Creation Research against Evolution

As has been pointed out a number of times there are ways in which the theory of evolution could be put in serious doubt.(I don't see how the fact of evolution could be actually but the ToE maybe).As noted the discovery of a fossil that is well handled and clearly out of place would become by itself an issue. A few of them in different strata and locations would start to really be a problem.Since organizations like the ICR etc exist solely to achieve this end why aren't they trying to hit the points where they might actually accomplish something.I have a suggestion or two for them:1) They could find the mechanism that puts a roadblock in the genome between kinds.2) They could search for those fossils mentioned above. The human fossil under the iridium layer at the end of the Cretaceous for example.3) They could find something in the genome which is an example of "preloaded" adaptation.I'm sure there are others. But are they bothering? Why not? Imagine the impact they would have. It would be worth millions to them I'm sure. Somehow I think they know that they won't be succesful. They spend time instead playing games around the edges of the sciences.

Coming from a former creationist, I can surmise a general reason for why they haven't seriously thought about following up on your 3 suggestions before. Or perhaps a few honestly have but were not satisfied in the end by the test results, thereby still holding to a religious bias. For me as an amatuer astronomer, it was just a matter of recogizing the tricky polemics in an inaccurate understanding of the speed of light(the creationists tired-light idea). Then I began to distrust the people who I thought were telling me the "scientific" truth.

Great points Ned. Perhaps they could even get around to defining "kinds".The sad thing is that everything you list could easily be done, and is actually done by real scientists everyday. Every time a fossil is found it could throw the theory a serious curveball. Instead, every fossil is found exactly where it should be. So it seems that evolutionary scientists are doing a better job of testing the validity of evolution than creation "scientists" are.They could also start making theories about what should be found in the natural world if the earth and its life were created 6,000 years ago. Evolution hangs its ass in the air with respect to offering ways to falsify the theory. mark24's examples of cladistics and stratigraphy corelation is a perfect example of this.What I want to see from creation scientists is the conditions under which the theory could be falsified. It isn't real science until this is done.

I don't have specific answers for your questions (not sure I even understand the third one) but as I see it creation "scientists" will not try to engage in any sort of proper scientific inquiry because they don't need to. True scientific research is so demanding. There's all that data that has to be meticulously compiled and analyzed. Then you have to compare what you find with what others have found, a process which (from what I've read, I'm NOT a scientist) routinely takes months or years. Why go to all that trouble?A creation "scientist's" commission is to criticize and obfuscate in any way possible any scientific principle or theory that conflicts in any way with a particular book that was written thousands of years ago. The point is to maintain confusion and false knowledge among people who don't know the difference in chemistry and alchemy.In other words, why do any real work if you don't have to?

quote:

---

A creation "scientist's" commission is to criticize and obfuscate in any way possible any scientific principle or theory that conflicts in any way with a particular book that was written thousands of years ago. The point is to maintain confusion and false knowledge among people who don't know the difference in chemistry and alchemy.

---

Hence their propensity for staging "debates" and ignoring the peer-review system. You don't need data to make a speech.

Their home page and other pages at the "Links" forum, at http://EvC Forum: Adventist Church - Geoscience Research Institute -->EvC Forum: Adventist Church - Geoscience Research InstituteI haven't checked them out for a long time. What I said at the above cited:

quote:

---

Although the Adventist Church is very much a fundamentalist organization, they do recognize that information contradictory to their beliefs does exist. The GRI site contains a wealth of links to information on the various points of view.

---

Moose

Howdy. I just want to see if any of you can come up with a single incidence of evolution being observed. But first lets make sure we both have the same definition of what evolution is.Evolution - a mutation that adds a new complexity to an organism.it is not...
- Loss of genetic information -
(Example - Bacteria loses the genetic regulator that prevents
excessive creation of Penicillinase, thereby making it immune
to Penicillin.)
- Re-mixing existing information -
(Example - Dog breeding)
- Copying existing genetic information in the wrong place. -
(Example - A fruit fly mutated so it has a leg on its head)Is this a reasonable request?

This is not the topic for such discussion. Perhaps someone else could guide things to a better topic.Adminnemooseus

Ned, another nice problem for evolution would be some truly bizarro lineages. For example, it was known that whales are mammals, and that any fossil ancestors should show a transformation of land mammals into modern whales. It would have been pretty problematic, and still would be, if there were discovered a series of fossils that would show that whales evolved directly from fish, without a true mammal ancestor.It would also be interesting if we found fossils intermediate between birds and bats.

First I would like to apologize for the slight threadjack, but I have a most wonderful example of what gman is asking for.
However, gman, the definition you are using for evolution is only a part of it, not the whole TOE. For a better explanation of the TOE, refer to the post here: http://EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't science

quote:

---

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga, Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist ("flagellate"). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10-20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

---

-- Changes

---

"Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon

Sorry to the moderator for posting in the wrong place.RRoman, I opened a new forum.
EvC Forum: New complexity observed?If you could re-post your article that'd be great.So, I'm not sure I get what that article was talking about. Did Chlorella vulgaris begin replicating itself, inside of itself, to create a multicelluar organizm?