Slashdot Mirror

With all due respect, that is because you really don't understand the fossil record. Transitionary forms, or "links between the kinds" as you put it, are common in the fossil record. So, to respond to your statement "This pretty much rules out reptiles evolving into mammals, etc, unless you can find a way to reconsile that" here are some cut and dry references that reconcile this non-dilema:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/p art1b.html#mammTransition from synapsid reptiles to mammals

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archae opteryx.htmlArchaeopteryx lithographica

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.htmlTaxon omy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record

Fossils are also VERY rare, which explains that even though its hard to find fossils (very hard) and yet transistionary forms are COMMON in the fossil record. Case closed on this, they are all over the place and cover all the "kinds".

http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation. htmlThe Formation of Fossils

So, you on board now?

[Lots of blahblah about how Michael Behe's Irreducable Complexity theory proves evolution to be flawed]
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Behe's "Irreducable complexity" argument is flawed. I suggest you read up on it here and here

It's also worth noting that not one single biological system has ever been shown to actually be irreducably complex according to the criteria of Behe's argument.

You have pointed to an example of micro evolution.

No. "Micro evolution" refers to changes made below the species level. Any change that still allows the two species to inter-breed can be called "micro evolution".

The evolution forms in question are macro/spot/hyper evolution, and as I stated at present, there is no example of these.

I cannot find any references for

"spot evolution"
or
"hyper evolution"

"Macro evolution" is when a new species branches off. That is demonstrated by the fruit fly experiment.

With respect to vision, poor vision is a weakness.

Simply being a "weakness" does not mean it will be have any effect on evolution.

Evolution is not about weakness/strength but about adaptability to the environment.

If the point of natural selection is removing weakness then when is it going to start?

Again, evolution is NOT weakness/strength.

Even "fatal" genetic problems have not been selected out.

Actually, most of them have. There aren't many genetic issues now that kill before the individual can breed.

With respect to the fast breeding/quick changes these are still only examples of micro evolution.

Here's a URL http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.htm l

Macro evolution is about a fly becoming a higher order life form.

No, macro evolution is about two colonies that descend from the same original colony that are not capable of inter-breeding.

You're looking for chimps to "evolve" into humans and that takes billions of years.

Actually, that assumes that existance within the other realm is also linear.

If it is not, then why do you assume that this one is? If the "other realm" is cyclic, then why can't this universe be cyclic?

And ignoring an answer which is potentally the truth is science?

It may be the "truth", but you won't be able to demonstrate that it is.

Which makes it a "religion".

Imagine if aliens came to the earth after mankind was dead. Some alien scientist wonders, are all these natural or were they designed. He gets ingored because that is religion not science (assuming they have nothing similar to genetic engineering).

"all these natural" what?

Buildings? We carve names and dates onto them. Our DNA strands don't have (tm) after them.

Science is about attempting to determine truth.

No. It is about attempting to determine the facts. Reproducible facts. Facts that can be confirmed through experiments.

If design/direct manipulation is automatically discounted as weakminded anti-science, then don't expect aliens to ever give us credit for the same.

Hey, if they've mastered inter-stellar travel and they can't read plaques bolted into our buildings, why should it concern me?

It also goes without saying you have just classified "scientists" who design/direct as being in the realm of religion instead of science.

So you say that I say that a programmer who writes a program (design) is part of a religion?

Nope. I'm not saying that.

Desigining is not a relgion.

The religion is believing that some intelligent thing we cannot see, feel, smell, hear, taste or detect the presence of in any other way constructed us.

Just like the study regarding the underwater rock formations.

There are lots of underwater rock formations.

It is a design vs. nature question.

Maybe. So?

What you fail to remember are the Laws of Thermodynamics and that entropy, chaos, is increasing

Oh, come on! This is really basic stuff!
Even most creationists have abandoned this one by now. Heck, even the site that YOU cite (answersingenesis) lists this one on their Arguments we'd advise creationists NOT to use page (i.e. failed arguments against evolution)

For a more detailed overview, read this and consider the fact that you obviously don't know as much about evolution OR thermodynamics as you thought you did... so where else might you be wrong?

Not bad for the length of the article. If you want to understand this all in more detail, I suggest visiting the talk.origins FAQ website. Here is their introduction to Evolutionary Biology. And here is the talkdesign.org (a daughter site devoted to ID) FAQ on refuting Intelligent Design.

This is obviously some new meaning of the term "good information" of which I wasn't previously aware

Some actual good info here though: http://www.talkorigins.org

People create loaded buzzwords like Creationism and Intelligent Design with loaded connotations that far exceed the necessity of an agreed-upon denotation.

Then they whip out the philosophy or whatever...

Too bad it is not relevant.

Read on for a more proper STARTING POINT for meaningful discussion.

And God bless you.

Here's a little quoteout from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

3. Evolution and God Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God. There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

Q6. But isn't this Deism, the belief that God set the universe in motion and walked away?

While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe.

Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?

Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.

Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?

No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution.

Sure.. here's two invaluable resources for you:
Firstly, talkorigins.org - it'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know (and more!) about evolution, and how/why it can stand up to all the claims and accusations creationism throws at it.

Also, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a wonderful resource, detailing all the flaws, errors, contradictions, fallacies, and other nonsense in the bible. Critically, the actual bible part is a 100% genuine, unaltered King James Version bible, so nobody can pick fault with it saying it's "not a real bible", etc. I'm not sure how much use this will be in the case of a Jehova's Witness (I don't know much about how their beliefs differ), but it's a great resource at any rate.

Finally, you might want to ask around in the forums at Infidelguy's site which is a site dedicated to these sorts of issues.

You can also use Talk Origins, Talk Reason, Talk Design, EvoWiki and Panda's Thumb to find lots of info on why these people are wrong. If you want to donate money, donate it to the NCSE or Talk.Origins, or perhaps buy some of the books of creationism refuters - I'd reccomend Robert Pennock's book 'Tower of Babel' as quite a good introduction.

Even my lowly blog has a few things on the ID/creationism debacle.

Thanks for your interesting contribution, it's always great to hear a view from the other side of the fence. A couple of points of interest:

First, intellegent design does not contradict evolution. Intellegent design does not support evolution. It simply states that there probably was some intellegence involved in this phenominon we call "life." It does not go so far as to state where the intellegence resides, whether it is in God or mice.

I'd disagree with this - the system of thought known as the theory of evolution is clear on the subject of intelligent (in the personal sense) action not being required. In fact this was one of the prime reasons that scientists of the time tended to support the argument - it meant you could cut out that big messy assumption that was God. Bacteria are not noticeably intelligent (sensitive, yes, but not intelligent), and yet the theory of evolution applies to them too.

Most fundimentalists consider God to be even outside time. Unchanging, simply existing.

This is something I've been giving some thought to lately. In particular, I can't see any way that an unchanging thing, whatever its nature, could behave in a way that we would consider to be intelligent. Without time there is no thought, no feeling, no gathering of information, no action. Time is an enabler, not a restriction; a timeless God would have to have every single one of his actions on this universe hardwired in advance. I find this far more improbable than evolution.

It's wrong to suppose that God created fossils to test men's faith.

How do you square this with the fact that the fossil record + radio carbon dating seems to imply evolution? Examples of this are the gradually increasing complexity of life (movement from diploblast to triploblast, from cartilage to bone, etc) and the existence, in some cases, of clear intermediate stages (e.g. feathered dinosaurs).

God tests men's hearts by providing every reason to believe.

Factually inaccurate - a big neon sign saying "I WOZ ERE" would be another (non-extant) reason to believe. Less sardonically, I'd note that, of those who study the world around them (who we call scientists), only 5% or so are creationist and, of the life sciences and other fields in which the participants would be expected to be especially well-read on evolution vs. creationism, only 1% are creationist. Figures taken from this summary. I wouldn't tend to label a concept rejected by the majority of professional thinkers on the subject as being obvious.

Thanks again for participating. I'd be interested to hear your views, but I will of course respect your wishes if you do prefer not to argue. Only by challenging our views can we confirm or disprove their validity.

Your argument is basically that science isn't fair because it requires things to be scientific. The entire point of science is that it should NOT be dependent on what the scientists (here used to the describe all people who use the scientific method and not only people wearing white robes) believe.

Naturalism states that scientific laws are adecuate to describe all fenomena. So as such it's not really correct to claim science to be naturallistic, as it's really the other way around. (Ie scientific laws are a prerequesite for naturalism, not the other way around.)

What science does is claim that in order for something to be accepted as "scientifically true" it must first be a falsifiable hypothesis and then it must be tested and not be proved false. If it is proved to be false then the hypothesis can be changed to fit the new evidence and retested. This is the way scientific knowledge is formed.

If it can be demonstrated that non-materialistic phenomena are indeed testable and verified as true then those too will become part of the scientific knowledge. I'm sure it will take some time since all people (even scientist) tend to object to change. But as long as it remains true it will be accepted.

As for your two quite brutally cited quotes I'm not quite sure what you want. The theory of punctuated equilibria by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould doesn't seem to provide any evidence against evolution, it is merly an addition to it [1] (although it seems like it's not quite accepted, paelenetology isn't really my field). As to the quote from Richard Lewontin that doesn't contain anything that refutes evolution; he is just one more scientist who tries to explain evolutionary theory to others.

I can see that you are not a naturalist, and that's just fine and dandy by me. But if you want to make ID a scientific hypothesis you must first fulfill the demands that places on a scientific hypothesis. Because as it stands it's not one.

>Where in animal evolution did the eye develop?

It has developed many times, maybe originally in something like this.

>Where are the fossils of non-vertebrate to vertebrate creatures

right here.

>Where did gender come into play?

Possibly 2.5 to 3.5 billion years ago.

>When did we evolve from chemicals to bacteria?

We don't know, but this has nothing to do with evolution. It deals with what has happened to life since it began.

>Micro-evolution is what is commonly accepted and should be taught, but where did macro-evolution come from

There is absolutely no difference between 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. They are exactly the same process, just on different timescales.

>and why shouldn't valid alternatives be proposed with the condition that NONE currently meet the requirement of being proven scientifically?

Maybe because there is no such thing as 'proven scientifically'. There is one theory that has so much supporting evidence behind it that nothing else even comes close to being in the same standing. ID is not a valid alternative, since it has *no* supporting evidence unless you consider incomprehension to be evidence.

A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation. Why do you think that people get a shot for the chicken pox? So that they will become resistant to it. That's not a mutation...it's resistance. It's like saying that our cells mutated after we got the shot from the dr.'s office for the chicken pox.

My goodness, if you think human resistance to disease and bacterium restistance to anti-biotics are the same, then you are truly need an education.

Bacteria becomes resistant to anti-biotics because of two independant, yet interrelated things. First, some bacteria, through random mutations, develop the trait that makes anti-biotics inneffective on them. Now, this trait, as long as it doesn't prevent the bacteria from reproducing, will remain dormant. The numbers of this bacteria will remain small, perhaps miniscule, because of the vast numbers of "normal" bacteria. The trait may or may not get passed on. Now, when anti-biotics are miss-used, those bacteria without the mutation are wiped out. Only those with the mutation, however small, survive and reproduce. With no other normal bacteria to compete with, this mutant reproduces at will and becomes dominant. Suddenly there are strains of bacteria for which anti-biotics are useless. And if this doesn't happen, the species goe extinct.

That, my friend, is the process of evolution. It works at the microscopic and macroscopic levels (otherwise you might be a homo erectus rather than a neanderthal). This example is somewhat simplistic but you see the elegance process. Random mutation+change in the environment will stir evolution - only those able to adapt to the new environment will survive to reproduce and thus propgate the mutant genes. After a few million years, you fit your environment so perfectly, you'd swear the environment was designed for you...;-)

It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us. You seem to be denying God an awful lot...are you mad at God for something? Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?

I guess it would be easier for you to believe that, wouldn't it. I go where the evidence takes me. I don't need faith to believe "we came from dust and gravity" because that is where the evidence points. There is no evidence for God. I'm not "mad at God"...I can't be mad at something that, as far as I am concerned, doesn't exist. I am "one of those atheists" who doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence. I believe in cooperation, altruism and the ethics and philosophy that spring from them because it has been shown to provide an evolutionary advantage and is thus, the best survival strategy. Doing what I want want without regard fo the conse

A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation. Why do you think that people get a shot for the chicken pox? So that they will become resistant to it. That's not a mutation...it's resistance. It's like saying that our cells mutated after we got the shot from the dr.'s office for the chicken pox.

My goodness, if you think human resistance to disease and bacterium restistance to anti-biotics are the same, then you are truly need an education.

Bacteria becomes resistant to anti-biotics because of two independant, yet interrelated things. First, some bacteria, through random mutations, develop the trait that makes anti-biotics inneffective on them. Now, this trait, as long as it doesn't prevent the bacteria from reproducing, will remain dormant. The numbers of this bacteria will remain small, perhaps miniscule, because of the vast numbers of "normal" bacteria. The trait may or may not get passed on. Now, when anti-biotics are miss-used, those bacteria without the mutation are wiped out. Only those with the mutation, however small, survive and reproduce. With no other normal bacteria to compete with, this mutant reproduces at will and becomes dominant. Suddenly there are strains of bacteria for which anti-biotics are useless. And if this doesn't happen, the species goe extinct.

That, my friend, is the process of evolution. It works at the microscopic and macroscopic levels (otherwise you might be a homo erectus rather than a neanderthal). This example is somewhat simplistic but you see the elegance process. Random mutation+change in the environment will stir evolution - only those able to adapt to the new environment will survive to reproduce and thus propgate the mutant genes. After a few million years, you fit your environment so perfectly, you'd swear the environment was designed for you...;-)

It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us. You seem to be denying God an awful lot...are you mad at God for something? Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?

I guess it would be easier for you to believe that, wouldn't it. I go where the evidence takes me. I don't need faith to believe "we came from dust and gravity" because that is where the evidence points. There is no evidence for God. I'm not "mad at God"...I can't be mad at something that, as far as I am concerned, doesn't exist. I am "one of those atheists" who doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence. I believe in cooperation, altruism and the ethics and philosophy that spring from them because it has been shown to provide an evolutionary advantage and is thus, the best survival strategy. Doing what I want want without regard fo the conse

A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation. Why do you think that people get a shot for the chicken pox? So that they will become resistant to it. That's not a mutation...it's resistance. It's like saying that our cells mutated after we got the shot from the dr.'s office for the chicken pox.

My goodness, if you think human resistance to disease and bacterium restistance to anti-biotics are the same, then you are truly need an education.

Bacteria becomes resistant to anti-biotics because of two independant, yet interrelated things. First, some bacteria, through random mutations, develop the trait that makes anti-biotics inneffective on them. Now, this trait, as long as it doesn't prevent the bacteria from reproducing, will remain dormant. The numbers of this bacteria will remain small, perhaps miniscule, because of the vast numbers of "normal" bacteria. The trait may or may not get passed on. Now, when anti-biotics are miss-used, those bacteria without the mutation are wiped out. Only those with the mutation, however small, survive and reproduce. With no other normal bacteria to compete with, this mutant reproduces at will and becomes dominant. Suddenly there are strains of bacteria for which anti-biotics are useless. And if this doesn't happen, the species goe extinct.

That, my friend, is the process of evolution. It works at the microscopic and macroscopic levels (otherwise you might be a homo erectus rather than a neanderthal). This example is somewhat simplistic but you see the elegance process. Random mutation+change in the environment will stir evolution - only those able to adapt to the new environment will survive to reproduce and thus propgate the mutant genes. After a few million years, you fit your environment so perfectly, you'd swear the environment was designed for you...;-)

It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us. You seem to be denying God an awful lot...are you mad at God for something? Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?

I guess it would be easier for you to believe that, wouldn't it. I go where the evidence takes me. I don't need faith to believe "we came from dust and gravity" because that is where the evidence points. There is no evidence for God. I'm not "mad at God"...I can't be mad at something that, as far as I am concerned, doesn't exist. I am "one of those atheists" who doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence. I believe in cooperation, altruism and the ethics and philosophy that spring from them because it has been shown to provide an evolutionary advantage and is thus, the best survival strategy. Doing what I want want without regard fo the conse

When everything else fails, talk.origins prevails - at least as far as creationist arguments are concerned: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

Geology and paleontology being my specific field of study, it's not hard to see that the faults in Hovind's arguments are countless. One of these is the tired old "polystrate trees" argument. Hovind claims that "The evolutionist has only two choices to solve this dilemma: 1.The trees stood upright for millions of years while the sediment layers formed around them. 2.The trees grew through hundreds of feet of solid sedimentary rock looking for sunlight." After this he says the only plausible explanation is a huge flood.
What the heck? There are no fossil trees growing through sedimentary layers hundreds of feet thick. And I definitely haven't heard any "evolutionist" claiming something like that. A flood is a very bad explanation for this. A huge single-event flood wouldn't form several delicate, separate layers of sediments. Instead we'd get a mishmash of all kinds of stuff. Even right now there are millions of tree trunks getting buried in sediments in rivers, lakes and dry-land sedimentation basins etc. And it doesn't even take that long. At different times (seasonal fluctuation etc.) the rate of deposition is slower, at times faster, and this, among with other processes like changes in flow speed, causes the layered structure and the varying thickness of the strata. The tree gets buried in the process. Poof, the mystery is gone!

When somebody like Hovind the Fraud still uses old, refuted arguments to back up his case, what else can you think that either 1) the man is a loonie or 2) he's lying. That he isn't a real doctor even though he claims to be one doesn't make him much more trustworthy.

For some reason you're concentrating on the tax issue. Any comments on the fact that Hovind isn't actually a doctor?

I might adopt this as my sig:
"In all of these efforts, the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must." -William J. Bennetta

Trivial, yes - so I presume you can provide me an example of a species diverging? So far as I know, we haven't actually seen one species change into another, merely a species adapting to it's environment.

Pray, enlighten us mortals, then. (Or do I need to find a mountain top first?)

Assuming that science is the formulation of ideas based on what we see, based on this definition, I think it is interesting to note that Darwin formed a theory based on what he saw in the Galapagos Islands.

It seems to me that a lot of people have a tendency to try to back up what they believe by finding data, and not so much finding conclusions based on the data.

Just in case this hasn't been poseted yet.
Talk origins, is a great resource on the Creation /Intelligent-design /evoultion controversy.

Talk Origins

>I have not seen any evidence that shows new traits having been added to a genome

Well then, you haven't looked hard enough!

Also false, there are many examples of new species arising due to evolutionary mechanisims.

First, your definition is completely false. Evolution is not "a series of mutations which results in a new species". There are a lot of mechanisims other than mutation involved in evolution, such as natural selection, genetic drift, diploidy, etc.

As for new species arising due to to evolutionary mechanisims, this has been observed in nature. here is a complete article about it. A simple example of this would be, from the article:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Differen't chromosomes, can't interbreed - sounds like a new species to me. Admittedly none of them meet your personal definition of evolution, which requires mutation to be the only mechanisim, but luckily you just don't know what you're talking about.

If there is a test of macro evolution that is successful, I would like to know about it. If there is a test of spot evolution that is successful, I would like to know about it.

I do not see evidence that natural selection has removed people with vision problems from the gene pool.

It has also done nothing about ugly or stupid people.

In other words, the testing issue has been weak on both sides.

If the ID was done by something that is external to our realm of existence (ie a 3-D entity acting upon a 2-D) what is to say that our concept of creation/design and existence has any relevance in the other realm of existance?

Just because something is potentially beyond our scope of comprehension does not mean it does not exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Split up into several key parts (by scientific discipline)
Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
Part 2. Past history (anatomical vestiges, etc.)
Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism
Part 4. Molecular evidence
Part 5. Change

What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science--in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions-- the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

Living organisms. We can look at living organisms and see that they are incredibly complex, with well-designed, interdependent parts, each aspect far beyond our own human ability to understand fully, let alone duplicate. Each living thing is governed and energized by the information-loaded DNA molecule, consisting of myriads of genes and proteins of intense precision, each doing its job and each depending on the other to do its job. Evolutionists say it all happened in a step-by-step sequence by a totally random process. Creationists say it was designed.

Well, this is the whole arguement. What is your point? Evolution has a great deal of observed evidence on how this happened over billions of years. You think it looks designed, but provide no evidence for a designer. Ironically, you think that way because humans evolved tha ability to recognize patterns as a survival technique. Sometimes they see patterns where none exist (think "Backward masking" on records...). Creationist have an idea without supporting evidence.

Mutations. Never has a truly beneficial mutation been observed, a random alteration which produces a new and better gene. Creation teaches that there shouldn't be, evolutionists assure us there have been billions and billions, but they are still looking for an example. What is needed is new and increased information in the DNA information code, but all science can show is that over time information is lost in such a system. Creationists point to the never-violated Second Law of Thermodynamics--the scientific law of increasing disorder over time--while evolutionists continue to maintain that certain chemical reactions produce order that changes ameba-to-man. This spontaneous generation has long ago been disproved, but evolutionists say it happened at least once. (But they were not there.)

I suggest next time you are sick, that you go to a hospital in Montreal. You will experience mutation first hand by the name of C. defacile, a bacterium that has mutated to become anti-boitic resistant. This has happened within the last 80 years. That's about as closed to observed as one can get. All the others can be see in the fossil record. For more info check here
or here for the debunking of the other miss-information in this one.

Transitional links. The fossil record is overflowing with "gaps"--no organisms bridging the span between basic categories have ever been found. Creationists say such organisms never existed, and there shouldn't be any transitional fossils. Evolutionists explain this lack of transitional links away by punctuated equilibrium (evolution happened faster at different times during these transitional link periods) and hope to find them someday.

Ah yes the old "God of the Gaps" argument. Seems no matter how many times transitional fossils are found, creationist always revert to the "what about the transition between those?" recursive argument. Like this:

1980: Early Fossil ----->Transitional -------> Later Fossil

What about between the first and the transition?

1990: Early Fossil ---> Trans 1 ----> Trans2 -----> Later Fossil

What about between trans1 and trans2?

Thanks to Calculus, this arguement can go on forever. God is always in the gaps, not matter how small the gaps are. It still isn't evidence.

Evolutionists spend great effort to propose mathematical models for the Big Bang. The evidence consists of varied points of light that don't move, that change only when they destroy themselves. Never do we see stars evolving from gas. Evolutionists, in order to save their mathematical models, propose imaginary cold, dark matter comprising 90% of the mass of

The problem is this is being pushed as a religious idea and nothing more. There are a group of people who believe in ID AND believe that Aliens are responsible. The problem is they are not the ones pushing this idea, with no scientific backing, into schools. They are trying to teach ID as a THEORY. But it has FAILED the scientific process. These people PANIC because they feel the THEORY of EVOLUTION is being taught as FACT. So long as teachers are doing their job RIGHT (which is rare in public school), EVOLUTION is being taught as a TESTED THEORY, that has SCIENTIFIC backing.

I am sure someone else would have mentioned this, but there is an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit on this that while obviously spending its time attacking ID'ers shows that most (if not all of them) are nothing more then religious fundamentalist. BTW, if you believe in creationism great. But I would recommend Index to Creationist Claims

Read "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob. html.

But God did state some things that would be quite odd if there were alien worlds. For example, let me quote Ed Babinski here on the subject:

"Yet, if intelligent beings exist on other planets, how are they going to react to the "Biblical creation account?" Are they going to believe that the cosmos was created in "six days" as measured from one planet's perspective, the earth's? Such beings might well wonder why the cosmos wasn't created based on the length of a "day" on their own planet, rather than ours.

Neither are they going to believe that five out of the "six" days of creation, or, five sixths of the "creation period" was focused solely on the earth, during which its seas, dry land and sky, and the plants and animals on it, were created. The "rest" of the cosmos with it's 50 billion galaxies, and it's unknown multitude of planets, including the one these other beings live on, took only "one day" out of "six" to create? They'd be on the floor laughing at such earth-centered viewpoints in the very first chapter of the Bible. Only one planet, the earth, took five sixths of God's creation time to complete? No intelligent being inhabiting another planet is going to believe that!

Or, how about this for a "worst case" scenario after meeting a technologically advanced being from another planet: (Being from another planet speaking with Billy Graham's son) "So, you say, five sixths of God's `creation time' was spent on your pitiful little planet full of natural disasters and turmoil and idiocy, and God only spent one sixth of that time creating the rest of the cosmos, including what was to become our vast pan-galactic civilization whose history stretches back before the first pitiful little Biblical book was scrawled on goat skin parchments?"

Hence my next big question, ARE THERE CREATIONISTS ON OTHER PLANETS? Do they quote from a book somewhat like our earth-centered book of Genesis? And, supposing that the name of their planet is "Zontar," does their book read something like this...

In the beginning God created the heavens and ZONTAR, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters OF ZONTAR and God said let there be light, and there was the first evening and morning. And God separated the waters and caused dry land to appear ON ZONTAR, and there was a second evening and morning. And God made the land bring forth green plants and fruit trees ON ZONTAR, and there was a third evening and morning. And God made TWO GREAT LIGHTS, one to rule the day ON ZONTAR, and one to rule the night ON ZONTAR, and he made the stars also, and set them in the sky to light ZONTAR and for signs and seasons, and there was a fourth evening and morning. And God made animals ON ZONTAR, and there was a fifth evening and morning. And God made beings IN HIS OWN IMAGE, and he visited them in the garden where He and they left slimy trials as they moved and talked to each other via their antennae, and there was a sixth evening and morning. And on the seventh day God "rested" from creating the heavens and ZONTAR."

(more)

Here's a debunking of the 100 million year old hammer and ancient spark plug. Sheesh :)

Here is another reference to even more examples of speciation. Here are still more . As you can see, there are a huge number of documented examples. For that matter, different breeds of dogs would undoubtedly be considered to be different species if encountered in the wild. We call them "breeds" only because of their origin by artificial rather than natural selection. A great dane and a chihuahua are morphologically more different than a coyote and a wolf, and, being functionally unable to breed, meet one definition of different species. But of course, one can always demand something "bigger." If somebody managed to breed a dog into something resembling a horse (even though such large changes are thought to take millions of years rather than 3000), Creationists would no doubt demand an elephant.

Genome sequencing studies in recent years have demolished the notion that there is any real distinction between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution. At the genetic level, they are no different--"macro" evolution is just more of the same.

Here is another reference to even more examples of speciation. Here are still more . As you can see, there are a huge number of documented examples. For that matter, different breeds of dogs would undoubtedly be considered to be different species if encountered in the wild. We call them "breeds" only because of their origin by artificial rather than natural selection. A great dane and a chihuahua are morphologically more different than a coyote and a wolf, and, being functionally unable to breed, meet one definition of different species. But of course, one can always demand something "bigger." If somebody managed to breed a dog into something resembling a horse (even though such large changes are thought to take millions of years rather than 3000), Creationists would no doubt demand an elephant.

Genome sequencing studies in recent years have demolished the notion that there is any real distinction between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution. At the genetic level, they are no different--"macro" evolution is just more of the same.

You mean the bombardier beetle? Really not much special chemically or physically going on there. Mostly a misinterpretation of the process that is taken to be proof of a high level of complexity. Then asserting that complexity means intelligent design rather than natural selection.

Much like the assertion that "the eye is too complex to have evolved." And then scientists showing that it has happened time and time again across several phyla.

You can find references to multiple documented instances of evolution being observed in the "Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution"

However, you can observe genetic drift, and human selection has been relied upon for centuries. Natural selection has been observed, although the Google obscures the result with copious quantities of debate, and there's plenty of evidence for macroevolution.

Proof by forcing artifical categories and finding that they don't work doesn't get you very far :o)

run an experiment in which speciation occurs.

Also, I'd suggest an experiment...

Dear creationist, inject yourself with some dangerous bacteria. Take half a pencillin cure, wait a while and take the other half. If the bacteria hasn't evolved protection from the antibiotics, you'll live.

Repeat a few times.

We others will think of it as evolution in action -- and as a creationist you should be happy to receive a Darwin award.

Enough humor.

I also have a belief that I'd like to share with you, since you have wasted my time by posting your ignorant beliefs onto a (more or less) serious web page.

The human mind's ability to filter out facts and believe whatever it has emotional needs to believe, is the main reason I classify myself as a misanthrope.

I see true believers like you as worse than psychopats. You are the main problem with humanity that destroys discussions about society and everything else.

Humans have already succeeded abundantly in manipulating speciation within the genus canine. Humans also farm and in doing domesticate wild animals. Over generations new, adapted species evolve.

More examples here.

I've never observed the existence of New York City (I know, I don't travel a lot...), but because I have a LARGE amount of convincing evidence, the vast majority of it non-contradictory, that it does indeed exist, I choose to believe it.

It doesn't take a lot of faith, it just takes a little bit of rationality.

I would show you documented examples of evolution (they're plenty enough easy to find to anyone familiar with Google), but unless you're unlike every other creationist I know, you'll simply dismiss it. Okay, I'll provide one link to whet your appetite for knowledge.

Here's an easy way to tell whether it is worth arguing with someone over evolution: Ask them what possible hard evidence could convince them that creationism (or intelligent design) is wrong. If the answer is none, there is nothing that could possibly convince them, then don't waste your time. They're beyond rational thinking.

As for me, there are many ways to convince me that the theory of evolution is a bunch of hooey. Heck, there have been scientific tests that suddenly disproved commonly accepted theories before and sent scientists back to the drawing boards. The evidence would have to be verifiable, logical, and pretty impressive to overcome the amount of evidence we have today that supports evolution, but at least I'm open-minded enough to admit that it can be done.

Of course, probably the most convincing way to change my mind would be if God Himself told me burning bush-style that it's not true. Heck, it worked with the apostle Thomas, but I guess that normal guy me just isn't important enough for such an appearance.

Before you start spouting the latest intelligent design "evidence," know that I've already read it. The problem is that all of this evidence is not analyzed to discover the truth, it is gathered with the express purpose of supporting a conclusion that is already assumed to be correct. That's bad science, and doesn't hold water with me.

When evolution shows a jump in species with a significant difference, then they would be more considering.

I agree that some scientists have been a bit too overboard in defending their beliefs. I was offended at the person who was attacked for putting a pro-intelligent design article in a scientific journal. Anti-creationists claim that creationism isn't valid because...there are no pro-creationist articles in scientific journals. However, when someone is attacked for putting a pro-creationism article in a scientific journal, it looks like a witch hunt to me.

That said, a description of the geologic column can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

Sorry about taking so long to reply to you. Take care, and God bless.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

Imagine that a complex, but reducable system develops, and subsequently loses parts that are not necessary until no parts are unnecessary

An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

Agreed, if the definition made sense

In fact, a working system with a non-essential part may evolve over time such that said part may become necessary. Take the network in modern business, which did not exist, was invented, moved into the military and the university and then into the public, becoming essential to the world economy in 3 or 4 decades. It used to be non-essential. But if the network ceased without warning, the "global economy" would quickly come to a standstill as all bank transactions would stop until the outage ended or the whole banking industry, which has lost the capacity to operate on a paper-only basis, switched back to paper, which would be in short supply if the industrial networking devices employed by the paper mills quit. Similarly, a working system with an essential part may evolve over time such that the part becomes unnecessary. For example, the mechanical typewriter which was so necessary for business at one time has been superceded by the PC.

But more directly, here's a more directly applicable little thought experiment, since it might be argued that the previous examples don't fit behe's tight little definition...

Let's consider the game of life. Establish rules concerning what cells in the grid are born, continue living or die based on their context. Mark some cells as "alive." Let the game start. In many cases, the board converges to a repeating pattern or static shape. There are many such cases that were first found by randomly picking some of the cells to be alive in the first iteration. Further to the point, there exist cases where there are various clusters of live cells that interact with the other clusters to form patterns that repeat. These clusters may be thought of as "well matched parts that work together." Pick one of those cases.

Now, interfere by removing one of the "live" cells, and let the game continue. Most likely, the repeating patterns fall apart or at least change, and the static shape is likely to become non-static.

A pattern/shape example of this type might have on the order of 10, 100, or 10^20 individual parts, but the shape might not have been "designed", but rather developed from a randomly chosen initial configuration that coalesced into an orderly dynamic system.

You see, they did a lot of studies about abiogenesis and had some findings that support evolution (really a different subject). But, this study goes to show that they had the early atmosphere wrong. See, it's all mistake after mistake. God exists.

Bah, we all know the earth is only 6000 years old! Science is made up by a bunch of anti-god atheists who are conspiring to steal our tax dollars! Or, so says Dr. Kend Hovind. Debunking of all his arguments from his many video tapes and debates may be found here.

Remember: Evolution is still a theory, although a very convincing one.

A very thought-provoking alternative to the theory of Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Of course, the quote by Darwin is taken out of context. Darwin then describes how the eye might evolve by gradual steps. From eye complexity,

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

"Of course", as you would propose, "no legitimate biologist who studied after the brilliant discoveries of the all-knowing Darwin would deny what he proclaimed!",

I never said any such thing, nor would I. I am aware that there are contemporary biologists who do not accept evolution.

They are in an extremely small minority. Also, Gish is a known hack and a liar. I'm not familiar with the others on your list.

Another frequent tactic of creationists: making up the position that those who accept evolution take and arguing against it, because it's far easier than arguing against reality.

How in the world a man can come out of a biology/related doctorate program of a major secular university and still hold a creationist viewpoint probably seems incredible to you, and I can just imagine the excuses you'll respond with.

I'm sure that you can just imagine them, given that you seem willing to imagine all kinds of positions that I have neither stated nor taken.

Of course, your response will contain nothing more than the usual "none of them have provided any evidence supporting creationism, either!", to which I would respond, "of course you would say that, because that's exactly what you want to believe". To which you would reply "I don't believe anything, I just follow the facts of science", ad. infinium. Spare me.

You know, I could come up with a well-reasoned explanation as to why everything that you have presented is bunk, but I already know that you'll dismiss it, call me a liar, pretend that the evidence does not exist and just ignore it.

See, I can argue against speculation of what you will do rather than what you've actually done also. Note how it doesn't add any meaning or credibility to my statement? That tactic doesn't work when you use it either.

I've been trying to find the "Last Stop" for an argument for evolution for quite some time. I finally found this amazing article: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

I'm sure many of you (who wanted to know anyways) have come across this but this is the cat's meow for evolutionary arguments. It is designed to be easy to read, but it does not pander to the lowest common denominator (in fact far from it).

If you haven't read it, you WILL learn something new.

What would be considered a valid falsification of the "Theory of Evolution"?

Precambrian rabbit fossils.

Paraphrasing, but Darwin stated that if there were gaps that could not be explained with transitional forms, the theory would fall apart.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2. html
Quote #2.6. Just one of many dishonest creationist attacks.

When you make ignorant statements like this, you demonstrate that you've either not done any actual research, or you're just a liar. Unfortunately, this is a very common problem with creationists; they continue to use arguments that have been addressed thousands of times as though they're too lazy to do any actual research or they just don't care that they are arguing from a position of dishonesty.

It's like he cited the Onion.

Come to think of it, considering the usual quality of creationist research, I wouldn't be surprised to find somebody quoting the Onion.

My standards of proof are higher than most highschool educations provide -- I heard assertions that evolution is true, and very vague, inconclusive evidence, but I wasn't shown rigorous evidence anymore than I was shown a concrete proof of the quadratic formula -- I was expected to believe and to memorize the relevant facts, and to be able to apply them, but they were never very strongly justified. And as with the quadratic formula, ambitious students could perhaps find better evidence on their own -- I did exactly that with a lot of math problems that were stated without proof -- but it's not at all true that anyone who goes through highschool has seen the evidence for evolution.

And the evidence isn't quite as simple as you seem to suggest in your post -- fossils of extinct species don't directly imply that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor. All they directly imply is that there have been species in the past that are no longer alive now, and that there have been significant geological changes since those species were alive. But where those species came from, or their potential relation to modern species, is a much more involved question.

One thing I think a lot of people tend to forget once they've accepted evolution is just how mind-bogglingly implausible it seems when you're coming from a naive perspective. A lot of people get into the mindset that evolution is completely self-evident, and that isn't the case. Certainly with a lot of investigation the evidence for it is overwhelming, but with the standard of "scientific proof" used in typical highschool education things seem much less conclusive. Now, I'm convinced that it's true, but it's still pretty amazing that something as complicated as a human being descended from single-celled organisms. With such strong cultural forces insisting that the evidence is inconclusive, or that scientists don't agree about it, it isn't immediately obvious who to believe.

I can see from some of the other replies to my post that some people think it is obvious who to believe, and that something was wrong with me that I wasn't born knowing all of this already... sigh. I wish people (both religious and non) didn't consider being right as a kind of moral superiority.

As for why I didn't try reading scientific proofs in a library -- well, I don't know if I have a very good excuse for that. I did try to some extent, but it wasn't a subject I had to deal with very often, so I didn't feel like it was particularly pressing, though I would occasionally read things here and there. But most literature gives very simplified views, and either starts out assuming evolution is true, without giving much evidence (not that I'm objecting to that -- certainly it isn't the job of every evolutionist to prove things all over again at the beginning of everything they write -- I'm just saying that it took more work than I felt like investing to actually track down the real evidence), or tries to prove that it's false. Like I said, that isn't really a defense for why I didn't believe evolution, it's more of an explanation for why I was able to maintain that view.

If you're interested, the evidence that finally pushed me over the edge was 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, which is a wonderful article -- rigorous, logical, objective, and convincing. It also completely avoids potentially inflammatory rhetoric, which I really appreciate since that is an extreme rarity given the topic -- the only time the author even comes across as a little annoyed is when refuting the counter-counter-counter arguments by an ID supporter, where the ID guy is pretty blatantly misrepresenting his claims ;)

Anyway, for whatever it's worth -- let's hope we can lessen the anger on both sides of the fence, and refocus on real discussion and education...

Wanna bet Talk.Origins gets in the first list?

Dinosaur bones have been found with hemoglobin products and unfossilized, which would have disintegrated if they had been around for millions of years

Many mechanisms show evidence of irreducible complexity.

Noah's Ark has been known throughout history, and only in the last thousand years has it been unfindable. 2000 years ago ther were regular pilgrimages to go and see it.

The primary progress of genetics is actually downward, as an initial good creation followed by degeneration would suggest.

The primary progress of genetics is actually downward, as an initial good creation followed by degeneration would suggest.

Also, some are confused by epigenetic modifications that are heritable. These are not mutations, these are pre-coded, yet heritable, adaptations that can be triggered in organisms.

A good theory is a theory that is falsifiable. Evolutionary theory is so vague that there is no way to falsify it.

It would be trivial to falsify evolution, if it was wrong. One rabbit fossil in the same strata as dinosaurs would do it. One bird with the ammonites. One bony fish with wiwaxia.

Scientists are confident in evolution because nothing even remotely like this has ever been found.

Moreover, it is not reproducible.

Note that astrophysics is not "reproducible" in the second sense, yet I don't see you attacking it as non-science!

There have been no experiments (yet) that were able to reproduce evolution even in its simplest forms.

Especially considering the lack of intermediary forms, an "evolutionist" might argue that chagnes became very sudden. As a matter of fact, so sudden that it appears that almost some "force" caused the change to happen so suddenly that no intermediary forms have been captures by the fossil record.

How is this any different from the belief in "God" who is responsible for making changes... ?