Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 31 of 283 (113585)
06-08-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
06-07-2004 11:45 PM


Re: I wanted to add one more thing.
I'm agreeing with you.
Well, stop it at once. It's confusing me.

Willow: Sarcasm accomplishes nothing, Giles.
Giles: It's sort of an end in itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 06-07-2004 11:45 PM jar has not replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5913 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 32 of 283 (113593)
06-08-2004 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-23-2004 7:54 PM


Lynx,
1) I think the question was: why do you think scientists are wrong when it comes to evolution and the conclusions that have been drawn based on observation, and data gathered from various disciplines, etc. AND NOT when it comes to chemistry, biochemistry, physics
2) As far as the rest of what you have written:
Your last paragraph can be summed up as a bushman's disbelief of "birds that carry people and feed them in flight". Even after knowing that evolution requires thousands and millions of years you still naively require evolution to occur right before your eyes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-23-2004 7:54 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 33 of 283 (113629)
06-08-2004 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-24-2004 10:21 PM


Music to my Ears
Monsieur Lynx says:
quote:
First off, I want to take a little bit of time to elaborate on that analogy I tried to explain--musical pieces (which at first may sound totally irrelevant!). I pick up several pieces of music, and I observe a very high degree of similarity. For example, one sheet of music very closely resembles another. On the basis of these similarities I infer that they are a modification of one piece of music!! I analyze very meticulously how these various pieces differ from one another, and construct a tree based on that. Those that share more similarities branched off more recently (say, a while ago, there was the Moonlight Sonata. As typographical errors become introduced to the music, it becomes modified SO much from the original, that you must say it is a completely different piece!).
How, tell me does this differ from the approach taken by biologists?
This analogy is obviously meant to show how ridiculous the notion of common descent seems to you. Unfortunately, this analogy is just what would make sense if musical compositions reproduced themselves like living organisms do. Since biologists are studying living things, they can compare morphology and genomes to establish patterns of ancestry. We understand the variation-selection process and know where to look for links among classes of organisms. There's no need for a 'composer' if this mindless copying process does the composing.
regards,
Esteban "Ludwig van" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-24-2004 10:21 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 34 of 283 (113636)
06-08-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-23-2004 7:54 PM


Vous avez tort, monsieur
Monsieur Lynx also says:
quote:
Finally, last but not least, evolution contradicts some of the most basic laws of nature that we've observed time and time again. Fish produce fish--they don't produce legged creatures. Scaly cold-blooded reptiles produce other scaly cold-blooded reptiles, not warm-blooded creatures with hair or feathers.
Okay, and crabs produce crabs, right? Here's where the creationists get into their classic double-bind. There are nearly five thousand known species of crabs, all ten-legged crustaceans that walk sideways. Were all of these species 'created' specially? I mean, hermit crabs produce other hermit crabs and rock crabs produce rock crabs, but there's no problem visualizing that all crabs share a common ancestor, wouldn't you agree? Small changes have accumulated among these species to make them as different in size and habitat as the tiny white-tipped mud crab (which never grows over 20 mm) and the monstrous Japanese spider crab with its twelve-foot leg span.
However, the diversity isn't limited to size. Marine crabs breathe through gills located in cavities underneath the carapace, while land crabs have modified cavities that act like lungs and allow them to breathe air. Either these closely-related species descended from a common ancestor and one branch evolved the ability to breathe outside water, or else marine crabs and land crabs were 'created' separately. Considering how demonstrably similar these species are in their morphology and their genes, which is the more plausible explanation?
regards,
Esteban "Crabs Again" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-23-2004 7:54 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 283 (113673)
06-08-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-23-2004 7:54 PM


quote:
1)Most of the evidence put forth by evolution can equally be used as evidence for creation.
Entirely incorrect. Please explain how creationists deal with the genetic, fossil, and morphological evidence that shows human/ape common ancestory.
quote:
a)"microevolution"--changes in a population, for example, *bacteria* evolving into other kinds of *bacteria*. Because we've evolved new forms of bacteria is by no means an argument that all plants and animals evolved from a single cell!
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:
b)Similarities--This comes in various forms, similarities of DNA, similarities of fossils, embryonic similarities, homologous structures, the list goes on. Simply put, the similarities can point to a common designer rather than a common ancestor. As a crude example, consider similarities among various pieces composed by the same musician--they may show signs of similarities, but this does not imply they are a modification of 1 piece of music!
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:
c)Fossils--Yes, there are plenty of fossils. But the mere presence of a fossil is not evidence for evolution. In fact, even if the fossil record showed signs of gradual change it might not be evidence.
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:
Consider: So let's say there's me, and my pet chimp (hypothetical). The chimp dies, its remains get fossilized over time. Meanwhile my descendants propagate, and several million years later, some of their remains get fossilized in the same area. Neither the similarity between the monkey and human fossils, nor the geographic strata in which they're found is evidence that the "older, primitive" chimp fossil evolved into the "more complex, newer" human" fossil. Also, (I'm going to generate a storm of controversy over this!) there are huge gaps in the fossil record, and there's no need to assume that such "transitional forms" existed.
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:
Another reason why evolution is considered poor science is the frequent use of either misleading proof, or outright forgeries that are used in support of evolution
I dare you to name one that is used to support evolution today.
quote:
Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's embryonic similarities, there are quite a few of these forgeries. That's not to say all evidence for evolution is forged, just the presence of such things is a bit disturbing. You rarely see forgeries used as evidence in other areas of science!
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:
Arguments which are misleading are a bit common. For example, many textbooks show charts where the DNA similarities between various organisms are compared. Humans and chimps have very similar DNA. Whereas, humans and plants are not as similar. This evidence, in and of itself is not controversial--rather it's the bizarre conclusion--based on these similarities/dissimilarities we can say when, or even if they share a common ancestor??!
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:
Finally, last but not least, evolution contradicts some of the most basic laws of nature that we've observed time and time again. Fish produce fish--they don't produce legged creatures. Scaly cold-blooded reptiles produce other scaly cold-blooded reptiles, not warm-blooded creatures with hair or feathers.
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:
Any cell that reproduces asexually produces 2 identical offspring (1 produces 2). Whereas any creature that reproduces sexually has a mother AND a father (2 produce 1). There seems to be no reason to get from one to the other, nor has such a thing ever been observed.
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:
A seedless plant produces seedless plants. A plant that produces seeds comes from a plant that produces seeds.
I believe that in agriculture many of the seedless varieties were bred from seed bearing varieties.
quote:
Yet again we see no violation of this in nature, but evolution rests on such absurd ideas as all plants sharing a common ancestor, bacterial cells evolving into multicellular organisms, mammals that produce live-young evolving from creatures that laid eggs, etc.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-23-2004 7:54 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by almeyda, posted 06-09-2004 2:01 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 36 of 283 (113730)
06-09-2004 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
04-21-2004 7:57 PM


Bad Science does not exist
I dont think science is bad at all and i'm I am a creationist. The part in which we all differ is the one that envolves origins. Science is good. Because of science we have all the technology and comodities that we have today. Whether God created everything or just a product of chance science is good.

Mathematics moves the world - Mathematics is the world

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 7:57 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2004 2:03 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2004 2:04 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 283 (113736)
06-09-2004 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Loudmouth
06-08-2004 6:16 PM


quote:
Entirely incorrect. Please explain how creationists deal with the genetic, fossil, and morphological evidence that shows human/ape common ancestory.
There is no evidence for ape human ancestry. Many of them are either an ape or homosapien. Theres yet to be an undisputed inbetween.
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
Fossils cannot be tested to a conclusive age. In fact, the fact that there still there, preserved. Points to a younger age. DNA similarities dont mean anything. Were similar to bananas. It doesnt mean or prove nothing.
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?
Natural selection has never worked to add new information that has been never present at least in observation today. However natural selection can work with information already present pointing to reduced information not gained, a mutation. To this day life has not arisen on its own from dead matter. Animals have always reproduced after their own kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Loudmouth, posted 06-08-2004 6:16 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 2:06 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 06-09-2004 3:38 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 54 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 11:22 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 06-09-2004 11:58 AM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 283 (113737)
06-09-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Itachi Uchiha
06-09-2004 1:11 AM


I dont think science is bad at all and i'm I am a creationist.
You misunderstand what is meant by "bad." We're not saying that it's bad like nuclear bombs are bad; we're saying it's bad science in the sense that it's promoted as science, but fails to adhere to important scientific methodologies, like falsification or the principle of parsimony.
Bad science isn't actually science; it's sloppy thinking or outright deception gussied up with scientific trappings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 06-09-2004 1:11 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by almeyda, posted 06-09-2004 2:10 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 283 (113740)
06-09-2004 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Itachi Uchiha
06-09-2004 1:11 AM


dupe post deleted.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-09-2004 01:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 06-09-2004 1:11 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 40 of 283 (113741)
06-09-2004 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by almeyda
06-09-2004 2:01 AM


There is no evidence for ape human ancestry. Many of them are either an ape or homosapien. Theres yet to be an undisputed inbetween.
Where would you put austrolopithecines?

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by almeyda, posted 06-09-2004 2:01 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by almeyda, posted 06-09-2004 2:14 AM Perdition has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 283 (113743)
06-09-2004 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
06-09-2004 2:03 AM


I dont agree with evolution being bad science. I would never say that. I do believe they are wrong but it does not mean they are not science or bad science. There trying to prove origins by forms of natural processes. Thats cool, unfortunately the life from non-life bit destroys the theory as it has yet to be proven that life and complexity can arise on its own from dead matter. Even waving around billions of yrs anything can happen does not take anything away. Well maybe for evolutionist believers thinking yes well in a billion yrs maybe it can happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2004 2:03 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 2:42 AM almeyda has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 283 (113746)
06-09-2004 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Perdition
06-09-2004 2:06 AM


quote:
Where would you put austrolopithecines?
Dr Fred Spoor has done CAT scans of the inner ear region of some of these skulls which show that their semi-circular canals, which determine balance & ability to walk upright, 'resemble those of the extant great apes'. Lucy is just a 40% complete skeleton which has been imaginatively restored in museums to like a ape-women.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 2:06 AM Perdition has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 43 of 283 (113752)
06-09-2004 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by almeyda
06-09-2004 2:10 AM


Evolution has nothing to do with life from non-life, thats abiogenesis. Evolution only has to do with life after it has appeared either through natural processes or a deistic creation...or panspermia, or alien seedings, or even some alien's realized acid trip.

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by almeyda, posted 06-09-2004 2:10 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by almeyda, posted 06-09-2004 5:58 AM Perdition has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 283 (113762)
06-09-2004 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by almeyda
06-09-2004 2:01 AM


There is no evidence for ape human ancestry. Many of them are either an ape or homosapien. Theres yet to be an undisputed inbetween.
This is a great example of why creationism isn't science. There are a whole range of anatomical intermediates from the australopithecines to "archaic" Homo Sapiens.
Creationists call the more ape-like examples ape - so they can ignore the fact that the fossils are more human-like than any existing ape.
Creationists call the most human-like examples "fully human" - so they can ignore the fact that they are more ape-like than modern humans.
The evidence exists. Creationists do not interpret it differently - they just pretend that it is not there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by almeyda, posted 06-09-2004 2:01 AM almeyda has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 283 (113786)
06-09-2004 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Perdition
06-09-2004 2:42 AM


I think thats because the origins is so bankrupt that they have moved it aside and promoted as not having anything to do with evolution. Evolutionists give it the term chemical evolution or prebiotic evolution. Evolutionists also talk about the general theory of living things coming from a single cell & this single cell coming from non-living chemicals. So it is definately a part of evolutionary theory. Do move it aside is really to avoid the inevitable issue and serious problem for the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Perdition, posted 06-09-2004 2:42 AM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by mark24, posted 06-09-2004 6:46 AM almeyda 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