Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

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.

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?

quote:

---

There is no evidence for ape human ancestry. Many of them are either an ape or homosapien. Theres yet to be an undisputed inbetween.

---

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:

---

Fossils cannot be tested to a conclusive age.

---

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:

---

In fact, the fact that there still there, preserved. Points to a younger age.

---

Not when they are buried under hundreds of feet of rock that could only have formed over millions of years.

quote:

---

DNA similarities dont mean anything. Were similar to bananas. It doesnt mean or prove nothing.

---

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:

---

Natural selection has never worked to add new information that has been never present at least in observation today.

---

False. Computer simulations plainly show increases in information for systems under random mutation and selection.

quote:

---

However natural selection can work with information already present pointing to reduced information not gained, a mutation.

---

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:

---

To this day life has not arisen on its own from dead matter.

---

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:

---

Animals have always reproduced after their own kind.

---

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.

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.

quote:

---

NosyNed if everyone here stated what you said then you could no longer call creation just religion only because its based on Gods word, when evolution which is supposedly pure natural processes are open to the possibility of a creator. It would be somewhat logical to admit that they are both scientific and both have religious aspects. Even if evolutionists believe this is definately no deity it is still a religion, a belief that our world and life has evolved on its own.

---

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?

quote:

---

Definately not true. They believe that real science fits the Bible. And the evidence fits the Bible. If they didnt they would not waste their time with a false religion.

---

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:

---

The fossil record has all but hindered evolutions attempts at calling there theory a fact.

---

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:

---

I believe in a literal genesis because of the evidence i found with AiG.

---

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.