John-She has a degree relevant to what she is studying-what's Safarti got? a degree in CHEMISTRY??? Seeing as you are the one who apparently values a degree in the field they are criticizing, would you care to comment on Safarti's LACK of a degree in biology? :D
In any event, I wasn't questioning his academics, merely his honesty. As noted here. and here.
He's deceptive.
I'll be sitting here waiting for you to take your foot out of your mouth any time now. :D
The Religion of Evolution
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Helen, Mar 25, 2003.
Page 8 of 9
-
If you think she took the quotes out of context, then prove, I've offered some examples where Safarti has been "less then honest", so now it's your turn. -
'And no matter how you slice it, calling on unknown physical laws sounds awfully like appealing to the supernatural."' -
Well Meatros,
The evolutionists at one time taught, that the
stages of the development of the baby in the
womb demonstrated evolution from a single
cell organism. I just carried their hypothesis one step further.
I never believed this religious belief of theirs;
however, they promoted it anyway. -
I mean, haven't you stopped and thought "gee, why aren't the saying the big bang is wrong?", they aren't they are saying what people have been saying since the theory began, ie, "what created the singularity from which the big bang came from".
Here's a section you didn't quote(bolding mine):
-
-
It is highly improbable that any living organism incorporated foreign matter into its gene structure or experienced a wholesale "shift" in a gene's information then not only survived but gained an advantage and then somehow within its lifetime had the same type of mutation to its RNA so that it could then pass on its advantage to its progeny. This before we even touch on the tremendous odds against a species using sexual reproduction accomplishing such a feat. -
Given enough 'micro'evolutionary changes, what prevents the species from changing? What is the barrier to prevent it?
-
OTOH, something that cannot be proven/nullified in a lab and cannot be directly observed falls outside the limits of what constitutes legitimate science according to evolutionists.
Given enough 'micro'evolutionary changes, what prevents the species from changing? What is the barrier to prevent it?
-
-
Of course. However that is a strange argument for you to make since you reject the idea that God created everything in 6 literal days out of hand because you cannot observe the mechanisms He might have employed.
OTOH, something that cannot be proven/nullified in a lab and cannot be directly observed falls outside the limits of what constitutes legitimate science according to evolutionists.Click to expand...
I've provided direct evidence of macroevolution, you chose not to read it. Is it evolution's fault if you choose not to keep up with the data?
I scanned the section you cite. Nothing there contradicts what I wrote nor is there any evidence presented that if animals are bred correctly they will eventually become a species containing more genetic information than their ancestors.Click to expand...
The author then goes own to defeat a strawman of his own invention. Is he or you accusing creationists of denying that dogs or cattle can be bred to reinforce desirable genetic characteristics? His argumentation truly is ridiculous. The fact is though that collies don't cease to be dogs because they are genetically specialized. Bred through enough generations the distinctive genetics that make one dog a collie could all but disappear in its descendents. However, no matter how long you breed collies with other collies, they will never cease to be dogs.Click to expand...
So quit dodging the issue and answer: What prevents micro from becoming macro. What mechanisms prevent enough microevolutions from changing a species (other then time)?
This proves that man evolved from an ape how?Click to expand...
... and do we have record of this being something other than an inherited attribute? Has there been a laboratory experiment of any kind at any time that reproduced the mechanics of this supposed evolution? Even under your system of belief, our common ancestors were the source of both those with and without this genetic quality. This is not an example of increased information.Click to expand...
In non-static environments, animals with the genetic ability to adapt, do. Those without this ability go extinct. These facts are testable worldwide. However, there is no evidence that changes in environment cause a species to acquire genetic capabilities that were not present before. God made his created things very adaptable.Click to expand...
Here's an intro to evolution:
I'm only going to quote a few sections, but I do suggest you reading the rest:
Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock.Click to expand...
Evolution requires genetic variation. If there were no dark moths, the population could not have evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to increase or create genetic variation and mechanisms to decrease it. Mutation is a change in a gene. These changes are the source of new genetic variation. Natural selection operates on this variation.Click to expand...
The cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation.Click to expand...The Pattern of Macroevolution
Evolution is not progress. The popular notion that evolution can be represented as a series of improvements from simple cells, through more complex life forms, to humans (the pinnacle of evolution), can be traced to the concept of the scale of nature. This view is incorrect.
All species have descended from a common ancestor. As time went on, different lineages of organisms were modified with descent to adapt to their environments. Thus, evolution is best viewed as a branching tree or bush, with the tips of each branch representing currently living species. No living organisms today are our ancestors. Every living species is as fully modern as we are with its own unique evolutionary history. No extant species are "lower life forms," atavistic stepping stones paving the road to humanity.
A related, and common, fallacy about evolution is that humans evolved from some living species of ape. This is not the case -- humans and apes share a common ancestor. Both humans and living apes are fully modern species; the ancestor we evolved from was an ape, but it is now extinct and was not the same as present day apes (or humans for that matter). If it were not for the vanity of human beings, we would be classified as an ape. Our closest relatives are, collectively, the chimpanzee and the pygmy chimp. Our next nearest relative is the gorilla.Click to expand...
In other words, they maintain (not change, not acquire) their genetic capabilities to the extent that some of the population will survive if the environment shifts again. This points to design, not chance. It points to inherited abilities, not acquired ones.Click to expand...
Note that under this description of speciation, information is being lost or subordinated, not gained.
No creationists that I have ever seen denies this type of "speciation". This line of argumentation makes me wonder if you know as much about creation science as you imply.
All this author has done is argue against silence leaving the reader to assume that his opponent objects. It is deception.Click to expand... -
...stages of the development of the baby...Click to expand...
-Neil -
Originally posted by NeilUnreal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...stages of the development of the baby...Click to expand...
-Neil </font>[/QUOTE]The entire concept of recapitulation is fraudulent and biologists know it. De Beer specificially denied its applicability at any stage as early as 1940 (he wrote texts on embryology and evolution).
Here is what actually happens: there are major and irreducible differences in the first cellular divisions when comparing the five groups of animals (birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals). Some later (but still early) stages bear some resemblance and then the differences exert themselves again in startling and unique ways. There is no possibility of recapitulation at either end of the gestational period.
That's even presuming there was something to recapitulate! -
Galation
If you've been reading the posts on this board, you've seen a great deal of evidence for evolutionClick to expand...
Bob -
I was thinking about it some more Scott and I think what *might* be a sticking point for you is the idea that a species evolves by the creation of alleles that were not previously there.
Again, from the same source:
The opportunity for natural selection to operate does not induce genetic variation to appear -- selection only distinguishes between existing variants. Variation is not possible along every imaginable axis, so all possible adaptive solutions are not open to populations. To pick a somewhat ridiculous example, a steel shelled turtle might be an improvement over regular turtles. Turtles are killed quite a bit by cars these days because when confronted with danger, they retreat into their shells -- this is not a great strategy against a two ton automobile. However, there is no variation in metal content of shells, so it would not be possible to select for a steel shelled turtle.Click to expand...
As you know, there are a multitude of different alleles in a creature. They change over time via sexual reproduction (for a simplistic example, a blue eyed person has a child with a brown eyed woman, the child has green eyes). Over enough time there are enough differences to constitute a different species (although, as I said, the term 'species' is somewhat erroneous). -
And when does a turtle become something other than another variety of turtle, or a guppy become something other than a guppy?
Or a dog not a dog?
OR even the little old lowly E.coli something other than an E.coli?
You see, none of this has EVER been seen, even in little old prokaryotes.
Other than the variations you mention which do not cause a change in the basic identity of the organism, evolution is a product of imagination and ....well....more imagination. -
Big talk Helen. Now would you care to explain why microevolution would not become macroevolution over enough time?
-
Originally posted by Edgeo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] Evolutionism has to claim so pretty radical things to defend itself -
Evolutionist - claims: Scientific Standing of Evolution and its Critics
. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.
Scientific creationism is 100% _____. So-called Creation Scientists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data.Click to expand...Edgeo -- Okay, well, nothing radical so far. I hope that you have some better examples.Click to expand...
As Gentry pointed out - BOTH scientific reasoning AND scientific data ARE rejected by the devotees of evolutionism AND THEN after censoring the views that "disconfirms their myths" they say "what? No other theories???".
How vacuous. Surely anyone with a modicum of objectivity would not fall for their ploys at that point EVEN if they were still an evolutionist.
EVoltionist article claims --
Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument - is a distortion if you observe that it contradicts the self-organizing requirements of evolutionism)
...
Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory ...Click to expand...EDGEO --
Still true, nothing radical here.Click to expand...
The "evolutionist devotee Hopes" to "define fact" as "whatever evolutionism speculates" and then define "science" as "That happy speculation", and then pretends that this is not obvious to anyone reading their work
.
...to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. (simply put "IF God did it - it did not really HAPPEN") Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments,Click to expand...Edgeo
Basically correct ... if the type of age dating that Steve Austin does is a typical example.Click to expand...
But of course "we forgot" that no science is "science" if done by a scientist that believes in God's statements on creation INSTEAD of evolution.
(sorry Robert Gentry - we can't hear you speaking in our censorship booth) nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.Click to expand...Edgeo -
Correct again. I have seen creationists INVITED to publish in by some reviewers, but they cannot find the nerve to do so.Click to expand...
(Again - we can't hear what we choose to shut out)Click to expand...The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no -- the fair thing to do is exclude scientific creationism ...Click to expand...
Edgeo --
No problem here. Creationism is simply not science. It can be brought up in comparative religions or some such class.Click to expand...
Comparative religion classes is where they study the sedimentation rates of major river deltas.
Comparative religion classes is where we are supposed to study the expected Helium by product of Uranium Lead decay in the Earth's crust.
Oh "yes" that is right - those fun "religion classes".
How about the "religion class" where elephants turn back into sea animals by walking into the surf? That is "True" religion.
But "if you don't believe" in the myth that fish climbed out of the sea - became elephants and then walked back into the sea to become whales WELL then you might as well denie the holocaust.
Edgeo
If we are to be completely 'fair' as you seem to suggest, I think we should include holocaust denial as well. Wouldn' that be 'fair?'Click to expand...
</font>Click to expand...
Bob -
Web Link: ...from public school science courses. Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. There is voluminous evidence for it. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories.Click to expand...
(though competing theories are spelled out in this article)
Until scientific creationists formulate a scientific theory, AND submit it for TESTING, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas.Click to expand...
Edgeo
True. If you want to be taken seriously, you'd better have something more than a bunch of incredulous whining.Click to expand...
(Hint: when was the last time you saw MacroEvolutionism TESTED?)Click to expand...
Edgeo --
Frequently, actually. It is tested every time a prediction is made regarding the fossil record.Click to expand...
That fossils "exist"??
In that case - Creationism HAS BEEN TESTED!! (on that same basis alone).
Science is based on an open and honest look at the data.Click to expand...
Edgeo -- Still on track.Click to expand...Web link: Science belongs in science classes. (ALL AGREE but then Evolutionists claim) Evolution is science. Creationism is not. It's that simple.Click to expand...
And who "goes" for such circular logic?
Edgeo --
Okay, now, what was your point? This all sounds pretty reasonable to me...Click to expand...
Web link continues: The creationist attack on public school education means that school children are denied the possibility of learning about the most powerful and elegant theory in biology. Politicians are willing to allow the scientifically ignorant, but politically strong, to wreck the educational system in exchange for votes.
People interested in evolution, and science education in general, need to closely watch school board elections. Creationist "stealth" candidates have been elected in several regions. Thankfully, many have been voted out once their Views became apparent.Click to expand...
Pure censorship. Pure intolerance. Pure "idea purging" where "only evolutionist IDEAS" are tolerated by the "thought police". EVEN for school board membership.
Edgeo --
Sounds right. Do you deny this?Click to expand...
Web Link: The majority of Americans are religious, but only a minority are religious nuts.Click to expand...
Web link: The version of religion the far right wants to impose on America is as repulsive to most mainstream Christians as it is to members of other religions, atheists and agnostics.Click to expand...
Most informed religious people see no reason for biological facts and theories to interfere with their religious beliefs.
...Click to expand...
Bob -
Originally posted by BobRyan:
And all of it "debunked" in the Creationist responses since (even the evolutionists admit) macroevolutionism can not be observed - it has to be speculated.
BobClick to expand...Originally posted by Helen:
You see, none of this has EVER been seen, even in little old prokaryotes.Click to expand...
What we observe in "macroevolution" is observed in the fossil record. I direct you back to this.
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000261
The transition from reptiles to mammals. It took 240 million years. A little longer than my lifetime. But the transition is remarkable. All of the major characteristics that define the differences between the two being observed as they change in concert with one another. Until, after a very long time, ou have a very different animal than what you started out with. This is evolution on a grand scale. This is not just speciation, or one new trait or metabolic pathway. This is an entirely new class!!!
If you disagree, I invite you to provide a better interpretation of the evidence. Because it is good evidence with a good explanation.
Page 8 of 9