Evolution false?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Entoloma43

Well-Known Member
#81
Interesting..

This entire time ArborrealArthur can only provide one source to back up his arguments, and the author doesn't even have any education in biology or evolution. Not to mention, all of the articles are biased and do not take a neutral stance.

If you want anyone other than creationists to take you seriously sir, next time you create an argument, use multiple neutral sources, and make sure the authors actually have some sort of education in the subject they are discussing.
 
#82
The thing that impresses me the most is that many people here find it impossible that we could have evolved to our current state due to environmental factors, natural selection, and centuries worth of time. Some people defer to an intelligent designer (be it any form of god, aliens, etc.) yet never questioning that (a) an alien species would had to have started from humble beginnings just as we did, or (b) the concept of God is an infinitely messier and more complex system than the beginning of the cosmos itself. And as for evolutionary theory being just a theory, creationism and "intelligent design theory" doesn't even have the benefit of being wrong, because it relies on the belief itself as opposed to any empirical evidence. "could be's" and "maybes" are just that, not even worth considering unless there's some form of evidence to back it up.

One of my favorite counterarguments against intelligent design is the Sentient Puddle Analogy by Douglas Adams:

This analogy is intended to refute the suggestion that the existence of God and His love for mankind would be proven by the fact that the world is perfectly designed for our needs.

He compared such thinkers to an intelligent puddle of water. He said the puddle is pleased with itself and certain that the hole in the ground it occupies must have been designed specifically for it since it fits so well in it.

The puddle looks up to the sun above and worships its divine benefactor.
The fate of the puddle is to exist under the sun until it has entirely evaporated.
 

zzz

Well-Known Member
#83
There is no empirical evidence to suggest that life has evolved from an origin. Bigman2232 who is supporting evolution theory on this thread has clearly stated that evolution theory is not used to explain where life came from.

Neither evolution theory nor creationism stands up to logical reasoning in trying to explain where life came from.

*
Dr. D.M.S. Watson wrote: ‘ the theory of evolution itself is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is special creation, which is clearly incredible.’
 

me1

Well-Known Member
#84
It would seem that not everyone agrees with your opinion about mutations. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

That website spends most of its time trying pass off genetic variation within a species, such as in the case of the peppered moths and insect 'antibiotic resistance' as evidence of mutational-evolution, which it isn't, Protonaut.

This is the reason why i spent time explaining why genetic variability within a species gene-pool was -not- evolution by random mutations.
 

me1

Well-Known Member
#85
Interesting..

This entire time ArborrealArthur can only provide one source to back up his arguments, and the author doesn't even have any education in biology or evolution. Not to mention, all of the articles are biased and do not take a neutral stance.

If you want anyone other than creationists to take you seriously sir, next time you create an argument, use multiple neutral sources, and make sure the authors actually have some sort of education in the subject they are discussing.

I have actually referenced -two- sources, who in turn go on to reference multiple sources, most of whom are evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, mathematicians and such like. Hardly people who are going to be biased in favour of creationism! They allude to the fossil records, which all evolutionists have either publically, or at the very privately admitted, -do not- support evolutionary theory. They reference genetic experiments on mutations showing that the old belief that 99% + of random mutations are harmful and weaken the organism, by throwing its internal fuctioning out of whack, is probably wrong and it's actually nearer 100% ! I pointed out the difference between the internal reshuffling of existing genes that allows for variability within a species and random mutations which are said to facilitate evolution -between- species, because many dishonest evolutionists and/or ignorant lay-persons who cling to the evolutionary dogma as an article of seculary expressed faith, like to make reference to them, erroneously, in 'support' of their evolutionary position.

If you could refute the arguments against evolution you would do so, i presume?
 

ItThing

Well-Known Member
#87
I've read some of the content of the website you cite Arthur, you and those you support seem to rely on mere possibility to support your arguments. In law, one is innocent until proven guilty, because jail and law enforcement resources are just too limited and precious to cope with all charges, and therefor only the indisputably or nearly indisputably guilty should go to jail.
In scientific theory, it is the truth to which all the resources are devoted so the filter is the opposite, an idea is false until proven true. Evolution does not answer all the questions, but creationism hardly answers any and does not even provide evidence for the answers it gives, therefore you cannot expect all of us evolution supporters to flock to the intelligent design camp merely by pointing at a flaw. Evolution may not be true either, but nothing is at stake, we don't HAVE to have an answer right now and it does not damage society to consider its possibility any more than belief in god does, so I do not see a reason for your contempt of this theory, the only rationally deduced contender for the solution to the origin of life.
 

Entoloma43

Well-Known Member
#88
I have actually referenced -two- sources, who in turn go on to reference multiple sources...
The author of "http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org" has no education in evolutionary biology.

If you could please post these sources you're referring to, because I checked about 10 links and do not see any.
 

me1

Well-Known Member
#89
Still waiting for you to say if you've ever taken a genetics or any other science class aside from in high school Arborreal.

Like Gmork before you, you make no attempt to refute my position and instead try to discredit me or my sources on personal terms. If you have such wonderous education why not use it and simply offer up the evidence that refutes my position and i will promptly retract it? :tongue:
 

me1

Well-Known Member
#90
I've read some of the content of the website you cite Arthur, you and those you support seem to rely on mere possibility to support your arguments. In law, one is innocent until proven guilty, because jail and law enforcement resources are just too limited and precious to cope with all charges, and therefor only the indisputably or nearly indisputably guilty should go to jail.
In scientific theory, it is the truth to which all the resources are devoted so the filter is the opposite, an idea is false until proven true. Evolution does not answer all the questions, but creationism hardly answers any and does not even provide evidence for the answers it gives, therefore you cannot expect all of us evolution supporters to flock to the intelligent design camp merely by pointing at a flaw. Evolution may not be true either, but nothing is at stake, we don't HAVE to have an answer right now and it does not damage society to consider its possibility any more than belief in god does, so I do not see a reason for your contempt of this theory, the only rationally deduced contender for the solution to the origin of life.
Evolution does not answer -any- questions, nor it seems, do evolutionists. Instead, they merely snear in retort, 'what do you know?', or 'what are your credentials?'

Incidently, it is my understanding that science is about forming a hypothesis that is supposedly 'tentative' in nature and then seeking to disprove it. Not prove it true. Correct me if i am wrong.

How about 'flocking' to the evolution is false camp, on the simple grounds that it has been falsified? It is not simply 'flawed' as you falsely state.

My 'contempt' derives more from this secular religion being taught as a 'fact' in our schools. If you have no evidence then you have no argument and it has no place in a scientific classroom. This is indoctrination, nothing more.
 

ItThing

Well-Known Member
#91
Evolution does not answer -any- questions, nor it seems, do evolutionists. Instead, they merely snear in retort, 'what do you know?', or 'what are your credentials?'

Incidently, it is my understanding that science is about forming a hypothesis that is supposedly 'tentative' in nature and then seeking to disprove it. Not prove it true. Correct me if i am wrong.

How about 'flocking' to the evolution is false camp, on the simple grounds that it has been falsified? It is not simply 'flawed' as you falsely state.

My 'contempt' derives more from this secular religion being taught as a 'fact' in our schools. If you have no evidence then you have no argument and it has no place in a scientific classroom. This is indoctrination, nothing more.
Clearly we have been informed by completely different sources. I have a need to defend my beliefs too but first I would like to say that I have seen many secular vs. religion discussions like this turn bad. I hope that at the end of this discussion, if we do not agree, we will still be friendly members of the SF forum and agree to disagree without resentment of the other's belief.
The origin of life is a difficult field of study. Despite attempts at recreating the conditions of the Hades age during which biologists in general believe that life began, I believe that the missing ingredient in the experiment is time, if not anything else, as the hades age was significantly longer than 50 years and its effects spenned the globe, not a small glass container. Furthermore, proving abiogenesis to be false does not in any way discredit the theory of evolution by natural selection, as is stated in the website you cite, because it is an explanation for the observed evolution in species of life, not their origin. In fact, certain religious people believe that the origin of life may be divine and yet that the evolutionary processes described by darwin occurred with gods permission or through him (my sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm http://blog.au.org/2008/05/23/say-y...-methodists-support-sound-science-in-schools/). In any case my point is that proving abiogenisis false does not prove evolution false. Secondly, you say that evolution supporters always want to check your credentials. How else do you propose we verify that our source has studied the evidence thouroughly? Thirdly, everyone always doubts that certain living structures could have evolved through natural processes. I can see why this is, the huge ammount of time life has had to adapt, the enormous variety of mutations that have been available to evolving species, and the sheer selective force of a living thing's environment do little to account for some of the less likely adaptations that life has developed. It is possible that other explanations are more likely, but intelligent desing has no evidence to support it at all, and the majority of explanations that biologists today offer for various adaptations seem reasonable. Even if another force is at work, the simplest explanations like how trees evolve to grow taller or how some creatures evolve to be poisonous to predators can still be relied on. I do not know what other problems you have with the theory of evolution, I will continue reading your source, tell me if there's any other specific fault you see in evolution and I will think about it.
 

hammockmonkey

Well-Known Member
#92
Websites like
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i12r.htm
and
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i9e.htm

Don't actually address anything, they talk about how "evolutionists" are wrong, yet not citing any empirical evidence to the contrary.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-9a.htm

States severally things in the first couple of paragraphs that are not true.
1: Natural selection is random. It is not, Perhaps they are referring to Genetic Drift, which is random. (The change in allele frequences in a population over time)
2: That all mutations are either positive or negative. Leaving out the possibility that they do nothing, are neutral.

Also, claiming statements by "scientists" and then not linking or listing a bibliography for verification. This can be seen as academic dishonesty because they could:
a) making these statements up
b) citing non-peer reviewed articles or publications
c) mischaracterizing quotes.
Why is this important? Well, because there has to be a standard of what we consider "good information" while this is biased and leaves out certain peoples voices, science is not a democracy. There has to be a standard of where we get our information from. Part of this standard has to include academic honesty; which is the proper citations in articles about where and from whom ideas are gleaned.

There is this notion that evolution is only natural selection, which is not what I was taught so there is a fundamental disconnect between our discussions. Basically we are talking about two separate theories and claiming to be discussing one theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Addresses some of what ArborrealArthur is talking about.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

Is a nice basic site that goes over macroevolution also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

me1

Well-Known Member
#93
Clearly we have been informed by completely different sources. I have a need to defend my beliefs too but first I would like to say that I have seen many secular vs. religion discussions like this turn bad. I hope that at the end of this discussion, if we do not agree, we will still be friendly members of the SF forum and agree to disagree without resentment of the other's belief.
The origin of life is a difficult field of study. Despite attempts at recreating the conditions of the Hades age during which biologists in general believe that life began, I believe that the missing ingredient in the experiment is time, if not anything else, as the hades age was significantly longer than 50 years and its effects spenned the globe, not a small glass container. Furthermore, proving abiogenesis to be false does not in any way discredit the theory of evolution by natural selection, as is stated in the website you cite, because it is an explanation for the observed evolution in species of life, not their origin. In fact, certain religious people believe that the origin of life may be divine and yet that the evolutionary processes described by darwin occurred with gods permission or through him (my sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm http://blog.au.org/2008/05/23/say-y...-methodists-support-sound-science-in-schools/). In any case my point is that proving abiogenisis false does not prove evolution false. Secondly, you say that evolution supporters always want to check your credentials. How else do you propose we verify that our source has studied the evidence thouroughly? Thirdly, everyone always doubts that certain living structures could have evolved through natural processes. I can see why this is, the huge ammount of time life has had to adapt, the enormous variety of mutations that have been available to evolving species, and the sheer selective force of a living thing's environment do little to account for some of the less likely adaptations that life has developed. It is possible that other explanations are more likely, but intelligent desing has no evidence to support it at all, and the majority of explanations that biologists today offer for various adaptations seem reasonable. Even if another force is at work, the simplest explanations like how trees evolve to grow taller or how some creatures evolve to be poisonous to predators can still be relied on. I do not know what other problems you have with the theory of evolution, I will continue reading your source, tell me if there's any other specific fault you see in evolution and I will think about it.

Hi, there is no danger of this discussion turning 'bad', lol. :tongue: Yeah, i will still be your friend, lol. Yeah, conditions may have or may not have been recreated accurately, but the fact still remains that the spontaneous generation of life has failed to be created by experiment, hence there is no scientific basis for believing in it. No, proving it false does not prove evolution false but it gives it no basis as a naturalistic explaination for the origin of life and leaves the door ajar for a supernatural explaination. Yes, many people believe many things but let us not be distracted by what people choose to believe only what has been observed or demonstrated. Evolutionists are merely using the time honoured tradition of trying to discredit an opponent on personal grounds when you cannot refute the substance of their claims.


Yes, evolutionists always appeal to time, even if the time necessary, not that any amount of time will allow the impossible if thats what it represents, to occur, is available. There is evidence that the earth is quite young, based upon the escaping moon, the proximatry of the sun a mere matter of 'x' amount of years ago and how life would be impossible and many other pieces of evidence, that suggest a young earth. Mutations have been extensively studied, in mutation experiments, 100% are harmful and weaken the organism. Observations of the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl do not support the claims of evolutionists that mutations are beneficial and strenghen the organism either.


The claim that intelligent design has no evidence supporting it depends on how one defines 'evidence'. The explanations of biologists seem 'reasonable' in the sense that they have no evidence?!? :tongue:

My problems with evolution are:

a) The fossil records do not support it. They clearly show that species appear suddenly with nothing leading up to them, remain relatively unchanged bar a limited amount of variations upon a theme, the limited and known variation within a species gene-pool will allow for, and then are either still here or have become extinct. And:

b) Mutations as a mechanism have been extensively studied and do not support the claims of the evolutionists.

Those two points alone seem to refute evolutionary theory.
 

me1

Well-Known Member
#94
Websites like
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i12r.htm
and
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i9e.htm

Don't actually address anything, they talk about how "evolutionists" are wrong, yet not citing any empirical evidence to the contrary.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-9a.htm

States severally things in the first couple of paragraphs that are not true.
1: Natural selection is random. It is not, Perhaps they are referring to Genetic Drift, which is random. (The change in allele frequences in a population over time)
2: That all mutations are either positive or negative. Leaving out the possibility that they do nothing, are neutral.

Also, claiming statements by "scientists" and then not linking or listing a bibliography for verification. This can be seen as academic dishonesty because they could:
a) making these statements up
b) citing non-peer reviewed articles or publications
c) mischaracterizing quotes.
Why is this important? Well, because there has to be a standard of what we consider "good information" while this is biased and leaves out certain peoples voices, science is not a democracy. There has to be a standard of where we get our information from. Part of this standard has to include academic honesty; which is the proper citations in articles about where and from whom ideas are gleaned.

There is this notion that evolution is only natural selection, which is not what I was taught so there is a fundamental disconnect between our discussions. Basically we are talking about two separate theories and claiming to be discussing one theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Addresses some of what ArborrealArthur is talking about.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

Is a nice basic site that goes over macroevolution also.

Firstly, you have referenced the same website twice, but i am sure you didn't mean to so i will not overly dwell upon it. On the contrary to your claim that they do not reference evidence. They reference mutation studies, the fossil records, the accounts of evolutionists, mathematical equations, et al. The evolutionists do present evidence, because they do not have any, or else they reference evidence of genetic variation within a species gene-pool as 'proof' of evolution because they do not have any evidence of real evolution by mutation.

Yes, i noticed that statement about 'natural-selection' too and found it odd, but i think they meant random-mutations, which as the name suggests have to be 'random'. Mutations have been extensively studied and are -always- harmful and weaken the organism, i would love to hear more about these supposedly 'neutral' ones.

They could be doing the things you've accused them of, but again, it would be nice if you could present some evidence to this effect.

It would interesting to know how one defines 'good' information. Leaving peoples voices out is unscientific and there is no such thing as consensus science. If it is consensus, it is by definition, unscientific.

Nope, i do not believe that any knowledgable person believes that evolution is simply by natural selection. I think anyone who has bothered to read an evolutionary text will no that it is said to be driven by random mutations, but as discussed above, there is no evidence that random mutations can cause species to species evolution.
 

ItThing

Well-Known Member
#95
Hi, there is no danger of this discussion turning 'bad', lol. :tongue: Yeah, i will still be your friend, lol. Yeah, conditions may have or may not have been recreated accurately, but the fact still remains that the spontaneous generation of life has failed to be created by experiment, hence there is no scientific basis for believing in it. No, proving it false does not prove evolution false but it gives it no basis as a naturalistic explaination for the origin of life and leaves the door ajar for a supernatural explaination. Yes, many people believe many things but let us not be distracted by what people choose to believe only what has been observed or demonstrated. Evolutionists are merely using the time honoured tradition of trying to discredit an opponent on personal grounds when you cannot refute the substance of their claims.


Yes, evolutionists always appeal to time, even if the time necessary, not that any amount of time will allow the impossible if thats what it represents, to occur, is available. There is evidence that the earth is quite young, based upon the escaping moon, the proximatry of the sun a mere matter of 'x' amount of years ago and how life would be impossible and many other pieces of evidence, that suggest a young earth. Mutations have been extensively studied, in mutation experiments, 100% are harmful and weaken the organism. Observations of the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl do not support the claims of evolutionists that mutations are beneficial and strenghen the organism either.


The claim that intelligent design has no evidence supporting it depends on how one defines 'evidence'. The explanations of biologists seem 'reasonable' in the sense that they have no evidence?!? :tongue:

My problems with evolution are:

a) The fossil records do not support it. They clearly show that species appear suddenly with nothing leading up to them, remain relatively unchanged bar a limited amount of variations upon a theme, the limited and known variation within a species gene-pool will allow for, and then are either still here or have become extinct. And:

b) Mutations as a mechanism have been extensively studied and do not support the claims of the evolutionists.

Those two points alone seem to refute evolutionary theory.
At least you agree that proving abiogenisis false cannot discredit evolutionary theory. I agree that intelligent design is a possible solution to that problem, but that does not discredit evolution either. It has been demonstrated that the hades era endowed the earth will the necessary building blocks for life, that is definitely inconclusive evidence but whatever first created us need still need not have been supernatural. You say no ammount of time yields the impossible, but what gives you the impression that the development of any living structure by natural selection is impossible? When I say mutations I mean the genetic variety existing in all species, to which more variety is added over time because of mistakes in DNA duplication and from which the least beneficial mutations are selected out because of environmental pressure. In experiments with bacteria, it is possible to see how a species can increase resisitance to a certain poison by surrounding each generation of bacteria to an increased ammount of poison and measuring the survival rate, as anyone involved in pharmaceuticals will know, certain medicine will lose effectiveness over time because of this process of increased then decreased genetic variety. It can even be observed in humans: white populations carry only genes for low melanine concentration in their skin, whilst black people carry only the genes for high melanine concentration. By scientific as well as religious doctrine, the human race originated from a single group of people, whether it be in africa or in paradise. Neither the population of africa nor that of paradise carried the full genetic diversity of humanity, therefore the various melanine concentration genes developed since the beginning of humanity and in different populations, only a few of those genes rather than all are dominant. Also, about hiroshima and chernobyl: the radiation in these places causes drastic mutations in cells. As any biologist knows, the smaller the mutation, the higher its chance to fit in with the pre-establisht gene set, therefore the mutations you talk about are not a good model - they are much more drastic than those through which life has supposedly evolved.
As for the fossil record, of course it is incomplete. We will never know the full range of species present in the past. However, different eras in the earths life have completely different sets of fossils, that change in a steady manner. Some species do not seem to adapt over time, this is true. The aligators, sharks, sea turtles, cockaroaches and other living species have not changed for millions of years because they are so well adapted to their niche. In those species that adapt faster, recorded human history is too short for us to know of big changes, but as I said diseases change very fast, as has been observed since bacteria were discovered. I do not know about your earth is young claims, please show your sources on that point.
 

hammockmonkey

Well-Known Member
#96
You are right They are two separate pages of the same site, and no neither of the pages offer any evidence, just statements. Read the actual pages.

What I mean by good science is onces that back up their statements with studies that can be critiqued by peers. Read the websites they do not offer citations for any of their statements. They claim "scientists" agree without bothering to say which scientists when they did "agree." I don't feel that I need to offer any proof of this because the proof is on the pages you only have to read them to see it.

With genetics, I am no expert by far. So, when they say something like there are only positive or negative mutations then I will believe them, if they provide supporting evidence. But to just tell me that leaves me open to ask "well, what about ones that don't have any effect or are neutral?" If it has been studied and it has been proved that there are only positive and negative mutations then a simple link to the article, or a reference to articles I can choose to look at and verify the information myself. This is all that is needed. Not providing that makes me wonder if they are trying to hide something. This gets back to my statements about academic honesty and good science.

I do remember reading something, only vaguely, (I cannot remember the website) that talked about positive, negative and neutral mutations. If I can find it again I will post the link.

It runs counterintuitive for me to think that there cannot be neutral mutations because of the fact that each and everyone of us has millions of mutations in our genetic code that have little to no effect on or phenotype or genotype. Now I'm going to be guilty of not providing a citation for this because I sold my textbook.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

me1

Well-Known Member
#97
At least you agree that proving abiogenisis false cannot discredit evolutionary theory. I agree that intelligent design is a possible solution to that problem, but that does not discredit evolution either. It has been demonstrated that the hades era endowed the earth will the necessary building blocks for life, that is definitely inconclusive evidence but whatever first created us need still need not have been supernatural. You say no ammount of time yields the impossible, but what gives you the impression that the development of any living structure by natural selection is impossible? When I say mutations I mean the genetic variety existing in all species, to which more variety is added over time because of mistakes in DNA duplication and from which the least beneficial mutations are selected out because of environmental pressure. In experiments with bacteria, it is possible to see how a species can increase resisitance to a certain poison by surrounding each generation of bacteria to an increased ammount of poison and measuring the survival rate, as anyone involved in pharmaceuticals will know, certain medicine will lose effectiveness over time because of this process of increased then decreased genetic variety. It can even be observed in humans: white populations carry only genes for low melanine concentration in their skin, whilst black people carry only the genes for high melanine concentration. By scientific as well as religious doctrine, the human race originated from a single group of people, whether it be in africa or in paradise. Neither the population of africa nor that of paradise carried the full genetic diversity of humanity, therefore the various melanine concentration genes developed since the beginning of humanity and in different populations, only a few of those genes rather than all are dominant. Also, about hiroshima and chernobyl: the radiation in these places causes drastic mutations in cells. As any biologist knows, the smaller the mutation, the higher its chance to fit in with the pre-establisht gene set, therefore the mutations you talk about are not a good model - they are much more drastic than those through which life has supposedly evolved.
As for the fossil record, of course it is incomplete. We will never know the full range of species present in the past. However, different eras in the earths life have completely different sets of fossils, that change in a steady manner. Some species do not seem to adapt over time, this is true. The aligators, sharks, sea turtles, cockaroaches and other living species have not changed for millions of years because they are so well adapted to their niche. In those species that adapt faster, recorded human history is too short for us to know of big changes, but as I said diseases change very fast, as has been observed since bacteria were discovered. I do not know about your earth is young claims, please show your sources on that point.


No, the falsity of abiogenesis or the veracity of intelligent design, assuming the latter is true, do not refute the truthfulness of evolution, but they give the concept of an entirely naturalistic explaination for life, no basis.

What gives me the impression that something is impossible? Well firstly something is considered -statistically- impossible if its odds are over a certain amount, as in the case of evolution. It was calculated by mathematicians that there were simply not enough atomic particles nor time given by the evolutionists for evolution to be possible. Secondly, it has never been observed or demonstrated.

You do not mean the genetic variety within any species gene-pool if you properly understand evolutionary theory. This has been well studied and breeding experiments, while nothing to do with random processes have clearly elucidated that there are finite and cogently defined limits to the variability within any species gene-pool that do not extend to the creation a new -anything- let alone species. You cannot selectively breed for a feature or function that does not already exist within any species gene-pool. You can create bigger or smaller, bushier tailed or floppier ears or whathaveyou, but you cannot select for something that is not already present in that species gene-pool, such as, for example, wings on a dog!

The experiments using bacteria are purely another example of genetic variability. It is due to already present, variability, that bacteria can survive antibiotics. Those that -already- have resistance, due to this variability, survive, while those that dont, do not. It has nothing to do with mutations and as such, isn't evolution.


I beg to differ, the fossil records really do not show different species. All 'modern' species can found in lower layers of the strata. Humans date back millions of years, long before they are supposed to have 'evolved' from apes. All 'modern' species are there in those lower layers, albeit much bigger than their modern counterparts due to degrading over time as per the laws of physics. Do a google search for 20 foot gibbons, massive sharks, huge penquins and giants, lol.


The 'scienceagainstevolution' site lists my claims regarding a young earth. Look up 'escaping moon' and any articles about the sun shrinking and how big it would have to be at present rate of shrinkage a mere few million years ago. Simply too close to the earth to allow for life, evolving life or any other kind of life! The evidence is also recorded in more depth on the factsofevolution site i also reference. Goodnight.
 

me1

Well-Known Member
#98
You are right They are two separate pages of the same site, and no neither of the pages offer any evidence, just statements. Read the actual pages.

What I mean by good science is onces that back up their statements with studies that can be critiqued by peers. Read the websites they do not offer citations for any of their statements. They claim "scientists" agree without bothering to say which scientists when they did "agree." I don't feel that I need to offer any proof of this because the proof is on the pages you only have to read them to see it.

With genetics, I am no expert by far. So, when they say something like there are only positive or negative mutations then I will believe them, if they provide supporting evidence. But to just tell me that leaves me open to ask "well, what about ones that don't have any effect or are neutral?" If it has been studied and it has been proved that there are only positive and negative mutations then a simple link to the article, or a reference to articles I can choose to look at and verify the information myself. This is all that is needed. Not providing that makes me wonder if they are trying to hide something. This gets back to my statements about academic honesty and good science.

I do remember reading something, only vaguely, (I cannot remember the website) that talked about positive, negative and neutral mutations. If I can find it again I will post the link.

It runs counterintuitive for me to think that there cannot be neutral mutations because of the fact that each and everyone of us has millions of mutations in our genetic code that have little to no effect on or phenotype or genotype. Now I'm going to be guilty of not providing a citation for this because I sold my textbook.

The factofevolution website offers much in the way of evidence, and references mutation studies which showed through countless generations of shortlived species such as fruitflies that mutations were 100% harmful and weakened the organism, with the mutated dying out.
Admittedly the other site tends to focus on dissecting news stories with the odd article refuting evolution on thermodynamic grounds and other hard sciences.
I am not aware of any neutral mutations, but by all means present evidence for these. There is a phenomona known as genetic load, which is the accumulation of mutations. There is a concept known as 'junk dna' which is a combination of dna coding for features that have been lost, i.e. devolution and dna with no as yet -known- purpose, hence it is considered more desirable to lable it 'junk' than admit to ones own limited nature and inherant fallibility, and conclude that we just dont know what it does.

I would not claim that mutations in our genetic code have 'little or no known effect' anymore than i would claim that smoking or faulty diet have 'little or no known effect' just because they do no kill us instantly!!
 

theleastofthese

SF Friend
Staff Alumni
#99
I've always felt a bit guilty for 'baiting' anyone arguing evolution vs creationism with me. My own theory is that The Creator, by whatever name he is called, may well be the architect of evolution, by using such a method of creating life on earth (and elsewhere). WHo are we to say by what means the universe was created? Our theories on both creationism and evolution are just that: theories, and until we die and 'meet our Maker' are not likely to find any real "proof" of either theory. My mind is open enough to accept certain 'truths' from both schools of thought, and not all truths from any particular belief. I shall just wait until I leave this life and hope that I can find the answers I seek in the Next Life.

Until then, I will just wonder at the mystery of all life, and marvel at it.
 

Entoloma43

Well-Known Member
The 'scienceagainstevolution' site lists my claims regarding a young earth. Look up 'escaping moon' and any articles about the sun shrinking and how big it would have to be at present rate of shrinkage a mere few million years ago. Simply too close to the earth to allow for life, evolving life or any other kind of life! The evidence is also recorded in more depth on the factsofevolution site i also reference. Goodnight.
Refuting sun shrinking argument:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp8.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...-earth/specific_arguments/sun_shrinking.html\
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

All young earth claims have been refuted repeatably. Not to mention, all of the contradictory evidence that the earth is over 6,000 years old. Seriously, if you believe the earth is only around 6,000 years old in this day of age, you're a fool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please Donate to Help Keep SF Running

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$255.00
Top