Evolution Easily Refuted

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Mr. Pemboli - we seem to be talking cross purposes here.

---

Not for the first time, or the last, I suspect. But we're getting somewhere, I think.
[b] [QUOTE]Newton ... in the proof of his laws he relies on factual evidence that exactly shows his theory to be correct. F=ma can be proved by fact and not simply from inference or interpretation. I can set up an experiment that will easily prove the theory. It is mathematically valid in the context of the phenomena it is trying to describe.[/b][/QUOTE]My point was precisely that it is not "valid in the context of the phenomena it is trying to describe" because it does not accurately describe the orbit of Mercury - the description of planetary behaviour was one of the jewels in the crown of Newtonian mechanics. So I think you need to fine tune your definition of his exactness a bit more. Can you state how Newton's Laws are (not were historically) valid, taking account of the observed discrepencies?Also, do you think only those theories which can be expressed mathematically are valid? Do you hold any scientific theories to be true which can not be so expressed?Just to be clear again, I am seeking a definition of validity against which evolutionary theory can be judged objectively, and which you are willing to uphold. [b] [QUOTE]Fish to lizard evolution can only be proved through an interpretation of the fossil record. I have quoted geneticist John McDonald several times now and he has reported the analysis of the last 20 years of genetic research on evolution.[/b][/QUOTE]You have quoted John McDonald's work and comments out of context several times and I have given a more detailed contextualisation of his work elsewhere.The fossil record is by no means the only evidence for evolution. However, I stills ay that before we discuss the evidence in detail we must clarify the evidential standards to be employed. Otherwise we just chase our tails. If we get the groundwork done now, we can have a much more straightforward discussion of the evidence.You say curious about my proof. I am glad of it, and we can proceed to discuss it once we have the standard of evidence cleared up. I assure you, I have no intention of ducking the issue or disappearing from the forum - I have plenty of time for this discussion and can be extremely patient.Agreement on what constitutes evidence first - then evidence. [b] [QUOTE]"Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism's numbers just do not add up ... [Robert mentions Yockley, old Wistar quotes, etc][/b][/QUOTE]So? All this shows is that there is a debate going on. BTW, quoting a symposium from nearly 40 years ago does little to address the contemporary position or to show that you are knowledgable of the current state of argument.Bear in mind, whenever you quote Lynn Margulis and John McDonald that they are firm believers in the truth of evolution. Bear in mind whenever you quote them to show skepticism of the possibility of evolution that their work compellingly addresses the very questions they raise. Bear in mind,, wheneve you quote them in this forum, I will continue to clarify their work and show how it supports the elegance and explanatory power of the evolutionary theory.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-15-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-15-2002]

I agree with percipient when he says that the mutations and parental variations that accumulate overtime will eventually form a new class of organism.I find that you are trying to do the exact same thing you say i am doing: that just because "A" is right then "B" is wrong. Like I said before EVOLUTION IS A THEORY and cannot be proven by science, however just because it cannot be proven does not make Creationism right.I would like to talk to you about the creationist veiw point in another forum. I will call it "what do creationists believe?".

"I would like to talk to you about the creationist veiw point in another forum. I will call it "what do creationists believe?". "
--Ready when you are, give a link here when you have created the thread, thanx.------------------

hey there true, I have set up the thread. already some have entered

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:

Evolutionists claim that birds evolved from fish - well - prove it! I want to see the exact genetic sequencing that would "mutate" the scales of a fish into the feathers of a bird. Evolutionists claim that fish became lizards - well - prove it! You claim your views are scientific and your opponents are non-scientific - then show me your absolute "scientific" proof that evolution is true. I do not want to hear your speculations, inferences or hypotheses - all of which are interpretations and not empirical scientific facts. I want to see the "hard facts" not your bizarre interpretations of fossil records or your illogical arguments that amount to "but it takes millions of years!"

​

If you cannot put up then - you know what!

​

Robert

---

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htmIn particular ::"Scutes are the thick scales on the top of a bird's foot (see figure at right). There are smaller scutes on the back of the foot, called scutellae, and scales on the bottom of the digits, called reticulae. Analyses by Alan Brush have shown that bird scutes, scuttelae, claw sheathes, beak sheathes, and scales around the eyes are of the same chemical composition as feathers, and are controlled by the same genes. The reticulae have been shown to be identical to crocodilian scales both in composition and their location on the DNA strand."and ::"The reticulae did not develop into feathers. This is not surprising given Brush's research showing the reptilian nature of these scales. Other research has shown that reptilian scales do contain, in small
amounts, the same protein family as avian feathers and experiments by Dhouailly, Hardy and Sengel (1980) were able to convert reticulae into feathers after treatment with retinoic acid. This conversion, however, was accomplished with the lowest frequency of the three types of scales."and ::"Recent fossil discoveries support the conclusion that feathers are a primitive feature for the dinosauria. Fossil skin impressions of the new ornithomimid dinosaur Pelicanimimus suggest this dinosaur had hairlike integument similar to Kiwi feathers. Dr. Phil Currie of the Tyrrell museum in Canada has examined a recent Chinese discovery named Sinosauropteryx, a specimen he describes as a compsognathid dinosaur skeleton with clear feather impressions in the rock. These impressions have been described as looking like a bird's down feathers. No formal descriptions have been published for
either dinosaur yet, so no formal conclusions can be drawn. If these dinosaurs' integuments are indeed feathers, it is the strongest evidence yet of feathers in at least the theropod branch of the dinosauria."I know that's about reptile to bird, but how about :: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/icthyo.htmWith ::
"Thus, the Icthyostega fossils demonstrate clearly an animal that had a number of traits which were unique to two entirely separate groups of animals. The amphibian-like traits of Icthyostega--the pentadactyl limbs and the pelvic and pectoral girdles--mark Icthyostega as the earliest known vertebrate capable of walking on land, while the fish-like traits--the scales, the preopercular bones, the bony rayed fins, the arrangement of the nostrils, and the loosely-connected vertebral column--mark it as very primitive and fishlike, with a curious blend of transitional features between fishes and amphibians. The creationists are at a complete loss to explain all of the traits which are unique to both Rhipidistian fishes and Icthyostega."

"hey there true, I have set up the thread. already some have entered "
--Hey, I posted my breif summary, i'll await your comments, Meert has allready started to move in on them.------------------

Hey RobertHaven't seen you post for a few days - hope you're just busy and all is ok. I'm bumping this thread up in the hope you will see it.I was still looking for some sort of objective standard of evidence that you would accept. We were still having problems with your example of Newtonian mechanics because while you insisted they were exact, I still contend that they do not "exactly" explain the phenomonons.So I was looking for a standard of evidence that (a) you would accept and (b) takes into account inaccuracies of this nature.I have been giving quite a lot of thought as to how best to appraoch the evidential stage of this argument. If you could clarify your standard of evidence, such that we can agree it is objective, fair and widely applicable to scientific theories, then I will gladly provide what evidence I can.Anyway, please don't forget about this thread. I saw somewhere else that you said you had repeatedly asked for evidence proving evolution and not been given any - that was an unfair comment as I, for one, am very anxious to discuss evidence with you as soon as I know what "evidence" and "proof" mean to you.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-22-2002]

"as I know what "evidence" and "proof" mean to you."
--The latter is of considerable importance in any debate of this likeness ------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"as I know what "evidence" and "proof" mean to you."
--The latter is of considerable importance in any debate of this likeness

---

I totally agree. This is particularly important where someone is seeking something approaching what the legalists call "proof beyond reasonable doubt" because reasonable doubt is an essential part of all experience of an external reality.

I completely agree with you, Robert!!
We want to see the hard proofs not only man made stories to make this theory consistent,
Thanks,
David

*Please note: neither Creation or Evolution can be observed happening
or experimentally repeated, therefore both are believed (taken in
faith) based upon the interpretation of evidence. This makes them
hypothesis, theory, speculation, or religion. The Creation event was
observed by God, and He had His observations recorded by a reliable
individual. This makes Creation recorded history, whether one accepts
the accuracy of that history or not.Laws of Thermodynamics:
First Law of Thermodynamics - Matter is neither created nor
destroyed, it can only change form. Creation was originally completed
and is now being sustained.Second Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy - The tendency of an energy
system to run down; systems go from a higher to a lower state of
order. Entropy is the scientific description of creation under the
curse of sin, therefore decay, death and degeneration. Evolution
espouses that organisms move from a lesser state of organization to a
higher state, or up hill (microbes to man) and therefore is
diametrically opposed to, and breaks this Second Law of
Thermodynamics!Law of Biogenesis - Life only comes from life.
Spontaneous Generation - Life came from non-living matter - disproven
by Pasteur.Mutation to Transmutation - Mutations in nature never go up hill. The
theory of evolution depends entirely upn this concept that mutation
is directional and uphill in direction. This goes completely against
observable science.Acquired heredity - Aquired genetic traits are never passed on in
nature. Only those traits encoded in DNA can be passed on to
offspring. What this means is that if a cow spends all its life at
the beach and in the water, its offspring will still be a cow! I'm
sorry but, cow + water + time is not equal to a whale! Another
example of this would be if a man cuts off his finger, does this mean
that his children will be born with missing fingers?

quote:

---

Originally posted by justdana:
*Please note: neither Creation or Evolution can be observed happening

---

Sorry but, evolution HAS BEEN OBSERVED happening, and can be observed happening. You can't travel backward through time and watch the process but you can observe what is happening today and assume that the same thing has been happening all along. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

quote:

---

The Creation event was observed by God, and He had His observations recorded by a reliable individual. This makes Creation recorded history, whether one accepts the accuracy of that history or not.

---

But all we have for proof of this is a book that says God said it. Would you accept this as proof in any other area of interest?

quote:

---

Laws of Thermodynamics:
First Law of Thermodynamics - Matter is neither created nor
destroyed, it can only change form. Creation was originally completed
and is now being sustained.

---

And this has to do with what exactly?

quote:

---

Evolution
espouses that organisms move from a lesser state of organization to a
higher state

---

No it doesn't.

quote:

---

Law of Biogenesis - Life only comes from life.
Spontaneous Generation - Life came from non-living matter - disproven
by Pasteur.

---

Do you understand that niether of these laws are binding, but are in fact descriptions of how we think the world works? In otherwords, violation of either of them is not a violation of nature, but of our own notions about nature.Do you also understand that abiogenesis is not the same theory as the spontaneous generation disproven by Pastuer?

quote:

---

Mutation to Transmutation - Mutations in nature never go up hill. The
theory of evolution depends entirely upn this concept that mutation
is directional and uphill in direction.

---

No it doesn't. You won't get far by killing straw men.

quote:

---

Acquired heredity - Aquired genetic traits are never passed on in
nature. Only those traits encoded in DNA can be passed on to
offspring. What this means is that if a cow spends all its life at
the beach and in the water, its offspring will still be a cow! I'm
sorry but, cow + water + time is not equal to a whale! Another
example of this would be if a man cuts off his finger, does this mean
that his children will be born with missing fingers?

​

---

Wow.... good thing this version of evolution was discarded 150 years ago.Evolution as it has been understood since Darwin involves no inheritance of aquired traits.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi Dana, a couple of comments on the logic involved in your post

quote:

---

Originally posted by justdana:
Please note: neither Creation or Evolution can be observed happening
or experimentally repeated, therefore both are believed (taken in
faith) based upon the interpretation of evidence. This makes them
hypothesis, theory, speculation, or religion. The Creation event was
observed by God, and He had His observations recorded by a reliable
individual. This makes Creation recorded history, whether one accepts
the accuracy of that history or not.

---

First off evolution is observed, in that speciation has been observed. Just check the published lit if you do not believe me. Second, the reported observations that you discuss are actually not recorded history as you claim. You have an amalgameted series of stories that you claim were told to your original authors by a non-seen diety. Other religions claim the same thing. You have no corroborating sources for your creation event and many diametrically opposed sources (also non-corroborated) and it is therefor not recorded history.

quote:

---

Laws of Thermodynamics:
First Law of Thermodynamics - Matter is neither created nor
destroyed, it can only change form. Creation was originally completed
and is now being sustained.

---

Actually a full statement of the first law would be:
Stated fully
"When a system changes from one state to another along an adiabatic path, he amount of work done is the same irrespective of teh means employed"
or stated shortly
"The energy of an isolated system is constant"
(Atkins, "Physical Chemistry" 2nd edition)
The reason for my apparent pickyness should become obvious in a moment.

quote:

---

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy - The tendency of an energy
system to run down; systems go from a higher to a lower state of
order. Entropy is the scientific description of creation under the
curse of sin, therefore decay, death and degeneration. Evolution
espouses that organisms move from a lesser state of organization to a
higher state, or up hill (microbes to man) and therefore is
diametrically opposed to, and breaks this Second Law of
Thermodynamics!

---

OK, you are actually misstating the second law here, again from Atkins:
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its conversion into work"
or restated in a manner closer to what you appear to be attempting
"The entropy of an isolated system increases during any natural process"
The key concepts here are systems and heat (heat being the most entropic form of energy). I will not get into the often restated position that the earth is not an isolated system (which is true) because it is irrelevant. Entropy can be transfered through an isolated system (ie entropy can lower in some areas of the system and increase in others) and as long as the overall entropy of the system (matter AND energy) increase then 2LOT is not broken. This is called reversible thermo and is often termed the Clausius inequality. As long as energy is expended from a more ordered form to a lower ordered form 2LOT is no bar to evolution. And gues what happens; you got it, living organism expend or degrade energy and evolve.

quote:

---

Law of Biogenesis - Life only comes from life.
Spontaneous Generation - Life came from non-living matter - disproven
by Pasteur.

---

First, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution via natural selection as the fact of living organisms are a given in the theory. Please read Origen of Species and you will find that Darwin understood this over 100 years ago.
Second, Pasteur proved that COMPLEX life forms did not spring up spontaneously, he demonstrated nothing about simpler forms arising over millenia. Of course, this (abiogenesis) has not been proven either, unlike evolution which has been proven to exist.

quote:

---

Mutation to Transmutation - Mutations in nature never go up hill. The
theory of evolution depends entirely upn this concept that mutation
is directional and uphill in direction. This goes completely against
observable science.

---

Mutations are neither uphill nor downhill. They are advantageous, non-advantageous, or most often, neutral. This is observed science, please read any biological/biochemical journal and you will see that it is so.

quote:

---

Acquired heredity - Aquired genetic traits are never passed on in
nature. Only those traits encoded in DNA can be passed on to
offspring. What this means is that if a cow spends all its life at
the beach and in the water, its offspring will still be a cow! I'm
sorry but, cow + water + time is not equal to a whale! Another
example of this would be if a man cuts off his finger, does this mean
that his children will be born with missing fingers?

---

And your point would be? Lamarkian inheritence was disproven years ago, please refer to Mendel and the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

When C.Sagan died the whole Ithaca m"our'ned" such that my voice in prayer was louder. Mist of them never pray.

That's great Taz,You just cleverly argued with a child (high-school perhaps) while handwaving her away with tons of didactic academia.Entropy in your stuffy technical definition is oft explained in college science texts by this kid's definition. And entropy appears to manifest our curse empirically enough: i.e., in the thermodynamic decay we see expect to see everywhere and will eventually render our worlds without form and void.As for speciation going on now please define for the child (and me) just what you're talking about: Irreducible Bacteria? Irreducible species? Perhaps the kid is right? Or will you pull out a definition of speciation that is merely a speculative biological definition of speciation? Perhaps the kid was thinking kinds (e.g., families) whose barriers are more fixed and defy homologous succession(s).You argue well enough with me, Taz, but you could at least tell the kid you are speculating only, that what you say is not necessarily science, nor Gospel, nor truth; and that what you say really spells: "atheism", "anti-christ", an empirically-trapped awareness, and a pragmatic science at best.Do you (or anyone out there) really have a mechanism for ANY enzyme (or enzyme family) to have evolved; the thing is impossible. It has never been demonstrated, and never will be, and you and I both know it! The mega-ToE is thus easily refuted. And that is what the child has rightfully asserted.Note: You wouldn't try to allude that enzymes be compared to immune-globins, which are exceedingly mysterious, complex, and host-beneficial in their adaptations (as if they were randomly evolving)....Nor would you speculate that enzymes (with their critically aligned active sites) gradually evolved without a god-of-the-gaps heresy....Nor that enzymes fell into place like some primordial soup.Game over.Philip