On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

This is the Science Forum and you are posting creation "science?"Gimme a break! Creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science. Perhaps it should be in another forum, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is factually incorrect, and will remain incorrect no matter how many times creationists claim it.It is a reflection of their belief in scriptures, and "the fall." It is not something that has been found to be accurate by biologists.On the contrary, harmful mutations are weeded out quickly by natural selection. The more harmful the mutation the quicker it is weeded out. Beneficial mutations tend to spread throughout a population.Again, creation "science" is wrong. Again we see that it is the exact opposite of real science.Here's a reference.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When folks start throwing out those huge numbers which purport to "prove" that evolution is impossible, I like to refer them to the following:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

​

Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

​

Researchchannel.org

​

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

​

Perhaps the problem is that the mathematicians who come up with those gross numbers, and the creationists who delight in spreading them around, are not very good at biology and have missed the essential point of how mutations actually work in a population. The above video featuring a lecture by a biologist provides an example of how genetic networks are actually robust instead of unlikely--contrary to what some mathematicians have come up with.Here is a simple example of two different ways of computing odds:Your task is to roll 25 dice and come up with all sixes.

--You can roll all 25 dice until your arm falls off and the mountains melt down and you'll probably never come up with 25 sixes. Or...

​

--You can roll the 25 dice and keep all the sixes, rolling again only those which are not sixes. Using this approach you'll be home in time for dinner.

The mathematicians who produce those trillions upon trillions odds are using the first method. (Or, as one creationist posted repeatedly on another website, the odds against evolution are 1⁷²⁰ against. He couldn't understand why folks didn't take him seriously.)But biological evolution within populations is much more akin to the second method.Given this, I tend to doubt those huge scare numbers when they are posted by creationists.Perhaps you can back up those numbers with actual peer-reviewed biological data?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Take a few anatomy, osteology, and paleontology classes then check these out. You'll find just the evidence you are denying (click to enlarge):

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are wrong in everything you say here.And yes, I am a bone expert. From bones I can tell a great deal about the individuals and how they lived. Age, sex, height, build, pathological conditions, injuries, diet, and sometimes even probable cause of death can all be told from bones. Using DNA we can tell a great deal about lineages and relationships. Specialists can tell a whole lot more than just the basics I've mentioned above.And that information, in turn, can be used to study anthropology, paleodemography, migration patterns, and a host of other specialized fields--including aspects of biology and zoology.(You are trying to substitute fervent religious belief for real-world knowledge. It isn't working. See tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When Darwin published his Origin only one hominid fossil was readily available, and it was not well understood having been found only a couple of years earlier. A few other hominid fossils had been found, but their placement was not yet understood. Dating studies were limited as well.So are you saying that what Darwin wrote 150 years ago, with that paucity of fossils, still holds today? Are you unaware that the field of paleontology has made great advances since 1859? And that dating studies have advanced tremendously as well?Darwin was being cautious, as scientists generally are. Nothing wrong with that, is there?But if the reader (for example, you) has not kept up with current findings, Darwin is hardly to blame.And in fact, Darwin has been shown to be substantially correct in his estimation of the "presumption of geological time and fossils within in it," whereas creationists have consistently made incorrect pronunciations on these same issues. YEC is just one example. There are many more.(See tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If you were aware of the studies of such authors as Rightmire, McHenry, and Corruccini (and many others), applying multivariate analyses to human bones and early hominid fossils, you would not make such a statement.Just google these gentlemen and see what they have written.Ignorance is not bliss. Unfortunately, it is the creationists' stock in trade.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.