Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 283 (101674)
04-21-2004 7:57 PM


I have heard many times that the Theory of Evolution is "bad science". It has never been made clear to me what makes evolution bad, but other theories that rely on inference, such as inner earth geology, are considered good science.
I would prefer to stay away from religious issues and focus primarily on the practice of science. If it is appropriate, the exclusion of God can be a topic, but you must also show how exclusion of God within other fields of science, such as biochemistry, does not invalidate that research as well.
I am hoping that this can be a thread where those of us familiar with the PRACTICE of science can convey the logic behind the methodologies within science. I find that those that attack science are usually those that are the least familiar with actually practicing science.
Well, enough of the preaching. I only ask that we all try and stay away from invoking scripture, but instead focus on what makes bad and good science.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 04-23-2004 4:07 AM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-23-2004 7:54 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 36 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 06-09-2004 1:11 AM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 75 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-16-2004 12:53 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 207 by Phat, posted 05-03-2006 12:06 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 230 by smegma, posted 07-19-2006 3:19 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 244 by vampcat., posted 09-22-2009 8:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 245 by vampcat., posted 09-22-2009 8:46 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 278 by simple, posted 06-24-2010 11:48 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 283 (101800)
04-22-2004 4:48 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Oliver, posted 02-10-2010 3:53 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 283 (102119)
04-23-2004 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
04-21-2004 7:57 PM


Bump,
Good question, lets try to get some creationists in here to answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 7:57 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Monsieur_Lynx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 283 (102294)
04-23-2004 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
04-21-2004 7:57 PM


The reason why the theory of evolution is considered "bad science" is, well, I guess based on many reasons. I'll try and outline them as best I can
1)Most of the evidence put forth by evolution can equally be used as evidence for creation.
a)"microevolution"--changes in a population, for example, *bacteria* evolving into other kinds of *bacteria*. Because we've evolved new forms of bacteria is by no means an argument that all plants and animals evolved from a single cell!
b)Similarities--This comes in various forms, similarities of DNA, similarities of fossils, embryonic similarities, homologous structures, the list goes on. Simply put, the similarities can point to a common designer rather than a common ancestor. As a crude example, consider similarities among various pieces composed by the same musician--they may show signs of similarities, but this does not imply they are a modification of 1 piece of music!
c)Fossils--Yes, there are plenty of fossils. But the mere presence of a fossil is not evidence for evolution. In fact, even if the fossil record showed signs of gradual change it might not be evidence.
Consider: So let's say there's me, and my pet chimp (hypothetical). The chimp dies, its remains get fossilized over time. Meanwhile my descendants propagate, and several million years later, some of their remains get fossilized in the same area. Neither the similarity between the monkey and human fossils, nor the geographic strata in which they're found is evidence that the "older, primitive" chimp fossil evolved into the "more complex, newer" human" fossil. Also, (I'm going to generate a storm of controversy over this!) there are huge gaps in the fossil record, and there's no need to assume that such "transitional forms" existed.
Another reason why evolution is considered poor science is the frequent use of either misleading proof, or outright forgeries that are used in support of evolution
Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's embryonic similarities, there are quite a few of these forgeries. That's not to say all evidence for evolution is forged, just the presence of such things is a bit disturbing. You rarely see forgeries used as evidence in other areas of science!
Arguments which are misleading are a bit common. For example, many textbooks show charts where the DNA similarities between various organisms are compared. Humans and chimps have very similar DNA. Whereas, humans and plants are not as similar. This evidence, in and of itself is not controversial--rather it's the bizarre conclusion--based on these similarities/dissimilarities we can say when, or even if they share a common ancestor??! Once again, consider performing an exact experiment, where one compares several pieces of music, analyzing their similarities and tries to "determine" if they are a modification of one piece of music. The problem becomes readily apparent--one has to first **ASSUME** that all life is descended from a common ancestor, rather than trying to prove that.
Finally, last but not least, evolution contradicts some of the most basic laws of nature that we've observed time and time again. Fish produce fish--they don't produce legged creatures. Scaly cold-blooded reptiles produce other scaly cold-blooded reptiles, not warm-blooded creatures with hair or feathers. Any cell that reproduces asexually produces 2 identical offspring (1 produces 2). Whereas any creature that reproduces sexually has a mother AND a father (2 produce 1). There seems to be no reason to get from one to the other, nor has such a thing ever been observed. A seedless plant produces seedless plants. A plant that produces seeds comes from a plant that produces seeds. Yet again we see no violation of this in nature, but evolution rests on such absurd ideas as all plants sharing a common ancestor, bacterial cells evolving into multicellular organisms, mammals that produce live-young evolving from creatures that laid eggs, etc.
Monsier Lynx
{Edited to add some of the blank lines - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 7:57 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Gary, posted 04-23-2004 10:46 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2004 7:03 AM Monsieur_Lynx has replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2004 9:24 AM Monsieur_Lynx has replied
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2004 10:37 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 32 by Taqless, posted 06-08-2004 12:14 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 34 by MrHambre, posted 06-08-2004 3:22 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 35 by Loudmouth, posted 06-08-2004 6:16 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 147 by Whirlwind, posted 11-30-2004 8:08 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 210 by Whirlwind, posted 05-15-2006 6:16 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 283 (102329)
04-23-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-23-2004 7:54 PM


What about the fact that mitochondrial DNA evidence supports an evolutionary tree similar to the one produced by making deductions based on the anatomy of organisms? If species A and species B diverged a long time ago, they will have mutated in different ways, while if species C is closely related to B, it will have most of B's mutations.
Also, with your chimp example, why would only the chimp fossilize, and none of the humans? If real events occured in that fashion, we might have mammal fossils discovered alongside Cambrian creatures such as trilobites, and we could therefore assume that the trilobites and mammals lived in the same time period. Such fossils have not been found so it can be assumed that trilobites went extinct before mammals evolved.
There are plenty of transitional fossils and no major gaps in the fossil record. The transitional fossils include species intermediate between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, fish and amphibians, and land-dwelling mammals and aquatic mammals like whales, to name a few. If you like, I can find you links with more information on each of these transitions. I would like to know what, if any, gaps or missing links evolutionists expect to find that haven't been found so far.
I admit that when a line is drawn between two fossil species, it creates the question of what existed between the two, but that doesn't mean that for a phylogenetic tree to be drawn, you have to include every single organism's family tree.
Creationism is fraught with forgeries, more so than is the Theory of Evolution. Look at people like Kent Hovind and Jack Chick, among others. Creationists will make up evidence to support their side, and then will refuse to retract it when it is shown to be false. Human fossils such as the Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, when shown to be hoaxes, are no longer treated as evidence for anything.
It seems to me that creationism is merely a psuedoscience, while evolutionary biology rests on solid evidence. There is no evidence for or against a Creator so it is pointless, to me at least, to assume that all the organisms alive today did not evolve into their present state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-23-2004 7:54 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 283 (102378)
04-24-2004 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-23-2004 7:54 PM


Well your argument is pretty much wrong through and through.
Can the evidence for evolution also be truthfully used as evidence for creation - and woult it matter if it could ? To take the last part first it would NOT matter. Most of the evidence for Newtonian mechaninics is also evidence for General Relativity (becuase they overlap to a very great degree) - neither is poor science because of this.
But as for your list of evidence.
a) Microevolution *is* evolution. Therefore it is *more* than evidence for evolution. I also note that you offer no reason why it should be considered evidence for creation.
b) The pattern opf similarities can be used to construct a tree of evolutionary relationships. While there are areas of uncertainty much of it is settled. It resembles the pattern expected from common descent rather than that expected from design. Properly considered this evidence supports evolution over creation.
c) The fossil record records a long history of change in the life present on this planet. Before it was properly understood the believers in creation held that there had been no significant change - certainly there is no hint of it in Genesis. This alone is evidence for evolution over creation. THe fossil record is also part of the evidence we can use to construct the tree of evolutionary rtelationships - and it fits in very well.
So in every case the evidence you raised favours evolution over creation.
Now not one of the "frauds" you listed was used to support evolution specifically. The motivation ofr Piltdown Man is unkown. Nebraska Man was not even a fraud. Haeckel's embryo drawings were done to support his beliefs (and in fact also supported similar creationist beliefs that had been proposed before Haeckel).
Your reference to genetic similarities - again - fails to consider the actual evidence. The fact is that by using samples from many species we can - again - contruct a pattern of evolutionary relationships and it agrees very well with thw one we get by considering just physical similarities.
We also have plenty of evidence that fish gave rise to land animals (fossils such as Eusthenopteron, Icthyostega and Acanthostega) that reptiels gave rise to mammals (a whole heap of fossils - including the change in jaw structure) even single celled animals exchange genetic material and most seedless plants are the product of human interference.
So the simple answer is that EVERY ONE of your reasons is an example where you are unaware of the full evidence - typically even a fraction of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-23-2004 7:54 PM Monsieur_Lynx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-24-2004 10:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 283 (102386)
04-24-2004 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-23-2004 7:54 PM


1)Most of the evidence put forth by evolution can equally be used as evidence for creation.
How is a pattern of negative correlation between fossil plant complexity and depth of placement in the geologic column (that is, the deeper you dig, the simpler plants get) evidence for creation?
In fact, even if the fossil record showed signs of gradual change it might not be evidence.
Let's say I have a series of polaroids in a certain order. They show you standing in front of various American landmarks from the east to west coast. While the pictures are undated, they're put in relative order, such that the order of landmarks in the picture is the same as the order if you were to drive from the east coast to the west coast and visit each of these landmarks along the way.
Now, true. The pictures don't show you actually in your car, on the move. A picture is a still record. And neither do they have absolute dates, only relative ones. But wouldn't you have to be obtuse in the extreme not to come to the conclusion that these photos represent a visual record of a trip you took, starting at the Statue of Liberty and heading west?
I'd say you would - or else motivated by a desperate need to support an ideological position, no matter the evidence to the contrary.
The rest of your post displays a staggering ignorance of biology, where you specifically claim a number of things impossible that have actually been observed to occur (spontaneous colonality in single-celled organisms, etc.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-23-2004 7:54 PM Monsieur_Lynx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-24-2004 10:21 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Monsieur_Lynx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 283 (102489)
04-24-2004 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
04-24-2004 9:24 AM


OK, I sort of skimmed the surface of the evolution vs. creation debate. Can you actually try and understand the Creationist view?
I'll attempt to explain it, but don't take my word for it, you'll probably hear much better explanations from other sources.
First off, I want to take a little bit of time to elaborate on that analogy I tried to explain--musical pieces (which at first may sound totally irrelevant!). I pick up several pieces of music, and I observe a very high degree of similarity. For example, one sheet of music very closely resembles another. On the basis of these similarities I infer that they are a modification of one piece of music!! I analyze very meticulously how these various pieces differ from one another, and construct a tree based on that. Those that share more similarities branched off more recently (say, a while ago, there was the Moonlight Sonata. As typographical errors become introduced to the music, it becomes modified SO much from the original, that you must say it is a completely different piece!).
How, tell me does this differ from the approach taken by biologists? And taking that Polaroid example, there's no inherent contradiction in going from the East coast to the West coast. Yes, if you showed me a photo album I can infer those intermediates without actually showing me evidence of it!
With evolution we have contradictions all over the place. Take the supposed evolution of birds from reptiles. Fossils like Archaeopteryx, a bird, with feathers, wings, etc. have transitional features to that of a reptile? Simply digging up bird fossils, or finding lungfish--fish that have lungs, but the fin structure of, well fish, that's not saying much, other than, well, such organisms exist. If I asked you where a lungfish comes from--you'll say it comes from other lungfish. If I ask you want lungfish produce, you'll say they produce,not amphibians, not perch, but lungfish.
Simpler plants being found deeper in the fossil record? I can say that life was created separately, so I'm not violating any natural laws. Seedless plants continue to produce seedless plants. The first fruit-bearing plants that were created, well, I don't need to imagine an explanation for how a Palm tree, a fern, a venus fly-trap, and a Redwood tree can all result merely through genetic variation.
On the other hand--how do you explain the fact that the "evidence" presented for evolution is almost exclusively restricted to bacteria evolving into bacteria, the evolution of horses--that is one kind of horse population producing another kind of horse population, one kind of pachyderm evolving into another kind of pachyderm, drosophila, though acquiring mutations, producing drosophila with extra limbs. Do you really believe this is evidence that egg-laying creatures, like monotremes, and creatures that produce live young, like humans, share a common ancestor as well? If you do believe that all mammals share a common ancestor--would this have laid eggs--if so, wouldn't it continue to produce eggs (natural selection: if a mother is able to produce multiple young at once, the population grows much faster. Also, the young of egg-laying creatures don't depend on their mother's existence, whereas the young of creatures that develop in the womb--if the mother dies, so does the child!) Wouldn't natural selection automatically weed out a creature that loses the ability to reproduce asexually(so it can no longer multiply as fast as its competition)?
Spontaneous colonality in bacteria? Once again, you're telling me that bacteria form colonies--I already knew that from high school bio!! What's your point--do you know the difference between a colony and multicelular organism? A colony is **many** organisms each composed of 1 cell. A multicellular organism is **1** organism, composed of many cells. Why can't you get one from the other--you can see for yourself.
So there's a population of humans, several distinct organisms. Let's take you and your friend. You can spend as much time together as you like, however you will always be **you**, and your friend will always be distinct from you. If you have children, he has children, they too will be distinct organisms. Just because you live together doesn't mean that you will become "one" organism.
Do you get where I'm going with that argument? It's absurd to even imagine a colony of bacterial cells becoming 1 organism! Sure, they can cooperate, and to an unintelligent observer, they will certainly seem to be "one" organism. But just the way a population of humans will never become one organism composed of humans, a population of grass will never become a single organism composed of grass, a population of bees will never become one organism (now, they may function as one unit, that's a different story!), so too, multicellularity cannot arise from a colony of cells.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2004 9:24 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 04-24-2004 10:49 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 33 by MrHambre, posted 06-08-2004 2:23 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 77 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-16-2004 4:17 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
Monsieur_Lynx
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 283 (102493)
04-24-2004 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
04-24-2004 7:03 AM


Regarding the first point--You know how creationists say that a handful of creatures were created in the beginning (they don't need to be created in the same exact instant, they could even be created gradually)? Specifically, 2 of each sexually reproducing kind (so you can't just create a male bat,or just a female fish, you need to have both of each species, so that the creatures can mate and proliferate. Even for worms, if you somehow evolve a worm with male & female reproductive organs, ANOTHER worm has to also have compatible reproductive organs,right?). No creationist would ever try and argue something like "God created dachshunds, and german shepards, and golden retrievers, and...". Rather seeing all the diversity in the population of dogs, and at the same time similarities among them, they can infer a common ancestor to all dogs. But how do we get so much variation in the population, if all that was created initially was one kind of dog? Microevolution!!
The idea is, once we have certain basic features, we can play around with them through selection, breeding, etc. and get quite a diverse range of characteristics. Except here's the catch--what if one of them evolves some structure not found in the rest of the population--like lungs. If a creature with lungs tries to mate with a creature that lacks said lungs--the DNA doesn't match up and you end up, with, well something like Down's syndrome, one of the parents has MORE DNA than the other, it doesn't match up--the offspring end up kinda retarded. If you were to say that something like lungs evolved gradually, we can see how creatures without lungs can survive, and creatures with lungs can survive, but what about something that doesn't quite perform the function of a lung? How would an intermediate be able to survive? And do we have evidence of such a creature, we'd need that first before saying amphibians evolved from fish.
Come on, the second argument is too easy. YOU take the similarities to try and construct a "tree of life". Someone who has a concept of intelligent design won't say "God A created amphibians. God B created fish." Instead they'd see the similarites and just the way several works by the same architect show similarities, the various creations of God show similarities as well. You have your beliefs, he has his beliefs. It's cool if you want to present yours as science, but can you let other views to also be presented as science? It resembles the evidence from evolution rather than creation? Why do you say that? How is the evidence *inconsistent* with the design theory. Are you saying that those fossils shouldn't be there if God separately created them, either at some point in the distant past, or over a period of time? I'm not quite sure I see why similarities, or fossils should EXCLUSIVELY be used as evidence of evolution. I'm sure the evidence that Pandas and Fig trees evolved from bacteria, could **probably** be used to support creationism as well (A creationist would probably say that Pandas, perhaps they evolved from other kinds of bears, but initially you had to create a male & female bear. As for the fig tree, that comes from a seed of a fig, that grew on a fig tree...so you had to create, maybe not that EXACT fig tree you see outside, but something resembling it. So no, they don't share a common ancestor with a bacteria. Nor would the evolution of bacteria produce those kinds of organisms.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2004 7:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-24-2004 10:45 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2004 5:51 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 283 (102497)
04-24-2004 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-24-2004 10:38 PM


Hi, ML. You might want to read
EvC Forum: Style Guides for EvC
for some tips on how to be read more easily around here.
And read up on slime molds. They're unicellular some of the time, and multicellular and cooperative at other times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-24-2004 10:38 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 283 (102500)
04-24-2004 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-24-2004 10:21 PM


Can you actually try and understand the Creationist view?
Having been a creationist, and being fairly familiar with the literature and arguments, yes, I believe that I can. The question is, can creationists truly understand the theory of evolution? All signs point to "not often."
How, tell me does this differ from the approach taken by biologists?
Because, to extend your analogy, they're looking at more than just the sheet music. Like, say, the liner notes, which have no effect on the sound of the music itself. If the liner notes are identical, word for word, then it's pretty obvious that what you're looking at is plagarism.
Biologists don't just find similarities and assume common ancestry. They look for similarities for which common ancestry is the most likely explanation, like the Vitamin C pseudogene that both apes and humans share, down to the identical genetic error that renders it non-functional. Why would apes and humans share an identical garbage gene if not because of common ancestry?
Simply digging up bird fossils, or finding lungfish--fish that have lungs, but the fin structure of, well fish, that's not saying much, other than, well, such organisms exist.
To go back to my Polaroid analogy, the fact that Gateway Arch in St. Louis is a national monument in it's own right doesn't mean that it's not a stop on the way from the Statue of Liberty to the Golden Gate Bridge - i.e. a transitional. All transitional fossils are organisms in their own right, just like the fact that because your dad is the transitional form between your grandpa and you doesn't make him any less of an individual.
On the other hand--how do you explain the fact that the "evidence" presented for evolution is almost exclusively restricted to bacteria evolving into bacteria, the evolution of horses--that is one kind of horse population producing another kind of horse population, one kind of pachyderm evolving into another kind of pachyderm, drosophila, though acquiring mutations, producing drosophila with extra limbs.
There's no such thing as "kinds." There are names we give to some animals, but those have no relevance to evolution. Evolution doesn't predict that cats will give rise to dogs or dogs to cats. It predicts that the most recent common ancestor of cats and dogs will be a mammal. It predicts that the first mammal will be a vertebrate, etc. Evolution is a bush, not a ladder. Species evolve out, not up.
Wouldn't natural selection automatically weed out a creature that loses the ability to reproduce asexually(so it can no longer multiply as fast as its competition)?
It would probably eliminate such an individual, yes. But individuals don't evolve. Populations do. And a population with sexual reproduction (note too that even asexual organisms have mechanisms for exchanging genetic material) has considerably greater disease resistance than one that does not. Which is why the majority of metazoan life is sexual.
Once again, you're telling me that bacteria form colonies--I already knew that from high school bio!! What's your point--do you know the difference between a colony and multicelular organism?
Specialization. That is, cells of different types. If you want examples of colonial organisms with rudimentary specialization, I can probably dig some up.
A colony is **many** organisms each composed of 1 cell. A multicellular organism is **1** organism, composed of many cells.
A sponge is a colony, but it's considered one organism. I think you'll find you've drawn a false distinction. A colony is a group of identical cells, each one able to function by itself. Metazoan life is a group of specialized cells decended from a single cell. Each cell gives up independant function to dedicate itself to a more specific function - aka specialization.
A number of species display rudimentary specialization. Clearly they're the link between colonial organisms and metazoan organisms that you claim can't exist.
And see the pattern so far? You've claimed that there's no halfway step between single-celled life and multicellular life. But there is - colonial life. Then you claimed that there's no halfway step between colonial life and multicellular life, but there is - things like sponges or meduseans with rudimentary specialization. You can try to posit these uncrossable chasms, but the probem you have is that life has already filled them with things that live halfway between.
It's absurd to even imagine a colony of bacterial cells becoming 1 organism!
Absurd for you, perhaps. All they have to do is specialize.
multicellularity cannot arise from a colony of cells.
Says you. Life begs to differ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-24-2004 10:21 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 283 (102562)
04-25-2004 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-24-2004 10:38 PM


No, you haven't answered the first point. You need to explain how microevolution is evidence FOR creationism. You can't just say that the evidence is so good that creationists have to accept it.
To answer the two specific points raised. Sexual reproduction would have started with hermaphroditic creatures (like snails) - evolution would not have suddenly produced a lone female or male from an asexually reproducing creature.
Lungs developed in creatures which already had gills. The function is unclear (it's a long time ago, we don't have many elevant fossils - and soft tissue is very rarely preserved) although it could have been related to buoyancy control - or perhaps more likely the ability to gain even a small amount of atmospheric oxygen (by "gulping") could have been helpful. You don't need a full-fledged lung for either.
The second argument is only "easy" if you ignore the work that goes into it - and the fact that "trees" created for objects which did use common design elements come out looking rather different (Niles Eldredge did one for a musical instrument - the cornet - as reported in New Scientist 26 July 2003). We also have the case of DIFFERENT "designs" used to do the same job (for instance the whole range of flagella - in particular the difference between archaea and bacteria). So I am afraid that my view is legitimate science while the opposing view is an ad hoc explanation which is not supported by the evidence - and therefore does not belong in school at all.
As for the rest of your confused post do you understand that "consistent with" does NOT mean "evidence for" (it CAN do if there is a very narrow range of possibilities that are consistent with a theory but that is not the case of ID).
We can't use fossils and similarities as evidence for ID unless they really ARE evidence for ID. As I have pointed out properly considered they favour evolution over ID. So we can't use them as evidence for ID over evolution - indeed we would actually need some concrete theory which explains the observed similarities and the observed fossils before we could honestly do so - and even then unless the explanation was as good as evolutionary explanations we would still have to admit that the evidence favoured evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-24-2004 10:38 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 283 (112909)
06-05-2004 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx
04-23-2004 7:54 PM


1)Most of the evidence put forth by evolution can equally be used as evidence for creation.
including evidence of speciation, natural selection, genetics and mitochondrial dna, and a fossil record full of intermediate forms? i mean, in the the strictest sense of the word, evolution is a form of creationism, isn't it? if you wanna believe god made the world 6,000 years ago in 6 days, and i wanna believe he's been making it through natural processes for the last 4.5 billion years, well, they're not much different, really, are they?
let draw the line somewhere, shall we? aside from the god bit. the evidence is on my side.
a)"microevolution"--changes in a population, for example, *bacteria* evolving into other kinds of *bacteria*. Because we've evolved new forms of bacteria is by no means an argument that all plants and animals evolved from a single cell!
lets go for a walk, shall we? one step at a time. a little farther here, a little farther there. it's too bad we'll never get out of the neighborhood.
you know, unless we keep walking.
you see, "species" "genus" "family" etc are all arbitrary lines we draw. there's no magical barrier there, a so called glass ceiling of biology, to stop things from going further.
the aforementioned archaeopteryx was kind of tricky to classify (i don't even know where it lies taxonomically). see, it's got most of the body of a dinosaur. but it's hips are more bird-like than other similar dinosaurs. it's tail is shorter, but not as short as a bird's, and lacks the specialized end. it's starting to develop the bird's breastbone, but lacks the rib articulation. it has feathers, but no beak. it's head is liek a dinosaur's, but it lacks the neck ribbing like birds. it really is stuck somewhere between dinosaur and bird.
group this with the dozen or two other feathered dinosaur exacmples we have, all at different states, it's pretty safe to call it a transitional fossil.
creationist debates are always funny. show me a transitional species, they say. something half way between two large seperate groups of animals. and someone posts a picture of an archaeopteryx.
some say it's a bird. some say it's a dinosaur. some say it's fake. some say transitional fossils don't mean anything. well... make up your minds. but uhh, none of those answers are right.
Finally, last but not least, evolution contradicts some of the most basic laws of nature that we've observed time and time again. Fish produce fish--they don't produce legged creatures.
i had an amphibian once, called an axylotl. the problem is, it wasn't EXACLTY an amphibian. see, it never grew out of the fish-like stage, and got up on land on it's legs. it had gills, legs, and swam. it also has primitive lungs that aren't good for much but floatation.
they provide a good look at what amphibians were just before they became amphibians. these things are closer to lungfish, really. but every now and then... one goes through metamorphosis and becomes something very like a salamander. apparently, it just takes the right hormone...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 04-23-2004 7:54 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by princesskatie, posted 06-05-2004 5:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
princesskatie
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 283 (112931)
06-05-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
06-05-2004 10:37 AM


1)Evolution also doesn't make any sense because there would have to a similarity in our DNA and the begining stage of evolutions DNA. Which I believe that the first stage of evolution is pond scum so that would therefore mean that our DNA and every other creatures DNA that we evolved from would have to have a similarity.
2) We had to debate the subject in class and one of my peers brought up that we evolve when we learn. So basicly she was telling me that if I brought in a monkey out of the jungle taught it to read and wright and sign so good that we could have full colnversations after many years it would evolve into something higher which is supposledly believed to be a human. So that means all the chimps we have broughten in and taught over many years should in all technicallity be a human.
3) If we do evolve we haven't we changed yet? If it takes millions of years for one thing to evolve wouldn't it die before it could evolve. So therefore the process of evolution has infact died out.
So all evolutionists answer me. Please

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2004 10:37 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 06-05-2004 6:25 PM princesskatie has not replied
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2004 6:25 PM princesskatie has not replied
 Message 18 by Trixie, posted 06-05-2004 6:31 PM princesskatie has not replied
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2004 8:00 PM princesskatie has not replied
 Message 20 by jar, posted 06-05-2004 8:18 PM princesskatie has not replied
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 06-05-2004 8:53 PM princesskatie has not replied
 Message 22 by jar, posted 06-05-2004 8:56 PM princesskatie has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 283 (112937)
06-05-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by princesskatie
06-05-2004 5:58 PM


Welcome
Welcome to EvC Katie. Enjoy you visits here.
1)Evolution also doesn't make any sense because there would have to a similarity in our DNA and the begining stage of evolutions DNA. Which I believe that the first stage of evolution is pond scum so that would therefore mean that our DNA and every other creatures DNA that we evolved from would have to have a similarity.
Guess what! We do have just that similarity. Of course, pond scum is a long way from us so there is only limited similarity. However, that is just in the places you would expect. The basic operation of the cell of both ourselves and single celled organism work with similar genetics and chemisty.
2) We had to debate the subject in class and one of my peers brought up that we evolve when we learn. So basicly she was telling me that if I brought in a monkey out of the jungle taught it to read and wright and sign so good that we could have full colnversations after many years it would evolve into something higher which is supposledly believed to be a human. So that means all the chimps we have broughten in and taught over many years should in all technicallity be a human.
On this one you are right. What your peer said is very silly and not related to biological evolution.
3) If we do evolve we haven't we changed yet? If it takes millions of years for one thing to evolve wouldn't it die before it could evolve. So therefore the process of evolution has infact died out.
So all evolutionists answer me. Please
We have changed. We have changed since the rise of our species even over the last 200,000 years. If you want details I'll see what I can find.
You are right again. If the change in the enviroment happens too quickly then the evolutionary processes may not be fast enough for a species to survive. That is exactly what happens. Almost all the species that have ever existed are gone. I don't know the current estimate but IIRC it is over 99 % of all species have become extinct just as you predict.
Katie, could I suggest you read over some of the material already posted here? I can make a pretty big bet that you will come up with nothing new. Everything has already been discussed more than once.
If you really want to learn about the real science involved rather than the lies and distortions pushed by various members of the creationist community then browseing some threads and asking clear questions will get you a long way.
Almost oeveryone here is glad to help if you have a real interest in leaning. Start by understanding that there is much more to this than you probably have been exposed to. And understand that some of what you've been told is not true. (In fact, maybe a lot of what you've been told isn't true)
You could check out:
Suggestions for Creationists
and
Suggestions for the Evolutionists
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-05-2004 05:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by princesskatie, posted 06-05-2004 5:58 PM princesskatie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2004 6:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024