|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
To a creationist, all assumptions used by science are automatically false if they disagree with revelation, scripture and the like. So far as I know, there is one and only one assumption of science --- that we can find out about the world by looking at it. The things that Peg lists as assumptions are certainly not assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Peg, several problems here.
from what i've read, macroevolution rests on 3 'main' assumptions Can you define what "macroevolution" means in biology? I'll give you a hint with these sources: First from the University of Michigan website on biology & evolution:
quote: And then from the Berkeley University website on biology & evolution:
quote: In particular, can you tell me what the difference is between speciation and macroevolution from the viewpoint of evolutionary biology. Note that I don't care an ant frass in antarctica what creationists think macroevolution is, I am only interested in how the science of biology in general, and the field of evolution in particular, define and use this term.
The first is that mutations are the starting block in the evolution of new species. The problem with this is that mutations occur all the time, in every individual, in every population, in every generation, yet only rarely do we see speciation, and when we do see speciation it is not because of any single mutation. Whether or not mutations lead to speciation is not a necessary part of the mix. Mutations are a part of evolution, and to get macroevolution you need to have evolution, but evolution doesn't always lead to speciation. This is like saying that in order to build a sandcastle you need to start with sand. It's mundanely true, but there is a lot of sand in the world that will never participate in the process of building sandcastles.
The 2nd is that natural selection leads to the production of new species. Again, natural selection leads to populations becoming adapted to their ecological opportunities. Whether or not this adaptation leads to speciation is not a necessary part of the mix. Natural selection is also a part of evolution, and to get macroevolution you need to have evolution, but evolution doesn't always lead to speciation.
and the 3rd is that the fossil record demonstrates these macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals. The fossil record is not a part of the theory of evolution, rather it is a set of facts about past life that test the theory. The fossil record shows what it shows, and the question is whether or not it shows the same patterns of evolution that we see in the world today. Evolution occursSpeciation occurs Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 789 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: This is actually the same reason that WhatYouOughtToKnow.com authors the Brothers Winn criticize the theory of Evolution (they also criticize Intelligent Design). As quoted from their show on the subject:
quote: That last statement is especially good - while I.D. may not fit the test to be classified as science, evolutionary theory if subjected to the same rigors would likely not pass either. We've never seen evolution happen. It's beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion either way with any degree of certainty. We can prove natural selection and adaptation. However, neither proves that all species had a common ancestor, which is a pet philosophy of Darwin's. He at least admitted to it though in 'On the Origin of Species' and examined alternative possibilities, such as the alternative of parent species (which would allow for the Genesis accounts to be accurate, and animals evolving within their own species rather than from one single original life). But hear Darwin's own words for yourself:
quote: Darwin, for all that I disagree with him, was not shy about expressing the potential flaws in his theory, and honest enough to admit there were noticeable problems to be addressed. He admitted that parent species were an alternative to his belief that all species had a common ancestor, and that the lack of transitional forms was the 'gravest' objection to his theory, though he asserted confidence that it was merely an incomplete fossil record responsible. Darwin also spent an entire chapter puzzling over why sterility would prevent crossing between species if all did indeed have a common ancestor and were immutable. I found it ironic though that he accepted as proof that all species were immutable that merely crossing between different kinds of geese, or varying types of canaries, proved all were immutable. After all, it's hardly the same as crossing between a frog and a cat, or some such thing. I was disappointed in what struck me as hasty and poorly reasoned conclusions on the subject. If there were indeed parent species, canaries, regardless of their technical classification, would be expected after all to fit into the same parent species. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That last statement is especially good - while I.D. may not fit the test to be classified as science, evolutionary theory if subjected to the same rigors would likely not pass either. Scientists think you're wrong. This is because they know about science, and (as the immense ignorance displayed throughout your post reveals) you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 789 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
If at some point you see fit to address my points rather than trying to attack me with ad hominem tactics, let me know. Until then, you've left me nothing to respond to that wouldn't dissolve this topic into a petty name-calling match.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If at some point you see fit to address my points rather than trying to attack me with ad hominem tactics, let me know. Until then, you've left me nothing to respond to that wouldn't dissolve this topic into a petty name-calling match. If you would care to argue for your absurd fantasy, then I shall point out the flaws in your argument. If, on the other hand, you just want us to take your word for it, then there is nothing to be said except that on the subject of biology it would obviously be idiotic to take your word for anything. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 789 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
If you'd actually tried pointing out flaws in the argument I would've responded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you'd actually tried pointing out flaws in the argument I would've responded. The flaw is that it's not an argument. It's an assertion --- and an assertion made by someone who is clearly singularly unqualified to make assertions about science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 789 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
If you really want to get into this, aren't YOU 'singularly unqualified' to make these objections according to forum rules?
quote: What I take offense to is that, unable to beat the logic or reasoning of an opponent's argument, you are forced of necessity, to try to silence me by saying unless I provide X qualifications my opinion and freedom of speech are worthless and irrelevant. While I am not sure what communist country you speak this from, this is typically frowned upon in my native nation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you really want to get into this, aren't YOU 'singularly unqualified' to make these objections according to forum rules? No. Any forum member is qualified to point out that you are in breach of rule 4.
What I take offense to is that, unable to beat the logic or reasoning of an opponent's argument ... You provided neither logic nor reasoning, but a fantasy unsupported by either. Unable to beat it? I'm unable to find it.
... you are forced of necessity, to try to silence me by saying unless I provide X qualifications my opinion and freedom of speech are worthless and irrelevant. You are, of course, not telling the truth. And since you are being untruthful about what I have written on this very thread, I hardly know whom you can hope to deceive.
While I am not sure what communist country you speak this from, this is typically frowned upon in my native nation. I live in the USA, the constitution of which guarantees my right to point out that unsupported assertions are unsupported assertions. It's called "freedom of speech", you may have heard of it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
You are going to pull the classic fundie argument?
quote: Teabags away. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Jzyehoshua,
Pay no attention to Dr Adequate, he's always grumpy. But Dr Adequate does raise a good point concerning how you're approaching your topic. The Forum Guidelines try to encourage people to introduce evidence and make arguments in their own words rather than through links or lengthy cut-n-pastes. But let's attempt to get the discussion started. How about we start with this from your excerpt from What You Ought to Know (which maybe should be renamed, "What What You Ought To Know ought to know"):
What You Ought To Know writes: Let’s examine the facts around evolution: if it ever did take place, it isn’t now. At least not that anyone can demonstrate. What evidence leads you to believe this is an accurate statement? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 789 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: True - as I looked at the forum rules, I realized I was skirting that line more than I'd realized. Still, I have less than 50 posts right now, not 4000, and until you just mentioned it it had not been objected to. I will avoid the cut and pastes from now on to make arguments primarily in my own words (though I already made that effort, it was in addition to the pasting). However, I didn't see Dr. Adequate bring up this point. All I was hearing was, "unless you prove you're a scientist you have no room to say anything on this forum", a requirement I'd been unaware of. Naturally this appeared belittling, condescending, arrogant, spurious, and a direct assault on the American ideal of freedom of speech.
quote: My point is that while we keep hearing about the ability of animals to make drastic evolutionary leaps between species, we have yet to see any evidence of it. As the Brothers Winn point out, we've been watching bacteria since the invention of the microscope, and while they have adapted as bacteria, they've never become a new, higher form of life. Same with canaries. They may adapt within an apparent parent species, but do not become an entirely new line. Were we still actively considering parent species as an alternative, which Darwin himself stated as the opposing view, then the evidence would appear telling that this is the case, and an objective examination lead to more thorough analysis of the competing possibility. This is why Creationists always differ between microevolution and macroevolution. We can observe natural selection and adaptation right now. However it is faith by which one relies upon interspeciary evolution, which appears more a philosophy of Darwin's that all had a common ancestor, than one of his more solidly supported facts. Evolutionists will say that it takes so long to occur we can't see this type of evolution, that it takes so long we won't be able to see it happening. Nevertheless, what it results is again, taking on faith that this is indeed what's happening. It's circumstantial evidence open to interpretation. We used interpretation to try and force the evidence to fit this view, rather than equally considering the alternative of parent species, lining up species to try and make orderly lines between one another. However, this has also resulted in certain infamous fossil finds which were falsified (Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man). It has also resulted in several surprising mistakes recently, such as the discovery the newly christened 'rat squirrel' was in fact the already existing Laotian Rock Rat, or that Homo Floresiensis, aka hobbit man and labeled a missing link, had in fact lived up until modern times and thus could not be an ancestor, or that Habilis and Erectus lived at the same time and would have to be knocked off the lineage, or that Ardipithecus Ramidus, older than Lucy, looked nothing like an ape and walked upright. The news has had major press received that the human family tree is now instead a 'bush' with dead ends everywhere. Again, not only is there a complete lack of proof for this interspeciary change, but discoveries are beginning to knock out one after another of the missing links that already exist, or else alleged new ones are found wrong. Yet at a time when we should be more seriously considering the possibility of parent species, many are still religiously adhering to Darwin's beliefs of a single common ancestor; macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
My point is that while we keep hearing about the ability of animals to make drastic evolutionary leaps between species, we have yet to see any evidence of it. That's exactly what the fossil record shows us, transitions between species such as the hominid transitional fossils.
As the Brothers Winn point out, we've been watching bacteria since the invention of the microscope, and while they have adapted as bacteria, they've never become a new, higher form of life. Why would they need to change into a "higher life form"? Bacteria are the most successful type of life on Earth. Single celled organisms make up the vast majority of the biomass on Earth.
Same with canaries. They may adapt within an apparent parent species, but do not become an entirely new line. Evolution does not produce entirely new lines. Evolution produces species that are modifications of their ancestors. You are what your ancestors were, plus modifications. Humans are still apes, as was our common ancestor with apes. Humans are still primates as was our common ancestor with other primates. Humans are still mammals, as was our common ancestor with other mammals.
This is why Creationists always differ between microevolution and macroevolution. We can observe natural selection and adaptation right now. However it is faith by which one relies upon interspeciary evolution, which appears more a philosophy of Darwin's that all had a common ancestor, than one of his more solidly supported facts. Is it by faith that we observe transitional fossils? Is it by faith that we observe humans and chimps sharing the same genetic markers that are indicative of common ancestry (e.g. shared psuedogenes, orthologous ERV's)? Is it by faith that we find agreement between the differences between the human and chimp genome and the observed mutation rate? Common ancestry is supported by solid facts, despite your protestations.
Evolutionists will say that it takes so long to occur we can't see this type of evolution, that it takes so long we won't be able to see it happening. We can see it in the genomes of living species and in the fossil record.
The news has had major press received that the human family tree is now instead a 'bush' with dead ends everywhere.
These fossils still demonstrate transitional features which is exactly what we should see if humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
Again, not only is there a complete lack of proof for this interspeciary change, That is completely false. Genetics alone is enough to establish human and chimp common ancestry as a fact. The theory of evolution explains why we are different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 789 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: I know that they share in common a great percentage of their DNA (though I believe Neanderthal Man was even closer). It's around 95 or even 98%, correct? And yet, genetics has now proven the existence of a 'mitochondrial eve', a direct human ancestor to all humans. By Darwin's own words, wouldn't this show evidence of parent species rather than all species having a common ancestor, since this is the exact sign he said would prove the alternate theory instead of his own?
quote: Isn't this the exact same thing he spoke of? Showing all human species descended singularly rather than via mass evolution? And that it would show parent species, not a single common ancestor for all species? And if not, then what evidence was he saying would be needed?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024