Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:54 AM
18 online now:
AZPaul3, Pressie (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 136 of 210 (359662)
10-29-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 11:24 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
I'm sure the consensus is that it is attributed to continental drift. There is another theory that the magnetic polarity shifts every few thousand years and the poles reverse. Some have tried to make persuasive arguments in defense of it to explain why tropical plants are in an arctic region, but this particular claim lacks some backbone.

I don't think there is much doubt that there have been magnetic polarity reversals. However, I can't recall that ever being used as an explanation of the evidence of fossils of tropical plants in what are now frigid regions. My understanding is that the actual evidence of magnetic reversals is mostly obtained in the vicinity of mid-ocean ridges.


Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5692
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 137 of 210 (359665)
10-29-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dr Adequate
10-29-2006 10:08 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
How confidently you announce that these "tropical zebras" exist! With what massive complacency you assure me that there is "no conjecture in that". One would almost suppose that you had some actual knowledge.

Oh dear... No, you misunderstand me, as did Kuresu. I don't whether or not Zebras have been found in arctic regions, nor does it matter much to me either way. The zebra is just an example of hard evidence-- meaining the piece of evidence is the zebra in an arctic region. Its a hypothetic scenario. The interpretation of why its there and how it came to be there is a matter of interpretation of other existing pieces of evidence.

A piece of evidence which contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution could not be "reinterpreted" so that it did. Evidence is evidence.

Yes, it can, and it does all the time. For instance Ernst Mayr once stated that macroevolution is just a magnification of microevolution. There is zero hard evidence to support the assertion. None. The entire theory is supported by inference and circumstantial evidence, at best. And yet, people interpret this to be truth all the time.

But he did not say that. He said there are no intermediate forms and that scientists have given up looking for them. If he knows better, he is a liar. It is only charitable to suppose that he knows no better, and is in fact merely totally ignorant of the subject he's discussing.

That was hyperbole. Obviously no evolutionist gives up looking for missing links. Even the staunchest creationist knows this. It was hyperbole for effect. I won't disagree with you that he shouldn't have said it, but I highly doubt it spawned from ignorance.


"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 10:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2006 1:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-29-2006 2:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 210 (359667)
10-29-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 1:01 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
Have you ever played those word games where you have two words, and you have to step between them, and the rule is that at each step, you can only change one letter, but each step has to be a real word? That's a kind of microevolutionary change.

For instance Ernst Mayr once stated that macroevolution is just a magnification of microevolution. There is zero hard evidence to support the assertion.

The evidence is that there's absolutely no difference between any two organisms that isn't microevolutionary. Remember that any difference between two organisms is the result ultimately of different proteins, and

quote:
Experiments show that roughly 1 in 1011 of all random-sequence proteins have ATP-binding activity (Keefe and Szostak 2001), and theoretical work by H. P. Yockey (1992, 326-330) shows that at this density all functional sequences are connected by single amino acid changes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB150.html

Get that? All functional sequences are connected by single amino acid changes. That means that it's been proven that, between any two arbitrary protein sequences found in the natural world, you can go stepwise between them changing only one amino acid each time, and each step is a functional protein. Just like the word game!

Why might this be the case? Well:

quote:
Denton (1998, 276) wrote, "One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps."

In other words, there's a great ocean of untapped diversity within the world of living things that simply isn't accessable, because it hasn't been reached yet - may not be reachable - by stepwise alteration to genetic sequences. There are no "kinds", no genetic barriers, no gulfs.

That's proof, as far as I'm concerned. I've always thought that it's weird that this article is buried on TalkOrigins because it absolutely proves the fundamental accuracy of Mayr's contention. It single-handedly sealed the deal for me, I guess. Proved evolution and refuted intelligent design in one easy step. The entire history of living things on Earth, all their different forms, are absolutely proven to be explainable as nothing more than recursive microevolution.

I hope my post is clear. If you didn't understand something, please ask me about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 139 of 210 (359673)
10-29-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 1:01 PM


Re: "The same evidence"?
Yes, it can, and it does all the time. For instance Ernst Mayr once stated that macroevolution is just a magnification of microevolution. There is zero hard evidence to support the assertion. None. The entire theory is supported by inference and circumstantial evidence, at best. And yet, people interpret this to be truth all the time.

This bears no relation to anything I posted.

In particular, it has nothing to do with the quotation from my post which preceded it.

"A piece of evidence which contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution could not be "reinterpreted" so that it did. Evidence is evidence."

You just seem to have recited a random piece of fundie dogma, rather than actually replying to my post.

That was hyperbole. Obviously no evolutionist gives up looking for missing links. Even the staunchest creationist knows this. It was hyperbole for effect.

Petitio principii.

I won't disagree with you that he shouldn't have said it, but I highly doubt it spawned from ignorance.

And his claim that no intermediate forms have been found?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 140 of 210 (359678)
10-29-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 11:45 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
But, the same can be said of certain evolutionists who 'look' for satisfying reasons to have one piece of evidence conform to their preconceived notions.

This has occurred in a couple of famous cases. However it was ultimately the scientific community practicing the scientific method in it's widest sense that exposed these.
It is the exacting and stringent conditions that are imposed on scientific conclusions that largely preclude the sort of wilfull interpretation you mention. It is these same conditions that expose it when it happens.
I would argue that exposure of biased conclusions is part of the scientific method. For his reason scientific conclusions are far more reliable than I feel you are portraying here.

Yes, it can, and it does all the time. For instance Ernst Mayr once stated that macroevolution is just a magnification of microevolution. There is zero hard evidence to support the assertion. None. The entire theory is supported by inference and circumstantial evidence, at best. And yet, people interpret this to be truth all the time.

Surely this is the old argument of irreducible complexity in another guise? Creationists have repeatedly attempted to find examples ANY organ or biological mechanism in ANY living thing that could not be the result of graduated changes. To my knowledge they have never succeeded? Given this is there any empirical basis or requirement for macroevolution in the sense you seem to be suggesting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 141 of 210 (359683)
10-29-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 11:24 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
That reply does not even make any sense. What do magnetic reversals have anything to do with continental drift?

I am sorry NJ, but what you just said is about the same as saying that ice cream cannot melt in Hawaii because it rains too much. It is pure nonsense.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 142 of 210 (359685)
10-29-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
And this being stacked against science sometimes comes from themselves and sometimes comes from arbitrary rules about science that people of a anti-religious sentiments make up.

quote:
Some evolutionists are in the same boat when they immediately reject any notion of ID on the basis of it running counter to their personal irreligious beliefs. Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins come to mind.

But any individual scientists' "personal religious beliefs" have nothing whatsoever to do with any "rules of science", "arbitrary" or not.

It doesn't matter to the rules of science that Paleontologist Reverend Bob Bakker is a Pentacostal Christian, just as it doesn't matter that Richard Dawkins is an Atheist.

The rules are the same for everybody, regardless of religious beliefs.

Your claims are rubbish.

stop reading Creationist propaganda. They are lying to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 1:23 AM nator has responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4021 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 143 of 210 (359749)
10-30-2006 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by nator
10-29-2006 4:36 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Schrafinator said:
It doesn't matter to the rules of science that Paleontologist Reverend Bob Bakker is a Pentacostal Christian, just as it doesn't matter that Richard Dawkins is an Atheist.

The rules are the same for everybody, regardless of religious beliefs.

I must agree with that. As a believer in creation, I don't think that the weakness in evolution lies in the fact that natural selection is wrong. Like you said in an earlier post Shraf... the theory has led to enormous discoveries. It is plain to see that it is correct, at least in great part.

I think the weakness in evolution lies in the fact that natural selection is not evolution.

There is one argument that I have not seen refuted to my satisfaction by naturalists, that is the very argument that changed the mind of Dean Kenyon (professor of biology, Emeritus / S.F. State).

Here is that argument:

When DNA was first discovered, it was assumed (because of it's peerless molecular complexity) that it had evolved into the complex molecule that it is today, through random variations over time (natural selection). This is still the assumption of many today.

We are told (over and over again) that the complexity of life we see today, came about from simple chemical or molecular compounds, that given time and chance evolved into more complex characters.

That is a very reasonable (logical) theory. One certainly cannot logically envision life as we know it spontaneously appearing. Without a miracle of some kind, it is simply unreasonable to think so.

The difficulty for the naturalist, is that before natural selection can begin to pass any changes in a simple life form, to the next generation (and give us the opprotunity for more complex organisms), we must, by necessity, start with an organism capable of self-replication.

Now, since the processes of cell division are horrendously complex (not even fully understood), we need an organism that has all of the necessary organs in place to accomplish the feat.

These organs are made predominantly of proteins and the chemical code for the proper time of their production, synthesis, and function are all stored in the DNA.

So you can't use natural selection to explain DNA, without assuming the existence of the very thing you are trying to explain.

For a self replicating cycle to be established, we first need a complex life form, and that life form is utterly dependent upon the most complex molecule in the known universe; DNA. So to continue believing in evolution, we must now accept the opposite of the very inference that made evolution reasonable. As it turns out, we must start with the most complex of all molecules (even in it's simplest known form).

Now, there are several theories as to how natural selection may have occured without 'life' per se, but they are based on imagination, not on evidence. Natural selection is a fact... but it cannot explain the origin of DNA, and is in fact, dependant upon it. That is where evolution fails.

Whether by Divine hand, or some unknown and alien natural mechanism, the appearence of DNA, is miraculous!

Edited by Rob, : Signature


"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by nator, posted 10-29-2006 4:36 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by anglagard, posted 10-30-2006 1:35 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 145 by nwr, posted 10-30-2006 1:36 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 146 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-30-2006 4:42 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 10-30-2006 5:04 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 150 by nator, posted 10-30-2006 8:42 AM Rob has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 144 of 210 (359751)
10-30-2006 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
10-30-2006 1:23 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Rob, are you referring to evolution, which is change in species over time, or abiogenesis, which is about the origin of life from non living materials? One could easily believe in evolution as the way life changes now and in the past yet still believe God/aliens/comets etc. caused the origin of life on Earth.

They are two different things, abiogenesis and evolution. I think the two concepts are often confused.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 1:23 AM Rob has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 145 of 210 (359752)
10-30-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
10-30-2006 1:23 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Whether by Divine hand, or some unknown and alien natural mechanism, the appearence of DNA, is miraculous!

The correct statement, is that the origin of the first DNA is unknown. It is premature to declare it miraculous.


Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 1:23 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1770 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 146 of 210 (359758)
10-30-2006 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
10-30-2006 1:23 AM


life by natural causes
Rob:

Here is that argument:

When DNA was first discovered, it was assumed (because of it's peerless molecular complexity) that it had evolved into the complex molecule that it is today, through random variations over time (natural selection). This is still the assumption of many today.[...]

'Random variations over time' would not really be the same thing as 'natural selection.' Natural selection enters the picture after variations have taken place. It decides which varations are passed on and which are not.

Intersting thing about Darwin's Origin of Species is that it doesn't really say much about the origin of species. Darwin proposed 'mutations' as an origin but couldn't say much more. DNA studies lay far in the future. The really exciting thing is that the science of genetics, once it advanced far enough, could bear him out. DNA studies show us how these mutations happen.

The novelty in Darwin's argument lay in his postulation of common ancestry for all life forms and in the idea of natural selection. The latter doesn't really tell you how species originate. It tells you why they survive.

_____


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 1:23 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 147 of 210 (359759)
10-30-2006 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
10-30-2006 1:23 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
You are correct that the origin of life does pose a more serious question for science than does evolution by natural selection.

However this post is primarily about the origin of species by means of evolution, and the evidence for this, rather than the original formation of life. There are many creationists who still insist that evolution did not take place and this post was setup primarily in response to them.

The origin of life from non life (abiogenesis) is an interesting question but not directly relevant to the topic at hand. Maybe a new thread is in order.......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 1:23 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 148 of 210 (359777)
10-30-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by joshua221
10-27-2006 8:24 PM


Re: General Reply mostly for Crashfrog
Hi prophex:

Jeez, I go away for the weekend and come back only to find that I'm waaaaaaay behind on this thread. Perhaps (and most likely) this has already been addressed, but before I read through all that I have missed, I want to respond to this one point, after which I will read as much as I can in an attempt to get back on tract.

prophex in post 72 writes:

I do not think that scientists are liars, or cheats. They are men who study the world, and seek to find some sort of answers through it. They are misguided, and looking in all the wrong places. They hold a purpose similar to that of a ditch-digger, or of a custodian. There is no difference between their minds and the minds of men who illegally work here from another country. They squander thought on stars, on planets. They squander lives on evolution.

Remember, Schraf's original claim was that creationists are either liars OR incompetent. What you have written here basically means that you feel that scientists are the latter of the two. Perhaps you don't think they're liars, but this certainly implies that they are incompetent.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 8:24 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 149 of 210 (359778)
10-30-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 11:45 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
nemesis-juggernaut writes:

But, the same can be said of certain evolutionists who 'look' for satisfying reasons to have one piece of evidence conform to their preconceived notions.

You've said this at least twice now, that I can recall. Are you ever going to back this up with evidence?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 150 of 210 (359788)
10-30-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rob
10-30-2006 1:23 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
One certainly cannot logically envision life as we know it spontaneously appearing.

Why not?

quote:
The difficulty for the naturalist, is that before natural selection can begin to pass any changes in a simple life form, to the next generation (and give us the opprotunity for more complex organisms), we must, by necessity, start with an organism capable of self-replication.

No. What we need to start with is a molecule capable of self-replication. The "organism" part comes much later.

quote:
Natural selection is a fact... but it cannot explain the origin of DNA,

So, are you saying that because we do not have perfect knowledge right at this moment, all of the 150 years of research which confirms the Theory of Evolution is somehow negated?

That's like saying that String Theory negates the Atomic Theory of Matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 1:23 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 9:52 AM nator has responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019