Theory of Evolution exposed

[bippy123]

Yes we all saw the mechanisms of evolution through mutations at work in those fruit fly experiments didn't we .
You know, the ones that failed bigtime to produce anything over 50 years but dead or mutilated fruit flies. This is the vaunted theory of evolution through mutations at work
The evolution of the gaps at work

[Calum]

Neo-x The problem I have with macroevolution is that pro-darwinian scientists are trying to pass it off as if its pure scientific fact, and the evidence is the exact opposite, and we have very few if any transitional fossils. What we see instead are leaps in information that are the exact opposite to what darwin himself predicted. Yet they keep trying to call it a fact. Its like trying to fit a square peg into a circle. It just doesnt Jive.

Bippy:
The only reason creationists have bothered to attack only one position in science (evolution) is because it deals with the history of the universe and the life it contains. But exactly the same system of observation, logic, inference, and experimental generation of knowledge that leads us to evolution leads us to the engineering of aircraft, computers, medicines, and every single one of the other science-based foundations of our civilization. Creationists such as Ken Ham are desperate to uphold their interpretation of the Bible and thus is forced to produce any evidence, no matter how utterly insensible, for their view that evolution is not a viable mechanism. Their silly arguments about "kinds" and such is baseless. It stems from a basic misunderstanding of Scripture. There is no Biblical "barrier" to evolution, nor is there some kind of genetic "barrier" to evolution either. Many creationists can only rely on faulty data and (dare I say it?) manipulation of popular misconceptions on what evolution theory says.
The accusation that there are very few transitional fossils also comes from the mouths of absurd creationists like Hovind. I understand I'm being a bit sharp, talking about my christian brothers in such a way, but their lies have thrown out so much misunderstanding and confusion that it's difficult not to be reproachful.
The only way such creationists can insist there are no transitional fossils is to not understand what a transitional fossil is. When people such as this demand evidence for transitional fossils, I first ask them what would, in their eyes, qualify as a transitional fossil, just to see if they can accurately depict what one would be like. They're usually not used to this kind of argument, and after a seemingly endless back-and-forth argument about whether or not they should answer, in the end they might equate a transitional form to a half-formed organism; something like a crocoduck. When I correct them by saying a transitional form is not a half-formed organism (all organisms are fully-formed) but a representation of a branching development of life-forms diversifying into multiple groups, they might not carry out the argument, or change the subject. The reason for this is that they very well know there are fully-formed transitional fossils all over the world. They have been found in almost every continent.
Something that most certainly doesn't Jive is creation "scientists'" attempts at explaining the natural world. It's a world that's fractured, unconnected, and utterly insensible. The fact that you believe huge leaps are being made that disprove Darwin's theory only shows how strong the Creationist movement has on Christians. The picture they frequently try to paint is that of the "Galileo Gambit", where they are the curageous marauders fighting up against evil mainstream science that are frequently gathering new information that utterly conquers evolution. It's downright silly! And it's a lie!
Scientists aren't "trying" to do anything. The fact of evolution has already been settled, and the only reason people contend with such Creationists (no offense) is because they hope they will turn the terribly anti-science tide away from the silly endeavors of disproving evolution, which is as silly as attempting to disprove Gravity, or Music.
Now I hope I didn't sound too bitter, but that's how I see it. And I hope I didn't sound too arrogant or rude, because I wasn't making any attempt to do so. I was merely trying to show how utterly absurd creationism can get.

[Danieltwotwenty]

When people such as this demand evidence for transitional fossils, I first ask them what would, in their eyes, qualify as a transitional fossil, just to see if they can accurately depict what one would be like

I would want to see a clear path of transition from one species to another, with small changes occurring in the fossil record over x period of time ( that is what qualify's as transitional to me), to me there are not enough transitional's between two species to say conclusively that one came from the other, the gaps between two fossils is just way to big to say one way or the other.


Dan

[bippy123]

When people such as this demand evidence for transitional fossils, I first ask them what would, in their eyes, qualify as a transitional fossil, just to see if they can accurately depict what one would be like

I would want to see a clear path of transition from one species to another, with small changes occurring in the fossil record over x period of time ( that is what qualify's as transitional to me), to me there are not enough transitional's between two species to say conclusively that one came from the other, the gaps between two fossils is just way to big to say one way or the other.




Dan

Daniel, this is exactly why I left evolution because there is no clear transitional path.

Calum, no offense taken, and to me a transitional fossil as an example would be a steady progression of let's say an arm starting to develop in a slow steady pattern. Instead what we see are sudden appearances of fully formed creatures, which to me speaks about an explosion of information added in the mix.
We should be seeing many many socalled transitions but instead we see the opposite.
In fact one of my old favorites, the whale evolutionary chart which evolutionary biologists claimed was the most solid fell when they found a fossil of a basilasaurus dating from 49 million years back, swimming the oceans in roughly the same time as the socalled walking whale ambulocetas. This find turned the whale evolutionary chart on it's head.

So instead of admitting the giantic difficulties the darwinianists simply say the evolution must have happened in quick bursts in much shorter time frames. Trust me, Ham is not who I looked at as an authority for me to change my mind on evolution. Macroevolution simply isn't an observable scientifically .
Punctuated equilibrium is another unobservable theory that was put forth to explain these large informational gaps and it also has never been observable, it's just asserted.

This isn't science, it's a biological fairy tale. My faith isn't shaken by whether I believe in evolution or not, I simply left macro evolution because the evidence is flimsy at best, and no silly croco-duck changes my mind.
It was the evidence, or shall I say lack of evidence. Now microevolution or adaptation is on solid scientific grounds and I still retain my belief in that.

[theophilus]

The only reason creationists have bothered to attack only one position in science (evolution) is because it deals with the history of the universe and the life it contains. But exactly the same system of observation, logic, inference, and experimental generation of knowledge that leads us to evolution leads us to the engineering of aircraft, computers, medicines, and every single one of the other science-based foundations of our civilization.

The reason evolution is the only position in science that we attack is that it is the only one that can't be proved by scientific methods. The science that is responsible for our technology is based on observation and experiments. Microevolution can be observed but macroevolution can't and there is no way it can be tested experimentally.

Imagine that a friend points to a building and asks you to tell them about it. Being the inquisitive individual that you are, you immediately set out to describe the building in as much detail as you can.

The first part of your investigation is pretty straightfoward. You climb to the top and drop down your measuring tape to find that the building is exactly 1,453 feet and 8 9/16 inches from the ground to the tip of the broadcast tower—that includes over 100 floors and an observatory. You put the building on your scales and find it to be 365,000 tons.
“That’s great,” says your friend. “But when was it built?”
Measurements alone can’t tell you that part. You could make an educated guess, of course, but there’s really no need. After all, you have an eyewitness account.
After a quick Internet search, you hand your friend the complete history of this amazing historical monument—otherwise known as the Empire State Building in New York City.

Two Kinds of Science

While our experiment above was fictional, the two methods used for uncovering data aren’t. Some bits of information can be gleaned simply by examining things with your senses—such as the height and weight. Other people can then check your results by making measurements of their own. We often call this operational science (also called observational science—for obvious reasons).
But some research requires either making educated assumptions about the past by examining evidence in the present (historical or “origins” science)—or finding a primary source of information. While our assumptions could be accurate, it’s always better to start with an eyewitness account. Otherwise, our assumptions could lead us in the wrong direction.
For example, some geologists take present-day rates of radiometric decay and rock formation and imagine that the rates have always been the same. That’s why they think the earth is so old (it’s not). But we can’t zip back in time to test this for accuracy.
What we can do, however, is check our historical research against a trustworthy eyewitness account. But what about for the history of the earth? Does something like that exist? You bet—and this amazing compendium of history isn’t hard to find. Just pull out your trusty Bible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... of-science

Creationists such as Ken Ham are desperate to uphold their interpretation of the Bible and thus is forced to produce any evidence, no matter how utterly insensible, for their view that evolution is not a viable mechanism.

Scientists who reject the Bible are desperate to provide an alternate explanation for our existence and they ignore evidence that shows the earth is much younger than most people believe. You can find out about some of that evidence here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-sediment

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ock-layers

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... in-fossils

[KBCid]

The reason evolution is the only position in science that we attack is that it is the only one that can't be proved by scientific methods. The science that is responsible for our technology is based on observation and experiments. Microevolution can be observed but macroevolution can't and there is no way it can be tested experimentally.

You sir have hit the perceptual nail on the head. When science and scientist tried to take scientific inquiry into explaining the past they left the scientific method behind. Science is not scientific if you can't test an assumption. That which is untestable and yet held to a belief is properly a religion.

[bippy123]

Thanks Theo, will check out the links

[neo-x]

A lot of physical scientific theories are always open to change. Because the more we find out the more we learn. Evolution is the only mechanism that fits the scientific standard. And please do not at once revert to, evidence and fossils and experiments and observations, you have to see that there is a theoretical side of a theory and what it predicts and that is also what makes a good theory solid.

lets me ask you, a good theory predicts,

what can creation specifically predict as a model?
what can intelligent design specifically predict as model?

Evolution predicts that we have missing fossils, which we we don't have, not enough anyway. And it predicts a lot of other things too which are actually testable.(http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_science.html) In fact I would go and even say that even if there are no transitioning fossils to support evolution, evolution still would be a good theory. Because this mechanism CAN define the diversity of life.

It makes false predictions too and when it does it is more refined and that is just how science works. But there is truth in its predictions too and when they are tested, they add to the over all support of the theory.

Intelligent design is not science to even begin with, its a philosophical take on origins. I see it as a philosophical argument not a scientific one and should not be compared to evolution at all.

I suggest you read this paper by Theodosius Dobzhansky,"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/Dobzhansky.pdf

[RickD]

neo-x wrote:
lets me ask you, a good theory predicts,

what can creation specifically predict as a model?

Neo, here's a great book by Hugh Ross. More Than a Theory: Hugh Ross

In this book, Ross puts his creation model up against other models. Great book.

[KBCid]

Evolution is the only mechanism that fits the scientific standard. And please do not at once revert to, evidence and fossils and experiments and observations, you have to see that there is a theoretical side of a theory and what it predicts and that is also what makes a good theory solid.

sorry but if it fits the scientific standard then it can provide proper testing otherwise its belief, pure and simple.

lets me ask you, a good theory predicts, what can intelligent design specifically predict as model?

Irreducible complexity, machines, mechanisms, control of matter to allow for repeating 3 dimensional form, highly complex interactive systems both mechanical and electrical. Factories whose sole purpose is to form substrates for building. Postal systems. waste control. altruism. sudden appearance of complex life forms without precursor such as observed in the '2' big bangs of life that have no relation to each other. Absolutely no slow transition in body plans.
In essence all the same things that have been exhibited by intelligent causation since before the cell was first considered simply plasm. All of these arrangements have direct corellation to actions typical of ID. None of which has been observed to occur by chance or any other testable mechanism.

Evolution predicts that we have missing fossils, which we we don't have, not enough anyway.

If it had predicted such then why did science spend 150 yrs looking for what you think they predicted didn't exist? Darwin himself asserted that the evidence 'should' be found given enough time. The only thing evolving here is the story and the assertions.

this mechanism CAN define the diversity of life.

Can it really? then link the evidence that exactly defines how its done. how exactly does a code become a 3 dimensional form?

Intelligent design is not science to even begin with, its a philosophical take on origins. I see it as a philosophical argument not a scientific one and should not be compared to evolution at all.

ID is logically based on cause and effect. what cause have you 'observed' that can form matter into 3 dimensional machines? complex interactive systems both electrical and mechanical? Science is supposed to infer from what is known based on observable evidences. So far ID is the only testable cause to provide such output. What have you got that shows it can and has done the same?

there is nothing. nothing testable in real time. When scientific inquiry sought to answer the origens question it left the scientific method behind because the method cannot empirically test such unobservable occurances.

[bippy123]

If it had predicted such then why did science spend 150 yrs looking for what you think they predicted didn't exist? Darwin himself asserted that the evidence 'should' be found given enough time. The only thing evolving here is the story and the assertions.

KBC, exactly why I left theistic evolution. For 150 years they were dreaming of finding the transitionals, and when the transitionals werent found, they move the goal posts around to say that evolution actually predicts no transitionals. Its a theory that cant be falsified. Your right about the story evolving. IF only the animals evolved . Why do you think they came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. It was put out to try to explain the lack of transitional animals.

[neo-x]

Well, its easy to punch holes in evolution but how about examining ID. The main thing is, what can ID predict specifically about the origin of species?

sorry but if it fits the scientific standard then it can provide proper testing otherwise its belief, pure and simple.

For some years I believed the same but now I know why I was wrong. Anyway, my understanding is that you still have misconceptions about what makes a theory scientific. This is not a personal attack, its just that I have been there and we no longer see things the same. There is no BELIEF, evolution is all around us, its just that it has not garnered evidence on all accounts, does not mean its false. If that is what you constitute as a theory then you might as well throw theoretical physics out of the window too. After all its just BELIEF, right?

Irreducible complexity, machines, mechanisms, control of matter to allow for repeating 3 dimensional form, highly complex interactive systems both mechanical and electrical. Factories whose sole purpose is to form substrates for building. Postal systems. waste control. altruism. sudden appearance of complex life forms without precursor such as observed in the '2' big bangs of life that have no relation to each other. Absolutely no slow transition in body plans.

These are not predictions exclusive to ID. I am not even sure if these are predictions or observations?

If it had predicted such then why did science spend 150 yrs looking for what you think they predicted didn't exist? Darwin himself asserted that the evidence 'should' be found given enough time. The only thing evolving here is the story and the assertions.

This is irrelevant. Predictions can be wrong. Those do not count unless they DISAPPROVE a theory by contradiction of already established proof.

Can it really? then link the evidence that exactly defines how its done. how exactly does a code become a 3 dimensional form?

Do you know?

ID is logically based on cause and effect. what cause have you 'observed' that can form matter into 3 dimensional machines? complex interactive systems both electrical and mechanical? Science is supposed to infer from what is known based on observable evidences. So far ID is the only testable cause to provide such output. What have you got that shows it can and has done the same?

And that is why it is only good as a philosophical claim. How does ID solve the problem, by pushing it into God of the gaps, that is all that it does, nothing else.

Did you read the papers I posted? I would like your feedback on those.

[neo-x]

RickD » Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:29 pm

neo-x wrote:
lets me ask you, a good theory predicts,

what can creation specifically predict as a model?


Neo, here's a great book by Hugh Ross. More Than a Theory: Hugh Ross

In this book, Ross puts his creation model up against other models. Great book.

Thanks Rick, I will see if I can read it soon.

[PaulSacramento]

In a nutshell, evolution predicts that, if a living organism is exposed to changes in it's environment, it will adapt to survive.
The variety of species with "enough in common with each other" is what would be the case if evolution is correct.

[theophilus]

In a nutshell, evolution predicts that, if a living organism is exposed to changes in it's environment, it will adapt to survive.
The variety of species with "enough in common with each other" is what would be the case if evolution is correct.

This is also what would be true if the Bible's account of creation is true. God created different kinds of animals that contained enough genetic data so that they could adapt to a wide range of environments. In each environment those genes which contribute to survival are preserved and passed on to descendants and others are eliminated. Different varieties develop in different environments. This is a more detailed explanation of this process.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -wholphins