|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
I have heard many times that the Theory of Evolution is "bad science". It has never been made clear to me what makes evolution bad, but other theories that rely on inference, such as inner earth geology, are considered good science.
I would prefer to stay away from religious issues and focus primarily on the practice of science. If it is appropriate, the exclusion of God can be a topic, but you must also show how exclusion of God within other fields of science, such as biochemistry, does not invalidate that research as well. I am hoping that this can be a thread where those of us familiar with the PRACTICE of science can convey the logic behind the methodologies within science. I find that those that attack science are usually those that are the least familiar with actually practicing science. Well, enough of the preaching. I only ask that we all try and stay away from invoking scripture, but instead focus on what makes bad and good science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Entirely incorrect. Please explain how creationists deal with the genetic, fossil, and morphological evidence that shows human/ape common ancestory.
quote: Bacteria have been shown to form multi-nucleated single cells in response to mucous production in humans, as well as multi-cellular bodies in response to predation small invertebrates. Bacteria do move from being single celled to multi-celled organisms. Also, would you consider a reptile to mammal transition as being micro-evolution. After all, they are both within the vertebrate kind.
quote: It is the non-functional DNA and morphological vestiges that point to common ancestory. Pseudogenes and ERV insertions are non-functional pieces of DNA that do not affect the organism, and therefore a creator would not have to put these DNA sequences in. Also, there are DNA sequences that differ but serve the same function. Cytochrome b, for example, differs in sequence between bacteria and pigs, but the pig version works just fine in bacteria. Why would a common creator make two different sequences that work equally in different organisms? Or, maybe this gene has gone through mutations and selective pressure has kept the same enzyme function even though amino acid and DNA sequence is different. This would mean that differences in cytochrome b should follow phylogenetic trees based on fossil evidence and morphology. Guess what? It does.
quote: The relationship between the age of the fossils, the phylogeny constructed with the fossils, and DNA similarities/dissimilarities is a slam dunk for evolution. Don't forget that evolution does not depend on fossils alone.
quote: And if we dig deeper, we find that the human and ape characteristics merge into a single common ancestor. You forgot that part. As we look at older and older fossils, the difference between what we consider "human" and what we consider "ape" becomes less and less. Human evolution is not and never was based on a single fossil species. It is the step-wise emergence of modern human characteristics in the fossil record that supports human evolution.
quote: I dare you to name one that is used to support evolution today.
quote: And those bits of evidence were thrown out by evolutionists. If you want to see forgeries, look at the creationist camps. Robert Gentry (polonium haloes) had to admit in court that he falsified his data. Fraud will always happen, what matters is the willingness to out the frauds. Creationists simply won't admit to wrong doing, while evolutionists reveal fraud within their ranks quickly and judiciously.
quote: Again, the relationship between DNA sequences is directly related to the time span since common ancestory. Therefore, we would expect that humans and chimps would have more similar DNA than humans and plants since humans/chimps share a more recent common ancestory. The point that creationists won't fess up to is that there is a direct relationship between the order of the fossils in the ground and the DNA found in living organisms today. Perhaps you can be the first.
quote: Actually, one of the most basic biological laws (evolution) states that this is exactly what happened. There are fish today that can live both in water using gills and fins, and on land using the same fins to walk on mud and air sacs for breathing air. In the fossil record, we have fossils that possess both reptillian and avian features. Why is that? We also have fossils that have both retpillian and mammalian charateristics. Why is that? Maybe because they are evolving?
quote: Asexual organisms still produce offspring that are not genetically identical. Mutations occur during replication which is then filtered through natural selection. Some species of sexual reproducing organisms have both male and female reproductive organs in a single individual. Some species alternate between male and female. This alone is enough to bridge the gap between separate sexes. Also, even bacteria trade DNA through sex pilli and through absorbing exogenous DNA from the environment. So even the most primitive organisms exchange DNA.
quote: I believe that in agriculture many of the seedless varieties were bred from seed bearing varieties.
quote: Your view of biological history is very narrow, and is limited to your lifetime. Try to take the long view. How about this analogy. I am walking in downtown New York. I come across a building site where they are constructing a sky scraper. I say, "That's impossible, humans can't build something that tall. It was a god of somekind that built those other skyscrapers." Sure enough, I stand there for 5 minutes and there is no sky scraper. Can I now say that only gods can build sky scrapers and not humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: On the contrary. Evolutionary theory predicts that as we look at older and older fossils ape characteristics will become more apparent and human characteristics will become less apparent. This is exactly what we see. You have to do better than "is not!".
quote: Nope, they can't. But we can get within a few thousand years for certain fossils, and 10's of thousands for others. Radiometric dating is much more reliable than you have been led to believe.
quote: Not when they are buried under hundreds of feet of rock that could only have formed over millions of years.
quote: Again, a prediction of evolutionary theory is borne out in the fossil and DNA record. According to the fossil record, common ancestory between apes and humans was much more recent than common ancestory between bananas and humans. According to evolutionary theory, we should then be more closely related genetically with apes than with bananas. This is exactly what we see. Why are the fossils in the ground organized by the DNA sequence of living organisms? Only the theory of evolution is able to explain this fact.
quote: False. Computer simulations plainly show increases in information for systems under random mutation and selection.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jul 15;28(14):2794-9. Evolution of biological information. Schneider TD. National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology, PO Box B, Frederick, MD 21702-1201, USA. toms@ncifcrf.gov How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial 'protein' in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.[emphasis mine] quote: Wrong again. Mutations can alter protein increase or decrease specificity, activity, turnover rate in enzymes. In other words, mutations can create new proteins with new functions. Take the nylC gene in flavobacterium. This enzyme breaks down nylon derivatives which weren't around until the mid 1950's. This enzyme came about because of a mutation, and it is the only known enzyme that acts in this precise way. Read all about it here: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
quote: Except for the donation of an egg from your mother and a sperm from your father, the rest of your body comes from dead matter. You, yourself started as a single cell. So yes, life does come from dead matter and humans do come from single cells. It's not impossible.
quote: How about plants . I have an animal bias myself, don't worry. So, would you agree then that humans and apes having common ancestory is microevolution since they are all within the primate kind? Or that birds and mammals coming from reptiles is also microevolution since they are in the vertebrate kind? The "kind" argument is a pathetic excuse for classifying organisms, and is only used to handwave away anything creationists feel challenges a literal interpretation of Genesis. Creationists don't care what reality is telling them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Almeyda,
Not trying to pile on, just offering some encouragement. You are finally asking questions instead of quoting creationists sites. Even if, in the end, you decide that evolution and abiogenesis is wrong you are still taking the best route, asking questions. Just a little analogy that helps me separate the origin of life and the origin of speciation (ie species). Imagine that GM wants to build cars. What they need is iron containing the right amounts of trace elements (eg carbon). To GM, it doesn't matter where that metal came from, just as long as it will work. Leprechauns could have poofed it out of thin air, but iron is iron so it doesn't matter where it came from. This is similar to how abiogenesis (the origin of life) and evolution (the origin of species) is treated. Abiogenesis is the process of mining iron ore and smelting it, and evolution is the process of molding it into a car. Hope this little analogy helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: If you don't mind, I thought I would jump in on this one with a quick reply. Creationists: Believe in the inerrancy of the Genesis account without evidence, and sometimes in the face of contradicting evidence. Evolutionists: Accept the theory of evolution because of the evidence, and in the lack of contradicting evidence. There is no evidence that the Genesis account is right, and in fact it has been shown to be wrong in several areas. It is the belief that Genesis is the literal words of a diety that make creationism a religion. Evolution is quite the opposite. It would not have a leg to stand on by itself without the support of evidence. Evolution has never been taken as true in the absence of evidence, and therefore it was never "believed" in through faith, but instead "accepted" as reliable because it is supported by objective evidence. These are two different paradigms, acceptance because of evidence and belief in the absence of evidence. This is why evolution is not a religion. Perhaps you should ask yourself this question. Do you believe a literal Genesis is true because of your faith or because of the evidence? Are there people of different faiths (eg Hinduism) that agree that Genesis is a true, literal account? If not, why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Like I said, "They believe" is what it really comes down to. They believe that the contradicting evidence doesn't exist. They believe that sun shrinkage, lunar dust, population increase, etc are reliable ways to measure the age of the earth. They believe that all you have to do is believe really, really hard and it must be so. Sorry, real science doesn't work that way.
quote: Then maybe you can explain why we never find a rabbit and a dinosaur in the same layer. Maybe you can explain why the fossil record matches up with predictions from the theory of evolution. Mark24's challenge to explain the correlation between stratigraphy and cladistics is a great start.
quote: Sorry, that's not science. You have to look at ALL the evidence, including the evidence that falsifies special creation and a 6,000 year old earth. It's not enough to simply say you don't trust radiometric dating, you have to show how it is actually wrong. AiG has yet to do this, so I can't see how you claim to have strong evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024