Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 11:55 PM
24 online now:
DrJones*, herebedragons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 62/114 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 76 of 177 (470293)
06-10-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Wumpini
06-10-2008 2:55 PM


Re: Moderator Comment
The "piling on" problem is always with us, and moderators try to provide assistance under such circumstances. My advice is to respond to each point or rebuttal just once, no matter how many people make it. If you find yourself receiving complaints of the form, "You didn't reply to my message because obviously you have no answers," (and the endless variations) then just post to Windsor castle and let the moderators deal with it.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Wumpini, posted 06-10-2008 2:55 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 77 of 177 (470297)
06-10-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Wumpini
06-10-2008 2:55 PM


Re: Moderator Comment
Par for the course.....fact is there are genuine problems with evo theory and they have never been refuted despite evos claiming they have, and that's one major reason evos object to even allowing students to hear criticism of Darwinism. They DON'T WANT students and people to think critically of their theory because if they did, they would have absolutely no objections to including criticisms of Darwinism when the subject is presented, as presenting criticism helps develop critical thinking on a subject. Duh!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Wumpini, posted 06-10-2008 2:55 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Ichneumon, posted 06-11-2008 2:12 PM randman has responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 78 of 177 (470299)
06-10-2008 3:23 PM


New and Improved List - Maybe
Well I finally found what you guys wanted, maybe. This comes straight from the "strengths and weaknesses" website from what appears to be an unlinked page. I believe this is probably more along the line of what they are proposing for inclusion in textbooks. At least it may provide something for discussion. I have not researched each of these weaknesses as they are not orginating from me. However, I will try to provide whatever defense that I can put forward in those areas that I support.


Essential List of Scientific Weaknesses of Evolution Theories

The following weaknesses of evolution should be discussed at appropriate points in every text from the viewpoint of a skeptic as well as a proponent of current evolutionary theory.

Origin of Life Weaknesses:


  • The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.
  • The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.
  • No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.
  • All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.
  • Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!
  • There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.


Fossil Record Weaknesses:

  • The Cambrian explosion quickly produced all of the basically different body structures, and some of these have since become extinct. This is very different from the evolutionary tree of life, which suggests a slow and gradual increase in body structures.
  • Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change. Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.
  • Most major proposed transitional forms are problematic and controversial. Rarely does the whole organism fit into the proposed developmental path. For example, birds are often said to have transitioned from reptile- hipped dinosaurs like Velociraptor. But these have a different kind of hip structure than birds. Birds have the same kind of hip structure as the dinosaurs like stegosaurus and the horned dinosaurs.


Presently Observed Nature Weaknesses:

  • Selective breeding has produced only very limited change with no new structures occurring over thousands of years and multitudes of generations of selection. This clearly demonstrates that there are natural limits to biological change. Examples: dogs, cattle, pigeons ...
  • Induced mutations followed by selection in laboratory experiments have not produced any beneficial structural changes.
  • Most all mutations are detrimental, a few are neutral, and extremely few if any are clearly beneficial.
  • Small changes resulting from natural selection are observed, but are not observed to accumulate to produce structural changes.
  • It is extremely difficult for scientists to propose in detail how the structural or biochemical systems of life could change from a more simple form that was functional.


General practice to avoid misunderstanding:

  • When fossils are illustrated, the illustration should indicate which parts of the skeleton are actually present in the fossil material and which parts are inferred. This may be done for example by color, shading, or outline weight.
  • Fossil abundance versus geologic period diagrams should be shown for all life forms discussed in the text or presented in tree of life or cladogram interpretations. One large diagram might be presented at an early point in the discussion of fossils. Where little intact fossil material is known, fine lines or dotted lines should be used to indicate inferred or hypothesized connections or relationships.
  • If evolution is compared to the change over time of the product of any human endeavor, then the role of intelligence and purpose in that human endeavor must also be clearly recognized and discussed.


Here is a link to the original copy of this list. It was on the “strengths and weaknesses” website. I found no link on the website homepage that led into this webpage (Maybe I missed it, there are a lot of links)? That is why I could not find it earlier.

http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/essential_weaknesses.htm


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2008 3:32 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 82 by dwise1, posted 06-10-2008 4:10 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 83 by BeagleBob, posted 06-10-2008 4:23 PM Wumpini has responded
 Message 84 by RickJB, posted 06-10-2008 4:28 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 85 by NosyNed, posted 06-10-2008 4:34 PM Wumpini has responded
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 06-11-2008 1:14 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2008 3:03 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Ichneumon, posted 06-11-2008 4:15 PM Wumpini has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 79 of 177 (470302)
06-10-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wumpini
06-10-2008 3:23 PM


Re: New and Improved List - Maybe
Most all mutations are detrimental, a few are neutral, and extremely few if any are clearly beneficial.

I'll take a whack at this one:

So what?

Imagine the most horrible, deleterious mutation you could ever hope not to have. What would the effects of that mutation be on a population in, say, 25 generations?

None. It would kill itself off pretty much immediately. Must carriers of such mutations do not survive to be born.

Now, imagine a mutation that is just slightly beneficial. What would the effects of that mutation be on a population in, say, 25 generations?

It would most likely have spread widely within the population, barring the individual being killed off before reproducing.

Understanding how mutations spread makes this "weakness" in evolution look pretty weak itself.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wumpini, posted 06-10-2008 3:23 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 80 of 177 (470304)
06-10-2008 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Granny Magda
06-10-2008 12:18 AM


Assumptions
Science on the whole makes only one assumption; that our evidence is real and that we can accurately observe it, i.e. we assume that reality is really real. Beyond that simple and obvious truism, there should be no assumptions in science beyond the very early steps of having an idea and formulating a hypothesis. By the time a scientific paper is published it should be entirely free of assumptions, being instead composed of conclusions based upon evidence.

The theory of evolution is not dependent on any particular assumption, beyond the one outlined above, which is an inescapable part of everyday life. If you disagree, feel free to point out the assumptions on which the ToE depends.

I disagree with this statement but I believe the discussion would be off topic for this thread. If you want to start another thread to discuss the assumptions of the theory of evolution, I would be happy to do that.

By the way, I have posted another list for you to review.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 06-10-2008 12:18 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 81 of 177 (470306)
06-10-2008 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by NosyNed
06-10-2008 1:00 AM


New List
In reference to the "weaknesses argument":

I have posted another list that may more accurately portray what they are proposing to include in textbooks. See msg 78.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 06-10-2008 1:00 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3496
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 82 of 177 (470310)
06-10-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wumpini
06-10-2008 3:23 PM


Re: New and Improved List - Maybe
Thank you for confirming what everybody's been saying: those are the same baseless claims creationists have been making for decades; this "new" "include the weaknesses" approach is truly just another attempt to slip the same old nonsense into the science classroom.

You've missed the history of what had been going in the US since the start of the 20th century. The rapid increase in high school attendence in the 1910's led to a lot of parents suddenly getting exposed to the evolution their kids were learning in school. This fuelled the anti-evolution movement of the 1920's which culminated in four states adopting "monkey laws" that would severely punish any teacher who even dared mention evolution in the classroom and with local and national pressure being used to pressure school boards and textbook publishers to exclude evolution from the curriculum and instructional materials.

Then in 1968 the "monkey laws" were struck down because their purpose was solely religious (Epperson vs Arkansas), so the anti-evolution movement came back to life and created "creation science" which took the same old arguments from the 1920's plus some new ones that had been devised in the meantime, scrubbed them superficially of all blatant religious references, and presented them as "scientific evidences" against evolution, thus circumventing the courts by claiming that their objections to evolution were purely scientific and had nothing at all to do with religion -- in other words, they were lying through their teeth. Appealing to fairness and academic freedom they engaged in innumerable local school board campaigns that would go something like (though not necessarily always in this order):

1. Our "scientific evidences" prove evolution to be false, so it should be removed from the curriculum.
Please note that this is their actual goal: the elimination of evolution.

2. When that failed, then they would call for "balanced treatment" and "equal time", such that whenever evolution was being taught, equal time would be required to teach "creation science" in order to provide balanced treatment of the "controversy". Of course, if evolution is not taught, then "creation science" need not be taught.
The clear intent of this was to dissuade teachers from teaching evolution. This was also the approach in the Arkansas and Lousiana "balanced treatment" laws of the early 1980's; in the Arkansas trial one teacher broke into tears when describing how the law was requiring him to lie to his students. That the intent was to eliminate evolution is supported by a letter written by the author of the model bill that those two laws were based on, Paul Ellwanger: "... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."

3. When that failed, then creationists would ask that the schools at least present the "negative evidences" against evolution. Of course, if evolution is not taught, then no "negative evidences" need be taught.
Please note that, since "creation science" is nothing but "negative evidences" against evolution, this "compromise" position is precisely the same thing as #2 -- balanced treatment has been described as a book with two chapters: Chapter One is evolution and Chapter Two is everything that's wrong with Chapter One. Please note that this is an example of creationists taking the exact same thing and superficially making it appear different so as to deceive the public.

With the Arkansas and Louisiana laws having been struck down (the Lousiana law made it up the US Supreme Court and lost by 1987), "creation science" could no longer fool the courts, so the creationists needed another subterfuge which they found in "intelligent design". That was struck down recently in Dover, so now the courts are also wise to ID.

Once again, the creationists need a new subterfuge, which is this new "teach the weaknesses" deception. As you have helped to verify.

Edited by dwise1, : cleaned up formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wumpini, posted 06-10-2008 3:23 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

  
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 3850 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 83 of 177 (470312)
06-10-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wumpini
06-10-2008 3:23 PM


Re: New and Improved List - Maybe
Hi, I'm a geneticist and biochemist, with academic experience in neurology. I'll try to answer your concerns as best I can. I'll try to focus on a few key points on each individual section over time though, because quite frankly I dislike spaghetti logic.

quote:
Origin of Life Weaknesses:

I think it's very important to remember that knowledge of abiogenesis is not necessary to support knowledge of evolution. The two are as different as farming and cooking: one doesn't need to know the exact methods of planting, nurturing, or harvesting food at all to be able to cook with skill. The development of the raw materials (farming/abiogenesis) for a method is entirely different from the mechanisms of that method itself (cooking/evolution).

quote:
*The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.

Unfortunately, the idea that "for a protein to work it has to have a specific sequence of amino acids" is a common misconception. Only a few amino acids (like glycine and cysteine) have unique functionality that might (though not always) drastically affect the protein if replaced. What's more important in general is that some amino acids are "watery" (hydrophilic) and others are "oily" (hydrophobic). It's the arrangement of hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids that matters, not the actual sequence of specific amino acids.

If you look at the sequence for hemoglobin between different species for example, you'd see some pretty significant differences in amino acid sequence. However, the resulting proteins look the same and act the same, to the extent that often you can use genetics to exchange the genes for these proteins between species with little to no effect.

quote:
*No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.
*All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.

I think the website you got this from really should remove this point soon. Just recently a study made headlines when it was discovered that certain frequencies of polarized light preferentially destroyed right-handed amino acids. So while the amino acids might be produced in equal quantities, they are preferentially selected out.

Here's a link:

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080406_chirality.htm

quote:
*There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.

Oof. The term "information" here unfortunately has a very vague definition. Generally when laymen talk about "information" we refer to bits of data, words, books, and whatnot. However, scientists that refer to "information" might speak of intelligent data, but on the other hand can speak of perfectly natural physical laws and properties.

For example, an ice crystal has a great deal of organized "information" that allows it to behave the way it does. Other chemicals have "information" in terms of its arrangements of valence electrons and intramolecular forces that allow certain reactions to take place. Biological chemicals are much the same in terms of "information," the only difference is they're a bit more complex.

At best this is an argument via analogy, at worst it's using a nebulous term to try to prove something specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wumpini, posted 06-10-2008 3:23 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Wumpini, posted 06-11-2008 3:06 PM BeagleBob has responded

RickJB
Member (Idle past 3163 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 84 of 177 (470315)
06-10-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wumpini
06-10-2008 3:23 PM


Re: New and Improved List - Maybe
I'll answer two:-

Weaknesses writes:

There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.

Leaving aside the rather dubious use of the term "information", yes there is - it's called the Sun.

Weaknesses writes:

Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change. Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.

A poor definition, but if a given environment is stable for a long period of time, then what?

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : Fiddling with quotations....

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wumpini, posted 06-10-2008 3:23 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 85 of 177 (470317)
06-10-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wumpini
06-10-2008 3:23 PM


Re: New and Improved List - Maybe
Thanks Wumpini,

I can't speak to every sub-item in the list but I'm sure others will. Of course, as you have noted elsewhere, many of these may require too much detail to be discussed at length in this thread also.

This is also a much better list than Gabler's. It's still full of misunderstandings and error of fact and what appear to be deliberate distortions but it is closer to something that might be educational to discuss in a classroom.

Those putting this "weaknesses" idea forward should be aware that if adequate time was ever allocated to discuss they would be unhappy with the result. We can use any of these lists to demonstrate very clearly the deep ignorance/dishonesty of those putting the list forward.

Origin of Life Weaknesses:

First, biological evolution, which is what we are talking about, requires, by definition, actually biology. If God magicked life into existence it makes no difference to the evolutionary model. So the entire topic is a side issue in a biology class. It is, of course, an interesting and difficult area of research. It is also a GOTG (god of the gaps) argument.

* The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.

This is a common disingenuous argument. We know that there can be variations in the proteins of life systems so a very specific sequence is not needed. What is unknown is just how many variations would still work. Therefore this probability is not calculable.

In addition, all probability arguments must supply actual numbers and this has never been done correctly, in the cases I've seen, by the "weaknesses" crowd.

* The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.

I don't know enough biochemistry to be very sure of this but I think it makes unwarranted assumptions about the conditions.

* No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.

Again, not something I know much about. I think that we even have some threads here that claim that this is not true. We do in fact have a number of ways.

* All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.

Perhaps untrue. Let's wait for an expert.

* Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!

There is, in fact, good evidence that the early atmosphere was pretty much oxygen free. This is contrary to fact.

* There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.

A word of advice: anytime that the word "information" is used by these folks make sure that a good operational definition is supplied. The statement is obviously false.

Fossil Record Weaknesses:

* The Cambrian explosion quickly produced all of the basically different body structures, and some of these have since become extinct. This is very different from the evolutionary tree of life, which suggests a slow and gradual increase in body structures.

"Quickly" is not defined in this quote. Some decades ago the Cambrian was named an "explosion" when the time period appeared to be aout 10 million years (quickly by geologic standards but not "quickly" by most others). We now have fossil evidence stretching back about 40 million years. Plenty of time.

In fact, this also hides the fact of just what "exploded" over this time frame. We did not get from nothing to birds, crabs, monkeys and octopuses in this time; we got from wormy things to buggy things and wormy things with legs.

* Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change. Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.

This is not what evolution theory suggests at all. Another strawman.

* Most major proposed transitional forms are problematic and controversial. Rarely does the whole organism fit into the proposed developmental path. For example, birds are often said to have transitioned from reptile- hipped dinosaurs like Velociraptor. But these have a different kind of hip structure than birds. Birds have the same kind of hip structure as the dinosaurs like stegosaurus and the horned dinosaurs.

Back to this when I have some time to research it. I think it is yet another PRATT but we'll see.

Presently Observed Nature Weaknesses:

* Selective breeding has produced only very limited change with no new structures occurring over thousands of years and multitudes of generations of selection. This clearly demonstrates that there are natural limits to biological change. Examples: dogs, cattle, pigeons

This does not clearly demonstrate any such thing. What has been shown is that in only 1,000's of years some rather significant changes can be developed. Examples: dogs and cattle. A 1,000 years is about 2 millionths of the existence of multicellular life on earth.

* Induced mutations followed by selection in laboratory experiments have not produced any beneficial structural changes.

Define "structural" and define "beneficial". We have examples of beneficial mutations in our human population.

* Most all mutations are detrimental, a few are neutral, and extremely few if any are clearly beneficial.

This is handled in a post above. This demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what the evolutionary process is about. I think the facts are wrong as well; most mutations are, I think, neutral in the context that they arise.

* Small changes resulting from natural selection are observed, but are not observed to accumulate to produce structural changes.

This misunderstands what "observation" means. We "observe" things that we don't see directly, in real time all the time. We do have examples of small changes accumulating to big changes. E.g., the reptile to mammal transition and the dinosaur to bird transitions.

* It is extremely difficult for scientists to propose in detail how the structural or biochemical systems of life could change from a more simple form that was functional.

This is contrary to fact. (Well, I guess it is "difficult" since it has taken a lot of research to begin to unscramble the pathways.) However, there are lots of cases that show this. The infamous blood clotting cascade of the ID folks is a good example.

General practice to avoid misunderstanding:

* When fossils are illustrated, the illustration should indicate which parts of the skeleton are actually present in the fossil material and which parts are inferred. This may be done for example by color, shading, or outline weight.

This isn't done 100 % of the time but I am used to seeing this most of the time. I agree it should be done.

* Fossil abundance versus geologic period diagrams should be shown for all life forms discussed in the text or presented in tree of life or cladogram interpretations. One large diagram might be presented at an early point in the discussion of fossils. Where little intact fossil material is known, fine lines or dotted lines should be used to indicate inferred or hypothesized connections or relationships.

I certainly see this often. I'm used to seeing the hominid diagrams shown in this way. I don't know if it is appropriate all the time but it certainly should be done a lot of the time and I see it done often.

* If evolution is compared to the change over time of the product of any human endeavor, then the role of intelligence and purpose in that human endeavor must also be clearly recognized and discussed.

I'm not sure what this means. I'll come back if the website supplies more details.

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wumpini, posted 06-10-2008 3:23 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Wumpini, posted 06-12-2008 6:43 PM NosyNed has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 86 of 177 (470603)
06-11-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wumpini
06-10-2008 3:23 PM


Lizard Hipped Birds
* Most major proposed transitional forms are problematic and controversial. Rarely does the whole organism fit into the proposed developmental path. For example, birds are often said to have transitioned from reptile- hipped dinosaurs like Velociraptor. But these have a different kind of hip structure than birds. Birds have the same kind of hip structure as the dinosaurs like stegosaurus and the horned dinosaurs.

This is actually amusing. It is simply the result of inappropriate name applied more than a century ago. It is a perfect example of the superficial knowledge that your sources have. :)

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/buckna/two.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wumpini, posted 06-10-2008 3:23 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Ichneumon
Junior Member (Idle past 3584 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-09-2008


Message 87 of 177 (470611)
06-11-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by randman
06-10-2008 3:17 PM


Re: Moderator Comment
Par for the course.....fact is there are genuine problems with evo theory and they have never been refuted despite evos claiming they have, and that's one major reason evos object to even allowing students to hear criticism of Darwinism.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... That's the common mantra, but I note that you "forgot" include any actual examples. So here's your chance.

Present, in your own words (it wastes everyone's time if you just post a link to a gigantic list-o'-crap) what you personally consider to be the three (repeat, three) VERY BEST examples of "genuine problems with evo theory [that] have never been refuted".

We will then examine your three BEST examples. If they turn out to be not "genuine problems with evo theory" after all, and/or have already been refuted countless times even though you claim they haven't, then we'll be able to judge your credibility -- and that of the "very best" anti-evolution material -- accordingly. If your BEST material falls flat, then there's no point wasting time on the second-string material, no matter how much of it you might have, because if it's worse than your very best, and your very best is fluff, then you'll have revealed your entire arsenal to be just big pile of fluff.

If on the other hand your material stands up to scrutiny, I'll gladly eat crow and concede that you've got a point.

Go for it.

Note: Over the years I've issued this "show us your best" challenge countless times. To date, not a single anti-evolutionist has actually taken me up on it. Instead, I've inevitably gotten some variation on a) no response, b) bluster and chest-beating and/or insults, followed by a hasty exit, c) a link to a big list-o'-crap.

Feel free to be the first to actually step up to the plate.

They DON'T WANT students and people to think critically of their theory because if they did, they would have absolutely no objections to including criticisms of Darwinism when the subject is presented, as presenting criticism helps develop critical thinking on a subject.

Horse manure. We love critical thinking. We love actual thought-provoking challenges. Read the science journals, that's what they're all about.

Unfortunately, the anti-evolutionists provide very little of either. Instead, they keep attempting to shoehorn propaganda and obfuscation into classrooms in order to dishonestly sow doubt about science with the goal of leaving people open to the anti-evolutionists' religious dogma. Come up with something *good* for a change and we'll stop laughing it out of the curriculum. But the same old nonsense just isn't going to improve with age, and still has no place in a school classroom.

Duh!

You'll have to do better than that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by randman, posted 06-10-2008 3:17 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 2:14 PM Ichneumon has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3072 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 88 of 177 (470612)
06-11-2008 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Ichneumon
06-11-2008 2:12 PM


Re: Moderator Comment
Hmmmm.....I love it how you guys routinely demand I post off-topic stuff and then someone conveniently complains if I do, knowing there is a good chance I will be banned. Sorry but no-go. Let me add I do not consider your "challenge" sincere since you can post on any of my many threads or start topics on them. Check out the threads in Showcase and post a topic, for example. Please note that outside of moderator control (Showcase) few were willing to debate these issues there......don't know if you were around, but that fact indicates it's not anti-evos that don't rise to the challenge.

You can peruse my many threads and comments here for some of the major problems with evo theory. If you take issue with one of them, please either post on that thread or start a new one if it has been closed.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Ichneumon, posted 06-11-2008 2:12 PM Ichneumon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by lyx2no, posted 06-11-2008 2:20 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 90 by AdminNosy, posted 06-11-2008 2:22 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2008 2:23 PM randman has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2889 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 89 of 177 (470614)
06-11-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by randman
06-11-2008 2:14 PM


A List of Three
The moderator called for a list. Give us your list of three.

AbE: I seem to have confused posts somewhere. Give us the list anyway.

Edited by lyx2no, : I'm confused.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

There is a spider by the water pipe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 2:14 PM randman has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 90 of 177 (470615)
06-11-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by randman
06-11-2008 2:14 PM


Staying on Topic
Hmmmm.....I love it how you guys routinely demand I post off-topic stuff and then someone conveniently complains if I do, knowing there is a good chance I will be banned. Sorry but no-go. Let me add I do not consider your "challenge" sincere since you can post on any of my many threads or start topics on them. Check out the threads in Showcase and post a topic, for example. Please note that outside of moderator control (Showcase) few were willing to debate these issues there......don't know if you were around, but that fact indicates it's not anti-evos that don't rise to the challenge.

You can peruse my many threads and comments here for some of the major problems with evo theory. If you take issue with one of them, please either post on that thread or start a new one if it has been closed.

Since these problems may be the weaknesses that this thread is looking for a reference to them here would not be off-topic.

However, you are correct that some of them may be rather large issues and we don't want this thread to be a catch all to discuss them in detail. Therefore a simple link to the 3 that you like best would be the correct solution.

It is not up to others to find your argument for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by randman, posted 06-11-2008 2:14 PM randman has not yet responded

Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019