Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

If you wish to discuss what you read in Martin and Stobel then you may bring the general "bad science" issues up in this thread.If there are larger topics that they bring up you could start individual topics on them.Now, though you probably won't be ready to believe this let me give you a bit of an over view:It is very likely that all the arguments used by Martin and Stobel (whom I don't know about) will have already been hashed over in the past here. It is pretty well certain that there are some of the science minded types here who will know more about the what they say than you will and they will be glad to discuss it with you.There is also some chance that the arguments presented are based on a poor misunderstanding of the actual science. It is unfortunate that there is even a chance that the writers in question have lied to you. That goes on enough that it is not to be discounted completely. We'll have to see what they have to say.If you really want to learn this is not a bad place. However, if you really, really want to learn it will require a fair amount of reading beyond here. The individuals here will help you find things that might suit your interests. Some of them are rather well read. Some are even practicing scientists in geology, astrophysics, various parts of biology, genetics and mathematics.We're not all equally good at explaining things nor all equally patient. But if you ask lots of questions are try very hard to understand there are people who will do their best to help.It would be best if you take the material you have read and ask about little bits of it at a time. Perhaps picking the bits which you found most interesting or convincing.

Well, here's observed instances of new species arising: Observed Instances of SpeciationHere's some evidence of the historical validity of the current evolutionary scenarioes (popularly referred to as "macroevolution"): 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentThat should about cover it. We observe both the process of evolution now and the results of the process occuring in the past.

Crashfrog could you please tell me what kind of life is void of dna.This message has been edited by Bob, 11-02-2004 08:50 AM

Viruses typically only have RNA. There's considerable research that you can Google for into the subject of RNA-based life.Prions have no genetic material whatsoever.

Prions are defective nerve proteins that are created when there is a defect in the DNA of the animal made it. Each triplet of amino acids in the protein could theoretically be decoded back to its DNA sequence. It does replicate but then so does quarts. At least though quarts didn't need DNA in it's beginning. A virus is no less dependent. using its RNA to get a copy of DNA.

I am no expert Bob, but I don't think you have the nature of prions described correctly.
Please supply the source from where you got this information.Prions are a different folding of perfectly normal proteins. The DNA is involved, I presume, in the creation of the normal protein. There isn't , I don't think, any difference in the DNA coding.A protein may "fold up" in a number of ways. A prion is the "wrong" folding of a normal protein. The bad news is that a prion can catalyze the refolding of the normal protein. It has nothing to do with the DNA.If you have a source which supplies other informtion I'd be interested in it.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-02-2004 02:43 PM

The theory that has the strongest backing these days started off as quirky notion put forth by British physicist J.S. Griffith thirty years ago. Over the last ten years Stanley Prusiner at the University of California, has transformed that quirky notion into the scientific mainstream. Prusiner's version of how a proteinaceous infectious particle or PRION as he calls them could work, goes something like this.It turns out that the infectious protein, henceforth to be referred to as "the prion", is a dented version of a normal protein. Its most commonly found tethered to the outside of brain cells. here

I'm sorry if I'm too stupid to figure this out on my own, but what the hell does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

---

He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.The longest word in the English language is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

I've proposed another topic to allow this to be discussed out of this thread. Sorry.

Sometimes the source of defective prion is in the DNA template. For example, there do exist human families with inherited, familial prion diseases that have been well linked to DNA mutations. There also seem to be cases where mutations arise later in life (akin to cancer) to produces infectious prion as well.However, an organism doesn't need to have those DNA-level changes to develop a prion-based disease, they just need infectious prion protein from another organism introduced into their body (under certain conditions).Infectious prion disease is of immediate health concern to humans, so it is usually thought of as an infectious disease. However, DNA-level changes in food animals may contribute to the problem, and so are worthy of study/discussion.What I find fascinating is that the biological role of normal prion remains unknown...

I'm fairly sure that it's not any sort of DNA mutation that results in the formation of a prion, but rather a chemical interaction on a normal protein that stimulates it into forming its malicious prion shape. That shape in turn makes other similar proteins take the same shape, and that's how prions are spread.There's no fundamental reason that a prion would need DNA or even RNA to form; you just need a source of similar polypeptides. Certain inorganic processes can generate those, I believe. It would be akin to crystallization.

As you can see from my post numbers I'm new here, and for that matter to message boards in general. I posted in a dead threadwhen I first got here. It was immediately pointed out to me, but not before Crashfrog answered my post. curiosity got the best of me, so I found him posting this thread and had to ask. very sorry to interrupt.Edited by AdminJar to fix a linkThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-02-2004 07:36 PM

Hopefully, better late than never.Please take the Prion discussion to the Prions topic. Link back to this topic as needed.Adminnemooseus

Sorry it's been a while, I'm in the middle of 19 credit hours and 2 jobs. I have this book called "The Evolution of a Creationist" by Jobe Martin, I heard him speak and got his book at that event, but I have not yet had the time to read the whole thing. Here is one example from his book that he gave in the seminar (this does, in fact have to do with the topic of bad science):Let us look at another of the marvels of God's creation - the giraffe. The giraffe had to be created as a fully functional and unique animal. A mature bull giraffe stands at about 18 feet tall. In order to pump blood up his long, skinny neck to his brain, the giraffe needs a powerful pump. His heart (pump) can be up to 2.5 feet long. It is so powerful that, as the animal bends its head down to satisfy its thirst, the blood pressure is more than enough to burst the blood vessels of its brain.

​

If evolution is true, then the giraffe is back to mindless, totally random accidental chance processes, occurring over long periods of time, to save its life and prevent it from blowing its brains out every time it bends its head down to get a drink of water. This evolution idea comes up short! Is evolution a progressive and miraculously intelligent process that, without a shred of intelligence, somehow realizes that an improvement or adaptation is needed and then sets out to design and manufacture the incredibly complex organic structure? And if the complex improvement does not show up in time, the animal is dead and extinct.

​

Even the extinct fossil animals have all the necessary parts to exist; they do not display a partially formed skeleton or fin or beak, etc. All fossil and living forms are fully functional and perfectly suited for their niche.

​

When might the giraffe know it needed to protect its brain from devastation of excessive blood pressure? It seems to me that it would not know until it had died of a brain hemorrhage while taking a cool drink. How can it "evolve" a protective mechanism, it it is no longer alive to do it?
The giraffe has a protective mechanism that was designed by our Creator. As the bull bends his head down for a drink, valves in the arteries in its neck begin to close. Blood beyond the last valve continues to move toward the brain. But instead of passing at high speed and pressing into the brain and damaging or destroying it, the last pump is shunted under the brain into a group of vessels similar to a sponge. This cluster of blood vessels is called the "rete mirabile." The brain is preserved as the powerful surge of oxygenated blood gently expands this "sponge" beneath it.

​

However, from this mechanism another problem arises. A lion creeps up and prepares to kill its spotted prey. The giraffe quickly raises its head and, without something to compensate for the reduced blood flow, passes out. It got up too fast, generating low blood pressure and diminished oxygen content in the brain. The lion eats a hearty meal, and the giraffe, were it alive, would realize that it had better evolve some mechanism to re-oxygenate its oxygen-deprived brain! We all know that animals that have been eaten by a lion don't evolve anything, even though evolutionists would have us believe that creatures evolve the necessary-for-life improvements, as they are needed for survival.

​

But the giraffe survives! The Creator designed it in such a way that as he begins to raise his head, the arterial valves open. The "sponge" squeezes its oxygenated blood into the brain; the veins going down the neck contain some valves, which close to help level out the blood pressure, and the giraffe can quickly be erect and running without passing out and becoming lion lunch. God made the giraffe just like it is with all systems complete and ready for any emergency. There is no way the giraffe could have evolved its special features slowly and gradually over long periods of time as evolution demands. The functional mechanisms of the giraffe demand God to be their Creator. Why not God as the Creator of everything?

​

Everyone agrees, creationists and evolutionists - a giraffe is a giraffe. It is a distinct species, a discrete entity. No one would say a giraffe is a "missing link" or a "transitional form." A giraffe is not some creature emerging from some other creature or changing into a "higher" or more complex animal - a giraffe is a giraffe! It can be scientifically examined with results that display the necessity of a single creative act. This long-necked creature had to have been originally formed with all of its complex features fully functional.

​

Every living organism must be fully functional and perfectly designed for its place in nature or it ceases to exist. Hearts, lungs, intestines, kidneys, brains, blood vessels, nerve pathways, eyes, skin, hair, feathers, scales, teeth, tongues, antlers, horns, reproduction abilities, etc., etc., etc., must all be in place and functioning in harmony or the life form dies! The same is true of cars. They must be designed and produced in such a way that the water pump, carburetor, fuel lines, battery, transmission, ignition switch, etc., are each working properly and in harmony with everything else or the car does not run. Everything must be there and be working from the beginning!

​

Someone might interject that the giraffe is a product of "survival of the fittest." Let's think about this survival of the fittest idea. Does it support evolution or does it fit creation? Suppose there were two bull giraffes and one female giraffe. The first bull giraffe is a happy, healthy, 100% bull giraffe. The second bull is evolving out of giraffe-hood so he is not quite fully and completely a giraffe anymore. These two bulls are going to fight, as animals do, to see which one gets the female giraffe. Which bull do you think is the fittest and will win the fight? Obviously the most giraffe-ish giraffe will proudly win the battle and the affection of the female. Survival of the fittest means that the fittest survive. This idea better fits the Biblical teaching that each life form is created according to its kind. The strongest of its kind survives.
Any typos are mine, I just typed this thing.

I can't believe that creationists use this example. It's so old Darwin himself rebutted it in 1868.Talkorigins.org summarizes the response in this way:

quote:

---

The claim assumes "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.

---

What a surprise, of course, that the fossil record has a series of transitional proto-giraffes with shorter necks.And actually, the modern giraffe itself is a transitional form. It's the transitional form between its ancestors and its decendants, just like everybody else is. Only if giraffe populations completely die out will they not have been transitional forms.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-07-2004 06:39 PM