Question Evolution!

Chuck, you have been given an answer, so what exactly are you looking for here?Are you asking to be pointed to the literally thousands of research papers on this topic?Are you asking bluegenes to summarise this immense body of work in a few succint sentences that you can understand?Are you claiming that such research doesn't exist?Are you claiming that such research is wrong in its entirety?Are you claiming that such research will never succeed?

I'm asking for someone anyone to explain the 15 questions and not give one word answers without supporting evidence.For instance "chemical evolution by natural selction"YES, SOME EVIDENCE WOULD SUFFICE THAT NATURAL SELCTION IS RESPONSIBLE.Can you provide it? <---- smiley.

Then you are asking for something different from the original 15 questions.

The sad fact is that with many of the possibilities for abiogenesis, we may never find evidence of the particular route that life took. It is just too far in the past and occured at a time in Earth's history that was rather catastrophic. The best we can really hope for is to find theories of abiogenesis that are plausible and uncontradictory, with supporting evidence from lab work.Is this a problem?Is your argument really so poor as: "if you cannot definitively say how it happened, therefore God" ???

There are a number of problems with the questions.1. Some of the answers are either 'we don't know' or 'we don't know exactly'. This is taken by creationists as an admission of defeat for evolution when it is nothing of the sort.2. Some of the questions are poorly worded or rely on understandings that a clearly faulty. Therefore they cannot be answered directly, and instead the answer has to be a correction of the misapprehension that lies behind them. This is like saying 'If the book of Romans was written by Romans, why did St Paul hate the Church of Corinth?'. It is a gramattically correct question, but it is still nonsense. And when someone responds to such a question with 'But Romans wasn't written by Romans', this is taken as avoiding the question. Much like creationists have taken some of the responses to some of these questions.3. Other answers have taken books, or weeks of tutoring for students who already have an impressive background in the subject at hand. These cannot be answered quickly, easily and in a way that can even be understood by the majority of humans (let alone creationists who have their own baggage) without extensive training. This inability to succinctly answer, in an understandable fashion, is seen as a victory for the anti-evolutionists.4. Creationists cannot use their models to provide better answers.Poor form indeed.

Yes they do.If you ask a man: "What's your name?" and he says "John", then he has answered the question. He may not have shown you his birth certificate to prove it, but he has answered the question. The evidence for evolution lies principally in genetics, morphology, embryology, the paleontology, biogeography, and behavioral ecology. I may have missed one or two sciences there, it's getting late. I'm sure you will find these things amply discussed on this forum, or I'm sure you would find them if you could be bothered to look.But the question, mercifully, did not ask us to teach half-a-dozen branches of science to a creationist, it just asked a question to which the answer is in fact the one word "evolution".Now if you want more information, you are free to ask for it, here or on a thread where it's on topic, but don't pretend that the original list of questions hasn't been answered, 'cos it has.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hey Chuck,You seem very unhappy with Panda's answers but you are not providing any reason why they are not correct.I will expand on one of the answers (even though it does not need it) in the hope that it is more pleasing to you. Pandas answer from Message 8 was - It isn't.This answer is 100% accurate but does not offer much in the way of details. I will expand on the answer.The first most obvious problem to my eyes is the idea that natural selection is taught as evolution. Panda's answer is that 'it isnt' and this is 100% correct.Natural selection -
A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.
(Source : Natural selection - Biology Online Dictionary)Evolution -
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.(Source: Evolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary)So one reason 'it isnt' is that natural selection is not taught as evolution. Not in any scince clases anyway. It is possible that in some creationist propaganda centers, subjects like natural selection and evolution may be taught in such confusing and misunderstood ways that this mistake may arise. We are doing what we can to fix this, hence my challenge in Message 110.Another reason 'it isnt' is that neither natural selection or evolution make any comment with regards to the origin of life.The link provided (15 questions for evolutionists - creation.com) makes a very serious and obvious mistake by suggesting that evolution (biological evolution) and the General Theory of Evolution as defined by Gerald A. Kerkut are the same thing. They provide links to support their claims, but the links go to articles on their own website. That is pretty poor academicaly speaking, supporting your claims with links to more of your own claims does not take you anywhere. So I had to look elsewhere.Not surprisingly, the General theory of evolution as described in the brochure is found on creationist websites where it is incorrectly used to confuse readers in the same way as CMI is using it. Some creationist websites cant stomach this level of dishonesty and include statements like this - (Source : Theory of evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science)Even the folks over at Answers in Genesis know that the General Theory of Evolution and natuarl selection are different things - (Source : Missing Link | Answers in Genesis )As even creationist sources try to ensure that people do not make this mistake, I am surprised that the mistake is still being made. Are you still making this mistake? Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as biological evolution?So that is the second reason why 'it isnt' is a good answer.The link originally provided for these questions contains this phrase - (Source: 15 questions for evolutionists - creation.com)Seriously Chuck. You have been on this site for a while now. You can't tell me that this sentence does not make you wince. It does not deserve any better an answer than 'is doesn't and it has never claimed to'.My explanation of Panda's answers is by no means the full story. Just a few reasons why his answers are correct.Will you need me to expand on all of the answers or will you be willing to attempt a rebuttal of Panda's answers directly?*Panda, I hope I have not stolen your thunder here but his reply was to my post.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Hello all,I wanted to make sure that members did not miss this message as it may have been lost amongst a few fast posts -Please check here Message 110 for mny challenge to CMI on all of our behalf.cheers,BT

Absolutely the best response yet! Cheers!HBD

Hi Anel, I'm Percy, I wrote all the code for EvC Forum. It would be a great help to me if you could describe the problems you experienced while trying to use "EvC's e-mail system."

I put it here because you had submitted a proposal that I thought we could work into a thread suitable for the science forums, but you changed your mind after I promoted this, saying it was sufficient that the original thread from Anel was moved (not promoted) to the Coffee House. People seem willing to give you scientific answers in this thread anyway, but if you'd prefer one of the science forums then just let me know and I'll reopen that thread so that we can complete the proposal process.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

I think you meant to say, "Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as *natural selection*?"--Percy

BT:
I say send it! We need fresh meat around here anyway.

I dunno, that sounds like a lot of work.Let me echo Dr. A's point, and ask: what have you done to deserve that much work from the rest of us? I mean, you didn't even come up with the questions, Chuck - you just copied and pasted what somebody else wrote. You're asking us to do quite a bit of research, writing, and very patient explaining of very complicated scientific concepts for you, and for what?I mean, it's not like you're going to be convinced, right? We could do exactly what you say - answer each question in excruciating detail with supporting evidence, and you're just going to claim that our evidence is manufactured, because you believe that evolution is a lie and that all evolutionists are therefore liars. So why should we even bother? It's been months since anybody thought that you were someone who took discussion seriously. You're a troll and you're trolling us with copypasta. That's, like, the lowest possible form of trolling. What on Earth have you ever done to deserve what you're asking for? None of us give a shit whether you believe in evolution or not. It's real and it doesn't need your permission to happen and we don't need your permission to study it.

I'd be interested to see what the response is and we could do with some new creos around here.