Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 166 of 283 (305043)
04-18-2006 5:48 PM


Evolution is not bad science..it's an aproach to understanding. It may or may not be THE only path or the right one.
I do have a problem when we see fossil evidence and assume how one thing led to another. That is our weakness. There is no evidence that an aquatic species evolved to adapt to the land. That may have been the case but we have no way of knowing. We assume A leads to B and think within that framework. It may in fact but there is far too much assumption and far more that we do not know.

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 04-18-2006 5:55 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 168 by Chiroptera, posted 04-18-2006 6:16 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 169 by jar, posted 04-18-2006 6:24 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 170 by ReverendDG, posted 04-18-2006 8:21 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 167 of 283 (305044)
04-18-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by 2ice_baked_taters
04-18-2006 5:48 PM


No evidence?
There is no evidence that an aquatic species evolved to adapt to the land.
I'd like you to explain this sentence a LOT more.
If we found someone murdered and suspected John Smith of having commited the murder we might surmise that his finger prints could be at the crime scene. If we found his finger prints there we would take that as evidence that he did in fact commit the crime.
We would then go on surmising and seeing what we actually find.
In the case of aquatic species evolving to adapt to the land we can surmise that we should find certain fossils. certain living animals (maybe) and certain relationships in the DNA.
We have found all of those things. They are ALL evidence that supports aquatic forms evolved to the land.
Another interpretation (that I just thought of) is that you are saying that someone is suggesting that one aquatic species ITSELF "adapted" to the land. If that is your assertion then you are right: there is no evidence for that. No one has suggested such a silly thing.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-18-2006 05:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-18-2006 5:48 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 283 (305047)
04-18-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by 2ice_baked_taters
04-18-2006 5:48 PM


Wow!
quote:
There is no evidence that an aquatic species evolved to adapt to the land.
I have to agree with Ned here. What in the world would you consider to be evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-18-2006 5:48 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 169 of 283 (305048)
04-18-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by 2ice_baked_taters
04-18-2006 5:48 PM


from water to land
There is no evidence that an aquatic species evolved to adapt to the land.
You did read this thread and this one?
There is a lot of evidence out there.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-18-2006 5:48 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-20-2006 5:51 AM jar has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 170 of 283 (305052)
04-18-2006 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by 2ice_baked_taters
04-18-2006 5:48 PM


It may or may not be THE only path or the right one.
its the only one science has unless you can find something that can stand up to the questions people ask
That may have been the case but we have no way of knowing. We assume A leads to B and think within that framework. It may in fact but there is far too much assumption and far more that we do not know.
We do know, through studing the structures of fossils and how they relate, plus the studies we do on current life that shows evolution in action
do you think scientists think they know everything? or do you think they make stuff up to make everything fit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-18-2006 5:48 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-20-2006 4:51 AM ReverendDG has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 283 (305133)
04-19-2006 2:22 AM


Why is Evolution Bad Science?
Allow me to take a stab at answering this question.
While the "fact" of evolution is a completely observable phenomenon with surprisingly many direct supporting evidence, the evidence for the "theory" of evolution are far from direct. The theory is at best a conjecture from a set of evidence and data that directly point to what many creationists refer to as microevolution.
As a supporter of evolution on this board once mentioned not too long ago, not believing in "macro"evolution is like saying since we have only observed directly a second, a minute, an hour, etc. but we've never directly observe a thousand years, a thousand years must not exist at all. And this is the extent of how supporters of evolution think what creationists believe. In fact, the creationist sees a problem more complicated than combining a shitload of mini-whatevers to get a super-duper-whatever. Time is linear. Random mutations and natural selection are not.
Random mutation is self-explanatory. Over long periods of time, we may observe many of these random mutations in a population. While most of these mutations probably have no weigh in the "fitness" of the organisms to survive or reproduce better than others without the mutations, natural selection, a prejudicial process, is suppose to weed out the mutations that give negative weight to the survivability of the organisms and reward the ones that give positive weight by allowing them to be passed onto the progenies of the carriers. Natural selection may be guided by something such as some kind of natural selective pressure or sexual selection. These guidances change from place to place and time to time. For example, a mutation to give an organism thicker fur might be beneficial in Alaska and be deletitious in the equatorial region. Everytime the allele frequency of a population changes due to either a single beneficial mutation that have sufficiently been passed to enough individuals or accumulation of enough mini-beneficial mutations to give a noticable change in a population we call "micro" evolution.
The problem comes in when we start to assume that given enough time (millions of years) and enough of these mutations (many of which are neither beneficial nor deletitious) a population could be changed enough to have some kind of reproductive barrier to the parent population. In fact, we have never observe of such an instance when a population is isolated long enough from the parent population that a new species is resulted from the isolated population.
Yes, we have observed many species that are very physically and genetically close to surrounding populations, such as the different populations of birds observed by Darwin while traveling on the Beagle. And because of such observations, many have conjectured that these populations of birds must have resulted from a common ancestor because of their similarities. The question that comes natural for the creationist is how do we know these birds weren't already there?
Perhaps the problem lies in the common person's inability to comprehend such long periods of time and the rediculous number of generations and evolutionary steps taken for (say) mammals to emerge from reptiles. Maybe some people, with a bit of stretched imagination, can see how such changes can occur between one species of bird to another, let alone the different families or orders.
I guess what I'm trying to say in too many words is that the reason the theory is not scientific is because too much of it is conjectured rather than formulated from direct evidence.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by nator, posted 04-19-2006 8:11 AM rgb has not replied
 Message 173 by nator, posted 04-19-2006 8:15 AM rgb has not replied
 Message 174 by Chiroptera, posted 04-19-2006 9:03 AM rgb has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 172 of 283 (305155)
04-19-2006 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by rgb
04-19-2006 2:22 AM


Re: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
quote:
The problem comes in when we start to assume that given enough time (millions of years) and enough of these mutations (many of which are neither beneficial nor deletitious) a population could be changed enough to have some kind of reproductive barrier to the parent population. In fact, we have never observe of such an instance when a population is isolated long enough from the parent population that a new species is resulted from the isolated population.
This is false.
We have, in fact, directly observed speciation in real time, both in the lab and in the field.
In plants, for example, we have observed speciation to happen in a matter of decades, and in even less time.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-19-2006 08:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by rgb, posted 04-19-2006 2:22 AM rgb has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 173 of 283 (305158)
04-19-2006 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by rgb
04-19-2006 2:22 AM


Re: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
quote:
Yes, we have observed many species that are very physically and genetically close to surrounding populations, such as the different populations of birds observed by Darwin while traveling on the Beagle. And because of such observations, many have conjectured that these populations of birds must have resulted from a common ancestor because of their similarities. The question that comes natural for the creationist is how do we know these birds weren't already there?
I guess what I'm trying to say in too many words is that the reason the theory is not scientific is because too much of it is conjectured rather than formulated from direct evidence.
Do you believe genetics combined with morphology to be mere conjecture?
Do you accept that genetics is the basis for all heredity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by rgb, posted 04-19-2006 2:22 AM rgb has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 283 (305178)
04-19-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by rgb
04-19-2006 2:22 AM


Re: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
quote:
I guess what I'm trying to say in too many words is that the reason the theory is not scientific is because too much of it is conjectured rather than formulated from direct evidence.
Then I think you need to do a lot more reading. There is no less evidence that all known species have evolved from a small number of ancestral species during the last three and a half billion years than there is that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion reactions.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by rgb, posted 04-19-2006 2:22 AM rgb has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 175 of 283 (305404)
04-20-2006 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by ReverendDG
04-18-2006 8:21 PM


You are to have me believe because humans call themselves scientists I am to bow and accept a theory as something more than it is? That would hardly be scientific of me. You are just humans with ideas and falible as the rest of us. It's almost as if by calling the theory of evolution exactly what it is....I have offended people. Theories, even popular ones have been wrong or only partly correct far more often than they have ever been right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ReverendDG, posted 04-18-2006 8:21 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ReverendDG, posted 04-20-2006 2:09 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 176 of 283 (305411)
04-20-2006 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
04-18-2006 6:24 PM


Re: from water to land
I read the an article on the web. It means nothing until we know more.
The article follows the very pitfall I have mentioned. Evidence is always subject to interpretation.
This is from the article:
The discovery of Tiktaalik provides an unparalleled insight into the progression from fish to land animal, said Hans Sues via e-mail, a paleontologist at the Smithsonian Institution, who called it a groundbreaking discovery of the kind that all paleontologists wish for.
Tiktaalik represents a critical link between fishes and land-dwelling vertebrates (tetrapods) in many of its skeletal features," Sues said.
Reading this article gave me far more questions than answers.
Considering the fossil record one might assume that if there was a transition from sea to land it must have been swift or there would be more evidence?
Another question I have is why could animals not evolved from plants on land. The first organsisms were plants in the oceans. The aquatic is not needed for evolution. Plants were the first living things on land yes?
Why not an arganism using plants at the transition zone? They evolve into something more over time. Eventually they spread to utilize plants all over the land. More than one organism does this and they interact....ect.
I think if we are able to aproach the fossil record using dna we will learn far more. We are not quite there yet.
What this article tells me is that we have found something interesting which deserves more investigation. We have much to learn and assume to much. But hey...we like to put things in boxes...it's what we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 04-18-2006 6:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 04-20-2006 10:29 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 178 by Omnivorous, posted 04-20-2006 10:47 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 180 by Chiroptera, posted 04-20-2006 1:45 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 177 of 283 (305448)
04-20-2006 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by 2ice_baked_taters
04-20-2006 5:51 AM


Re: from water to land
Another question I have is why could animals not evolved from plants on land. The first organsisms were plants in the oceans.
Again, from the evidence, we know that there was a time when there were no land animals. There were plants and animals in the seas. Then, again based on the evidence, we find plants on land but no evidence of animals. At thta time, what the record shows, is plants on land and both plants and animals in the seas.
The evidence shows:
marine plants ------> land plants
marine animals
marine animals -----> land animals
The reason that most folk assume that was the trend and not
marine plants -----> land plants -----> land animals
is that the early examples of land animals that have been found seem very similar to the marine animals of the period and not at all like the land plants of the period.
The initial evolution between plant and animal was at a very simple stage. We have not found anything like an example of a complex plant that evolved into a complex animal. In fact what is predicted is something that is not quite either, something plant like in many features but animal like in others.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-20-2006 5:51 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 178 of 283 (305455)
04-20-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by 2ice_baked_taters
04-20-2006 5:51 AM


Re: from water to land
Considering the fossil record one might assume that if there was a transition from sea to land it must have been swift or there would be more evidence?
One might assume that but one would have no grounds for doing so. There is considerable--and growing--evidence for the sea-to-land transition of both plants and animals.
The discovery of Tiktaalik is an excellent example for two reasons: the undeniable morphologic evidence it provides, and the prediction-based method that brought about the discovery. The scientits who discovered the fossils reasoned out where such a creature should be found if the ToE, and the sense the theory has made of prior discoveries, were correct. Lo! There it was.
All evidence is interpretable, but a large body of evidence narrows the range of interpretations.
If I find your fingerprints at the murder scene, I consider you a suspect, even though I know you had innocent reasons to be there at other times.
If I find gunpowder residue on your hands, I consider you an even more likely suspect, even though I know you often shoot at the local range.
If I find your DNA in skin cells found underneath the victim's fingernails, or the victim's blood spattered on your shoes, my interpretation of the other evidence begins to narrow considerably. Put enough such pieces of evidence together, and the most skeptical jury will hang you.
Any single piece of evidence permits diverse interpretations; a large body of evidence begins to take its own shape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-20-2006 5:51 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by EZscience, posted 04-20-2006 12:45 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 179 of 283 (305484)
04-20-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Omnivorous
04-20-2006 10:47 AM


Evidence also from extant forms...
Here is another piece of evidence that supports at least the rationale of a water-land transition:
quote:
The eel catfish, Channallabes apus, is found in the muddy swamps of the tropics of western Africa.
The 30-40cm-long (12-16in) fish is able to propel itself out of the water and bend its head downwards to capture insects in its jaws.
The Belgian researchers, writing in the journal Nature, hope this discovery will help to explain how fish moved from sea to land millions of years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Omnivorous, posted 04-20-2006 10:47 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 283 (305496)
04-20-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by 2ice_baked_taters
04-20-2006 5:51 AM


Re: from water to land
quote:
Another question I have is why could animals not evolved from plants on land.
If you are asking how we know that animals did not evolve from plants, it is because the molecular evidence points to a very, very distant common ancestor, from more primitive single celled eukaryotic organisms. There certainly is no evidence that the common ancestor of all animals was a plant; it was probably a single celled organism similar to the choanoflagellates.
quote:
The first organsisms were plants in the oceans.
We don't know what the first organisms were -- there are likely no trace of the first things we would undoubtably call life, the first single celled replicators.
The first organisms that we know of were probably the prokaryotes we call the archaea (which today mostly live in extreme environments).
One line of the archaea produced the eubacteria.
Another line became the first eukaryotic cells.
One line of these eukaryotes evolved into the multicellular plants and algae. (Actually, the evolutionary history of plants and algae is more complex than this; see the Wikipedia article on chloroplasts and read the section on origins.) A completely different line was the ancestor of animals and fungi, and this line split into the lines leading to multicellular animals and to the fungi (and the common ancestor of fungi and animals was probably a single celled organism).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-20-2006 5:51 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 04-20-2006 9:49 PM Chiroptera 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