Slashdot Mirror

According to some of our great computer programmers, nobody. That's right, the program just happened. It was the random jumbling of atoms and molecules over millions of years that finally resulted in the greatest program and the greatest computer of all kind. We call this evolution.

Do yourself a favor: take half the time it took for you to write that screed, and spend it educating yourself.

Come back with a convincing argument they don't have an answer for at talk.origins, and I'll send your trolling ass a check for $1000.

How falsifiable is the theory of evolution?

For a good long time, mtDNA was considered an accurate dating method for finding common ancestors. It was even heralded as confirmation from a second dating method that the fossil record dates were accurate. But, then we learnt a little more and found out that mtDNA suggested we had an Out of Africa common mother(not the only woman ancestor, just our common mother) about 100,000 years ago. Which didn't fit our current interpretation of human fossil distribution, but it was in keeping with a less popular interpretation, so things were okay. Then we learnt a little more(Parsons in 1997) and found out that mtDNA mutations where around 20 times faster than we thought, placing our common ancestor around 6000 years old. Clearly wrong, so we essientially stopped claiming mtDNA evidence as support for evolution. And yet dates for mtDNA calibrated off expected evolutionary branches are still accepted as more accurate on evolutionary time scales, in spite of numerous studies confirming that observed mtDNA mutations within species are unexplicably higher than those between them. This anomaly is still being investigated, but evolutionists are confident it is nothing to worry about.

The evolution of whales is still a big issue for evolution. Claims from the fossil record were that whales came from Ambulocetus and this was accepted as a good enough answer. But molecular biology shows us that whales are actually more closely related to the hippopotamus. Now, although hippos share alot of morphological features with whales, they only appear in the fossil record 30 million years after whales. So these common morphological features must be the result of convergence, but evolutionists needn't worry.

Now, as much as evolution fits a lot of the evidence, there is also a good quantity of evidence that does not support evolution(above are merely 2 recent examples). Just how much counter evidence for evolution is required for it to be considered 'falsified'. At the very least there should some admission there are reasons to lack confidence in common descent. Note: By evolution I refer to common descent here, not genetic change over time(which is of course a demonstrable fact).

Okay, I'll byte. Once good AC deserves another, and I'm bored...

The key behind 'science' is the ability to test. You come up with a theory, and there will be some way, even if only hypothetically, that the theory can be proven wrong. A theory is not widely considered to be true until it is proven, but more theories can be based on it under the presumption that it is (sorta like read-ahead caching)

The key here is that it's always possible that it's wrong. This is called falsifiability. Something cannot be true unless it's possible to think of a way that is might be false. It sounds like a paradox, but the idea is that the theory will hold against any evidence brought against it, even when that evidence is thought to prove it wrong.

Religion is not falsifiable, unless you can give me a reasonable test that could prove God does not exist (and this prove the "theory" wrong)... which I assume is the root of your argument: That evolution is false because God created everything.

As for evolution being testable, some people are doing a great job of it. So far the theory has held up as expected.

And let's not forget the unintentional proofs, like antibiotic resistant bacteria

Just because your pet cat never give birth to a litter of dogs is not exactly reason to say evolution is bunk. Maybe if you understood the concept and the theory a little better you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.
--

This is the Matrix standard of proof, which is as extreme as you can get. Nothing can be proven to that level.

This is comparable to the Kent Hovind standard of proof. Kent Hovind (who declared bankruptcy in 1996) has a standing offer of $250,000 to "anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution" and creationists jabber about this unclaimed award all the time. In the fine print it turns out that to get the money you must produce proof "beyond reasonable doubt" that God does not exist.

Several thousand and several billion are big differences, what they are trying to prove is that it is older than the creationists say, therefore nullifying the faith of three major world religions.

But don't worry, it won't be long before the creationists come up with a counter argument.

Here [answersingenesis.org] are their answers to why the earth is still young

Before you say that "evolution" has been mislabeled, you should define what you mean by "evolution." There are many different things it can refer to. For example, if you mean that the genetic distribution of populations changes (and has changed) over time, then evolution *is* a fact.

Explaining *how* the populations have changed over time, however, would be a theory.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.htm l

If you've been trying to obtain more than a "frown" from scientists on questioning evolution then you'll know about some of the slightly better than normal critiques, like that made by creationist Timothy Wallace countering a representative article written by evolutionist Mark Isaak on the talk.origins website.

Those criticisms were then countered in turn by (open-minded evolutionist) Wayne Duck, and throughout his response you can see his open-minded scientific position quite clearly. Where Wallace makes a point using clear logic, he accepts it, rather than simply rubbishing the criticisms with more rhetoric. Note in particular the final page, in which Duck could not be more clear as to the status of evolution as a scientific theory: ultimately, while the huge weight of supporting evidence for evolution is still entire universes away from being a complete picture, it is believed by scientists to be reliable only because there is currently no other theory that comes anywhere even remotely near to providing as scientifically complete a model with substantiating evidence as does evolution. But, as he says, that could change tomorrow. It's unlikely.

If you've been trying to obtain more than a "frown" from scientists on questioning evolution then you'll know about some of the slightly better than normal critiques, like that made by creationist Timothy Wallace countering a representative article written by evolutionist Mark Isaak on the talk.origins website.

Those criticisms were then countered in turn by (open-minded evolutionist) Wayne Duck, and throughout his response you can see his open-minded scientific position quite clearly. Where Wallace makes a point using clear logic, he accepts it, rather than simply rubbishing the criticisms with more rhetoric. Note in particular the final page, in which Duck could not be more clear as to the status of evolution as a scientific theory: ultimately, while the huge weight of supporting evidence for evolution is still entire universes away from being a complete picture, it is believed by scientists to be reliable only because there is currently no other theory that comes anywhere even remotely near to providing as scientifically complete a model with substantiating evidence as does evolution. But, as he says, that could change tomorrow. It's unlikely.

This is also true of Darwinian evolution. It's a very well tested theory (or "fact" if you will) by now, with wast predictive and explanatory powers.

I don't mean to be a troll, but I really want to ask this. Why is it so frowned upon to question evolution? By the nature of science, it is granted that theories and current "knowledge" may be overturned in light of future counter-evidence. However, evolutionists give the impression that they consider their views to be rock-solid, indisputable Truth that is impossible to disprove now and forevermore. Anyone who dares to disagree is dismissed out of hand as a kook. (See, I had to post as AC to even ask.)

Well, I don't know if it's really the case that evolutionists consider their views to be a "truth that is impossible to disprove" etc. (at least not the scientfically minded ones, for any theory there are supporters that one could do without).

Now let me start by saying that I'm not really an expert on evolution, since I'm european I've never had to be. There are no creationists here to speak of, and hence I'm not well versed in their way of thinking. I am a "scientist" however, so I'm somewhat qualified to speak about that.

Now, not to write an essay answering your question, but much of it boils down to what we mean by "wrong." First some preliminaries though. The strength of any scientific theory rests on its predictive powers, how well does it foresay and explain the outcome of experiments or observations (past of future). Any good scientific theory then is very specific (or strong), what we like to call "easily falsifiable", i.e. it is simple to detect when its predictive powers are failing. (Hence many of them in the natural sciences are formulated in some form of logic; "mathematics" since that provides for a stronger statement to be made). So, strong theory equals "easy to prove wrong" given contradictory evidence.

Now, then what does it mean to be "wrong" in the scientific sense? In short it's when there are observations made that cannot fit into the current theory. A prime example would be Newton's law of kinetic energy E=1/2mv^2. For a long time that was thought to be all there is to it, and all the experiments and observations that could be made corroborated that. Today we know that it's not "true". It's OK for lower speeds, but it completely fails to take relativistic effects into account (see previous posts in this thread), and hence has been relegated to the scrap heap of scientific theories, right?

Well, not quite. It's still a very good approximation for most macroscopic real world phenomena. It still explains them very well, and even post Einstein, it hasn't really lost any of it's predictive powers in the domain in which it was thought up. So even though it may now be thought "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word; it may not tell all of the truth to all people, it's still a pretty darn good theory if you're a bit more careful with it's application.

This is also true of Darwinian evolution. It's a very well tested theory (or "fact" if you will) by now, with wast predictive and explanatory powers. Any later theory that superseeds it must still explain all the observations with the same (or better) accuracy as Darwinistic evolution has to date. So even though evolution as a theory may be proven "wrong" at a later date, it'll still be mostly "right." As Newtons' laws still are.

Now, in order to completely close the sack, we also need Occam's razor. I.e. given two equally predictive theories, we prefer the simpler one. It's really a common sense argument. Why make things harder than they have to be. It's also the only scientific loophole that creationists can exploit. By invoking a "deus ex machina" in the form of an omnipotent God, that stacks the deck so that scientists cannot make correct observations (or make them correctly), you can of course invalidate any and every theory. And that's why science doesn't deal with that. If someone stacks the deck, we won't play! (Then we can continue various philosophical arguments, and in doing so rapidly leaving the natural sciences.)

And that's incidentally why science isn't "just another religion", science specifically is about absolutely minimising the things that have to be taken on faith (such as the existence of the rest of the world etc), while religion(s) are about systematising the things you take on faith. Often that means that science cannot say very much on a subject, and people having a natural tendency towards taking things on faith, often over interprets scientific statements (it takes practice to so thoroughly disiplining your subjectiveness as the scientist must do). This leads to "scientific" statements or belif in the general public, that really aren't. But that's not the fault of science, more a fault of the schooling system.

If you're specifically interested in evolution, I have it on good authority that you could do worse than studying talk origins. I haven't got any good references on the philosophy of science in english for you, but I'm sure that a few minutes of googling will turn up a multitude.

Another stupid comment: If we evolved from apes why are there still apes? People are so dumb. Educate yourself here.

Sorry, the corrected link to the Talk.Origins Archive is here.

Of course, if god created a certain group of animals, and then let them evolve, then when? We know that life existed hundreds of millions of years ago, and the fossil record shows the gradual evolution of creatures from 600 million years ago (or more) to now.

Then show me a single example which works when Genesis is assumed true. All the "contradictions" I've seen people claim fall apart unless you already assume Genesis is false. Or in other words, the contradictions are easily explained if Genesis is both interpreted literally AND taken as truth.

Heck, Genesis can't even decide which order things were created between Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1:

* Day 3: Plants
* Day 5: Sea animals and flying animals
* Day 6: Land animals, then humanity (both sexes)

Genesis 2:

* The first man (Adam)
* Plants
* Animals (both land and air)
* The first woman (Eve)

Now, the above is trivial compared with taking Genesis as true. The best example is Noah's flood. While there may have been a localized flood, a literal reading of Genesis requires that it was a worldwide flood. Two hundred years ago, a number of Christian geologists wanted to prove to the rest of the world that the flood in the bible did happen (i.e. initial assumption that Genesis was true); they found overwhelming evidence that a worldwide flood never happened.

I'll have to admit that the worldwide flood is a curious story - while the story is told of god saving Noah, his family, and a group of animals as a positive story, it really is a story of mass premeditated genocide on a global scale.

-MDL

The fossil record also shows that at a given time; a certain type of animal existed; and at a later point in time, a similar but different type of animal existed. As an example, look at the evolution of the horse. . As far as DNA goes, one could argue that two animals that have similar physical characteristics should have similar DNA without having common descent. But their having similar "JUNK" DNA makes it near impossible to refute common descent.

The combined evidence of DNA and the fossil record in NO WAY contradict a belief in a world created as Genesis literally describes.

Well, if you take Genesis literally, not only does it contradict biological evolution, but astronomy, geology, physics, and even itself.

I agree alot of people on talk-origins push this as a scientific belief, which it of course is not. That doesn't mean however that the belief is contrary to scientific evidence.

If you take the bible literally, it contradicts scientific evidence in many disiplines. But there are many mainstream Christian denominations that have no problem with evolution and the theory of evolution.

understand the difference between a closed system and an open system, they have no fear..

More==>
The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are very well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy, emf characteristics of voltaic cells, equilibrium constants, refrigeration cycles, steam turbine operating parameters, and a host of other parameters. The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.

So what you are really asking when talking about thermodynamics is where does the energy needed to reverse entropy come from? The aswer is big, hot, and round, and has often been called a god in the past, but unlike the Xian god can be seen quite easily with the human eye.

Meanwhile, the origin of the first cell is interesting (and certainly there are plenty of researchers who aren't afraid of looking into that), but has nothing to do with evolution, since Evolution is the theory of what happened AFTER the first cell formed (which is why Darwin's book is called the Origin of the Species, not the Origin of Life.

If an explanation is requested and the answer is to "just believe" in an unsubstantiated theory, then that, my friend, is a request of "faith" as the answer.

Evolution is anything but an unsubstantiated theory. This is a good site to start with.

But can we observe speciation or massive shifts from one type of organism to another? No.

Yes. Read this and this.

But can we observe speciation or massive shifts from one type of organism to another? No.

Yes. Read this and this.

To see where the reviewer, and most modern criticism against evolutionary biology, comes from -- see The Dialectical Biologist.

I stopped reading the popular criticism after coming to the opinion that there are two different religions that have dogmatic problems with evolution -- Xians/Muslims and Marxists.

I think I understand why the Xians have problems accepting that some (tendencies to) behavior are built into humans. I never read up enough on Marxism to understand their problem. I leave that to people with more religious needs.

...just trying to be funny. Sorry.

Um, I think social darwinism is more about trying to rationalize social inequality using the theory of natural selection (and it has generally been discredited as a reasonable philosophy)

Darwinism itself is a kind of useless null concept outside the bounds of history (i.e. evolutionary history). It basically states that those things which have survived... did, and those things which haven't... didn't.

Sort of...it's more of a "those which were better suited for the environment survived due to the qualities that made it better suited." It is certainly not a null concept outside of evolutionary history. The theory is visible in all ranges of history, long-term evolution or short-term sociological. People have proposed you explain cultural information by the same mechanism. Memes are created, evolve, and are left behind much like dinosaurs. The application of natural selection is used widely in many areas, biomedical research (phage display, directed evolution) to software (genetic programming). To limit the thoery to a useless historical adjective is rather short-sighted.

What you've argued is that charity isn't beneficial to society. Whether or not that is true, it has little to do with Darwinism or natural selection.

No, what was argued is that if you can't survive in a context (ie as a business you cant make money), then you are going to be left behind. The argument had nothing to do with charity or its benefit (or lack thereof) to society, rather it was saying that businesses, like nearly everything, are subject to natural selection.

-Ted

The writer of your quoted materials isn't a standard flood geologist / creationist. However, the claims made are similar enough (6k or 12k years ago, giant quantities of salt water temporarily covered vast quantities of land), that evidence against a global flood also applies to his case. Evidence from the talk.origins flood faqs that doesn't support recent floods includes ice core, tree ring, lake bed sedimentation and desert pack rat nest samples. They don't show a layer of salt water 12,000 or any recent thousands of years ago.

But as I browse talk.origins, I see they specifically address your writer. Quoting from this article: "...their claim that hundreds of thousands of frozen carcasses have been found is simply incorrect. At most, only a few tens of frozen carcasses have been documented in all of Siberia and Alaska. In Canada, the frozen mammal material found consists of scraps of hide and muscle found attached to bones. All of these "frozen carcasses" that have been carefully examined show evidence of decomposition, scavenging, or both prior to be buried, e.g. Gutherie (1990). Also, the sediments in which these carcasses occur are clearly of noncatastrophic origin (Gutherie 1990, Lister and Bahn 1994, Pewe 1975, Uraintseva 1993)..." [bold added] Please note that the references are all articles you can find and read. And browsing talk.origins will find more links to mammoth articles...

The writer of your quoted materials isn't a standard flood geologist / creationist. However, the claims made are similar enough (6k or 12k years ago, giant quantities of salt water temporarily covered vast quantities of land), that evidence against a global flood also applies to his case. Evidence from the talk.origins flood faqs that doesn't support recent floods includes ice core, tree ring, lake bed sedimentation and desert pack rat nest samples. They don't show a layer of salt water 12,000 or any recent thousands of years ago.

But as I browse talk.origins, I see they specifically address your writer. Quoting from this article: "...their claim that hundreds of thousands of frozen carcasses have been found is simply incorrect. At most, only a few tens of frozen carcasses have been documented in all of Siberia and Alaska. In Canada, the frozen mammal material found consists of scraps of hide and muscle found attached to bones. All of these "frozen carcasses" that have been carefully examined show evidence of decomposition, scavenging, or both prior to be buried, e.g. Gutherie (1990). Also, the sediments in which these carcasses occur are clearly of noncatastrophic origin (Gutherie 1990, Lister and Bahn 1994, Pewe 1975, Uraintseva 1993)..." [bold added] Please note that the references are all articles you can find and read. And browsing talk.origins will find more links to mammoth articles...

I have only loosely kept track of this debate as well, mainly because anthropology was what I wanted to do for a living before I found out that Software Engineers, unlike Anthropologists can actually live off what they get paid. :)

As for the Israeli matter I wrote of that because I vaguely remembered a huge mudfight about it some years ago. Especially the Mt. Carmel remains. But that polite argument is nothing compared the borderline "shitstorm" (pardon my French, but that letter exchange is hard to discribe other wise) that has been raised about the Portugese remains (aka. Lagar Velho #1). Which is also why I usually prefer to stay out of this debate.

Oh, as to your PS I think it's been pretty well settled for decades that Cro Magnon is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Funny that expression is still used, I keep bumping into it one in a while?!? Some people like to live in the past I suppose.

Evolution is very much science. Experimentation is required in science WHERE APPLICABLE. Evolution is not simply 'in the past' but is still happening today. It can be, and has been, observed both in nature and in labratory settings. Anyone who says that there is no real evidence for evolution is someone who has never bothered to look at said mountain of evidence.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Evolution is very much science. Experimentation is required in science WHERE APPLICABLE. Evolution is not simply 'in the past' but is still happening today. It can be, and has been, observed both in nature and in labratory settings. Anyone who says that there is no real evidence for evolution is someone who has never bothered to look at said mountain of evidence.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Regarding why creation "science" is not science see the The General Anti-Creationism FAQ and perhaps also this page by a guy named Lenny Flank. Those two sites summarize my arguments quite succinctly.

As for moon landing conspiracies, check out the page at Bad Astronomy which talks about it.

If there are people who still believe the earth is flat, what makes anyone think that any amount of proof will convince the hoax believers that we went to the moon?

Will you ignore the fact that radiometric dating frequently produces different answers for one set of samples, and that the "correct" date is then selected?

Experimental error happens. Indeed, creationists go to great lengths to find examples of such:

The data is taken from a creationist publication that mined the literature for examples of bad dates - yet they STILL average out to being correct!

Will you ignore the fact that the most widely accepted model of continental drift now in favor is one put forward by a creationist, as his computer model explains things that nothing else does?

What, this one?

You do realise that this model implies that the entire ocean floor was created in a year? Given that the oceanic crust is 6km thick and covers 53% of the planet, this implies that the entire ocean was boiled off. This model is not 'widely accepted', it is wrong.

You have, of course, still failed to answer with regard to the thermal gradients and cooling in the oceans, why all the different radiometric techniques give the same age, and why the ages agree with those given by continental drift extrapolation. Hell, I even have to post your arguments or you!

The question is not my open-mindedness - I'm fully prepared to take creationist arguments on their merits. You are the one dismissing science without even learning about it first. THAT is closed mindedness and you know it.

I suppose I should have made that clear. I completely agree with you that those who are too lazy to check the facts are not worth paying attention to. Many disbelievers in moon-landing/evolution/round-earth do in fact fall into this category. However, to say that they fall into the category, without hearing arguments from every one of them, is a bit presumptuous.

It is extremely important to keep an open mind towards people, especially when they take an extremely unpopular stance. Otherwise, you could overlook an actual valid argument from an informed disbeliever.

Oh, and I found an interesting dilemma for current evolutionary ideas here. I think it's a religious page, but if you ignore the evolution-flaming, it brings up an obvious need for further study.

On the other hand, evolution has a 150 year mountain of evidence to prove

If you believe otherwise, read TalkOrigins.org and explain why they're wrong.

One has to wonder if they are willfully or unconciously lying to themselves and others about this. It certainly doesn't say much for their faith or their thought processes that they'd rather live in a woo-woo land of lies and self-denial than confront reality.

First, you pick an isotope of an element which has a nice long half-life. Then, you guess at how much of that isotope was in the environment (and therefore the object you are dating as well) at the time period you assume the object was made.

Not exactly. Isochron dating takes a set of samples which formed at the same time from a common pool of materials (such as a rock including several minerals) and plotting points on a graph. Three things are measured - the abundance of a radioactive element (the parent) , one of its decay products (the daughter), and a different non-radioactive isotope of the same element as the decay product (the control). A graph is plotted, with the X axis being the ratio of parent to control, and the Y axis being the ratio of daughter to control. The correlation of the plotted points to a line indicate the accuracy of the date, which can be determined from the slope of the line. How it works is described in better detail at the link I gave.

The other assumptions are that there is a constant decay rate of the isotope

A fair assumption, since no counterexample has ever been shown.

and that the object being dated becomes a closed system, not seeping or leeching any of that isotope from its surroundings.

Changes in composition of the object will cause the points on the isochron plot to not be correlated to a line, and thus the contamination will be noticed and either the object will be declared unsuitable for dating, or a date can be given with big error bars.

There is no such thing as "degeneration" or "progress". That implies a value scale where there is none. The rats living on a toxic waste dump would be considered evolution if it was genetic. However, birth defects caused by toxic waste are NOT genetic and so are NOT evolution.

Ballroom dancing is not a prerequisite of quantum mechanics, nor vice versa.

Yes, and how the universe, the solar system, or life started is irrelevant to evolution as well.

Mr Montag, are you having a lend of me? Where has biology observed evolution? Can you name any situation in which genuine developmental improvement has been witnessed, let alone witnessed to be a result of evolutionary processes?

Certainly. There is a very nice FAQ about this over at talkorigins.org. Or, if you want an example that everyone has heard of, take penecillin-resistant strains of bacteria. BTW, developmental improvement is NOT a requirement of being considered evolution, as it has no meaning in the context.

Wrong [johnmyers.com], and I quote:

"In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn't have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, 'If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith.'"

Wow. I don't think I've seen a better example of a strawman. Please, outline what makes the geologic dating systems uncertain, and just which ones conflict. And BTW, the only assumption that radiometric dating makes is that the half-life of the measured material is a constant. This is a VERY reasonable assumption since quantum mechanics (the most accurate theory in the history of science) demands it.

No, it isn't. It's based almost entirely on surmise

I got news for you buddy, *all* hypotheses and theories are based on surmise and inference. Extrapolating from the evidence is making an inference.

The name of the book is "Darwin's Black Box", and its contents have been refuted. They also have a refutation to creationist notions about Bombardier Beetles.

Finally, I have a list of creationists who post on Slashdot.

- Sam

The name of the book is "Darwin's Black Box", and its contents have been refuted. They also have a refutation to creationist notions about Bombardier Beetles.

Finally, I have a list of creationists who post on Slashdot.

- Sam

Welcome, Mr. "On Lawn", to my list of creationists on Slashdot.

This creationist notion of "Irreducable complexity" has been refuted. To quote:

Michael Behe's IR thesis is mistaken. One way that functions can be added to irreducibly complex systems (like genetic-determined biochemical pathways) is by duplicating the genes so you have a "spare" copy to mutate and evolve, so it can replace the older IR system if necessary.

There is also a longer article at talkorigins.org about "Irreducable Complexity".

I think it would be rather redundant to paste the entire talk.origins article here.

As a Christian, creationists really annoy me. No, you don't have to become a close minded idiot to accept Christ in your life.

- Sam

Welcome, Mr. "On Lawn", to my list of creationists on Slashdot.

This creationist notion of "Irreducable complexity" has been refuted. To quote:

Michael Behe's IR thesis is mistaken. One way that functions can be added to irreducibly complex systems (like genetic-determined biochemical pathways) is by duplicating the genes so you have a "spare" copy to mutate and evolve, so it can replace the older IR system if necessary.

There is also a longer article at talkorigins.org about "Irreducable Complexity".

I think it would be rather redundant to paste the entire talk.origins article here.

As a Christian, creationists really annoy me. No, you don't have to become a close minded idiot to accept Christ in your life.

- Sam

Welcome, Mr. "On Lawn", to my list of creationists on Slashdot.

This creationist notion of "Irreducable complexity" has been refuted. To quote:

Michael Behe's IR thesis is mistaken. One way that functions can be added to irreducibly complex systems (like genetic-determined biochemical pathways) is by duplicating the genes so you have a "spare" copy to mutate and evolve, so it can replace the older IR system if necessary.

There is also a longer article at talkorigins.org about "Irreducable Complexity".

I think it would be rather redundant to paste the entire talk.origins article here.

As a Christian, creationists really annoy me. No, you don't have to become a close minded idiot to accept Christ in your life.

- Sam

It should be noted that the link provided for info about the bombardier beetle points to creationist propoganda, containing many non-facts (such as that the two chemicals produced will EXPLODE without an inhibitor).

For a more factual account of the beetle, try, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html.

Why doesn't anyone make a link to the URLs they reference nowadays? Wasn't that the point of the web?

how do evolutionists explain the "polystrate" fossils and petrified trees found all over the world?

Read the ploystrate fossil FAQ

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm

Looking at that site, it seems to be full of nitpicking about articles written for the popular press, castigating Drawin for proposing a theory that was not 100% correct from the get-go, and reprinting outright lies that have long been discredited.

If you want real facts instead of people trying to win the debate by shouting louder, try talk.origins archive.

If it's a fact, then I'm sure you can provide at least one controlled experiment showing one species evolving into another species. You can't?

Actually, I can.

Observed instances of speciation FAQ
More Observed Speciation Events

If it's a fact, then I'm sure you can provide at least one controlled experiment showing one species evolving into another species. You can't?

Actually, I can.

Observed instances of speciation FAQ
More Observed Speciation Events

A step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.

1.Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]

2.Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])

3.Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

4.The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])

5.Some invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

6.In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

7.Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservoir.

8.The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ. This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]

9.Muscles adapt which close off the reservoir, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.

10.Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones gets used for defense.

11.Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.

12.More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction.

13.The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.

14.Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.

15.The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.

Now, lets move on to the broader theory of evolution which essentially postulates that if you could look back in time you would see that all life on Earth decended from from single cell organisms and ultimately strands of dna. (Which isn't to say that parallel evolution didn't happen in the early stages and it's entirely possible that the different kingdoms of biology each came from their own pools of goo. But, it's entirely beside the point.) Look at the timeline. 3.5 billion years... an incomprehensible period of time - 500 thousand times the length of recorded history, 50 million times the length of a human life. Is it any wonder why we have missing links in the geological record? No, and it's impressive that we have found what we have. We don't need the missing links to see that evolution happened. And we certainly don't need the missing links of the last 15 or so changes in a beetle which went through millions of changes just to become a beetle. The Bombardier Beetle is an odd occurance to be sure. It is not, however, a gaping hole in the theory of evolution. It is not usual or expected - but what is? We're lucky to be here debating this at all.

I love the folks who like to tell you that "evolution is just a theory". The statement is rather loaded. It is a theory, yes. But so is the theory of gravity, and the round-earth theory. Just because a concept happens to be a theory doesn't preclude it from also being an observable fact. So far, evolutionary principles are a visisble, reproducible phenomenon, and has been observed in the laboratory and in the field. Most importantly, you could disprove evolution right now if you could show verifiable supernatural causality for what we observe in speciation. Creation "science" has no outlet to invalidate it, offers no verifiable causality for speciation, and presumes the existence of a supernatural event to explain the natural world. That's not even a theory, its a fairy tale.

You might want to check this for an alternate viewpoint.. I quote:

Much creationist literature gives an inaccurate account of the process. Based on an admittedly sloppy translation of a 1961 article by Schildknecht and Holoubek [Kofahl, 1981], Duane Gish claimed that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones would explode spontaneously if mixed without a chemical inhibitor, and that the beetle starts with a mix of all three and adds an anti-inhibitor when he wants the explosion. [Weber, 1981] In fact, the two do not explode when mixed, as others have demonstrated. [Dawkins, 1987, p. 86-87] (Schildknecht did propose a physical inhibitor which kept the mixture from degrading in undisected beetles; in fact, the degradation he saw was probably simply a result of exposure to the air.) Gish still used the mistaken scenario after being corrected by Kofahl in 1978. [Weber, 1981] The same mistake is also repeated in books by Hitching in 1981, Huse in 1983 and 1993, and twice in a creationist magazine in 1990 [Anon, 1990a,b].

Here is a link to the talkorigins.org discussion on the bombardier beetle.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html