Is Evolution Science?

These Stansfield quotes are all over the Internet. There are probably many rebuttal sites, here's one that includes the original text from Stansfield's book: I've only checked the volcano quote. Here's what prophecyexclaimed's site has Stansfield saying:

"It has been estimated that seventy volcanoes the size of Mexico's Paricutin producing 0.001 cubic mile of water per year for 4.5 billion years of earth's history could account for the 315 cubic miles of water in the oceans today. There are now approximately 600 active volcanoes and about 10,000 dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.5 billion years."

And here's what Stansfield actually said in his book:

"Geologists now assume that most of the water in the oceans was produced by volcanic outgassings. It has been estimated that seventy volcanoes the size of Mexico's Paricutin producing 0.001 cubic mile of water per year for 4.5 billion years of the earth's history could account for the 315 million cubic miles of water in the oceans today. There are now approximately 600 active volcanoes and about 10,000 dormant ones. Six hundred volcanoes comparable to Paricutin could account for the present oceans in approximately 0.5 billion years. Since volcanic activity presumably was much greater during early earth history than at present, creationists argue that the age of the oceans would appear to be considerably less than 0.5 billion years. By this methodology, creationists stand guilty of the "crime" they ascribe to evolutionists, namely uniformitarianism. Perhaps the earth is now experiencing greater volcanic activity than the average; there is no accurate way of knowing. How much water vapor was lost to space during the early warmer stages of geological history is also a big unknown.

That's quite a difference. I'm somewhat tied up today, maybe there's someone interested in checking the others?--Percy

Actually just looking at the site linked to is enough to confirm that I was correct both in the idea that Stansfield was quoting creationist arguments to rebut them - and that much of Stansfield's rebuttal was omitted. The last is clearly dishonest because it claims to present Stansfield's answer to the cited arguments when most of it has been left out.Here is what Stansfield says about the population argument:"...It was pointed out in the first chapter that although populations tend to have large reproductive potentials, the limiting factors of the environment prevent unlimited geometric increase. The size of a population may fluctuate over various lengths of time, but the long-term picture is one of stability. Populations need not continually expand in order to survive over long periods of time. Many more limitations to population growth were undoubtedly imposed on primitive humans than are faced by modern people. For one thing, primitive humans were gatherers and hunters. Scarcity of food was probably severely restrictive of human population growth until relatively recent times (a few thousand years ago), when humans learned how to raise their own crops and domesticate animals (the dawn of agriculture)."

Well done, Percy! PaulK was right - Stansfield was being misquoted. It's even more telling that Stansfield was doing what the creationists absolutely insist upon: presenting the "problems" with scientific theory (in this case various dating methods) in a textbook. Of course, he then goes on to explain a) why a particular method ISN'T used, and b) what methods ARE used to give accurate dates.Not bad. The creationists quote mining Stansfield are hoist by their own petard. What a surprise.

why lie? I mean if your Believers find out it doesn't look too good for you does it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess you don't believe in gravity either since it is not exactly observable?..only its effects...and the theory of gravity has quantitatively less support than the theory of evolution...and as others have pointed out, evolution is observable and has been observed...even in high school level experiments...or can you perform an experiment to demonstrat creation ex nihilo for us?
But if you want annoyances why is it evolution versus creation in the first place? It should be abiogenesis versus creation...or better yet, abiogenesis versus religious fundamentalist mythswow..."So I guess you don't believe in gravity either since it is not exactly observable?..only its effects..."Did I say that? Did I? No, I said that evolution is not science! I never said that I didn't believe in gravity! You pointed it out yourself! You can observe gravity "in action" by watching a rock fall out of your hand. Evolution cannot be observed "in action" (happening.)"and as others have pointed out, evolution is observable and has been observed...even in high school level experiments..."It has never been observed! Adaptation is a real thing! That is observable! Adaptation is not Evolution! You must be confused... No experiment can show one species evolving into another species. You are giving me a lot of information that is simply idiotic."But if you want annoyances why is it evolution versus creation in the first place? It should be abiogenesis versus creation...or better yet, abiogenesis versus religious fundamentalist myths"Don't get heated over this and keep your idiotic insults to yourself.------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk

quote:

---

You can observe gravity "in action" by watching a rock fall out of your hand.

---

No. What you can observe by watching a rock fall out of your hand is that things fall down. This does not allow you to observe the fundamental force that attracts bodies of mass to one another.There's a difference.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 08-12-2003]

"And the best thing, it doesn't cost a lot of money.Take a single E. coli bacterium of the wild, K-type. This type of bacteria is susceptible to a type of virus called T4 phage. So you take this single bacterium and let it reproduce to form a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What should we expect to happen?That's right, plaques of dead bacteria start to form. The phage is infecting them and, since they are susceptible to T4 phage, they start to die.But we also see some colonies within the plaques merrily living without a care in the world, surrounded by live, active phage.How can this be? Remember, all the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor whom we knew to be susceptible.That's right...the bacteria evolved. In fact, they are now called K4-type because they are resistant to T4 phage.But wait. Let's continue. Take one of the K4 bacteria and again, let it reproduce to form a lawn. Now, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What should we expect to happen?That's right: Absolutely nothing. These bacteria are resistant to T4 phage and thus, the phage should have no way to establish itself.But what do we actually see? Instead, we see plaques starting to form again. How can this be? Remember, all the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that was resistant to T4 phage. So how could any of them be dying?We now have to figure out which one evolved. A little thought will show that it has to be the phage that evolved, not the bacteria. See, if a bacterium experienced a reversion mutation such that it would be susceptible to T4 phage, it would immediately be infected and killed, leaving it surrounded by K4 bacteria which would immediately take over the space just vacated. In short, K-type bacteria could never take hold."Instead, it necessarily must be the phage that evolved. And, in fact, we call these phage T4h because they have experienced a "host" shift.So there you go. Evolution right before your eyes. And it doesn't take that long to do. Many high schools do this experiment."This isn't evolution this is call immunities.
Ever hear of the Native Americans? If not listen to this: When the Europeans came to America they brought disease that they were already immuned to from being around it and being infected with it and dying from it. Now the Indians were new to these diseases and they started dying and dying... More of them died of these new diseases then war, famine, or any other cause of death. Now soon the Indians gained immunities for the diseases but sadly enough it was too late for the Native Americans, they were almost entirely wiped out.
Ever hear of vaccinations? Same concept. Don't give me that, I know the difference between gaining immunities from disease and Evolution!For the bacteria starting to die again, the answer is this: they weren't strong enough, their immunities gave in. Not Evolution!------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk

Since a discussion is taking place that is related to the status of evolution as science, and since prophecyexclaimed is no longer pursuing his initial complaint about the home page, I will move this thread to the Is It Science? forum and change the name to "Is Evolution Science?".------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Thread moved here from the Suggestions forum.

"No. What you can observe by watching a rock fall out of your hand is that things fall down. This does not allow you to observe the fundamental force that attracts bodies of mass to one another.There's a difference."Then how would we know about gravity? Remember Newton dropped apples out of his and and discovered that there was a force. He named it gravity. Now how would that have happened if we hadn't known that a force made the apple or in my case rock fall? Yes you observe that things fall down, but if you go deeper then you realize that there is a force, a force today known as gravity.------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk

quote:

---

Yes you observe that things fall down, but if you go deeper then you realize that there is a force, a force today known as gravity.

---

Excellent. Now apply the same logic to evolution.

Hi Proph!A few things:

1. Please use the little reply icon that appears at the bottom of each message when you are replying to a specific message. This causes links to and from the original message and the reply to appear. Please avoid the large Post Reply buttons at the top and bottom of the message pages unless you are not actually replying to a specific post.
   ​
2. Please don't quote entire messages you're replying to unless they're fairly short. By using the little reply icon mentioned above it is easy for people to click on links and visit the message you're replying to and see what was said.
   ​
3. Please use the quoting functions described on the UBB codes page to excerpt small passages from messages you're replying to. A link to this page can be found to the left of the message box where you type your messages.
   ​
4. A bacteria doesn't have an immune system. You probably need to rethink your response.

------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

This isn't evolution this is call immunities.
Ever hear of the Native Americans? If not listen to this: When the Europeans came to America they brought disease that they were already immuned to from being around it and being infected with it and dying from it. Now the Indians were new to these diseases and they started dying and dying... More of them died of these new diseases then war, famine, or any other cause of death. Now soon the Indians gained immunities for the diseases but sadly enough it was too late for the Native Americans, they were almost entirely wiped out.
Ever hear of vaccinations? Same concept. Don't give me that, I know the difference between gaining immunities from disease and Evolution!

​

For the bacteria starting to die again, the answer is this: they weren't strong enough, their immunities gave in. Not Evolution!

---

Maybe you should learn the difference between bacterial resistance to infection and the action of our immune system.In this experiment, one group of closely related bacteria survives an attack while another entire group, related closely to each other and distantly to the surviving group, dies. This is because of a mutation that gives them inherent resistance to the T4 phage. It is not an adaptive response within the lifetime of the bacteria. You're making yourself look kinda silly by equating two very different things and dismissing a valid argument.

quote:

---

Don't get heated over this and keep your idiotic insults to yourself.

---

The irony of this is just delicious.

quote:

---

I know the difference between gaining immunities from disease and Evolution!

---

Gaining immunities from disease is, in fact, an excellent example of Evolution.Heritable change in a population of organisms over time.That's what Evolution is.Now, you claim that new species have not been observed to evolve, but that's not true.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."There's lots more where that one came from.Now, what were you saying about scientists not having observed speciation?