Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

Hi Peg, several problems here. 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:

---

Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

• Definition 1:
  Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
• Definition 2:
  The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

---

And then from the Berkeley University website on biology & evolution:

quote:

---

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

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 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. 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. 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 occurs
Speciation occursEnjoy.

---

Hi Jzyehoshua, just a small point or two: Leaving aside the issue of what was falsified (that "Piltdown Man" was really a hoax, that "Nebraska Man" was really never accepted as hominid in spite of the media hype) ...... and by who (hint: it wasn't by any creationists), we have the issue of false information being spread by creationists.Your listing of Java Man shows this.Java Man - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Java Man is the name given to fossils discovered in 1891 at Trinil - Ngawi Regency on the banks of the Solo River in East Java, Indonesia, one of the first known specimens of Homo erectus. Its discoverer, Eugne Dubois, gave it the scientific name Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.

​

Dubois' find was a very incomplete specimen, consisting of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. There is some dissent as to whether all these bones represent the same species[1]. A second, more complete specimen was later discovered in the village of Sangiran, Central Java, 18 km to the north of Solo. This find, a skullcap of similar size to that found by Dubois, was discovered by Berlin-born paleontologist GHR von Koenigswald in 1936. Many more finds have subsequently been made at the Sangiran site [2], although official reports remain critical of the site's "poor" presentation and interpretation [3].

​

​

Original fossils of Pithecanthropus erectus (now Homo erectus) found in Java in 1891

---

Far from being falsified (whatever you mean by that), this specimen is the "type specimen" for Homo erectus

quote:

---

Homo erectus (from the Latin ērĭgĕre, "to put up, set upright") is an extinct species of hominid that originated in Africaand spread as far as China and Javafrom the end of the Pliocene epoch to the later Pleistocene, about 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago.[1]

---

Type (biology) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A type specimen is a vernacular term (not a formally defined term) typically used for an individual or fossil that is any of the various name-bearing types for a species. For example, the type specimen for the species Homo neanderthalensis was the specimen "Neanderthal-1" discovered by Johann Karl Fuhlrott in 1856 at Feldhofer in the Neander Valley in Germany, consisting of a skullcap, thigh bones, part of a pelvis, some ribs, and some arm and shoulder bones. There may be more than one type specimen, but there is (at least in modern times) only one holotype.

---

Fossil Hominids: Type Specimens

quote:

---

Under the formal rules for naming species, each species must have a type specimen. The 'type description' of a species describes the type specimen, and the similarities to and differences from closely related species. Another fossil belongs to the same species if and only if it belongs to the same species as the type specimen. ...

​

Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) and Peking Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis) were originally assigned not only to different species, but different genera from Homo sapiens. Scientists such as Boule who considered them in the same genus but not the same species would sink Sinanthropus as a genus and call Peking Man Pithecanthropus pekinensis. Most scientists soon decided they were in the same species, so the Peking Man specimens were reassigned to P. erectus because that name had priority over S. pekinensis. Later, when it was decided that P. erectus was in the same genus as Homo sapiens, the genus name Pithecanthropus was sunk and the specific name erectus was kept, so the species became Homo erectus.

---

Java Man was the first fossil found of Homo erectus, so it defines this species. There is nothing false about this fossil.From this it should be obvious that any source that tells you that Java Man is a falsified fossil hominid on the order of the Piltdown hoax or the media made up Nebraska Man, is either lying to you (in which case you cannot take any of their claims as valid) or grossly ignorant of the truth (in which case you cannot take any of their claims as valid) or deluded about reality (in which case you cannot take any of their claims as valid) , or too stupid to understand the truth (in which case you cannot take any of their claims as valid). Likewise, this too is false information: Homo floresiensis was never considered a "missing link" (a media term not a scientific one btw) as it was a dead end species that went extinct. There is nothing for it to "link" to. Again, this statement is misleading, if not false and misrepresentative. Ardi was fully capable of upright walking - from your source: Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found

quote:

---

But Ardi's feet, pelvis, legs, and hands suggest she was a biped on the ground but a quadruped when moving about in the trees. ...

​

According to the researchers, the pelvis shows a similar mosaic of traits. The large flaring bones of the upper pelvis were positioned so that Ardi could walk on two legs without lurching from side to side like a chimp. But the lower pelvis was built like an ape's, to accommodate huge hind limb muscles used in climbing.

​

According to the researchers, the pelvis shows a similar mosaic of traits. The large flaring bones of the upper pelvis were positioned so that Ardi could walk on two legs without lurching from side to side like a chimp. But the lower pelvis was built like an ape's, to accommodate huge hind limb muscles used in climbing.

---

Gosh, that's shocking all right: it's a transitional species (the scientific term for "missing link" btw) that shows intermediate traits between an ancestral population and a modern population, as would be expected from an ancestor, and would NOT be expected to be similar to a modern ape (human, chimp or gorilla).Now lets look at your main claim here: Curiously, "interspeciary change" is not macroevolution, microevolution or any kind of evolution.Again, whoever told you that macroevolution was "interspeciary change" was either lying about, ignorant of, deluded about, or too stupid to understand, (pick one) what evolution says.There is no such thing as "interspeciary change" in all of biology. What you have is (another) creationist misrepresentation of real evolution.I find it curious that gullible believers will tout anything they find from a creationist source, believing that the information is valid, when just a little bit of study would show you how vacuous it really is. Any encyclopedia would tell you the truth about Java Man.Likewise studying any (real) biology textbook would tell you that "interspeciary change" is not how evolution works. Here's a good on line reference: Evolution 101 from Berkeley University.You can also read about what parent populations are, the roll they have in speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent, and how this fits in with the theory of common ancestry.It must be disturbing for an honest person looking for answers to bolster their faith, that so much of the creationist information is rife with lies, misinformation, falsehoods, deceit and incredible ignorance.If the creationist position is valid, then why is this information such a mess?Perhaps you like to post your source so we can add it to the list of Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes as another creationist hoax site.Enjoy.

---

Hi again simple1, Which makes all creationist arguments that conflate abiogenesis with evolution false.Of course scientist understand that abiogenesis and evolution are different concepts, with abiogenesis being the study of how life may develop, and evolution is about the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation.Rather obviously, you can't have evolution without breeding populations of living organisms. Presumably you mean abiogensis. Curiously, in science, nothing is proven.As such I don't expect you to "prove creation" ... but if you want to provide evidence for creation feel free.But the topic here is "why is evolution bad science?" - and you have not provided any details about that.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... 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) • • •

Hi Peeple, That's what happens when you get your information from creationists sites that have bogus information delivered for the gullibles.Interestingly there are a couple of sites that show the modern thinking on hominid evolution: Fossil Skull TreeHuman Ancestor TreeInteractive Timeline of Hominid evolutionThat last one has just been updated to a new format, so check it out.And there is this videoEnjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... 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) • • •