Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:If im not mistake all creationists believe in changes over time in allele, but adding macroevolution is from the imagination as again I state there has never been one instance that we have even observed macroevolution in a lab or anywhere for that matter, and then having a biologist calling it a broad pattern over long time spans is where you or he cant bring the evidence to support that last statement.

Geologists are also scientists who believe in long periods of time. No one has ever seen two continents separate and move thousands of miles apart, yet geologists still claim that is what happened.

bippy123 wrote:Lynn Margulis, a very well known biologist (former wife of Carl Sagan and an unbeliever herself) who wasnt afraid to speak out against the lack of evidence for macroevolution stated


And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?

This is a blatant misrepresentation of Margulis' position. bippy is suggesting that Margulis was opposed to macroevolution. In fact, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/scien ... at-73.html

Lynn Margulis, Evolution Theorist, Dies at 73

She drew upon earlier, ridiculed ideas when she first promulgated her theory, in the late 1960s, that cells with nuclei, which are known as eukaryotes and include all the cells in the human body except mature red blood cells, evolved as a result of symbiotic relationships among bacteria.

The hypothesis was a direct challenge to the prevailing neo-Darwinist belief that the primary evolutionary mechanism was random mutation.

Rather, Dr. Margulis argued that a more important mechanism was symbiosis; that is, evolution is a function of organisms that are mutually beneficial growing together to become one and reproducing. The theory undermined significant precepts of the study of evolution, underscoring the idea that evolution began at the level of micro-organisms long before it would be visible at the level of species.

Note: She proposed a different mechanism for "macroevolution". She did not oppose the idea of "macroevolution".

bippy123 wrote: here others state their doubt.

Yet there is a problem with macroevolution. Biologist Sean Carroll states, “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for larger-scale changes evident of longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”2

Read at least the second section quoted from the brief article in Nature. This is a major problem with relying on others for quotes instead of looking at the original material in context. By quoting this one sentence it appears that well-known evolutionary scientist Carroll has doubts about the validity of evolution itself. Nothing could be further from the truth.
So what do these misrepresentations say about the motives and integrity of whoever originally compiled them?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 669a0.html

Evolutionary change occurs on different scales: 'microevolution' is generally equated with events at or below the species level whereas 'macroevolution' is change above the species level, including the formation of species. A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life's history (macroevolution).

Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided. Traditionally, evolutionary geneticists have asserted that macroevolution is the product of microevolution writ large, whereas some palaeontologists have advocated the view that processes operating above the level of microevolution also shape evolutionary trends. Is one of these views wrong, or could they both be right?

One obstacle to a more unified, multidisciplinary view of evolution is the vague meaning of the term macroevolution, and its different connotations in different disciplines. This is not merely a matter of semantics: scientific and broader public issues are at stake. The origins of major innovations and the underlying causes for the radiation of forms during various episodes in life's history are among the most interesting and challenging questions in biology. We must know whether, as G. G. Simpson asked, macro evolution differs fundamentally in kind or only in degree from microevolution. Furthermore, one of the latest political strategies of the creationist faction in the United States is to 'accept' microevolution but to bar macroevolution from the classroom on the misguided grounds that aspects of macroevolution are controversial and that therefore its scientific foundation is 'unproven'.

My argument has three parts. First, that the concept of macroevolution is better clarified when broken down into its two major component parts: phyletic and morphological evolution. Second, these two components are governed by at least partly distinguishable mechanisms. And third, because there is no evidence that the intrinsic genetic and developmental mechanisms underlying morphological evolution differ across any evolutionary scales, the distinction between these scales is really only descriptive, not mechanistic.

Macro- = Micro- = Evolution
The 'big picture' of evolution continues to grow, with diverse disciplines addressing biological mechanisms across many levels of organization (molecules, organisms, populations) and timescales. The subdivision of evolution into two scales no longer reflects our understanding of the unity and diversity of evolutionary mechanisms. However, more important than redefining macroevolution is recognizing that discipline- or scale-bound considerations of only one component of evolution, or of solely extrinsic or intrinsic mechanisms, are inadequate. Long-standing boundaries between evolutionary disciplines are dissolving, to allow richer concepts of evolution to emerge.

Oh, and let's not skip this paragraph from Carroll's overview:

One obstacle to a more unified, multidisciplinary view of evolution is the vague meaning of the term macroevolution, and its different connotations in different disciplines. This is not merely a matter of semantics: scientific and broader public issues are at stake. The origins of major innovations and the underlying causes for the radiation of forms during various episodes in life's history are among the most interesting and challenging questions in biology. We must know whether, as G. G. Simpson asked, macro evolution differs fundamentally in kind or only in degree from microevolution. Furthermore, one of the latest political strategies of the creationist faction in the United States is to 'accept' microevolution but to bar macroevolution from the classroom on the misguided grounds that aspects of macroevolution are controversial and that therefore its scientific foundation is 'unproven'.

Sandy the reason why I quoted margulis is that she understood that the Darwinian explanation for macroevolution was inefficient because he evidence was weak for it. Does that explanation help you understand what I was conveying, and I still stand by the evidence that macroevolution is being inferred and not completely seen from the fossil records.

Margulis is an evolutionist and dogmatically stands by it even though macroevolution has never been observed, if you happen to have an example of a study that has shown this to happen please show it to me because I have yet to see one that does.

And using the analogy of moving continents to compare to macroevolution is a very flimsy one to say the least.
We also know that continents are still moving now, but we don't have the same evidence for macroevolution.
The facts are that the evidence for transitionals are flimsy at best and I have looked through them all.
The amount of information needed for example for the fantastic leaps between a land dwelling mammal to transition to the sea just isn't possible with the very few fossils that we have today.

Maybe you can explain the whale macroevolution model to me sandy since you seem to be a theistic evolutionist ( asi used to be). Maybe you can also explain to me how a basilosaurus fossil was found 49 million years ago at about the same time that ambulocetas walked he earth. You know the ambulocetas that a very imaginative artist drew with webbed feet who could barely waddle on land.

The same ambulocetas that the dishonest Ken miller keeps pulling out in his charts.
Now they can keep saying that macroevolution happened but the evidence from the fossil record isn't there, it doesn't matter how many times you or any other evolutionists cry foul.

You can claim that these morphological changes all came at once for the flimsy few so called transitional fossils but that would be nothing but an assumption of evolution being the only game in town.
Again this is a philosophical worldview and not true science

bippy123 wrote:...the reason why I quoted margulis is that she understood that the Darwinian explanation for macroevolution was inefficient because

That is how I understood too. If an evolutionist is so unsatisfied with the current mechanism inferred to explain how evolution works and is willing to postulate another mechanism, then even from an evolutionary viewpoint it must be inadequate. In my mind the mechanism to back the conceptual/ hypothetical idea that all life originates from a common ancestor via small changes over time is as yet unproven and unbacked by empirical evidence. It is a hypothesis that Margulis see's as a changeable component in an otherwise accepted theme.

This is how the geocentric theory was for centuries. Everyone accepted/ believed the earth was the center. The quibbles between them were never questioning that 'FACT', it was always about 'how' everything else moved around the earth. The explanations became so complex that it rivals what we are seeing in evolutionary theory today.

KBCid wrote:This is how the geocentric theory was for centuries. Everyone accepted/ believed the earth was the center. The quibbles between them were never questioning that 'FACT', it was always about 'how' everything else moved around the earth. The explanations became so complex that it rivals what we are seeing in evolutionary theory today.

The geocentric equations are perfectly valid for predicting planetary motions. In fact, even today, meteor studiers use them. Whereas different mechanisms for evolution correspond to different observed facts.
And consider the atomic theory - it has become even more complex and complicated than evolutionary theory. Should we junk the idea of atoms (which by the way no one has ever seen in the laboratory)?

bippy123 wrote: Maybe you can also explain to me how a basilosaurus fossil was found 49 million years ago at about the same time that ambulocetas walked he earth. You know the ambulocetas that a very imaginative artist drew with webbed feet who could barely waddle on land.

The same ambulocetas that the dishonest Ken miller keeps pulling out in his charts.

I am not very familiar with biology. I prefer to defer to the experts.
But speaking of dishonesty, what about the misrepresentations in the Reasons to Believe http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... oevolution ? Surely they must know they are taking Carroll's statement totally out of context as i showed with quotes from the article they reference.

bippy123 wrote:Seven though macroevolution has never been observed, if you happen to have an example of a study that has shown this to happen please show it to me because I have yet to see one that does. ...
You can claim that these morphological changes all came at once for the flimsy few so called transitional fossils but that would be nothing but an assumption of evolution being the only game in town.
Again this is a philosophical worldview and not true science

No one will long enough to observe any proposed major evolutionary change, such as land-dwelling to sea-dwelling transitions. No one will ever develop good enough eyesight to see atoms.
At some point, each of us has to decide how much evidence is needed to reach a conclusion. If i see trail of muddy footprints from a backyard puddle indoors where there is a kid with muddy shoes, am i justified in assuming that the child walked through the puddle and made the trail? I didn't see it happen.

sandy_mcd » Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:31 pm

bippy123 wrote:
Seven though macroevolution has never been observed, if you happen to have an example of a study that has shown this to happen please show it to me because I have yet to see one that does. ...
You can claim that these morphological changes all came at once for the flimsy few so called transitional fossils but that would be nothing but an assumption of evolution being the only game in town.
Again this is a philosophical worldview and not true science
No one will long enough to observe any proposed major evolutionary change, such as land-dwelling to sea-dwelling transitions. No one will ever develop good enough eyesight to see atoms.
At some point, each of us has to decide how much evidence is needed to reach a conclusion. If i see trail of muddy footprints from a backyard puddle indoors where there is a kid with muddy shoes, am i justified in assuming that the child walked through the puddle and made the trail? I didn't see it happen.

Just saying that in evolution's case, we can see the footprints of a child but the problem is when we enter the house we find an adult, not a child. And the real problem is that outside the footprints show no obvious change from a child's footprint to an adult footprint and we are left to assume that somewhere along the line the change must have occurred yet there is not enough evidence for it. SO you are right there, we have to decide how much evidence is needed to reach our desired assumption to be verified. I think in Macro-evolution's, most have decided that little or no evidence is needed to support it. But this can cut all ways, I understand that, though it should not be the same for science. would you agree?

I would say it's even beyond that.

If i see trail of muddy footprints from a backyard puddle indoors where there is a kid with muddy shoes, am i justified in assuming that the child walked through the puddle and made the trail? I didn't see it happen.

Are you justified? Sure. That is forensic science. Forensic science does have its limitations however. In this example, you have the child and the muddy shows. And you can directly connect them, and thus draw a logical conclusion. I don't think anyone would argue that. But then to propose that the child was a single celled organism before it exited the mud is another.
This is really another example of the colored words. It's an example of poor analogy, since the changing of colors or the tracking of footprints is not analogous to Darwinian changes. In the case of evolution, what we have are people infering footprints where there aren't any. evolution graphs and trees are speculation.

The argument still boils dows to this. Time plus small changes = Big changes. Pierson has made it clear that his worldview hinges on this claim. Yet, this has been demonstrated over and over to be the fallacy of equivocation. It doesn't hold up to one of the most basic tenets of logic.
It's just another example of moving the goal post. Speciation is the perfect example. When speaking of macroevolution, we are talking of clear examples of upward movement in the genetic code. Darwinism isn't strictly about upward movement, but without it, it falls apart. So for the record, gene shift, mutation, natural selection, vestigiality, and yes, speciation, are all examples of CHANGE within the existing genetic code. Nothing added. In fact loss is usually the word. All examples of speciation result in something that is less than what it was. Fruit flies will always result in fruit flies. Speciation in this case is a diluting of the existing genetic code. But it in no way accounts how we get from a single cell to a fruit fly in the first place. We may end up with a myriad of 'species' of fruit flies. You see speciation requires....wait for it......an existing species. But this is always a flat change, not an upward genetic move. Same for the flu virus. you can mutate that sucker till the cows come home, and it will always be.......drum roll...... a flu virus.

Thus the moving of the goal post. Microevolution happens we all agree. So, let's just categorize speciation under the heading 'macroevolution' and it will make all things possible. Not sure what this fallacy is called, but I would call it a re-definition fallacy. Surely, anyone with an ounce of objectivity sees the problem. The reality is that the terms are defined by people. So, saying that speciation is macroevolution is a defining issue. It doesn't make something such as molecules to man a reality.

Therefore my issue with Talk Origens. You can call it Ad-Hominem. I've been in this rodeo for years. Same arguments. Same refusal to admit to those fallacies.

sandy_mcd wrote: The geocentric equations are perfectly valid for predicting planetary motions. In fact, even today, meteor studiers use them.

Yes they are valid for predicting planetary motions. What they weren't perfectly valid for was the theory that the earth was the center and that everything else moved around it which was the main point of my post. The same facts we observe in evolutionary theory can just as equally be posited as evidence for ID. Where in contrast to evolutionary hypothesis ID would assert that there was only a common designer and not a common ancestor. Each of the original kinds would have been empowered with the ability to adapt to a certain extent and not from molecules to man as is currently infered.

sandy_mcd wrote: Whereas different mechanisms for evolution correspond to different observed facts.

Not sure what you mean here. Evolutionary theory posits that the combination of random mutation working in conjunction with natural selection explains the origin of species from a common ancestor. You cannot remove one part and still have the explanitory power with them together.

sandy_mcd wrote: And consider the atomic theory - it has become even more complex and complicated than evolutionary theory. Should we junk the idea of atoms (which by the way no one has ever seen in the laboratory)?

If a theory fails to explain everything than it would always be logical to question the theory. However, just as planetary motions can have valid useable equations that work for each empirical test performed we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Keep what is sound and eliminate what isn't or minimally reduce it to hypothesis status. This is how I see evolutionary theory, it is a hypothesis for the 'range' of explanitory power that it is being applied to. If for instance evolutionist were to simply stick with a change in alleles from generation to generation then indeed it would be a valid and empirically backed theory but, they go beyond the evidence to assert a common ancestor and a single ancestor leading to all life. This is where the theory becomes hypothesis and has zero validation empirically.

So we accept speciation, and we accept microevolution. But, once speciation occurs (let's say due to environmental separation), it's impossible to imagine over a long period of TIME and various environmental conditions (micro evolution) we would be left with 2 different species which look nothing alike?

Behe's arguments have never held up to scientific scrutiny (or in court for that matter...) These arguments have long been laid to rest.

The first is called the Argument from Personal Incredulity, which is basically the argument that because a person cannot conceive of or imagine a solution, no solution therefore exists. Nature, however, is not limited to the imagination of Behe, or even evolutionary biologists. There are many very complex biological systems in nature, and it is not always possible to think of a compelling evolutionary sequence to explain every step in the formation of such systems. This lack of an ability to weave a convincing evolutionary tale, however, does not rule out the possibility that the complex system in question did in fact evolve.

The second fatal flaw in Behe’s line of reasoning is that a complex structure must have evolved directly for its current utility. Since it could not function in its current utility if it were any simpler, he argues, then it could not have evolved. His unspoken major premise, however, is false. Darwin himself recognized that structures may have evolved from precursors that had completely different functions. A classic example is that of bird wings. Half a wing is certainly no good for flying, and many creationists have therefore argued that it could not have been selected for. There is now stunning fossil evidence of bird ancestors with half wings, and even before this discovery it was speculated that such creatures must have existed and perhaps used their protowings for stabilization during long jumps or gliding descents, thermoregulation, catching insects, or some other purpose. There is now good evidence that insect wing precursors were used for skimming along the surface of water, before they were ever usurped for flapping flight.

Behe uses, as one of his examples, the cilia of a cell. This is a fairly safe example for him to use, since such microscopic structures do not fossilize and we will likely never be able to document the evolution of cilia. Modern cilia are certainly complex, but their precursors did not have to be. Pre-cilia likely served a different function for the cell than do modern cilia. Behe is correct in stating that no one has proposed a completely fleshed out pathway for the evolution of cilia, but this is hardly surprising, nor is it a black mark against the feasibility of evolution.

Behe also makes other unspoken assumptions in his reasoning – namely that structures must work well or efficiently in order to be of value to the organism. This is not true, and nature is full of examples of clumsy and imperfect structures that merely get by. Also, he assumes that while a structure is evolving through necessarily useless stages, it would be a detriment to the organism since it would not serve any useful function. Behe, however, ignores the possibility of redundancy – an important concept in evolution. If a structure is redundant, then it is free to evolve in essentially random directions (so called, genetic drift), even ones that serve no immediate purpose, while its redundant structures perform the tasks for which it originally evolved. Every step in an evolutionary sequence does not have to serve some specific purpose, or offer a concrete benefit to the organism. In this way evolution may be chaotic and messy, and almost impossible to “reverse engineer.”

There is a clear genetic basis for such redundancy. Genes are often duplicated in an organism’s DNA, even many times. Gene multiplication may easily occur through errors in DNA copying during reproduction. Sometimes, entire chromosomes may be copied. This genetic material, although it may still produce useful proteins and structures, will be redundant, and therefore free to safely evolve in novel directions while copies of itself continue to perform its original essential function. Mutations in regulatory genes may result in the creation of redundant organs or tissues, which again would be free to take on novel functions.

In short, Behe’s arguments display a fair degree of ignorance for modern evolutionary theory and rest ultimately on faulty logic. Intelligent design is not a viable scientific hypothesis and is not being taken seriously by biologists or other scientists. It is, in fact, just warmed over creationism trying to find a new face so that it may masquerade as legitimate science.

Also, Behe’s approach to the whole question of evolution is flawed in that it is far too narrow in scope. He attempts to refute the fact of evolution through a single line of argument. Such attempts at dismissing an entire field of study through a single line of evidence have a history of failing miserably. Lord Kelvin, for example, attempted to refute all the various conclusions of modern geology (of his time) in a short paper which argued for a young Earth based upon the current temperature of the Earth and the theoretical rate of the Earth’s cooling. Kelvin, however, ignored all of the independent lines of evidence from geology that spoke of a much older Earth. Kelvin was not a geologist and was not intimately aware of this large body of evidence. It turns out that Kelvin was fatally wrong in his calculations because he did not take into account the warming effect of the radioactive decay of certain materials in the Earth’s crust. Kelvin could not have known about this factor, since radioactivity had not yet been discovered.

Behe, in the style of Kelvin, is attempting to dismiss all of the findings of evolutionary biology through a single line of argument, that of a biochemist who is not an evolutionary biologist. He does not address the multiple independent line of evidence that point to the fact that life on Earth evolved. This evidence includes a mountain of fossil evidence, including many transitionary forms, geological evidence of strata, genetic evidence showing evolutionary relationships between living species, embryological evidence, and evidence of an evolutionary past captured in some current structures of modern organisms.

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
-Gould

The vast majority of the scientific community accept evolution as a fact. We have reached this conclusion using the same method we used for the theory of gravity, germ theory, plate tectonics, medicine, etc... You seem to think my "worldview" holds that evolution must be true. That's absolutely false. If evolution were proven to be false, it would say nothing of my worldview. All it would say is "We have all these organisms that have appeared to evolve, but didn't. How and why?" It says NOTHING about whether or not a god exists. That would be an argument from ignorance. I think when you make these comments, they are stemming from YOUR worldview and thought process (see Gould quote). If evolution were to be proven true (which is has) what does that say about your worldview? Again, I would say nothing, but you may disagree.

Again, the scientific community accepts the fact of evolution using the same methods as other scientific theories. We have Bippy123 misquoting (as has been pointed out several times) various evolutionary biologists to fit his view on the situation. He also admitted he would not accept ANY evidence contradictory his worldview (the very definition of being close minded). Why? Because it conflicts with an ancient book containing stories of witches, demon pigs, super human strength derived from hair, talking serpents/donkeys, global flood/ark with 2 of every ~8.7+ million species, flying chariots of fire, curses, enchanted tree with the holy garden and 2 naked people, the God of all the universe who cursed a fig tree because he didn't realize when figs were in season, etc... etc... And evolution is the fairy tail?

I can't even believe we are having this conversation. Judging from the title of this site, I was expecting to be engaged in conversation with people like sandy_mcd. This whole evolution "controversy" says nothing about whether or not a deity exists. This is a huge red herring argument. If your god truly exists, and you have strong evidence for it, let's see it. Distrusting the scientific community proves nothing and puts you on the same pedestal as scientologists who reject mental illness.

Pierson5 wrote:So we accept speciation, and we accept microevolution. But, once speciation occurs (let's say due to environmental separation), it's impossible to imagine over a long period of TIME and various environmental conditions (micro evolution) we would be left with 2 different species which look nothing alike?

Nothing better than a good straw man to begin a post. Well done, Pierson. You conveniently ignored all the objections raised in the discussion, and twisted the facts so that it turns out that we don't believe in something obvious. Nobody was talking about "species that look nothing alike", but about species that evolve over time. Bippy, Jlay and I explained why time is not an answer.

Pierson5 wrote:The first is called the Argument from Personal Incredulity, which is basically the argument that because a person cannot conceive of or imagine a solution, no solution therefore exists. Nature, however, is not limited to the imagination of Behe, or even evolutionary biologists. There are many very complex biological systems in nature, and it is not always possible to think of a compelling evolutionary sequence to explain every step in the formation of such systems. This lack of an ability to weave a convincing evolutionary tale, however, does not rule out the possibility that the complex system in question did in fact evolve.

In other words, you may not know if, let alone how, something evolved, that still won't shake your faith in evolution. I'm not surprised - what else to expect from someone who says:

I'm not saying I don't question evolution. Everyday scientists question evolution, in order to progress it further and further.

Pierson5 wrote:The second fatal flaw in Behe’s line of reasoning is that a complex structure must have evolved directly for its current utility. Since it could not function in its current utility if it were any simpler, he argues, then it could not have evolved. His unspoken major premise, however, is false. Darwin himself recognized that structures may have evolved from precursors that had completely different functions. A classic example is that of bird wings. Half a wing is certainly no good for flying, and many creationists have therefore argued that it could not have been selected for. There is now stunning fossil evidence of bird ancestors with half wings, and even before this discovery it was speculated that such creatures must have existed and perhaps used their protowings for stabilization during long jumps or gliding descents, thermoregulation, catching insects, or some other purpose. There is now good evidence that insect wing precursors were used for skimming along the surface of water, before they were ever usurped for flapping flight.

"Stunning"... Wow! Care to show us some? Or is it typical evolutionary "evidence", like ifs, buts and maybes?

Pierson5 wrote:Behe uses, as one of his examples, the cilia of a cell. This is a fairly safe example for him to use, since such microscopic structures do not fossilize and we will likely never be able to document the evolution of cilia. Modern cilia are certainly complex, but their precursors did not have to be. Pre-cilia likely served a different function for the cell than do modern cilia.

"Didn't have to"... "likely"... In other words, 'I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll make it sound like science'.

Pierson5 wrote:Behe is correct in stating that no one has proposed a completely fleshed out pathway for the evolution of cilia, but this is hardly surprising, nor is it a black mark against the feasibility of evolution.

Of course. The unshakeable faith in evolution is at work once again.

Pierson5 wrote:Behe also makes other unspoken assumptions in his reasoning – namely that structures must work well or efficiently in order to be of value to the organism. This is not true, and nature is full of examples of clumsy and imperfect structures that merely get by. Also, he assumes that while a structure is evolving through necessarily useless stages, it would be a detriment to the organism since it would not serve any useful function. Behe, however, ignores the possibility of redundancy – an important concept in evolution. If a structure is redundant, then it is free to evolve in essentially random directions (so called, genetic drift), even ones that serve no immediate purpose, while its redundant structures perform the tasks for which it originally evolved. Every step in an evolutionary sequence does not have to serve some specific purpose, or offer a concrete benefit to the organism. In this way evolution may be chaotic and messy, and almost impossible to “reverse engineer.”

There is a clear genetic basis for such redundancy. Genes are often duplicated in an organism’s DNA, even many times. Gene multiplication may easily occur through errors in DNA copying during reproduction. Sometimes, entire chromosomes may be copied. This genetic material, although it may still produce useful proteins and structures, will be redundant, and therefore free to safely evolve in novel directions while copies of itself continue to perform its original essential function. Mutations in regulatory genes may result in the creation of redundant organs or tissues, which again would be free to take on novel functions.

"Chaotic and messy" is euphemism at its best. It doesn't take a mastermind to realize that redundancies and random mutations destroy organisms and make them flawed, not to mention infertile. No wonder, if they're random. Natural selection "gets rid" of such examples and works to preserve a species. It certainly doesn't create anything new. If it does, I asked you for experimental evidence of an increase in genetic information, and you conveniently avoided replying.

Pierson5 wrote:In short, Behe’s arguments display a fair degree of ignorance for modern evolutionary theory and rest ultimately on faulty logic. Intelligent design is not a viable scientific hypothesis and is not being taken seriously by biologists or other scientists. It is, in fact, just warmed over creationism trying to find a new face so that it may masquerade as legitimate science.

Judging by what you present as "evidence" for evolution, no wonder people are looking for alternate explanations.

Pierson5 wrote:Also, Behe’s approach to the whole question of evolution is flawed in that it is far too narrow in scope. He attempts to refute the fact of evolution through a single line of argument. Such attempts at dismissing an entire field of study through a single line of evidence have a history of failing miserably. Lord Kelvin, for example, attempted to refute all the various conclusions of modern geology (of his time) in a short paper which argued for a young Earth based upon the current temperature of the Earth and the theoretical rate of the Earth’s cooling. Kelvin, however, ignored all of the independent lines of evidence from geology that spoke of a much older Earth. Kelvin was not a geologist and was not intimately aware of this large body of evidence. It turns out that Kelvin was fatally wrong in his calculations because he did not take into account the warming effect of the radioactive decay of certain materials in the Earth’s crust. Kelvin could not have known about this factor, since radioactivity had not yet been discovered.

How is this relevant to the discussion? Another mixture of red herring and straw man.

Pierson5 wrote:Behe, in the style of Kelvin, is attempting to dismiss all of the findings of evolutionary biology through a single line of argument, that of a biochemist who is not an evolutionary biologist. He does not address the multiple independent line of evidence that point to the fact that life on Earth evolved. This evidence includes (1)a mountain of fossil evidence, including (2) many transitionary forms, (3)geological evidence of strata, (4)genetic evidence showing evolutionary relationships between living species, (5) embryological evidence, and (6) evidence of an evolutionary past captured in some current structures of modern organisms.

Blah, blah, blah... You ran out of arguments, so you started resorting to the original evolutionary fairytales, refuted over and over.
1. Fossil evidence actually shows that species have always been strictly defined. Note the hyperbole - "a mountain" of evidence.
2. Controversial or misinterpreted at best.
3. How is that relevant? We're not YEC-ers.
4., 5., 6. Subjective. Can easily be attributed to a common designer.

Pierson5 wrote:The vast majority of the scientific community accept evolution as a fact.

An appeal to authority is not an argument.

Pierson5 wrote:If evolution were to be proven true (which is has) what does that say about your worldview?

I'm still looking for experimental evidence. Speculations are not proof. Is it that much to ask for?

Pierson5 wrote:Again, the scientific community accepts the fact of evolution using the same methods as other scientific theories. We have Bippy123 misquoting (as has been pointed out several times) various evolutionary biologists to fit his view on the situation. He also admitted he would not accept ANY evidence contradictory his worldview (the very definition of being close minded).

You're not exactly the best example of an open-minded person, you know. Once again:

I'm not saying I don't question evolution. Everyday scientists question evolution, in order to progress it further and further.

Pierson5 wrote:Why? Because it conflicts with an ancient book containing stories of witches, demon pigs, super human strength derived from hair, talking serpents/donkeys, global flood/ark with 2 of every ~8.7+ million species, flying chariots of fire, curses, enchanted tree with the holy garden and 2 naked people, the God of all the universe who cursed a fig tree because he didn't realize when figs were in season, etc... etc... And evolution is the fairy tail?

You mean, "fairy TALE"? What an intellectual, can't even spell his own language. Thanks for bolding it and making it more easily noticeable.

Pierson5 wrote:I can't even believe we are having this conversation. Judging from the title of this site, I was expecting to be engaged in conversation with people like sandy_mcd.

But instead, you're engaged in conversation with... who?

Pierson5 wrote:This whole evolution "controversy" says nothing about whether or not a deity exists. This is a huge red herring argument. If your god truly exists, and you have strong evidence for it, let's see it.

We've been through this already. If you were truly open-minded, you would browse the main site and ask questions about things you don't understand, things that don't seem convincing to you, etc. We would try our best to provide answers, as we always do. But you demand 100% absolute proof, which you can't even provide for your worldview, although proving evolution, if it was true, should be an easy task.

Pierson5 wrote:Distrusting the scientific community proves nothing and puts you on the same pedestal as scientologists who reject mental illness.

Spare me, please. Try focusing on facts instead.

If evolution is believed to be absolutely true by someone then by default this makes any other explanation absolutely false. So why would someone who believes evolution is absolutely true appear on a christian forum? Why would anyone want to argue for the truth? Isn't truth sufficient to argue for itself? So what if there are people who choose not to believe the truth. The fact that truth will always remain true and eventually untruth will fade away is a given. So why would anyone argue for the truth?
1) because they like to be confrontational and win arguments
2) because they don't want untruth to be considered truth
3) because the truth they argue for is insufficient on its own to outweigh untruth

In most historic cases truth has been an asserted POV by those who argue for it and it has been a requisite for such types of truth to be spread by those who believe it because it is insufficient on its own to overcome that which is considered untruth. A cult is a typical organisation who are convinced of a specific truth and are willing to kill others or themselves in defense of it. Here are just a few more wellknown cults who knew the truth;
the Peoples Temple - whose truth was apostolic socialism
Raëlism - who believe that the biblical Elohim were advanced humanoid extraterrestrials
Ho No Hana Sanpogyo - its leader Hogen Fukunaga believed he was the reincarnation of Buddha and Christ
Order of the Solar Temple - who asserted they were reborn knights templar from the 14th century.

Of course anyone at any time can assert that they know the truth about something and can even convince others of their particular brand of truth. The real question for us is how can we know actual truth from untruth?.

Empirical evidence reproducible by anyone is a very powerful tool that can be used for such a task. However, this tool which has great power is only as good as the user allows it to be. In the case of the materialism method its usefullness is limited by the beliefs of the adherants who hold a cult style of belief in materialism. Evolutionist are cult like proponents of the 'truths' devined via the materialistic belief systems use of empirical evidence who base their truth on initial observtional evidences provided by empirical evidences and then extrapolate it to greater truths that are untestable by that same empirical method.
As an example we can observe empirically that living organisms vary... their alleles vary from generation to generation. With this as one of their evidences they extrapolate that all life came from a common ancestor and they assume that such an ancestor came about by a chance organization of molecules.
This is what I call mixing a bit of truth with a belief to make it appear that the entire assertion is true. From my own experience this is a typical method of making untruth appear to be the truth by design. Usually an attempt to convince others of such a truth is a precursor to a goal. The question worth asking is what is the goal?

Reactionary: for your rebuttals.

KBCid wrote:Empirical evidence reproducible by anyone is a very powerful tool that can be used for such a task. However, this tool which has great power is only as good as the user allows it to be. In the case of the materialism method its usefullness is limited by the beliefs of the adherants who hold a cult style of belief in materialism. Evolutionist are cult like proponents of the 'truths' devined via the materialistic belief systems use of empirical evidence who base their truth on initial observtional evidences provided by empirical evidences and then extrapolate it to greater truths that are untestable by that same empirical method.

Excellent!

FL

KBCid wrote:If evolution is believed to be absolutely true by someone then by default this makes any other explanation absolutely false. So why would someone who believes evolution is absolutely true appear on a christian forum?

Christianity and evolution are not incompatible. Whether or not evolution is empirically provable is besides the point.