Slashdot Mirror

"Although accepted by many people as a fact, Darwinian evolutin is actually only a theory ..."

... "macroevolution" ...

... "10 complex chemicals", Behe's "irreducible complexity" ...

... fossil record ...

Of course, you can also round out your new education with the talk.origins FAQs, talk.origins Must-Read FAQs, Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution, etc.

"Although accepted by many people as a fact, Darwinian evolutin is actually only a theory ..."

... "macroevolution" ...

... "10 complex chemicals", Behe's "irreducible complexity" ...

... fossil record ...

Of course, you can also round out your new education with the talk.origins FAQs, talk.origins Must-Read FAQs, Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution, etc.

"Although accepted by many people as a fact, Darwinian evolutin is actually only a theory ..."

... "macroevolution" ...

... "10 complex chemicals", Behe's "irreducible complexity" ...

... fossil record ...

Of course, you can also round out your new education with the talk.origins FAQs, talk.origins Must-Read FAQs, Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution, etc.

"Although accepted by many people as a fact, Darwinian evolutin is actually only a theory ..."

... "macroevolution" ...

... "10 complex chemicals", Behe's "irreducible complexity" ...

... fossil record ...

Of course, you can also round out your new education with the talk.origins FAQs, talk.origins Must-Read FAQs, Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution, etc.

"Although accepted by many people as a fact, Darwinian evolutin is actually only a theory ..."

... "macroevolution" ...

... "10 complex chemicals", Behe's "irreducible complexity" ...

... fossil record ...

Of course, you can also round out your new education with the talk.origins FAQs, talk.origins Must-Read FAQs, Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution, etc.

• The talk.origins FAQs They cover the usual "macroevolution", "no transitionals exist", "thermodynamics", etc. criticisms of evolution.
• June 1998 talk.origins Post of the Month Against the strong anthropic principle; also discusses "multiverses".
• At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman. About how self-organizing principles might make life a likely phenomenon in the universe.
• The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin. About how the universe might fine-tune itself in a way that makes life a likely byproduct.

• The talk.origins FAQs They cover the usual "macroevolution", "no transitionals exist", "thermodynamics", etc. criticisms of evolution.
• June 1998 talk.origins Post of the Month Against the strong anthropic principle; also discusses "multiverses".
• At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman. About how self-organizing principles might make life a likely phenomenon in the universe.
• The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin. About how the universe might fine-tune itself in a way that makes life a likely byproduct.

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

This is commonly heard from people who don't understand what the second law of thermodynamics is. Unfortunately, no matter how many times it is repeated, it's still wrong.

The primary and fatal mistake is treating the earth as a closed system...when it is not. Energy and matter are constantly being exchanged between the earth and the rest of the universe. Because of that alone, evolution does *not* violate the second law of thermodynamics (entropy as described in a closed system.) There are other reasons, even if the earth was isolated, but none more are needed since we're talking about facts not fantasy.

If this still does not make any sense, please read one or both of the following;

Second Law of Thermodynamics, by Brig Klyce

Talk.origins FAQs on the Second Law of Thermodynamics

If you disagree, please post a counter to these documents. So far, I haven't had anyone give me one.

I think the other poster is very likely to be completely wrong, actually ... This link indicates that the flat earth society has its headquarters (big surprise) in lancaster california.

. I'm interested in your "many observations of speciation" in the last century. COuld you list them?

I tried to post a list, but I guess it was to long, I don't know if it got posted or not, slashdot gave me no conformation

Anyway, get your list at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/f aq-speciation.html

"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",

Remember the whole neanderthol man? It was a hoax. There have been no fossils that show a link between two seperate species. Plenty of variation within a species, yes, but not between *seperate* species. I don't remember Neanderthol, no. But if you're talking about the Neanderthal, then it defiantly wasn't a hoax. The reason that you never find anything 'between' species is that whenever anything new comes up creationists say that its still a part of species A and is not something new, or else they'll say its part of species B and is of no relation to species A. I mean, if you look at the Talk.Origins FAQ you will see that while there have been things like a bird-dinosaur, the creationists always say things like "that's just a bird" or "that's just a dinosaur" or whatever. In actuality is more a smooth gradient, Point A and point B are different, but the line is blurry. You can say things like "different species can't mate" and other things but this is only general rule, and can't be applied to everything

lions and tigers are different species, but they can mate. There have been some high breeds that have been able to reproduce, and if you were to say that evolution only occurs when one organism gives birth to an organism that isn't capable of mating with it, then evolution would be occurring every time a single-celled organism split in two)

Ahh, theres nothing like a good old fasion /. evolution debate :P

"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",

. I'll base my life decisions on science-fact. No problems there. But really, why should I insist on believing science-theory?

First of all, what does evolution's existance have to do with your life desisions?

And second of all evolution is a sciantific fact. The reason it isn't called a "law" is beacuse it cannot be described by a mathimatical formula. Newton's laws of physics are called laws, but there all wrong (to a very, very small degree)

I've looked at the evidence. It's nowhere near conclusive. The theory of evolution has so many holes that if it was anything else, it would have been dismissed a long time ago.

Well, you were probably fed some 'evedence' that the Fundi-Christian fed you. look at the real stuff and see for yourself why so many people choose to belive in evolution.

"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",

I think you and I both know that your explanation isn't what really happened.

Did you know that "young-earth" creationist organizations do not send people out to do geological fieldwork any more? There's a reason for this; exposure to the evidence casts doubt on their dogma, and they wind up recanting it. It's much easier to sit behind a computer screen where you can just deny it. ;-)

Fossils that are similar to one another have been found, but none that actually attest to one organism changing into another. Remember the whole neanderthol man? It was a hoax.

Piltdown Man was a hoax, but who exposed it as a hoax? Hint: It wasn't creationists.

There have been no fossils that show a link between two seperate species. Plenty of variation within a species, yes, but not between *seperate* species.

Oh, and as far as the bacteria getting pesticide resistance.. have they changed into anything else? Are there any single-cell bacteria that have converted themselves into multi-cell versions?

The dramatic change of the horse from an animal the size of a small dog to something the size of a Clydesdale is one of many powerful testimonies to evolution.

Westley grew immune to the effects of iocaine powder

Every one of these has been stringly refuted. You should read the talk.origins archive, but you probably won't.

*cough*

You could call me an athiest.

The day I lost my religion, was the day I lost the ability to magically conjure up hope through gods love.

I do sometimes admire religion, as it offers the follower the ability to believe whatever they want through faith.

I do value what religion has given me and do not question its importance -- but I have recovered and outgrown the damage done and the crutch that was needed as a result.

Instead, I have chosen to build on the fundamental value system presented to me in my childhood. No cloudyness; No lost thoughts. No vulnerability through the inability to formulate skepticism in faith. Just a sense of my worth in this world, and a moral system based on fairness and real world actions and consequences.

Religious indifference to me is a breath of fresh air. Then again, I do envy the effect faith and the denial of this reality created. God did exist. But now he's dead and I'm not prepared to make the sacrifices to bring him back. But that was then, and this is now. I think I kind of prefer science. I base decisions on rationale through experience and harder facts instead of ... well, my intention is not to criticize -- but to present my reality. In my plane of consciousness, the existence of god is irrelevant.

Do I have a point? No. If i could prove there isn't a god, would I? Nope. Religion doesn't hurt anyone. Opression, hate, self-righteousness, stupidity, and lies, among other things hurt people.

I can't speak for him, but I would assume that his argument is based not observation within his own lifetime, rather the complete lack of any transitional forms in the available paleontological evidence.

May I direct you to the Talk.Origins Archive's list of transitional fossils, which includes far more than just the Archeopteryx. The table of transitional fossils is certainly not complete, since fossils are fragile and hard to find, but it is FAR more filled than Creationists would like us to believe.

(In the specific case of the Archeopteryx, we have yet to find its direct ancestor, but we have found many candidates and cousins which themselves bear many traits of both birds and reptiles.)

Of course, there is also the core issue of whether evolution can be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics. Which of course brings in the debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system or not, yada yada yada

LOL! You're basically saying, "Then there's this argument... which I know is completely bogus, but I'm just going to ignore that little fact and say it anyway."
"The debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system"? What debate? If the earth were a closed system, there'd be no photosynthesis (since no light could enter from the outside), and thus no plant or animal life. At best there'd be some of that bacteria that feeds off of geothermal energy (which again is finite).

So yes.. the entropy argument is completely bogus because life on Earth is fueled by solar (and geothermal) energy, and the increase in entropy caused by those emissions of heat more than offset the decrease in entropy of more structured life.

You seem to be ridiculing his position, when the simple fact is that there is probably no way we will ever *prove* either a creationist or an evolutionary point of view. At best, several thousand years of observation (including, hopefully, the opportunity to observe planets other than our own), should more clearly show the likelihood of one or the other.

You're almost right, of course. The only issue is that we don't need several thousand years of observation. We already have plenty of evidence to support evolution. As for the whole micro vs. macro evolution thing, the Talk.Origins archive lists many documented cases of speciation.

I can't speak for him, but I would assume that his argument is based not observation within his own lifetime, rather the complete lack of any transitional forms in the available paleontological evidence.

May I direct you to the Talk.Origins Archive's list of transitional fossils, which includes far more than just the Archeopteryx. The table of transitional fossils is certainly not complete, since fossils are fragile and hard to find, but it is FAR more filled than Creationists would like us to believe.

(In the specific case of the Archeopteryx, we have yet to find its direct ancestor, but we have found many candidates and cousins which themselves bear many traits of both birds and reptiles.)

Of course, there is also the core issue of whether evolution can be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics. Which of course brings in the debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system or not, yada yada yada

LOL! You're basically saying, "Then there's this argument... which I know is completely bogus, but I'm just going to ignore that little fact and say it anyway."
"The debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system"? What debate? If the earth were a closed system, there'd be no photosynthesis (since no light could enter from the outside), and thus no plant or animal life. At best there'd be some of that bacteria that feeds off of geothermal energy (which again is finite).

So yes.. the entropy argument is completely bogus because life on Earth is fueled by solar (and geothermal) energy, and the increase in entropy caused by those emissions of heat more than offset the decrease in entropy of more structured life.

You seem to be ridiculing his position, when the simple fact is that there is probably no way we will ever *prove* either a creationist or an evolutionary point of view. At best, several thousand years of observation (including, hopefully, the opportunity to observe planets other than our own), should more clearly show the likelihood of one or the other.

You're almost right, of course. The only issue is that we don't need several thousand years of observation. We already have plenty of evidence to support evolution. As for the whole micro vs. macro evolution thing, the Talk.Origins archive lists many documented cases of speciation.

I can't speak for him, but I would assume that his argument is based not observation within his own lifetime, rather the complete lack of any transitional forms in the available paleontological evidence.

May I direct you to the Talk.Origins Archive's list of transitional fossils, which includes far more than just the Archeopteryx. The table of transitional fossils is certainly not complete, since fossils are fragile and hard to find, but it is FAR more filled than Creationists would like us to believe.

(In the specific case of the Archeopteryx, we have yet to find its direct ancestor, but we have found many candidates and cousins which themselves bear many traits of both birds and reptiles.)

Of course, there is also the core issue of whether evolution can be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics. Which of course brings in the debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system or not, yada yada yada

LOL! You're basically saying, "Then there's this argument... which I know is completely bogus, but I'm just going to ignore that little fact and say it anyway."
"The debate about whether the earth can be considered a closed system"? What debate? If the earth were a closed system, there'd be no photosynthesis (since no light could enter from the outside), and thus no plant or animal life. At best there'd be some of that bacteria that feeds off of geothermal energy (which again is finite).

So yes.. the entropy argument is completely bogus because life on Earth is fueled by solar (and geothermal) energy, and the increase in entropy caused by those emissions of heat more than offset the decrease in entropy of more structured life.

You seem to be ridiculing his position, when the simple fact is that there is probably no way we will ever *prove* either a creationist or an evolutionary point of view. At best, several thousand years of observation (including, hopefully, the opportunity to observe planets other than our own), should more clearly show the likelihood of one or the other.

You're almost right, of course. The only issue is that we don't need several thousand years of observation. We already have plenty of evidence to support evolution. As for the whole micro vs. macro evolution thing, the Talk.Origins archive lists many documented cases of speciation.

I enjoyed your hidden agenda slam against creationists. They of course would say that you have to be careful of the textbooks that claim that any theory is proven unless it actually is. Just because the average humanist scientist believes in evolution doesn't mean it should be taught as fact, but rather as a plausible theory.

I agree, sort of.. No good science textbook should be teaching evolution as fact any more than it teaches anything as fact. You have the common misconception that scientists believe evolution to be fact. They don't. Scientists do not believe ANYTHING to be fact.

In science, a "theory" is merely a hypothesis which has been backed up by a lot of evidence. In science, EVERYTHING is potentially wrong, since we know our observation techniques are imperfect. Newton's laws of motion (at low speeds), Maxwell's equations, evolution, these are all "theories" in science, yet we use apply them every day.

We could potentially find out that Newton's laws of motion are wrong (and we did.. though only at high speeds), or that our cherished laws of electromagnetism are wrong, and that the computer you're using now is really being run by something we don't understand at all.. It's JUST NOT DAMN LIKELY. Similarly, evolution is a "theory" because we must always be open to the possibility of our observations and logic being faulty, but it has been so well supported that it's just not damn likely that evolution is completely wrong.

In short, if you want science books to teach only "facts", then you'll start seeing some really empty science books with nothing but blank pages.
Science books must therefore teach scientific "theories", which are hypotheses which have been supported greatly by evidence. Among these theories is the theory of evolution.

And of course, I must plug The Talk.Origins Archive, which has lists of this and other common misconceptions about evolution.

Darwin himself admitted -- in so many words -- that he could not account for the development of the modern vertebrate eye.

So? Modern biology has progressed far beyond what Darwin ever thought. Just because Darwin didn't explaing the eye doesn't mean it was explained later by someone else. Try this for starters.

In other words, he admitted that his theory was nothing but an idle fantasy.

Bullcrap. He did nothing of the sort, except admit his own limits. As much as you'd like to believe otherwise.


...phil

Darwin himself admitted -- in so many words -- that he could not account for the development of the modern vertebrate eye.

So? Modern biology has progressed far beyond what Darwin ever thought. Just because Darwin didn't explaing the eye doesn't mean it was explained later by someone else. Try this for starters.

In other words, he admitted that his theory was nothing but an idle fantasy.

Bullcrap. He did nothing of the sort, except admit his own limits. As much as you'd like to believe otherwise.


...phil

Darwin himself admitted -- in so many words -- that he could not account for the development of the modern vertebrate eye.

So? Modern biology has progressed far beyond what Darwin ever thought. Just because Darwin didn't explaing the eye doesn't mean it was explained later by someone else. Try this for starters.

In other words, he admitted that his theory was nothing but an idle fantasy.

Bullcrap. He did nothing of the sort, except admit his own limits. As much as you'd like to believe otherwise.


...phil

I think that you may be mistaken. I've talked to biologists at my local university (including the ones that I've taken courses from), and they all seem to believe that natural processes result in new species over time, which is all that is meant by biologists' use of the word "evolution". Of ocurse, Darwin's original ideas on just how evolution might work have been extensively re-thought over the years, but I'm not aware of too many mainstream biologists denying that evolution has taken (and is taking) place. Please cite 3 references in mainstream academic (not religious) publications, like Scientific American, or in specialist biology publications, that indicate that the process of evolution is widely discounted.

Also, you might want to be a little more careful in your use of words. For example, you state:
Darwin himself admitted..that he could not account for the..eye. In other words, he admitted that his theory was nothing but an idle fantasy.
The second sentence does NOT follow from the first. The fact, for example, that Einstein could not find a way to get rid of his Cosmological Constant (which he knew was a problem) does NOT mean that he was saying that E=MC2 was wrong. Honest scientists will always admit that they don't know it all. This is not a weakness of science--it is one of its strengths.

Finally, I really think that it would make sense to know about the arguments that you are refuting when discounting them. You might wish to check out the Talk.Origins Home Page for some summaries of the surrent arguments for the side of evolution.

Chris Coslor coslor[at]sprynet.com

Corrected link

- Rei

Ok, for years I have heard poeple say that evolution violates the second law.

Evolution violates the Creationists' Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is the law that says that things tend to progress from order to disorder, and since evolution says that the opposite is true, it must violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now, this conveniently ignores such pesky terminology as "closed system", and for the sake of simplicity, minor things such as the Sun are not factored in. (Incidentally, I wonder if any of the creationists who claim that order cannot come from disorder in nature have ever seen a snowflake.)

Anyway, you might want to check this link out:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability

It is only my intention to provide more information related to this query; it is not my intention to ignite some drawn-out thread about religion versus science in a place where it is clearly inappropriate. So creationists, before you condemn me, allow me to pre-emptively point out that I know that I am truly a horrible person, and that I am condemning myself to everlasting pain, and that as far as I'm concerned, all of you people are completely right and modern science is completely wrong .. 'kay? Thanks.

I don't know of any viable scientific alternative to naturalistic evolution. And wouldn't a supernatural theory of evolution be unscientific, i.e, non-falsifiable?

Do you know of a scientific alternative with a reasonable amount of evidence for it?

Here's a critique of Denton's book.

Okay, let's start with the definitions of law and theory as used in science. A law is simply a concise statement summarizing a large number of observations. For example, Kepler's Laws summarize the large number of astronomical observations that he and his mentor(?) Tycho Brahe made on the motions of the planets. Laws do not prohibit anything. Kepler's Laws do not prohibit the orbits of the planets from being other than ellipses. In fact, they aren't ellipses. Proposed laws have been broken in the past (e.g. parity conservation) as new observations contradict the law.

A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation for a large body of observations. A theory proposes a mechanism (or mechanisms) by which those observations came about. It cannot be "proven" in any rigorous sense, because proof is not a part of science. A future observation can always contradict and thus disconfirm a theory or a law. In this case, the theory of evolution is not that evolution has occured, but the mechanisms behind its occurence. You propose that the Second Law prohibits evolution's occurence. That would be a case of a law and an observation's contradicting each other. If such a contradiction occured, the law would be discarded, not the observation.

In any case, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution's occurence. First, entropy and disorder are not equivalent concepts. Thermodynamics delas with entropy in a very quantitative, exact way. Using qualitiative metaphors to deduce conclusions ("Because the Second Law states that entropy cannot decrease and evolution is the decrease of disorder, evolution cannot happen") is not valid. The change in entropy of a system is simply the heat transfered into or out of a system divided by the absolute temperature of that system at the time of the transfer.

Local decreases in entropy can and do occur because the local areas are not closed; they interact with the rest of the Universe. A directed energy input (and by directed, I mean "having direction" not "having an intelligent agent behind it") can and does decrease local entropy at the expense of a larger increase in entropy elsewhere. For example, energy is directed towards a refrigerator and the entropy of the refrigerator decreases (heat is transfered to outside of the refrigerator). Some would say that an anology between the refirgerator and the Earth is unfair; the refrigerator is designed and the Earth is not (in the mainstream scientific worldview). Well, the Second Law doesn't care. Thermodynamics is not concerned with the fine details of a system when determining what changes are consistent with it. Only the energy changes are important. If you don't want to believe me, fine. Just read a thermodynamics textbook.

If evolution does contradict the Second Law, why doesn't the development of a chicken from and egg? It's the same type of change; only the magnitudes are different. I don't remember any clause of the Second Law stating that small violations were consistent but large ones weren't. Or does God "break" the Second Law for, well, just about every metabolic process? I personally don't think He does.

As to the other laws of thermodynamics, I don't see how evolution creates or destroys energy or causes anything to reach absolute zero.

Finally, it's about time that this discussion transferred to the talk.origins newsgroup. This discussion can be handled far more readily on USENET in the newsgroup that was created for this very purpose. It would help if you read the FAQs. Yes, they are biased towards the view of mainstream science (as they state right on the first page). However, they have an extensive set of links to creationist websites and creationist responses to the material in the Archive. They are probably a better source of creationist links than any creationist site. Most of the FAQs have references to the relevant scientific literature. You do not have to take our word for anything. It's all in the library.

Robert Kern

kern at caltech.edu

I ask for flaws that you want presented and you can only come up with straw men like those?

Here, let me direct you at a reference for why there are and always will be gaps in the fossil record. And as for the birds, are you thinking of the se gulls? In which case your comment about dissecting the things is completely wrong. And while they make an extremely nice example, first of all do not be fooled into thinking that they are the only ring species. Besides which, there are lots of other reasons to believe in macro evolution. Or perhaps you forget what led Darwin to look at the theory of evolution?

Right, something completely different.

I am still waiting for a flaw that we are supposed to teach...

Ben

Behe's book is about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Anyways, if you are interested in the subject, why not start with some critiques (which lead to links both pro and con). Or a biologist's critique.

Cheers,
Ben

Behe's book is about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Anyways, if you are interested in the subject, why not start with some critiques (which lead to links both pro and con). Or a biologist's critique.

Cheers,
Ben

Behe's book is about abiogenesis, not evolution.

Anyways, if you are interested in the subject, why not start with some critiques (which lead to links both pro and con). Or a biologist's critique.

Cheers,
Ben

As well as being ignorant of the evidence for evolution, you seem to have the mistaken idea that evolution is a teleological neccessity. There is no reason that species must evolve. Please see the talk.origins FAQ.

The talk.origins faq is ripe with lots of info on evolution, fossil records, etc., with which to debunk the views of your not-so-friendly neighborhood bible-thumper www.talkorigins.org

First of all Columbus sailed over 500 years ago, not 400.

More importantly the argument brought against him (based on the Ptolemaic theory) was that the distance to China was too far and he would surely starve. And they were right! Had he not encountered a continent, he would have starved! (He was pretty close to it at that.)

Don't believe me?

As for what you said about my knowledge of evolution...put it this way. What you say shows charming faith in your world view. You did follow the link? If so then please explain to me about how series of transitional fossils (esp. ones showing things that Creationists think did not happen) can be shown to be as strongly evidence for Creationism as it is for evolution?

Similarly if I attempted to clear up some of your mis-conceptions, would that support the theory of creationism?

Come on, the theories are different and the differences are testable. The fact that the answers to the tests are not what you might want them to be are not my fault!

Ben

First of all Columbus sailed over 500 years ago, not 400.

More importantly the argument brought against him (based on the Ptolemaic theory) was that the distance to China was too far and he would surely starve. And they were right! Had he not encountered a continent, he would have starved! (He was pretty close to it at that.)

Don't believe me?

As for what you said about my knowledge of evolution...put it this way. What you say shows charming faith in your world view. You did follow the link? If so then please explain to me about how series of transitional fossils (esp. ones showing things that Creationists think did not happen) can be shown to be as strongly evidence for Creationism as it is for evolution?

Similarly if I attempted to clear up some of your mis-conceptions, would that support the theory of creationism?

Come on, the theories are different and the differences are testable. The fact that the answers to the tests are not what you might want them to be are not my fault!

Ben

First of all Columbus sailed over 500 years ago, not 400.

More importantly the argument brought against him (based on the Ptolemaic theory) was that the distance to China was too far and he would surely starve. And they were right! Had he not encountered a continent, he would have starved! (He was pretty close to it at that.)

Don't believe me?

As for what you said about my knowledge of evolution...put it this way. What you say shows charming faith in your world view. You did follow the link? If so then please explain to me about how series of transitional fossils (esp. ones showing things that Creationists think did not happen) can be shown to be as strongly evidence for Creationism as it is for evolution?

Similarly if I attempted to clear up some of your mis-conceptions, would that support the theory of creationism?

Come on, the theories are different and the differences are testable. The fact that the answers to the tests are not what you might want them to be are not my fault!

Ben

As in the talk.origins FAQs.

The truth of the matter is that the case for evolution is very strong and the basic theory has had no serious scientific challenges in 80 years. The common Creationist arguments are very weak and are generally based on misinformation, misunderstanding, and more than a few cases of outright deception.

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

None of us were around when the USA was purportedly founded! How can you teach that stuff as fact?

Ridiculous, isn't it? But the fact is that your argument against evolution is no less ridiculous to anyone who has bothered to learn about the subject. So why not get some basic information?

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

Serious scientists in fields connected in any way with Evolutionary theory do not seriously believe in Creationism. In fact the basic tenants of literal interpretations of Creationism were discredited as far back as the early 1800's when it was shown that there had been no World Flood covering England (and marks that had been taken as evidence for that were actually left by ice sheets). This predated Darwin considerably.

Why not educate yourself a little?

Ben

Go off, read some FAQs...

The fact is that not only are Creationist arguments wrong, they are incredibly bad and typically dishonest to boot! They range from faked data to deliberate misquotes to misunderstandings of basic physical laws!

Yet ignorant people will continue to assume that somehow Creationism is equivalent to Evolution. And - because they choose to remain ignorant - they will never learn differently.

*sigh*

It is not agreed. There has been considerable work done on discovering pathways leading to the first self-replicating molecule. After that, it's just evolution. Take a look at this. It's a couple of years old, but it shows some of the research paths being followed.

2. It is impracticle to assume with no evidence that the universe was formed with no outside force acting upon it.

'Impractical' is hardly scientific. But, to address your point more directly, take a look at the 1994 Scientific American for a possibility. (Sorry that I don't have a more precise reference handy, but you'll find it.) Just because you find it impractical doesn't mean it's impossible.

3. Referencing number 1 it is not generally believed to be possible that even if life could come into being from nonlife that such life would exist in great enough quanitites or in such conditions that it would progress beyond the original form without outside interference.

Believed by who? You've got to read more than what the Institute for Creation Research publishes. This is just a handwaving objection, and can dismissed unless you can provide more justification.

4. There is no natural progression or link from a single common animal at the origin of earth to suggest that life evolved from a single point.

Actually, there is considerable suggestion of this very thing. Take a look here - I recommend you get rapidly to the section labelled "Genetic Drift" and later "Incorporating Genetics into Evolutionary Theory".

As you can see, even science agrees that its own theories are full of bullshit.

No, actually all we can see is that you don't know what you're talking about. Your objections have no basis.


...phil

It is not agreed. There has been considerable work done on discovering pathways leading to the first self-replicating molecule. After that, it's just evolution. Take a look at this. It's a couple of years old, but it shows some of the research paths being followed.

2. It is impracticle to assume with no evidence that the universe was formed with no outside force acting upon it.

'Impractical' is hardly scientific. But, to address your point more directly, take a look at the 1994 Scientific American for a possibility. (Sorry that I don't have a more precise reference handy, but you'll find it.) Just because you find it impractical doesn't mean it's impossible.

3. Referencing number 1 it is not generally believed to be possible that even if life could come into being from nonlife that such life would exist in great enough quanitites or in such conditions that it would progress beyond the original form without outside interference.

Believed by who? You've got to read more than what the Institute for Creation Research publishes. This is just a handwaving objection, and can dismissed unless you can provide more justification.

4. There is no natural progression or link from a single common animal at the origin of earth to suggest that life evolved from a single point.

Actually, there is considerable suggestion of this very thing. Take a look here - I recommend you get rapidly to the section labelled "Genetic Drift" and later "Incorporating Genetics into Evolutionary Theory".

As you can see, even science agrees that its own theories are full of bullshit.

No, actually all we can see is that you don't know what you're talking about. Your objections have no basis.


...phil

""OK. The idea that, right off the bat, evolution shouldn't be taught because the Bible says the world was created in 4004 BC is just batty. Especially when one stops to consider that what appears in the Bible as "day" really means "period of time," and with a few minor exceptions the order that things were "created" in is a pretty good match for evolutionary theory. I also think that the theory of evolution is the best one out there.""

For a review of the whole debate, including the arguments outlined above, check out The Talk.Origins Website.

Please read the relevant FAQs before spouting off again. Evolution does not contradict evidence, logic, religion, or the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution and abiogenesis are different issues, and Behe's book is about the latter, not the former. Punctuated Equilibrium, whatever caricatures you may have heard notwithstanding, is really Darwinian evolution. And please don't say, "It is just a theory" or "What evidence do they really have?" until you have actually looked at what evidence has been uncovered from the combined efforts of several scientific fields for 150 years.

Oh, and those who claim that there is a debate, there is not. The last serious scientific challenge to the theory of Evolution was in the first decade of this century. (Brownie points to anyone who knows the substance of the challenge and/or the resolution!) If you think that you can turn up quotes contradicting this, check the original reference for the quotes before repeating them. There are a lot of out-of-context quotes which are spouted that do not - in context - mean what Creationists claim that they do. And there are a lot of upset scientists who are good and tired of being misquoted.

So please, read those FAQs before posting.

Thank you,
Ben Tilly

Sure. If you assume that something has to be at least as complex as a bacterium to reproduce. This isn't the case at all however. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.ht ml. Once you have something that can reproduce (with variation), evolution deals with the rest.

Note that abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues, and it's possible to believe in the latter without believing in the former.

--

Someone else already posted a link to a religious rebuttal. However take a look at the alt.atheism FAQs and you find that they list this as a red herring argument.

Come on, Creationism is complete hogwash and there are many valid arguments to use against it. Don't be stupid and use a bogus one!

Anonymous because I moderated another post in this discussion..

First, far from being devoid of transitional fossils, Patterson's Evolution is full of them. Here's an example from page 131:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . . ."

The author of the Talk.Origins essay, Lionel Theunissen, corresponded with the principals in this matter. Dr. Patterson replied with details, apparently his talk on "Systematics Discussion Group" was secretly recorded by a creationist and quote-mined. (This taping and misattribution may not be legal in Australia.) The creationists were evasive and refused to back up their claims, or even reveal their primary sources for the quote, until pressed with information from Patterson's letter. See Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites' for the whole thing.

Now, I've got to ask you something, slvrsrfr. I hope that you have checked out the references I've entered, and gone further to read the primary sources to make sure that these are fair refutations to your case. Of the two quotes that you've posted, both have been shown to be scraps of text (or words) that have been taken out of context and twisted backwards to mean the exact opposite of their author's positions by a creationist. Indeed, let the record show that both the ICR and CSF have tried to steal their opponent's authority as "qualified people" and to use it to deceive anybody who didn't look up the facts. So, I ask you:

• Is stealing other people's authority the way to find the truth?
• Is this Xtian integrity or honesty?
• What does this do for the cause of truth and justice?
• Most importantly, surely even the most devout believer in Creation and Xtianity should cast out those who tell lies about others. Would not such a person want to keep their cause clean of the taint of the dirty dealings mentioned above? After all, who is "The Father of Lies," hmmmm?

You're first mistake was to trust a Phychology definition of a scientific term over a Chemistry definition. I first learned about the difference between theory and law in high school chemistry, but sinse this discussion I have verified my above definitions in three different sources. In addition to the web page I cited in my original article, you can go here, or to Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: theory
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art (music theory)
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action (her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn) b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory (in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all)
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (wave theory of light)
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject (theory of equations)

Main Entry: law
Pronunciation: 'lo
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : CONTROL, AUTHORITY
2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : PENTATEUCH, TORAH
-- see BIBLE table
3 : a rule of construction or procedure (the laws of poetry)
4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : JURISPRUDENCE c : legal knowledge
6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

-

The question that you are getting at, how life started, is called "abiogenesis" and is properly quite a different topic from evolution. An appropriate analogy would be to think about driving. Figuring out evolution is equivalent to figuring out how the driver controls the car. Figuring out abiogenesis is equivalent to figuring out how the car was being built, except that cars are not being built any more and the factories were long ago torn down and destroyed!

We have very good evidence for the last several hundred million years of evolution. We know that life got started well before that. We have very little evidence of what happened when life got started, and we know much less than we would like to about the processes that were involved.

All of that said, the problem is not absolutely hopeless. While little concrete can be said, there is research progressing, but that said, it all is pretty tenative.

Now I am not positive which professor you are quoting, but you should be aware of common mistakes that are made. The fact that we have much less that is concrete to say about how abiogenesis probably happened is not equivalent to saying that it was an impossible event!

In fact we do have good evidence that the process involved was very long. It turns out that ammino acids can appear in 2 configurations, left-handed or right-handed. On the surface it would appear that the two are (up to a mirror symmetry in what they interact with) chemically equivalent. However there is in physics a very slight asymetry, and theoretically the left-handed version should be slightly more stable.

When I say slightly, I mean slightly! The theoretical difference is too small for us to actually measure. However over millions of years the difference could possibly be significant. It is then potentially significant there there is a strong bias in life towards left-handed ammino acids...

Anyways, the short answer is that we don't really know how abiogenesis happened, but it does not seem (at least to many in the field) to be a fundamentally impossible event. In any case questions around abiogenesis do not compose evidence against evolution per se.

Cheers,
Ben

The question that you are getting at, how life started, is called "abiogenesis" and is properly quite a different topic from evolution. An appropriate analogy would be to think about driving. Figuring out evolution is equivalent to figuring out how the driver controls the car. Figuring out abiogenesis is equivalent to figuring out how the car was being built, except that cars are not being built any more and the factories were long ago torn down and destroyed!

We have very good evidence for the last several hundred million years of evolution. We know that life got started well before that. We have very little evidence of what happened when life got started, and we know much less than we would like to about the processes that were involved.

All of that said, the problem is not absolutely hopeless. While little concrete can be said, there is research progressing, but that said, it all is pretty tenative.

Now I am not positive which professor you are quoting, but you should be aware of common mistakes that are made. The fact that we have much less that is concrete to say about how abiogenesis probably happened is not equivalent to saying that it was an impossible event!

In fact we do have good evidence that the process involved was very long. It turns out that ammino acids can appear in 2 configurations, left-handed or right-handed. On the surface it would appear that the two are (up to a mirror symmetry in what they interact with) chemically equivalent. However there is in physics a very slight asymetry, and theoretically the left-handed version should be slightly more stable.

When I say slightly, I mean slightly! The theoretical difference is too small for us to actually measure. However over millions of years the difference could possibly be significant. It is then potentially significant there there is a strong bias in life towards left-handed ammino acids...

Anyways, the short answer is that we don't really know how abiogenesis happened, but it does not seem (at least to many in the field) to be a fundamentally impossible event. In any case questions around abiogenesis do not compose evidence against evolution per se.

Cheers,
Ben