Evolution is Not Science

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I find it interesting that evolutionary thought has such a huge salad bowl of explanations for everything."
--Evolution is extreamly flexible, I once heard that the explination for the cambrian explosion is that the whole worlds stata was erroded so it seemed as if it were all of a soden appearing.

​

---

JM: Where, pray tell did you get that explanation? I suspect a creationist source misquoting someone else. Please provide a source for this assertion. Thanks in advance.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
SERIES OF OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES---Snipped

---

JM: This gets tiring. Let's suppose that all the quotes and links you provide are true and are not taken out of context (as they mostly are), why would science cling to such an absurd explanation? How do you think science (or scientists) approach a problem? Why does biology cling to such a flawed notion (according to you)? Let's further suppose that evolution is completely wrong. Do you think that that would then 'prove' special creation? If you can, provide a reasoned argument without stealing out of context quotes from other websites. I get real tired of people misusing and misrepresenting the views of others in order to make a point. Do you have any of your own arguments? Arguments that you've researched and can provide us with data? Data is convincing, out-of-context quotes from webpages much less convincing. So, where's the beef?CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Meert:
".......Do you have any of your own arguments? Arguments that you've researched and can provide us with data? Data is convincing......."Speaking of data, and recognizing your desire for data from research, please be so kind as to supply us all with the research and data that you have done and accumulated. I am sure we would all appreciate to be informed of your latest discovery.Thanks,
Jet [/b][/QUOTE]JM: Sure, you can start here: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeertAfter that we can discuss my research projects that are ongoing or proposals if you like. Your turn.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Sure, you can start here:

​

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert

​

Forgive my impatience, but rather than have me engage in a hunting expedition, perhaps you could point me directly to what area on the site contains your personal research and data. I saw maps, charts, etc. and one click led me to this statement.......The file /users/jmeert/cambrianc.jpg can not be located on this web server, but I didn't find your specific research and data with accompanying attributions. I would appreciate it if you would navigate for me!

---

JM: Perhaps impatience is one of your problems. The link you seek is there. http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/pubs.htmCheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

JET'S COMMENTS SNIPPED

---

JM: When are we going to get something more than argument by quotation? Can you actually support your arguments using real world data? Start with something simple like the age of the earth. How about it? Argument by quotation, argument by ad hominem is useful only to a small degree. What I would love to see is a meaningful discussion of scientific data. Are we going to get this from you or not?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i agree with everything Jet is saying and thats what ive been trying to explain to all of you evolutionists and nonbelievers.

​

---

Jet, for all his quote mining and hand-waving has not really said all that much with substance. I've been encouraging him (and so I shall you too) to come forth with evidence in the form of data and analysis that supports your conclusion. You should also note that lumping evolutionists with non-believers could lead some to conclude that you must be one in order to find the other compelling. Many atheists I know don't care a hoot about evolution and many evolutionists I know are devout Christians, or Muslim's or etc... What exactly do you mean by the statement and will you, in JETS absence provide us with some compelling data and analysis that supports your points. I'd love to discuss some.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
evolution is an assumption.

---

JM: Then your existence is an assumption. After all, you could be a 'bot' and given that you express doubt about the actual observable process that brings humans into the world, we now have every reason to doubt that you are real.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
its very possible but i doubt anyone is going to claim that and then still claim to have rational thought or even sanity.

​

---

JM: You missed my point entirely. Since you claim to be alive and a real person, then you are a living breathing example of evolution. There is no conjecture or wishful thinking needed. We simply examine your genetics and compare them with your parents. You are a hybrid of your parents and you no doubt contain some genetic material that neither of them have due to random mutations. A change in genetic material through time is all evolution is. Now, there is no point in you denying this fact, what you will now do is to invent some hypothetical barrier through which evolution cannot cross. What I want you to do is to define this barrier scientifically. Define this barrier scientifically. Give us a way to test this.ThanksJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

​

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."

---

JM: ROTFL!! Is this explanation real or are you joking? You're just yanking my chain aren't you? Do creationists have a real explanation for the barrier to genetic evolution or not? If you are serious, please re-read the explanation and try to figure out why, in explaining every possible scenario, it explains nothing. For example, according to this explanation an ant and an elephant may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind. Similarly a bacteria and a human may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind!! Isn't this what creationists have been dissing evolution about for a long time and now they reach the same conclusion???????? Too funny, I know it's a joke.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-17-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Right, but more evidence is needed. And, point me out if I'm wrong, the Cambrian fossils don't exactly blend perfectly with evolutionary theory. So I don't think you're correct that the fossils offer undeniable proof of blind naturalistic processes can create life as we see it.

---

JM: Ok, you're wrong. The Cambrian fossils pose no special problem for evolution. You have to stay up with the literature. New discoveries keep eliminating small mysteries.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Really?

​

By the way, I don't see why you think Cambrian fossils are "small mysteries."

---

JM: Well, the fossils themselves are no mystery. The small mystery deals with why they appear when they do in the geologic record. As I mentioned, I have no clue why creationists accept the 'Cambrian Explosion since it poses more of a problem for them.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
This does not fit with a single creation model but does fit Darwins theory of Descent.

---

JM: More importantly, the creationists are in a pickle if they claim that it IS evidence of sudden creation. Remember, they assign fossils to the flood, so this can't be evidence of both sudden creation and sudden death!CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"--Open up any Geology text-book and go to the index and find 'Uniformitarianism' or 'Gradualism' and read what it has to say about it, you will soon find that all of mainstream geology is dependent on its validity, and is an underlying assumption.[/QUOTE]JM: Bzzt, thanks for playing. This is a false accusation.

quote:

---

So, let us consider catastrophism, and my hypothesis.
--A hypothesis must have expectations and thus, evidence. So we look at the evidence. The evidence is actually very basic, in order for my hypothesis to be right, there must be gradual sea-floor spreading and subduction occuring though many magnitudes slower than today.

---

JM: Why must it be slower?

quote:

---

There must be magnetic variation on a large scale from a frantic outer-core. The outer core from such an increase in heat from radioisotopic desintegration

---

JM: Can you explain to me the physics of fitting LIL's into the core?

quote:

---

and no where for such energy to yet be released through hot-spots, rifts or troughs, would greatly increase the activity of massive eddy currents and convection processes which control characteristics and properties of the magnetosphere and polarity.

---

JM: Umm, the magnetosphere is an EXTERNAL field. Why is there nowhere for this energy to be released? What you post here is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo.

quote:

---

There must be old mountain zones appearing as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way.

---

JM: Excuse me, what the HELL are you talking about?

quote:

---

Continents must be able to relatively fit together like a puzzle and sea-floor spreading diversion must complement it.

---

JM: what is diversion?

quote:

---

Even known scientific concepts such as increasing heat must result in lower viscosities to complement and result in more rapid mantle convection.

---

JM: Lower viscosity does not automatically mean more rapid mantle convection, sorry.

quote:

---

The reason that continents are not being eroded away from underneath but being built upon (with the exception of upwelling magma and hot-spots) must be explained, which is explained by decreased temperature and a 'burn out' of radionucleic energy and leakage of asthenospheric and core heat by volcanic eruptions and lava flows, sea floor spreading, hydrothermal vents, etc.

---

JM: This entire paragraph makes absolutely NO SENSE. You are picking terms and linking them, randomly, in the hopes of creating a coherent sentence. Try again, this one did not work.

quote:

---

Continental masses must be less dense than oceanic basalt.

---

JM: So, modern geology knows this, it does not help you in any way based on your previous 'stream of terminology' post.

quote:

---

--All of this data is complemented and well explained by my hypothesis, is there anything I may be missing?

---

Sorry, but I've not heard such a load of mumbo-jumbo even from a schizophrenic. All you have done above is throw out a random selection of terminology in the hopes that something may fall into place and fool somebody who knows nothing of geology. Unfortunately, there are people on here who know a bit more about the subject than you do and will not be fooled by this type of random technobabble obfuscation. NONE of what you said above makes sense!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Thanks TrueCreation for your assistance.

​

"JM: Well, the fossils themselves are no mystery. The small mystery deals with why they appear when they do in the geologic record. As I mentioned, I have no clue why creationists accept the 'Cambrian Explosion since it poses more of a problem for them."

​

Whew! I was worried for a second that you were actually going to provide a "realistic" explanation for the explosion of diversity! How wrong I was. Instead you decide to say that the Cambrian fossils do not support Creation. Of course, I didn't even claim that the Cambrian fossils support Creation (whether or not they do). I claimed that the Cambrian explosion is an aspect of the fossil record that does not mold well with evolutionary theory.

---

JM: What I am saying is that (a) creationists, for whatever reason, accept that the Cambrian explosion is a real event (no doubt on some other time scale) and (b) that creationists have no explanation for the this observation which they tacitly accept (c) I can think of no evolutionist who thinks that the increased diversity of life in a 50+ million year period is evidence that evolution is not real (d) Such 'blooms' of life are actually frequent in the fossil record (as are extinctions), but creationists seem to dwell on the Cambrian slow burn because they can find some quotes here and there that they think means evolution is in trouble because of this observation. Again, I ask, other than a few out-of-context quotes, what specific problem do you think the Cambrian fossil record poses for evolution? What is the alternative explanation for the fossil record by creationists?here's something I posted a while back on another board:Helen continues to assert that the Cambrian explosion is a complete
mystery to geology and therefore challenges evolution and cites (as
evidence) the title of a traveling exhibit. The assertion is wrong on
several counts, but let me discuss a couple of points (expanding on
those above). The 'explosion' is referred to as an 'explosion' by some
within the geologic community and as a 'slow burn' by others. At issue
(still) is whether or not we are seeing a preservational bias or an
actual blossoming of life in the 50+ MILLION YEARS leading to Toyonian
time ( http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/cambrianc.jpg ). The
verdict is not yet rendered despite the claims of creationists. I call
your attention to several recent articles and discussions of this
subject.1. Simon Conway-Morris: The Cambrian Explosion: A popular delusion
(1999)
2. Richard Fortey, Science 2001 The Cambrian Explosion: Exploded.Levinton and Wray (1999) note:

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six studies of molecular divergence versus time point to a date
for the divergence of the animal phyla that is substantially before the
Upper Vendian. These studies, done in very different ways, do not
suggest with any confidence a specific alternative date, but they all
agree that there must be an as yet hidden record of animal fossils
before the time currently thought to encompass the "Cambrian explosion.
" The results also vindicate those previous conclusions that the Lower
Cambrian faunas appear rather too suddenly, with too much morphologic,
cladistic, and biogeographic structure. Some recent Precambrian fossil
finds suggest that a change of search image may result in a more
extensive Precambrian animal fossil record. The challenge is to further
refine molecular dating techniques and to explore the implications of
morphological and developmental evolution in the Precambrian
world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

McMenamin (1998) discuss the incredibly rich fossil record from the
Ediacaran fauna which date back to at least 575 Ma so there is an
incredible fossil record before that recorded in the Tommotian-Toyonian
interval. The argument about the fossil record is lively, but certainly
not damning for the subject of evolution. However, it is a very
difficult thing for creationists to explain. If the creationists accept
the notion of the fossil record in the Cambrian explosion (which they
must in order to claim it is a problem), they must have an alternative
explanation. This 'alternative explanation' for the fossil record from
~575-510 Ma, as I see it, can make one of two claims. The first claim
is that these fossils represent organisms killed in the Noachian flood
and the other claim is that it marks a 'sudden creation' event. Neither
can be wholly satisfying for creationists. In the latter case (sudden
creation) it must also mean 'sudden death' for these are fossils of
organisms and therefore there must be death before the fall. In the
former case (Noachian Flood) it would argue that this sequence of rocks
marks the initiation of the global flood. The problem with that is that
we have pretty clear evidence of paleosols and very dry environments
within the same sequence of fossils housing the Ediacaran and Cambrian
biota. Therefore, the flood explanation is lacking in evidence for a
truly global flood. The hope of creationists is that by pointing out a
perceived weakness in the evolution of phyla that no one will notice
that their own explanation is wanting. In short, they have no clear
explanation for the fossil record is telling them either (which they
accept in this case)!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't really understand all of what you posted completely, but I did find this tidbit interesting:

​

So, they are assuming that there were fossils that are not found? That seems a bit like special pleading to me. You must understand, though, that I do not think that the Cambrian fossils "damn" evolution, just that I don't think evolution has a great explanation for them.

---

JM: Did you read the other two articles I supplied? Didn't think so.CheersJoe Meert