Where is the evidence for evolution?

Well, sonnikke, since the stories from the two parties appear to differ in significant details, it becomes a matter of credibility. We have Brown making a creationist video and who somehow gains access to Dawkins. But Dawkins claims that he does not give interviews to creationists. The assertion is that Brown misrepresented herself and her intentions. Unless you can provide evidence that Dawkins has given a significant number of interviews to creationists then I think it is safe to conclude that Dawkins is telling the truth and Brown is another liar for god.Nevertheless, if you really wanted an answer to your original question about evolution producing increases in "information", why didn't you refer to Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow? Or does it not contain material which you could twist and distort to serve your purposes?Better still, here's Dawkins' answer to the question which supposedly left him speechless.
But you have made the assertion that the "information" is already in the genome. Where is your evidence? Where is your answer to the question which SLPx asked you back at message #69?[This message has been edited by wj, 02-06-2003]

Zephan writes:

quote:

---

Wrong.

​

Er, peer reviewed reference please or shut your illogical piehole.

---

How exactly should I provide peer reviewed references for something that doesn't happen?Besides, you are shifting the burden of proof. Blanko claimed that evolution and abiogenisis are part of the same theory, therefore he has the burden of proof.

quote:

---

However, I did enjoy your fairy tale on the origin of life. Care to back up (another ) unfounded assertion with legitimate peer reviewed literature or are we to assume you are citing yourself on this one?

---

What fairy tale?------------------
compmage

blanko writes:

quote:

---

I never said there was a global conspiracy and I wouldn’t respect you if you did accept my say-so. I was simply trying to point out that evolution scientist are so biased and closed minded to the idea of intelligent design, that evolution should now be considered more of a treasure hunt than a search for truth. Evolutionists hold dear to any evidence they might be able to somehow fit into their bias and discard any alternative evidence as a failure.

---

Scientists discarding evidence? You do have evidence of this, don't you?You are right; scientists are biased. They are biased in favour of evidence. What is wrong with that?

quote:

---

Consider these quotes from respected evolutionist:

---

I have a feeling these are going to be out of context.

quote:

---

The Origin of Species, Darwin avowed, To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.

---

I knew it. Did you bother reading the next paragraph? Here it is:Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."- Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (Chapter 6)If you had actually read this you would know that Charles Darwin did not consider evolution 'absurd'.

quote:

---

Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. Dr. Austin Clark, curator of paleontology at the Smithsonian Institution

---

I have never seen this before, but given that the previous quote was out of contect I'm going to ask you to provide a reference for this.

quote:

---

Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance.
Professor Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biology & Research
Virologist to the Virus Laboratory, University of California Berkeley

---

Never heard of this before either, but since no one is suggesting the life accurred by chance it doesn't matter. Besides, what does abiogenisis have to do with evolution?
Some quote expressing personal opinion...

quote:

---

Today everyone of these respected evolutionists (that is still living) continues to cling to what they admit is a battle against the evidence.

---

Respected evolutinists?
Darwin who you quoted out of context.
Dr. Clark, who's quote is unreference.
Prof. Rubin, who's quote is also unreferenced and who (if that quote is accurate) doesn't understand abiogenisis or evolution.
A doctor and a lawyer?

quote:

---

I can only suspect they’re gambling on the evidence changing in the future, but that’s not how intelligent decisions are made. Intelligent decisions are made on the information we have available and the probability the alleged occurance actually happening. At this time, based on the evidence, the probabilities of a majority of evolution theories being fact are (as Darwin put it) absurd. I apologize for all the assertions, but I can't think of a better explanation for these scientist remaining evolutionist.

---

I can. You are being mislead. Evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life given the current evidence.

quote:

---

Irrelevant, as long as you agree Math is exact.

---

I have a feeling we mean different things by "exact" here, but I'll see where it goes.

quote:

---

That’s debatable, but I’m no apologist for abiogenisis and I can understand why you’d want to distance yourself from that theory.

---

It is not debatable.
The Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Abiogenisis.Two different theories. End of story.

quote:

---

Science or science fiction? and you object to mathematics as being called science?

---

Interesting you should say that. One of those options was creation.
However you missed the point. It doesn't matter how life got here, as long as it doesn't reproduce perfectly evolution will occur.

quote:

---

The evidence only supports the theories, if no alternative theory is considered. After all, Math is exact, shouldn’t mathematical probabilities be the standard all theories are based on?

---

No. It is possible to have many theories, none of which are supported by evidence.A theory is valid if it explains all the evidence and makes predictions that can be tested.

quote:

---

I’m not saying evolution can’t explain all of the evidence, I’m just saying it can’t give an explanation that is not mathematically impossible.

---

How exactly is evolution mathematically impossible?
And if it is impossible, why do we see it happening before our eyes?

quote:

---

I’m a creationist, far from a believer in panspermia. I was only trying to find a scientist that wouldn’t instantly be discredited, because he was a creationist (I’m lying, my badbut that doesn’t mean his math is not credible).

---

Hoyle was not a good choice.

quote:

---

I’ll admit I love math, but have never been a big fan of chemistry. However, here’s what math has to say about the probability hurdles Chemical Evolutionist have to face (maybe you can explain it to me):

​

Scientific American published an article which claimed that any chemical event having a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 67th power will never happen, and has never happened--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 20 billion years!

---

Reference?

quote:

---

Chemical Absurdities and the Jethro Factor
by Charles E. Brewster, Ph.D.
The odds against forming a fairly small protein chain of about 250 amino acids by chance. (Protein chains of up to 50,000 amino acids are found in nature.) The odds against assembling any protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the n th power where n is the number of consecutive amino acids in the protein. This means that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power. (The odds against assembling a useable protein molecule of 50,000 amino acids would be less than one chance in 10 to the 15,000th power!) So could this small 250 amino acid protein ever form by chance in our hypothetical ocean? Never! It could never happen by chance!

---

This is all good a well...except that chemicals don't react randomly.If I have 1 mole of hydrogen and 1 mole of oxygen at 1 atmosphere and I spark them, I get water. Every time. How is that random?

quote:

---

So if it is mathematically and physically impossible to for even a single protein chain of 250 amino acids to form by chance, what would it take for a fully functioning cell consisting of at least 100 useable proteins to assemble themselves at the same point in the universe at the same time? (This is even given that we had all the other cell mechanisms existing at that point in the universe, at that point in time, encircling them!) The answer is one chance in 10 to the 74 multiplied by itself 100 times! (10 to the 7400). And this only gets us 100 very small proteins!

---

Except that chemical reactions don't happen randomly.

quote:

---

This is why scientists now believe that the odds against a fully functioning cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power! (1 followed by one hundred billion zeroes--think of it as a 100 gigabyte harddrive full of nothing but zeroes. Big number!)

---

See above. The calculations are worthless since they don't address what abiogenisis says happened.

quote:

---

Chemical evolutionist are not being honest. For if they were, they would acknowledge that any chemical event that has a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 67th power will never happen--and has never happened--anytime, anywhere in the universe, ever! This is science! Hard, mathematical science! And how much more impossible, an event with a probability of one chance in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power!

---

This is not science. It is people who don't understand chemistry and probabilities misleading others.1) Chemisty isn't random.
2) We don't know exactly what the conditions where when life came into existence.
3) We don't know how many of the possible combinations would have lead to life.Therefore it isn't possible to calculate the probabilities of life occuring randomly.What does any of this have to do with evolution?*** Edited to fix quote tage------------------
compmage[This message has been edited by compmage, 02-07-2003]

Oooo, goody. Quotes. These are tougher than average - not because they're legitimate, but because they're unreferenced. At least bart gave actual references that could be checked (no doubt much to his subsequent chagrin).Let's see: Austin Clark, who's been dead for 50 years. According to the creationist sites I looked up (the only place I've been able to dig up the reference), Clark's quotation was made in 1928. Hmmm, 75 years out of date, at least. Wonder what he was really talking about? In any event, it's so far out of date that it's meaningless. Considering the "thus" (referring to a conclusion) that the quote starts with, we're missing a whole lot of argument/discussion/context to figure out what Clark's conclusion related to.Harry Rubin: Apparently this was a title of an article (although I can't find an actual copy on line). The full citation is The book is a popular creationist compendium of some 60 articles by various people who happen to also be Christians. Rubin is something of a gadfly — he is opposed to the scientific consensus on the viral basis of AIDS (which got him favorably mentioned by Philip Johnson), advocates a holistic approach to biology (based on quantum complexity theory over mechanistic biology to explain biological complexity), etc. I have no doubt he wrote this. So what? At best, it’s an opinion. At worst, the article says something other than what ol’ blanko would like it to. Anyone have a copy handy?Evan Shute: Well, for a dead Canadian, he IS pretty famous. His 1940’s clinical trials on the efficacy of vitamin E in helping diabetes and heart disease patients was landmark (although ignored/denigrated at the time.) He is, however, a died-in-the-wool creationist. He’s the author (among other works) of the little 1961 book Flaws in the Theory of Evolution. I would say that probably takes him out of the respected evolutionist category blanko put him in.Philip Johnson, father of the intelligent design school of creationism, author of such notable works as Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism would probably be insulted at being characterized as a respected evolutionist. Oops.The Dawson quote is probably accurate. He was a vocal opponent of Darwinian evolution right up until his death in 1899. He even came up with a fragmentary foraminiferan (which he dubbed Eozooan canadense) that he found in Laurentian bedrock that falsified evolution. Unfortunately, the fragment later turned out to be a pseudofossil Can you say, out of date quotation? Also, another creationist vice respected evolutionist.Charles E. Brewster is a YEC whose PhD was on the biblical chronology from Adam to the Flood. Sure doesn’t make his assertions on probability and molecular biology very authoritative.So, on blanko’s list, we have two evolutionists (Darwin, whose quote has proven spurious, and Austin, whose quote is unverifiable), one anti-darwinian with his own theory of complexity (Rubin), and four creationists. Hardly conclusive proof that, according to blanko,

quote:

---

Today everyone of these respected evolutionists (that is still living) continues to cling to what they admit is a battle against the evidence.

---

Come back when you have something substantive.

"So, on blanko’s list, we have two evolutionists (Darwin, whose quote has proven spurious, and Austin, whose quote is unverifiable), one anti-darwinian with his own theory of complexity (Rubin),and four creationists. Hardly conclusive proof that, according to blanko,quote:Today everyone of these respected evolutionists (that is still living) continues to cling to what they admit is a battle against the evidence.
"Well if you allow for the fact that none of the evolutionists is still alive blanco's statement is technically true.... But a total count of zero is hardly evidence of anything other than desperation on blanco's part.

quote:

---

Sonnike, Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Mathematics is not a science, it is a tool used by scientists. Maths is no more science than English, or German.

​

Do you think it might benefit you to try and learn more about the subjects you attack? At least that way you would have informed criticisms to make - most of your quibbles come from a poor understanding of the subject matter.

​

PE

---

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that evo's would say that math isn't a science, I mean, you defend worse ideas than that.
eg. Macroevolution
Abiogenesis (some of you)
Beneficial mutations
That we are an odd African ape
etcHere are a couple of dictionary definitions:

quote:

---

[1] : Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Mathematics \Math`e*mat"ics\, n. matiques, pl., L.
mathematica, sing., Gr. ? (sc. ?) science. See Mathematic,
and -ics.
That science, or class of sciences, which treats of the exact
relations existing between quantities or magnitudes, and of
the methods by which, in accordance with these relations,
quantities sought are deducible from other quantities known
or supposed; the science of spatial and quantitative
relations.

​

[2] : WordNet (r) 1.7
mathematics
n : a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the
logic of quantity and shape and arrangement [syn: math,
maths]
Free Dictionary

---

But, I guess you guys are the experts....------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

I know several professors of maths. They all regard their subject as an art.

quote:

---

They all regard their subject as an art.

---

I'd say so too. Math lacks several components associated with science-- like experiment, and observation.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Dear WI,I've read Dawkins answer and if you read carefully he doesn't address the question. He spend about 8000 words saying nothing. (What els is new.) But, maybe you could point out where he addresses the question.He is however still under the OUTdated impression that [quote]:"Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2% - considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it."That Dawkins doesn't understand DNA was already known (as demonsatred on this site), but that he doesn't read contemporary journals to get updated....Silly Dawkins, he will never understand life. Best wishes,[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-07-2003]

Dear John,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They all regard their subject as an art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'd say so too. Math lacks several components associated with science-- like experiment, and observation.PB: You probably mean that math is like evolutionism? Both are tautological.Best wishes,
Peter

Sonnikke:
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that evo's would say that math isn't a science,I think that it's all a question of what qualifies as "science". I think that mathematics qualifies, though it is not an empirical science.I mean, you defend worse ideas than that.
eg.MacroevolutionWherever Sonnikke thinks that "microevolution" ends and "macroevolution" begins.Abiogenesis (some of you)True, it may seem like a big jump to the first living thing, but there has been some interesting progress in that field, like attempts to reconstruct the evolution of life before the most recent common ancestor of all existing life.Beneficial mutationsThey happen all the time. I wonder why Sonnikke is so sure that they cannot happen.That we are an odd African apeI wonder how Sonnikke explains our anatomical, genetic, and behavioral resemblances to chimps.Yes, behavioral resemblances.Though chimps do not have full-scale language comparable to human language, they can nevertheless manufacture tools, have different traditions of which tools to make, do some mental modeling of their environment, and recognize themselves in mirrors -- features present in few other species.

Is it me or is the argument from design answer getting old?I still don't see the logic? How is it that a comparative study of Human mechanical contraptions and biology is not seen as a false simile?The a priori assertations of ID'ists in any case should not be applied to biology. Deist theories such as the mousetrap theory of Behe is not only simplistic but patently false.

First of all, let me apologize to everyone involved in this debate. I admit, I got a little lazy with my research and should have been more careful with my quote selection. I appreciate you guys keeping me honest, but understand I would in no way intentionally made false statements to support my argument.compmage
Scientists discarding evidence? You do have evidence of this, don't you?
You are right; scientists are biased. They are biased in favour of evidence. What is wrong with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The web page is at the bottom. You may enjoy the article, but you would also have to admit, there is no way this guy would ever consider any evidence in favor of creation as valid regardless of the facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, 'Billions and billions of demons', The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31. http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/Lewontin1.htmCouldn’t find any evolutionist rebuttals, so you tell me, are these just false allegations or were they stretching the evidence to support their theory?Piltdown man - *Captain St. Barbe and *Major Marriott were two amateur paleontologists from Sussex, who later reported that, on separate occasions they had surprised Dawson in his office staining bones. Because of this, they suspicioned that his Piltdown bone finds were nothing more than fakes. Yet few would listen to them. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc08.htmThere was Nebraska Man found in 1922, a find based on the discovery of a single tooth. After much hoopla by evolutionists, the tooth turned out to be a pig’s! There was Java Man (pithecanthropus erectus), based on a 19th century smattering of bone fragments, which was later discounted as a pre-human in a 342-page investigative report by a team of evolutionists. The famed Peking Man turned out to be nothing more than a monkey. http://www.equip.org/free/DF803.htmLucy - (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

Well put. It seems incredible, but there's a breed of Creationist who believes it is okay to provide false or misleading information. Sadly, the argument by quote is a bit of longstanding hucksterism that Creationists, for reasons known only to themselves, like to engage in. Alarm bells should go off in your head anytime you see a prominent evolutionist quoted as denying evolution.Piltdown man is a known fraud. Among those familiar with the issue, everyone has his own favorite villain, but I agree with this article that it was Charles Dawson, an amateur archeologist/paleontologist suspected of other frauds involving Roman artifacts. It is guessed that the scientist he duped into revealing the finds (I've forgotten his name) eventually came to suspect the fraud, for he soon stopped making the fossils available for inspection, and within a year of their discovery he no longer mentioned them in his own published papers, but the fraud was widely suspected in professional circles . Upon his death the Piltdown bones were made available for study and the suspected fraud was quickly confirmed.Nebraska man is another known fraud, but it never fooled any scientists. While it received a lot of attention in the popular press, perhaps because it was the only human antecedent ever found in the Western Hemisphere, scientists were skeptical and it had no scientific impact.Java Man and Peking Man are accepted by scientists as possible human ancestors.Lucy is the most complete Australopithicus afarensis skeleton yet found. I've never heard the story about the knee bone, but it is true that the Lucy skeleton was recovered over two seasons, 1974-1975. But if we assume it's true, what would it mean? At worst, that Lucy is a composite of multiple Australopithecines fossils that happened to be almost identical in size. While it may call into question the reconstruction, it doesn't lead to any doubt about the essential findings, primarily the age of the Australopithicus afarensis fossils, their similarities to Homo sapiens, and their early bipedalism.--Percy

If you look up "science" in your dictionary you'll see that it has multiple definitions. When defining mathematics, your dictionary is using a different definition of science than the one that applies to physics, chemistry and biology. For mathematics, they're using this definition of science: For sciences like biology, physics, astronomy and so forth you want this definition: To clarify a bit more, sciences like physics, astronomy and biology possess the qualities of replicability and tentativity. Mathematics does not possess this latter quality.--Percy