Slashdot Mirror

--
Poliglut

Modern genetics supports evolution.

If anything, it shows how unlikely evolution is. Through our reasarch we have: a) Shown that there is extra DNA that is unused (which is likely the source of changes in animals adapting to their situation, and no animal with or without scientist's help has ever crossed the species barrier, which would have happened a huge number of time in very few years for evolution to occur) ...

Two points: Why do you think that finding inactivated genes in DNA is evidence against evolution? What about the cave creatures (newts, crickets, etc.) that have deactivated genes for producing eyes? Surely, not producing unneeded organs is an advantageous evolutionary step in the resource-starved enviornment of a cave.

Secondly, check out the following:
Observed Instances of Speciation for dozens of examples of living things that "crossed the species barrier" without human help and
29 Evidences for Macroevolution (I hate the word "macroevolution". It is too often abused by people who don't know any better -- or worse, by those who should.)

... b) Shown how difficult it is to make changes to DNA ...

Not really. Our DNA seems to contain all kinds of junk, probably inserted by retroviruses, which are sloppy replicators. Again, a point for evolution or other non-optimal processes in the genome. Definitely a point against creationism -- even a first year bio engr. student could produce a cleaner genome, let alone a deity.

... c) Shown that no natural mutation has ever been benefitial, and how unlikely an even slightly positive change is.

Now you're not even trying, just parroting things out of ICR tracts. ==Sigh==

There are a number of antibiotics that never existed until some chemist synthesized them. (Which ones? Don't remember; references not at hand.) You can't say that bacteria had enzymes to degrade them sitting around in "junk DNA" cold storage because they were totally new. Said antibiotics are remarkably effective for a couple years, or even decades. Eventually, some strains of strep evolve the ability to break down those antibiotics.

Bingo! Instant competitive advantage that is massively useful to the bacterium. It's more than just a "slight" positive change, it's a major breakthrough that gives that strain and all its decendents a big boost over competing strains of strep.

Is this too hard to imagine? But, you don't have to imagine it. Just read the reports on the antibiotic resistant strains of strep found around hospitals and shudder....

There is an amazing amount of fossil evidence for evolution.

Never has there been any remote evidence linking fossils with modern species. Therefore, it's quite possible those ape-looking creatures were in fact ae-looking create who probably lived along side Apes and Humans.

Really? I suppose the entire chain of fossils linking Hyracotherium (AKA Eohippus) to modern horses is all a product of my diseased imagination. Likewise, the fossil series for whales and other cetacians, lagomorphs (rabbits, etc.), condylarths (hoofed animals in general), etc.

Check out Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ or the less broad but more detailed Horse Evolution.
--

Modern genetics supports evolution.

If anything, it shows how unlikely evolution is. Through our reasarch we have: a) Shown that there is extra DNA that is unused (which is likely the source of changes in animals adapting to their situation, and no animal with or without scientist's help has ever crossed the species barrier, which would have happened a huge number of time in very few years for evolution to occur) ...

Two points: Why do you think that finding inactivated genes in DNA is evidence against evolution? What about the cave creatures (newts, crickets, etc.) that have deactivated genes for producing eyes? Surely, not producing unneeded organs is an advantageous evolutionary step in the resource-starved enviornment of a cave.

Secondly, check out the following:
Observed Instances of Speciation for dozens of examples of living things that "crossed the species barrier" without human help and
29 Evidences for Macroevolution (I hate the word "macroevolution". It is too often abused by people who don't know any better -- or worse, by those who should.)

... b) Shown how difficult it is to make changes to DNA ...

Not really. Our DNA seems to contain all kinds of junk, probably inserted by retroviruses, which are sloppy replicators. Again, a point for evolution or other non-optimal processes in the genome. Definitely a point against creationism -- even a first year bio engr. student could produce a cleaner genome, let alone a deity.

... c) Shown that no natural mutation has ever been benefitial, and how unlikely an even slightly positive change is.

Now you're not even trying, just parroting things out of ICR tracts. ==Sigh==

There are a number of antibiotics that never existed until some chemist synthesized them. (Which ones? Don't remember; references not at hand.) You can't say that bacteria had enzymes to degrade them sitting around in "junk DNA" cold storage because they were totally new. Said antibiotics are remarkably effective for a couple years, or even decades. Eventually, some strains of strep evolve the ability to break down those antibiotics.

Bingo! Instant competitive advantage that is massively useful to the bacterium. It's more than just a "slight" positive change, it's a major breakthrough that gives that strain and all its decendents a big boost over competing strains of strep.

Is this too hard to imagine? But, you don't have to imagine it. Just read the reports on the antibiotic resistant strains of strep found around hospitals and shudder....

There is an amazing amount of fossil evidence for evolution.

Never has there been any remote evidence linking fossils with modern species. Therefore, it's quite possible those ape-looking creatures were in fact ae-looking create who probably lived along side Apes and Humans.

Really? I suppose the entire chain of fossils linking Hyracotherium (AKA Eohippus) to modern horses is all a product of my diseased imagination. Likewise, the fossil series for whales and other cetacians, lagomorphs (rabbits, etc.), condylarths (hoofed animals in general), etc.

Check out Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ or the less broad but more detailed Horse Evolution.
--

Modern genetics supports evolution.

If anything, it shows how unlikely evolution is. Through our reasarch we have: a) Shown that there is extra DNA that is unused (which is likely the source of changes in animals adapting to their situation, and no animal with or without scientist's help has ever crossed the species barrier, which would have happened a huge number of time in very few years for evolution to occur) ...

Two points: Why do you think that finding inactivated genes in DNA is evidence against evolution? What about the cave creatures (newts, crickets, etc.) that have deactivated genes for producing eyes? Surely, not producing unneeded organs is an advantageous evolutionary step in the resource-starved enviornment of a cave.

Secondly, check out the following:
Observed Instances of Speciation for dozens of examples of living things that "crossed the species barrier" without human help and
29 Evidences for Macroevolution (I hate the word "macroevolution". It is too often abused by people who don't know any better -- or worse, by those who should.)

... b) Shown how difficult it is to make changes to DNA ...

Not really. Our DNA seems to contain all kinds of junk, probably inserted by retroviruses, which are sloppy replicators. Again, a point for evolution or other non-optimal processes in the genome. Definitely a point against creationism -- even a first year bio engr. student could produce a cleaner genome, let alone a deity.

... c) Shown that no natural mutation has ever been benefitial, and how unlikely an even slightly positive change is.

Now you're not even trying, just parroting things out of ICR tracts. ==Sigh==

There are a number of antibiotics that never existed until some chemist synthesized them. (Which ones? Don't remember; references not at hand.) You can't say that bacteria had enzymes to degrade them sitting around in "junk DNA" cold storage because they were totally new. Said antibiotics are remarkably effective for a couple years, or even decades. Eventually, some strains of strep evolve the ability to break down those antibiotics.

Bingo! Instant competitive advantage that is massively useful to the bacterium. It's more than just a "slight" positive change, it's a major breakthrough that gives that strain and all its decendents a big boost over competing strains of strep.

Is this too hard to imagine? But, you don't have to imagine it. Just read the reports on the antibiotic resistant strains of strep found around hospitals and shudder....

There is an amazing amount of fossil evidence for evolution.

Never has there been any remote evidence linking fossils with modern species. Therefore, it's quite possible those ape-looking creatures were in fact ae-looking create who probably lived along side Apes and Humans.

Really? I suppose the entire chain of fossils linking Hyracotherium (AKA Eohippus) to modern horses is all a product of my diseased imagination. Likewise, the fossil series for whales and other cetacians, lagomorphs (rabbits, etc.), condylarths (hoofed animals in general), etc.

Check out Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ or the less broad but more detailed Horse Evolution.
--

Modern genetics supports evolution.

If anything, it shows how unlikely evolution is. Through our reasarch we have: a) Shown that there is extra DNA that is unused (which is likely the source of changes in animals adapting to their situation, and no animal with or without scientist's help has ever crossed the species barrier, which would have happened a huge number of time in very few years for evolution to occur) ...

Two points: Why do you think that finding inactivated genes in DNA is evidence against evolution? What about the cave creatures (newts, crickets, etc.) that have deactivated genes for producing eyes? Surely, not producing unneeded organs is an advantageous evolutionary step in the resource-starved enviornment of a cave.

Secondly, check out the following:
Observed Instances of Speciation for dozens of examples of living things that "crossed the species barrier" without human help and
29 Evidences for Macroevolution (I hate the word "macroevolution". It is too often abused by people who don't know any better -- or worse, by those who should.)

... b) Shown how difficult it is to make changes to DNA ...

Not really. Our DNA seems to contain all kinds of junk, probably inserted by retroviruses, which are sloppy replicators. Again, a point for evolution or other non-optimal processes in the genome. Definitely a point against creationism -- even a first year bio engr. student could produce a cleaner genome, let alone a deity.

... c) Shown that no natural mutation has ever been benefitial, and how unlikely an even slightly positive change is.

Now you're not even trying, just parroting things out of ICR tracts. ==Sigh==

There are a number of antibiotics that never existed until some chemist synthesized them. (Which ones? Don't remember; references not at hand.) You can't say that bacteria had enzymes to degrade them sitting around in "junk DNA" cold storage because they were totally new. Said antibiotics are remarkably effective for a couple years, or even decades. Eventually, some strains of strep evolve the ability to break down those antibiotics.

Bingo! Instant competitive advantage that is massively useful to the bacterium. It's more than just a "slight" positive change, it's a major breakthrough that gives that strain and all its decendents a big boost over competing strains of strep.

Is this too hard to imagine? But, you don't have to imagine it. Just read the reports on the antibiotic resistant strains of strep found around hospitals and shudder....

There is an amazing amount of fossil evidence for evolution.

Never has there been any remote evidence linking fossils with modern species. Therefore, it's quite possible those ape-looking creatures were in fact ae-looking create who probably lived along side Apes and Humans.

Really? I suppose the entire chain of fossils linking Hyracotherium (AKA Eohippus) to modern horses is all a product of my diseased imagination. Likewise, the fossil series for whales and other cetacians, lagomorphs (rabbits, etc.), condylarths (hoofed animals in general), etc.

Check out Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ or the less broad but more detailed Horse Evolution.
--

In short, dating methods are nowhere near as questionable as you think. See "The Age of the Earth: How do we know it?", "Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale", "Isochron Dating Methods", "Dating with Icecores" and so on.

In short, dating methods are nowhere near as questionable as you think. See "The Age of the Earth: How do we know it?", "Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale", "Isochron Dating Methods", "Dating with Icecores" and so on.

In short, dating methods are nowhere near as questionable as you think. See "The Age of the Earth: How do we know it?", "Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale", "Isochron Dating Methods", "Dating with Icecores" and so on.

In short, dating methods are nowhere near as questionable as you think. See "The Age of the Earth: How do we know it?", "Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale", "Isochron Dating Methods", "Dating with Icecores" and so on.

Other than as a curiosity specific to the dating or organic matter and archaelogical finds, this is irrelevant. Serious dating is performed with the Isochron method.

-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

Yet a closer examination reveals that "science" is little more than a separate religion itself.

Is evolution just another religion?

Evolution cannot be observed.

Observed instances of speciation

What if light slowed down away from the earth?

Then the universe would be even older than the 15-20 billion years it appears to be.

Thus the universe's age is in reality not established AT ALL, not that scientists can agree on that either!

Observation: some scientists think the universe is fifteen billion years old.
Observation: other scientists think the universe is twenty billion years old.
shadrax's conclusion: Scientists can't agree on the age of the universe; therefore the universe might actually be six thousand years old.

I can't help but wonder: when shadrax sees an old man on the street, and can't decide whether the man is closer to seventy or eighty, does shadrax conclude that the man might actually be five?

Scientists use circular logic. For example, a dinosaur bone might be dated to x million years old. So we've disproved the Bible--or have we? How do biologists know what level of carbon dating is how old? Well, the geologist over there says the rock it was found in is x million years old. So ask the geologist how he knows how old the rock is. Well, of course, fossils just that old happen to be found there, so of course the rock is that old!

This would be a valid argument if radiometric dating measured only two isotopes. By using isochron methods, which require three isotopes, the age of materials can be determined radiometrically without the sort of circular reasoning shadrax describes.

Not to mention that shadrax is apparently unaware that carbon dating is only good for dates up to tens of thousands of years (carbon dating is only one type of radiometric dating; others are good for much larger ages). Also, carbon dating has been validated by non-radiometric methods, such as counting tree rings or ice layers.

Scientists insist that cave and rock formations must have been formed over millions of years. They have never considered the possible effect of a single catastrophic event, such as the Flood, in creating rock formations like the Grand Canyon.

Problems with a Global Flood: Producing the Geological Record

Yet a closer examination reveals that "science" is little more than a separate religion itself.

Is evolution just another religion?

Evolution cannot be observed.

Observed instances of speciation

What if light slowed down away from the earth?

Then the universe would be even older than the 15-20 billion years it appears to be.

Thus the universe's age is in reality not established AT ALL, not that scientists can agree on that either!

Observation: some scientists think the universe is fifteen billion years old.
Observation: other scientists think the universe is twenty billion years old.
shadrax's conclusion: Scientists can't agree on the age of the universe; therefore the universe might actually be six thousand years old.

I can't help but wonder: when shadrax sees an old man on the street, and can't decide whether the man is closer to seventy or eighty, does shadrax conclude that the man might actually be five?

Scientists use circular logic. For example, a dinosaur bone might be dated to x million years old. So we've disproved the Bible--or have we? How do biologists know what level of carbon dating is how old? Well, the geologist over there says the rock it was found in is x million years old. So ask the geologist how he knows how old the rock is. Well, of course, fossils just that old happen to be found there, so of course the rock is that old!

This would be a valid argument if radiometric dating measured only two isotopes. By using isochron methods, which require three isotopes, the age of materials can be determined radiometrically without the sort of circular reasoning shadrax describes.

Not to mention that shadrax is apparently unaware that carbon dating is only good for dates up to tens of thousands of years (carbon dating is only one type of radiometric dating; others are good for much larger ages). Also, carbon dating has been validated by non-radiometric methods, such as counting tree rings or ice layers.

Scientists insist that cave and rock formations must have been formed over millions of years. They have never considered the possible effect of a single catastrophic event, such as the Flood, in creating rock formations like the Grand Canyon.

Problems with a Global Flood: Producing the Geological Record

Yet a closer examination reveals that "science" is little more than a separate religion itself.

Is evolution just another religion?

Evolution cannot be observed.

Observed instances of speciation

What if light slowed down away from the earth?

Then the universe would be even older than the 15-20 billion years it appears to be.

Thus the universe's age is in reality not established AT ALL, not that scientists can agree on that either!

Observation: some scientists think the universe is fifteen billion years old.
Observation: other scientists think the universe is twenty billion years old.
shadrax's conclusion: Scientists can't agree on the age of the universe; therefore the universe might actually be six thousand years old.

I can't help but wonder: when shadrax sees an old man on the street, and can't decide whether the man is closer to seventy or eighty, does shadrax conclude that the man might actually be five?

Scientists use circular logic. For example, a dinosaur bone might be dated to x million years old. So we've disproved the Bible--or have we? How do biologists know what level of carbon dating is how old? Well, the geologist over there says the rock it was found in is x million years old. So ask the geologist how he knows how old the rock is. Well, of course, fossils just that old happen to be found there, so of course the rock is that old!

This would be a valid argument if radiometric dating measured only two isotopes. By using isochron methods, which require three isotopes, the age of materials can be determined radiometrically without the sort of circular reasoning shadrax describes.

Not to mention that shadrax is apparently unaware that carbon dating is only good for dates up to tens of thousands of years (carbon dating is only one type of radiometric dating; others are good for much larger ages). Also, carbon dating has been validated by non-radiometric methods, such as counting tree rings or ice layers.

Scientists insist that cave and rock formations must have been formed over millions of years. They have never considered the possible effect of a single catastrophic event, such as the Flood, in creating rock formations like the Grand Canyon.

Problems with a Global Flood: Producing the Geological Record

Yet a closer examination reveals that "science" is little more than a separate religion itself.

Is evolution just another religion?

Evolution cannot be observed.

Observed instances of speciation

What if light slowed down away from the earth?

Then the universe would be even older than the 15-20 billion years it appears to be.

Thus the universe's age is in reality not established AT ALL, not that scientists can agree on that either!

Observation: some scientists think the universe is fifteen billion years old.
Observation: other scientists think the universe is twenty billion years old.
shadrax's conclusion: Scientists can't agree on the age of the universe; therefore the universe might actually be six thousand years old.

I can't help but wonder: when shadrax sees an old man on the street, and can't decide whether the man is closer to seventy or eighty, does shadrax conclude that the man might actually be five?

Scientists use circular logic. For example, a dinosaur bone might be dated to x million years old. So we've disproved the Bible--or have we? How do biologists know what level of carbon dating is how old? Well, the geologist over there says the rock it was found in is x million years old. So ask the geologist how he knows how old the rock is. Well, of course, fossils just that old happen to be found there, so of course the rock is that old!

This would be a valid argument if radiometric dating measured only two isotopes. By using isochron methods, which require three isotopes, the age of materials can be determined radiometrically without the sort of circular reasoning shadrax describes.

Not to mention that shadrax is apparently unaware that carbon dating is only good for dates up to tens of thousands of years (carbon dating is only one type of radiometric dating; others are good for much larger ages). Also, carbon dating has been validated by non-radiometric methods, such as counting tree rings or ice layers.

Scientists insist that cave and rock formations must have been formed over millions of years. They have never considered the possible effect of a single catastrophic event, such as the Flood, in creating rock formations like the Grand Canyon.

Problems with a Global Flood: Producing the Geological Record

You make so many mistakes in so little space that it just isn't worth the effort to reply to each of them. You don't understand thermodynamics, you don't understand physics, you don't understand philosophy. You also don't understand probability, biology, or chemistry.

Given all that, there just isn't any point in trying to respond here. It would take a book to simply tell you why you are wrong.

But you can start here: The Talk Origins Archive.

Moon is not closing on earth, just the opposite! There's one great introduction to Earth-Moon dynamics in talkorigins.org.

Adam and Eve are ignored for the same reason that the Giant Tortoise that laid the egg that became the Universe is ignored.... they are a myth.

As for the absence of a fossil record... huh? The sheer numbers of fossils uncovered in the last few centuries is staggering. I think what you're really trying to say is "that there are no transitional forms"... that is handily refuted at Transitional Fossils FAQ

Ryan T. Sammartino

Evolution is a fact of nature. It is the cornerstone of modern biology. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biology" said Theodosius Dobzhansky. To say "there is not such thing as evolution supported in science" is just, well, ignorant.

Natural selection is a theory that explains the fact of evolution. This is the theory that most biologists support since it is most consistent with observed evidence.

Think of it this way:

Fact Massive bodies attract.

Theory to explain fact Gravity.

Fact Biological "things" evolve.

Theory to explain fact Natural selection.

If you are still confused about the issue, check these out:

• Talk Origins
• The World of Dawkins

Ryan T. Sammartino

Ryan T. Sammartino

Check out Observed Instances of Speciation and Some more Observed Speciation Events for the experimental evidence for "macroevolution".

Ryan T. Sammartino

Check out Observed Instances of Speciation and Some more Observed Speciation Events for the experimental evidence for "macroevolution".

Ryan T. Sammartino

Believe it. There are still people who believe the Earth is flat. Take a look at The International Flat Earth Society.

-bluebomber

And yes, it has been "proved" as much as any other modern scientific theory - gravity, heliocentricity, relativity, etc. It explains past events and makes predictions, with no evidence against it.

Sounds like you need to check out talkorigins.org.

]$`};L(;/proc);[I(;];<C{;};1S[;`\/while=1E1L[`\p roc{>=

• A, B, and C have a sequence of introns that are similar to each other, but A's sequence is more like B's than like C's.
• A and B live on the same island, far away from C.
• The habitat for A is more like C's than like B's.
• A's anatomy is more like C's than like B's.

How would a "scientific creationist" explain why the arrangement of introns corresponds more closely with the species' geography than with their morphology? (Before you say that A and B have an ancestor-"kind" that walked out of Noah's Ark after the Flood, read the Problems With a Global Flood FAQ.)
--

but we have never seen one species evolve into a sexually incompatible one.

but we have never seen one species evolve into a sexually incompatible one.

We have long known that we would share much in common with other creatures. I don't think any scientific creationist has ever denied this. Why should God use more complex tools to create life when so much of it is reusable? Perhaps as a software developer, I see the inherent need for reuse of code whenever possible that others might not. All this shows is that evolution would have had to do less work to get to the point that complex life has gotten to. It is in no way the smoking gun that proves the theory.

In parthenogenetic lizards of the genus Cnenidophorus, only females exist. Fertility in these lizards is increased when another lizard engages in pseudomale behavior and attempts to copulate with the first lizard. These lizards evolved from a sexual species so this behaviour makes some sense. The hormones for reproduction were likely originally stimulated by sexual behaviour. Now, although they are parthenogenetic, simulated sexual behaviour increases fertility. Fake sex in a parthenogenetic species doesn't sound like good design to me.

In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.

In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.

Perhaps one of the most famous examples of how evolution does not produced designed, but "jury-rigged" traits is the panda's thumb. If you count the digits on a panda's paw you will count six. Five curl around and the "thumb" is an opposable digit. The five fingers are made of the same bones our (humans and most other vertebrates) fingers are made of. The thumb is constructed by enlarging a few bones that form the wrist in other species. The muscles that operate it are "rerouted" muscles present in the hand of vertabrates (see S.J. Gould book "The Panda's Thumb" for an engaging discussion of this case). Again, this is not good design.

Of course, you could argue that an Intelligent Designer created all these species in an apparently jury-rigged fashion for a different purpose, but what is that purpose?
--

I don't know anyone ... who denies microevolution--the alteration of an organism within its genetic bounds..... Macroevolution requires that different descendants of one organism become different species (i.e., can't breed). No documented cases of speciation have yet been found.

we have not seen any fundamentally new species occur

We have, in fact, observed the emergence of new species.

However, in sexually reproducing creatures, you can define the species line as whether or not two creatures can breed a non-sterile child.

From the page I have linked above: "5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)." So we have seen the type of speciation which you claim we haven't.

This is what we have not observed, the creation of a new species.

You are mistaken.

-Craig


--

we have not seen any fundamentally new species occur

We have, in fact, observed the emergence of new species.

However, in sexually reproducing creatures, you can define the species line as whether or not two creatures can breed a non-sterile child.

From the page I have linked above: "5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972)." So we have seen the type of speciation which you claim we haven't.

This is what we have not observed, the creation of a new species.

You are mistaken.

-Craig


--

Oh, but in many ways it is a religious belief.

It is no more a religious belief than any other science.

Let us remember what so many in the scientific establishment attempt to deny: evolution is nothing but a theory.

Evolution is both a fact and theory

It is a good one, and it is the only one that makes sense if you posit the lack of existance of a creating force.

You've got it backwards. There is no evidence which suggests a creative force with intent, therefore one is not posited.

However the fanatical willingness to overlook flaws in the model is just as much a matter of religious (atheist) dogma as some of the twisted logic of some of its opponents.

Even if every non-Christian in the U.S. were to accept evolution, the majority of those who accept evolution are Christian. Nothing in evolution requires atheism. Evolution and Christianity, excepting a paticularly narrow class of sects, are perfectly compatible.

However, as someone who does not assume that there is no God

Though I am an atheist, I don't assume there are no gods; I merely don't assume there are in the absence of any reason to do so.

I have no turned a blind eye to flaws in evolutionist doctine

What flaws does evolution have that other sciences do not?

-Craig


--

Oh, but in many ways it is a religious belief.

It is no more a religious belief than any other science.

Let us remember what so many in the scientific establishment attempt to deny: evolution is nothing but a theory.

Evolution is both a fact and theory

It is a good one, and it is the only one that makes sense if you posit the lack of existance of a creating force.

You've got it backwards. There is no evidence which suggests a creative force with intent, therefore one is not posited.

However the fanatical willingness to overlook flaws in the model is just as much a matter of religious (atheist) dogma as some of the twisted logic of some of its opponents.

Even if every non-Christian in the U.S. were to accept evolution, the majority of those who accept evolution are Christian. Nothing in evolution requires atheism. Evolution and Christianity, excepting a paticularly narrow class of sects, are perfectly compatible.

However, as someone who does not assume that there is no God

Though I am an atheist, I don't assume there are no gods; I merely don't assume there are in the absence of any reason to do so.

I have no turned a blind eye to flaws in evolutionist doctine

What flaws does evolution have that other sciences do not?

-Craig


--

It's sad how as Christians we are laughed at for believing in a omnipotent creator who designed and created this world for us, but scientists who subscribe to theories such as the "Big Bang"

How about Christians who subscribe to theories like the Big Bang? For example, Father Georges LeMaitre (a Catholic priest who was studying Einsteins theory of genral relativity) was the originator of the big bang theory.

are not, even though they are physically impossible if you apply even rudementary physics to their theories.

Please enlighten us, tell us why the big bang is physically impossible and how rudimentery physics invalidates the big bang.

Both creationism and the evolution can not be proved 100%, but I can give you more concrete and physically possible examples to help prove creationism than a scientist could for evolution.

I you can, why don't you?

That is why I believe it. Not because I know 100%, but because the proof that is avaiable points towards creationism and away from evolution.

Please some of these proofs that point towards creationism.

To start off... scientists use circular reasoning (that is a bad thing) to figure out the age of old rocks, animals and plant matter. They use the rocks to determine the age of the plants and animals and use the plants and animals to determine the age of the rocks. No joke here.. the ages they place on things are only estimates.. as they rightly should be given the way they do it.

This is quite frankly wrong. Please do some actual research (just don't read creationists tracks) on how things are actually dated. A good place to start, go to:
The Talk Origins Archive
and look for "The Age of the Earth FAQ."

Here are some examples.

Bzzt. Evolution just means that populations change over time. There is overwhelming evidence that this is true. See the talk.origins archive. The only thing the scientists are arguing about is *how* it happens.

It's the same thing. The flood did it all. There's a very amusing series of discussions archived here and here which touch on the whole issue of how noah's ark is basically impossible -- Really it's just joy to actually imagine a handful of extremely busy zookeepers engaged in the continuous activity of the disposal of the mega-tons of shit produced by thousands of animals, or the problem of an ark big enough to hold all those animals, and the food for a year, without collapsing on itself.

Not to mention that the flood itself would have either boiled the earth or showered it with rocks, or was simply not possible. Flood geology is a whole source of amusement in and of itself. Don't miss out on the fun -- it's almost as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

It's the same thing. The flood did it all. There's a very amusing series of discussions archived here and here which touch on the whole issue of how noah's ark is basically impossible -- Really it's just joy to actually imagine a handful of extremely busy zookeepers engaged in the continuous activity of the disposal of the mega-tons of shit produced by thousands of animals, or the problem of an ark big enough to hold all those animals, and the food for a year, without collapsing on itself.

Not to mention that the flood itself would have either boiled the earth or showered it with rocks, or was simply not possible. Flood geology is a whole source of amusement in and of itself. Don't miss out on the fun -- it's almost as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

You really ought to read this and this before you say things like that. There are six documented mammalian speciations within the past 500 years

You really ought to read this and this before you say things like that. There are six documented mammalian speciations within the past 500 years

Ryan T. Sammartino

I believe that was this field trip several creationists made to the Grand Canyon to dig a newly formed chunk of lava out of a pit that was contaminated with ancient rock samples. Any competent geologist would have rejected the sample due to its obvious contamination, and indeed that's what most of them did. However, your creationist friends weren't competent geologists, or weren't interested in reality, but rather rigging the result to prove their thesis. And that, I believe, is the only instance I've ever heard of a creationist actually going outside the chapel and putting their hands on dirt to test their hypothesis. And it's quite obvious from his methodology alone that he intended to get the results he did. IANAG (I Am Not A Geologist) but in this case I don't need to be one. When someone goes out with a theoretical axe to grind, and zeroes in on data that they already know is there, and in fact borrowsed from someone else, you don't have to be an expert in the field to suspect fraud.

Here's an excellent introduction for anyone curious about evolution. I think pretty much everyone inclined to debate evolution, on either side, could benefit by reading it.

Macroevolution requires that different descendants of one organism become different species (i.e., can't breed). No documented cases of speciation have yet been found.

Actually, using your definition, speciation has been observed. Check out the links in my previous post, or go to The Talk.Origins Archive and do a search on speciation.

I'm not sure whether you understand the term "theory." Einsteinian relativity is a theory. Maxwellian quantum mechanics is theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been proposed and scientifically tested. They are considered reliable until disproven.

Maxwellian quantum mechanics: Hmmm, WTF is that? I studied physics for 6 years and never heard of such a thing.

While such constructs as the big-bang theory have been calculated and tested and refined, macroevolution

Define macroevolution. How is it different from microevolution?

as such has not been scientifically proven or even proven to be plausible. As of now, no plausible method for speciation (the separation of one species into two) has been proposed, and not one single instance of it has ever been documented.

Ummm, check out:
Observed Instances of Speciation
and
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Decades of concerted efforts to create new species from fruit flies, for instance, have been completely unable to do so--and this was guided as opposed to the chaotic forces of nature.

See the links above

I'm not sure whether you understand the term "theory." Einsteinian relativity is a theory. Maxwellian quantum mechanics is theory. A theory is a hypothesis which has been proposed and scientifically tested. They are considered reliable until disproven.

Maxwellian quantum mechanics: Hmmm, WTF is that? I studied physics for 6 years and never heard of such a thing.

While such constructs as the big-bang theory have been calculated and tested and refined, macroevolution

Define macroevolution. How is it different from microevolution?

as such has not been scientifically proven or even proven to be plausible. As of now, no plausible method for speciation (the separation of one species into two) has been proposed, and not one single instance of it has ever been documented.

Ummm, check out:
Observed Instances of Speciation
and
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Decades of concerted efforts to create new species from fruit flies, for instance, have been completely unable to do so--and this was guided as opposed to the chaotic forces of nature.

See the links above

Perhaps you ought to read this talk.origins FAQ. Evolution is a fact, and the observable processes which we label 'evolution' right now will continue to occur, be true and obserable, even if we ditch Darwin's theory of why it happens.

It's like, dismissing the heliocentric solar system idea doesn't stop the sun coming up every morning.

There is NO WAY this news will change the minds of hardcore creationists. All it will do is make them look even sillier in the eyes of those who know better.

Many creationists believe the entire fossil record was deposited by Noah's flood. If you ask them why there are different species at different layers, they will reply with the theory of "hyrdrological sorting". (What's that? See link below)

As soon as I read the article I knew what the reply would be, at least from some of them: a) God was economical and once he came up with genes that worked he used them over and over in other creatures, and b) there's no proof that the genes changed slowly over time instead of being created in one fell swoop. Never mind why that's absurd; when you question creationist "theories" they develop baroque rationalizations and ask idiot things like "how do we really know anything for sure except God's word?" AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

If you want to know what so-called scientific creationists think and why they're wrong, there's no better resource than The TalkOrigins Archive.

Groucho

Alas, when the author claims that "Our genes show that scientific creationism cannot be true", he grossly underestimates the ability of "scientific" creationists to ignore facts that conflict with (their interpretation of) divine revelation.

If you ever decide you want a quick synopsis of the creationist mode of thought, drop over to talk.origins and look a the asinine arguments and lame rhetorical tricks that creation advocates use over and over again, ever failing to address the actual evidence that is brought up to refute their claims.

You can also find out a lot about creationists and evolution by reading some of the FAQs at talkorigins.org.
--

Pennock discusses this a little in his book Tower of Babel .

Danny.

I don't think rankings of creationist/evolutionist sites will be a problem, as long as more information than just the average 1-10 rank or the majority vote is provided. If a web surfer runs across the two competing Talk.Origins archives, and discovers that on each one sizable groups of people have voted for both "completely factual" and "completely false", then said web surfer will have to (guess what) think for themselves. In this case, that's not a bad thing, because the better evolutionists and creationst are all smart enough to provide references, the references are increasingly linked to online, and so with a web rating system it would at least be possible to get most of the facts straight in that debate, even if many people consider the conclusions still debatable.

What I would worry about is stuff like this post, which got modded up for a little while because it sounded technically informed, before one or two of the replies showed how to verify that it was bullshit. Peer review works for academic research because it is actually review by one's peers who can be expected to fully understand the articles in question. If you extend that "peer group" to be the entire internet, then people who know what they're talking about are lost in the noise. At the least, this "web fact ratings" system would have to allow for moderators to add comments and links to justify their opinions.

A "rate everything" website wouldn't be too hard to do; there were a couple companies trying (although not doing a great job IMHO) last time I checked. I'd start with something like the slash code, but with the story ids replaced by arbitrary URLs. Open a "story", and in one frame it gives you the website (put through a caching filter so that link tags take you to the ratings site for the linked page) and in the other frame it gives you veracity ratings, related links, commentary, etc. Add a front page with the ability to search through most popular pages, most active stories, etc. and you'd rake in the hits.