Neither Evolution nor Creation are

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Ah! There it is. Just as I had predicted. I am now an ignornamus?

​

Are you saying that Darwinism does not say that life started in the oceans 10 billion years ago with the first formation of single-celled animals in the primordial goo?

​

Robert

---

This is better, and more a accurate representation of the theory.This is not what you said in your first post, however. You said:

quote:

---

According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal.

---

Evolutionary theory does not predict that single celled organisms would give birth to multi-celled animals.Now, considering that the ToE has (copious) positive evidence to support it, potential falsifications which have not been observed, and many, many testable hypothesese, how is it not scientific?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:

​

Why, then, do intelligent people "debate" about these things? Evolutionists who have established themselves as "scientists" have a very strong reason to maintain the illusion of science for their theory: Money. Awarding themselves PhD's and grants and prestigious positions in colleges and universities they have a very basic emotional link to protect and defend evolution from all critics.

---

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!The vast, vast majority of Biologists make in the neighborhood of mid five-figure salary. They are comfortable, but not wealthy by any means. NOBODY becomes a Biologist at a University to get rich. Sure, Gould and a few others can command six figures from Harvard, but they are at the pinnacle of their fields, and I would say that they make most of their money through the publication and popularity of their popular press books, not their salaries.Compared to the likes of Bakker, Robertson, Reed, and Schuler, scientists are paupers, indeed. [QUOTE]At least the "Creation Scientist" is following a more noble goal - that of declaring the glory of God in creation. Such men are usually subject to the whim of the evolutionist who have co-opted most, if not all, of the research funds and hold most of the seats of authority in education and science. Certainly, they cannot be criticizing evolution because they want to protect their own jobs!Robert[/B][/QUOTE]Ah, yes, it can't possibly be that Creation 'scientists' are simply bad/incompetant scientists (at worst, liars), and that Creation 'sicnce' has religion and the Bible at it's core rather than evidnece and the scientific method, can it?It has to be a great conspiracy!BTW, I can back up my claims. Just ask.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert:
[b]Greetings:Mark asks for an example of a Scientific theory? Einstein's General Relativity Theory.Gene wants me to be more clear about Evolutionary theory. OK. How does Evolution explain the jump from original single-celled animals in the primordial goo 10 billion years ago to multi-celled animsals. Can they (or you) demonstrate that such can happen? You say that there is an abundance of evidence for it - well? Show me!Schrafinator does not seem to comprehend that all of the biologists he is referring to would be out of a job if the theory of evolution was found to be false.[/QUOTE]Um, hardly. It would be an even more exiting and dynamic era in Biology and other fields as well if the ToE was shown to be wrong. You know, Physicists didn't lose their jobs when Einstein came along and revolutionized basic physics beyond Newton. The point is, if you show a scientist good evidence, they will change their views. You are under the wrong impression that scientists are upholding an unchangeable dogma, similar to what religions do. Science is evidenciary in nature, not dogmatic.

quote:

---

He then compares their salaries to oddballs like Bakker, Schuller et all. I was hoping for a more intelligent response, because I was thinking of men who are in the science field like Russell Humphreys, or Michael Behe.

---

You are losing track of what the point is. The point is, you said that the reason Biologists need to "protect" the ToE is because of money. I countered that most Biologists don't make a lot of money. Do you still contend that most Biologists make a lot of money?

quote:

---

Strange, that all of you who think you know so much cannot even respond intelligently to the most basic of questions:

---

Be careful where you point that finger, Robert. So far, you are in the lead in the Evading and Ignoring Questions race.

quote:

---

Where is your evidence that single-celled animals behave in a way that produces multi-celled animals?

---

Here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/At the very beginning Evolution fails the test.Robert[/b][/QUOTE]1) Why didn't you reply to my comment on your misrepresentation of the theory, Robert? Here it is again:

quote:

---

Are you saying that Darwinism does not say that life started in the oceans 10 billion years ago with the first formation of single-celled animals in the primordial goo?

---

Allison (quoting myself): This is better, and more a accurate representation of the theory. This is not what you said in your first post, however. You said:

quote:

---

quote: According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal.

---

Allison(quoting myself): Evolutionary theory does not predict that single celled organisms would give birth to multi-celled animals.2) You have not answered my request to explain your claim about the "scientificness" of the ToE. Here it is again:

quote:

---

Allison: Now, considering that the ToE has (copious) positive evidence to support it, potential falsifications which have not been
observed, and many, many testable hypothesese, how is it not scientific?

---

I also notice how you, without any comment, have dropped all of your political talk. I am happy about that, but tell me, why did you think it had any relevance in the first place, and do you see that your representation of communism was rather off-base?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

You're right, of course.I was in a hurry (lame excuse). Alliso

OK, if you really read my message, then why do you keep referring to me as a "he"?, when I put my name (Allison), in it?LOL!Regards,AllisonPS You still didn't answer most of my questions. Remember, this is a debate board. You posted seveal posts which had a LOT of content and made a LOT of claims. Now that we have begun to address these claims with counter evidence, you seem to be backing away. While I understand the lack of time, and there is certainly no time limit for repies, just realize that it might be a better strategy for you to bring up a single issue in a post if you cannot devote much time to the discussion.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
1)Why can`t those alleles change? Which ones are they? What evidence do you have that these "species alleles" are a) different from the plain old garden variety, and b) unable to change?

​

Or is it an off shoot of some a priori notion that speciation cannot occur?

​

2)Well lets define species as organisms that can breed sucsessfully to produce fertile offspring....
Are horses and donkeys the same species? they can mate to produce hybrid offspring but those offspring are sterile... Surely if they were the same species they would produce fertile offspring....

​

So I`d advance the example of horses and donkeys as an example of a recently diverged (speciated) (macroevolved) line........

---

Actually, very occasionally a fertile mule is produced. See more here: http://www.hamill.co.uk/british_mule_soc/fertile.htmlIf donkeys and horses were wild and shared ranges, and given the right selection pressures and a niche to fill, a new species could certainly
branch off, I should think. It is unlikely, though, because there aren't many wild horse and donkey ranges on Earth.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Inferential logic used in other fields of science?

---

Yes, all fields of science, actually.Like my electron example:Nobody, anywhere, has EVER directly observed an electron. We INFER the existence of electrons by the evidence of their effects.So, if you do not accept inference as a valid part of science, then you, by logical consequence, must not accept the existence of electrons because they have never been observed.So much for physics, eh? Not a very scientific field.

quote:

---

Someone here accused me of misrepresenting communism though I have never mentioned it, but applying Darwinian logic to Political Science has had a devastating effect on government. Are you claiming that Social Darwinism is valid? If so, then Hitler's references to Evolution are legitimate? As well as Stalin? Mao? and Mussolini?

---

Someone using a scientific theory to attempt to justify their political or social dogma is misusing the theory. Therefore, the scientific theory is not rendered invalid because it has been ill-used. The only thing that renders a scientific theory partially or fully "invalid" is another scientific theory with supporting evidence, testable hypothese, and potential falsifications which haven't already been falsified....which explains the phenomena better than the first theory.Likewise, the KKK's use of Biblical themes and verses does not invalidate Christianity just because the KKK uses the Bible to justify it's criminal and immoral behavior. I could make the same statement about slavery, wife-beating and the view of women as chattel, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Troubles in Ireland, etc.

quote:

---

Evolutionists have defined "science" within their own limited values, thus, that which criticizes or disagrees with evolution is distinctly non-scientific.

---

This is a resoundingly false statement.What on Earth makes you think that the "defining of science" is limited to the field of Evolutionary Biology?Science is, pretty much, science, no matter what the field of study.The ToE follows the same rules as the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory of Matter, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System.The fact of evolution, THAT it happened, is not in dispute, because it's hypothese are testable and tested, there is copious positive evidence in support of it, and the potential falsifications of it's predictions have not been observed.There is quite a bit of contention within the scientific community about the MECHANISMS of evolution. HOW it happened, IOW.

quote:

---

A noble person is one who strives for something outside of his own selfish ends. In seeking to serve God by submitting to the ridicule of their fellow scientists it seems that Creationists are serving a more noble goal.

---

How is it noble to do science poorly in order to further a religious agenda?A question: Is it an acceptable tenet of science, in your opinion, to decide ahead of time what one is supposed to find in nature based upon a particular interpretation of a religious book, and disregard all contradictory evidence to this a priori notion?

quote:

---

Evolutionists, on the other hand, seem only interested in defending the status quo.

---

ROTFLMAO!!!!This is silly.Have you ever heard of Punctuated Equilibrium? The New Synthesis?Have you ever been to a scientific conference?Careers are MADE by upsetting the status quo! The only thing which will do so, however, is properly-gathered evidence, and a theory which explains the evidence which has also survived many tests (it's predictions have been borne out).OTOH, how has Creationism fundamentally changed in the last, say, 50 years? What discoveries have Creation "scientists" made? Through which innovations and discoveries have Creation "scientists" enabled us to better understand the mechanisms of natural phenomena? What predictions has Creation 'science' made about natural phenomena which have been borne out?

quote:

---

As I understand it there are many objections to evolution in the biological sciences, but many of these scientists are too afraid of being labelled "creationists" or "non-scientists" by their peers.

---

Ah, more conspiracy theory.Unless you have evidence of this, it isn't your "understanding".It's your wishful thinking.Look, if these closeted creationists were real scientists with real evidence which severely undermined the ToE, then they would publish their real evidence in a real scientific journal to be dissected and criticized just like every other real scientific article. If it had merit, it would be devastating to the ToE, but the scientist who uncovers this evidence would have the scientific world at her/his feet!Then other scientists would amend their views in light of this new, amazing evidence. This is exactly what happened with Einstein.I wonder why this hasn't happened in 140 years?Regards,Allison------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-26-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:

​

Do we now have a new species of mules who can reproduce on their own? Your example does not fit your assertions concerning evolution.

​

As to the other part I will look up my references and get back to you.

​

Thanks again

​

Robert

---

Please see my message #32 in this thread. There are rare cases of fertile mules which have given birth to foals, sometimes multiple times.Actually, if you look to plants, you will find hybridizing leading to new species quite frequently. Here is one example: 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."------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Yeah but aren`t they always female?

​

So you can`t breed mules with mules to set up a new (sub?)species....

​

And don`t the fertile mules have to be bred to horses or donkeys?

​

So all you can get out is a horse, donkey or (most of the time sterile) mule...

---

From the link I posted, but I don't know if it is verified:"In the 1980s, there were cases of a fertile mule and a fertile hinny in China and mules in the USA and Brazil who produced more than one foal!"Another quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/scienceqa/archive/950523a.html"And one male foal produced by breeding a mare mule and a stallion was later able to sire some colts." http://www.murphymules.com/page553827.htm"Although not fully understood, from 1527 to 1990 approximately 60 live births of foals to mules had been reported in Europe, the U.S., South America, North Africa and China. Quite a bit of study has gone into
the infertility of mules and the few reported live foal births from mules, but until a modern birth is fully investigated and found to be substantiated through science, it would definitely be safe to say that mules are an infertile hybrid. Even if you consider some or all reported live foal births to mules to be true, it would represent a very small fraction that, while significant to the scientific aspect of mules, would still only warrant an asterisk beside the word fertile."

quote:

---

Also, horses and donkeys are put together by artificial selection not natural selection: they do not willingly mate.

---

Here, you are quite incorrect.They most certainly do willingly mate. Otherwise, we wou;dn't have mules before artificial insemination was developed.

I did a Google search on the quote and came up with this Creationist site which lists a great many out-of-context quotes, including those of Dawkins and Gould."Misleading" would be a tactful, generous way to describe what is going on at this site: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/challenge9.htmlHome page: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Allison points out a variety of goatsweed that has adapted itself to the North American environment. Since the new "species" is still considered a member of the goatsweed family I would say that the person writing the article is playing fast and loose with the word "species". A doberman and a schnauzer are still both considered "dogs".

---

You didn't read the example very well.The new species of goatsbeard cannot breed with the parent species from which it evolved.Dobermans and Schnauzers can still mate and produce fertile offspring, so the comparison is not valid.Care to address this?Perhaps you don't understand what species are, or what speciation is?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"