Where evolution is taught

[Tully Mars]

Sorry for the long post aaron, but:
(There is more if you are interested)

As recently as a couple of years ago, I thought that evolution was possible, and might be the path of which everything living today took en-route to existence. I have believed in God my whole life, but I had thought that evolution somehow fit into Christianity. After all, public schools teach it, it’s displayed in many museums, and it’s reported in the news....how could all of these people possibly be incorrect?

Then one particular day, I caught a news headline: “Creationists build museum dedicated to the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.”

My initial response was something along the lines of “Less than 10,000 years?? They’re crazy! Everyone knows that the Earth is billions of years old, and it’s common knowledge that we probably evolved from simpler life-forms. Those crazy creationists.”

The key here is the phrase “everybody knows.” It occurred to me that I actually believed evolution was possible because other people believed in it. Not because of any evidence that I had seen or read about, but because people referred to it as fact in public schools, science textbooks, publicly funded museums, and evolutionist magazines.

I have always liked science, and I decided that if I’m going to believe anything at all about where humans came from, I should base it on some reliable, scientific evidence. So, with the preconceived notion that evolution was probably true, I set out to scientifically discover why it was true, and the evidence supporting it. After all, who in their right mind could believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

So the logical way to approach this research project is to start from the beginning. Evolutionists believe we evolved from a single-celled organism. Where did the single-celled organism come from? Evolutionists say primordial soup. All I had to do is figure out what primordial soup is, and how it was formed, and we’ll have the origin of the single-celled organism.

This proved to be rather difficult. As it turns out, evolutionists all believe in primordial soup, but they have no idea what it is, and cannot prove it ever existed. They do not know what chemicals it could have been, and it has never been successfully reproduced in the lab. People are still searching for a way to explain it. Well that presents a fundamental problem, doesn’t it? I guess we’re off to a bad start. Since no college professor, “scientist,” or anyone else has any idea about the first phase of evolutionary theory, lets move past that issue and try to figure out the next steps instead.

Next, the unknown inanimate matter morphed into a simple, single-celled organism. Sounds feasible enough, since “everyone knows” that single-celled organisms are the simplest form of life. All we have to do is research their limited complexity so we can figure out how non-living matter formed life.

As it turns out, single-celled organisms are extremely complex. Did you know that a single-celled organism can have thousands of parts, can reproduce, eat, move, and respond to stimuli? There’s no way I’m going to ever figure out how inanimate matter can suddenly turn into a multi-thousand part, self propelled, eating, moving, reproducing, structured, organized cell. But it looks like I’m not alone.... evolutionists can’t begin to explain it either. This is probably because it’s genetic information would take up all the pages in a 1,000 page book, and have to be laid out in the right order. How much genetic information do rocks and other non-living matter have? None. That’s akin to using zero letters of the alphabet, and watching that turn into the first 2 Harry Potter books, all by random chance. That’s a pretty impossible leap, but that is what evolutionists claim happens. Non-living matter would’ve had to jump from no genetic material to over a thousand pages of it, a cell structure would’ve had to somehow spontaneously form all at once, and the cell structure created would’ve had to magically come alive. This is what evolutionists believe in, although they cannot explain how it happens or why. With all the millions of dollars put into the varieties of science experiments studying this issue, never before has life formed from non-living matter. Evolutionists just believe it happens.

I guess we’ll chalk that down as another leap of faith by the evolutionists, and keep going. Nobody knows what primordial soup is, and nobody has ever observed or proven that non-living matter turns into life; they simply believe in it. But, let’s keep going. We’re bound to find some evidence eventually.

Evolutionists also say that people, plants, and animals evolve into completely different things over time. If that’s true, we should find an abundance of evidence, transitional species all over the place, and someone in the history of science must have observed this happening. After all, with all the trillions of creatures that exist on this planet, at least one of them should be evolving right now!

Interestingly enough, that is a dead end as well. All the fish we find are fish, all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything except single-celled organisms. There’s no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans. There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else constantly. But we find none of that. The evolutionists’ theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals, and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds. If evolution were true, we’d be finding creatures that were:

3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...

and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists. Everything would be a transitional species, and we’d find abundant evidence for it. In reality, there is nothing anywhere close to that scenario. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence for such transitional species is illustrated by the articles published in 1999 by National Geographic, about the “missing link” fossil that was finally discovered that proved dinosaurs (lizards) evolved into birds. It was shaped like a lizard, but it had wings like a bird. They published a huge article with photos and great fanfare, and newspapers reported it with excitement across the country. Months later, it was revealed that someone just glued parts of different animals together in China and passed it off as a real fossil. Why would evolutionists be so excited over a single, glued-together, fake fossil? It almost seems as if they are completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever.

Nothing ever in the history of scientific research has ever given birth to something that is more genetically complex than itself, and yet that is the fundamental principle behind the theory of evolution. Of all the billions of fish on the planet, not a single one is in the process of growing lungs. The only thing that ever happens (and it happens constantly) is variation of existing traits, which simply means that offspring can possibly have different physical attributes than their parents, such as size, weight, hair color, eye color, etc. Dogs produce a variety of dogs, and tomatoes produce a variety of tomatoes. This, however, does not add any genetic information to a species or allow anything to transform into a different organism, and thus doesn’t provide any evidence for evolution. Again, evolutionists have no proof for evolution, they simply believe in it.

Support for Evolution:

Faith-based beliefs: 3
Pieces of scientific evidence: 0

While most people would have given up by now in the process of researching evolution, I was determined. There was one more thing that “everybody knows” is scientific. The fossil record. “Everybody knows” that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old, which proves the Earth is billions of years old, because that’s what they teach everybody in schools. I guess all I had to check is the method they use to date the fossils to make sure it’s scientific.

One of the methods fossils are dated by is something called Carbon Dating (http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=73). The amount of carbon-14 left in a dead animal is used to estimate it’s age, by figuring out how much is left in the remains. I guess the only problem with this is that it assumes that the Earth is older than 30,000 years, which would be the length of time required for the levels of Carbon-14 to level off. Because it is based on unprovable belief, yet again, it becomes again faith-based, and coincidentally is fundamentally flawed. If the Earth was more than 30,000 years old, this method might be more useful. If the Earth is less than 30,000 years old, and older fossils have less Carbon-14, it would be a sign that maybe carbon-14 levels on Earth are actually increasing over time... and coincidentally, they are, according to all data we have gathered in recent history. Along with the the faith-based assumption, this dating method is very prone to errors. Sometimes living creatures are dated to be thousands of years old, and sometimes different bones of the same fossilized animal are dated to be tens of thousands of years apart. That’s a big problem if the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

see also: Radiometric Dating Game (http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp)

Obviously, carbon dating is useless for scientific purposes, but at least there’s another method. Fossils can also be dated based on the layer of strata they are found in, i.e. Jurassic, Cambrian, etc. And we know that the layers of rock are dated accurately, because you just have to look at the fossils contained in them to see how old they are.

Did you catch that? That is a perfect example of the circular reasoning often used by evolutionists, and again useless for scientific research purposes. Using the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils isn't going to accomplish anything. It’s called circular reasoning. The whole idea of this “Geological Column” is disproved by the fact that trees and animals are found petrified and fossilized taking up several layers of rock strata that are supposedly millions of years apart. Can an animal fossil sit there exposed for millions of years while strata slowly builds up around it? Of course not. Again, logic interferes with evolutionist belief.

The final aspect of the fossil record that evolutionists like to use is the shape of fossils. They often use a neat trick where they make a line of fossils, usually little to big, and claim the “modern” animal is at the end. Then they say “See! If you line these fossils up in a certain order, you can see that evolution is proven by the fossil record!” This logic is illustrated at the top of this page. I have used their same logic to prove that pickles evolve into Oatmeal Squares, simply by putting things in order by shape. All the items are unrelated, and none of them magically morph into each-other, but put them in a line and you can see the shapes progress from cylinder to cube, big cap to nonexistent cap, and glass to paper. This is the exact same logic evolutionists use when they present fossils as proof of evolution, although they can’t prove that any of their example animals evolved into or gave birth to anything else. You can make your own evolutionary lineup - take a knife, a spoon, a spork, and a fork in that order, and you have proof that knives evolved into forks. You’ll have to show that to an evolutionist, however, for anyone to believe you.

Support for Evolution:

Faith-based assumptions: 4
Scientific Evidence: 0

So, my evolution research resulted in my realization that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with science, but rather it is a system of beliefs. Many self-proclaimed “scientific authorities” falsely present evolution as fact, and ridicule anyone who doesn’t believe what they do, despite the fact that they have no facts backing them up. I of course had to research the topic using an objective frame of mind, and most evolutionists would never dare consider their theory to be faulty, even when presented with such fundamental impossibilities. The reason for this is that it's the only theory they've come up with to explain the origin of life without allowing God into the equation. The Bible does not conflict with science, because evolution is not science.

After scientific evidence can be eliminated, it can be concluded that people believe in evolution for 1 or 2 main reasons:

1) Societal/Peer Pressure (“people told me to believe it” or “lots of other people believe it, so I should too.”)
2) Personal Desire (i.e. “if God exists, I have to follow some rules I’m not too fond of”)

Essentially, evolution is a religion. It was concocted over 150 years ago, and they're still searching for that first shred of evidence. At this point, they seem to have given up on evidence, and instead just combine wild, unprovable theories with excuses. I have put the word “belief” in bold many times throughout this page, so I can illustrate the point that evolution is based entirely on belief and assumptions.


Here are some additional facts to consider.


1) In the history of scientific research, living organisms have never formed from non-living matter. Evolutionists hold the unscientific belief that this is possible as the first phase of evolution, but they cannot explain, replicate, or prove it can happen.

2) Nothing has ever given birth to something more genetically complex than itself. This is just assumed by evolutionists to be possible.

3) No single-celled organism has ever morphed into a multi-cell organism. Evolutionists firmly believe this can happen as the second phase of evolution, despite the fact that it has never been observed in the history of scientific research.

4) No creature has ever given birth to something that was a different kind of organism than itself. This is again just believed by evolutionists to be possible, although it has never happened in recorded history. Evolutionists believe that over time, lizards change into birds and fish turn into mammals. Yet, of all the billions of lizards on Earth, not a single one is in turning into a bird. Of all the billions of fish on Earth, not a single one is in the process of becoming a mammal.

5) Never in the history of science has any mutation benefitted an animal's species long term, or made it more genetically complex. Evolution would require billions of these mutations to be happening constantly both today and throughout history, and yet none have ever been observed. All mutations ever witnessed in reptiles, birds, or mammals are either a loss or a scrambling of existing genetic information, and are either neutral or negative (http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp) to the mutated animal.

6) Transitional species required for the theory of evolution to be true are called “missing links,” instead of “links,” because they do not exist.

7) It is impossible for a cold blooded animal to give birth to a warm blooded animal; and yet this is believed by evolutionists in the fish to mammal and lizard to bird theories.

8) Plants have been around since the beginning of life, and despite all the supposed evolution that should've taken place, they have not evolved intelligence.

9) There are no instances of plants morphing into animals.

10) Eyes are far more complex than anything man can create, and yet they’ve been around since the first animals of an evolutionist timescale. In addition, fossils indicate that they’ve always been just as complex as they are today, which means that evolutionists face a fundamental problem. For instance, trilobites had extremely complex eyes, and were supposedly alive long before people according to evolutionist assumptions. Their eyes had two lens layers that allowed everything to be in focus without the need for refocusing, and yet had no spherical aberrations (distortion) because of the precise alignment of the lenses. Chuck Darwin, the founder of the religion of evolution, didn't even believe eyes could have evolved:

"To suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin, in 'The Origin of Species,' 1859, p. 217

10) Virtually every species of animal has two genders required for reproduction. How this system could have randomly changed from cell division, when it started, and how it manages to be so consistent is inexplicable by evolutionists. I wonder how any species survived before it gained the instinct and ability to reproduce.

13) Nature is full of "irreducible complexities," or things that could not function if a single part is removed. Since evolution is a gradual and slow process, things like the human knee joint (http://www.trueorigin.org/knee.asp) could not have evolved, because they would not function until they were fully formed. If one part/aspect were missing, they would serve no purpose. This is inexplicable by evolutionists.

14) No creature has ever evolved or "adapted" a new body-part to suit it's environment, despite evolutionist belief, and they do not have the capability to do so. Among the ridiculous claims of evolutionists, one would be the land mammal that evolved into a whale. I'd like to see the transition where the nostrils supposedly change into the blowhole and move to the top of the head, and learn how the hind legs could magically morph into a tail flipper, all while continuing to function for millions of years.

15) Spiders have been found perfectly preserved in amber that supposedly date back "hundreds of millions of years," according to evolutionist faith-based dating systems. These spiders spin webs, and are no different from today's modern spiders. If evolution were true, spiders should have changed significantly over millions and millions of years. To the contrary, spiders remain the same spiders throughout the fossil record. How would the first spider gain the ability to spin a web? By accident?

16) DNA has to already be present in order to create protein, and protein has to be present in order to create DNA. Both are required as building blocks of a living organism. Which formed first, randomly, from the primordial soup that may or may not have existed, and how is that possible?




What DOES occur is variation of existing traits. Dogs can create a variety of dogs over thousands of years, and this is a provable fact. Breed a beagle with a boxer and you have a new kind of dog, but guess what... it's still a dog, and the size, hair color, and shape (existing traits) vary, but all fall within the limits of the existing dog gene pool. The confusion comes when people assume that variation of EXISTING traits means that somehow completely new genetic information can be added, thus allowing a cactus to evolve into a porcupine. To the contrary, organisms can only sample from an existing gene pool.

The gene pool for humans contains the ability to have a variety of skin types, hair colors, eye colors, body shapes and sizes, but never will any human form functioning gills and be able to breathe under water, because that genetic information is not in our gene pool. A red haired woman and a black haired man can have a blonde child, but don’t freak out - that blonde child isn’t evolving into a new species. It’s just exhibiting a variance of an existing trait in available human genes.

Evolutionists are always harping about bacteria as proof of evolution when they develop a resistance to antibiotics (http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp). Of course, they never tell the entire truth of these matters, so I guess we have to. Guess what- bacteria have always had resistance to antibiotics in their gene pool, they do not magically ”evolve” it. Bacteria can become immune to antibiotics through either horizontal gene transfer of already existing immunity, or they can become immune through a loss of information or capability in the ribosome. So, either existing immunity is transferred, or functionality is lost which results in immunity. Neither of these methods adds any genetic information to bacteria, and coincidentally to this day bacteria have not evolved into anything else. This shows that God designed everything with some capabilities to adapt to environmental changes, and develop resistances to harmful substances, all using the genetic information that already exists. If he didn’t, imagine how fast a species would go extinct as soon as they were faced with a minor habitat change. There are limits to adaptation of course. Lizards do not have the capability to produce feathers in their genes, and they never will. There is no existing genetic information in fish that will ever allow them to morph into mammals. (The fact that I have to argue that is frightening.) Experiments were done that selectively bred large paramecium in order to produce increasingly large paramecium. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paramecium reached their genetic size limit rather quickly. This is an example of the “genetic wall” that will be hit any time selective breeding or natural selection is observed. This limitation is present in all species; they can only exhibit traits from their own species’ existing gene pool. You will never selectively breed fast horses and get one that is faster than a cheetah.

This may help illustrate:

Using the letters A, B, and C, try to make the sentence “Hey, teacher, leave that kid alone!”

Of course that is impossible, but this is what evolutionists preach.

Another way to imagine the impossibilities of evolution is to think about what evolutionists claim.... that the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause them to develop traits or functions that better suit them to that environment, through information-gaining mutations and natural selection of those added traits. Let’s take a man and his wife, and say they live by the ocean. They swim in the ocean all the time, and hold their breath and swim underwater every day. Then they have kids, which also swim all the time, and hold their breath to swim underwater, because they are all pearl divers. Generation after generation of this family stays by the ocean, each son and daughter marry other people who live by the ocean and swim all the time. How long will it take before one of the children has the ability to breath underwater? The correct answer is never, but evolutionists believe that in a situation like this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills, and will be able to breath underwater. A logical person would realize this is impossible; a human would never develop gills, because the capability to breath underwater is not in the human genome. Evolutionists pretend that fish grew legs and lungs because for some reason “it was beneficial for them to leave water.”

Again, it needs to be reiterated that not a single aspect of evolution has ever been observed, and yet such impossible ideas are presented as a fact to children in public schools. Disturbing indeed.

[B.T. Justice]

You never read your bible?

Bats are not birdsLev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11) .

The Hebrew word 'atalleph is generally translated bat, but given its etymology, it is really "black flying thing." Bat was simply a 16th century translational choice. Why not crow? You cannot assume the English translation is the writers intention of classifying an animal. This is the case for behemoth and leviathan as well.
You might try reading it in Hebrew.

[aaron]

[/size][/font][/size][/font]

The Hebrew word 'atalleph is generally translated bat, but given its etymology, it is really "black flying thing." Bat was simply a 16th century translational choice. Why not crow? You cannot assume the English translation is the writers intention of classifying an animal. This is the case for behemoth and leviathan as well.
You might try reading it in Hebrew.

Thanks, that was my first thought there also.

[PeteH]

Sorry for the long post aaron, but:
(There is more if you are interested)

Tully Mars, that's quite a copy 'n paste. It's mostly a bunch of the typical misconceptions and PRATTs about evolutionary theory geared to reinforcing the beliefs of those that already reject it for faith-based reasons.

However, it leaves out one single important fact (which I keep repeating but no one wants to address). Evolutionary science, including common descent, is an applied science. For all the claims that evolution is a "faith", "religion", etc, nobody seems to be able to address this very simple fact. Heck, nobody seems to want to even acknowledge this very simple fact. And that very simple fact is why evolutionary theory is never going away.

[Blasko]

The Hebrew word 'atalleph is generally translated bat, but given its etymology, it is really "black flying thing." Bat was simply a 16th century translational choice. Why not crow? You cannot assume the English translation is the writers intention of classifying an animal. This is the case for behemoth and leviathan as well.
You might try reading it in Hebrew.All the Hebrew dictionaries translate it unambiguously as 'bat'. The context makes it clear:

Bat The Hebrew word ( atalleph' ) so rendered (Lev 11:19 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/lev011.htm#019); Deu 14:18 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/deu014.htm#018)) implies "flying in the dark." The bat is reckoned among the birds in the list of unclean animals. To cast idols to the "moles and to the bats" means to carry them into dark caverns or desolate places to which these animals resort (Isa 2:20 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/isa002.htm#020)), i.e., to consign them to desolation or ruin.

From here. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd047.htm)If you choose to interpret this non-literally, like many Christians do with Genesis, there's a simple explanation for this error. God was speaking to the people of that time in methods that they could understand. If He started talking about why bats are mammals and not birds, He'd lose the audience. So He simply categorised bats in with the birds to make the whole thing go by quickly.

Similarly, Genesis can be understood as a metaphorical story conveying truths to the ancient Israelites at the time. Why tell them about how the Earth was formed via disk accretion when it is more important to tell them who created the Earth? Notice how a single monotheistic deity created the elements, unlike other religions like the Egyptians who believed multiple deities arose from the elements. IMO, looking at Genesis literally misses the broader picture.

[SoMissTV]

Tully-

Did you type all that yourself? If not, can you post the source credit?

[PeteH]

Tully-

Did you type all that yourself? If not, can you post the source credit?

It's a direct copy and paste from themythofevolution.com. And the material is copyrighted on that site, so unless Tully is the author, it's a copyright violation.

[USincognito]

Hey don't delete Tully's post, just edit in a link to the original. I'm planning on doing a dissection of the content tonight.

-------------------------------------

Here's a blog entry posted by a TE to Christianforums that I think will provoke some thought to people that read it. The original entry is linked at the bottom and her CF message can be read here (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34155775&postcount=16).


Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? ....

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more. ...

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. I could no longer ignore what I had learned.



http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html (http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html)

[USincognito]

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, the abstract for Allin's article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1202224&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum) is availible through PubMed.

[USincognito]

Another question to ponder ... If infinate regression is indeed for madmen ... why do people (and scientists) break their backs to trace geneology to begin with ... it carries on forever and a day in itself, does it not???

I guess there's a lot more madmen in this world than dictators and sociopaths. ;) The science of Cosmology stops at the Big Bang. Life, at least on Earth, stops about 3.5 billion years ago. Neither are infinate and do have a beginning at some point.

[USincognito]

One thing I notice is that even when Creationist essays are "organized" they tend to ramble all over the place. Tully, the composition on this piece is terrible and I hope you aren't the original author. Because of thread fatigue I don't want to spend hours digging up links that people won't take, thus most will be TalkOrigins or Wikipedia plus a few other sources I have bookmarked. I'm also going to chop down the essay to subjects and the few specific quotes I want to reply to.

So the logical way to approach this research project is to start from the beginning. Evolutionists believe we evolved from a single-celled organism. Where did the single-celled organism come from? Evolutionists say primordial soup. All I had to do is figure out what primordial soup is, and how it was formed, and we’ll have the origin of the single-celled organism.

This paragraph and the parts I snipped below it are typical of the opening bid nearly every Creationist apologist starts with. "Hi, I'd like to talk about evolution." "O.k. what would you like to know?" "Where did the first life come from?" :smt105 If one is going to argue against a scientific theory, it's best if one actually argues against it and evolutionary theory assums extant life.

The first life could have come about due to: fiat creation by God (or another deity), abiogenesis on Earth, panspermia, directed panspermia (advocated by atheist IDers like the Raelians) or be a science experiment for hyperdimensional high schoolers. None of these sources for the first life has any effect what-so-ever on what has happened to in the 3.5 billion years since the first organisms got up and running. One can argue against abiogenesis if one wishes to argue against atheism, but if one wishes to argue against evolution, one is wasting ones breath.

And a few things about abiogenesis before moving on. It's not as baseless as this essay would have you believe. Here's two links (they're old so I hope they still work) on the basics.
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm (http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm)
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html (http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html)
And here's the Talk Origins page concerning probabilities (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/).
Specifically I'd recommend this essay (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) expecially the graphic demonstrating the difference between what Creationists claim about abiogenesis and what scientists are hypothecising.
I'd also recommend reading up on The Miller-Urey experiments (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miller-urey) the Goolge search results got both pro and con sites on the first page. Check out both sides on this story.

Evolutionists also say that people, plants, and animals evolve into completely different things over time. If that’s true, we should find an abundance of evidence, transitional species all over the place, and someone in the history of science must have observed this happening. After all, with all the trillions of creatures that exist on this planet, at least one of them should be evolving right now!

See, this is what I mean by being all over the place.
1. No, evolutionary theory says that beings evolve into slightly different things over time and that over many millions of years they can give rise to new species (which I'll address below).
2. No, it's true, but we don't expect to find abudant transitionals since fossilization is uncommon and we're lucky to have the fossils we do have.
3. Yes, we do expect to observe speciation and we have in microorganisms, plants, insects and vertebrates (http://www.christianforums.com/t155626-observed-speciation.html)
4. Sorta, every living being on this planet has evolved a smidgen from it's parent/s and if it reproduces that offspring will have evolved a smidedn from it.

Interestingly enough, that is a dead end as well. All the fish we find are fish, all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything except single-celled organisms. There’s no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans. There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else constantly. But we find none of that. The evolutionists’ theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals, and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds.

When Creationists can give a defintion for "complexity" then they can start using it in a meaningful context. I haven't seen that happen yet except to appeal to a sort of "common sense" definition. We're not dealing with common sense definitions, we're dealing with specific definitions.

And speaking of definitions, the author needs to learn how taxa are determined. They're not just random classifications that can me moved around like modules, nor can laymens terms be used to accurately discuss change over time - which is very important. New species develop over time moving forward. A sparrow will never have a clutch of trout and a panda will never birth a kitten. Once the lines seperate, they can never join up again. How then can we say humans developed from fish without conveying to people the image of a salmon suddenly growing legs?

Because salmon, humans, cats, pandas, sparrows and trout all come from an ancestral fish population. We all fall under the classification Vertebrates and here's part of a post I made a while back (with a lot of nice links) showing how taxaonimic classification works up from the species level, not down.

Lets start with Vertebrata (http://www.tolweb.org/Vertebrata/14829). All species in this classification will have these characteristics.

Within Vertebrata are Gnathostomata (http://www.tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843) or jawed vertebrates. And within Gnathostomata are ray finned fishes or Actinopterygii (http://www.tolweb.org/Actinopterygii/14923) and lobe finned fishes or Sarcopterygii (http://www.tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922)
Now here is where it gets important. You know the old stumper, "did humans come from fish?" The answer isn't as easy as yes or no. Humans are under the clade Sarcopterygii, and thus are classified with lobe finned fishes, but evolution has changed our form many times since sharing a common ancestor with the ancient root species.
So then humans are Homo sapiens
and also Hominidae (http://www.tolweb.org/Hominidae/16299)
and also Catarrhini (http://www.tolweb.org/Catarrhini/16293)
and also Primates (http://www.tolweb.org/Primates/15963)
and also Eutherians (http://www.tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997)
and also Mammals (http://www.tolweb.org/Mammalia/15040)
and also Therapsids (http://www.tolweb.org/Therapsida/14973)
and also Synapsids (http://www.tolweb.org/Synapsida/14845)
and also Amniotes (http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota/14990)
and also Terrestrial Vertebrates (http://www.tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952)
as well as being Sarcopterygii.
We, nor any other species will ever stop being a part of the groups we are now, we only further divide below what we currently call a species to branches within it that can no longer interbreed. Ex. Homo sapiens terra and Homo sapiens luna.
Similarly the pelican will never stop being a pelican, a bird, a reptile, and amniote, a terrestrial vertebrate or a Sarcopterygii either, the species will just branch.

If evolution were true, we’d be finding creatures that were:

3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...

and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists.

No. The stuff I linked to above explains how classifications work. In order to be a transitional, it only needs to exhibit characteristics of two different taxa genera or above. You might want to spend some time reading the Terrestrial Vertebrate page (http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952) and the take some of the links on the Sarcopterygii page (http://tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922). Specifically you might find the link on Tiktaalik (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/) and the Coelacanth (http://www.dinofish.com/).
And I'd especially recommend the Talk Origins Transitional FAQ page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)

End part 1.

[Astra]

To Tully and everyone else who chimed in about his post:

This is what I don't get. If you do buy into the idea of a young Earth, you don't just disagree with evolution, you throw huge chunks of archeology, anthropology, biology, and physics out with it, and not even bits that have to do with the origins of man. If radiocarbon dating is such a joke, why is it so accepted and return consistent results? Are there any harsh criticisms of it that DON'T come from young Earth advocate sites? I don't recall anyone at USM in my science classes disagreeing with its use, and I'm pretty sure most of my classmates were Christians.

The bit about carbon-14 increasing proves whoever wrote this doesn't really understand what they are talking about. The very idea of carbon dating is that modern specimens will have a great deal of carbon-14 and that older ones will not. It is all measured along a curve so that whether the amount of carbon-14 is increasing doesn't even matter.

I'm just amazed something so badly reasoned was trotted out as "evidence" for either side here.

The logic about finding artifacts and fossils in rock strata doesn't work, either. We KNOW how rock forms and the time and pressure and conditions it takes to form. It is determinable by physics and chemistry. You can't really speed the process of limestone formation up. It's hardly a case of circular logic.

[USincognito]

Just wanted to add something quick about transitionals and exhibiting characteristics of two different taxa. The Platypus (and the Echidna) is a perfect example of what we're talking about. It's fur, mammary glands and jaw/ear bones clearly catergorize it as a mammal. And every Platypus is a "fully formed Platypus," but they do carry two characteristics of our reptile ancestors: a cloaca and they lay leathery shelled eggs. It's a mammal with reptile characteristics.

And no, it's not a transitional, our reptile-like mammal ancestors existed 100 million years ago at least, but it has the characteristics of two major taxa and represents what we'd expect to find in the fossil record... and do.

Everything would be a transitional species, and we’d find abundant evidence for it. In reality, there is nothing anywhere close to that scenario. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence for such transitional species is illustrated by the articles published in 1999 by National Geographic, about the “missing link” fossil that was finally discovered that proved dinosaurs (lizards) evolved into birds. It was shaped like a lizard, but it had wings like a bird. They published a huge article with photos and great fanfare, and newspapers reported it with excitement across the country. Months later, it was revealed that someone just glued parts of different animals together in China and passed it off as a real fossil. Why would evolutionists be so excited over a single, glued-together, fake fossil? It almost seems as if they are completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever.

There is so much misinformation in this paragraph I hardly know were to start. First off the Archeoraptor fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor) was perpetrated on National Geographic and propigated by an editor. It was uncovered quickly and National Geographic published a retraction. Interestingly enough, the faked fossil did contain two legitimate fossils the front of a Yanornis martini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanornis_martini) and the tail of a Microraptor zhaoianus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor_zhaoianus).

As far as bird evolution itself, I'd check out the Tree of Life page (http://www.tolweb.org/Coelurosauria/15769) on birds and their therapod kin as well as these Talk Orgins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird) pages on bird evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1) from dinosaurs and the Archaeopteryx (the real find) FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html)

Nothing ever in the history of scientific research has ever given birth to something that is more genetically complex than itself, and yet that is the fundamental principle behind the theory of evolution.

Hmmm, "Genetically complex." We're getting somewhere, but that still isn't a definition. Does something that has less chromosomes, like humans have 46 while chimpanzees have 48 mean we're less "genetically" complex than they are?

Of all the billions of fish on the planet, not a single one is in the process of growing lungs. The only thing that ever happens (and it happens constantly) is variation of existing traits, which simply means that offspring can possibly have different physical attributes than their parents, such as size, weight, hair color, eye color, etc.

1. That's true. No fish are growing lungs today and evolution doesn't claim that. The Sarcoptyregii ancestors of Terrestrial Tetrapods (see previous post) developed lungs. However there are modern air breathing fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protopterus) that are closely related to those ancient ancestors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
2. The part in bold is correct, once a line of evolution has started, it rarely can come up with anything novel. That's why bird wings, human arms, cat forlegs and whale fins are all the same bones. You might check this essay on homologous structures in transitional fossils (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates) or this page on homologies in existing beings (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/similarity_hs_03)
3. The part in italics is incorrect for the reasons noted in the 2. links and in this essay on molecular evidences for common descent (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html)

While most people would have given up by now in the process of researching evolution, I was determined. There was one more thing that “everybody knows” is scientific. The fossil record. “Everybody knows” that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old, which proves the Earth is billions of years old, because that’s what they teach everybody in schools. I guess all I had to check is the method they use to date the fossils to make sure it’s scientific.

I'm hoping the part in bold is a typo by the original author because even for a straw man argument, it's pretty silly and borders on the insipid.

One of the methods fossils are dated by is something called {snip Kent Hovind links - if the man can't understand he needs to pay his taxes he can't understand how carbon dating works}

Your tax dollars pay for this (http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/gtime/radiom.html) please read it. This too (http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/capabilities/gronemtrac/geochron/geochron.html).
You might also want to check out this Talk Origins page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html) that specifically addresses Hovind's assertions on Carbon-14 dating.

If the Earth is less than 30,000 years old, and older fossils have less Carbon-14, it would be a sign that maybe carbon-14 levels on Earth are actually increasing over time... and coincidentally, they are, according to all data we have gathered in recent history.

This is wrong. Because of Ice cores (http://serc.carleton.edu/usingdata/datasheets/Vostok_IceCore.html) we actually know how much carbon-14 was in the atmosphere going back a few hundred thousand years, and while carbon-14 does fluctuate, but it has not been on some steady increase as this paragraph suggests.

Obviously, carbon dating is useless for scientific purposes, but at least there’s another method. Fossils can also be dated based on the layer of strata they are found in, i.e. Jurassic, Cambrian, etc. And we know that the layers of rock are dated accurately, because you just have to look at the fossils contained in them to see how old they are.

Did you catch that? That is a perfect example of the circular reasoning often used by evolutionists, and again useless for scientific research purposes. Using the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils isn't going to accomplish anything. It’s called circular reasoning. The whole idea of this “Geological Column” is disproved by the fact that trees and animals are found petrified and fossilized taking up several layers of rock strata that are supposedly millions of years apart. Can an animal fossil sit there exposed for millions of years while strata slowly builds up around it? Of course not. Again, logic interferes with evolutionist belief.

Using index fossils to establish absolute dating hasn't been done in 60+ years. Using them to establish approximate dating has worked great for 100ish years, and continues to be validated by the isochron dating methods on the U.S. Geological Survey pages linked above.
Fossils are also very helpful in determining paleoclimate and paleobiogeography (http://geology.er.usgs.gov/paleo/vertebra.shtml).

As far as "polystrate fossils" go. From what I have seen they are largely a myth invented by Creationists based on a few faulty interpretations of finds (if that many). They would have us believe that part of a tree is burried in the Triassic and part in the Cretaceous, but that never seems to be the case. What usually happens is a tree is petrified and then some sort of geological upheaval moves it through different and usually superpositioned strata.

End part 2.

[zorro]

However, it leaves out one single important fact (which I keep repeating but no one wants to address). Evolutionary science, including common descent, is an applied science. For all the claims that evolution is a "faith", "religion", etc, nobody seems to be able to address this very simple fact. Heck, nobody seems to want to even acknowledge this very simple fact. And that very simple fact is why evolutionary theory is never going away.
Actually, belief in a Common Maker and Creator as well as knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry is all you need for these same results. It's all in the presuppostions that you use to interpret the data. The reason that evolution will not go away is far removed from what you claim above.

As you would say, fancy that?

[USincognito]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=229172#post229172)
The final aspect of the fossil record that evolutionists like to use is the shape of fossils. They often use a neat trick where they make a line of fossils, usually little to big, and claim the “modern” animal is at the end. Then they say “See! If you line these fossils up in a certain order, you can see that evolution is proven by the fossil record!” This logic is illustrated at the top of this page. I have used their same logic to prove that pickles evolve into Oatmeal Squares, simply by putting things in order by shape. All the items are unrelated, and none of them magically morph into each-other, but put them in a line and you can see the shapes progress from cylinder to cube, big cap to nonexistent cap, and glass to paper. This is the exact same logic evolutionists use when they present fossils as proof of evolution, although they can’t prove that any of their example animals evolved into or gave birth to anything else. You can make your own evolutionary lineup - take a knife, a spoon, a spork, and a fork in that order, and you have proof that knives evolved into forks. You’ll have to show that to an evolutionist, however, for anyone to believe you.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


I'm sorry, but the "dinosaurs are millions therefore the Earth is billions" quote, while silly and only bordered on insipid, this line of reasoning is simply insipid. I mean it's really bad for anyone who understands even the most fundamental basics of biology... but I think my previous two posts have shown the author doesn't.

First off - inanimate objects don't reproduce and thus cannot mutate without outside influence. Second - inanimate objects produced within a similar time frame are contemporaneous (yes, this is axiomatic) while the fossils evidencing a change in morphology are not. Finally digital or photographic manipulation morphing one object into another is not the same as finding fossils that are in the right time, in the right place and have the right morphology based on predictions by evolutionary theory and buttressed by molecular and genetic evidences is not the same as making a consumer food product morph into another with cheesy animation.

Let's look at the final point for a moment. We never find hominid fossils in Cambrain strata. We never find them in Devonian or Ordovician or Cretaceous stata. We only find them in Quarternary. We never find hominid fossils in the Americas, nor do we find H. erectus fossils in Australia or on Pacific Islands. We never find Australipithecene fossils outside of Africa. We never find Homo fossils with a trunk or horns. We never find Australipithecene fossils with a big brain or a foramen magnum located at the back of their skulls.

There simply are too many convergent fossil evidences that aren't just limited to hominid fossils to suggest that the times, locations and morphology represent something akin to lining up a fork, spork and spoon.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
After scientific evidence can be eliminated, it can be concluded that people believe in evolution for 1 or 2 main reasons:

1) Societal/Peer Pressure (“people told me to believe it” or “lots of other people believe it, so I should too.”)
2) Personal Desire (i.e. “if God exists, I have to follow some rules I’m not too fond of”)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


This is a logical fallacy called bifurcation. It means making the choice either A or B. The problem is there usally is a C and often D, E. etc. I'd also point out that my posts above have shown that the scientific evidence cannot be eliminated according to the author's faulty reasoning, so clearly his false dilemma should be rejected.

Evolution is accepted - not "believed" I must point out - based on the overwhelming evidence. It is only rejected by those who have religious beliefs that prevent them from doing so.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Essentially, evolution is a religion.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
It was concocted over 150 years ago, and they're still searching for that first shred of evidence. At this point, they seem to have given up on evidence, and instead just combine wild, unprovable theories with excuses. I have put the word “belief” in bold many times throughout this page, so I can illustrate the point that evolution is based entirely on belief and assumptions.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Sigh... no, the author of this steaming pile of offal put "belief" in bold throughout his ramblings because he wanted to try and disctract readers so they wouldn't look behind the Wizard's curtain or notice the Emperor had no clothes. I would just have people look at the number of links I've included, especially at those pointing out how empty the claims of the authors essay, much less those evidencing the evolution side and not which side is appealing to "belief." Oh, and that "first shred of evidence" claim in the first sentence of this quote should make any honest reader laugh by now.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Here are some additional facts to consider.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


This is an interesting use of the word "facts."


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
1) In the history of scientific research, living organisms have never formed from non-living matter. Evolutionists hold the unscientific belief that this is possible as the first phase of evolution, but they cannot explain, replicate, or prove it can happen.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


I've explained in my post above:
- Evolutionary theory is based on existing life so where life came from doesn't matter. If one wishes to argue against atheism, one should do so. If one wishes to argue against biology, one should stick to it.
- The case against abiogenesis isn't as closed as the author would have readers believe.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
2) Nothing has ever given birth to something more genetically complex than itself. This is just assumed by evolutionists to be possible.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Every offspring has been different from it's parent(s), and until Creationists define what "genetically complex" is, this argument is meaningless.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
3) No single-celled organism has ever morphed into a multi-cell organism. Evolutionists firmly believe this can happen as the second phase of evolution, despite the fact that it has never been observed in the history of scientific research.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


This is wrong. Just do a Google and you get some very interesting results.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...d+multi-celled (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=single+celled+multi-celled)
There is also some interesting evidence that multi-celled animals developed by single celled animals incorporating other single celled.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...n+mitochondria (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=evolution+mitochondria)
One might also check out the Mixotricha paradoxa.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...xa&btnG=Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mixotricha+paradoxa&btnG=Search)


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
4) No creature has ever given birth to something that was a different kind of organism than itself. This is again just believed by evolutionists to be possible, although it has never happened in recorded history. Evolutionists believe that over time, lizards change into birds and fish turn into mammals. Yet, of all the billions of lizards on Earth, not a single one is in turning into a bird. Of all the billions of fish on Earth, not a single one is in the process of becoming a mammal.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Tully, you're not British are you? I wouldn't think someone from Hattiesburg would spell "organizm" as "organism". I posted above how taxonomy works and how the author's categories are problematic. For one thing, lizards didn't change into birds, dinosaurs and a particular type of dinosaur did. Lizards are a type of reptile that devoloped from Terrestrial Tetrapods long before birds or dinosaurs evolved. And no where in evolutionary theory does it say that current, extant lizards or fish are becomming birds or mammals. This is called a straw man argument.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
5) Never in the history of science has any mutation benefitted an animal's species long term, or made it more genetically complex. Evolution would require billions of these mutations to be happening constantly both today and throughout history, and yet none have ever been observed. All mutations ever witnessed in reptiles, birds, or mammals are either a loss or a scrambling of existing genetic information, and are either neutral or negative (http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp) to the mutated animal.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


We'll need to define "genetically complex" before we can even begin to discuss this assertion. And I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how billions (or 6,000 year old) bacteria developed the ability to eat nylon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
6)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Transitional species required for the theory of evolution to be true are called “missing links,” instead of “links,” because they do not exist.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[/color]

I've provided a bunch of links. I can provide a bunch more.

[Tully Mars]

I'm happy that ya'll are staying so busy with that one. :smt023

[jmb]

Tully, you're not British are you? I wouldn't think someone from Hattiesburg would spell "organizm" as "organism".


Where have you seen "organizm" spelled "organism"? If Tully's British, then you must be too since you spelled it the same way. I'm not the smartest person here, but I've only seen it spelled with an "s", never a "z".

[PeteH]

Actually, belief in a Common Maker and Creator as well as knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry is all you need for these same results. It's all in the presuppostions that you use to interpret the data. The reason that evolution will not go away is far removed from what you claim above.

No, this is false. Common descent is actually applied. Do you know what a phylogenetic tree is?

[zorro]

I've provided a bunch of links. I can provide a bunch more.
Heavens, no! You guys have already been more than helpful. No more links will be needed at this point. In fact, we have enough links (no missing ones though :-D) already to keep us busy here for the next few years.

Why don't y'all come back in 2010 and see if we need to ask you any questions about them? :smt023

[zorro]

Do you know what a phylogenetic tree is?
Of course. When I get home tonight from work, I'll explain it to you.

[dollfus46]

It's a direct copy and paste from themythofevolution.com. And the material is copyrighted on that site, so unless Tully is the author, it's a copyright violation.

Perhaps you should make a federal case out of it. I'd sue him. Maybe just slap him around a little.:smt062 Bet it won't happen again, then.

[PeteH]

Of course. When I get home tonight from work, I'll explain it to you.

Why wait? :D

[PeteH]

Hey, theDoc, I notice you're "unthanking" me when I bring up the fact that evolution is an applied science. But do you actually want to address that? Can you address it? Can anyone address it?

[jmb]

Does anyone want to address it?

[Tully Mars]

Perhaps you should make a federal case out of it. I'd sue him. Maybe just slap him around a little.:smt062 Bet it won't happen again, then.

Oh, I don't know...with all of the exercize that they are getting running off at the mouth, jumping to conclusions, making mountains out of molehills, jumping on the bandwagon and adding fuel to the fire they just might be able to take me...but I seriously doubt it. :-D

[B.T. Justice]

with all of the exercize that they are getting running off at the mouth, jumping to conclusions, making mountains out of molehills, jumping on the bandwagon and adding fuel :-D

Sounds like a good physical fitness routine.

[PeteH]

Does anyone want to address it?

It doesn't seem so. But it's silly to attack it claiming it's a faith, religion, whatever, but then turn a blind eye to how it's being used in the real world. After all, how it's being used in the real world goes back to the whole debate of education.

And most people who attack evolution don't seem to understand that their very stance runs contrary to the larger goals of America as a whole to remain economically competitive in emerging tech sectors.

[amanda]

You say tomato, I say tomatoe.....let's call the whole thing off!

[PeteH]

You say tomato, I say tomatoe.....let's call the whole thing off!

*shrug*

May as well. I've yet to find people anywhere who will attack evolutionary science on the one hand, but at the same time actually be able to address the real-world consequences thereof. I've even fired off emails to major creationist organizations about this stuff and they simply ignore it.

Oh well, science marches on...

[Tully Mars]

*shrug*

May as well. I've yet to find people anywhere who will attack evolutionary science on the one hand, but at the same time actually be able to address the real-world consequences thereof. I've even fired off emails to major creationist organizations about this stuff and they simply ignore it.

Oh well, science marches on...

As does the faith of the Kingdom. :smt023

[PeteH]

As does the faith of the Kingdom. :smt023

I suppose. But the debate really shouldn't be an issue of religion vs science. I think it's unfortunate many have to chosen to make it one.

[Valkhorn]

Don't need to, we throw away more food than the world needs.WRONG

This guy would disagree with you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Norman_Borlaug.jpg

His name is Normal Borlaug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug) - and he has literally saved the lives of over a billion people:

During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations. These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people from starvation. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.He is a Nobel Prize Winner. He is a genius. He is a humanitarian, and one of the best and nicest people this world has EVER seen.

According to him we do not have enough food to feed the world's population. So I can either believe him, or you. I think I'll go with him.

Oh and his work also is based on Evolution.

[Valkhorn]

Oh, I don't know...with all of the exercize that they are getting running off at the mouth, jumping to conclusions, making mountains out of molehills, jumping on the bandwagon and adding fuel to the fire they just might be able to take me...but I seriously doubt it.

That's what you guys do all the time. Can you not see it?

[Valkhorn]

Does anyone want to address it?

We love to address the facts. PeteH, US, and I have all posted evidence and sources.

It doesn't appear the Creationists want to address it at all. No matter how much truth we throw at them they don't want to listen.

[Tully Mars]

We love to address the facts. PeteH, US, and I have all posted evidence and sources.

It doesn't appear the Creationists want to address it at all. No matter how much truth we throw at them they don't want to listen.

With this debate at least, it seems that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

[B.T. Justice]

His name is Normal Borlaug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug) - and he has literally saved the lives of over a billion people:

He is a Nobel Prize Winner. He is a genius. He is a humanitarian, and one of the best and nicest people this world has EVER seen.

According to him we do not have enough food to feed the world's population. So I can either believe him, or you. I think I'll go with him.

Oh and his work also is based on Evolution.



Why would an evolutionist care if we run out of food? Will we not evolve into something that can sustain itself without food? Like maybe a rock. That is what you believe.

[PeteH]

With this debate at least, it seems that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

The fact that evolutionary biology is an applied science in today's world isn't "in the eye of the beholder".

[Valkhorn]

Why would an evolutionist care if we run out of food? Will we not evolve into something that can sustain itself without food? Like maybe a rock. That is what you believe.

You do not have a clue about what Evolution is. We cannot evolve into anything that doesn't require food or an energy source. We do not 'choose' to evolve either.

This is most certainly NOT what we 'believe' nor is it what evolution is.

[B.T. Justice]

You do not have a clue about what Evolution is. We cannot evolve into anything that doesn't require food or an energy source. We do not 'choose' to evolve either.

This is most certainly NOT what we 'believe' nor is it what evolution is.
Sure it is. If you do not accept a creator then you must believe life appeared from nothing.

[fuzzis]

We love to address the facts. PeteH, US, and I have all posted evidence and sources.

It doesn't appear the Creationists want to address it at all. No matter how much truth we throw at them they don't want to listen.

People don't have to want to address it. You seemed to have forgotten that no one is here at your pleasure. You can't make them listen to you; you can't make them engage in a debate on your terms.

I'd say pull your head out of your ass, but I wouldn't want to be accused of being rude.

So...stop pounding your head against the wall. No one here is interested in what you've been trying to sell for the last week. You put up a good fight. It was a valiant effort. Your forehead is bloody.

[PeteH]

You do not have a clue about what Evolution is. We cannot evolve into anything that doesn't require food or an energy source. We do not 'choose' to evolve either.

This is most certainly NOT what we 'believe' nor is it what evolution is.

I think he's being facetious. Or at least I hope he's being facetious. :smt103

[Valkhorn]

With this debate at least, it seems that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

So are you saying reality changes on how we look at it? I am going to look myself a million dollars then if that's the case.

[Valkhorn]

I think he's being facetious. Or at least I hope he's being facetious.

Poe's law?

[Valkhorn]

People don't have to want to address it. You seemed to have forgotten that no one is here at your pleasure. You can't make them listen to you; you can't make them engage in a debate on your terms.

And that's their own fault. Why is it right for them to want to pound this BS into our head and into our science class when it is totall tripe? Why do they want to mouth off when they have nothing to back up their claim?

I'd say pull your head out of your ass, but I wouldn't want to be accused of being rude.

I'm being realistic. The only reason these guys are ignoring valid science is because of superstition - and I'll be damned if they're going to force it in the classroom as science.

So...stop pounding your head against the wall. No one here is interested in what you've been trying to sell for the last week. You put up a good fight. It was a valiant effort. Your forehead is bloody.

I am not bleeding at all.

[Tully Mars]

So are you saying reality changes on how we look at it? I am going to look myself a million dollars then if that's the case.


Snappy comeback...maybe you do have a sense of humor after all. :laugh:

[PeteH]

People don't have to want to address it. You seemed to have forgotten that no one is here at your pleasure. You can't make them listen to you; you can't make them engage in a debate on your terms.

I'd say pull your head out of your ass, but I wouldn't want to be accused of being rude.

So...stop pounding your head against the wall. No one here is interested in what you've been trying to sell for the last week. You put up a good fight. It was a valiant effort. Your forehead is bloody.

But this is the fundamental problem and goes right back to the OP. People are willing to attack science they don't understand, influence public policy about science eduction they don't understand, yet choose to remain apathetic and ignorant when confronted with the very science they don't understand.

Oh well, I suppose when China overtakes the U.S. in global technology, people will sit up and take notice. If there's one thing Americans hate more than evolution, it's commies. :p

[Valkhorn]

Sure it is. If you do not accept a creator then you must believe life appeared from nothing.

But if you DO accept a creator you would believe that it created life from nothing.

Your argument fails.

[fuzzis]

And that's their own fault. Why is it right for them to want to pound this BS into our head and into our science class when it is totall tripe? Why do they want to mouth off when they have nothing to back up their claim?



I'm being realistic. The only reason these guys are ignoring valid science is because of superstition - and I'll be damned if they're going to force it in the classroom as science.



I am not bleeding at all.

Darlin'? I might know a little about writing. ;)

One of the hallmarks of writing instruction is that you must first consider your audience. If you're pissed off about creationists wanting to force their curriculum into our schools, this is not the place to make that argument. Write to your State Board of Education. Write to your local School Board members. Make an appointment to see the district Superintendent. But here? Not the audience you're looking for.

Even if it were, you've once again forgotten the hallmark of writing instruction: audience. You're not going to win them over when you belittle them and their beliefs. It doesn't matter if they do the same to you. We long ago passed tit-for-tat stage...or at least some of us did.

If you cannot recognize that at this point both sides are firmly entrenched and that there is nothing to be gained from continuing to pout and say, "But they won't do what I want them to :(", then there's not much help for you.

The line about the bloody forehead would have been metaphorical allusion. Sorry you missed it.

[Valkhorn]

Snappy comeback...maybe you do have a sense of humor after all.

Shhhhhh! :)

[Valkhorn]

One of the hallmarks of writing instruction is that you must first consider your audience. If you're pissed off about creationists wanting to force their curriculum into our schools, this is not the place to make that argument. Write to your State Board of Education. Write to your local School Board members. Make an appointment to see the district Superintendent. But here? Not the audience you're looking for.

Many groups do this, and I have thought about organizing one myself.


Even if it were, you've once again forgotten the hallmark of writing instruction: audience. You're not going to win them over when you belittle them and their beliefs. It doesn't matter if they do the same to you. We long ago passed tit-for-tat stage.

But an argument about Science isn't about who can write better. It's about which side is the most supported by evidence.

If you cannot recognize that at this point both sides are firmly entrenched and that there is nothing to be gained from continuing to pout and say, "But they won't do what I want them to :-(", then there's not much help for you.

Read PeteH's comment on the topic. That is why it is important.

The line about the bloody forehead would have been metaphorical allusion. Sorry you missed it.

And my comeback was in reference to your metaphor.

[fuzzis]

Many groups do this, and I have thought about organizing one myself.


Then do it. You're not going to be accomplishing what you want here.


But an argument about Science isn't about who can write better. It's about which side is the most supported by evidence.

An argument in this medium is always going to be about who can write better. Because your disdain for your audience, you lost them before you even began. Something for you to consider when you organize your group to talk to the people who matter.



Read PeteH's comment on the topic. That is why it is important.



I get why it's important (and if you weren't so busy beating your chest you'd see that I agree with your position), but you've already shot yourself in the foot by behaving badly here. You can't stomp your feet and cry in frustration and then expect people to listen to a thing you have to say. Give it up already. People have seen what you have to say and are ignoring you...probably because of YOU. You're not going to "make" them listen to you now, and repeating yourself only wastes your time.


And my comeback was in reference to your metaphor.

:laugh:

There is valor in knowing when to throw in the towel.

[Tully Mars]

But this is the fundamental problem and goes right back to the OP. People are willing to attack science they don't understand, influence public policy about science eduction they don't understand, yet choose to remain apathetic and ignorant when confronted with the very science they don't understand.

Oh well, I suppose when China overtakes the U.S. in global technology, people will sit up and take notice. If there's one thing Americans hate more than evolution, it's commies. :p

Truth be told, I don't want my children learning creationism in a public school classroom. I prefer that it be taught in church, Sunday school, or at home by people who are qualified to teach them about faith related issues. I certainly don't want the state or feds setting that agenda.

[amanda]

Go get 'em Fuzzis!!!

Fuzzis, Fuzzis, Fuzzis!!!! That's our girl!!

[PeteH]

Truth be told, I don't want my children learning creationism in a public school classroom. I prefer that it be taught in church, Sunday school, or at home by people who are qualified to teach them about faith related issues. I certainly don't want the state or feds setting that agenda.

Well, that's no chance of that happening anyway given the outcomes of past court cases (i.e. Edwards v. Aguillard). But this isn't about teaching creationism, it's about teaching evolutionary biology. And regardless whether people agree with it, evolutionary biology is a big part of the modern bio-sciences.

[aaron]

Then let it be taught in college level bio-science classes (and I'm sure it is). Nothing has been lost. Like Fuzzis said, write the State Education Board or something. I can't believe you will spend hours trying to convince us and haven't done this yourself. Are atheists that opposed to staying out of the norm?

[PeteH]

Then let it be taught in college level bio-science classes (and I'm sure it is). Nothing has been lost. Like Fuzzis said, write the State Education Board or something. I can't believe you will spend hours trying to convince us and haven't done this yourself. Are atheists that opposed to staying out of the norm?

Why not teach it in high school along with the rest of biology? Why are people so afraid of that?

And FWIW, where I live evolution is taught in high school. I have written to my local paper in support of it, though, whenever a debate flares up.

And this has nothing to do with atheism. We're talking evolutionary biology here. Whether or not people believe in God has nothing to do with it.

[amanda]

Why not teach it in high school along with the rest of biology? Why are people so afraid of that?

And FWIW, where I live evolution is taught in high school. I have written to my local paper in support of it, though, whenever a debate flares up.

And this has nothing to do with atheism. We're talking evolutionary biology here. Whether or not people believe in God has nothing to do with it.


Well, Kudos to your school system. I would prefer my children learn about evolutionary biology in college if that is their desire and let them just muddle through the usual biology in high school. Thanks.

[PeteH]

Well, Kudos to your school system. I would prefer my children learn about evolutionary biology in college if that is their desire and let them just muddle through the usual biology in high school. Thanks.

But what do you have against it being taught in high school?

[zorro]

Can anybody tell me how many posts that the infamous Oak Grove thread ended up having?

I think that this one might end up beating it. :smt118

[zorro]

I've even fired off emails to major creationist organizations about this stuff and they simply ignore it.

I wonder why. :confused:

I would suggest the following possible reasons for not getting a response:

a) they were intimidated by you

b) they weren't impressed

c) they just didn't want to waste their time

d) they thought that responding would violate the command given in Matthew 7:6

e) some combination of the above

:smt102

Pete, did you fire those email comments to them in a respectful manner, or did it have an arrogant, know-it-all, smart aleck tone?

[Conveyor Belt]

Pete, did you fire those email comments to them in a respectful manner, or did it have an arrogant, know-it-all, smart aleck tone?

*spits out coke*

I can't believe you said that...

[B.T. Justice]

But if you DO accept a creator you would believe that it created life from nothing.

Your argument fails.
Why do you not apply some that logic of which you calm to have an exclusive right? The world we know spontaneously appearing is much more fanciful than having been created by a God you do not acknowledge.
And as for your argument. How many people have you convinced with your vast intellect? You have proven nothing!

[aaron]

I'm sure all the idiots who don't put all their cards into science will one day evolve into smarter human beings that do. This problem will take care of itself anywhere between 100,000 and 1 million years from now. And I'm sure all of you will come back here and laugh and laugh at our stupidity.

[B.T. Justice]

Truth be told, I don't want my children learning creationism in a public school classroom. I prefer that it be taught in church, Sunday school, or at home by people who are qualified to teach them about faith related issues. I certainly don't want the state or feds setting that agenda.
I agree. I have no problem having kids taught the facts. What I object to is having a self proclaimed atheist interpret the facts and call it science.

[Conveyor Belt]

I agree. I have no problem having kids taught the facts. What I object to is having a self proclaimed atheist interpret the facts and call it science.

BT, I can understand your point. I have a problem when the religious interpret faith and and call them facts.

[USincognito]

Pete, did you fire those email comments to them in a respectful manner, or did it have an arrogant, know-it-all, smart aleck tone?

Have you no sense of irony? :-D

[zorro]

No matter how much truth we throw at them they don't want to listen.
Oh, so now you're interested in truth! I'm interested in truth too!

Below is truth that you can depend on; it is also truth that you better depend on if you value your soul.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." -- Matthew 5:17-18

"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." -- Luke 18:17

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. -- John 1:17

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." -- John 3:3

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live." -- John 5:24-25

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." -- John 6:32-33

"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life." -- John 6:46-48

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." -- John 8:31-32

Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." -- John 8:34

"I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." -- John 8:51

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" -- John 8:58

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -- John 14:6

"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." -- John 17:17

[USincognito]

Where have you seen "organizm" spelled "organism"? If Tully's British, then you must be too since you spelled it the same way. I'm not the smartest person here, but I've only seen it spelled with an "s", never a "z".

If the only comment you have about the content of my posts is this, then I'm not going to feel too bad about my error.

At least I know you read it. ;)

[zorro]

So are you saying reality changes on how we look at it?
Certainly our perception of reality does.

[zorro]

The only reason these guys are ignoring valid science is because of superstition - and I'll be damned if they're going to force it in the classroom as science.
That's not the reason that you'll be damned.

I posted you some truth a few posts back that I hope will be beneficial in preventing this.

[aaron]

Can anybody tell me how many posts that the infamous Oak Grove thread ended up having?

I think that this one might end up beating it. :smt118

Oak Grove thread had 817 posts, so we're close.

[USincognito]

Heavens, no! You guys have already been more than helpful. No more links will be needed at this point. In fact, we have enough links (no missing ones though :-D) already to keep us busy here for the next few years.

Odd. I've just posted lots of examples of transitional fossils, as has Valhorn just recently. I wonder how you missed them. :confused:

And don't worry, I'm not excpeting you or TheDoc or some of the other folks here to even take the links I provided, much less read them. I just don't like seeing error and falsehood pose as truth and my main purpose was to show that there is literally mountains of evidence for evolution. If people wish to take the links, that's up to them.

[USincognito]

Certainly our perception of reality does.

I find this postmodernist POV very interesting coming from Creationists. Actually I find it strange. The same people who claim to have sole possession of TRVTH, also claim that two people could look at a mountain; one could conclude it's 6,000 years old, one could conclude it's 50,000,000 years old and both would be right, just interpreting the mountain differently.

It actually is a bizarre way of studying the world around us IMO. Personally I prefer to stick with the Western, Christian notion that we can reliably know reality and that we're not living in an illusion like the Eastern religions believe.

[aaron]

And again, your telling the wrong people. There are a few people here that hold office in an elected position and a few running, but I doubt they read through all of this to propose to our local or state government that we start teaching evolution. It's just not going to happen. It's a political system, and they want votes.

[Valkhorn]

Oh, so now you're interested in truth! I'm interested in truth too!

More duelling scriptures here.

Why is it that your only objection to Evolution is a religious one?

[Valkhorn]

I'm sure all the idiots who don't put all their cards into science will one day evolve into smarter human beings that do.

If you don't like science, live in a cave and reject all your medicine.


This problem will take care of itself anywhere between 100,000 and 1 million years from now. And I'm sure all of you will come bak here and laugh and laugh at our stupidity.

What?

Can you possibly debate the topic instead of giving us rhetoric?

[aaron]

If you don't like science, live in a cave and reject all your medicine.

No

Can you possibly debate the topic instead of giving us rhetoric?

I don't want to. Even if you did somehow convince me that you were right, it would do nothing for your cause or the children. For someone that claims to know a lot about science, you sure don't seem to know much about social science.

[Valkhorn]

That's not the reason that you'll be damned.

I posted you some truth a few posts back that I hope will be beneficial in preventing this.

I posted you plenty of facts which you quickly ignored. Your point?

[Valkhorn]

I don't want to.

Because you can't.

[just-Wynn]

Because you can't. I can though. :police:

[aaron]

Because you can't.

Your right, I might have back in college, but I don't really care now. There are just better things out there than evolution and whether it exists or not. With all the killing, starvation, suicides, and bully atheists, I'm not sure that I'd want to stay around even if evolutionary biology could keep me alive. I'll do the best I can while I'm here, but I hope to move on when I've finished my race.

[Bahlk]

Your right, I might have back in college, but I don't really care now. There are just better things out there than evolution and whether it exists or not. With all the killing, starvation, suicides, and bully atheists, I'm not sure that I'd want to stay around even if evolutionary biology could keep me alive. I'll do the best I can while I'm here, but I hope to move on when I've finished my race.

I think that is the best post out of all 700 some odd posts in this thread.

[PeteH]

Pete, did you fire those email comments to them in a respectful manner, or did it have an arrogant, know-it-all, smart aleck tone?

Hey, what are you suggesting? :p

FWIW, I used a polite, business-like tone that I use in any email to people I don't know.

I think the real reason they weren't able to answer it I was asking about stuff they simply haven't thought about.

[PeteH]

I agree. I have no problem having kids taught the facts. What I object to is having a self proclaimed atheist interpret the facts and call it science.

Evolutionary science isn't about atheism. The problem is that people keep making it about atheism, which only confuses the whole issue.

If people could just put aside all the religious/atheist stuff and just focus on the science, then we'd all be better for it. But people can't seem to do that. :smt102

[zorro]

Do you know what a phylogenetic tree is?
The term phylogeny refers to hypothetical evolutionary relationships. A phylogenetic tree (or evolutionary tree) depicts the supposed branching relationships among species, with the evolution of supposedly younger species from supposedly older ones.

The molecular phylogenies that have been constructed, however, fail to provide proof (compelling evidence) for evolution as is claimed by Pete and others. If you used their presuppositions and reasoning on the automobile family, you could claim that different types of automobiles evolved from other ones (instead of realizing that all automobiles are made by man). The groupings of automobiles based on similar design measures only show the result of engineering and not the result of evolution.

Pete won't be convinced of this because his presuppositions (those that he denies that he has) won't allow it. And this is why it is futile to discuss this issue with him or others of his same clan that have bombarded this site recently. They do not see because they refuse to do so. If they would even consider the possibility of other presuppositions, then they would realize that if their own presuppositions are not held, then their evidence for evolution is certainly less than compelling.

[B.T. Justice]

Evolutionary science isn't about atheism. The problem is that people keep making it about atheism, which only confuses the whole issue.

If people could just put aside all the religious/atheist stuff and just focus on the science, then we'd all be better for it. But people can't seem to do that. :smt102
You are correct, science is not about atheism. However, an atheist will not stop at demonstrating the facts; he or she will interpret those facts and still call that science. Such as finding a bone and writing its story beginning billions of years ago. The bone didn't give up that information; it was interpreted based on preconcieved ideology.
As I stated in a post to CB, this is not limited to atheists; Christians do it as well. The difference between you and me is that I am willing to admit it.

[amanda]

Hey, PeteH - are you part of the JREF group that USIncog and Valkhorn wanted to come here to enlighten us? Just curious.

[dollfus46]

Hey, PeteH - are you part of the JREF group that USIncog and Valkhorn wanted to come here to enlighten us? Just curious.

It isn't obvious? Quark is another.

[PeteH]

The term phylogeny refers to hypothetical evolutionary relationships. A phylogenetic tree (or evolutionary tree) depicts the supposed branching relationships among species, with the evolution of supposedly younger species from supposedly older ones.

So far so good...

The molecular phylogenies that have been constructed, however, fail to provide proof (compelling evidence) for evolution as is claimed by Pete and others. If you used their presuppositions and reasoning on the automobile family, you could claim that different types of automobiles evolved from other ones (instead of realizing that all automobiles are made by man). The groupings of automobiles based on similar design measures only show the result of engineering and not the result of evolution.

... and here we come undone.

The automobile analogy fails because there is no requirement for consistency among phylogenetic relationships constructed from different criteria. So given that automobiles were designed and engineered with no contraint that you would otherwise find in an evolutionary scenario, you'd wouldn't expect that phylogenies would be consistent. So for example if you constructed a phylogenetic tree based off engines versus another based on tires versus another based on transmission, you could very likely get wildly diverging trees. And it's all moot anyway, since nobody has done such a thing. It's a purely imaginary scenario at this point.

Now if we look at real-world biology, we get a different picture. Now certainly there are some discrepencies due to various factors (discordance between genotypes and phenotypes, horizontal transfers, hybridization, and so on). It certainly isn't 100% perfect.

But it's pretty darned close. And in fact, what isn't found are wildly divergent phylogenies that you would expect if life had done anything but evolve.

There's quite a bit written about the accuracy of constructing phylogenies. In particular, there's quite a discussion here about the correlation of independent phylogenies and the sheer statistics involved (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_consilience).

More specific papers on the subject include:

Estimating the Reliability of Evolutionary Trees. Penny, D., and Hendy, M. D. Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 3, No 5. (1986), pp. 403-417.

Approaches for Assessing Phylogenetic Accuracy. Hillis, D. M. Systematic Biology, Vol. 44, No. 1. (Mar., 1995), pp. 3-16.

Improving the Accuracy of Phylogenetic Estimation by Combining Different Methods. Junhyong Kim. Systematic Biology, Vol. 42, No. 3. (Sep., 1993), pp. 331-340.

(Unfortunately some of those papers are scanned images, making it impossible to do cut 'n paste quotes. But I'd recommend looking 'em up if you are genuinely interested in this. Or I can send you the relevant sections.)

The consesus, however, is that while there are some issues with constructing phylogenies, they generally display remarkable consistency. In particular, the Penny and Hendy paper construct trees from 11 taxa based on 6 protein sequences and estimate accuracy on the part of 1 in 10^6.

So that's it for construction, but this doesn't even begin to address the fact that they are applied as well. One of my favorite examples is The potential significance of adaptive evolution and dimerization in chimpanzee intercellular cell adhesion molecules (ICAMs) (http://www.evolgen.com/images/journaloftheoretical.pdf):

Cell adhesion molecules are involved in a diverse array of cellular processes. Recent data suggests that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) co-opts their functions, in particular the properties of the intercellular cell adhesion molecules (ICAMs), to enhance viral infection and transmission. To investigate mechanisms that may underlie the non-progression that occurs in immunodeficiency virus-infected chimpanzees, we amplified the protein coding regions of multiple non-human primate ICAMs 1–5 and two ICAM ligands, leukocyte function-associated antigen-1 (LFA-1) and macrophage antigen 1 (Mac-1). We then employed a phylogenetic tree-based approach to comparative genomics, in order to screen for the presence of adaptive changes. Strong Darwinian positive selection in chimpanzee ICAMs 1, 2 and 3 was observed, most markedly in domains that are critical for the integrity and maintenance of ICAM-1 dimerization. As binding of ligands, including the attachment of virions, is influenced by the state of ICAM 1 dimerization, chimpanzee ICAMs may have evolved to modulate their own dimerization. In concert with previous evidence suggesting an ancient retroviral pandemic as a prominent selective force in chimpanzee evolution, adaptation of chimpanzee ICAMs may have effected a mechanism that explains the lack of immunosuppression observed following HIV-1 or simian immunodeficiency virus (SIVcpz) infection.

Here you have a perfect example of real-world biology applied to tackling a very serious problem (AIDS) and using an evolutionary based approach to do so.

The bottom line is this: even if you reject the evolutionary history of life on Earth, this does nothing to invalidate the appearence of the evolutionary history of life on Earth.

Pete won't be convinced of this because his presuppositions (those that he denies that he has) won't allow it. And this is why it is futile to discuss this issue with him or others of his same clan that have bombarded this site recently. They do not see because they refuse to do so. If they would even consider the possibility of other presuppositions, then they would realize that if their own presuppositions are not held, then their evidence for evolution is certainly less than compelling.

I'm not convinced of what you are suggesting, because A) your car analogy is purely ad hoc with no data. B) The actual analysis and data of real-world biological phylogenies suggests remarkable accuracy in many cases. And C) this does nothing to address the fact that phylogenetic trees are actually applied in modern biology.

Even if you presuppose the evolutionary history of life on Earth, phylogenetics could completely invalidate this by providing no consistent results among constructed trees based on various criteria. This just isn't the case at all. So anyway you slice it, life looks like it evolved.

[bpitt]

Does anyone think that it could be possible that evolution can exist with a belief of Divine creation?

[PeteH]

Hey, PeteH - are you part of the JREF group that USIncog and Valkhorn wanted to come here to enlighten us? Just curious.

Nope.

[EricStratton]

Does anyone think that it could be possible that evolution can exist with a belief of Divine creation?

Yes.

[PeteH]

You are correct, science is not about atheism. However, an atheist will not stop at demonstrating the facts; he or she will interpret those facts and still call that science. Such as finding a bone and writing its story beginning billions of years ago. The bone didn't give up that information; it was interpreted based on preconcieved ideology.
As I stated in a post to CB, this is not limited to atheists; Christians do it as well. The difference between you and me is that I am willing to admit it.

The age of the Earth and things within the Earth is not a preconceived ideology, it's a conclusion of the examination of data. With respect to dating of fossils, rock layers and so on, there are something like 40-odd different methods that are employed, and are often cross-correlated with each other.

A simple example is the age the Sun based on helioseismology and the age of the oldest known meteroites based on radiometric dating. Both independent methods give consistent results of about 4.5 billion years. No ideology needed.

[zorro]

So anyway you slice it, life looks like it evolved.
No, any way that I slice it, it looks like life is the result of a Divine Creator. :smt023

[PeteH]

Does anyone think that it could be possible that evolution can exist with a belief of Divine creation?

Of course. Lots of religious folk have no problem reconciling evolution with their beliefs, including most Christians.

[PeteH]

No, any way that I slice it, it looks like life is the result of a Divine Creator. :smt023

Do you plan to address the material I posted?

Besides, the issue of a Creator is largely irrelevant. If life evolved, it evolved. If it was created, it was created to look like it evolved. Either way, the point is moot.

[zorro]

Of course. Lots of religious folk have no problem reconciling evolution with their beliefs,
So far, so good

including most Christians.
Overstating what you actually know. Have you talked with most Christians?

[PeteH]

Overstating what you actually know. Have you talked with most Christians?

I'm going by data from polls on the subject.

[bpitt]

Hhhhmmmmm, I wonder why we debate evolution, for what purpose. Really, why do we study it? For what reason does science study evolution? I just asking a question.