Evolutionary Biology as a Science

Unless you at least come to grips with the concept of "What is Creation Science?" I am not willing to do the work. It would be so much easier to start on equal footing.I am a busy mom and student who isn't really able to spend all day at the computer. We have been snowbound for a few days here, but now it is back to life as usual.

The rest is really up to you. I am not going to spoon-feed anyone. I will wait for you to catch-up. Then I will offer debate material. Or, maybe I will simply have to admit to myself that this is just another typical evolution website filled with closedminded people who really don't want to be challenged in any way. It really is up to you. I am not running away. I am simply too busy to add "teacher" to my list of things to do today.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

No one insulted you when you started posting. We just asked you to back up your assertions with evidence. Any kind of evidence. This you refused to do and continue to do. I have read this book. Even for a creationist book it is extremely poorly written and the "science" it claims is not science. All it is, is an attempt to justify preconceived ideas. Nothing scientific at all.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Macroevolution (and creation) are both facts which are either true or not. We can test macroevolution using tests which are repeatable, that rely on observations and measurements. The hypothesis generated to explain those results (eg., by a process of mutations/natural selection these two species have diverged from a common ancestor) are falsifiable.In this sense macroevolution isn't science but it is scientific. In the same way 'X killed Y' is not science, but certain ways of explaining whether X killed Y are scientific and other ways are not.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Kelly,Everyone here would love to come to grips with "What is Creation Science." So why don't you tell us. Give us the science. Telling us we're wrong does not help us understand.The biggest obstacle you will face is other creationists.

• The ones that insist that it's their god that is the creator.
• The ones from the Discovery Institute that wrote the Wedge Document.
• The ones who rewrote the Christian apologetic "text book" Of Panda's and People to turn it into an ID book.
• The creation scientists who admit that for science to encompass creationism it would have to be rewritten in such a way that astrology would be science also.
• The ones who insist that Creation Science is really science yet can't supply any of that science when asked (hhmm sounds familiar)
• The ones that when asked for the positive evidence for creation can only repeat supposed evidence against evolution.

Please don't be just another fly by night creationist that comes in here proclaiming "YOU'RE WRONG" and then disappears when they find we don't believe them.Don't tell us we're wrong, SHOW us. And no giving us a reading assignment is not going to work. Many here could probably give you your own reading assignments that would contradict your book, and I'm not talking about evolution texts.

Then this isn't the place for you.As noted many people here already have demonstrated curiosity about creation science. They have read extensively in the creation literature (much more than you have). They have also read a great deal in the scientific literature (much, much, much more than you have).You claim to have some knowledge that these people do not have. However, you are unwilling to impart it. You point to books which, we are told by those who have read them, are typical of the genre and not of the quality you think they are.The only way to settle who is right about your sources is to bring the arguments here and discuss them. If you are unwilling to to that then you have wasted your time here and will simply reinforce what we have already learned about creationists.I would claim that many here have not only long ago "caught-up" to you but have long passed you in your knowledge of the subject at hand. If you wish to prove that wrong you will have to expend some effort. Of all the wrong assertions you have made this is the farthest from the truth. Boy! Is it a long way! . Those people that you are calling closed-minded love to be challenged, really really love it. However, you haven't even begun to do so and it appears you won't put the effort into doing so.

I agree with you. Testing the results/evidence left behind whether by a process called macroevolution or by creation is scientific. This is precisely my argument.

But I find that very hard to believe given the fact that no one here demonstrates to me that they know the first thing about what Creation Science is.I am more than willing to bring the arguments here and discuss or debate them. But first I need to know that everyone at least recognizes what Creation Science really is. I think that people here need to know where I am really coming from and not just where they perceive or think I am coming from.Respect is something that can only benefit everyone who participates in this forum. It has to go both ways. From my point of view, everyone here is quite disrespectful towards Creation and its adherents, and why? Because you don't really know what Creation Science is or what the claims are. I know this based on everything I have read here.And also, I have offered one challenge, and from what I can tell, there has been only one person up for it. People need to first and foremost discover the truth about what is creation science.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

You haven't demonstrated that you know what Creation Science is either.What you think Creation Science is, is wrong. The book you mentioned, "What is Creation Science" only attacks evolution and provides no evidence for creation. It is not science. Nor does it even explain how creation science is science. No, you're not. You've given us nothing. And I'd bet that you know we'd tear you apart as soon as you did. That's just a cop-out. Just bring forth what you have already.You're the one who doesn't know what it really is. You think its just like true science It is far from that.Provide one single prediction made by creation science or one single expiriment that's been carried out or even one single hypothesis of creation science.You have nothing because there's nothing there. All Creation Science is is attacks on evolution and nothing more. Why won't you just tell us then instead of pointing us to a book?Answer: You've got nothing to show us.I'm done feeding this troll.

We know very well a variety of versions of Creation "Science" that have been presented to us in the past. Those versions may be different from yours - but unless and until you describe the Creation Science you are talking about, all we can possibly address are the versions we've seen before.Further, Creation Science is not the topic of this thread. The topic, as you can see in the title, is a discussion on whether the theory of Evolution qualifies as scientific. then do so. Then describe what your version of Creation Science is, and tell us where you are coming from.Do not respond with the title of your favorite book again - we aren't here to debate the author of the book, because the author is not here to respond. We are here to debate you. If you cannot are are unwilling to make an argument in your own words, then you are clearly incapable of an actual debate. All we're asking is that you make an actual argument and then support it. Respect is earned, and further is irrelevant to the argument. You have failed to respect anyone on this forum by failing to respond to anyone's actual arguments and complaining in posts like this one rather than actually addressing the topic. Incorrect. We have been presented with myriad versions of Creationism - some have called themselves "Creation Science." None qualified as scientific. None supported their arguments. There was nothing to respect at all in the vast majority of cases.Now kindly address the topic of this thread or stop participating in it. If you'd like to discuss the topic, do so. If not, participate in a different thread where you will be on-topic, or make one of your own.

Hi Kelly. Welcome to EvC. I'm not formally educated in higher sciences or the higher anything for that matter so far as degrees go but I have been at this cite for 6 years now. I go as far as I am able into the sciences. I try to be careful to back off when I must.I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is creation science ongoing. I have debated some of this in the field of archeology and other work of some of the creation sciences.Do you have any science background or experience? Not that you must, but just wondering. My suggestion is that you do some reading in the archives on some of the science topics. Also I agree with the others that it would be helpful if you would apprise us on your POV as to what creation science consists of. We hope you choose to stay and see if you can help us out on the creationist team here at EvC.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I agree. No evidence, no understanding of Creation Science and no understanding of Evolution. If anyone else wants to play with the troll, go for it, but I am done.You cannot converse with the willfully ignorant.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Since Nosy (rightfully) is performing a topic-check on the Creation Science thread, I'm copy/pasting my offtopic reply to the thread where it is more appropriate in the hopes that Kelly will follow: And as I've posted to you before, mutation can and does add, subtract, and change genes. You've asserted that DNA cannot be added to during replication, and yet you've failed to support your assertion of even provide the mechanism that supposedly prevents this from happening. Meanwhile, multiple people have told you repeatedly that genetic information is frequently added during DNA replication in teh form of mutations - and you've simply ignored our statements.Further, this is irrelevant to my argument. I showed you that actual, real new species have formed from pre-existing species. Your nonsense about genetic information is irrelevant to that point, Kelly. You cannot refute direct observation. Upon what do you base this assertion Kelly? Reality seems to disagree with you. Do you remember my example of bacteria that evolve resistance to antibiotics? Scratch that - I'm rather certain you never even read it. So I'll repeat myself, despite the fact that you seem to be incapable of reading a person's post and actually responding to their points. Please prove that impression wrong and provide an honest debate by replying to my points.Bacteria reproduce asexually. Each new bacterium is actually a clone of the original - no new information can be added, right? That's what you're claiming, anyway.But if we begin an experiment with just one bacterium, a single cell, and let it reproduce into a colony something curious happens.If we introduce an antibiotic to the colony, invariably most will die - but some will live, and thrive with the new lack of competition. Continued reintroduction of the antibiotic will be less and less effective as the bacteria develop a resistance.How did this happen, if no information was added, since all of the bacteria are copies of the original?The answer is that random mutation does result in the formation of new features. All the time, Kelly. This experiment is reproduced frequently in the lab, and this exact process is what results in the so-called "superbugs" you may have read about in the news.Clearly, your assertion that new features cannot evolve is false. Once again you are contradicted by direct observations in reality, Kelly. You are wrong.So now we have demonstrated that new traits do form spontaneously as a result of mutation, despite your claims to the contrary. Further, we've demonstrated that new species do arise from pre-existing species.Exactly what part of your position remains, Kelly? All of your claims seem to have been utterly refuted. Will you continue to ignore the refutations, will you lie, will you shift the goalposts again, or will you actually admit that you were wrong and concede the point?

But this old argument is useless.Mutations do not explain drug-resistant bacteria. Scientists discovered that bacteria were resistant to certain antibiotics even before the antibiotics were invented.Contrary to popular opinion, drug-resistance in bacteria does not demonstrate evolution. It doesn't even demonstrate the production of favorable mutation. It does demonstrate natural selection, but only selection among already existing variations within a type.

Quite to the contrary. Really? When the parent of all of the subject population had no such resistance, and a portion of the child population does, where did this resistance come from given that bacteria reproduce by copying themselves?Further, when we examine the genetic structure of the bacteria, we can actually directly observe the spontaneously altered genes that caused the resistance. How do you explain this, without mutation? ...that's a self-contradiction, Kelly. If antibiotics hadn't been yet invented, how could scientists discover that bacteria are resistant to them? That's like saying that scientists discovered that driving without a seatbelt is dangerous before cars were invented. How else do you explain the sudden, spontaneous appearance of a new trait? How do explain the observed alteration in the genetic code of an organism that reproduces by essencially cloning itself? There were no variations of teh type that existed, Kelly - ALL of the individuals in teh entire population were descendants of a single parent bacterium, and they all reproduce by copying themselves. Where did the variation come from if not mutation? We can directly observe the genes, and they weren't present in the parent bacterium.Edited by Admin, : Rahvin said "...and a portion of the parent population..." when I think he meant child population. Apologies if I have this wrong, but in that case I'm very confused.