Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some Evidence Against Evolution
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 271 of 309 (73030)
12-15-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by darlostt
12-15-2003 2:06 PM


Re: The Natural History Museum
How absurd. Now you're quoting book reviews.
P. Forey, J. of Paleontology: "Genetics, Paleontology and Macro-evolution" by Jeffrey S. Levington is reviewed.
It's a book review of a book about cutting edge research! Its not a simple textbook, it's a about current controversies. Duh! Of course you aren't going to find The Final Answers in a book about current hot topics in research. I should mention that this book is to some degree an attack on punctuated equilibrium, the idea you rely on for you Lewin quote.
Your quote is about the contents of this particular book, not about whether macroevolution occurs at all. How typical of creationist quote mining: take a quote about cutting-edge controversies, and try to spin them as applying to fundamental facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 2:06 PM darlostt has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 272 of 309 (73032)
12-15-2003 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by darlostt
12-15-2003 3:20 PM


Credibility --- suspect.
HA! Don't I love these "answers." DT is indeed correct - Patterson died in 1998 - AND THAT'S WHY HE IS NOW A CREATIONIST. I never said anything about his being a creationist while he was still in his mortal coil.
Ah, I see, that was a joke. Unfortunately, it has the affect of damaging your credibility right off the bat.
Next I would like to ask about your "Do not expect answers." quote. Given the value of your comment on Patterson it is suspicious that it is so short. We have an assertion as to what it is about but it would be valuable to have it in context. When quotes are cut this short it is very suspicious indeed. Could you supply something more?
or "quote mining" (my favourite).
Yes, it seems to be a favourite of creationists. If you go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy you will find some reasons why we might be suspicious of quote mining. In many cases these quotes are deliberately taken out of context and lied about as to their true meaning. And all of that is separate from the fact that quoted opinions are one thing while the evidence is another. The opinion of a knowledgable expert is of value but needs to be compared to others. If you use quotes carelessly you may find your creditibility further decayed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 3:20 PM darlostt has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 273 of 309 (73033)
12-15-2003 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by darlostt
12-15-2003 3:20 PM


Re: Patterson &
quote:
Creation scientists heartily agree, of course. Natural selection can't "create" - Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [macroevolution] Noble, et al., Parasitology, sixth edition, Evolution of Parasitism Lea and Febiger, 1989, p. 516.
Actually, the quote reads:
"Creation scientists heartily agree, of course. Natural selection can't "create" - Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs."
They stuck words in there to try and change the meaning. This sentence (unaltered) is precisely correct: Natural selection doesn't work by just making things up out of thin air - it has to alter an already extant system.
quote:
How natural selection operates at the molecular level is a major problem in evolutionary biology. - Yokoyama, Color vision of the Coelacanth Journal of Heredity, May/June 2000, pp. 216 217.
Full quote:
"How natural selection operates at the molecular level is a major problem in evolutionary biology. About 30 years ago, Kimura proposed that most sequence changes in DNA's and proteins are selectively neutral. This "neutral theory" is still controversial and we need to demonstrate convincingly the consequences of adaptive evolution and neutral evolution at the molecular level. However, it is not an easy task to elucidate experimentally the molecular mechanisms of adaptive evolution in the vertebrates. This is because it is extremely difficult to find genetic systems where the functional effects of adaptive mutations can be rigorously assessed. The visual pigments represent one of a very few model systems for studying adaptive mechanisms in vertebrates. Here I shall describe one example of adaptive evolution, color vision of the coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae)." (Yokoyama 2000). "Color Vision of the Coelacanth and Adaptive Evolution of Rhodopsin (RH1) and Rhodopsin-like (RH2) Pigments".
What sort of deceptive person would take the lead-in sentence to a paragraph and isolate it like that? The paragraph is talking about Yokoyama's work on the low-level functionality of selective mechanisms - i.e., answering the question as to whether most mutations make no change or not; he then explains why this is hard. This is *anything but* a comment on evolution in general - only on how to test whether an individual mutation is advantageous or not, on a timely basis, so as to answer rate of evolution questions. He then goes on to describe *how* the color vision of the Coelacanth evolved.
Not to mention, they even got the title of the paper completely wrong. Is this the quality of "research" that your side does?
I don't have a copy of "Genomics Meets Phylogenetics" on hand, but given your track record, it's probably no better.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 3:20 PM darlostt has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 274 of 309 (73035)
12-15-2003 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by darlostt
12-15-2003 2:06 PM


evidence for macro
but I see no compelling empirical evidence for MACROevolution.
Could you go to the thread discussing macro-evoluion and post what you would consider such evidence? We've had a lot of trouble geting clear what any given creationists considers it to be. So that would be useful too. Some think a new species is "macro", some a new genus and some a new family.
Macro and Micro Evolution This one is closed because it got too big but it seems we need the sequel. You could read over some of that thread and then open Macro and Micro Evolution 2 to add your comments.
I wonder what the darwinist "believes" - fossils OR the molecular evidence (above paragraph)? Keep in mind the 2 mix like water and oil. See Nature v. 406, pp. 230-233. Secular author T. Gura asks "Can the 2 ever be reconciled?" Answer: No, they cannot, because macroevolution is a myth.
Again can you go to the thread above and describe why they are not reconciled in a bit more detail. My guess is you don't have anything more than what is in the quote marks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 2:06 PM darlostt has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 309 (73036)
12-15-2003 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by darlostt
12-15-2003 3:20 PM


Re: Patterson &
darlostt writes:
I'm "quote mining"
Please don't just airily wave your hand, and accuse me of lying, or taking your quote out of context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 3:20 PM darlostt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by docpotato, posted 12-15-2003 4:58 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 276 of 309 (73044)
12-15-2003 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by darlostt
12-15-2003 2:06 PM


Re: The Natural History Museum
quote:
Keep in mind the 2 mix like water and oil. See Nature v. 406, pp. 230-233. Secular author T. Gura asks "Can the 2 ever be reconciled?" Answer: No, they cannot, because macroevolution is a myth.
Again, you quote not from actual research but from a news report. This time the quote is not from a researcher at all, but from a free-lance writer. Furthermore, your quote appears nowhere in the article, but is the "teaser" written by the editors. So the quote you attributed to T. Gura was not written by T. Gura.
(By the way, you keep calling folks "atheist" and "secular" - do you know these terms to be true, or do you assume this based on their scientific views?).
Finally, what is the message of the article? That molecular and morphological evidence disagree on such questions as:
1. Were the ancestors of cetaceans a sister group of artiodactyls, or a sub-group of artiodactyls?
2. Did modern humans arise through interbreeding of African and Eurasian hominids, or did they arise solely from African ancestry?
From our vertebrate/human perspective, these might seem important, but on the scale of the animal kingdom (or all of life), these are trivial portions of the recent past evolutionary tree.
Again, creationist quote mining tries to use small-scale controversies to cast doubt on the larger enterprise.
Furthermore, you purposely mislead when you answer the editor's rhetorical question with "No, they cannot...", because it is the point of the article to talk about possible solutions. Even if the answers on these points aren't final, you are not free to take an isolated question out of context and supply it with your own answer. Furthermore, nothing in the news report calls into question macro-evolution, just certain isolated portions of the evolutionary tree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 2:06 PM darlostt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 5:08 PM Zhimbo has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 277 of 309 (73045)
12-15-2003 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by darlostt
12-15-2003 3:20 PM


quote mining
I don't understand your position, after all you said:
quote:
"I never...like what a creationist writes... They're lying...They also resort to vulgar comments."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by darlostt, posted 12-15-2003 3:20 PM darlostt has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 278 of 309 (73046)
12-15-2003 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Dan Carroll
12-15-2003 4:23 PM


Re: Patterson &
didn't see this one.. oops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-15-2003 4:23 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 279 of 309 (73049)
12-15-2003 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Zhimbo
12-15-2003 4:58 PM


quotes coming out as fool's gold
Hmmm darlostt, does it appear that one at a time your quotes are turning out to be poor? Is it possible that you have been mislead by your sources?
Perhaps you can relist them and put some labels on them so we can keep track. (little names like "Forey-no answers" etc might do it) When a quote is "mined" it is, I think, appropriate to step back and give your concept of what exactly is meant. We can usually guess but that might be unfair to you.
It seems that the meanings you might have attached to them are proving to be incorrect so far. If you disagree it would be interesting to see your interpretation of the quotes when they are taken in context. If you are like a lot of quote miners here I suspect that this will be the first time you've actually seen that. You just picked up the quote from some source that had already pulled it out of context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Zhimbo, posted 12-15-2003 4:58 PM Zhimbo has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 280 of 309 (73194)
12-15-2003 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Quetzal
12-12-2003 11:51 AM


Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
You know, before this debate commensed I failed to demand that each side define their terms. No debate can take place unless certain things are assumed and a list of definitions of words and phrases is in place.
I define "scientism" as a branch of science that has as its starting assumption that God does not exist. It can be logically deduced from this defintion that atheists make up the membership.
Part of scientism is neo-Darwinism which are people who believe that God does not exist or is not the Creator - this is not a matter of opinion. This is who I am debating, which renders everything you said about the scientists who believe in God a non-sequitor.
In previous posts I have laboriously argued that the ONLY reason that neo-Darwinism exists is to claim and to replace the claims of creationism as the explanation of the origins of life. This is also not a matter of opinion. If some early scientist claimed to be a creationist and then for whatever reason stopped then the reason this happened was the exact subject of my posts #112, #136. It doesn't matter what THEY CLAIM, God in His book says the reason they reject Him as Creator is because He has removed their ability to recognize Him as the Creator as a penalty for continually rejecting Him as Creator.
You can disagree with this and say the evidence supports that creation was not intelligently designed - fine. The reason you say this is because God has darkened your mind for doing what you already were inclined to want to do regardless of what you say the reason is.
God says modern intellectualism wants to do away with Him because they do not want to deal with a Creator. Did I say every intellectual ? No I did not. I already defined the context to be scientism.
You said "scientism is a philosophy" Yes I agree. Their philosophy exists in the atheist worldview and all of their work and endeavours is offered under the starting assumption that God does not exist.
Does this negate legitimate genuine scientific discoveries that are made ? NO IT DOES NOT . These discoveries should stand alone and not be granted automatic twin legitimacy to also evidence their starting assumption that God does not exist.
Many posters in this room want to deny that neo-Darwinism challenges the existence of God. This is silly, of course it does this is the whole reason for the debate. This is why Darwin came up with his theory as an alternative explanation for the origin of life. Darwin rejected God to be the Creator. He rejected creationism this is basic 101 stuff.
You say "neo-Darwinism is the best explantion of life......name one religion that can explain the origin of life better..." What ? Did you take a stupid pill ? God is the creator this is what the debate is about. Why can't natural selection (if true) be a process that God created ? This is all God wants is ultimate credit and a word of thanks (Romans 1:20-25) This is my only quarrel.
What you label as "pseudo-authorities" is a country bumpkin dismissal of my sources. In other words "you don't agree" this is what you should of said and I can respect that if you could tell me why.
I can refuse to acknowledge the legitmacy of your sources just because I disagree and we will get nowhere.
Richard Leakey is a brilliant scientist - it is not a matter of opinion. But when he says the evidence means that God does not exist (if this is true) then this is where the bias of his starting assumption has intruded into the evidence. But Leakey IS saying the evidence is saying that God does not exist, everything he does scientifically is offered in the larger context of assumption that God is not the Creator - this is not a matter of opinion.
If you disagree then we have nothing to debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Quetzal, posted 12-12-2003 11:51 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Zhimbo, posted 12-16-2003 1:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 281 of 309 (73207)
12-15-2003 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by NosyNed
12-13-2003 6:06 PM


Ned: I am a creationist and I say it is the claim of creationism.
You are not a creationist so you can claim whatever you want about what you think creationism claims.
How do you conclude from the products of natural selection that God could not of created this process ? This is an assumption based upon your starting bias.
You make this assumption because the existence of natural selection does not fit into your previously constructed box of how God must be.
I only challenge natural selection if it is offered as evidence that God could not of created it.
Tell me Ned, how does natural selection and chance mutation evidence the non-existence of an intelligent Creator ? The only answer you can offer is an answer based upon a previous belief of how God must be.
For the sake of argument I believe in natural selection and chance mutation and I believe that they are processes created by God. Where we depart is you say that God would/could never create this way. What is the source and basis of this belief Ned ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2003 6:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-16-2003 3:36 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 282 of 309 (73208)
12-15-2003 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by NosyNed
12-13-2003 6:06 PM


Ned: I am a creationist and I say it is the claim of creationism.
You are not a creationist so you can claim whatever you want about what you think creationism claims.
How do you conclude from the products of natural selection that God could not of created this process ? This is an assumption based upon your starting bias.
You make this assumption because the existence of natural selection does not fit into your previously constructed box of how God must be.
I only challenge natural selection if it is offered as evidence that God could not of created it.
Tell me Ned, how does natural selection and chance mutation evidence the non-existence of an intelligent Creator ? The only answer you can offer is an answer based upon a previous belief of how God must be.
For the sake of argument I believe in natural selection and chance mutation and I believe that they are processes created by God. Where we depart is you say that God would/could never create this way. What is the source and basis of this belief Ned ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 12-13-2003 6:06 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2003 4:03 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 285 by NosyNed, posted 12-16-2003 4:05 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 309 (73255)
12-16-2003 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Cold Foreign Object
12-15-2003 11:05 PM


quote:
For the sake of argument I believe in natural selection and chance mutation and I believe that they are processes created by God. Where we depart is you say that God would/could never create this way. What is the source and basis of this belief Ned ?
Maybe you need to clear your position's terminology. Natural selection+chance mutation+time = evolution. You are not a 'creationist' in the traditional sense (YEC/OEC), but rather a 'theistic evolutionist' either the strong-type (like Behe) or the weak-type (like Ken Miller).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-15-2003 11:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 284 of 309 (73258)
12-16-2003 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Cold Foreign Object
12-15-2003 11:06 PM


Where we depart is you say that God would/could never create this way.
Are you sure NEd holds that belief? You would be mistaken if you thought that all evolutionists hold this belief. Evolution is not synonymous with atheism, you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-15-2003 11:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-16-2003 7:55 PM crashfrog has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 285 of 309 (73259)
12-16-2003 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Cold Foreign Object
12-15-2003 11:06 PM


Which Creationist?
You are not a creationist so you can claim whatever you want about what you think creationism claims.
Well, I think you are right there. But not for the reason you give. It seems to me that there are a whole bunch of different claims. Sometimes it is so bad you begin to think that no two claim the same thing.
How do you conclude from the products of natural selection that God could not of created this process ? This is an assumption based upon your starting bias.
You are right. I sort of jsut chose to conclude that God didn't do it. It doesn't really matter enough for me to worry about. I certainly don't think there is any kind of "proof" that God didn't create the process. I just don't worry about it all the much.
[qs]I only challenge natural selection if it is offered as evidence that God could not of created it.
Tell me Ned, how does natural selection and chance mutation evidence the non-existence of an intelligent Creator ? The only answer you can offer is an answer based upon a previous belief of how God must be.
For the sake of argument I believe in natural selection and chance mutation and I believe that they are processes created by God. Where we depart is you say that God would/could never create this way. What is the source and basis of this belief Ned ?
I don't think I've said that, have I? What I do say is that if there is a God then it is the only apparent way He has chosen to create.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-15-2003 11:06 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-16-2003 7:52 PM NosyNed has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024