Evolution Easily Refuted

Well, as long as you say progressive creation, destruction and recreation and then destruction etc. Ok, I'll buy that a bumbling eternal creator is a logical possibility.CheersJoe Meeer

Hi Robert! I see you're a fan of Dr. Margulis. Great! Although I don't agree with her radical political and social agenda (nor the deeper implications of the Gaia hypothesis that she outlines in "Symbiotic Planet" for ex), I've been waiting for someone to discuss SET with. I think it provides a fascinating alternative to the very early evolution of eukaryotes. Which part of the theory do you like most? Which of the examples she used to derive her theory do you feel the most compelling? I like Mixotricha paradoxa personally, but some people think cellular organelles are the best examples of evolution she uses.BTW: I've often wondered why Behe quotes her, since the evidence she used to build SET directly falsifies his claim that bacterial flagella is irreducibly complex. Too funny that he included her as a "supporter" of IC in his book. LOL.

[QUOTE][b]Progressive Creation should not contradict the evidence according to your view.[/QUOTE][/b]God-guided evolution does not contradict the evidence because God does not leave evidence and the evidence indicates evolution.Creation over a period of time is not as consistent with the evidence because of the nested hierarchy of fossils. Why aren't birds the first land animals, according to the fossil hierarchy? There is a reason they aren't according to evolutionary theory, but if you invoke long-term creationism without evolution you end up with, "just because God did it" as your only answer. "God did it" is not an answer, it's a last resort, you use it when you're giving up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:

​

What a concept! A respected scientist stating that neo-Darwinism is a "minor religious sect"! How does that make you feel if you happen to "believe in evolution"? But that is not all. Any reasoning human being can come to the conclusion that evolution is a fraud just by examining its basic premise.

---

Actually you, and Dr. Behe, are employing a little bit of fraud here. While Lynn Margulis did make the statement she was not claiming that evolution has not occured. The section of Behe's book that you cited was itself a citation from an article in the journal Science(Science Vol 252, pp378-381). The article discusses Dr. Margulis's views on evolution, which she understands did occurr and is occurring. Where she differes is that she claims that the mechanism is mostely based on autopoietic Gaia and by large scale symbiosis and not generally by the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. As to her verbage, she is well known for using rhetorical flourish to make her point.

quote:

---

In his Cosmos series Dr. Carl Sagan walks up to a tub of water and dramatically dumps some coal and other minerals into the container. He then looks into the camera with a knowing smile and says quite matter of factly, "If we waited around for a few million years a human being will emerge from this container."

​

The same idea is expressed in Walt Disney's original movie "Fantasia". In one of the sequences we see a group of amoebas floating around the ocean, and then, abra-cadabra - presto jingo, a black cloud passes over the scene and next we see fish. Another black cloud and we see whales, sharks, and dinosaurs eventually (after enough black clouds) I take it we will see man emerge from what? I don't know? Because today evolutionists deny that man evolved from ape.

---

Well, first, while I admired Dr. Sagan for his attempts to make science more popular I did not like his dumbing down of the subject because it lead to ignorant statements like yours. No on who understands the concept of abiogenesis (which is different from and not required by evolution) would have backed his claim. And if one of your scientific sources is Disney, well no wonder that you are confused . And I do not think that 20th century scientists have ever said that man was descended from apes, man is related to apes through a common ancestor.

quote:

---

Evolutionists claim that birds evolved from fish - well - prove it! I want to see the exact genetic sequencing that would "mutate" the scales of a fish into the feathers of a bird. Evolutionists claim that fish became lizards - well - prove it! You claim your views are scientific and your opponents are non-scientific - then show me your absolute "scientific" proof that evolution is true. I do not want to hear your speculations, inferences or hypotheses - all of which are interpretations and not empirical scientific facts. I want to see the "hard facts" not your bizarre interpretations of fossil records or your illogical arguments that amount to "but it takes millions of years!"

---

First, no one said that birds evolved from fish or that lizards evolved from fish, birds are currently thought to have evolved from dinosaurs and lizards from earlier reptiles and even earlier from amphibians. Fish and earlier organisms are further down the scale. And if you want to see more info concerning scales and feathers please do a web science search on scales, feathers, DNA, and mutations. I believe that I have seen some sites with some info. Another place to check is NCBI which has a portal to pub med (here is one article that I found). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6200321&dopt=Abstract
Here is another one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9389453&dopt=Abstract
Quite frankly, your other rantings on the fossil record demonstrate what I generally call an arrogant ignorance which is a sign that you really do not want to know the truth.

quote:

---

If you cannot put up then - you know what!

---

If you can not make accurate statements then - you know what .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Edge - My theory is not in question at this time. You seem to claim that your theory is scientific and factual. I am asking you to show me the facts. Inferring "factual data" from long dead fossils does not constitute a "fact". In short, I want you to show me - without recourse to the fossil data - how a fish can become a bird. Your theory claims that such can happen - well - PROVE IT!

---

If you are looking for proof, you look in the wrong place. Now, you want absolute proof about prehistoric events? Hmm, why don't you hold your own beliefs to the same standard? I would like absolute proof that there was a flood, and that light was created en route to earth from distant stars, and the world is only 6000 years old. And remember, you can't resort to the bible because it was written long after the fact of creation and is only hearsay.Besides, no one has ever said that a fish became a bird. This is typical creationist propaganda. You commit gross oversimpification of the process. This is an effective technique, but will not hold much water here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Insofar as "hard facts" are concerned I would like you to show me the exact path of genetic sequencing it takes for mutation and natural selection to turn fish scales into bird feathers. I am not asking you for anything difficult.

---

Not difficult: impossible. I defy anyone to provide any information concerning an objective external reality that is "exact" in the sense you quote later in your post. I could not demonstrate the existence of my own body to myself to such a standard.Anyway, why should one bother to attempt to meet your standards of evidence? There is no particular significance if a theory fails to meet them. Moreover, given that in the forum you declare your own certain knowledge of other matters - the truth of the existence of god, the accuracy of the bible - one has to wonder how this knowledge was acquired, how you evaluated its truth, and how you would evaluate the truth of any scientific account that was given you.[b] [QUOTE]If you are so sure that Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is correct then you should have exact evidence for your "beliefs" - evidence that is not vague, uncertain or based on speculation, but evidence that is exact, perfect, not vague, and accurate in detail.[/b][/QUOTE]I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean by "so sure" and "correct" in this context? How "sure" do you think I am about Darwinism, how "correct" do you think I think it is?The rational position, and one that I take, would be to hold a belief with a degree of certainty proportional to the degree of certainty of the evidence supporting that belief.So you could say I am "so sure" of Darwinism to the extent that the evidence is sure; I believe in its "correctness" to the extent that its evidence is correct. This is of course a tautology, but that is the essence of science - that what one holds to be true is coextensive with the evidence, and what one infers to be true is coextensive with what can be inferred from the evidence.I do not think you could find a single scientist who, when formally considering the matter, would regard the evidence for evolution as reliable to the extent that it can be believed "Admitting to no deviation ... not admitting of vagueness or uncertainty."More importantly, I do not think you could find a single scientist who, when formally considering the matter, would regard the evidence for any scientific account of the nature of external, observable reality to be so grounded.One of the fundamental differences between scientific inference and religious belief is that the former is bounded by the supporting evidence and logic while the latter is not: a god bounded by the evidence for her existence would be a very minor deity indeed, and belief in her, proportional to that evidence, would be a narrow uninspiring faith.Religious knowledge is not coextensive with evidence, and religious beliefs, especially christian religious beliefs, are in essence beliefs in transcendent realities.[b] [QUOTE]I will not hold my breath waiting for your exact scientific facts.[/b][/QUOTE]Oh go on. Try it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
I do not think you could find a single scientist who, when formally considering the matter, would regard the evidence for evolution as reliable to the extent that it can be believed "Admitting to no deviation ... not admitting of vagueness or uncertainty."

---

Better add gravity to the list of things that are wrong acording to Bob....

Greetings:Let's see: Newton's Laws have a verifiable set of exact scientific facts that make them Laws. Einstein's Relativity Theory has been proven at least for the most part. The Laws of Thermodynamics have a verifiable set of facts that prove them true. Where is the evidence for Evolution? What evidence has been presented to me amounts to something like this: I see canals on Mars, therefore there must be intelligent life on Mars. Such argumentation is fallacious because there could be a number of different answers - all just a plausible - that could answer the question of why there are canals on Mars. This is often called the fallacy of false precision.Edge, Mr. Pemboli, and Joz are all getting upset with me because I am simply asking for sound scientific evidence that proves evolution? I reject all speculation based on the fossil record because that is just what it is - interpretation and speculation. Can you prove evolution (darwinian or otherwise) in the same fashion that Newton's Laws can be proven? Or Einstein's Theories? Or the Laws of Thermodynamics?Evolution says that life "evolved" from the fish in the ocean - that birds and lizards "evolved" from fish. A fish dies after 1 hour without water - how can it "evolve" lungs over "millions of years" when it is already dead? How can gills become lungs? The only answers I receive from evolutionists is that it takes "millions of years." How can growing feathers help a fish in the water? If the fish is no longer in the water how (or even why) did it "evolve" feathers in the first place? Feathers do not help a fish get food in the water.After 150 years of investigating these matters evolution is still clueless about the central tenants of its own propositions. When will evolutionists (darwinian and neo-darwinian) realize the statement of Lynn Margulis that, "neo-darwinism is in a complete funk"?Robert

Actually Robert all you did was post a bunch of cribbed statements from creationist sites. Many of us pointed out the many logical fallacies and misquotes/misrepresentations you copied. Some of Einsteins postulates have been observed, but according to your analysis they might have alternative explanations. This IS what you are arguing that everything in science is based solely on the whims of the observer. You do a great disservice to science and show a gross misunderstanding of science when you make such statements. Your knowledge of biology is also fairly primitive (re your 'fish story'). Evolutionary theory makes not only predictions that are borne out, but it also makes retrodictions. For example, when Gingerich and colleagues wondered about the ancestors of the whales, they did not dig everywhere on the globe, but went to a specific series of strate where the evolutionary ancestor should be found if their ideas were correct. Lo and behold, this is where they found one of the whale transitionals. This is repeated over and over again in evolution where both prediction and retrodiction attest to the veracity of evolution. Margulis accepts evolution although I am sure she would love to hear you tell her that she thinks otherwise. She just has other ideas about mechanisms and the history of evolution (particularly bacteria). So how about turning the coin and telling us what the creation 'theory' has been successful at (in terms of predictions and retrodictions)?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Let's see: Newton's Laws have a verifiable set of exact scientific facts that make them Laws.

---

No they don't. The inaccuracies in Newton's Laws were addressed by Einstein. Which was just as well, because Newton's laws did not explain the observed precession of Mercury's orbit. I cannot see how quoting a theory which does not fit observed facts supports your case. Perhaps you will not mind too much if a theory of evolution does not fit all observed facts?[b] [QUOTE]Einstein's Relativity Theory has been proven at least for the most part.[/b][/QUOTE]For the [b][i]most[/b][/i] part? Oh Robert, how quickly your standards slip! First you give an example of a theory that does not explain observable facts and now it's a theory that has been proved "for the most part."[b] [QUOTE]The Laws of Thermodynamics have a verifiable set of facts that prove them true.[/b][/QUOTE]Well, according to the Cambridge cosmology web site "thermodynamics is just an approximate description of the behaviour of large groups of particles ..." See http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_hawk.htmlMethinks Hawking probably knows his stuff on this one.So where have we got to? Ah yes - you wanted "exact" evidence of evolution and when prompted for "exact" sciences you gave us: a theory that does not account for observable facts, a theory proved "for the most part" and an "approximate description."So, are you going to join us in the evolutionary camp? I think any university course on evolutionary biology can meet those standards.[b] [QUOTE]What evidence has been presented to me amounts to something like this: I see canals on Mars, therefore there must be intelligent life on Mars. Such argumentation is fallacious because there could be a number of different answers - all just a plausible - that could answer the question of why there are canals on Mars. This is often called the fallacy of false precision.[/b][/QUOTE]In what way is this a fallacy of false precision? What quality is being stated with a greater precision than is warranted?Actually the argument in the example you give is the same one used by intelligent design theorists - so very much in vogue these days amongst creationists - that if something looks like it is designed there must be an intelligent designer.So now you have accepted that a number of variously approximate theories are scientifically exact, and you have turned your back on intelligent design. Really, I'm glad we are winning you over so easily. [b] [QUOTE]Edge, Mr. Pemboli, and Joz are all getting upset with me because I am simply asking for sound scientific evidence that proves evolution?[/b][/QUOTE]I'm not upset - I'm enjoying this![b] [QUOTE]Evolution says that life "evolved" from the fish in the ocean - that birds and lizards "evolved" from fish. A fish dies after 1 hour without water - how can it "evolve" lungs over "millions of years" when it is already dead? How can gills become lungs?[/b][/QUOTE]Evolution says nothing of the sort, but you won't mind that as you will accept an "approximate description." And I do hope you will tell the staff at Seattle aquarium that their mudskippers should be dead - there must be something wrong with their exhibit, because they seem quite healthy out of water for hours on end. And silver eels do quite well slithering overland from stream to stream. And the lungfish, is it just an evolutionary hoax?[b] [QUOTE]How can growing feathers help a fish in the water? If the fish is no longer in the water how (or even why) did it "evolve" feathers in the first place? Feathers do not help a fish get food in the water.[/b][/QUOTE]What on earth are you talking about? Have you ever heard any scientist propose that fish evolved feathers? The last time I heard someone argue as incoherently as this they were coming down from a very bad acid trip.[b] [QUOTE]When will evolutionists (darwinian and neo-darwinian) realize the statement of Lynn Margulis that, "neo-darwinism is in a complete funk"?[/b][/QUOTE]When they break out of the traditions of christian anthropocentrism that has underpinned so much western science. Of course, they might regard their view of evolution as correct, verifiable and demonstrably more accurate than hers, in which case they will say they are not in a funk at all.

At first I thought Randy was a troll, but then he just sounded so sincere that I realized he'd probably just come from a Hovind revival.CheersJoe Meer

The power of quotation: http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/quotes.htmldeveloped a set of these myself once and now I can't find emCheersJoe Meert

Joe: What an absolutely hysterical link! Have you ever had occasion to (mis-)use one of those quotes? Perhaps as an example of the dangers of over-reliance on spurious quotations as an object lesson for one of the "loyal opposition"? I don't even need to look up the originals to know those babies are out of context! Wonder why our creationist friends can't see the same thing when quoting scientists...

Yes, I've used them now and again. What's funny is that I usually post them in jest and the creationists are all over them (accusing me of dishonesty etc)--I was even banned once. Funny that they cannot see the forest for the trees.CheersJoe Meert

Joe, you have just made my day.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz