Biblical literalism

[jlh]

An implicit atheist could have never heard of the concept of god. This person does not belief in god without having ever considered it.

That was a typo on my part, sorry.  I mean to say, "For example, an implicit atheist simply has NOT thought about the existance of God or gods, while an explicit atheist has a belief that such a being does not exist."

I don't understand what a study session on atheism is. If you ask me it is impossible.

And yet because of that the courts now define atheism as a religion... you might want to look into that.

But the only things atheists share is their atheism.

Isn't that what I said?

Again, I don't agree with this person. I just scanned this article. He has a whole list of things that are not part of atheist philosophy.

Atheism is not a quest for the truth. There are tons of atheists without interest in finding out the truth. There are tons of atheists that believe in astrology. There are atheists in the flat earth society. Some atheists believe in grey big eyed aliens abducting people at night, etc.

Ok, maybe those people are on a quest for the truth. But there are also atheists not interested in science, not interested in anti-astrology or anti-religion or anti-conspiracy theories.

So their views are invalid because you don't agree with them?  Pure ge[size=0pt].[/size]nsui you are!

If I am absolutely sure then I don't take a scientific position.

What?  If I stub my toe I'm absolutely sure it will hurt, because it's been proven that my nerves work in that area of my body and the pain is observable and repeatable. 

[prometheus]

In other words, you're saying Darwin had a hunch that he could not prove, that he could not observe, and and could not duplicate and yet it turned out to be the backbone of modern evolution theory?  Empirical science finds the evidence first, then makes a theory.

No, you make a theory first. Then you test it.

Some sciences are HISTORICAL, not empirical, and to hear you say that they are empirical only makes you look ignorant:

John H. Horner said, "...paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact.

As long as the evidence is empirical it's scientific, circumstantial or not.

You said there are no missing links; well, there were when Darwin proposed his theory.  He wrote:

Yeah well this is one of Darwin's famous mistakes.

Even more embarrassing for evolutionary theory is this statement by David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H.:

More quote mining? What is the point of all this?

In fact, Darwin's prediction has failed, according to Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H.:

The fact that we don't find more fossils is because there aren't that many and not because those creatures didn't exist. Darwin knew too little about geology and paleontology and he was wrong.

Anyway, these whole quotes are arguments for punctuated equilibriums and not arguments against evolution. They are arguments against a steady rate evolution.

I haven't even scratched the surface yet.

You are quoting scientists that support evolution in an attempt to refute it. I don't really see the point of all this. What is debated is exactly how evolution works. How fast, what determines exactly the dynamics?

I don't blindly believe in one way evolution operates. I am not even sure about any of this, actually. But if you look at the evidence there is really no room left to deny evolution, eventhough we are still ignorant about how exactly it operates.

This is why it takes faith to believe something like evolution in a hard, cold fashion like we are taught at an early age.

Haha, this reminds me of the Kennith Miller quote about the stickers people wanted to get on biology books:

Why stop with evolution? Really, surely you shouldn't believe in blindly in evolution. But that goes for all of science.

The problem is that when you take God, or a Supernatural Being, out of the realm of scientific possibility, then all you are left with is a natural possibility, therefore evolution MUST be correct because there COULD NOT have been a God to create it.

Well, if a being is a supernatural being then it's by definition outside of the scientific reality. And I would argue that supernatural beings are outside of reality, by definition.

Sure, I won't exclude a naturalistic god. But I will exclude a supernatural god. I will exclude a supernatural big bang and supernatural evolution.

The argument: "Evolution must be correct because if it isn't we have no idea how we got here." Is an extremely poor one. And this argument is never made by scientists. It is made a lot by theists. But then they replace evolution with god.

And yes, this is really an argument made for a faith.

I don't know how the universe got here. So why don't I make up a secular sounding baseless hypothesis?

That is the mindset of evolutionists.

This is a lie. And you know it.

They start with the assumption that God does not exist,

Tons of evolutionists actually do belief in god. Accidentally I linked to Ken Miller twice. He is a theist. Why does he belief in evolution? Because he does belief in a god, but not in a trickster god. At least that is what he says. He cannot believe in a god that created the world looking exactly as it would have looked if evolution were true.

However, some of the greatest scientists that have paved the way for modern science were Christians, such as Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Galilei, Descartes and a host of others.

They are great minds and scientists indeed. And surely they would have been greater scientists if they didn't belief in god, regardless of if god actually exists or not.

It can be clearly shown that their religion prevented them from doing science. Newton believed he couldn't figure out the orbits of the planets because it was god's miracle at work.

In the end it turned out to be pretty easy. Newton just believed he couldn't do it because he didn't know and because he didn't know he assumed it was a miracle.

How stupid a mistake from arguably the smartest person ever.

Even Einstein was quoted as saying, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Einstein was not a theist. Like you he has a flexible definition of 'religion'. He found the idea of a personal god absurd. But he was a deist and even this little religion resulted in him making two mistakes.

One he admitted, the other he didn't. One is his cosmological constant. The other is failing to accept Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

[prometheus]

So their views are invalid because you don't agree with them?  Pure ge[size=0pt].[/size]nsui you are!

No. You are trying to convince me that atheism is a philosophy by quoting other atheists that think atheism is a philosophy.
Why do you do that?
I just don't agree with them. That's it. So I won't just accept because of their authority that I got it wrong, if you seem to think that.

What?  If I stub my toe I'm absolutely sure it will hurt, because it's been proven that my nerves work in that area of my body and the pain is observable and repeatable. 

How would you know that the electromagnetic force will still be in operation in that future moment where you will stub your toe?

Well, of course you would know. But only because you assume that it will still function because it has always done so in the past.

So you can't be absolutely sure. You can be quite sure.

This is exactly the same as me not being absolutely sure about the non-existence of gods. It's a very reasonable position and probably the only reasonable position.

Just as it would be unreasonable to suggest that the electromagnetic force will stop functioning the next minute, causing you not to be able to feel the pain of stubbing your toe.


Also, if you stub your toe under the right angle it won't actually hurt at all even though you are stubbing it quite hard so that it would hurt a lot if the angle had been different. So even in that sense you aren't absolutely sure.

And you can actually make up other causes that would prevent the pain. Most of them very unreasonable but none of them can be ruled out.

Maybe I stub my toe but just at the same moment a small asteroid comes through the roof and penetrates me right through the brain stem, just in time to prevent me to process the pain signals fro my toe.

Quite unreasonable, to put it mildly, but certainly and clearly not absolutely impossible.

[jlh]

No, you make a theory first. Then you test it.

In science, the Empirical Method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion, not the other way around.  I didn't say you test a theory before you make it...

As long as the evidence is empirical it's scientific, circumstantial or not.

The problem is that most of evolutionary theory is not testable, so it cannot be empirical.   Many traditional explanations of major evolutionary transitions are not testable and therefore have no scientific content, for example, ideas about how flight must have evolved, rely on faith in the particular workings of natural selection or other evolutionary processes. 


The fact that we don't find more fossils is because there aren't that many and not because those creatures didn't exist. Darwin knew too little about geology and paleontology and he was wrong.

Scientists must reconstruct history for evolution to be valid.  A bone you pick up in Africa might be a hominid and might persuasively be not far from the direct line to living humans, they might conclude. But you can never really know, because not enough information is preserved. Time has wiped away direct evidence, if there ever was any.  Since direct evidence does not exist, any conclusion that leads to a theory of evolution is a conclusion that is based on a BELIEF that the evidence AT ONE POINT EXISTED, and not based on varifiable evidence that one can see and touch.  That is shotty science.

I don't blindly believe in one way evolution operates. I am not even sure about any of this, actually. But if you look at the evidence there is really no room left to deny evolution, eventhough we are still ignorant about how exactly it operates.

The evidence I have been exposed to is full of half-baked ideas and beliefs (and outright misrepresentations).

Haha, this reminds me of the Kennith Miller quote about the stickers people wanted to get on biology books:

Why stop with evolution? Really, surely you shouldn't believe in blindly in evolution. But that goes for all of science.

LOL I loved that!  I got a good laugh -- thanks! 

Well, if a being is a supernatural being then it's by definition outside of the scientific reality. And I would argue that supernatural beings are outside of reality, by definition.

What if reality as we know it now is different than the reality that created the universe?  We know too little about the world to say that we have charted the whole of reality.  Scientists are only now starting to unlock some of the mysteries of space, for example.

Sure, I won't exclude a naturalistic god. But I will exclude a supernatural god. I will exclude a supernatural big bang and supernatural evolution.

Of course you would, you're an atheist...   

Einstein was not a theist. Like you he has a flexible definition of 'religion'. He found the idea of a personal god absurd. But he was a deist and even this little religion resulted in him making two mistakes.

Right, but he still believed evolution was absurd.  He said, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." 

That's why I neglected to bunch him with the others.


On a completely separate note, did you know that Darwin was a racist?  He went as far as saying that over time the 'civilized races' would exterminate the 'savage races'. 

[ramseytheii]

Unfortunately, I've had to stay out of this discussion because I know next to nothing about the science behind evolution.  I had a thought that it is odd, that one only sees objections from the religious about the science; this was surpisingly confirmed to me** by this website, which also details the many objections to evolution - most of which have been repeated for more than a century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#History_of_objections

You will find here all the arguments being made in this thread, including but not limited to:
can evolution be observed (ie is it empirical)?; is it a religion?; is it just a "theory"?; can it explain complex organisms?; and even, what about the found watch? - and even surprisingly, did Darwin inspire Hitler?

A common accusation one hears against those of the scientific persuasion arguing for the evolutionary theory, is arrogance.  I think it has been expressed quite a few times in this thread and others.  Without getting into the obvious rebuke of specks and planks,  I think it an especially interesting thing to see this accusation come up again and again.  One sees the aggression and anger mostly from the religious side; and if the scientific side seems to be dismissive, or, let us put it plainly, is dismissive, the religious are often not tolerant enough to wonder why.  By which I mean, the scientists spend their lives studying, refining, testing theories, and then must face those who wish to derail those theories in terms other than scientific.

But another angle to the arrogance accusation I believe is this:  the main arguments against evolution seem to appeal to the offended common sense more than anything else.  Reading this wikipedia entry, one is left with the impression of a vast linguistic gulf between scientists and religious folk.  Words with specific definitions in science like "theory," "fact," "proof," etc, are treated much more casually by those outside that community.

Without meaning to belittle anyone, it would seem that the objecting side tends to operate more on emotional motivation, than intellectual insight.  The way these arguments keep coming up, after 100 years, suggests a certain refusal to deal with the topic in scientific terms (ie, "Evolution is just a theory").  It makes the accusation of "arrogance" natural and quite expected; as all who display their emotions to a cold receptor feel that that person can be nothing else but arrogant, for ignoring the intensity of the emotional outpouring.

Excuse the rambling, but these are long submerged thoughts that are just now achieving a genesis, if I may, and will hopefully gain more shape after they are denounced a few times.   

Walter Ramsey


** "Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious, rather than scientific, sources. Most Abrahamic religions accept evolution in some form, although a number of fundamentalist religions reject it in favor of Creationism. The resultant creation-evolution controversy has been a focal point of recent conflict between religion and science."

[jlh]

No. You are trying to convince me that atheism is a philosophy by quoting other atheists that think atheism is a philosophy.

I'm not trying to convince you of that -- I'm only telling you what the definition is.  You can choose to subscribe to the general definition or not.  

[prometheus]

In science, the Empirical Method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion, not the other way around.  I didn't say you test a theory before you make it...

Fine. But you are confusing it with the experimental method. You can collect data about the past. So your argument that you can't use the empirical method fails. You do.

That's exactly what Darwin did. He went to Galapagos to study the fauna there. And based on the data he collected there is proposed his theory.

The fossil record does not allow experiments but it does allow the empirical method

The problem is that most of evolutionary theory is not testable, so it cannot be empirical.

The theory of evolution is perfectly falsifiable.

Ok, we have to seperate two things here. The possibility of Darwinian evolution to have caused our evolution and if Darwinian evolution actually did.

About the first there is little to argue. Darwinian evolution is a mathematical process that can be tested in simulations by computers very quickly.

If Darwinian principles don't work as a blind designer in computer simulations then evolution is wrong.


Then the next question is if this process actually occurs in life. This is only possible if there is DNA, if there are mutations and if there is selection.

If there were no DNA then evolution would be wrong.

If DNA was copied with no error at all, evolution would be wrong.

If animals with unfit genes would have just as good a chance to reproduce and pass on their genes as animals with fit genes, evolution would be wrong.



So then we have established that Darwinian evolution as a mathematical process works and that it occurs in biological life. The question is if evolution actually gave the results that it could potentially have produced. Just because it could happen doesn't mean that it did.


Darwinian evolution predicts that we descended from a common ancestor. So we look at the fossil record. What we see is a general gradual increase in compexity. If the oldest creatures on this planet were by far the most complex, evolution would be wrong.

Darwinian evolution predicts that animals need to evolve first before they can exist. If we find a fossil of bats living in the precambrian then we know evolution is wrong.



Evolution claims that the gene pool of a species should be changing constantly. If this is true then we should be able to see this in creatures with a very high reproduction rate. For example bacteria and viruses. And that is what we see. New viruses appear and viruses are constantly changing. If viruses did not change at all evolution would be wrong.



Darwinian evolution claims that creatures evolve because random mutations that are beneficial are selected and then passed on more often so that these mutated genes become very prolific in a creature's gene pool. And that by this step by step progress complex systems can be designed by a blind designer.

For evolution to design a complex process each step towards this complex system needs to be beneficial, otherwise it won't get selected. Evolution cannot make a future 'investment'; "This is useless now, but believe me, it will help build the eye in the future."

If an eye would be totally useless without it's lens then mutating an eye without a lens would not be beneficial and could not have been an evolutionary stepping stone towards an eye. If the mutation towards an eye was not beneficial in any way, it doesn't have to function like an eye from the beginning, this evolution could not have occurred because it wouldn't have been selected by the process through which evolution operates.



The designs of evolution are very limited. Evolution can never design an organism better than it needs to be. If a creature can reproduce just fine with a major design flaw this design flaw will not be eliminated. If we have a planet with only organisms that lack these flaws, for example back pain in all vertebrates, we know evolution did not design these organisms.



Evolution can only design a new creature based on an old one. This means all creatures need to share morphology with each other. If we postulated that land animals evolved from sea animals then land animals need to share features with sea animals, even though one would have liked to design them from scratch.
This also means that in similar animals we should see the same basic structures. For example, in a flower we should see sepals, petals, stigma, style and ovary while colour, size and the way these parts are arranged in it's specific structure should be different.
If all flowers were build up from totally different parts then we know evolution is wrong.



I could go on. But it is clear that just because you cannot imagine evidence against evolution, it's not that easy because evolution is so obviously part of our reality we can't imagine how the world would look like without evolution, just as we can't imagine how reality would be without gravity, so I will stop here.



Note that I only talked about blunt refutations of the whole idea of evolution and not about the tons of direct and observable evidence for evolution. You can proof a theory wrong, but you can only show evidence to make a theory probable.

Many traditional explanations of major evolutionary transitions are not testable and therefore have no scientific content, for example, ideas about how flight must have evolved, rely on faith in the particular workings of natural selection or other evolutionary processes.

No. And your example is so ambiguous that I can't even respond to it. Also, here you claim that evolutionary explanations are not testable, not that evolution is not testable.
 
Surely evolution would be testable while it would be impossible to explain why certain things evolved but not other features.

Scientists must reconstruct history for evolution to be valid.

No. Obviously not. It is very well possible for evolution to have occurred without it being possible for us to figure out how it occurred.

Surely you won't argue that the fact that we can't figure out HOW a murder was committed proves that it never happened.

What you say here is very very wrong.

A bone you pick up in Africa might be a hominid and might persuasively be not far from the direct line to living humans, they might conclude. But you can never really know, because not enough information is preserved.

That could be possible.

Time has wiped away direct evidence, if there ever was any.  Since direct evidence does not exist, any conclusion that leads to a theory of evolution is a conclusion that is based on a BELIEF that the evidence AT ONE POINT EXISTED, and not based on varifiable evidence that one can see and touch.  That is shotty science

You find a fossil bone that you can't really classify and then that proves direct evidence is per definition impossible and that proves evolution is based on belief?

This is just poor ad hoc reasoning.

The evidence I have been exposed to is full of half-baked ideas and beliefs (and outright misrepresentations).

Maybe that is because you have already decided what position to take regardless of what the evidence may indicate?

What if reality as we know it now is different than the reality that created the universe?

Reality created the universe? I am not sure if you forget the middle of this sentence but in this way it makes no sense.

We know too little about the world to say that we have charted the whole of reality.  Scientists are only now starting to unlock some of the mysteries of space, for example.

I am not saying we know everything about reality. But the definition of supernatural is that it cannot be explained. If something can be observed then it can be explained and put into laws of nature. If we can't observe something then it cannot interact with out reality. If it can't interact with out reality it is separate from our reality. And if it did interact then we would be able to observe this interaction and put it in laws of nature.

Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it is supernatural. On the contrary. We just don't know everything yet. So Newton thinking that the orbits of the planets could not be explained because he thought it was supernatural because he didn't know how it worked is an example for how he was wrong.

Not sure what your point is.

Of course you would, you're an atheist...   

Uuh, this has no relation with atheism. You still seem to confuse atheism with a rational person, a person that is skeptical, a person that bases his world view on science, etc. But while an atheist may be all of these things, he may also not be all of these things.

If I claim I will not believe in a supernatural god, supernatural big bang and that I will believe in a natural god, a natural big bang if there is enough evidence then surely this does not define me as an atheist.

Right, but he still believed evolution was absurd.

I never heard Einstein's opinion on Darwinian evolution. And even if he did it is totally irrelevant. Science doesn't operate through authority. We have heroes, but they don't tell us what to think.
Maybe you can quote Einstein's argument against evolution, if he made one.

He said, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." 

Do you know what Spinoza's god is? To him god is nature, god is the universe. God is this godless universe.

He didn't believe in god, he believed in naturalistic spirituality and he called it 'god'. Now, he shouldn't have used the word 'god', but he did. And some people seem to like this, including Einstein.

On a completely separate note, did you know that Darwin was a racist? 

First of all, this is not really relevant. While racism is far worse than being a Christian, I think being a Christian is not a good thing. What if I rejected the Copernican world view because Copernicus was a Christian? How absurd would that be?

Secondly, in Darwin's time everyone had views we would not label as 'racist'. People were just ignorant and believed there were different races of humans. It just seemed that way because some ethnicities had less developed cultures exclusively.

But Darwin was better than most people. He opposed slavery. He was not intolerant of different kinds of people all present day racists would be.

He went as far as saying that over time the 'civilized races' would exterminate the 'savage races'. 

The subtitle of his book was: "On the origin of species by means of natural Selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life"

Favoured races refers to the variations within a species which survive. It has nothing to do with racism. Even if it were true that the English people of that time were favoured by natural selection and would thus allow mankind to avoid extinction, then this still doesn't mean we should exterminate all other peoples.

This just shows that your only knowledge is creationist propaganda.


As for Hitler, which you did mention but removed.

Social Darwinism has little to do with Darwinian evolution. It was made up by Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer and they seemed to think that they could use Darwinism as an excuse for their already present racist views.

In the mean time genetics has shown that there aren't any human races.


And where did Hitler get his ideas from? His racism and anti-semitism? Not from science. As far as is documented he never mentioned evolution, genetics, natural selection, Darwin, etc. He was not influenced by social darwinian at all. No, that was something from England.

Hitler himself is very clear about the origin of his racist views. And his influences are people like Martin Luther, who was also an antisemite.

Hitler used religion, not Darwinism, as an excuse for his antisemitism, Quotes are numerous, but maybe this one is one of the most famous ones:
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65).

He believed in the divine right to exterminate the Jews.

[prometheus]

I'm not trying to convince you of that -- I'm only telling you what the definition is.

You are not convincing me of what the definition of atheism is, you are just telling me?

Right...

[jlh]

You are right about viruses, in one aspect.  There are many mutations that can be observed in viruses, but they never turn into anything else.  They always remain viruses.  Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.  Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.  In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.  There is much variation in fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything else.  They always remain fruit flies.  Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today. 

I don't deny that mutations can eliminate traits, but they cannot make new creatures, and nobody has ever observed a new species evolve.

You also mentioned DNA as your supporting evidence. This is evolution's only tool for making new creatures, and as I understand it, it goes something like this:

On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce. 

That would be plausible if it took just one gene to make and control one part.  But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.  Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. 

That is physically impossible.

Only mutations in the reproductive cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.  Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.  Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.  All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.  You'd have to be a complete optimist to believe evolution.  You'd have to believe that many beneficial mutations were passed on to every species that ever existed, and that beneficial mutations are the only way new creatures are formed. 

You want to talk about mathematics?  Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.  There is an irreducible complexity in all living creatures, and to date no one has been able to create life in a laboratory -- and that's not even pure chance, but well studied scientists trying their best to create life.  How do we know for sure it has not occured? If one were to succeed, you would know about it.  He/she would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him. 

What would you call the platypus?  A transitional creature between mammals and ducks? It has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.  Yet you'd be laughed at if you claimed it were such a transitional creature.

So many other examples could be given to give one cause to question the legitimacy of evolution, such as the fact that it violates 2 laws of science:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Biogenesis.  Some other misrepresentations that evolutionists have made include the Archaeopteryx (and indeed the other birds in the evolutionary tree), the North American Horse, Ernst Haeckel's "law of biogenetics" (which was completely debunked in 1997), australopithecus africanis (Lucy), and a host of others.

Speaking of Lucy... How did we humans get here?  The same way as other creatures in that we had a whole bunch of beneficial mutations and no bad mutations? 

When we examine the evidence from the fossil record we see apes (including australopithocines) and we see humans (including all in the genus Homo, that are hardly more diverse than today's tribes), side-by-side, in deposits that are embarrassingly "old" for the evolutionist. Honest interpretation reveals the fact apes have always been apes, and people, people. Evolutionists, with their vivid imaginations, pretend australopithecus africanis (Lucy), and a handful of other orangatangs, were half human. Yet studies in the jaw, fingers and hands, as well as their arms prove these were tree-dwelling creatures rather than crude man attempting to walk upright. 

Evolutionists would say that one should not - and does not - find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period.... yet we have several examples of 'out of place' fossils and evidence of modern humans living with the dinosaurs such as the "Paluxy River Prints," "the Coelacanth Fish," the "Laetoli Foorprints" and "cave paintings of man hunting dinosaurs" just to name a few.

For all evolution claims, there is one thing that it cannot explain.  The origin of life.  How does an evolutionist envision this?  The probing question of origins is, "where did the information come from that exists in the genetic code?" A majority of scientists have excused random chance evolution as the author because blind chance has no ability for intricate design. As the Law of Biogenesis proves, life comes only from life, so does the laws of information science prove that information comes only from intelligent sources.

For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials.  No exceptions.  A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.


---
Here is a link to a current roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they understand evolution theory completely.  They also have voluntarily added their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

https://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

[jlh]

"Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers.  This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there."

--- David Coppedge
Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003

[ramseytheii]

---
Here is a link to a current roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they understand evolution theory completely.  They also have voluntarily added their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

https://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

In the interest of hearing both sides of the story, I offer a couple links.

Here is a link to hundreds of professionals who have not only advanced academic degrees, but advanced academic degrees in the biological sciences, and only have the first name of Steve or its related forms, who support evolution (this list outnumbers the Discovery Institute's):

https://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Here is information about a more serious counter-petition to the Discovery Institute's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_for_Darwinism

And more information about the Discovery Institute petition - you may be interested to know who were the scientists who signed it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Critical_responses

Teach the controversy!

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

Nice try, really! 
 
It's well-known that the number of scientists supporting evolution outnumbers those who do not support it, in lieu of whatever.  The numbers are meaningless.  500 years ago everyone in the world "knew" that the earth was flat.  The fact that many people agree with something doesn't inherently validate it.  It was not my intention to show that the numbers are in favor of whatever theory that is in disagreement with evolution.  My intent was to show that skepticism of evolution is not something that is limited to those who do not understand science.  I would not go as far as to say that this list is even nearly the size it should be if every scientist who was skeptical of evolution were listed. 

In light of this, here is another list of medical doctors who are skeptical of Darwinism:

https://www.pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

[ramseytheii]

Nice try, really! 
 
It's well-known that the number of scientists supporting evolution outnumbers those who do not support it, in lieu of whatever.  The numbers are meaningless.  500 years ago everyone in the world "knew" that the earth was flat.  The fact that many people agree with something doesn't inherently validate it.  It was not my intention to show that the numbers are in favor of whatever theory that is in disagreement with evolution.  My intent was to show that skepticism of evolution is not something that is limited to those who do not understand science.  I would not go as far as to say that this list is even nearly the size it should be if every scientist who was skeptical of evolution were listed. 

In light of this, here is another list of medical doctors who are skeptical of Darwinism:

https://www.pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

But give us the list of biologists who disagree with it - give us the list of biologists who have studied it, seen its shortcomings, and found comfort in the "other" theory (theories).  The whole point of the DI list was indeed to give a numerical strength to those who didn't subscribe to the science of evolution; it failed to show any kind of numerical strength, and it failed to enlist people who had "authority in the field."

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

You are right about viruses, in one aspect.  There are many mutations that can be observed in viruses, but they never turn into anything else.  They always remain viruses.

I am glad you now accept that evolution is falsifiable and thus is indeed real solid science.

Yes, viruses have not evolved into a higher life form. Why? Almost everyone defines viruses as not being alive in the first place. Let's look at what viruses are and what evolution actually would predict would happen. Maybe viruses not turning into anything else actually is what evolution would predict.


Viruses are just DNA or RNA surrounded by a protein cell. On reproduction they depend on the cells of other organisms to reproduce their components. They inject their genetic code into a cell and then the cell becomes hijacked and the cell starts to produce new viruses until it explodes.

Now why doesn't a virus evolve into a cellular creature with it's own machinery? What if a virus did indeed do that? Would that be in accordance with evolution or not?

Would a virus have an advantage if it went cellular? If it did, then how would it reproduce?

Anyway, I don't see how evolution predicts viruses evolving into higher life forms. I don't know if it is impossible or not, but just because it doesn't happen doesn't at all mean evolution is wrong. Now I am not an expert but maybe if viruses evolved into higher life forms that would actually proof evolution is wrong instead of right.

Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.  Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.  In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.  There is much variation in fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything else.  They always remain fruit flies.

That's because one generation takes 9 days.

If evolution happens then why is it impossible to turn into 'something else'? Surely we will always have an 'almost fruit fly' turning into a 'fruit fly' or a 'fruit fly plus' turning into a 'fruit fly plus plus' or a 'barely still a fruit fly' turning into a 'just yet not a fruit fly, but still a fly', etc. Something will never evolve into something totally diffferent. If that happened then evolution would be wrong.

But a lot of small steps can cover any distance if there is enough time. So I don't understand the objection. If I walk one centimeter a week I will never be able to walk from Amsterdam to Rome in a year. in my lifetime. But if it is perfectly normal for me to take 10 million years then why object that walking one centimeter a day will not take me from Amsterdam to Rome within 100 years?

So why can't a fruit fly not turn into totally something else in 10 million or 100 million years if it can chance into something else in 9 days?


What is this process that limits a fruit fly from changing too much? Does the ancestor of a fruit fly living 100 million years from now know the genetic make-up of a present day fruit fly so that it can know not to change too much?

It won't know what genes it's ancestor had 100 million years ago. And mutations will still happen. And the gene pool will still be filtered out by natural selection. So what prevents a fruit fly from changing too much? There is no basic fruit fly or even fly template. There is no back-up of the old genetic code. So it doesn't even know how much it has changed.

Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today. 

They show evolution does happen. They just don't show more evolution then could happen in those countless generations.

I don't deny that mutations can eliminate traits, but they cannot make new creatures, and nobody has ever observed a new species evolve.

Haha, are you sure? There are tons of new species that have evolved. They just don't look totally different because it took only 100 or 200 years, not 100 or 200 million years. Just multiply the chances we see in 100 years by a million. Would you still consider the differences too small?

Again, tons of new species have evolved. Even in mammals. There are even human cancer cells that have evolved in a new species, how strange that may sound.

You also mentioned DNA as your supporting evidence. This is evolution's only tool for making new creatures, and as I understand it, it goes something like this:

The point was that Darwin did not know about DNA or Mendelian genetics. But his theory needs DNA. It needs a genetic medium. If it was never found then we would know that evolution is impossible.

On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce. 

That would be plausible if it took just one gene to make and control one part.  But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence.  Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.  Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance.

I am not sure if you are talking about the flagellum or something like that? I actually talked about this in my previous post. If the small steps evolution takes are not  beneficial then those small steps can't design a complex system. So if this were actually correct then evolution would be wrong.

The flagellum would not work without a single part. Now if none of these parts are beneficial to a bacteria, whatever their function, evolution would be wrong because the flagellum could not have evolved step by step.

But actual research into the flagellum has shown that almost all parts that make up the flagellum had other functions earlier on. The flagellum is basically an adapted type III secretion system. So a flagellum works perfectly fine without the filament/shaft thingy and the engine that powers it but then as a type III secretion system.

And the engine parts also evolved as something else first and then got a new function as flagellum engine parts.


It has been researched deeply on many occasions. So the only science that was done on ID supports evolution and contradicts ID because the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

Just look it up yourself. If we found that all parts of the flagellum were totally novel and unique then it could not have evolved. But now it looks just as one would expect.

Only mutations in the reproductive cells of an animal or plant would be passed on.  Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter.

Uuh mutations on eye or skin genes happen. But only in the DNA of sperm of egg cells, yes. Because only that DNA gets passed on. But every cell in the human body contains the complete human genome. Sperm cells do have mutations for eyes and skin.

Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants.  All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal.

There are tons of positive mutations. Really, this shows you just never looked for them. They are quite obvious. Just insects evolving resistance against DDT is a basic example. Or the flue virus that is constantly changing so that it can avoid our immune systems anti-bodies.

I could give tons of examples in humans just on the top of my head. There are many many beneficial mutations. And even if  you look at it genetically this is not strange or novel, but yes it is rare.

You'd have to be a complete optimist to believe evolution.  You'd have to believe that many beneficial mutations were passed on to every species that ever existed, and that beneficial mutations are the only way new creatures are formed. 

Of course beneficial mutations get passed on more often. Otherwise they wouldn't be beneficial. Yes, evolution seems to have quite a small effect and not be really a powerful process. But that's just our human intuition. But our intuition is build for the scale we humans live on. Centimeters, meters, kilometers and minutes, hours, days. Not the scales evolution works on.

You want to talk about mathematics?  Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Yes, but mutation and selection don't need chance.

There is an irreducible complexity in all living creatures,

Not even a mouse trap is irreducible complex even though it is clearly designed. Irreducible complexity is totally refuted. All posterboards of ID were proved to agree with evolution.

...and to date no one has been able to create life in a laboratory

Evolution can't create life.

What would you call the platypus?  A transitional creature between mammals and ducks? It has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.  Yet you'd be laughed at if you claimed it were such a transitional creature.

All creatures are transitional. A platypus is transitional to 'a almost platypus' and 'a platypus plus'.

So many other examples could be given to give one cause to question the legitimacy of evolution, such as the fact that it violates 2 laws of science:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics,

Ooh, come on. I can't believe you said this. If I knew this I would have given up on you earlier. Do you really mean this? Right now I am considering deleting everything I wrote.



I will respond to the rest you posted if you take back this comment about thermodynamics. Really, it's extremely stupid. It clearly shows you are only just repeating idiotic propaganda. And the kind of propaganda a lot of creationists are ashamed off other people use.

Creationists use such stupid arguments sometimes there are sites that it discredits the whole movement. There are actually creationist sites that try to get creationists to stop using these extremely stupid arguments.

[prometheus]

As for the petition, the same as with the global warming petition.


Hell, even I would sign it.

[jlh]

You're using the MyBias fallacy to argue for evolution.  It is quite amusing how you can take the evidence I'm giving you that's inconsistent with evolution and twist it around to support evolution.  Just watch as I show you a few examples of this fallacy:

Maybe viruses not turning into anything else actually is what evolution would predict.

Now I am not an expert but maybe if viruses evolved into higher life forms that would actually proof evolution is wrong instead of right.

Something will never evolve into something totally diffferent. If that happened then evolution would be wrong.

Such as a fish turning into a man over several hundreds of millions of years?

So why can't a fruit fly not turn into totally something else in 10 million or 100 million years if it can chance into something else in 9 days?

I'm assuming you meant "change into something else", because you said later on that "mutation and selection don't need chance." 



Oh, and didn't you just contradict yourself?  Ah yes, here it is:

Something will never evolve into something totally diffferent. If that happened then evolution would be wrong.

   So either you are wrong or evolution is wrong.

What is this process that limits a fruit fly from changing too much?

It seems to me that suggests some kind of design, and not simply chance beneficial mutation.  That's also the reason genetic codes for seemingly related species differ so much.

Haha, are you sure? There are tons of new species that have evolved. They just don't look totally different because it took only 100 or 200 years, not 100 or 200 million years. Just multiply the chances we see in 100 years by a million. Would you still consider the differences too small?

Then where are all the transition forms of the species that would back up your claim?  There should be so many fossilized examples of these changes that there would be no question.  Fact is that the fossil record does not support evolution's claims enough to assert evolution as fact.  The only thing the fossil record supports is evolutionary biologists' ability to imagine the changes exist.

Again, tons of new species have evolved. Even in mammals. There are even human cancer cells that have evolved in a new species, how strange that may sound.

Care to elaborate?  It seems to me that cancer is the result of faulty mutations in cells, not evidence of evolution of species.

The flagellum would not work without a single part. Now if none of these parts are beneficial to a bacteria, whatever their function, evolution would be wrong because the flagellum could not have evolved step by step.

This is another mybias fallacy.

And the engine parts also evolved as something else first and then got a new function as flagellum engine parts.

What would happen if these new parts essential to the survival of the cell had not "evolved"?  What if they did evolve, but it took millions of years?  Would the cells cease to exist because they couldn't survive without the parts, and couldn't wait the millions of years for evolution to take care of it?  Same could be said of disease...  Why aren't people immune by nature to the diseases that are plagueing us?  HIV, influenza, the common cold?  Wouldn't it be a beneficial mutation for us to suddenly become immune at birth to any one of these diseases?  What if it were not in our power to control some deadly disease?  Would we all become extinct, or would nature find a way to cure it for us?  And if your anwer is that it's a survival of the fittest, and the disease is fitter, then that doesn't make sense either, because wouldn't more complex creatures by definition be fitter than less complex creatures?

There are tons of positive mutations. Really, this shows you just never looked for them. They are quite obvious. Just insects evolving resistance against DDT is a basic example. Or the flue virus that is constantly changing so that it can avoid our immune systems anti-bodies.

For the flu virus, are you sure you're not confusing "evolution" with "reassortment"?  They're not the same thing.

I could give tons of examples in humans just on the top of my head. There are many many beneficial mutations. And even if  you look at it genetically this is not strange or novel, but yes it is rare.

It would have to be more frequent than rare for it to work.  ALL mutations are faulty by definition, yet more beneficial mutations than bad mutations would need to occur for it to work, otherwise we'd be de-evolving.  Moreover, these mutations would have to be passed on to future generations.  Have you ever seen a 5-legged frog giving birth to a generation of 5-legged frogs?  This would seem to be a beneficial mutation, wouldn't it?  I mean, they would be able to swim or jump away from predaters at a faster rate.

Of course beneficial mutations get passed on more often. Otherwise they wouldn't be beneficial.

Come on!  If there were a beneficial mutation, it is not by definition occuring more often.  Logic check...

Evolution can't create life.

You didn't answer my question.  You only agree with me here.  Answer my question -- what is the origin of life?

All creatures are transitional. A platypus is transitional to 'a almost platypus' and 'a platypus plus'.

Even if this were true, it is still a platypus, and will always be a platypus.  Really, this is not an absurd statement, I mean, one freak mutation that is not beneficial could make a platypus be "an almost platypus" and, for example, be born with no fur or eyes or whatever.  Another mutation could make "a platypus plus" in the form of having an extra limb or two.  This means nothing because these mutations are not passed on to future generations -- if that mutated platypus reproduces, the young will most likely be born normal, unless radiation (for example) were the original culprit and it's still around the platypuses (platypii?).

Ooh, come on. I can't believe you said this. If I knew this I would have given up on you earlier. Do you really mean this? Right now I am considering deleting everything I wrote.



I will respond to the rest you posted if you take back this comment about thermodynamics. Really, it's extremely stupid. It clearly shows you are only just repeating idiotic propaganda. And the kind of propaganda a lot of creationists are ashamed off other people use.

Creationists use such stupid arguments sometimes there are sites that it discredits the whole movement. There are actually creationist sites that try to get creationists to stop using these extremely stupid arguments.

Do tell me, why did you get so defensive at this point that you won't even consider finishing responding to my post?  What is wrong with that law?  That it is inconsistent with evolution? 

I'm not taking back anything without sufficient cause.  You say this is a poor argument, then tell me why.  The way I understand the law is that it is in disagreement with evolution.

[prometheus]

You're using the MyBias fallacy to argue for evolution.

What fallacy? Never heard of that fallacy before.

It is quite amusing how you can take the evidence I'm giving you that's inconsistent with evolution and twist it around to support evolution.  Just watch as I show you a few examples of this fallacy:

Maybe that is because you don't actually know what evolution is and you get confused about what I mean when my words are a little too ambiguous.

Such as a fish turning into a man over several hundreds of millions of years?

Fish don't evolve into humans. Fish evolve into flish-plus. And fish plus eveolves into fish-plus-plus, and fish-plus-plus-plus goes on to evolve into an almost-almost-Amphibia. And that evolves into an almost-Amphibia. And that evolves into an Amphibia. And that evolves into an Amphibia-plus. Etc.

 

I'm assuming you meant "change into something else", because you said later on that "mutation and selection don't need chance." 

Yes, for some reason this is a common typo.

Oh, and didn't you just contradict yourself?  Ah yes, here it is:

Something will never evolve into something totally diffferent. If that happened then evolution would be wrong.

You want to see something evolve into something totally different. But that is not what you see. You see an almost reptile evolve into a reptile. You see an almost almost-Lion-tailed Macaque evolve into a Lion-tailed Macaque. And that evolves into a Lion-tailed Macaque-plus. You don't see a Lion-tailed Macaque turn into a baboon or something.

But this process of evolution can go from a 'fish' to a human. But that doesn't mean we should proof in an experiment that a fish can change into a mammal or even a reptile. Because that never happened. A fish never 'changed' into a reptile.

  So either you are wrong or evolution is wrong.

I was wrong because it seems I was unclear.

It seems to me that suggests some kind of design, and not simply chance beneficial mutation.  That's also the reason genetic codes for seemingly related species differ so much.

You didn't answer my question. What process puts a limit to the chance in the gene pool of a creature?

As for fruit flies remaining fruit flies. Whatever evolves from a fruit fly, we will probably still call it a fruit fry. What else to call it?

Anway, there are already 3,000 described species of fruit flies. Fruit flies do turn into new species.

If we saw greater divergence in such a small times then evolution could not explain these changes. Evolution can only explain small changes, not big ones.

Also, in what creatures that are related does the genetic code differ more than one would expect. Because that's not what evolution predicts. The more related creatures are the more similar the genetic code generally is.

Then where are all the transition forms of the species that would back up your claim?

All fossils are transitional. It is a long chain. Species is based on those fossil-snapshots we have now and how species look today. But these gene pools are constantly changing and evolving. And all individuals are transitional.

There should be so many fossilized examples of these changes that there would be no question.

I am not talking about fossils. I am talking about new species that evolved in the last 200 or so years.

Helacyton gartleri is the new species that evolved from human cancer cells.

Polyploidy created Primula kewensis.

Culex Molestus evolved from Culex pipiens, Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998.

Cichlids in Lake Malawi evolved into hundreds of species, Schilthuizen 2001.

There are new species of Mimulus flowers that only grow in soils with high concentrations of copper only found around our human copper mines. Since there were no copper mines before 1989 it must have speciated.

Fact is that the fossil record does not support evolution's claims enough to assert evolution as fact.  The only thing the fossil record supports is evolutionary biologists' ability to imagine the changes exist.

In science there is no proof except for refutations. There is no absolute evidence, ever. Can you proof me that an apple will fall down? You can't.
There's only evidence. And evidence make it very probable that evolution did happen.

In court you also can't proof that someone is guilty of murder. You can only provide evidence. And the evidence must be beyoun reasonable doubt.

Care to elaborate?  It seems to me that cancer is the result of faulty mutations in cells, not evidence of evolution of species.

If the faulty mutation results in a new species, then what's that? Again, it's called Helacyton gartleri.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helacyton_gartleri

It also happened with dog tissue before, I have been told.

This is another mybias fallacy.

What? This is Behe's perfect reasoning on how he could proof evolution wrong. What is a mybias fallacy?

Anyway, evolution stood up to the test and showed that evolution did indeed evolve.

What would happen if these new parts essential to the survival of the cell had not "evolved"?  What if they did evolve, but it took millions of years?

If a flagellum, that is essential to the survival of a cell, still has to evolve then the flagellum-less cell will die and a flagellum will never evolve, of course.

Point is that while all these parts are essential to the flagellum, they are not useless with one missing part. This means all components by themselves can be beneficial and can be selected. If they were not beneficial and totally useless they would never be selected unless they formed a complete flagellum.

Why aren't people immune by nature to the diseases that are plagueing us?  HIV, influenza, the common cold?  Wouldn't it be a beneficial mutation for us to suddenly become immune at birth to any one of these diseases?

We do. But because viruses have a faster rate of evolution we always end up trailing behind.

What if it were not in our power to control some deadly disease?  Would we all become extinct, or would nature find a way to cure it for us?

There are always people more resistant or immune to some virus. There are people immune to HIV.

Also, because viruses need to infect humans they can't kill off all humans.

And if your anwer is that it's a survival of the fittest, and the disease is fitter, then that doesn't make sense either, because wouldn't more complex creatures by definition be fitter than less complex creatures?

No, of course not. And you get it the wrong way. Viruses and humans don't compete. Humans compete with each other and so do viruses. If a virus specialized in infecting humans infects and kills all humans it will die as well.

Survival of the fittest is those who are resistant against this deadly virus. They survive, they are fit, and they pass on their genes that make them resistant.

Same with viruses once humans become resistant. Some strain of virus is better at infecting a resistant humans than others. So against survival of the fittest.

For the flu virus, are you sure you're not confusing "evolution" with "reassortment"?  They're not the same thing.

No. Just look up the definition of something like H5N1. They get totally new protein. H5 stands for a protein the virus uses. So does N1. The flu virus we usually get is H1N1 but just recently H3N2 has become very dominant. The spanish flu is also H1N1, eventhough that specific strain is extinct except for laboratory samples.

But you are right that reassortment does happen. If H5N1 and H1N1 infect the same human at the same time H5N1 could gain the ability to infect from human to human.


There are other examples of new protein. A good example is the bacteria that gained the ability to digest nylon production waste. Those fibers were totally artificial. But it evolved enzymes that can cut and digest these molecules.

Same with DDT. DDT kills insects by opening sodium ion channels in insect neurons, causing the neuron to fire spontaneously. One of the techniques mosquitoes developed against DDT was to detoxify. They have enzymes that  connect with the DDT-molecule making it unable to do what it was meant to do.


Now if you believe that the creator of the bacteria in the nylon-case foresaw that one day his little creation would be trying to survive in a nylon plant waste pool and thus dav   them the genetic information that would one day result in an enzyme able to digest this nylon by-product to be turned on, fine. Though the enzyme still gets enhanced by evolution.


But do you really believe the creator made this precise symbiotic relation between the malaria parasite and the mosquito carrying it, which is killing about two children every minute, and then the creator foresaw the suffering this would cause humans and also foresaw the humans creating DDT trying to kill off all malaria mosquitoes? And what he did then was add a little genetic information that would allow the mosquito to reshuffle it's DNA and create an enzyme that would detoxify the DDT and allow the parasite to continue to kill two children a minute?

It would have to be more frequent than rare for it to work.  ALL mutations are faulty by definition, yet more beneficial mutations than bad mutations would need to occur for it to work, otherwise we'd be de-evolving.

Again a total lack of knowledge about evolution. All mutations are copy errors by definition, yes.

And no, one doesn't need more beneficial mutations than harmful mutations for evolution to occur. The harmful mutations immediately get filtered out. If the mutation is truly harmful then the genetic code will never be able to create a functioning organism.

If a mutation is beneficial then this will allow that individual to get more offspring. If you get more offspring then that means more copies of this beneficial mutation.

Moreover, these mutations would have to be passed on to future generations.  Have you ever seen a 5-legged frog giving birth to a generation of 5-legged frogs?  This would seem to be a beneficial mutation, wouldn't it?

Why? I don't think it's beneficial.

I mean, they would be able to swim or jump away from predaters at a faster rate.

No they won't. We are often surprised when a creature, be it a dog, cow or sheep, with more than 4 legs is able to walk properly. The extra legs almost never function properly and often are cumbersome.

Come on!  If there were a beneficial mutation, it is not by definition occuring more often.  Logic check...

Uuh, this is true by definition. A beneficial mutation is a mutation that gets the individual more offspring. I am not sure what you mean, you seem confused. But that was my point.

You didn't answer my question.  You only agree with me here.  Answer my question -- what is the origin of life?

I don't know. But it's outside the debate about either god and evolution.

Even if this were true, it is still a platypus, and will always be a platypus.

Why?

We split the two gene pools in two. They are not allowed to interchange with each other. The gene pools have to change by definition, copying genetic information will go wrong and genes will be filtered by (natural) selection.

If both of these originally platypus-gene pools keeps evolving and changing then at one point they will no longer be able to reproduce with each other. So then by definition one of them is no longer a platypus. Now in practice one of them will be living in a new niche while the other lives in it's old nice.

So you give the one in the new niche a new name because it is a new species by definition. Now then add another 10 million years.

Really, this is not an absurd statement, I mean, one freak mutation that is not beneficial could make a platypus be "an almost platypus"

An almost-platypus would be the first ancestor of the platypus we choose not to call a platypus. But it will look just as similar to it's parents and offspring as any other platypus. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Just as with colours. If we go from red to pink in 10,000 steps then at one 1/10,000th step we will change from pink to red eventhough the colour looks exactly the same. You could call one of them almost-red and the other, pink-plus.

...and, for example, be born with no fur or eyes or whatever.

You are thinking too drastically. Fur is made up by protein. Imagine just one different amino acid in the fur protein every 10 generations.

Another mutation could make "a platypus plus" in the form of having an extra limb or two.  This means nothing because these mutations are not passed on to future generations -- if that mutated platypus reproduces, the young will most likely be born normal, unless radiation (for example) were the original culprit and it's still around the platypuses (platypii?).

I think it should be possible to evolve a platypus with 5 legs or no fur in a laboratory. Just make enough offspring so that the same mutation occurs again and have only those reproduce generation 3.

As for fur; baldness is genetic. As is the Hypertrichosis.

There are several families that all have Hypertrichosis. Let's say all humans die except those people with Hypertrichosis. Then all humans will have this thick excessive body hair.

[prometheus]

Do tell me, why did you get so defensive at this point that you won't even consider finishing responding to my post?  What is wrong with that law?  That it is inconsistent with evolution? 

There's nothing wrong with the law. But if you actually knew the second law of thermodynamics you wouldn't have claimed that it says evolution is impossible.

I'm not taking back anything without sufficient cause.  You say this is a poor argument, then tell me why.  The way I understand the law is that it is in disagreement with evolution.

I won't. Just look up the law for yourself and try to understand what it means. Then try to figure out what effect, if any, it would have on the processes through which evolution occurs.

If you can't figure it out, you can find tons of creationist sites that try to get creationists not to use some of these terrible arguments. And they also explains why it discredits the whole creation movement to use certain arguments.

Also, looking up an idea of physics on an actual physics site would be a good idea. Same with biology

[timothy42b]

I don't deny that mutations can eliminate traits, but they cannot make new creatures,

Sadly your only education in science appears to be from church tracts, so arguing may be futile.

This assertion you have made is just that, unwarranted assertion.

If there were some mechanism that prevented small changes from adding up over time into large changes, the mechanism would be detectable.  It would be part of the genetic process.

If creationist "scientists" could find it, they would indeed have the smoking gun.  They would at once overturn all of conventional science. 

Granted creation "scientists" are not as smart as real ones, still you would think somebody would be working on this problem.  It is the single most important element of all anti-evolution arguments. 

So why hasn't anyone found it?  Why is there not even a theory?  Does God reach a finger into the cell every time changes are about to add up to a species change?  If not, what happens? 

[prometheus]

Yes, they can't deny micro-evolution but they can't find the genetic mechanism by which macro-evolution is prevented.


If micro-evolution is happening then the only three things that can prevent macro-evolution are these:

-If there is selection pressure for the gene pool to remain as it is.
-If there is not enough time.
-If there is a genetic mechanism to limit change.


There is enough time, specific selection pressure would be quite rare and probably unstable in quite some cases and the genetic mechanism is non-existent.


BTW, 'living fossils' are examples of selection pressure to stay the same.

[jlh]

BTW, 'living fossils' are examples of selection pressure to stay the same.

This could also be interpreted as additional evidence that evolution does not occur.  Those countless "living fossils" have remained the same for "millions" of years.  You have just pointed to evidence that creatures do not evolve.

The evolutionist Niles Eldredge admits that no explanation exists with regard to living fossils, which constitute one of the countless secrets that evolution has been unable to unravel:

... there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ... We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils"

[jlh]

Fish don't evolve into humans.

And yet, evolution would have us believe that humans came from fish.

[jlh]

Sadly your only education in science appears to be from church tracts, so arguing may be futile.

This assertion you have made is just that, unwarranted assertion.

If there were some mechanism that prevented small changes from adding up over time into large changes, the mechanism would be detectable.  It would be part of the genetic process.

If creationist "scientists" could find it, they would indeed have the smoking gun.  They would at once overturn all of conventional science. 

Granted creation "scientists" are not as smart as real ones, still you would think somebody would be working on this problem.  It is the single most important element of all anti-evolution arguments. 

So why hasn't anyone found it?  Why is there not even a theory?  Does God reach a finger into the cell every time changes are about to add up to a species change?  If not, what happens? 

Why has no direct evidence been found that proves one species evolved into a different species then?  The onus is on the people proposing the theory, not on those refuting it.

Just as Prometheus reminded us about criminal justice.  Those proposing that someone is a murderer must prove that they murdered someone.  Those refuting that the person is guilty need only show reasonable doubt.

[prometheus]

There is direct evidence that humans evolved from a creature that is also the common ancestor of great apes; chromosome number 2.


Also, all speciation cases have pretty solid evidence about what is the ancestor of the new species.

[prometheus]

This could also be interpreted as additional evidence that evolution does not occur.  Those countless "living fossils" have remained the same for "millions" of years.  You have just pointed to evidence that creatures do not evolve.

Yes, and evolution explains why this could happen. The only thing you have to do now is look if it is indeed true that there are selection criteria that prevent a creature like the Coelacanth from having changed.

Same goes for viruses. The tactic they use to propagate their DNA is defeated when they start to develop a cell membrane or even organelles.


If there is no selection against change and it still doesn't change then that is very odd because mutations will happen just as in every other species. So why do they have no effect?

[jlh]

There is direct evidence that humans evolved from a creature that is also the common ancestor of great apes; chromosome number 2.


Also, all speciation cases have pretty solid evidence about what is the ancestor of the new species.

I looked this up:

https://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

There seems to be a logical problem with the Chromosome No. 2 conclusion.  The problem is the conclusion reached by scientists that chromosome 2 links humans and apes to a common ancestor is that it mingles the evidence with the explanation--so the conclusion, as stated, assumes that there was a common ancestor between apes and humans, which makes it difficult to use it as evidence for a common ancestor.

The point is simply this: the evidence points to the fusion of human chromosomes, but gives no indication when this happened, except that it must have occurred to a creature that was the ancestor of all living humans. Since none of the apes share this fused chromosome, there is no reason at all to date this fusion any further back than warranted, so it becomes unnecessary to even posit the existence of a common ancestor between apes and humans based on this evidence alone.

[prometheus]

The point is simply this: the evidence points to the fusion of human chromosomes, but gives no indication when this happened, except that it must have occurred to a creature that was the ancestor of all living humans. Since none of the apes share this fused chromosome, there is no reason at all to date this fusion any further back than warranted, so it becomes unnecessary to even posit the existence of a common ancestor between apes and humans based on this evidence alone.

But the great apes do share this chromosome. But the thing is that in them it isn't fused.

Now it is not just that our chromosome 2 contains the genes that in great apes are in two separate chromosomes. Chromosome 2 looks exactly like two chromosomes that accidentally fused.

Chromosomes have telomeres and centromeres. Telomeres close off the chromosome and centromeres are special regions in the middle of a chromosome.

Human chromosome number two has telomeres in the middle and two centrometes. And it matches the two chimp chromosomes completely.


There are only two conclusions. What looks like to have happened did indeed happen; chromosome 2 indeed fused together out of two ancestral chromosomes.

God designed humans with human chromosome looking exactly as if it was fused together out of two great ape chromosomes. Why? That's just the way he designed us.

Maybe you have anther explanation?

[jlh]

An overview of the confirmation bias fallacy, including mybias, is discussed in this wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[ramseytheii]

An overview of the confirmation bias fallacy, including mybias, is discussed in this wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Fascinating!  I especially appreciated the Tolstoy angle.  His quote from "Kingdom" struck me at the time I read it but this puts it in a new light.

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

Ok, so let me get this straight. Because viruses evolve, but not into more complex life forms, evolution is wrong, even though evolution occurs?

And then if I try to explain why they don't evolve in a specific way then this is taking the evidence that you give that's inconsistent with evolution and twisting it around to support evolution?


First off evolution doesn't favour complexity. It favours fitness. So explain to me how a virus would gain an advantage by evolving into a multicellular life form. And remember that every little single step has to be beneficial, otherwise it won't be selected.


Confirmation bias? Isnt' that what religious people do? I think you are missing the points and then you interpret them in what you want to read.

[timothy42b]

And yet, evolution would have us believe that humans came from fish.

I don't believe you.  Cite please? 

[timothy42b]

The evolutionist Niles Eldredge

We've been through this before.  It's an incorrect and disparaging term.  He happens to be a paleontologist. 

[jlh]

I don't believe you.  Cite please? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Unless I'm misreading this, it clearly states that the ancestors of humans are fish and worms.

[jlh]

We've been through this before.  It's an incorrect and disparaging term.  He happens to be a paleontologist. 

Where did we go over this before?  It's not an incorrect or disparaging term.  To be an evolutionist one only needs to believe evolution happened.  That's all.  Niles Eldredge proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which makes him more of an evolutionist than most people.

[prometheus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Unless I'm misreading this, it clearly states that the ancestors of humans are fish and worms.

I have already explained this. Sure, humans have a very very distant ancestor that we would now classify as a fish. But humans did not evolve from fish itself.

Homo Sapient probably evolved from homo erectus. And homo erectus evolve from homo  egaster, and homo egaster evolved from homo habilis, etc. And each of these steps took probably thousands of generations.

[ramseytheii]

Where did we go over this before?  It's not an incorrect or disparaging term.  To be an evolutionist one only needs to believe evolution happened.  That's all.  Niles Eldredge proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which makes him more of an evolutionist than most people.

That seems like a handy way of dividing people.  No matter how close to the center of their lives a person holds a scientific theory, be they a biologist, a pianist, or a general lay-person, their choice to not doubt that theory makes them an "evolutionist."  Fine: by the same logick, no matter how barbaric a person, no matter how evil in their ways, their belief that Christ is the Savior of mankind makes that person a Christian, and representative of Christianity.

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

That seems like a handy way of dividing people.  No matter how close to the center of their lives a person holds a scientific theory, be they a biologist, a pianist, or a general lay-person, their choice to not doubt that theory makes them an "evolutionist."  Fine: by the same logick, no matter how barbaric a person, no matter how evil in their ways, their belief that Christ is the Savior of mankind makes that person a Christian, and representative of Christianity.

Walter Ramsey

People can call themselves whatever they like, but only those who follow Christ's teachings would be telling the truth if they say they are a Christian IMO.

If you want to be technical, I think the bare minimum requirements for someone to be called an evolutionist is someone who contributes to evolutionary theory.  In that sense, Niles Eldredge would be among that group.

[wotgoplunk]

People can call themselves whatever they like, but only those who follow Christ's teachings would be telling the truth if they say they are a Christian IMO.

If you want to be technical, I think the bare minimum requirements for someone to be called an evolutionist is someone who contributes to evolutionary theory.  In that sense, Niles Eldredge would be among that group.

If someone who follows Christ's teaching is a Christian, surely someone who follows evolution is an evolutionist?

[rimv2]

That seems like a handy way of dividing people.  No matter how close to the center of their lives a person holds a scientific theory, be they a biologist, a pianist, or a general lay-person, their choice to not doubt that theory makes them an "evolutionist."  Fine: by the same logick, no matter how barbaric a person, no matter how evil in their ways, their belief that Christ is the Savior of mankind makes that person a Christian, and representative of Christianity.

Walter Ramsey

[Sarcastic Remark]

They didn't teach you that in Sunday school?

[/Sarcastic Remark] 

Labels. Humans rely too heavily on them. No two Christians are alike, even in belief. No two scientist are alike.

People can call themselves whatever they like, but only those who follow Christ's teachings would be telling the truth if they say they are a Christian IMO.

If you want to be technical, I think the bare minimum requirements for someone to be called an evolutionist is someone who contributes to evolutionary theory.  In that sense, Niles Eldredge would be among that group.

By the definition you gave of a Christian, one would think otherwise. However, only someones who considers themselves and evolutionist could tell you.

If someone who follows Christ's teaching is a Christian, surely someone who follows evolution is an evolutionist?

Stop with the rapid fire postings, youz.

I can barely get anything without seeing the red words.

[jlh]

However, only someones who considers themselves and evolutionist could tell you.

Ok, let's play that game, shall we?

Go to https://www.nileseldredge.com/

That's the OFFICIAL website of Dr. Niles Eldredge.

Um... what's that up in prominent print on the front page??

Yup, that's right.  Case closed. 

[rimv2]

Ok, let's play that game, shall we?

Go to https://www.nileseldredge.com/

That's the OFFICIAL website of Dr. Niles Eldredge.

Um... what's that up in prominent print on the front page??

Yup, that's right.  Case closed. 

You are indeed correct. I was not arguing with you. I was merely stating the obvious.

[jlh]

You are indeed correct. I was not arguing with you. I was merely stating the obvious.

I was not only talking to you, though my post quoted you.  A couple others got offended when I called Eldredge an evolutionist.

[ramseytheii]

If someone who follows Christ's teaching is a Christian, surely someone who follows evolution is an evolutionist?

No, first of all, it is absurd to equate the two.  Second of all, nobody actually follows the teaching of Christ; and as many Christians point out, it is an ideal that can never be achieved - the only standard for being a Christian is as it reads in the Epistles, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."  Third, how does one "follow" evolution?  Who must one worship?  To whom must one pray?  What must one believe?  There are many scientific theories we accept as reality, that we know little to nothing about; to claim those people who accept scientific agreement on the theory of evolution are "evolutionists" is just a ridiculous way to try and divide people, force them into making a decision either way on something they really don't need to think about in order to lead successful day-to-day lives.

Oh well, if it promotes people learning more about the facts, then so be it.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

People can call themselves whatever they like, but only those who follow Christ's teachings would be telling the truth if they say they are a Christian IMO.

There's no need to hold an opinion about it, because the standard for being a Christian is expostulated clearly in the Epistles: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."  After all, Christians themselves agree that everyone falls short of Christ's teachings - nobody lives life as he said it should best be lived.  Others would say it is impossible to live the kind of morality he preached; Ayn Rand makes a particularly powerful case for this.  But the standard is clear in the Holy Scrit.

If you want to be technical, I think the bare minimum requirements for someone to be called an evolutionist is someone who contributes to evolutionary theory.  In that sense, Niles Eldredge would be among that group.

I think it is wise to be technical, otherwise you are forcing a label on probably a majority of people who accept scientific consensus, but never thought much about any particular scientific theories. 

I remember an argument with a friend who tried to prove I was Christian.  He asked the religion of my parents, who were both athiests.  He asked the religion of my grandparents, who, on my mother's side, were athiests, and on my father's, I didn't know if they practiced at all, and I doubted they did.  He said that everbody had to have a religion, whether they denied it or not.  It would be calling a person a "Christian" just because their parents went to church, which is obviously absurd.

And so it is with "evolutionist" - are all those millions of people who accept scientific consensus, but don't bother to worry their day to day thinking about the specifics of the theories, to be called "evolutionists" on the basis of this blameless apathy?  What kind of brush fire are you trying to ignite here?  The only purpose I can divine is to incite people, to force them to think about an accepted scientific theory that has no bearing on their day to day lives.  What's the point of all this?  Yes, please be technical, and only use labels when they are appropriate.

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

I'm misusing my time posting in this thread.   

[rimv2]

No, first of all, it is absurd to equate the two.  Second of all, nobody actually follows the teaching of Christ; and as many Christians point out, it is an ideal that can never be achieved - the only standard for being a Christian is as it reads in the Epistles, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."  Third, how does one "follow" evolution?  Who must one worship?  To whom must one pray?  What must one believe?  There are many scientific theories we accept as reality, that we know little to nothing about; to claim those people who accept scientific agreement on the theory of evolution are "evolutionists" is just a ridiculous way to try and divide people, force them into making a decision either way on something they really don't need to think about in order to lead successful day-to-day lives.

Oh well, if it promotes people learning more about the facts, then so be it.

Walter Ramsey

Definition number 2 seems... interesting.

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I'm misusing my time posting in this thread.   

At least someone's learning

[timothy42b]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Unless I'm misreading this, it clearly states that the ancestors of humans are fish and worms.

Modern fish and modern humans had a common ancestor a long time ago.  That does not mean that a fish will give birth to a human today.  That does not mean that if a modern fish does NOT give birth to a human today then evolution is false, though I have heard people say this. 

Modern monkeys and modern humans had a common ancestor a long time ago.  That does not mean a monkey will give birth to a human today.  It does not mean if a monkey does NOT give birth to a human today then evolution is false, though I have people say that.  On this forum, I think. 

[timothy42b]

If you want to be technical, I think the bare minimum requirements for someone to be called an evolutionist is someone who contributes to evolutionary theory.  In that sense, Niles Eldredge would be among that group.

It is considered discourteous to call a scientist an evolutionist when you could use the proper term:  physicist, geologist, biologist, whatever. 

We can assume that all scientists (barring an almost undetectably small number) have a basic acceptance of the theory, though only the specialists will know it in detail. 

When you use the term evolutionist to refer to a scientist, he will naturally draw two conclusions:  you possess no knowledge of what evolution is about, and you have contempt for science in general. 

Those conclusions are known to be valid in an overwhelming majority of cases.  If they are not true for you personally, and you wish to have a dialogue, it would be better to refrain from using the term. 

[rimv2]

It is considered discourteous to call a scientist an evolutionist when you could use the proper term:  physicist, geologist, biologist, whatever. 

We can assume that all scientists (barring an almost undetectably small number) have a basic acceptance of the theory, though only the specialists will know it in detail. 

When you use the term evolutionist to refer to a scientist, he will naturally draw two conclusions:  you possess no knowledge of what evolution is about, and you have contempt for science in general. 

Those conclusions are known to be valid in an overwhelming majority of cases.  If they are not true for you personally, and you wish to have a dialogue, it would be better to refrain from using the term. 

Mmmmmmmm................. Etiquette ......................

*drools*

[jlh]

It is considered discourteous to call a scientist an evolutionist when you could use the proper term:  physicist, geologist, biologist, whatever. 

We can assume that all scientists (barring an almost undetectably small number) have a basic acceptance of the theory, though only the specialists will know it in detail. 

When you use the term evolutionist to refer to a scientist, he will naturally draw two conclusions:  you possess no knowledge of what evolution is about, and you have contempt for science in general. 

Those conclusions are known to be valid in an overwhelming majority of cases.  If they are not true for you personally, and you wish to have a dialogue, it would be better to refrain from using the term. 

You make it sound like being called an evolutionist is something a scientist should avoid. 

In the case of Dr. Eldredge, he prominently states he is an evolutionist on the front page of his website.  In fact, his name and the word "evolutionist" are the most prominent words on that whole website.  Or did you even look at it?

It is not contempt for science, it is simply calling the man what he prefers to be called.  He could have said on the front page, "Dr. Niles Eldredge, Paleontologist" but he didn't.

Don't turn my statement into a straw man.