PerciFlage wrote:Ivellious wrote: Fourth ... the article and everything it quotes is ... completely valid.
I hope you have some pretty strong evidence for that, young sonny Jim me lad.
![Laughing hard :pound:](./images/smilies/pound.gif)
PerciFlage wrote:Ivellious wrote: Fourth ... the article and everything it quotes is ... completely valid.
I hope you have some pretty strong evidence for that, young sonny Jim me lad.
Pat, I know that you believe in creation rather than evolution, but please tell me that you can recognise that particular article as a massive exercise in intellectual dishonesty. The entire piece is composed quote mining, (seemingly) deliberate mis-representation, and goalposts that aren't so much moving as shifting around at warp speed.pat34lee wrote:http://www.icr.org/article/260/
No Evolution at Present.
The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.
There are abundant examples of observed speciation in the literature. Creationists generally respond by shifting the goalposts - "they're still the same kind of animal", "this might be a new species, but information has been lost" - but the fact remains: speciation has been directly observed.No New Species.
Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.
Apart from descent with modification combined with natural selection?No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
It is also a very curious fact that no one understands how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.
There are huge numbers of transitional forms in the fossil record. Again, creationists have a tendency to shift the goalposts in response - "well of course species B appears to be transitional between species A and C, but where's the transition between A and B?", "that's not a transition, that's a perfectly well formed animal!" - but once again the fact remains: the fossil record is littered with transitional forms and, what's more, a large proportion of them have been found by searching areas and strata where those forms were predicted to lie.No Fossil Evidence.
It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
It is patently absurd to say that there is no semblance of order in the fossil record. Precambrian rabbits are the oft-toted example, but even creationists tend to recognise that there is an inherent order to the record - the Cambrian explosion is a concept that finds favour with a lot of creationists, for example, and the belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed is not a commonly held one.No Order in the Fossils.
Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences ... The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils.
No evidence that evolution is possible...apart from all of the above as a very small starter?No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible.
"The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder."
Similarities between organisms are not explicable by common evolutionary descent. Even the most trenchant creationist can see that this statement makes no sense, right? Right? Please?No Evidence From Similarities.
The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent.
Recapitulation theory was long ago thrown into the same bin as homunculi. To say that arguments based on vestigial organs have been discredited because some apparently vestigial organs have been found to be a little bit more than useless is a bit of a rhetorical leap.No Recapitulation or Vestigial Organs.
The old arguments for evolution based on the recapitulation theory (the idea that embryonic development in the womb recapitulates the evolution of the species) and vestigial organs ("useless" organs believed to have been useful in an earlier stage of evolution) have long been discredited.
PerciFlage wrote:Ivellious wrote: Fourth ... the article and everything it quotes is ... completely valid.
I hope you have some pretty strong evidence for that, young sonny Jim me lad.
The term macroevolution in the literature - to the extent that it is used at all - is generally defined to be genetic changes "at or above the level of species". Creationist usage typically defines it as change above the level of species, from one "kind" of creature into another. The term "kind" is fairly plastic - I've never seen it used completely consistently, but in taxonomic terms it tends to sit somewhere between genus and order.PaulSacramento wrote:People keep throwing the term "macroevolution" around but I am curious as to how THEY define it.
In lay man terms, in biology, it happens when a branch of a species evolves to a point that it can no longer procreate with its original species group.
They may even look exactly the same.
The Institute of Creation Research says: "Scripture uses the word 'kind' to describe the category of originally created groups of creatures." These categories get vaguer and vaguer the further you get from homo sapiens. Thus in 'Evolution vs. God' the entire kingdom of bacteria is considered a 'kind.' While exploring this I came across the term 'baramin,' meaning one of the original created kinds. There are remarkably few lists of baramins, but one, devoted to mammals, http://creationwiki.org/Baraminological ... 29_Baramin, seems to deal mostly in families. In a discussion at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun02.html, a writer is not sure if ravens and doves (both on the ark) are the same baramin or not.PerciFlage wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:Creationist usage typically defines it as change above the level of species, from one "kind" of creature into another. The term "kind" is fairly plastic - I've never seen it used completely consistently, but in taxonomic terms it tends to sit somewhere between genus and order.
I will get back to other questions as I have time, but I want to agree with you here. 'Kind' is necessarily a little vague from a creationist standpoint. We don't know what the original kinds were or how many there were. The difference, as far as change is concerned, is that evolution counts on adding complexity through time, where creation and nature show that everything is breaking down, not building up. Look up genetic breakdown and the increase in disease, cancer and other harmful mutations and the rate at which they have increased in the recent past. Without help, we are headed for extinction soon, and not just mankind.PerciFlage wrote:The term macroevolution in the literature - to the extent that it is used at all - is generally defined to be genetic changes "at or above the level of species". Creationist usage typically defines it as change above the level of species, from one "kind" of creature into another. The term "kind" is fairly plastic - I've never seen it used completely consistently, but in taxonomic terms it tends to sit somewhere between genus and order.PaulSacramento wrote:People keep throwing the term "macroevolution" around but I am curious as to how THEY define it.
In lay man terms, in biology, it happens when a branch of a species evolves to a point that it can no longer procreate with its original species group.
They may even look exactly the same.
Observed change at the species level is either filed as microevolution (because it fails the "kind" test), as normal genetic variance (because the new species emerged out of an existing population, and so it might just be a recombination of existing genes from that population), or as "backwards" evolution (because genes have mutated meaning information has been lost).
This "breaking down" that you are pointing to is actually a perfecting mechanism of nature that demonstrates balance, it keeps populations from exploding.... As populations strengthen and increase, it weakens the form through simple mechanics. If an environmental, predatory, food/prey or competitive nature of some sort isn't testing the survival of the fittest scenario, then weakening or 'devolving' characteristics run rampant within that population..... It's not only the balance relative to other animals that keep things in check; nature is the ultimate safety net keeping a species from developing like a cancer/virus that consumes the earth.pat34lee wrote:I will get back to other questions as I have time, but I want to agree with you here. 'Kind' is necessarily a little vague from a creationist standpoint. We don't know what the original kinds were or how many there were. The difference, as far as change is concerned, is that evolution counts on adding complexity through time, where creation and nature show that everything is breaking down, not building up. Look up genetic breakdown and the increase in disease, cancer and other harmful mutations and the rate at which they have increased in the recent past. Without help, we are headed for extinction soon, and not just mankind.PerciFlage wrote:The term macroevolution in the literature - to the extent that it is used at all - is generally defined to be genetic changes "at or above the level of species". Creationist usage typically defines it as change above the level of species, from one "kind" of creature into another. The term "kind" is fairly plastic - I've never seen it used completely consistently, but in taxonomic terms it tends to sit somewhere between genus and order.PaulSacramento wrote:People keep throwing the term "macroevolution" around but I am curious as to how THEY define it.
In lay man terms, in biology, it happens when a branch of a species evolves to a point that it can no longer procreate with its original species group.
They may even look exactly the same.
Observed change at the species level is either filed as microevolution (because it fails the "kind" test), as normal genetic variance (because the new species emerged out of an existing population, and so it might just be a recombination of existing genes from that population), or as "backwards" evolution (because genes have mutated meaning information has been lost).
You say that this is moving the posts, but you don't actually demonstrate that in your objection. You site abundant examples, yet fail to provide even one. Regarding the objections you site: The fact is that they are the same kind of aninal. The fact is that there is a loss of information. How is an objection rooted in fact moving the goal posts? It isn't. The science community has at least admitted that the term "speciation" is at best gray around the edges. It isn't as if there is a HARD measure in nature. Man is the one who is establishing the terms here. And that is question begging. For example. "Speciation confirms that Darwinism is true. And we see speciation happening in this breed of fruit fly. Therefore, Darwinism is true." Worse, this often includes an equivocation fallacy mixed in as well.There are abundant examples of observed speciation in the literature. Creationists generally respond by shifting the goalposts - "they're still the same kind of animal", "this might be a new species, but information has been lost" - but the fact remains: speciation has been directly observed.
This is hard to address without a specific example. But, I'm quite certain, that this is classic question begging. Notice how I highlignted "predicted." The thinking here is, "We expect to see "x" in this strata, therefore Darwinism is true." It is entering into the search with a preset conclusion of the evidence. The fact is that there can very well be other valid explanations as to why "x" appears in said strata. However, when one starts off begging the question it immediately discards and creates a prejudice over alternate explanations. Not to mention that "speciation" is abused to further distort the conclusions.PerciFlage wrote:There are huge numbers of transitional forms in the fossil record. Again, creationists have a tendency to shift the goalposts in response - "well of course species B appears to be transitional between species A and C, but where's the transition between A and B?", "that's not a transition, that's a perfectly well formed animal!" - but once again the fact remains: the fossil record is littered with transitional forms and, what's more, a large proportion of them have been found by searching areas and strata where those forms were predicted to lie.
There were two things addressed, (1)speciation and (2)transitional fossils. You are missing the point. I'm not saying that there aren't examples of speciation. What I am debating is what "speciation" itself examples regarding molecules to man evolution. My bigger concern for examples is (2).PerciFlage wrote:Jlay, can't quote you I'm afraid as I'm posting from a phone. I'll do my best to make it clear which bits of your post I'm referring to at any given point.
Regarding the fact that I didn't provide any examples of speciation - I thought this was fairly in controversial even in creationist quarters, i.e. creationists accept speciation occurs, but file it as microevolution rather than macro. If you want specific examples of observed speciation then search for speciation on Google scholar, and if you're still unconvinced then I'll be happy to continue that line of discussion and provide more examples.
You just said a mouthful and don't even realize it. Yes, they go hunting. For what? Transitional fossils. You see, the problem here (which I doubt you will acknowledge) is that forensic science is entering into the search with an agenda. And that agenda in many cases is to find links and confirm Darwinism. Again, provide an example and we can discuss that particular one.The same goes for predictions of transitional fossils. Darwinian mechanisms necessarily mean that there should be an order observable in the fossil record, but discover in order isn't alone a confirmation. By the way, when scientists predict and hunt for a given fossil trait, it isn't to make a "therefore Darwinism." leap. Generally such discoveries are made by scientists studying one particular type of fossil who note that a particular trait is missing from their fossil collection, and they go hunting for new fossil species to improve their data set rather than to prove evolution.
Please elaborate.Regarding speciation being a loss of data - I consider this to be a moving of the goalposts because, as with the second law of thermodynamics, it relies on an inconsistent, corrupted or misapplied version of information theory.
Well, I'm not sure how you deduce that I am making that claim.I can how certain types of mutation - namely deletions - could be regarded as a loss of information, but to try and spin an insertion or corruption that has been observed and has had an effect on th phenotype as a loss of information is pure sophistry.
That all depends. Based on countless debates I've been a part of, I have found numerous logical fallacies to be at the foundation of this very kind of thinking. Now, perhaps you have something completely original that I've never heard before regarding this, and if so, I'm all ears. First and foremost I would address your use of the term "evolution" in this claim. I can just about bet that you regularly equivocate the term evolution (change) with Evolution (molecules to man Darwinism) without as much as giving it a second thought. I can also say that given enough time you'll committ those same errors here on this forum. In fact, I would state that you already have in this paragraph.I agree with you that making a firm leap from any one line of evidence or single observation to the statement that evolution is true is unsupportable. I don't believe I've ever come across anyone who stands by evolution on the strength of a single piece of evidence, but there are multiple lines of consistent evidence across multiple disciplines, and a singular lack of a coherent body of inconsistent evidence
Ad-populum??That's why there's such a consensus in favour of the idea in academia, even to the point where some scientists rely on the theory for making predictions that are important to their work.
I see the problem - scientists finding what they want/expect to find is a big issue, which is part of the reason why we have peer review and why replication of results is seen as such a crucial thing.jlay wrote:You just said a mouthful and don't even realize it. Yes, they go hunting. For what? Transitional fossils. You see, the problem here (which I doubt you will acknowledge) is that forensic science is entering into the search with an agenda. And that agenda in many cases is to find links and confirm Darwinism. Again, provide an example and we can discuss that particular one.The same goes for predictions of transitional fossils. Darwinian mechanisms necessarily mean that there should be an order observable in the fossil record, but discover in order isn't alone a confirmation. By the way, when scientists predict and hunt for a given fossil trait, it isn't to make a "therefore Darwinism." leap. Generally such discoveries are made by scientists studying one particular type of fossil who note that a particular trait is missing from their fossil collection, and they go hunting for new fossil species to improve their data set rather than to prove evolution.
The example which springs most readily to mind is the response to Lenski's e. coli experiment. Genetic change leading to adaptations in the phenotype was observed, and numerous responses acknowledged the change but tried to spin it as actually being a loss of information. No such analysis I saw used a coherent application of information theory.jlay wrote:Please elaborate.Regarding speciation being a loss of data - I consider this to be a moving of the goalposts because, as with the second law of thermodynamics, it relies on an inconsistent, corrupted or misapplied version of information theory.
I wasn't saying it's true because people believe in it, I was saying that people believe in it because so much evidence goes in its favour and so little goes against it.jlay wrote:Ad-populum??That's why there's such a consensus in favour of the idea in academia, even to the point where some scientists rely on the theory for making predictions that are important to their work.
I'm not sure you understand the process of fossil hunting. The hunt for transitional species is indeed due to an "agenda." It's more usually called a hypothesis. A good example is the recent explorations in Greenland and Canada. A fossil lobe-fish called Eusthenopteron was discovered n 1881 and dated to 385 million years ago. A fossil tetrapod called Ichthyostega was discovered in 1932 and dated to about 370 million years ago. A hypothesis in accordance with evolution suggested that intermediate forms would be found in intermediate strata. A hypothesis in accordance with creationism would be that fish and amphibians are different "kinds" and that no such intermediate form would be found. When palaeontologists went out and looked in the predicted place for the predicted fossil, they found it. Several in fact, such as Acanthostega and Tiktaalik. To that extent the hypothesis in favour of evolution was confirmed and the hypothesis in favour of creationism was rejected.You just said a mouthful and don't even realize it. Yes, they go hunting. For what? Transitional fossils. You see, the problem here (which I doubt you will acknowledge) is that forensic science is entering into the search with an agenda. And that agenda in many cases is to find links and confirm Darwinism. Again, provide an example and we can discuss that particular one.