Evolution is Not Science

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
[b] i think the bulk of evolution is assumptions[/QUOTE]

​

How so? Please be specific and detailed in your response.

​

[QUOTE] and theyre a few number of facts and evidence but not enough to prove it undeniably, at least to the extent of gravity.
[/b]

---

We have never observed gravity. We have seen the effects of gravity, but we have never seen it.OTOH, we have directly observed evolution, both in the lab and in the field.Evolution is much better understood than gravity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
JM: You missed my point entirely. Since you claim to be alive and a real person, then you are a living breathing example of evolution.

​

Au Contraire (sp?) Since he claims to be alive and a real person, he is a child of God and His Creation.

​

"A change in genetic material through time is all evolution is."

​

Whoops! I've been an evolutionist all along!

​

"Now, there is no point in you denying this fact, what you will now do is to invent some hypothetical barrier through which evolution cannot cross."

​

Actually, it is perfectly reasonable to create a hypothetical barrier. YOU are the one required to show that evolution can accomplish what we see here on Earth.

​

"What I want you to do is to define this barrier scientifically. Define this barrier scientifically. Give us a way to test this."

​

I believe that creationists have been pointing to hybridization as a classification.

​

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

​

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."

​

Sorry for stepping in Penguin.

---

Please define "kind".What I want to know is how do I tell one "kind" from another? What are the criterion?You can't refer to the bible, remember, if you want to be scientific. You have to remain within the evidence.If you cannot answer the question, then you have no business using the word "kind" in a scientific discussion, because it has no scientific meaning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
KP,You say that evolution fails to provide a begining for itself. Thats fair enough. How does creationism provide for its begining? What evidence could someone,who has never read a Bible and never even heard of God,use to determine that the world was made by God in 6 literal days? How can someone aquire this knowledge by observing the world we live in? Because science is about observation you know. We should be able to observe that the world is a young created world and the result of an all powerfull God. We should all immediatly jump to that conclusion from simply looking at the world just as we conclude that ice is cold by touching it. Do you see people who touch ice and conclude that its not cold to the touch? Well if that belief you hold about the world is so true,why is it not the self evident belief of everyone on the planet

---

thats the whole point of christianity. God will save if you can have faith in him even if there is nothing to have faith in. If it was based on something that could be constantly observed then you wouldnt have to have blind faith and without that blind faith you cant really prove to God that your devoted to him.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Fortunately for us evos, straw men do not make good soldiers. If they did creation "science" would already have taken the world by storm.
--hehe im sure. Jet posted a set of "myths" which actually misrepresent the arguments they claim to refute. In so doing they refute nothing. Having shown no less than four straw men in Jets "myths", my point is made & no further effort is required on my part, the ball is in his/her court (now yours). If you think they're NOT straw men, bring it on.I made two other points regarding transitionals & radiometric dating, both invited a response.1/ Perhaps you would be so kind to explain what you would accept as a transitional that wasn't in post 36. That is to say, if I brought a fossil sequence to you & said these are transitionals, what criteria would you apply that would potentially make you say, "Oh yeah, that's a transitional sequence"?
--as i said the fossils dont show evolution occuring they just show the steps in it. You cant be one hundred percent sure unless you see it occur. Unless evolution is becoming a religion.2/ Also, can you explain why four different radiometric methods show such close correlation? If you are going to deny the age they give, can you then explain how these four methods are all one million percent in error? That's a massive error to BEGIN with, let alone having four DIFFERENT methods, each with different potential sources of error to be so close in the ages given.
---the age they show is all hypothetical and is how old the earth appears to be, its more than likely that that is how old it is but you still have an uncertainity. The age of the earth only allows evolution more time to occur and more chances to happen but i dont think that it would require any amount of time. It happens randomly not on a time scale.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

JM: ROTFL!! Is this explanation real or are you joking? You're just yanking my chain aren't you? Do creationists have a real explanation for the barrier to genetic evolution or not? If you are serious, please re-read the explanation and try to figure out why, in explaining every possible scenario, it explains nothing. For example, according to this explanation an ant and an elephant may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind. Similarly a bacteria and a human may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind!! Isn't this what creationists have been dissing evolution about for a long time and now they reach the same conclusion???????? Too funny, I know it's a joke.
---you didnt understand what he was getting at. i think he was trying to point that species can not breed outside of their species and that would mean an evolved creature would have tough time finding a mate.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
JM: ROTFL!! Is this explanation real or are you joking? You're just yanking my chain aren't you? Do creationists have a real explanation for the barrier to genetic evolution or not? If you are serious, please re-read the explanation and try to figure out why, in explaining every possible scenario, it explains nothing. For example, according to this explanation an ant and an elephant may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind. Similarly a bacteria and a human may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind!! Isn't this what creationists have been dissing evolution about for a long time and now they reach the same conclusion???????? Too funny, I know it's a joke.
---you didnt understand what he was getting at. i think he was trying to point that species can not breed outside of their species and that would mean an evolved creature would have tough time finding a mate.

---

How do you explain this, then:"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century.
Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile
offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from
which it had evolved."------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

Evolution works on extant life. Evolution would begin EXACTLY one generation after either abiogenesis or creation.
--doesnt that mean that evolution and creationism are not comparable. If evolution does not include a beginning than theyre isnt really anything to argue other than just evolution.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
thats the whole point of christianity. God will save if you can have faith in him even if there is nothing to have faith in. If it was based on something that could be constantly observed then you wouldnt have to have blind faith and without that blind faith you cant really prove to God that your devoted to him.

​

---

That makes no sense whatsoever KP. If you listen to the Christians,than only accepting Christ as God will save you...do you know how few people actually believe that this is the case? a few thousands AT MOST. The vast majority of Christians are catholics,who do not recognize Jesus Christ as God but rather as the SON of God. Literalist(and Young Earth Creationists) are a small insignificanty minority of the whole human race and they exist only in north america. What kind of a loving God would make up a rule to be "saved" that has ZERO chance of applying to more than a mere few thousands among 6 billions on the planet. And what of the people who,for geographic,language or cultural reasons have never even heard the words Jesus Christ now or in the past. What you literalists suggests amount to saying that God has allready pre-ordained 99.9% of the population of the planet to burn in hell for all eternity in his great plan. Only the most demented of insane mind could ever suggest that this is the policy of a just and loving Benevolent God.

CS- this was done a very long time ago. Dating methods have proved that the less advanced a fossilized creature is, the older it is.
--it wasnt proven it was assumed, get your theory right.The fossil strata reinforces evolutionist theories with its distinctive "primitive to advanced" pattern, which, throught the eyes of the scientific community, is overwhelming proof of genetic evolution over vast and, quite frankly, incomprehensible periods of time.
--the fossil pattern merely provides a pattern for evolution but it does not show it occuring.You and your fellows in the creationist camp are trying to disprove these theories, and shed doubt on its assertions and evidences. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that macro-evolution is impossible and thus did not occurr. The scientific community is already confident of its findings, and will only listen if you come up with something of interest.
--its not our duty to prove anything. science is meant to prove and disprove itself, or am i wrong? Also thanks for admitting the science community is unwilling to listen to creationist claims, thats what ive been waiting to hear.such preposterous claims as "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics", or that mutations are too rare to have created species over time, are rebuked, and in some cases, chuckled at in the scientific community. Why do they fail to take you seriously? Because your claims are ridiculous. Top of the line archaeologists, high calibre geologists, and experienced cosmologists know their fields like the backs of their hands, and possess a vast knowledge of science. When they are approached by occasionally naive religious-fundamentalists, dragging with them incredible and surprisingly bold claims, they know instantly the flaws and the pitfalls. They see the problems and the contradictions.
--how good the scientists are shouldnt and doesnt change the science. The only problem with Creation is that its not science, its religion.Creationists rarely engage the scientific community with tough questions, and when scientists bother to rebuttle, creationists are silent. Such questions as "why does the fossil strata look the way it does", or why starlight appears to be so young, or how humans were capable of living for centuries, or why C14 dating dates more primitive fossils as older, or how non-modern animals were not fossilized, are generally ignored, or responded to with arrogant and clearly inexperienced answers.
--scientists can usually only adequatly explain and prove things to other scientists. Most people dont believe much in science because its generally not very willing to admit that its wrong, or even try to prove itself wrong like it should be doing. Also the fact that evolution claims to be based on evidence but the majority of it is assumptions and proposed mechanisms, theyres no real substance there.Its up to you to get the scientist's attention.
--ignorant scientists... ------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[QUOTE][b]i think he was trying to point that species can not breed outside of their species and that would mean an evolved creature would have tough time finding a mate.[/QUOTE][/b]Individuals don't evolve. The chance of an organism being a different species from its parents and from the local breeding population is essentially zero because evolution happens slowly, and one population crosses species over hundreds of generations, not one. The exact point at which you can call it a new species is usually a full of contention among biologists. Porto Santo rabbits are an example. They were European rabbits that were accidentally introduced onto Porto Santo island by the Spaniards about four hundred years ago. They (the rabbits) established a colony on the island that began to diverge from the mainland populations. Now Porto Santo rabbits are smaller than European rabbits even when raised in captivity, and although they breed with other Porto Santo rabbits to produce fertile offspring in the wild, they do not breed with European rabbits except when encouraged to under laboratory conditions. The breedings with European rabbits generate fertile offspring, they just are separated by behaviorisms that prevent it from occuring outside the lab. However it happened slowly enough that the "first" Porto Santo rabbit did not have problems finding a mate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
That makes no sense whatsoever KP. If you listen to the Christians,than only accepting Christ as God will save you...do you know how few people actually believe that this is the case? a few thousands AT MOST. The vast majority of Christians are catholics,who do not recognize Jesus Christ as God but rather as the SON of God. Literalist(and Young Earth Creationists) are a small insignificanty minority of the whole human race and they exist only in north america. What kind of a loving God would make up a rule to be "saved" that has ZERO chance of applying to more than a mere few thousands among 6 billions on the planet. And what of the people who,for geographic,language or cultural reasons have never even heard the words Jesus Christ now or in the past. What you literalists suggests amount to saying that God has allready pre-ordained 99.9% of the population of the planet to burn in hell for all eternity in his great plan. Only the most demented of insane mind could ever suggest that this is the policy of a just and loving Benevolent God.

​

---

He loves us enough where he knows he can trust is christians to spread the word of god to the world and save humanity. Christians are told to spread the word of God but we dont have to convery anyone. We just have to tell atheists about Jesus and his love for us and how you can be saved. I also think that God and Jesus assumed that people would not want to burn in hell for eternity, but that is their own choice in the end.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

How do you explain this, then:"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century.
Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile
offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from
which it had evolved."
---you didnt state the two species and their differences. Id be interested in what their differences were and what allowed them to succesfully breed.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Individuals don't evolve. The chance of an organism being a different species from its parents and from the local breeding population is essentially zero because evolution happens slowly, and one population crosses species over hundreds of generations, not one. The exact point at which you can call it a new species is usually a full of contention among biologists. Porto Santo rabbits are an example. They were European rabbits that were accidentally introduced onto Porto Santo island by the Spaniards about four hundred years ago. They (the rabbits) established a colony on the island that began to diverge from the mainland populations. Now Porto Santo rabbits are smaller than European rabbits even when raised in captivity, and although they breed with other Porto Santo rabbits to produce fertile offspring in the wild, they do not breed with European rabbits except when encouraged to under laboratory conditions. The breedings with European rabbits generate fertile offspring, they just are separated by behaviorisms that prevent it from occuring outside the lab. However it happened slowly enough that the "first" Porto Santo rabbit did not have problems finding a mate.
--that is microevolution of course. Also species is taken in the context of not being able to breed, if they could breed then they would still considered to be in the species but would have similar differences as whites and blacks in humans.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

​

[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 03-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

1/ Perhaps you would be so kind to explain what you would accept as a transitional that wasn't in post 36. That is to say, if I brought a fossil sequence to you & said these are transitionals, what criteria would you apply that would potentially make you say, "Oh yeah, that's a transitional sequence"?

​

--as i said the fossils dont show evolution occuring they just show the steps in it. You cant be one hundred percent sure unless you see it occur. Unless evolution is becoming a religion.

---

Is that an admission? fossils dont show evolution occuring they just show the steps in it. No one claims fossils show evolution occurring, but we DO claim that it shows steps in it. Since we are in agreement, what would you accept as a step in evolution, fossilwise?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

2/ Also, can you explain why four different radiometric methods show such close correlation? If you are going to deny the age they give, can you then explain how these four methods are all one million percent in error? That's a massive error to BEGIN with, let alone having four DIFFERENT methods, each with different potential sources of error to be so close in the ages given.

​

---the age they show is all hypothetical and is how old the earth appears to be, its more than likely that that is how old it is but you still have an uncertainity. The age of the earth only allows evolution more time to occur and more chances to happen but i dont think that it would require any amount of time. It happens randomly not on a time scale.

​

---

The age they show ISN’T hypothetical, it is tentative, but as I hope to show, not very.The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range.65.1/0.7 = 93The range of error is 93 times smaller than the maximum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probabilistically speaking, we basically have four 93 sided dice. What are the odds of all four rolling a 93? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die).Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance is..drum roll..93^4 (93*93*93*93)= 74,805,201:1Do you therefore accept that radiometric dating accuracy is something more than merely hypothetical, or even chance?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

its more than likely that that is how old it is but you still have an uncertainity

---

Does this mean you are an old earth creationist now? True, any scientific conclusion is tentative, but nearly 75,000,000:1 odds screams, & screams loud. The more methods you use, the less tentative the result. I hope to have shown that the results that the K-T Tektites are ~65 my old are highly corroborated, & it would be unreasonable to deny this conclusion.Markps {Added By Edit}The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 65,100,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering.65,100,000/6,000 = 10,850 (following the previous example, we now have four 10,850 sided dice)10,850^4 = 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
Evolution works on extant life. Evolution would begin EXACTLY one generation after either abiogenesis or creation.
--doesnt that mean that evolution and creationism are not comparable.
If evolution does not include a beginning than theyre isnt really anything to argue other than just evolution.

​

---

Spot on. Evolution stands alone from creation AND abiogenesis. God COULD have started the first organism off, AND evolution be true. I always thought that the "creation/evolution" debate was a bit wonky on this, but there you are...Of course the above assumes an OEC perspective, a YEC perspective generally asserts that genesis is true & happened inside the last 10,000 years. Meaning evolution is screwed on two counts, 1/ God created all life as developed organisms, & 2/ there isn't enough time for evolution anyway. This is the main argument, though evolution & creation are not exclusive unless you assume a literal interpretation of the bible (assuming your christian in the first place, of course).Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.