consuming. Everyone involved in this thread already knows evolution but most have no idea of what creationism actually is. The task in front of me is huge and requires a great deal of education before any debate can even begin.

I'll take up the issue when I have suitable time in front of me and a single opponent who is up to the task. But a thread like this doesn't interest me because I know that I can't keep up with the volume of mistakes being made.

Jim
.
What a burden, and what an ego!
We're not up to your standards, and you won't demean yourself by descending to our level to enlighten us "poorly educated" innocents.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Lucas in Alaska



I would like the time to type every rebuttal to evolution I know of but that would take a long time, more than I have.


actually, if you have even 1 valid rebuttal, your nobel prize awaits, sir.

Originally posted by Lucas in Alaska
There is a Christian web site called Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) which uses science to help prove the validity of creation and the bible. I encourage anyone to look around the web site and see for yourself. I don't want you to feel like I'm pushing Christianity on you I just want you to see what the other side has to say. You all say you ask questions so look at some Creationist answers.


no offense, these people are LIARS. I'd just call them 'mistaken', but they are maliciously lying, and trotting out absolutely wrong information. They do this knowingly, attempting to sway the scientifically illiterate.

Originally posted by Lucas in Alaska
As far as rebuttals to Evolution here are 2 good short pages
THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION (http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-160a.htm)
The Scientific Case Against Evolution (http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html)


these pages both have serious errors. no scientists takes these arguments against evolution seriously.

I mean it... if someone had information that invalidated evolution, it would be an instant nobel prize for that person!

Originally posted by Lucas in Alaska
DennisG- I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

ok, what evidence do YOU think invalidates evolution? Lets' just take one example at a time, to keep it simple.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
Neither creation or evolution are "science" per se because they deal with history.


incorrect. evolution is falsifiable. creation is not. A scientific theory has to (be):

falsifiable (testable)
internally consistant
make predictions

what predictions does creation make?
what experiment COULD prove creation false?


Originally posted by jbourke
The competing models have scientific aspects but neither are "scientific" in total. Or, I suppose I should say, that either both are scientific or both are not, absent a circular argument that presumes evolution to be the only possible scientific model.


evolution *IS* the only possible scientific model, given the current evidence we have. Being scientific, one must also allow for new evidence. If new evidence invalidates evolution, science must throw out the theory.

Originally posted by jbourke
I say that evolution is valid scientifically using one definition of the word "science" and invalid scientifically using another definition.


let's use what the scientific communtity uses to define what science is, ok? ie: the scientific method.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Originally posted by jbourke
Creationism and Evolutionism are so vaguely defined by their titles that a lot of strawman arguments can be made.


perhaps that is true of creationism. Evolution is defined as: THE CHANGE IN THE FREQUENCY OF ALLELES WITHIN A POPULATION

that's it. nothing more.

Originally posted by jbourke
Patience, attention to detail, and a fair, open mind are critical to understand my position. Put frankly, I do not see the crowd as having those qualities. Some individuals, yes, but not the group.


ad hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your side.

Originally posted by jbourke
The few that understand evolution on a technical basis are outnumbered by the masses who believe it because they were taught it in school, yet ironically assert that their opponents just believe what they were taught in church.


the core of evolution can be understood by any highschool biology student.

Originally posted by jbourke
To believe strongly in evolution, as I did, and to reject it, as I have, required in my case that I first realize just how little I knew on the subject. If you can first come to terms with just how little you actually know, versus how much you pride yourself on thinking you know, then you will have taken the first step toward a fair look at the subject.

ok, I have several university courses in biology. do I know enough to know that I don't know much?

Originally posted by jbourke
It's not intimidating. It's time-consuming. Everyone involved in this thread already knows evolution but most have no idea of what creationism actually is. The task in front of me is huge and requires a great deal of education before any debate can even begin.

well, let's begin! just define creation for us, that's the first step.

Originally posted by jbourke
I'll take up the issue when I have suitable time in front of me and a single opponent who is up to the task. But a thread like this doesn't interest me because I know that I can't keep up with the volume of mistakes being made.
Jim

"the volume of mistakes being made"

ok, let's start with those. pick one or two, and we will run with it.

[Looooeeee!]

Good grief!!

JBourke quote>> The task in front of me is huge and requires a great deal of education before any debate can even begin. >>

I'm sorry Jim, don't you mean programming. Are we that low on the spiritual feeding chain that we have to have a complete and total re-education to understand your views...

I'm somewhat stunned, can't I say that I accept your universal view, and maybe you can try and accept mine. But frankly the 5000 year old universe sounds like God suffers from P.E. And yet again, maybe it's really just like the way Lymon paraphrased it.

Looee

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
[B]




Originally posted by Lucas in Alaska
There is a Christian web site called Institute for Creation Research which uses science to help
prove the validity of creation and the bible. I encourage anyone to look around the web site
and see for yourself. I don't want you to feel like I'm pushing Christianity on you I just want
you to see what the other side has to say. You all say you ask questions so look at some Creationist answers.

notoalmeal responded:
no offense, these people are LIARS. I'd just call them 'mistaken', but they are maliciously lying, and trotting out absolutely wrong information. They do this knowingly, attempting to sway the scientifically illiterate.




Originally posted by Lucas in Alaska
As far as rebuttals to Evolution here are 2 good short pages
THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION
[u] The Scientific Case Against Evolution [/u[

notoalmeal responded:


these pages both have serious errors. no scientists takes these arguments against evolution seriously.

I mean it... if someone had information that invalidated evolution, it would be an instant nobel prize for that person!
.
The LA Times covered the ICR about a year ago.. I went to their site, and read their stuff..
According to their own mathematics, Noah was born
100 years -before- Adam!
They can't even keep their own numbers in line!
(Adam and those other old guys had to drown in the Flood, to make the numbers even begin to make sense.)
I sent a letter to the Editor of the Times, which was printed in December 2001 ISTR.. ICR didn't like that at ALL!
...
The "science" there (at ICR)boggles the mind. "ALL animals were herbivores prior to the Fall".
How did a lion switch from asparagus to antelope? (I asked.)
It requires a complete redesign from the teeth inward, to make that switch. A carnivore which went the other direction (Panda) to herbivore has a remarkably inefficient food processing system..
There's claws.. from hooves? Long canines..from incisors? Forward looking eyes, instead of sideways..
Why are there no herbivorous snakes?
Why are there snakes at all, for that matter?
Carnivores all.

[jbourke]

..and here we go...

This is exactly why I haven't joined this thread. Ad hominem attacks are thrown at my position routinely, but the slightest hint of one from me brings a cry from the crowd.

All of you are intelligent, well educated people. Any one of you would be worthwhile to debate. My point was that I would have to pick ONE person, not try to argue against a group. It is too time-consuming to argue everyone at once.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal

perhaps that is true of creationism. Evolution is defined as: THE CHANGE IN THE FREQUENCY OF ALLELES WITHIN A POPULATION

that's it. nothing more.


Then we are both evolutionists.


"the volume of mistakes being made"

ok, let's start with those. pick one or two, and we will run with it.

No, but I will agree to a formal debate. I'll PM you with my phone number so we can discuss it person-to-person first.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Looooeeee!
I'm sorry Jim, don't you mean programming. Are we that low on the spiritual feeding chain that we have to have a complete and total re-education to understand your views...


Not a re-education. An education. You can't understand a viewpoint until it is explained to you by someone who accepts it.


I'm somewhat stunned, can't I say that I accept your universal view, and maybe you can try and accept mine.

But I do! I do accept your view. I understand it and I see why it is believable to many people. I also think it is incorrect. My viewpoint isn't hurting you any more than yours is hurting mine.

Jim

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


Then we are both evolutionists.


wow. that was easy! :)


Originally posted by jbourke

No, but I will agree to a formal debate. I'll PM you with my phone Number so we can discuss it person-to-person first.

Jim

no thanks. but if you wish, I'll write a reply to anything you write on this topic. I dont' do verbal debates.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
no thanks. but if you wish, I'll write a reply to anything you write on this topic. I dont' do verbal debates.

I don't want to do a verbal debate. I want to do a written debate.

I've PM'ed you with my phone number. Call me so we can discuss the format. I'd like to suggest we limit the number of words and rebuttals.

Jim

[Looooeeee!]

Originally posted by jbourke


Not a re-education. An education. You can't understand a viewpoint until it is explained to you by someone who accepts it.



But I do! I do accept your view. I understand it and I see why it is believable to many people. I also think it is incorrect. My viewpoint isn't hurting you any more than yours is hurting mine.

Jim

Then can we both agree we're incorrect in some way then? I'm not trying to find fault, I just think that there is a "persian flaw" that is an integer in how we explain the coming to be of our universe. And I don't see how we can avoid it, as new studies and technologies will always change the rules for percieving what's out there and what's with-inside here. Do you remember the PBS series from the UK "The Day the Universe changed"?

I'm not a person of faith, but that doesn't mean God isn't out to get me. ;)

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Looooeeee!
Then can we both agree we're incorrect in some way then? I'm not trying to find fault, I just think that there is a "persian flaw" that is an integer in how we explain the coming to be of our universe. And I don't see how we can avoid it, as new studies and technologies will always change the rules for percieving what's out there and what's with-inside here. Do you remember the PBS series from the UK "The Day the Universe changed"?


Yes! I love that series. I think of it a lot. The host had a familiar name... :)


I'm not a person of faith, but that doesn't mean God isn't out to get me. ;)

I'm not a person of faith either. I'm just trying to make sense of the data in front of me the same way everyone else is.

Jim

[Looooeeee!]

Originally posted by jbourke


Yes! I love that series. I think of it a lot. The host had a familiar name... :)

I thought you would .. :D


I'm not a person of faith either. I'm just trying to make sense of the data in front of me the same way everyone else is.

Jim :cool:

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
..and here we go...

This is exactly why I haven't joined this thread. Ad hominem attacks are thrown at my position routinely, but the slightest hint of one from me brings a cry from the crowd.

All of you are intelligent, well educated people. Any one of you would be worthwhile to debate. My point was that I would have to pick ONE person, not try to argue against a group. It is too time-consuming to argue everyone at once.

Jim

if anyone ad hominems you, then they are just as guilty. I try very hard to not throw them at people, but sometimes, i hit 'send' without re-reading a post. :(

[ETrain]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
perhaps that is true of creationism. Evolution is defined as: THE CHANGE IN THE FREQUENCY OF ALLELES WITHIN A POPULATION

As Jim stated above, there are many, many Christian/creationalist scientists who would agree with this statement, me included. What we don't always buy is that change in frequency of alleles in a population = new species = explanation of the diversity of life found on the planet.

Sure bacteria become resistant to antibiotics by a random mutation that enhances its survival. We call this a different "strain" of bacteria, not a different species. Furthermore, how many bacteria do you think are on the planet? On the dirty fork you ate with at the diner today? Needless to say, the number must be astounding. So it is not surprising that with such great numbers, they have a reasonable chance of having a mutant allele that brings about a successful phenotypical resistance to antibiotics. This liklihood is further enhanced by bacteriophage infection, and no such mechanism has been demonstrated in mammals as far as I know. Anyway, are you going to call a bacterium infected by a bacteriophage that yields resistance a "new" species than it was before? No one else does.


So we probably agree on the bacteria example (and many others that are clearly demonstrable). Where we disagree is that even with the huge amount of time afforded by typical evolutionists, I simply cannot buy there have been enough random mutations that led to successful phenotypes to give the diversity of life we see on the planet.

Furthermore: Ernst Mayr's 1947 "biological species concept" which is taught in almost every college/highschool biology textbook defines species "as a population or group of populations whose members have the potential to interbreed with one another in nature to produce viable, fertile offspring, but who cannot successfully interbreed with members of other species." (Campbell Biology, Fourth Edition pg 437). So let's think about that. In order to have a new species, we must have a mutation that leads to a phenotypical change that no longer allows that organism to interbreed with it's "old" species. So tell me then, if ONE organism receives this miraculous mutation, how can it possibly be passed on if it has been reproductively isolated from all other species? The only plausible answer I can think of is two animals would have to have the same mutation, find each other, and then reproduce. Of course there are -some- hybrids, but overwhelmingly all of these animals CANNOT reproduce, thus again invalidating their distinction as a species (see above definitioin).

So many people gladly jump from allele frequency distribution to new species to how we got all these fantastic life forms on the planet (and many evolutionists and creationalists don't even know the difference). I reserve the right to note the science for the latter is not yet proven, yet the science for the former is impeccable.

Eric

Edit: that darn spelin...

[Looooeeee!]

Eric

Have you read the book by Richard Leaky's son, (Darn I can't place his name now.) Any way the book is called "The Sixth Extinction" . In it he makes a pretty good arguement for repeated holocaustic wipe outs and niche filling as being the main prime mover for evolutional change. Would we have come into our inheiritance here if the space fragment that smashed the Yucatan peninsula missed the earth?. The answer seems to be maybe not. The thing that is consistant in all these wipe-outs is that some small groups of generalists make the gradual comeback. With the eventual filling of roles by the progeny of generalists into specialities. (Isn't that special!) We as a species presently are not that general in our niche filling anymore. (At least if we become too dependent on our technology.)

The Islands of New Zealand are a good case in point, esp the weta's, the carnivore parrots, the extinct Moa, the giant Annelids, (earthworms) and such. Certain types of prosperous isolation with reduced competion will trigger boom and bust population growth patterns that will eventually disperse into a more even filling of niches by the species involved. The book also has a good message about our getting too specialized, in that we can trigger our own extinction by our success at changing our world, without having to suffer through a LARGE cometary fragment visit.

Looee

[Gman2]

I thought that in the creationist dogma, there was no room for dinosaurs.

Only in some fundamentalist perspectives. As I said, the bible refers once to meeting places of intelligent beings predating things as we know them. This could be anything. The bible is not all inclusive and it never claimed to be. Only fundamentalists have stated that. There is a universe ot things not referred to and not because they are not true but only they are not referred to. Most of the old testament is about the jews and their destiny and they do not even have it figured out.

In the beginning was the word etc. There is a force that expresses itself on the order of the universe. That force was present from the beginning of nothing. This is obvious in the structure of dna and in the anti entropic aspects of constantly renewing cell structure.

Macroevolution either happens so quickly that the branching trees will never be found and there is no good theory for this or that same nonsensical overly exuberant intelligent force is shoving it across those macro divides. Microevolution is not disputed by even the fundamentalists. There is enough of an uncertainty about macro issues to call the philosophical jump towards straight evolution faith. Is it based on provable science? Certainly. Those gaps are still negative information. This is not just no info. We will never account for these entirely. Will the bible ever reveal all there is to know? It was never meant to.

[MrBungle]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
I think this evolution/creation thing wouldn't get the interest it does, if the past history of religion didn't show such an awful treatment of "unbelievers" when faith-based people are running the cultures.
It's the continuous attempts by these religions to get their ideas back into main-stream education, and then back into main-stream society that need to be watched for and questioned.
We don't need any more auto-de-fes or crusades.



This is ONE of (not the) reasons that I cannot believe in any religion.
Too many 'modern' religions seem hell-bent(pun intended) on converting the non-religous and those of another religous belief.

Just look at all the religous shows on TV, with their faith/touch healers that are just crying out for more converts to hand over cash donations, or to sell books to at inflated prices.

Look at all the Christian 'Missionaries' that are today heading over to Muslim countries to 'destroy' the Islamic belief. (their own words from a recent magazine article, mentioned below.)
These Missionaries attend Christian missionary schools and lectures that teach them how to get their way into Muslim countries as English teachers.
Some excerpts from a recent article in The Australian Magazine, Aug 24-25 - 2002, in which a few of these missionaries were interviewed at a training centre(brainwashing centre, as some here might say):
---"I see it as a false religion and I'd like to see it be gone" says Kim McHugh, a 36-year-old CIU student who is training to convert Iranian refugees in Turkey. Her husband, Brent, agrees. "If they don't have a chance to experiance jesus," he says, "they're all going to hell."
---Dedrick believes Islam is the work of the Devil. "people cheer at baseball games," Derick says. " I cheer at worship services. And when i go to a culture 10,000 miles away and don't see that righteousness, that holiness, reflected in that culture, I get sad. Satan has decieved them away from a relationship with their creator, God"
---"My goal is not to convert a Muslim," says Al Dobra, a 45-year-old ........ who befriends Muslim businessmen in Niarobi and then tries to convince them of Islams fallacies. "My goal is to plant a tiny seed that will fester and gnaw and grow, so that eventually they will begin to question their religion. My prayer is that they will become restless sleepers and troubled by what they hear. Thats a horrible thing to wish on someone."

Then WHY do it?
Who are they to say that their belief is the 'correct' and 'right' one? Why must they 'destroy' other religions? Because its POWER over the people, its the MONEY from cash donations. They don't admit to this ofcourse, thats just my belief.(I hear moaning) I'm not suggesting that the missionaries are wrong, but who are they to tell the Muslims that THEY are wrong?
To me, the staggering number of different religions that have existed around the world, those that still exist, and the fact that alot of them have totally different gods, some more than one, and many don't even have a Christ, suggests to me that NONE of them are right. They all have one thing in common though, that there IS a god, or a higher being, of some sort.

Look at the number of 'doorknockers' that try desperately to convert the unsuspecting victim, they won't take no for an answer and leave you alone happy that you have your own beliefs, they don't even want to respect the fact that you have your own belief and leave you be. No matter how hard you try, they stubbornly refuse to move from your doorstep.

Both my parents are religous, and both have different religous beliefs, but they were kind enough to NOT push any of their beliefs onto me. They were happy to answer any questions I had and they did this in a very good way, they never once in my entire life preached to me and they never, ever, forced me to go to a church. They were happy to let me form my own beliefs about the world around me, they did this because I am me and deserve to make up my own mind on these matters, even if they ARE wrong. For this I thank them.

Some of you may think that the above is my own attempt at converting the religious, but I assure you it is not, It's just an observation and I welcome any corrections. I'm not saying here that I dont believe in creation, I'm actually torn both ways, evolution makes sense to me, but then so does some of the creation stuff.

Im sorry, I know this was off topic, and more about religion than the original question of Creation vs Evolution, but hey, the whole tread has been slipping off-topic anyway, and this is the off-topic forum afterall ;)

Well, I can't even go through and edit for spelling errors, continuity or whatnot, because I'm late for work.
Please don't be offended by the above, they are, afterall, only my view, and are of no real threat to yours.
If you have something to say, please say it politely, I've tried my best to do that in the short space of time I had to type it.

Simon

Actually, I will just add one more bit.
I do realise that not all of the members of these religions are like this.
My Mum is a Jahova's Witness(spelling?), she was brought up that way by her father, and she is absolutelly discusted by the doorknocking methods used by the Jahova's to try and convert others. It makes her sick. This is one of the reasons she never forced her beliefs onto me as her father did onto her.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by ETrain


As Jim stated above, there are many, many Christian/creationalist scientists who would agree with this statement, me included. What we don't always buy is that change in frequency of alleles in a population = new species = explanation of the diversity of life found on the planet.


well, once you allow for ANY evolution, the rise of a species can follow.

take a look at the hawaiian silversword alliance:

this group of a few dozen species came from a single pacific coast tarweed ancestor. Once it found itself on hawaii, it flourished, and daughter species were split off from the line.

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm

take a look at how different some of the silverswords look!

Originally posted by ETrain
Sure bacteria become resistant to antibiotics by a random mutation that enhances its survival. We call this a different "strain" of bacteria, not a different species.


strain is nearly meaningless... I would suppose you could say that the population has a high frequency of antibiotic-resistant alleles.

Originally posted by ETrain
Furthermore, how many bacteria do you think are on the planet? On the dirty fork you ate with at the diner today? Needless to say, the number must be astounding. So it is not surprising that with such great numbers, they have a reasonable chance of having a mutant allele that brings about a successful phenotypical resistance to antibiotics.


correct. and the same with any population of organisims. for example, if you had the CCR5 mutation in both copies of your chromosomes (homozygous), you would have complete immunity to HIV. That is a handy allele for some people. Of course, europeans are much more likely to have this allele, most other races do not.

Originally posted by ETrain
This liklihood is further enhanced by bacteriophage infection, and no such mechanism has been demonstrated in mammals as far as I know.


Do you mean gene transfer between organisims? or strictly that which is caused by bacteriophages?

I'm not aware of any gene transfer mechanisims in the higher orders of animals. Maybe a search would turn some up.

Originally posted by ETrain
Anyway, are you going to call a bacterium infected by a bacteriophage that yields resistance a "new" species than it was before? No one else does.


only if it undergoes repoductive isolation will it become a new species.

Originally posted by ETrain
So we probably agree on the bacteria example (and many others that are clearly demonstrable). Where we disagree is that even with the huge amount of time afforded by typical evolutionists, I simply cannot buy there have been enough random mutations that led to successful phenotypes to give the diversity of life we see on the planet.


well, I understand your doubt, but there is strong genetic, fossil and geological evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by ETrain
Furthermore: Ernst Mayr's 1947 "biological species concept" which is taught in almost every college/highschool biology textbook defines species "as a population or group of populations whose members have the potential to interbreed with one another in nature to produce viable, fertile offspring, but who cannot successfully interbreed with members of other species." (Campbell Biology, Fourth Edition pg 437).


Originally posted by ETrain
So let's think about that. In order to have a new species, we must have a mutation that leads to a phenotypical change that no longer allows that organism to interbreed with it's "old" species. So tell me then, if ONE organism receives this miraculous mutation, how can it possibly be passed on if it has been reproductively isolated from all other species?


stolen from: http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/barrylab/public_html/classes/old_animal_behavior/Speciation_Mechanisms.html

"Hybrid sterility definitely separates two species, although it is not the sole criterion

Reproductive isolation could however be due to behavioral or morphological blocks to mating (i.e., hybrids are possible but unlikely given such blocks).

Barriers are not merely geographic, but have a biological origin and arise during the process of speciation.

Isolating mechanisms:

A) Premating isolating mechanisms -- prevent union of gametes -> zygote

mates do not meet (seasonal or habitat isolation)
mates meet but do not mate (ethological or behavioral isolation)
mates meet but no sperm transfer (mechanical isolation)

B) Post-mating isolating mechanisms -- varying degrees of hybrid sterility

sperm transfered but dies before fertilization
zygote dies
zygote produces an F1 adult that has reduced viability (survival)
hybrid is viable, but partially or completely sterile (fecundity) or the F2 is deficient.

Species might simultaneously possess both premating and post-mating isolating mechanisms. "

Originally posted by ETrain
The only plausible answer I can think of is two animals would have to have the same mutation, find each other, and then reproduce.


as I quoted above, there are several mechanisims for reproductive isolation.

Originally posted by ETrain
So many people gladly jump from allele frequency distribution to new species to how we got all these fantastic life forms on the planet (and many evolutionists and creationalists don't even know the difference). I reserve the right to note the science for the latter is not yet proven, yet the science for the former is impeccable.


of course. because NOBODY could take a journey of a hundred miles simply by walking. I mean... look how puny those little feet are. even if you took thousands of steps, you would not be very far at all. Therefore, there must be some other way for people on foot to travel long distances.

many small changes in allele frequencies add up to huge changes over time.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul

One thing I do know is what I don't know, so I'm always looking for answers when I get interested in something new or find a new slant on something old.


there are very few people indeed who question what they 'know', and even fewer who know enough to realize how little they truly know. To become educated is to move from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
I think this evolution/creation thing wouldn't get the interest it does, if the past history of religion didn't show such an awful treatment of "unbelievers" when faith-based people are running the cultures.
It's the continuous attempts by these religions to get their ideas back into main-stream education, and then back into main-stream society that need to be watched for and questioned.
We don't need any more auto-de-fes or crusades.



evolution is not a problem for science any more, although the intensity of the rage about it is clear evidence that it remains an insufferable problem for certain theologies; Darwin and the apes are even worse nightmares for some than Galileo

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by Lucas in Alaska
[B. . . . . There is a Christian web site called Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) which uses science to help prove the validity of creation and the bible. . . . . [/B]

They do not use science at all. They discredit all the facts out there.
Psuedo-science at its' best.

VP

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by Viper Pilot


They do not use science at all. They discredit all the facts out there.
Psuedo-science at its' best.

VP
.
I believe ICR shares offices with the Institution for Historical Research, which engages in Holocaust denial.
Historical revisionists.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by DennisG
I'm actually not looking for a rebuttal to evolution, but scientific evidence for creation.


The evidence for creation is the same evidence for evolution, but interpreted differently. Namely, the fossil record and genetics.


Basically, you can swap Creation for Evolution in that argument and get the same results for the other side of the argument.
[snip]
As far as I understand the situation, both sides are theorizing, and neither theory can be proven.


Precisely. "Evolution" has several meanings:

1. The variability within a species
2. The alleged ability of mutation to account for inter-species change.
3. The assertion that life on earth is the result of millions of years of this process.

Creationists accept the 1st meaning readily and dub it "micro-evolution." They see the genetic evidence as contradicting the second meaning (macro evolution) and the fossil evidence as contradicting the third meaning (what most people call "evolution").


The difference, as I understand it, is that the theory of evolution is based on scientific facts and the theory of creation is based on a book of stories.


No, both are based on the same data. I am a creationist because of what I see in the fossil record and what I know of genetics.


Here's a question for you... "The Scientific [not] Case Against Evolution" discusses the fossil record and seems to accept fossils as real. I thought that in the creationist dogma, there was no room for dinosaurs.


I've never heard of such a silly thing. I can only imagine what other garbage has been put in your head by anti-creationists.


The author never addresses the fact that these fossils are known to be millions of years old, but that the Earth according to the Bible is only 5000 years old. Correct?


First of all, the earth is not 5000 years old according to the bible. Theologically, I am completely flexible on creation. It is a strawman argument to insist that creationists demand a six day creation, a literal flood, etc. Anti-creationists concentrate on those arguments because they are easily targetable as non-scientific. If evolution were believable to me scientifically, there is plenty of room in my Christian beliefs to accomodate for it. I simply see no reason to do so.

But more importantly, you are making a huge assumption that fossils are "known" to be millions of years old. There is no dating method that can be used on a fossil. Evolutionists use inferences from the geologic features of the surrounding area to affix a date.


I'm willing to accept that evolution may not be proveable, and therefore may not be fact - But I've not been shown any evidence that creation is any different.


Yes, by the third definition it is not scientific. By the other definitions, it may be a scientific theory, but still one that is not probable.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul

I believe ICR shares offices with the Institution for Historical Research, which engages in Holocaust denial.
Historical revisionists.

Paul,

If you aren't going to contribute more than ad hominem attacks then just stay out of the discussion.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by me11owman
have any of you heard of bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics?....As the population of bacteria is subjected to enviormental pressure.....(the anti-biotics that are killing them)...the ones that are less "suitable" to the new enviorment die and are not present to pass there genes on to the next generation. after a few generations of that, you have "evolved" a resistant strain of bacteria. Continue that over and over ......and what do you have?


You have the same kind of bacteria you started with, but with some different qualities. This is variability within a species, which does not prove evolution across a species.

I could start with poodles and end up with great danes. The genetic information is available in the poodle to do so. But I could not start with a poodle and end up with a giraffe. The laws of genetics make this impossible.


The same thing goes for insects that are becoming resistant to insecticides.......


Yes, precisely the same thing. Variability within a species. Like pepper moths and short-beaked finches.


Does "Creationism" also debunk Geology? Have any of us actually seen a mountain range lifted up and created by geological forces? Or eroded away... or limestone like the white cliffs of Dover deposited? Sandstone ?


I agree with you that many things which haven't been witnessed nevertheless occured. An argument in both of our favors.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul

I think this evolution/creation thing wouldn't get the interest it does, if the past history of religion didn't show such an awful treatment of "unbelievers" when faith-based people are running the cultures.


Ad hominem and irrelevant to the discussion.


It's the continuous attempts by these religions to get their ideas back into main-stream education, and then back into main-stream society that need to be watched for and questioned.
We don't need any more auto-de-fes or crusades.


Nor holocausts or Soviet purges. Take it to another thread.


The Founding Fathers had close hand experience with state-sponsored religions and the attendant horrors, which are glossed over by the zealous today. But we need look no further than any Islamic country to see how bad it can be, when the religious have supremacy over civil affairs.
Stupid, hateful, vicious acts of incredible cruelty abound, where "faith" rules instead of common sense and law.
.

and again.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
evolution is falsifiable. creation is not. A scientific theory has to (be):

falsifiable (testable)
internally consistant
make predictions


Some parts of evolution are falsifiable. Others are not. It is impossible to falsify the thought that evolution is what caused a rat to turn into a bat, for example.

Explain to me how the following statement can be falsified: invertebrates evolved into vertebrates.


what predictions does creation make?


Primarily lack of transitional forms and fixidity of kinds.


what experiment COULD prove creation false?


Nothing can prove it false as a history of origins. Same thing with evolution. Neither viewpoints on earth history are scientific.


evolution *IS* the only possible scientific model, given the current evidence we have. Being scientific, one must also allow for new evidence. If new evidence invalidates evolution, science must throw out the theory.


Then the introduction of evidence that contradicts evolutionary assumptions should not cause anyone to get upset. And there should be no argument against bringing it up in a classroom.


let's use what the scientific communtity uses to define what science is, ok? ie: the scientific method.


The entire scientific community, or just the anti-creationist scientific community?

Stop dividing the world into "scientists" and "creationists". There are creationist scientists and evolutionary scientists. Any other terminology is an ad hominem.


1. Observe some aspect of the universe.


Ok, let's take the fossil record for example.


2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.


I note that the forms found in the fossil record appear suddenly in no easily discernable order and without transitions.


3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.


I predict that I will not find transitional forms; that every time I see a fossil of a triceratops it will be just like the other triceratops.


4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.


Ok. Doing that.

Meanwhile, evolutionists are busy doing the same; redefining evolution so that it can be explained despite the lack of evidence from the fossil record.

Creationists use the same data but reject the a priori assumption that the causes of the universe are naturalistic.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
well, once you allow for ANY evolution, the rise of a species can follow.


Really? Explain the process by which a dog could be turned into a cat through the change in frequency of alleles.


take a look at the hawaiian silversword alliance:

this group of a few dozen species came from a single pacific coast tarweed ancestor. Once it found itself on hawaii, it flourished, and daughter species were split off from the line.


The page has a few pictures and text, but no evidence. The closest thing you have for evidence on that page is this assertion: "The evidence favors the conclusion that all of this diversity evolved from a single ancestor that colonized Hawaii by way of long-distance dispersal from North America."

So you have an assertion that there is evidence, but no actual evidence. Provide it.


of course. because NOBODY could take a journey of a hundred miles simply by walking. I mean... look how puny those little feet are. even if you took thousands of steps, you would not be very far at all. Therefore, there must be some other way for people on foot to travel long distances.


The analogy would be more like this:
1. Micro-evolution is the belief that people can walk.
2. Macro-evolution is the belief that people can walk to the moon.
3. Evolution is the belief that Julius Caesar walked to the moon and back.

We agree on the first thing (micro-evolution). We disagree on the second (macro-evolution). And we disagree that the first and/or second can be used to prove the third.

Jim

[Mitch G]

Jim, you are doing a very good job defending Creationism, imho. I understand how the same fossil evidence can be used to support a different beliefs (i.e. Creationism and Evolutionism).

But, I would like to understand more of what the Creationist belief is. I would like to understand how Creationism explains the existence of various species both extant and extinct. Also, I would like to understand some of the key aspects of the timeline involved here.

For example, is the premise that all species were created simultaneously and then things progressed to the present day whereby some species went extinct such as Triceratops while others didn't - such as human beings?

Or, is the premise that these species are created pretty much around the same time generally accepted by an Evolutionist as the time for the arrival of the given species? So, Triceratops was created 100 million years ago (or whatever - don't ding me on dates, here) and humans were created 2 millioin years ago (or whatever).

And, is the premise that a conscious omnipotent being performed these creations? Or, is the premise that an omnipotent being created a universe in which such creations occur as part of the natural law of this universe?



Mitch

[Sparky Paul]

JB:"The evidence for creation is the same evidence for evolution, but interpreted differently. Namely, the fossil
record and genetics. "
.
What is the difference then in this interpretation?
Scientists relate the fossil record thru enormous periods of time, noting changes in forms, disappearances of forms which never reappear, tranistions in forms, all over long periods of time.
What is the creationist story for the changes in form which result in homo sapiens or the horse?
.

JB:"I note that the forms found in the fossil record appear suddenly in no easily discernable order and without transitions. "
JB:"Primarily lack of transitional forms and fixidity of kinds. "
.
This is so in error, it can't be a view based on reasearch. Or knowledge of research in the field.
.
JB:" Really? Explain the process by which a dog could be turned into a cat through the change in frequency of alleles."
A dog is a dog, a cat is a cat, but way back when,
an ancestoral species divided into the two niches these currently occupy thru enviornmental pressures; puncutated equilibrium being a reasonable explanation.. there are others.
.
JB:"I predict that I will not find transitional forms; that every time I see a fossil of a triceratops it will be just like the
other triceratops."
Triceratops is a member of the sub-order Ceratopsia. Others include
Anchiceratops (late Cretaceous); Bagaceratops (late Cretaceous);Brachyoceratops (late Cretaceous);Psit Chasmosaurus (earliest long-frilled Ceratopsian, late Cretaceous);Leptoceratops (no trace of horns, late Cretaceous); Monoclonius (single horned. late Cretaceous);Pachyrhionsaurus (no horns, late Cretaceous);Pentaceratops (5 horns, late Cretaceous);Protoceratops (late Cretaceous);
Psittacosaurus (early Cretaceous);Stryracosaurus (6 horns, late Cretaceous);Torosaurus(largest frill on a Ceratops, late Cretaceous);Triceratops (20 species identified, late Cretaceous).
Distributed mainly in western North America and Asia.
Depending on where you dig, you could find any of these, some coexistent with others of the same infraorder.

.
no:"what experiment COULD prove creation false?"
JB:"Nothing can prove it false as a history of origins. Same thing with evolution. Neither viewpoints on earth history are scientific."
And:
JB:"Stop dividing the world into "scientists" and "creationists". There are creationist scientists and evolutionary scientists. Any other terminology is an ad hominem. "
So when creation needs to be a science, it's a science. When it's not, it's not.
Remarkably fluid definition.

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by jbourke
Really? Explain the process by which a dog could be turned into a cat through the change in frequency of alleles. . . . . .

Evolution explains the existence of a NEW species. It say that genes can turn one pre-existing species into another existing species,

As far as the Institution for Creation Research, I heard Dr. Morris lecture in the '80s, and he would be better believed if he were selling snake oil to the settlers.

His arguments are not based on reason, and he knows little of the evolutionary process.

He was literally laughed off-podium by many of the learned researchers in that field.

His antics are more like a 3-card Monte dealer . . . . all misdirection, no facts.

VP

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
What is the difference then in this interpretation?


The primary difference is that creationists presume creation and evolutionists presume evolution. A fossil does not by itself imply age or phylogenic ancestry of any kind. It is the surrounding assumptions that make dating and ancestry something that can be postulated. If those assumptions are removed and replaced with other assumptions the entire dataset can look just as plausible in a different light.


Scientists relate the fossil record thru enormous periods of time,


Using an evolutionary assumption.


noting changes in forms, disappearances of forms which never reappear

"changes" is an evolutionary assumption because it implies ancestry which can't be proven. The proper word is "differences".

As for disappearances, several times evolutionists have been fooled by assuming a species died out millions of years ago only to find that live ones are still extant (the coelecanth for example). In those cases the evolutionary assumptions were clearly wrong.

In the case of the coelecanth, the story is quite telling of just how incorrect dating methods using the geologic column can be. The coelecanth is found only in rocks presumed to be about 100 million years old. There is no way to know that this same mistake isn't being repeated over and over. The animals we know of as extinct may have become extinct at any point in the past.

tranistions in forms, all over long periods of time.
What is the creationist story for the changes in form which result in homo sapiens or the horse?


Your argument is too vague, but my answer will probably be either "variabilities within a species" or "separate species."


JB:"I note that the forms found in the fossil record appear suddenly in no easily discernable order and without transitions. "
JB:"Primarily lack of transitional forms and fixidity of kinds. "

This is so in error, it can't be a view based on reasearch. Or knowledge of research in the field.


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen Gould [Ph.D.-Ardent Evolutionist and Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University], "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?", Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1 [January 1980], p. 127.)

The part about "functional intermediates" is very important. For evolution to be true, every intermediate form must be functional and an improvement of the previous form. I can conjure up thousands of examples of difficulties for evolutionists to ponder. Consider the usefulness of half a wing, half an eye, etc. Many components of our bodies are completely useless unless fully formed.


JB:" Really? Explain the process by which a dog could be turned into a cat through the change in frequency of alleles."
A dog is a dog, a cat is a cat, but way back when,
an ancestoral species divided into the two niches these currently occupy thru enviornmental pressures; puncutated equilibrium being a reasonable explanation.. there are others.


I asked a specific question. Explain the process by which a dog could be turned into a cat through the change in frequency of alleles. A restatement of evolutionary theory is not an answer.


JB:"I predict that I will not find transitional forms; that every time I see a fossil of a triceratops it will be just like the
other triceratops."
Triceratops is a member of the sub-order Ceratopsia. Others include
Anchiceratops (late Cretaceous); Bagaceratops (late Cretaceous);Brachyoceratops (late Cretaceous);Psit Chasmosaurus (earliest long-frilled Ceratopsian, late Cretaceous);Leptoceratops (no trace of horns, late Cretaceous); Monoclonius (single horned. late Cretaceous);Pachyrhionsaurus (no horns, late Cretaceous);Pentaceratops (5 horns, late Cretaceous);Protoceratops (late Cretaceous);
Psittacosaurus (early Cretaceous);Stryracosaurus (6 horns, late Cretaceous);Torosaurus(largest frill on a Ceratops, late Cretaceous);Triceratops (20 species identified, late Cretaceous).
Distributed mainly in western North America and Asia.
Depending on where you dig, you could find any of these, some coexistent with others of the same infraorder.


The above doesn't have to do with my prediction at all. I made no comments on the number of Ceratopsia. My point is that we find many examples of triceratops which are all easily identifiable. If evolution is the result of millions of years of slow changes then it should be impossible to organize all the different Ceratopsia so nicely.


no:"what experiment COULD prove creation false?"
JB:"Nothing can prove it false as a history of origins. Same thing with evolution. Neither viewpoints on earth history are scientific."
So when creation needs to be a science, it's a science. When it's not, it's not.
Remarkably fluid definition.

Maybe you missed the word "neither"?

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Viper Pilot
Evolution explains the existence of a NEW species. It say that genes can turn one pre-existing species into another existing species,


You bet. That's exactly what it says. Now give me a mechanism to show me how.

I repeat: Explain the process by which a dog could be turned into a cat through the change in frequency of alleles.


His antics are more like a 3-card Monte dealer . . . . all misdirection, no facts.


Another ad hominem. Stick to the subject, please.

Jim

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by jbourke
. . . . . "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen Gould [Ph.D.-Ardent Evolutionist and Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University], "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?", Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1 [January 1980], p. 127.). . . . . . . . Jim

S.J. Gould is a proponent of the Punctuated Equilibrium branch of evolution. The "nagging problem" he refers to is the GRADUAL changes. I tend to go along with his theories, which are still evolutionary.

VP

[Sparky Paul]

JB:" Consider the usefulness of half a wing, half an eye, etc. Many components of our bodies are completely useless unless fully formed. "
.
An old one.. "Half a wing".. feathers developed as radiators on bird's ancestors. The flying utility came later. And with bilateral symmetry the norm, the "half wing" wouldn't be only on one side.
It would provide a means of lightening the load on the feet while running away, and by flapping and running away, seperation from the ground and the pursuer as the species possessing the item survived over time.
"Half an eye". Even the slightest ability to detect a difference in light and shadow is useful
if only to create an escape response to some bottom dweller when a predator passes between it and a light source. Escaping means the potential for passing on the rudimentary eye, which permits improvements thru the ability to survive better.
Eyes have evolved several times in vastly different organisms, from flies to octupus, and are different in these animals. There is no one "correct" eye. And partial vision is far superior to none at all!
.
When looking at what people and animals can make do without in terms of components, very little is required, of all the parts we have, to be minimally functional at worst.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Viper Pilot
S.J. Gould is a proponent of the Punctuated Equilibrium branch of evolution. The "nagging problem" he refers to is the GRADUAL changes. I tend to go along with his theories, which are still evolutionary.


That wasn't my point. I said: "I note that the forms found in the fossil record appear suddenly in no easily discernable order and without transitions. "

Gould's comment supports my claim. The fact that Gould postulated punctuated equilibrium (a type of evolution that occurs rapidly and leaves no trace in the fossil record), is also consistent with my assertion.

If evolutionists of the "Punctuated Equilibrium" branch are right about the lack of transitional forms then so am I. If they are wrong, then it is up to the traditional Darwinists to produce the transitional forms to make their case.

Jim

[Sparky Paul]

JB:"The primary difference is that creationists presume creation and evolutionists presume evolution. A fossil does not by itself imply age or phylogenic ancestry of any kind. It is the surrounding assumptions that make dating and
ancestry something that can be postulated. If those assumptions are removed and replaced with other assumptions the entire dataset can look just as plausible in a different light."
.
???
A fossil considered in place, with the place determined by well-established processes of investigation relative to age generates the age of the fossil.
What "other assumptions" are there?
How do these "assumptions" generate an equally plausible explanation for the existence of the fossil in its place?

[Sparky Paul]

PB:"Scientists relate the fossil record thru enormous periods of time,"

JB:"Using an evolutionary assumption. "
.
This assumption is based on observation. Fossils, where stone replaces bone, don't occur "overnight, i.e, in a few thousand years". Nor do they get a few thousand feet underground beneath layers of sediment and volcanic deposits.
Observing the rate of sedimentary deposition in itself dictates an extreme period of time for the processes. When fossils which are like no others before it or after it occur, the fossil's age can be established.
What other explanation can there be?

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
JB:" Consider the usefulness of half a wing, half an eye, etc. Many components of our bodies are completely useless unless fully formed. "
.
An old one.. "Half a wing".. feathers developed as radiators on bird's ancestors. The flying utility came later. And with bilateral symmetry the norm, the "half wing" wouldn't be only on one side.


The intermediate forms are problematic. A sliver of a wing doesn't provide enough benefit to better the survivability of the mutated gene. And a forelimb would be hampered far before the wing would be useful.

Evolution presumes that millions of small mutations combine to turn a perfectly good forelimb into a perfectly good wing. In between these two discrete states we have millions of examples of half-wing/half-forelimbs that will neither allow the animal to fly or permit him to crawl/grasp/etc in a manner that improves survivability.

A random process has no chance of creating anything that flies. Flight is the result of complex considerations as people here well know. A sequence of transitions that IN CONCERT and RANDOMLY result from the proper mutations to transfer it's CG to the correct location, develop steering mechanisms, atrophy its fingers/paws, develop feathers, and have it's skeletal structure rearranged to accomodate extra bones and muscles, is impossible to conceive.


It would provide a means of lightening the load on the feet while running away, and by flapping and running away, seperation from the ground and the pursuer as the species possessing the item survived over time.


If it happened, then that is how. But believing in such a thing requires far too much faith for me.


"Half an eye". Even the slightest ability to detect a difference in light and shadow is useful


Even such simple eyesight is only possible through a combination of many different, wholly functional parts that work together.


if only to create an escape response to some bottom dweller when a predator passes between it and a light source. Escaping means the potential for passing on the rudimentary eye, which permits improvements thru the ability to survive better.


How can an organism pass on such a structure if it doesn't have a mate with a matching gene? There is no genetic mechanism by which new structures can be carried on in a population.

Jim

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by jbourke
. . . . The fact that Gould postulated punctuated equilibrium (a type of evolution that occurs rapidly and leaves no trace in the fossil record), is also consistent with my assertion. . . . .

If it occured (rapidly or slowly) has no bearing on whether the species left fossils. Only one in a billion (give or take a few million) leave records of their existence as fossils to be found later. That is a problem with fossilization. I occurs so seldom, that leaving remnanats of an extinct species is difficult. Then finding that remnant has very high odds also.

That does not exclude the existence of the species, though, just a lack of data.

If only it was so easy!!!

VP

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul

This assumption is based on observation. Fossils, where stone replaces bone, don't occur "overnight, i.e, in a few thousand years".


Untrue. Fossils can be created very rapidly.

How would an animal such as a shrimp be preserved in a fossil if it didn't happen quickly? The soft tissues are gone in a matter of days.

Here is a link to an article published today. A dinosaur has been found with it's skin and stomach contents fossilized. This would be impossible if it took a long time to create a fossil: http://www.msnbc.com/news/819818.asp


Nor do they get a few thousand feet underground beneath layers of sediment and volcanic deposits.


Why not? Earthquakes, volcanoes, and other geologic processes can act either slowly or rapidly depending on the circumstances.


Observing the rate of sedimentary deposition in itself dictates an extreme period of time for the processes.


Fossils are commonly found crossing layer boundaries. In some cases a fossil of a petrified tree might cross over a dozen or more layers. This proves that these layers were laid down at one time and makes it likely, to me, that they remained relatively fluid for some time as well, perhaps several months. During that time, many of the smaller particles found their way to the top of the fluid while the larger particles found their way to the bottom. The hardened result appears stratififed, but the process used to create the strata is rapid.

In other cases there are clearly places where layers were laid down individually. But the existence of layers is not proof of any particular time frame, or even of a relative time frame as the layers in one area can't be certainly related to the layers in another.


When fossils which are like no others before it or after it occur, the fossil's age can be established.


The fossil record isn't laid out neatly with the "new" animals on top and the "old" animals on bottom. The really "old" animals (single-celled, simple animals) appear all over the place in high amounts of disorder. The "new" animals (mammals, dinos, etc), appear in geographically distant areas from each other.

There is no place on earth where you can start digging and proceed to uncover progressively older fossils.

The rocks surrounding the fossils are labelled "old" and "new" according to the presumptions about how "old" or "new" the fossils are that they contain. It is a very consistent, but circular, process.


What other explanation can there be?


Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Viper Pilot
If it occured (rapidly or slowly) has no bearing on whether the species left fossils. Only one in a billion (give or take a few million) leave records of their existence as fossils to be found later. That is a problem with fossilization. I occurs so seldom, that leaving remnanats of an extinct species is difficult. Then finding that remnant has very high odds also.

That does not exclude the existence of the species, though, just a lack of data.


So you agree that evolution isn't supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence?

The issue isn't the number of fossils that are left by a species, it is the lack of transitional fossils. The transition from invertebrates to vertebrates took millions of years, and yet there are no transitional forms to document it. We have billions of invertebrate fossils. Why no transitional forms?

Jim

[Viper Pilot]

Some FACTS regarding Creationism (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm)

This may shed some light on the Creationist Movement and the basis of their pseudo-science mentality.

It's long, but worth reading if you are interested in learning the facts of Evolution vs Creationism.

VP

[Viper Pilot]

Originally posted by jbourke
. . . . So you agree that evolution isn't supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence?. . . Jim

What evidence there is does support evolution, though. Creationism ignores the fact that the time period (as you said yourself . . . millions of years) even exists.

Read the article I posted above to see the lack of any scientific logic involved.

I, myself, am not a Darwinian Evolutionist, but, IMHO, he did a very good job of explaining his THEORY for the amount of evidence available in his time. Much more evidence has been obtained in the 150 some years since he proposed his theory.

Face it, before Darwin, there was very few quests for fossils. Great steps have been made since his proposal. Greater ones are probably down the road, huh??

VP

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by jbourke

...
Untrue. Fossils can be created very rapidly.

How would an animal such as a shrimp be preserved in a fossil if it didn't happen quickly? The soft tissues are gone in a matter of days.

Here is a link to an article published today. A dinosaur has been found with it's skin and stomach contents fossilized. This would be impossible if it took a long time to create a fossil: http://www.msnbc.com/news/819818.asp

...
Jim
.

From the article....
" Mummified fossils are by no means like the
linen-wrapped Egyptian remains from mere thousands of
years ago. Rather, the specimens have turned to minerals in
such a way that they preserve the look of the skin and
internal tissue. In the past, scientists have theorized that
mummified dinosaur flesh was dried out before it became a
fossil. But Murphy and his fellow researchers believe
Leonardo took a different path to posterity.
“We think that it was buried in wet river sand around
77 million years ago, and much of the flesh was intact when
fossilization started,” said Dave Trexler, paleontologist with
Timescale Adventures. “The pollen from its stomach also
shows that the environment was too wet for much
desiccation to take place before burial.”
.
Soft tissues aren't unknown in fossils, just rare.
The animals in the Burgess shale left any number of imprints of soft tissues at the very beginning of life 500 million years ago. Getting an actual 'hard copy' takes a lot of luck in terms of the proper conditions to preserve the sample from decay.
I've seen another such dinosaur with the heart in place, on Discovery.
Why would there be "soft tissue fossils" of shrimp and not T. Rex? Many many more shrimp candidates.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by jbourke
...

Fossils are commonly found crossing layer boundaries. In some cases a fossil of a petrified tree might cross over a dozen or more layers. This proves that these layers were laid down at one time and makes it likely, to me, that they remained relatively fluid for some time as well, perhaps several months. During that time, many of the smaller particles found their way to the top of the fluid while the larger particles found their way to the bottom. The hardened result appears stratififed, but the process used to create the strata is rapid.
...


Jim
Is this "tree" vertical?
In the life of a tree, it's concievable in a geologically active area layering on a rapid basis can occur.. Flood plains being a good candidate. Alternating years of deposit and no deposit can quickly add layers.
And it could have laid undisturbed in its formative layer and been shocked into a different orientation for the subsequent layers to form around it (invoking a Richter 6).
Along the 14 Freeway from LA to Palmdale we can see where the Pacfic Plate is overthrusting the North American Plate. Many many such layering events are visible, with riverbed deposits, ocean bottom deposits, deserts, laying one on the other seen in cross due to the uplifting of the Pacific Plate and the cuts made for the freeway. All the layers are hard, not deposited in the recent past. It takes a while to compress sand into sandstone and then granite and decompose again to sand. Time and pressure, which don't act rapidly. If there's nothing on top of a layer to compress it, it won't compress. There's thousands of feet of compressed layers visible.
Similar cuts for roads thru lakebed sites show loose composition layers, due to there being nothing to compress them.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
Soft tissues aren't unknown in fossils, just rare.


That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. We were discussing how long it takes for fossils to be made.

You said: "Fossils, where stone replaces bone, don't occur...in a few thousand years".

I've shown that to be untrue. Fossils can be created rapidly.

Jim

[Gerald]

...

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
Is this "tree" vertical?


Yes.


In the life of a tree, it's concievable in a geologically active area layering on a rapid basis can occur.. Flood plains being a good candidate. Alternating years of deposit and no deposit can quickly add layers.


Layering over several years is not consistent with a fossilized tree that crosses over the layers. The tree cannot be petrified unles covered by sediment and it cannot rotate to a vertical position if the sediment is hardened.

Jim

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally posted by jbourke

The intermediate forms are problematic. A sliver of a wing doesn't provide enough benefit to better the survivability of the mutated gene.


Why not? It depends on the environment at the time. Under certain circumstances this 'sliver' could be just what the organism needs to survive.

Take another example, the tail. Many animals have one, and its length and usefulness varies greatly. For some it is essential, for others it seems redundant. Even humans have a (usually invisibly small) tail!


A sequence of transitions that IN CONCERT and RANDOMLY result from the proper mutations to transfer it's CG to the correct location, develop steering mechanisms, atrophy its fingers/paws, develop feathers, and have it's skeletal structure rearranged to accomodate extra bones and muscles, is impossible to conceive.


Transitions do not occur 'in concert' or 'randomly'. They are created by environmental changes which select the characteristics required to survive at the time. It is a slow process, too rapid change would simply cause extinction.

There are transitional forms, eg. The flying squirrel just has a bit of extra skin to help it glide. I don't find it hard to conceive the development of form from squirrel-like to bat-like.

There are lots of things in this universe that seem impossible. For example, there are about 200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. Now multiply that figure by the number of observed galaxies, over 3,000. That's a lot of stars! (and presumably there are trillions more out there, that we haven't discovered yet). But just because I can't grasp such a large number, doesn't mean I refuse to accept that those stars exist.


How can an organism pass on such a structure if it doesn't have a mate with a matching gene? There is no genetic mechanism by which new structures can be carried on in a population.


Species are a man-made invention, to help us make sense of a chaotic world. In reality, every individual is different (excepting clones). Every mating creates a new individual, as existing genetic material is rearranged and new mutations are passed on. That individual becomes part of the population of its species, unless it is so different that we decide that it is a new species.

When looking at fossil records, it can be hard to pick out transitional examples, simply because similar fossils are lumped together and called one species. Also, only an estimated 20% of species have been found so far, therefore most of the gaps are due to lack of information.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
The page has a few pictures and text, but no evidence. The closest thing you have for evidence on that page is this assertion: "The evidence favors the conclusion that all of this diversity evolved from a single ancestor that colonized Hawaii by way of long-distance dispersal from North America."

So you have an assertion that there is evidence, but no actual evidence. Provide it.
Jim

ok? it was on that site, if you had looked.

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/images/cpDNA_phy.jpg



"Chloroplast DNA nucleotide sequences provided the first molecular evidence bearing on the origin and relationships of the Hawaiian silversword alliance. These data support the conclusion that the Hawaiian silversword alliance is a monophyletic group derived from ancestors very similar to the extant Pacific coast tarweeds Anisocarpus scabridus (Eastwood) B. G. Baldwin [Raillardiopsis scabrida (Eastw.) Rydberg], Kyhosia bolanderi (A. Gray) B. G. Baldwin [Madia bolanderi (A. Gray) A. Gray], and Carlquistia muirii (A. Gray) B. G. Baldwin [Raillardiopsis muirii (A. Gray) Rydberg]."

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Gerald
On the other hand he has asolutely zero evidence for creation.


The evidence in my favor is the sudden appearance of fully-formed species in the fossil record. That is evidence for creation.

I'll argue the genetic aspect once someone backs up the assertion that a change in the frequency of alleles is responsible for inter-species evolution.

Until then, my job is to point out the faulty reasoning of the opposition.


The fundamental point on which creationism depends is the assertion that life is too structured and complex for natural processes to account for it. Therefore it must have been 'created' by a godlike intelligence with the power to set aside the laws of nature and create a thing out of nothing.


And what on earth is wrong with that? Evolution is the best naturalistic explanation we have available to us and it is a fine theory. But the problems with it need to be addressed. Rather than doing so, evolutionists are finding it more fun to blast away at people who believe in a literal flood.

But I'm not here to argue for a literal flood or a 6 day creation. Take your strawman somewhere else. Those aren't scientific arguments. They are theological.

As a scientifically-minded person, I believe that the age of the earth is indeterminable and that evolution is a very poor guess at our origins, which has been made popular primarily because it is the only naturalistic theory available. Defeating it is hopeless because naturalistic assumptions do not allow any competition.


Throught history things that were unexplainable at the time were attibuted to be the works of 'gods'. There was a god responsible for every force in nature. Creationism is yet one more holdout of this type of thinking.

If the only allowable arguments are ones that specifically exclude the possibility of a God, then naturalism can't be falsified.

Jim

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
The evidence for creation is the same evidence for evolution, but interpreted differently. Namely, the fossil record and genetics.


incorrect. EVERY peice of data is 'evidence' for creation. This is why it is not scientific.

Originally posted by jbourke
Precisely. "Evolution" has several meanings:

1. The variability within a species
2. The alleged ability of mutation to account for inter-species change.
3. The assertion that life on earth is the result of millions of years of this process.


1. yes.
2. contained within #1.
3. no. life on earth (the actual origins of the first replicators) is covered by the branch of science called abiogenesis. Evolution works on any imperfectly-replicating molecule that has heritable information.


Originally posted by jbourke

Creationists accept the 1st meaning readily and dub it "micro-evolution." They see the genetic evidence as contradicting the second meaning (macro evolution) and the fossil evidence as contradicting the third meaning (what most people call "evolution").


what evidence contradicts macro evolution? be specific, please.

Originally posted by jbourke
First of all, the earth is not 5000 years old according to the bible. Theologically, I am completely flexible on creation. It is a strawman argument to insist that creationists demand a six day creation, a literal flood, etc. Anti-creationists concentrate on those arguments because they are easily targetable as non-scientific. If evolution were believable to me scientifically, there is plenty of room in my Christian beliefs to accomodate for it. I simply see no reason to do so.


no, it is *NOT* a strawman argument. there are MANY people who believe in a literal translation of the bible. Of course, it is much easier to show how a 6 day creation, with 40 day earth-wide flood is totally false.

scientists (anti-creationists?) do not pick on any arguments, they simply say "the current data does not support that hypothesis, sir"

Originally posted by jbourke
But more importantly, you are making a huge assumption that fossils are "known" to be millions of years old. There is no dating method that can be used on a fossil. Evolutionists use inferences from the geologic features of the surrounding area to affix a date.


"evolutionists" don't use any inferences regarding the fossil record. geologists and palentologists may, however!

isochron and radiometric dating can be used to date fossils.

if you have a problem with how dating is undertaken, be specific, and I'll address that too.


Originally posted by jbourke
Yes, by the third definition it is not scientific. By the other definitions, it may be a scientific theory, but still one that is not probable.

Jim

[Gerald]

...

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
I could start with poodles and end up with great danes. The genetic information is available in the poodle to do so. But I could not start with a poodle and end up with a giraffe. The laws of genetics make this impossible.


oh? could you tell me some of those 'laws of genetics'?

be specific, please.

you show a common error in understanding how evolution works. The poodle does NOT have the genetic information to become a great dane.

the common ancestor of poodles and great danes were reproductively isolated, and over time, mutation and selective breeding led to the differences in dogs.

if there was enough demand (and time), I could breed poodles that only had long necks with other poodles with long necks.

over time, and careful breeding, I would get very long-necked poodles. sure, they would not be giraffes, but the common ancestor of giraffes and dogs is pretty far down the line, so you are asking a bit much!

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Bruce Abbott
Why not? It depends on the environment at the time. Under certain circumstances this 'sliver' could be just what the organism needs to survive.

For evolution to work in that case, the flap of skin would have to provide an advantage. So not "could be" as you say, but rather "must be". For if the trait is going to be built slowly over thousands and thousands of generations, there would have to be pressure to keep mutations from taking the flap of skin away.


Transitions do not occur 'in concert' or 'randomly'. They are created by environmental changes which select the characteristics required to survive at the time. It is a slow process, too rapid change would simply cause extinction.


Exactly the problem!

At both ends of the process we have two perfectly functional animals that are well represented in the fossil record, and a whole host of missing transitional forms required to make it happen.


There are transitional forms, eg. The flying squirrel just has a bit of extra skin to help it glide. I don't find it hard to conceive the development of form from squirrel-like to bat-like.


I can understand that viewpoint if I consider a few transitions. But if I think of the transitions as fluid and imagine that each minute step has to be viable, I am left stunned at the difficulty. Perhaps it seems easier for you.


There are lots of things in this universe that seem impossible. For example, there are about 200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. Now multiply that figure by the number of observed galaxies, over 3,000. That's a lot of stars! (and presumably there are trillions more out there, that we haven't discovered yet). But just because I can't grasp such a large number, doesn't mean I refuse to accept that those stars exist.


Some things seem hard to grasp but we accept them because they match the evidence.

Other things are hard to grasp because they do not seem to match the evidence.

You see evolution to be in the first group, and I see it to be in the second.


Species are a man-made invention, to help us make sense of a chaotic world.


If species were that fluid then interbreeding them would be child's play. We could cross an elephant with a rabbit and make rabiphants.

Animals of separate species are genetically different in ways far beyond the differences between animals of the same species.


In reality, every individual is different (excepting clones). Every mating creates a new individual, as existing genetic material is rearranged and new mutations are passed on. That individual becomes part of the population of its species, unless it is so different that we decide that it is a new species.


I disagree completely with that concept of species, and my position is easily reproducible by every animal and plant breeder in the world. Corn can be bred to produce taller corn with more produce, but only up to a point. Dogs are bred to a point where the breeding reaches a ceiling. These limitations are obvious within a few generations.

Jim

[Gerald]

...

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


Some parts of evolution are falsifiable. Others are not. It is impossible to falsify the thought that evolution is what caused a rat to turn into a bat, for example.


no, it is not impossible. for example, a fossil of a bat in strata dated before mammals arrived would be a fatal blow to evolution.

if the genetic evidence of rat --> bat showed that they were less alike than say... a mushroom and a bat, genetics and evolution would be in deep trouble.

Originally posted by jbourke
Explain to me how the following statement can be falsified: invertebrates evolved into vertebrates.


I'll let you think this one up. I did the last one.

Originally posted by jbourke
Nothing can prove it false as a history of origins. Same thing with evolution. Neither viewpoints on earth history are scientific.


history of origins (first replicators) does not concern evolution. You are mistaking it for abiogenesis again.

Originally posted by jbourke
Then the introduction of evidence that contradicts evolutionary assumptions should not cause anyone to get upset. And there should be no argument against bringing it up in a classroom.


creation is not science. don't try and bring it up in the science classroom.

perhaps in a comparative religions class, you can discuss the many creation myths of all the peoples of the world.

if you have SCIENTIFIC evidence that refutes evolution, by all means, publish it and receive your nobel prize. When that evidence meets peer-reviewed criteria, and has been studied, it will be in the science textbooks at that point.

Originally posted by jbourke
The entire scientific community, or just the anti-creationist scientific community?

Stop dividing the world into "scientists" and "creationists". There are creationist scientists and evolutionary scientists. Any other terminology is an ad hominem.


your cries of 'ad hominem' here are misplaced. The only time "anti-creationist" would come to light, is where science and religion try to co-exist.

6-day literal genesis account = FALSE by scientific accounts.

your personal views are not relevant, UNTIL science treads on them, it seems. Because you do not 'buy into' that interpretation of the bible, geology and palentology are not a problem for you.

if you believed in a global flood, science will tell you that you are mistaken. Is this the fault of the "anti-creationists"?

Originally posted by jbourke
Ok, let's take the fossil record for example.

I note that the forms found in the fossil record appear suddenly in no easily discernable order and without transitions.
[/B]

I note that you are TOTALLY MISTAKEN.

you have asserted this claim. I want proof. evidence, please.

Originally posted by jbourke
I predict that I will not find transitional forms; that every time I see a fossil of a triceratops it will be just like the other triceratops.


sparky paul has given you ample evidence on just how wrong that viewpoint is. There appears to be many, many species of 'triceratops'


Originally posted by jbourke
Meanwhile, evolutionists are busy doing the same; redefining evolution so that it can be explained despite the lack of evidence from the fossil record.


redefinition is part of the scientific method. Being able to change and tweak theories in the face of new data is the STRENGTH of science, not it's weakness.

however, your assertation that the fossil record has not given evidence FOR evolution is mistaken.

Again, I ask for evidence of your claim that the fossil record poses any problem whatsoever for palentologists, geologists and evolutionists (biologists).

Originally posted by jbourke
Creationists use the same data but reject the a priori assumption that the causes of the universe are naturalistic.

Jim

science has no need for multiplied entities. (ockhams razor).

science as a philosophy assumes naturalistic causes.

thus, creation is not science.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
The part about "functional intermediates" is very important. For evolution to be true, every intermediate form must be functional and an improvement of the previous form. I can conjure up thousands of examples of difficulties for evolutionists to ponder. Consider the usefulness of half a wing, half an eye, etc. Many components of our bodies are completely useless unless fully formed.


so I guess that those cave lizards that have non-functioning eyes did not undergo evolution, hmmm?

do you know that primates are one of the few classes of mammals that can't synthesize vitamin C? Oh, we have the genes for it, but they are degraded and non-functional.

I guess that can't be evolution, either.


Originally posted by jbourke

The above doesn't have to do with my prediction at all. I made no comments on the number of Ceratopsia. My point is that we find many examples of triceratops which are all easily identifiable. If evolution is the result of millions of years of slow changes then it should be impossible to organize all the different Ceratopsia so nicely.
Jim

how do you come to that conclusion? the many daughter species of ceratopsia show how niches can be filled. Look at crocodiles. They are basically unchanged after millions of years, because they are highly successful organisims in their niches.

triceratops was a very successful daughter species of ceratopsia.

[Lucas in Alaska]

I just got this whole thing read and man is this topic moving.

The question is. Can anyone prove creation instead of just trying to prove evolution wrong? Before the thought of evolution all we had was creation. So with the introduction of evolution I can see where by proving evolution false, creation is all we have.


I was going to use the argument of the fossil record. Well after reading what jbourke posted on that subject I just found myself way in over my head so I'll leave it to JB.

As far a proving creation I wasn't there but the Bible says it happened, but to not run down a side street there are a few things that can be looked at to say the earth is not 100's of millions of years old. And instead of retyping info I'll post a link
Evidence for a young world (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html)

Lucas

[jbourke]

1. yes.
2. contained within #1.


The difference between the two is staggering. The first is the result of a combination of genetic information from two parents. The second is the result of mutations.

They are not the same mechanism.


what evidence contradicts macro evolution? be specific, please.


First you explain how a change in the frequency of alleles can produce macro-evolution.


no, it is *NOT* a strawman argument. there are MANY people who believe in a literal translation of the bible. Of course, it is much easier to show how a 6 day creation, with 40 day earth-wide flood is totally false.


Then we'll just both take it as false and move on.


scientists (anti-creationists?) do not pick on any arguments, they simply say "the current data does not support that hypothesis, sir"


Yes, that is what I am doing.

"evolutionists" don't use any inferences regarding the fossil record. geologists and palentologists may, however!


Obviously, I meant the word "evolutionist" to mean someone who believes in evolution, not someone who is an evolutionary biologist or some other type of specialist.


isochron and radiometric dating can be used to date fossils.


To date the fossils themselves or the rocks near the fossils?


if you have a problem with how dating is undertaken, be specific, and I'll address that too.


Ok, how about you explain to DennisG how Carbon dating works, since he used it to make his point a little while ago.

Jim

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Lucas in Alaska
I just got this whole thing read and man is this topic moving.

The question is. Can anyone prove creation instead of just trying to prove evolution wrong? Before the thought of evolution all we had was creation. So with the introduction of evolution I can see where by proving evolution false, creation is all we have.


well, science does not 'prove' things in any case. Rather, science attempts to falsify hypotheses. The best you can ever hope for in science is the 'theory' designation. That means that a hypothesis has been tested many, many times, and has a great amount of evidence backing it up.

but never prove. That is not within science.

furthermore, your assertation that by falsifing evolution, you prove creation is totally incorrect. Creationists must come up with evidence of their own to support the creation hypothesis.

Originally posted by Lucas in Alaska
As far a proving creation I wasn't there but the Bible says it happened, but to not run down a side street there are a few things that can be looked at to say the earth is not 100's of millions of years old. And instead of retyping info I'll post a link
Evidence for a young world (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html)
Lucas

I'm sorry. that is an incredibly biased and incorrect site. I won't bother dissecting any of the "arguments" listed there, but you would do a lot of good to start doing some web searches for scientific sources of information.

www.talkorigins.org is a wonderful site that may help you clear up some of the misconceptions you have regarding those 'factoids'

[Gerald]

...

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


First you explain how a change in the frequency of alleles can produce macro-evolution.
Jim

you are now being evasive.

YOU explain the hawaiian silversword alliance.

THEN we will talk more.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
so I guess that those cave lizards that have non-functioning eyes did not undergo evolution, hmmm?


Yes, since atrophy of a desirable trait would NEVER improve the survivability of a species, the existence of animals with non-functioning eyes is a problem for evolutionists. This is evidence in favor of the creationist viewpoint.


do you know that primates are one of the few classes of mammals that can't synthesize vitamin C? Oh, we have the genes for it, but they are degraded and non-functional.


And again, one is left to wonder why we would lose such a desirable trait?


I guess that can't be evolution, either.


Sure it can! It all *can* be. But *is* it?

There are two arguments going on simultaneously and it's confusing.

The first argument is over the science: what could happen? What do the observable physical laws allow?

The second argument is over the history: what did happen? What does the fossil record tell us.

The fossil record can be seen as supporting either view. The genetic evidence, which is repeated every day by anyone concerned with breeding, is that it is impossible to turn one kind of animal into another.


how do you come to that conclusion? the many daughter species of ceratopsia show how niches can be filled. Look at crocodiles. They are basically unchanged after millions of years, because they are highly successful organisims in their niches.


Unchanged after millions of years? In other words, every example of a crocodile that we see in the fossil record is unchanged from the skeletal structure of the crocodiles we see today.

Again, this is evidence for creation. If creation is true then I would expect to see many examples of animals that look the same in the fossil record as they do today. That is what I see.

Jim

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


Ok, how about you explain to DennisG how Carbon dating works, since he used it to make his point a little while ago.

Jim

if dennis wants to know, he can look it up.

carbon dating is only good for dating organic materials less than ~30K years old or so.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Gerald
Whoa Lucas. That article is exactly the classical creationist scenario that Jim claims isn't the majority view of creationists. It's got everything from a 6,000 year old earth to a universal flood.

Strawman Jim?

My point about the strawman is that I don't want to defend that belief. Lucas can if he likes and you have every right to take it up with him.

I once read a paper by a scientist who is convinced that mankind evolved from dolphins rather than primates. Ok, that is cool. Some guy thinks we evolved from dolphins. Now, should I begin every argument on the issue as if *all* evolutionists believe that?

Let my arguments stand or fall as I make them, not as what you bring into the discussion from prior engagements. That was my point about the strawman.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
carbon dating is only good for dating organic materials less than ~30K years old or so.

Exactly. One of the "mistakes" I said I couldn't keep up with during my first entry. Something Sparky Paul didn't notice. And something that should be immediately apparent to anyone who is familiar with how dating methods work. This is the kind of "near" knowledge that comes from hearing a one-sided presentation.

Jim

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


Yes, since atrophy of a desirable trait would NEVER improve the survivability of a species, the existence of animals with non-functioning eyes is a problem for evolutionists. This is evidence in favor of the creationist viewpoint.


wrong. it takes a lot of energy to keep those eyes functioning. An individual who had a mutation that caused the eyes to become non-functioning, and thus reduced metabolisim needed for upkeep would be selected FOR in a lightless cave environment.

Originally posted by jbourke
And again, one is left to wonder why we would lose such a desirable trait?


who knows? but I would say it is because our ancestors ate a lot of fruits/foods high in vitamins. The organisims with faulty vitaminC synthesis genes would not be selected against.

see... this is classic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. the environment plays a major role in deciding which alleles may or may not get passed on.

sicle cell anemia: if you carry 1 gene, you are not as fit as a regular human. however, in malaria prone locations, they are selected FOR.

Originally posted by jbourke
The fossil record can be seen as supporting either view. The genetic evidence, which is repeated every day by anyone concerned with breeding, is that it is impossible to turn one kind of animal into another.


what is a 'kind'?

Originally posted by jbourke
Unchanged after millions of years? In other words, every example of a crocodile that we see in the fossil record is unchanged from the skeletal structure of the crocodiles we see today.


oh please... you know full well that I meant morphological changes. the DNA must change, but how much is a matter of the environmental pressures. there are Nile crocs, saltwater crocs, freshwater crocs... I am not familiar with crocodile genetics, but I am sure there are sub-species of crocs all over the world.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
no, it is not impossible. for example, a fossil of a bat in strata dated before mammals arrived would be a fatal blow to evolution.


All that would disprove is the dating method.


if the genetic evidence of rat --> bat showed that they were less alike than say... a mushroom and a bat, genetics and evolution would be in deep trouble.


No it wouldn't because the solution would be to propose that the bat descended from the mushroom over a long period of time and many missing transitional forms.


I'll let you think this one up. I did the last one.


No, you tell me how to disprove the evolution of invertebrates to vertebrates.


history of origins (first replicators) does not concern evolution. You are mistaking it for abiogenesis again.


I'm not mistaking anything and you have resorted to pedantry quite early.


creation is not science. don't try and bring it up in the science classroom.


All I want is for evolution to be taught in the proper framework with the appropriate caveats given.

Look at DennisG. Obviously, he is an educated person who has been through our public schooling process. He is trying to make a fair-minded determination and he wants data. And yet he said two things that show he doesn't know what he needs to know to make an informed decision:

1. that carbon dating could be used to date fossils.
2. that creationists don't believe in the existence of dinosaurs.

My point isn't to ridicule Dennis. Like me and you he is doing the very best he can to understand the world with the data he is aware of. But he has been shortchanged in his scientific education. He should have been taught how isoptopic dating works.


perhaps in a comparative religions class, you can discuss the many creation myths of all the peoples of the world.


How nice of you.


if you have SCIENTIFIC evidence that refutes evolution, by all means, publish it and receive your nobel prize.


It is impossible to find scientific evidence to do so to the satisfaction of people with evolutionary biases. They simply adapt the theory so it can survive.


When that evidence meets peer-reviewed criteria, and has been studied, it will be in the science textbooks at that point.


This is just a means of brushing off criticism and is completely un-scientific. By "peer" you mean "evolutionists" because you don't consider creationists to be scientists at all.


your cries of 'ad hominem' here are misplaced. The only time "anti-creationist" would come to light, is where science and religion try to co-exist.


I have yet to mention religion. In fact, I keep trying to get everyone to drop it.


you have asserted this claim. I want proof. evidence, please.
...snip...
however, your assertation that the fossil record has not given evidence FOR evolution is mistaken.
....snip...
Again, I ask for evidence of your claim that the fossil record poses any problem whatsoever for palentologists, geologists and evolutionists (biologists).


"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.” - N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet

“I believe that our failure to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progress…represents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history” – S.J. Gould, ‘The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology’, Paleobiology, Vol 11, No 1, 1985, p 3

“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” - David E. Schindel, Curator at Peabody Museum of Natural History

“Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. … In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the transitional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny” – P.L. Forey, Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stories, 1982, p 120-121

“I agree…that ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized in the fossil record” – R.M. Schoch, ‘Evolution Debate’, Letter in Science, April 22, 1983, p360

“The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal” – R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p 45


sparky paul has given you ample evidence on just how wrong that viewpoint is. There appears to be many, many species of 'triceratops'


The evidence is "Triceratops (20 species)?

Most likely, they are the same "species" of triceratops by my definition yet separate species by a more liberal definition. My assertion is that they are all similar the way different kinds of dogs are similar. Tell me about their genetic structure? Were they able to breed with each other? We don't know, do we?

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
wrong. it takes a lot of energy to keep those eyes functioning. An individual who had a mutation that caused the eyes to become non-functioning, and thus reduced metabolisim needed for upkeep would be selected FOR in a lightless cave environment.


Enough energy savings to provide a survival benefit? Not in my view.


who knows? but I would say it is because our ancestors ate a lot of fruits/foods high in vitamins. The organisims with faulty vitaminC synthesis genes would not be selected against.


If you don't know then it's not evidence. It's only valuable to your case if it is an example of evidence that can ONLY be interpreted in an evolutionary way.


see... this is classic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
the environment plays a major role in deciding which alleles may or may not get passed on.


Yes, and this proves evolution how?


sicle cell anemia: if you carry 1 gene, you are not as fit as a regular human. however, in malaria prone locations, they are selected FOR.


A genetic change within the species that is irrelevant to our discussion as I've already accepted it within my first few posts.


what is a 'kind'?


A species by my definition, at least in the case of reproducing animals.


oh please... you know full well that I meant morphological changes.

Of course. So did I. ??

Jim

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by jbourke

...
You said: "Fossils, where stone replaces bone, don't occur...in a few thousand years".

I've shown that to be untrue. Fossils can be created rapidly.

Jim
.
You have merely gainsaid the statement. That proves/shows nothing.
Detail the rapid development of a fossil.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by jbourke

("Is this tree vertical?")
Yes.



Layering over several years is not consistent with a fossilized tree that crosses over the layers. The tree cannot be petrified unles covered by sediment and it cannot rotate to a vertical position if the sediment is hardened.

Jim .
If this alleged tree crosses layers of geologic (millions of years) thickness, then something other than petrification is involved.
Such as: the tree dies, falls, petrifies in the usual manner.. a stream later cuts thru the area where the tree is and thru several geologic layers, the tree rolls into the stream valley landing in a vertical position.. the valley fills up and there the tree is, "crossing" geologic layers.
The tree experiencing a repeated series of sediment events in a rapid sequence as I mentioned would most likely die fairly quickly, and the layers would be of the same geologic age, not any substantial number of years apart.
As " ... it (the tree) cannot rotate to a vertical position if the sediment is hardened", and expecting a tree to live thru geologic ages, and it would reflect in its current composition this layering as each layer contributed to the petrification, and this hasn't been noted, something such I proposed above makes the most sense. Petrification, reorientation..

[jbourke]

YOU explain the hawaiian silversword alliance.
THEN we will talk more.

I see. Further conversation with you requires that I analyze something complex, but if I simply ask you to do something quite simple, such as explain how the change in frequencies of alleles in a population can explain macro-evolution, then you will not talk to me anymore?

For me to respond to the "Hawaiian Silversword Alliance" I want two things:

1. A single paragraph that explains how this data is only interpretable using evolutionary processes and could not be the result of creation.
2. An agreement that once I have presented my position, you will immediately respond with the explanation I am seeking for evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
You have merely gainsaid the statement. That proves/shows nothing.
Detail the rapid development of a fossil.

Like this? http://informationcentre.tripod.com/boot.html

Jim

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
I see. Further conversation with you requires that I analyze something complex, but if I simply ask you to do something quite simple, such as explain how the change in frequencies of alleles in a population can explain macro-evolution, then you will not talk to me anymore?


well, it *IS* the best example of "macroevolution" I can think of right now...

I'm sorry if it is complex, but I would expect you to attempt to read it before demanding "proof of macroevolution" in further posts of yours. I've given it. YOU critique it if you dont' like the data.


Originally posted by jbourke
For me to respond to the "Hawaiian Silversword Alliance" I want two things:

1. A single paragraph that explains how this data is only interpretable using evolutionary processes and could not be the result of creation.


1. EVERYTHING points to creation, I can't refute that. But I'm not trying to support creation.

I can't refute that we were all created 20 seconds ago with intact memories, either.

you asked for an example of many small steps causing large morphological changes in daughter species (macroevolution)

I gave it.

Originally posted by jbourke
2. An agreement that once I have presented my position, you will immediately respond with the explanation I am seeking for evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population.


why would I agree to IMMEDIATELY respond? Can't I take a day or two to look for further data, compose an intelligent response to you?

the silversword genetic heritage research has been done.

I want to hear you specifically address that there is a genetic correlation between the silversword alliance species, AND that the data shows they have a common ancestor.

or do you deny that the DNA evidence shows these several new species of silverswords came from a common ancestor?

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


Like this? http://informationcentre.tripod.com/boot.html

Jim


http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/archives/layman/ar_whatsnew7_00.htm

Saturday, July 1st, 2000 was a special day for the Creation Evidence Museum. A huge crowd turned out for the three lectures given through out the day by the Director of the museum, Dr. Carl Baugh. The lectures were unique in that several actual artifacts were on display. These extremely valuable artifacts are normally kept in safety deposit. Items on display include the Burdick Human Footprint, Human Hand Print, Hammer in Rock, Fossilized Human Finger , Cup in Coal, Inca Burial Stones with Dinosaurs, Fossilized Dinosaur Skin and a Fossilized Jellyfish. Dr. Baugh explained what made each artifact unique, and why each causes a major problem to the theory of evolution


RATS. look at all those pesky artifacts that disprove evolution. Boy oh Boy are those scientists stupid, eh? I'll bet they never thought the ICR people would produce so many smoking guns to disprove evolution!

wow... I'm convinced.

[Slime-Lover]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by notoatmeal:
So I guess that those cave lizards that have non-functioning eyes did not undergo evolution?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jbourke

Yes, since atrophy of a desirable trait would NEVER improve the survivability of a species, the existence of animals with non-functioning eyes is a problem for evolutionists. This is evidence in favor of the creationist viewpoint.

Jim

With all due respect, I do not agree that existence of animals with non-funtioning eyes is a problem for evolutionists. Nor that it is evidence in favor of creationists. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Thoery of Evolution by Natural Selection not only predicts that useful traits will arize in populations, but that uneeded and/or hindering traits will atrophy.

Through some set of environmental circumstances, a sighted population of lizards with fully functioning eyes might find itself migrating to a lightless environment. In a lightless environment, eyes are no longer a necessary trait. A blind lizard born among the population would not be at a disavantage and would be able to thrive and pass on its genetic blindness to following generations. If blindness turned out to be an advantage, eventually, the whole population would become blind.

[Luxor]

Now I have more questions. I do see a problem with the creationists evidence however.
Why were the only recorded stone carvings Inca? If we walked with dinos wouldn't more cultures have left evidence in hyrogliphs?
I do understand that fossils can be created in short time under the perfect circumstances, now, can the creationists replicate this process?
Fossilized dino skin, how do we know what dino skin looked like to identify it as dino?
The hammer in stone isn't suprising either, it was iron right? Well, iron rusts, expanding and attracting other minerals.
The rest of the evidence doesn't convince me either.
You would think that they(creationists)would be able to provide more evidence than a handfull of items.
Sorry, does'nt prove a thing scientificly.

Eric S.

[Gerald]

...

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal

RATS. look at all those pesky artifacts that disprove evolution. Boy oh Boy are those scientists stupid, eh? I'll bet they never thought the ICR people would produce so many smoking guns to disprove evolution!


I didn't endorse the site. I gave an example of rapid fossilization. You are just making another ad hominem attack.

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
well, it *IS* the best example of "macroevolution" I can think of right now...


THAT is your best example of macro-evolution? Great!


I'm sorry if it is complex, but I would expect you to attempt to read it before demanding "proof of macroevolution" in further posts of yours. I've given it. YOU critique it if you dont' like the data.


Let me remind you of your definition of evolution, the only definition you have presented so far in this discussion:


Evolution is defined as: THE CHANGE IN THE FREQUENCY OF ALLELES WITHIN A POPULATION

that's it. nothing more.


The fact is that your statement is wrong. Macro-evolution is not the result in the change of frequencies of alleles. Every biology student knows this. It is mutation that is proposed as the mechanism for macro-evolution. Since my arguments are based on mutations, I can't respond to you until you correct your definition.

I have no problem with evolution as you have defined it. Therefore, I can't even begin to address your evidence on macro-evolution.

Retract it and produce a proper definition of evolution or produce a mechanism by which evolution can occur without mutation.

Your nobel prize awaits, sir. ;)


1. EVERYTHING points to creation, I can't refute that. But I'm not trying to support creation.

I can't refute that we were all created 20 seconds ago with intact memories, either.


The "20 seconds ago" argument is a strawman. That wasn't my point.

You claim that evolution (by the third definition I gave) is "scientific". My claim is that it is not. My claim is that it is similar to your "20 seconds ago" argument. If it isn't then you will have to meet the standard of proof implied by your insistence that this is a "scientific" conclusion.

It is your job to present evidence such that I am challenged to interpret it without evolution, if your position is that the evidence is sufficient to prove evolution. You have to give me a claim that I can falsify.

If you cannot establish how the evidence can only be understood through evolution, then I have no work to do. You haven't made your case yet.


you asked for an example of many small steps causing large morphological changes in daughter species (macroevolution)


No I didn't. Quote me on that. I didn't ask for an example. Examples of alleged macro-evolutionary change are abundant.

I asked for a mechanism.

why would I agree to IMMEDIATELY respond? Can't I take a day or two to look for further data, compose an intelligent response to you?


Sure, take a few days. Compose your response. Then tell me when you are ready and I will post my answer. What I won't do is answer challenge after challenge when you can't even back up your initial point about the very definition of what we are arguing.

I want to hear you specifically address that there is a genetic correlation between the silversword alliance species, AND that the data shows they have a common ancestor.


There is no question that there is a genetic correlation. Everything on the planet is genetically similar to some degree.

Jim

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by jbourke


Like this? http://informationcentre.tripod.com/boot.html

Jim
.
Interesting, but is it really fossilized (mineralized) bone? Or as Gerald points out, a modern instance of what occured at Pompeii.. where there are many human forms "fossilized" by the filling of the cavity left by the decayed body in the ash. The bone itself isn't replaced, it's gone. In the case of the boot, the material in it should have the structure of the bone it replaced, if it were truly fossilized... and not a homogenous limestone lump which it appears to be.

[jbourke]

The Thoery of Evolution by Natural Selection not only predicts that useful traits will arize in populations, but that uneeded and/or hindering traits will atrophy.


I'm not tring to win an argument by nitpicking, but Natural Selection does not exactly say that. You are right about the "useful" and "hindering" parts. But not the "unneeded".

Natural selection begins with the fact that every generation of an organism produces more offspring than can reproduce. Logically, there is a certain percentage of offspring that will die prior to an opportunity to reproduce. A generation's offspring contains variations that can be passed on to further generations. Some of these heritable traits affect the fitness of an organism. Those traits that improve the fitness of an organism are more likely to be passed on to future generations.

Atrophy of a useful component of an organism, such as an eye, is not explaind by natural selection. Is this a big problem? Not really, because another mechanism can be and has been proposed to cover this, but my point in my response was that atrophy was not a challenge to creation. Historically, it has been used to challenge evolution, which has adapted nicely.


If blindness turned out to be an advantage, eventually, the whole population would become blind.


Do you think that blindess is an advantage?

Jim

[Sparky Paul]

Rather than having to discuss each and every object in the rocks, discuss why they're there.
If creation indeed did occur so rapidly.. 10,000 years from start to now is commonly mentioned (4500 in the more extreme examples), why are the indications of so many many different environments and life found in those rocks? Environments and life forms which no has seen. And markedly different layer by layer?
Accepting the older is deeper theory, the minute animals of the Burgess shale;the enormous dinosaurs that abruptly disappear at the K-T boundary (not the first such abrupt mass extinction, nor the last); to be replaced at the top of the size range by extreme bird forms; to be replaced by extreme mammalian forms few of which persisted to today...
All in a very short period of time.. creation, or a long period of time, evolution.
On one hand, it would seem to indicate a lack of purpose in generating a final set of workable entities... Lions instead of Enteledonts instead of Coelophysis instead of Wiwaxia.. many forms for which there are no currently existing equivalents. Pretty obviously random "experimentation"..
Why would a creator need to experiment at all, if the end product, us*, was intended to devote eternity telling the creator what a wonderful creator he was?
The creation time frame is so short, the end product surely was contemplated at the beginning of the process. All the stuff in the rocks has no purpose, creation wise.
Evolution, OTOH, is a long-term example of purposeless change, other than demonstrating the innate property of life to continue living. Random directionless "experimentation", with long-term sucesses preserved, and failures missing because they didn't populate their niches with enough material to be preserved and be located by us.
The geologic mechanics required to construct the layers, most of which show no life at all for the scientifically accepted period of the existence of this planet points to the very long period of time that passed.
With that time span available, and the very late (geologically) generation of life in its many forms,
the short time suggested for creation isn't necessary. And with the multitude of life forms, most of which wouldn't survive in the environment we know today, which is documented for a good portion of those 10,000 creation years, the need to shoehorn all that pre-history into those few years goes away.
Occam's razor is a good pruner.. "if it isn't needed to explain the facts, discard it."
* It's also the height of self-importance to consider humanity as the end product of the process. We behave more like a cancer than a worthwhile supreme development of the life process.

[Sparky Paul]

JB:"Do you think that blindess is an advantage? "
.
Where sight has no advantage, being blind is not a handicap.
Some animals grow eyes which can't see at all, due to malformed lenses, what eye structure there is remaining beneath the skin layers.
But these animals survive in their environment.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


I didn't endorse the site. I gave an example of rapid fossilization. You are just making another ad hominem attack.

Jim

no, I am saying your 'example' is not likely to be very convincing, considering the source.

If you have any peer-reviewed studies done on rapid fossilization, I'm all ears.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
JB:"Do you think that blindess is an advantage? "

Where sight has no advantage, being blind is not a handicap.


Right, but is blindness an advantage?

Jim

[jbourke]

Originally posted by notoatmeal
no, I am saying your 'example' is not likely to be very convincing, considering the source.


It was the first thing that came up in a web search. I didn't pay attention to the links from that page because they have nothing to do with my argument.


If you have any peer-reviewed studies done on rapid fossilization, I'm all ears.

Do you have any peer-reviewed studies to present that will support mutation-free macro-evolution?

Jim

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


THAT is your best example of macro-evolution? Great!


well, you are certainly flippant today. I expected more than a hand-waving when I show scientific evidence.

actually, it is incredibly insulting to me to have evidence dismissed before you could have possibly read and understood it.

Originally posted by jbourke
The fact is that your statement is wrong. Macro-evolution is not the result in the change of frequencies of alleles. Every biology student knows this. It is mutation that is proposed as the mechanism for macro-evolution. Since my arguments are based on mutations, I can't respond to you until you correct your definition.


mutation is only one of the mechanisims that allows new heritable nucloetide sequences (alleles) in the organisims DNA. Selective processes work on those alleles in the population.

I'm not able to correct my definition. it is totally correct.

Originally posted by jbourke
I have no problem with evolution as you have defined it. Therefore, I can't even begin to address your evidence on macro-evolution.

Retract it and produce a proper definition of evolution or produce a mechanism by which evolution can occur without mutation.

Your nobel prize awaits, sir. ;)


why would I have to remove mutation from the equation? There is mountains of evidence for mutation having a large role in evolution.

Originally posted by jbourke

The "20 seconds ago" argument is a strawman. That wasn't my point.


actually, it was. you asked me to show that the genetic evidence could ONLY be explained using a scientific explanation. You asked for me to show that it could NOT have been explained by creation.

I am telling you, again, that EVERY peice of evidence supports creation.


Originally posted by jbourke

If you cannot establish how the evidence can only be understood through evolution, then I have no work to do. You haven't made your case yet.


wrong. I am supporting evolution, thus my evidence must show that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the current data. I've done that.


Originally posted by jbourke
I didn't ask for an example. Examples of alleged macro-evolutionary change are abundant.
I asked for a mechanism.


...and I gave it.

Originally posted by jbourke
Sure, take a few days. Compose your response. Then tell me when you are ready and I will post my answer. What I won't do is answer challenge after challenge when you can't even back up your initial point about the very definition of what we are arguing.


you don't seem to be answering ANY challenges, except for a highly-dubious looking fossilized boot. Where is your evidence? Where is your data? Where are your citations?

Originally posted by jbourke
There is no question that there is a genetic correlation. Everything on the planet is genetically similar to some degree.
Jim

well, that's one prediction that evolution has borne out.

organisims that are closely related to each other will have split from a common ancestor recently. To put it another way, evolution predicts that nucleotide sequences will differ in daughter species as a function of the time they have been reproductively isolated.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


It was the first thing that came up in a web search. I didn't pay attention to the links from that page because they have nothing to do with my argument.



Do you have any peer-reviewed studies to present that will support mutation-free macro-evolution?
Jim

again... what is your beef with mutation?


Originally posted by jbourke
"I note that the forms found in the fossil record appear suddenly in no easily discernable order and without transitions. "

Jim

I've asked for this citation, and you've ignored it.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


Right, but is blindness an advantage?

Jim

more importantly, in a lightless environment, it is not a DISadvantage.

more likely, creatures with vestigial eyes will be selected for, as the upkeep of those organs is expensive in energy.

also, random mutations that knock out functioning portions of the eye will not be selected out of the population.

How about flightless birds? why do they have vestigial wings? because the environment allowed them to not HAVE to fly.

thus, the huge expenditure of energy on flight muscles, etc. is wasteful, and will be selected against.

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by notoatmeal


...

How about flightless birds? why do they have vestigial wings? because the environment allowed them to not HAVE to fly.

thus, the huge expenditure of energy on flight muscles, etc. is wasteful, and will be selected against.
.
Here's the meanest bird in the valley.. so mean it didn't need no wings! For about 20 million years.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul

.
Here's the meanest bird in the valley.. so mean it didn't need no wings! For about 20 million years.

oh yes... the terror birds. I read about them in SciAm a few years ago.

I'm glad they are extinct now... it would not be nice to have had to worry about getting eaten by one of them.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
Rather than having to discuss each and every object in the rocks, discuss why they're there.


Recall that my position is that evolution and creation are similar. Both are scientific in some respects and non-scientific in others.

If evolution in total is a "scientific" theory then it must be falsifiable. I've shown that it is not falsifiable. I've also agreed that creation is not falsifiable.

The challenge was made to me that evolution is scientific because it is based on naturalism. But naturalism is an epistemic assumption that specifically precludes creation as a possibility. Furthermore, it is impossible to falsify any theory based on naturalism because the very assumption of naturalism is that only naturalistic theories can be used in science.

The study of history cannot use scientific processes. The collection of data can and does use scientific processes. But the data that is collected can be interpreted according to either context.

So the only answer I can give you is that science doesn't answer "why" questions. You are asking me to presume the purpose a creator had for dinosaurs, but such a question is outside of science.


If creation indeed did occur so rapidly.. 10,000 years from start to now is commonly mentioned (4500 in the more extreme examples),


The age of the earth is indeterminable, just as it is impossible to measure a piece of string if you can only see one end of it. It's inconvenient for everyone involved, but the age of the earth is not something we can argue without a great deal of conjecture or assumption.

The example of the coelecanth is a perfect illustration of how a logical process precludes establishing any age, young or old. We have no way to know exactly how accurate we are being without external calibration. In some cases, such as the coelecanth, we receive a calibration that shows us to be way off. In other cases, we receive no calibration at all. It is unsafe to assume that computations which have not yet been calibrated are correct, when the only calibration we can get proves enormous error.

Isotopic dating methods have the same problem. Looking at the ratio of potassium to argon and presuming an initial composition gives us a means of calculating the age. But what if the argument is turned toward the initial composition? If the initial composition was something unexpected then the ratios are off. Plus, even given an assumption that we can accurately guess the initial composition of a rock, we may be measuring a correlation effect that is not causitive. It's impossible to say without an eyewitness from history.

The irony is that isotopic dating assumptions (and I mean specifically the assumptions, not the science, as the science behind isoptopic dating is reproducible) can only be calibrated when the age of the rock is known by witness(e.g. the rock is extremely young - less than 100 years). And when this is done the results are awful.

I can see that the earth can be quite old and I can accept the arguments at face value and consider that against the arguments that the earth is young. The evolutionist cannot. He must have an old earth. Thus the evidence will always be interpreted in a way that supports his beliefs. What I have been attacking are the statements that "we know fossils to be X years old" or "it takes X thousands of years to create a fossil". No one can assert those things dogmatically.

I'll just quote myself on this:


First of all, the earth is not 5000 years old according to the bible. Theologically, I am completely flexible on creation. It is a strawman argument to insist that creationists demand a six day creation, a literal flood, etc. Anti-creationists concentrate on those arguments because they are easily targetable as non-scientific. If evolution were believable to me scientifically, there is plenty of room in my Christian beliefs to accomodate for it. I simply see no reason to do so.


Rightfully, it's been pointed out to me that a young earth is a common belief. But defeating the young earth view is not enough to defeat creationism or establish evolution.


And markedly different layer by layer?


Ok, I'm shrugging off the "why" question again and getting to the underlying contention about the data...

Show me a place where I can start digging and uncover progressively older fossils. The fossils are found in various layers all across the world. When a fossil is found in an unexpected place it doesn't falsify evolution because evolution doesn't necessarily demand that extinction occur at all. The coelecanth is a perfect example. It is found in a layer that everyone "knows" to be about 100 million years old. It isn't found in any "newer" layers.

All I'm asking for is simple intellectual honesty.

Evolutionists should state the case accurately: the fossil record is consistent with evolution.

But not: the fossil record proves evolution.

Jim