Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

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? 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.)

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." 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? 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. 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. 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. Specialization. That is, cells of different types. If you want examples of colonial organisms with rudimentary specialization, I can probably dig some up. 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. Absurd for you, perhaps. All they have to do is specialize. Says you. Life begs to differ.

As it turns out, there's considerable similarity. Morever, there's more similarity between species believed to be closer relatives - for instance, there's a greater genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees then there is between humans and other mammals, like dogs. You and your peers are quite mistaken. Evolution, in the biological sense, is not a process that happens to individuals. It's a process that happens to populations.Organisms are born with mutations that make them different from their parents. Sometimes those mutations confer abilities that aid survival. What we mean by "survival" is that an organism prospers, outcompetes its conspecifics, and has more surviving offspring than anybody else.When that happens, the genetic mutation responsible for those new abilities, features, or behaviors spreads throughout the gene pool, because the decendants of that organism comprise an increasing fraction of the population. Eventually, all of the members of the population might be the distant decendant of that organism - they all possess the trait in question.Much like how all humans are the decendant of a woman who lived 80,000 years ago - something in her genes let her decendants outcompete the other humans.Why haven't we changed yet? We do change. You're not exactly like either of your parents, now are you? Those differences represent slight evolutionary changes.Natural selection and random mutation are processes that apply to individuals. But the result of them - evolution - is a process that only happens to populations, not to individuals.

That's hardly an appropriate topic to steer a newcomer too, particularly one so obviously a minor, don't you think?Maybe there's a moral there, but I'd at least consider Bawdlerizing the thread before you sent schoolkids there, you know?AbE: Ah, I see that you have already. Cool.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-05-2004 05:37 PM

You misunderstand what is meant by "bad." We're not saying that it's bad like nuclear bombs are bad; we're saying it's bad science in the sense that it's promoted as science, but fails to adhere to important scientific methodologies, like falsification or the principle of parsimony.Bad science isn't actually science; it's sloppy thinking or outright deception gussied up with scientific trappings.

dupe post deleted.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-09-2004 01:04 AM

Have you even seen someone design a cell? I never have.But I've seen experiments where cell-like enclosures, complete with membranes, have arisen through entirely natural chemistry.

Given that evolution is a biotic theory, what you have here is essentially a contradiction in terms.

Well, how about direct observation of evolution?

Well, here's observed instances of new species arising: Observed Instances of SpeciationHere's some evidence of the historical validity of the current evolutionary scenarioes (popularly referred to as "macroevolution"): 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentThat should about cover it. We observe both the process of evolution now and the results of the process occuring in the past.

Viruses typically only have RNA. There's considerable research that you can Google for into the subject of RNA-based life.Prions have no genetic material whatsoever.

I'm fairly sure that it's not any sort of DNA mutation that results in the formation of a prion, but rather a chemical interaction on a normal protein that stimulates it into forming its malicious prion shape. That shape in turn makes other similar proteins take the same shape, and that's how prions are spread.There's no fundamental reason that a prion would need DNA or even RNA to form; you just need a source of similar polypeptides. Certain inorganic processes can generate those, I believe. It would be akin to crystallization.

I can't believe that creationists use this example. It's so old Darwin himself rebutted it in 1868.Talkorigins.org summarizes the response in this way:

quote:

---

The claim assumes "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.

---

What a surprise, of course, that the fossil record has a series of transitional proto-giraffes with shorter necks.And actually, the modern giraffe itself is a transitional form. It's the transitional form between its ancestors and its decendants, just like everybody else is. Only if giraffe populations completely die out will they not have been transitional forms.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-07-2004 06:39 PM

Not really on topic, but not really true, either. CB310: Bombardier beetle evolutionIn short, there's exist a number of transitional evolutionary states for the bombardier mechanism that we know are viable, because we find them in existing beetles. Which is exactly what you say can't happen.Obviously, we know that it does, and that therefore evolution is a more than adequate explanation for the existence of these beetles.If you want to talk more about it, open a new thread. I wonder why you so boldly assert that the beetle leaves "evolutionists scratching their heads", when the quote you provide from an evolutionist gives exactly the opposite impression - that evolutionists see nothing unusual about this insect.Oh, and AbE: This isn't even an accurate description of the bombardier mechanism. How credulous an argument for design can this be if the people making the argument can't be bothered to get their facts straight?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-07-2004 11:45 PM

Were you going to address rebuttals, at all? Just curious. I'm somewhat dismayed to see you jump into your next example without having defended the first one.There's nothing mysterious about the chemiluminescence employed by the angler fish, by the way. It is, after all, the same sort of reaction employed in those snap-light rods they give to deep-sea divers and kids on Halloween. There's no secret at all to it, especially if you've ever seen a florescent light. (Which is slightly different but another example of the heatless light your author thinks is such a big deal.) They didn't, did they. Looks like your guy is wrong again.