jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (162 posts)

Evolutionary theory is not a slam-dunk

  1. parrster profile image85
    parrsterposted 5 years ago

    “Evolutionary theory is not a slam-dunk. It is an exercise in storytelling that masquerades as a scientific theory” [William A. Dembski]

    In his article 'Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge', Dr Dembski asks five questions.
    I present only the first one here.
    What is the evolutionists response to the Fossil Record? The lack of it? If there has been billions of years of evolutionary development, where are all the bones? We should be wading chin deep in transitional fossils. Yet not only do we lack these, we lack any bones of quantities large enough to substantiate the vast geological time required by evolutionary theory.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Is this a joke? Dembski has no idea what he's talking about and often invents things that have nothing to do with evolution. He's just another ID proponent from the Discovery Institute.

      Even the question above shows his lack of understanding of transitional fossils and why we aren't "wading chin deep" in them.

    2. steveamy profile image61
      steveamyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      what happened to the bones?  Is that a serious question.  How about erosion???? Bone is a pretty delicate substance.....

      1. parrster profile image85
        parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I think you have misunderstood his argument. He is not talking of the bones themselves, but the fossils of them. There are so few, and off these no truly transitional examples.  The "evidence" for evolution truly is scarce. Even Harvard professor Richard Lewontin stated, "When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo-sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some palaeontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor."

        1. profile image0
          AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          (The "evidence" for evolution truly is scarce)

          More red herrings - you must have a fondness for sea food.

          It only requires a single example to verify the evolutionary claim.  That the evidence is relatively rare is of no consequence.

      2. PJ Jones profile image60
        PJ Jonesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        All good points...."dust thou art, and dust shalt thy return"   Then again we are walking talking proof of evolution.  Do we need our tonsils?  apendicts?  Two kidneys?  Hugh molars in back of our mandables.  There were parts of our bodies that we at one time needed. Gall Bladders were once required

        1. parrster profile image85
          parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The Vestigial Organs argument  for macro-evolution isn't as strong as many think. For example, tonsils at one time were routinely removed. Now it's known they serve a purpose in the lymph system to help fight infection; not vestigial at all.
          Another example, the appendix serves as a storehouse for probiotics and provides a variety of immune-related functions, helping to produce and train white blood cells, as well as playing an important role during fetal development. This evidence led Duke University immunologist, William Parker to observe that "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial' organ" and thus "it's time to correct the textbooks."
          Another example, modern dentistry attributes wisdom teeth not to macro-evolution, but diet. Processed and refined foods in modern societies have resulted in our reduced use of wisdom teeth. When refined foods are constantly eaten, there is no stimulus for robust jaw development and erupting wisdom teeth become crowded.
          One last example, the gallbladder stores bile and parcels it out as needed. If the bladder is removed, it doesn't impair the production of needed bile, only its concentration and timed release into the small intestine. Dilute bile merely oozes in continually. A person can function quite adequately without the gallbladder under normal conditions, but it's better to keep it.
          Other organs or features once thought to be "useless" include the thymus gland, the "tail bone," the little toe . . . would a person be better off without these? Of course not! Does their presence prove evolution? Hardly.

    3. Paul Wingert profile image80
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      LMAO Where did this Dr Dembski get his degree from? Cracker Jacks? There's a few books written by these religious authors with a doctor's degree (maybe it took them 8 years to read the Bible) and they came up with similar questions to disprove evelution. It's obvioous that these guys are in denial and they fully believe that life started in a plush garden inhabited with a talking snake. Where are all the bones, Dr Dembski? Ever hear of decomposition? Someone needs to get a degree in common sense!

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I agree, and while we're at it, what happened to the bones of the billions of people who have died on earth and all the animals?  How about all the whales and dolphins that have died in the ocean.  Why aren't we chin deep in bones of all type?

        1. parrster profile image85
          parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          As with the previous commenter, I think you have misunderstood Dembski's argument; he is not talking of the bones themselves, but the fossils of them.
          Commenting on the lack of fossil evidence, University of Oklahoma palaeontologist Dave Kitts admits, “Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides a means of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of gaps in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them.”

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            No, I haven't.  The "where is the fossil evidence?" thing has been hashed and rehashed. I don't really have a dog in this fight as I neither know nor care how humans got here or what made the Earth.  I will say, however, the Dembskis of the world are starting with a conclusion and working backwards, so their motivation is a question as it skews the scientific process.  True science starts with the evidence and moves FORWARD to draw a conclusion.

            In addition, it is vaguely hypocritical to rely on completely non-provable holy texts for the basis of your philosophy yet question a evolution as a theory (with it's slew of supporting evidence) because the "missing link" has not been found.

            If you are going to believe in ID then good on ya.  It's just as easy to think that the fossil evidence for evolution is just God's joke that the rest of the world hasn't gotten yet.  If you are seriously going to enter the scientific community to try to prove it, then you better be willing to follow the rules of that community and the standards of evidence that are acceptable within.  Otherwise, you are no better than a charlatan trying to win over the uneducated with flawed quasi-science.

            1. parrster profile image85
              parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              True, my own words mean little in this debate. That is why I quote scientists so often, and mainly evolutionary scientists. If the leading people in the field are stumped, maybe the rest of us shouldn't be so confident. That's how I reason, anyhow. As a non-scientist, I find science a strange realm, treated by some as almost hallowed, a place wherein even speculation must be respected as something grand. Brings to mind Mark Twains comment in Life on the Mississippi: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact”

      2. parrster profile image85
        parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        As with the previous commenter, I think you have misunderstood Dembski's argument; he is not talking of the bones themselves, but the fossils of them.
        The famous Stephen Jay Gould (one of the foremost evolutionists of the twentieth century), commented on this very point, admitting: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology."

        BTW. Dembski has two doctorates I believe.

        1. secularist10 profile image87
          secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          You need bones to make fossils.

          1. parrster profile image85
            parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes

            1. secularist10 profile image87
              secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Right, so... no bones, no fossils.

              1. parrster profile image85
                parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I see what you are saying, but I think the point is the lack of transitional bones/fossils (of those we do have). Palaeontologists can't find them. Do you know of any?

                1. secularist10 profile image87
                  secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  There's plenty but the problem is that creationists are always redefining terms like "transitional."

                  Suppose we find the remains of 5 creatures. Creature 1 to creature 5. Creature 1 has no wings. Creature 2 has tiny buds on its back. Creature 3 has tiny wings. Creature 4 has larger wings. And Creature 5 has huge wings.

                  This is the kind of thing we would expect for evolution to be true. But creationists will just say "No, this is not an example of transition. Each of those creatures is a unique animal unto itself, some with small wings and some with large ones."

                  The genius tactic (such as it is) of the creationists is to dispute not the bones themselves--nobody with half a brain can dispute the existence of something that is plainly obvious. They instead dispute that evolution is the explanation for those bones.

                  I can take a film strip from a movie and lay it out on a table, look at each shot on the strip, and say "this is not a single movie with a plot running from beginning to end... these are just individual photos that happen to look very similar." When common sense tells us that those individual photos, taken in order, are tied together into a single movie.

                  This is the ridiculous, confining perfectionism of creationists.

                  1. scottcgruber profile image87
                    scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    In reality, the fossil record isn't quite this simple. To continue your analogy, we might then find Creature 6 which has the wing buds of Creature 2 but the jaw of Creature 4. And then Creature 7 that has huge wings, the jaw of Creature 1 and 3 but a different hip bone from 5. The linear transition that seemed simple now gets complicated, and paleontologists will disagree about how this clade branched.

                    Those of us with scientific minds accept this, knowing that science is a fluid process, not stone-carved dogma. Models change as new information is found, and different ideas compete until a consensus emerges - which itself is subject to change if an overwhelming piece of evidence overturns it.

                    Creationists cannot handle this uncertainty. They use it as a wedge to declare all of evolution a fraud. In essence, they set up a straw man argument - they declare that science has created a rigid and unchangeable timeline of how live evolved, then use new evidence that contradicts that timeline to throw out the entire timeline.

                    Creationists use the very thing that makes science beautiful against it. In science there is always doubt. Even if all evidence points to the conclusion that B is the transitional species between A and C, science cannot declare this an absolute fact - just a most likely conclusion given all the current evidence.

                    That's why I call them science deniers.

                  2. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You are missing the bones from creature 2.5, with larger buds, as well as creature 2.7 with large buds and skeletal attachment points for more musculature.

                    The point is that we will never find each and every transitional fossil, even if there is such a thing.  The creationists demand just that, declaring that it is impossible that either all 10 bazillion bones are not there or that they simply haven't been found yet in the 500 million square miles of earth's surface.  Therefore, evolution is fake.

                    Another complaint (brought out by Paar) is that the fossils we have are not the transitional ones.  Not considering that every fossil is transitional from one thing to another.  It may not be the transition they are demanding to see, but it is transitional.

                    Needless to say, the reasoning is a trifle faulty.

                2. profile image0
                  AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  (I think the point is the lack of transitional bones/fossils (of those we do have). Palaeontologists can't find them. Do you know of any?)

                  parrster,

                  Here is a brief part of an article from an Indiana University website:

                  "For example, the Order Perissodactyla (horses, etc.) and the Order Cetacea (whales) can both be traced back (through a series of intermediate fossils) to early Eocene animals that looked only marginally different from each other, and didn't look at all like horses or whales. (They looked rather like small foxes with raccoon-like feet and simple teeth.) But over the following tens of millions of years, the descendents of those animals became more and more different, and now we call them two different orders. This is how "microevolution" apparently results in apparent "macroevolution" (little changes accumulating over time to produce the big differences we see today).

                  There are now several known cases of species-to-species transitions that resulted in the first members of new higher taxa."

        2. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Could you please pass this link along to Dembski?

          http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec … ilhow.html

        3. kerryg profile image85
          kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          It amuses me how much creationist's love that quote from Gould.

          First, it's from 1977. Given the speed of discovery in evolutionary science, you might as well be quoting Ptolemy and claiming his ideas represent modern astronomy.

          Second, he clarified his comments in a 1981 paper and stated "Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." This is a much more accurate description of modern thought on transitional forms.

          At the species level, we have "no" transitional forms because literally everything is a transitional form. Every single individual of every single species that ever existed has been on its way to turning into something else. You are a transitional form and so am I. Evolution is not a sudden process. An Eohippus didn't just suddenly give birth to a Mesohippus one day, the transition took tens or hundreds of thousands of years of tiny, incremental changes snowballing into something greater.

          On a larger scale, however, there are numerous transitional forms existing between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds, between reptiles and mammals, and so forth, as well as numerous transitional forms within families. For example, the transition from Eohippus to Equus, to borrow the horses again, is pretty well understood. Similarly, I would say that we have a surprisingly good understanding of human evolution considering that you could fit pretty much the entire pre-Homo sapiens fossil record of the Homo and Australopithecus races in the back of an average sized pickup truck. tongue

          1. parrster profile image85
            parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Hey kerryg.
            Glad I could amuse you smile
            Though it may be getting a bit dated , Gould's quote remains powerful as a testimony of evolutionary speculation; a 'we can't see it, but we believe it' “science”.
            Though we have no fossils indicating change from one species to another, and although we have never witnessed it or have any way of testing it, we still know that “Every single individual of every single species that ever existed has been on its way to turning into something else”.
            How do we know this?
            Just because we have fossils of creatures from the past that share similar features, but with small noticeable differences, is not sound evidence for evolutionary transition; rather just simple speculation. After all, we weren't there, we couldn't see it.
            Current speculative species extinction rates number between 7000-30000 per year, most of these purportedly due to mankind’s impact. However, if we accept the historical 10 to 100 species per year, that means there were vast number of creatures that lived in the past that don't exist today. My point being that those very fossils we say are transitional, may well have simply been similar looking animals, nothing more.
            To say that we are all on the way to changing into something else (I assume you mean species), is also speculation. How can we know that; since we can't detect it or test it.
            I also understand that  Eohippus to Equus is not readily accepted in evolutionary circles and, according to some heavy weights, should be removed from the text books. To quote Stephen J. Gould again (this time from 2 years before his death 2000), he bemoaned the continued use of what he termed “misinformation” such as horse evolution. He wrote. “Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed…).
            Creationist Jonathan Sarfati wrote along these lines: even informed evolutionists regard horse evolution as a bush rather than a sequence. But the so-called Eohippus is properly called Hyracotherium, and has little that could connect it with horses at all. The other animals in the “sequence” actually show hardly any more variation between them than that within horses today. One non-horse and  many varieties of the true horse kind does not a sequence make.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              That is classic. Yet, believers will embrace a single book of myths and superstitions as reality even though they weren't there or couldn't see any of the magical events that allegedly took place. lol

            2. kerryg profile image85
              kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              "Just because we have fossils of creatures from the past that share similar features, but with small noticeable differences, is not sound evidence for evolutionary transition; rather just simple speculation. After all, we weren't there, we couldn't see it."

              That is extremely ironic coming from a creationist. If you're attempting to argue that evolution is as much a matter of faith as creationism, however, you're out of luck, because there have been observed cases of speciation in plants, bacteria, and fruit flies, among others. Mammals and other higher animals are more difficult because the process usually takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but there have been a smattering of cases. Here's an overview of some of the literature on observed speciation:

              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

              Additionally, you don't seem to realize that "fossils of creatures from the past that share similar features, but with small noticeable differences" is exactly what is predicted by evolution. Evolution is the result of tiny incremental changes building up over time. You are never, ever going to see a frog turning into a cow, or something equally dramatic, because that's not how evolution works. In fact, if you did see a frog turning into a cow, it would be pretty dramatic evidence that evolution is NOT a valid theory!

              "Current speculative species extinction rates number between 7000-30000 per year, most of these purportedly due to mankind’s impact. However, if we accept the historical 10 to 100 species per year, that means there were vast number of creatures that lived in the past that don't exist today. My point being that those very fossils we say are transitional, may well have simply been similar looking animals, nothing more."

              There are plenty of disputes in the scientific world about whether a particular fossil is a separate species or simply normal variation within an existing one, but bear in mind that there are other factors involved than simple morphology. Genetic analysis, for example, can often answer this question.

              "I also understand that  Eohippus to Equus is not readily accepted in evolutionary circles and, according to some heavy weights, should be removed from the text books. To quote Stephen J. Gould again (this time from 2 years before his death 2000), he bemoaned the continued use of what he termed “misinformation” such as horse evolution. He wrote. “Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed…)."

              I'm not sure how complaining about the inaccurate representation of the creature's size in textbooks constitutes an attack against its status as ancestor of the modern horse. Care to explain the logic?

              "Creationist Jonathan Sarfati wrote along these lines: even informed evolutionists regard horse evolution as a bush rather than a sequence. But the so-called Eohippus is properly called Hyracotherium, and has little that could connect it with horses at all. The other animals in the “sequence” actually show hardly any more variation between them than that within horses today. One non-horse and  many varieties of the true horse kind does not a sequence make."

              Yes, modern evolutionists regard the evolution of the horse as more of a bush than a straight line, as evolutionists a hundred years ago did. This is called good science. When you find evidence that you were wrong about something, you modify your hypothesis.

              You're quite mistaken in claiming that "One non-horse and  many varieties of the true horse kind does not a sequence make", however. Hyracotherium/Eohippus is indeed a direct ancestor of the modern Equus, and there's more variation among the others than your creationist sources would lead you to believe.

              Here's the current understanding of horse evolution:

              http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                "fossils of creatures from the past that share similar features, but with small noticeable differences" is exactly what is predicted by evolution."

                Sorry, Kerry - creationism does not predict this, so it is not there.  The claims of evolution are obviously false as a result of those creatures that we see but aren't there.

                See how easy that was?  All you have to do is use your conclusion as a premise, a premise of indisputable fact, and all becomes clear.  As mud.

            3. scottcgruber profile image87
              scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              "One non-horse and  many varieties of the true horse kind does not a sequence make."

              This is a problem of taxonomy, not evolution. The entire "kind" issue is purely invented by creationists.

              In nature there are no species, nor genuses, nor classes nor orders nor phyla. There's just life in lots and lots and lots of different forms. Some forms can mate with each other. Other forms eat each other. Other forms grow from the decomposition of the ones that got eaten.

              Taxonomy is a human invention, created out of our need to classify things. We group animals with similar characteristics into reptiles and birds and mammals, then use increasingly more specific characteristics to create more specific classifications, from kingdom to phylum all the way down to species. This continues until we've placed every plant, animal, and microbe into a taxonomic box that we've created for it.

              Unfortunately, nature has a funny way of disobeying our attempts at classification by producing, say, a mammal that lays eggs or a fish that has lungs. Or it produces a type of bird that seems to be the same species as another similar-looking bird, but the two cannot produce viable offspring. These finds send the taxonomers and evolutionary biologists back to the drawing board. That's just science - it also happens when particle physicists find a new particle or astronomers find exoplanets that shouldn't exist. When data doesn't fit the model, we change the model.

              There is no point in nature when a population of creatures stops being non-horse and becomes horse. This only happens in retrospect, when humans draw a box around population X and exclude populations Y and Z and say "these are horses, those are non-horses."

              It is not the goal of equine evolution to create the horse. Evolution just created creatures that were able to survive to reproductive age in their particular ecosystem at their particular time in geologic history. Over time these populations split and changed into multiple branches. Some branches survived, others went extinct.

              It is only from our present-day bias that we look back at the particular sequence of creatures that led to the horse we know today and can reconstruct the equine evolution sequence. The linear path through that sequence from eohippus to equus is something we create by looking at the data after the fact.

              1. mischeviousme profile image59
                mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Genetic codes have alot to do with it these days. One species has a common link to another and that is how things are classified, as genetic codes and genetic markers. Some species have junk DNA, that in others is active. These genetic traits are seen as eyes, wings and fingernails. Each species use thes genetic traits to better adapt to their natural surroundings.

              2. parrster profile image85
                parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Please have a read of the article linked below and give me your thoughts

                http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … ies-change

                I was struck by the closing sentence in particular:
                "Modern creationists need to challenge both the unbiblical essentialist ideas that underlie species fixity and the naturalistic ideas that underpin evolution from a common ancestor. The truth lies somewhere between these two extremes: yes, species change, but variation has clear limits "

            4. scottcgruber profile image87
              scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              "Just because we have fossils of creatures from the past that share similar features, but with small noticeable differences, is not sound evidence for evolutionary transition; rather just simple speculation. After all, we weren't there, we couldn't see it."

              I'm going to take apart this argument next.

              Imagine a homicide detective investigating a crime scene. She finds a recently deceased man lying on the floor with a .22 caliber bullet lodged in his chest. She then finds a .22 caliber pistol lying on the floor in another corner of the room. Laboratory examination finds that markings on the bullet are consistent with the barrel of the gun. However, interviews with all the neighbors determine that none of them were in the area at the time of death, so there were no witnesses who heard or saw the gunshot.

              She then declares the case unsolvable, as without witnesses who actually saw the bullet leaving the gun and entering the man's chest, there is no proof that the gun fired the bullet. It is only speculation.

              This is the logical equivalent of your argument.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What's your theory? Genesis?

    5. Philanthropy2012 profile image88
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This has to be a joke or a troll.

    6. scottcgruber profile image87
      scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Here's the flaw in Dembski's argument: not all bones become fossils.

      Fossilization is extremely rare. It requires animals and plants to die and be buried in sediment or otherwise isolated in an oxygen-free environment immediately. Otherwise, they decay - bones and all.

      Those "billions of bones" aren't fossils because they're in us - we (and every living thing on the Earth today) ARE the organic matter that used to be dinosaurs and trilobites and prehistoric plants. Fossils are just the exceptions that were taken out of the food chain.

      And the "transitional fossils" argument is just silly. EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. There isn't a linear flow to evolution - it is a tree with many branches (though this phrase is considered passe by evolutionary biologists, it's still a useful metaphor). Some branches end, others continue. The fact that scientists sometimes disagree about exactly how some branches relate to each other does not negate evolutionary theory, which has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

    7. Titen-Sxull profile image93
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This is what might be termed as a non-question, in that it's been answered dozens of times before.

      1) Fossilization is rare and happens only under certain circumstances.

      2) Even given it's rarity we have dozens of transitional forms accounted for.

      3) Given what we've learned about genetics just in the last half a century we don't even need the transitional fossils we do have. Genetics alone is enough evidence to support evolution.

      Dumbski's question is a huge dud.

    8. profile image70
      paarsurreyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Don't say evolution is just a game?

    9. Rob Crabb profile image58
      Rob Crabbposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I suppose that Dinosaurs have been methodically placed to test peoples faith. Maybe we should regress, disregard carbonating among other scientific advancements just to state fossils are naturally occurring, and people along with other animals don't adapt to the environment.
      Recent history shows how humans have evolved to survive in different climates, and if you think it is simply because we are special and smart, think about the bear and all the places it lives.
      Silly idea to think evolution is a hoax on any level.

    10. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The story of evolution for the common(sense) man

      Some time after the its beginning, when everything was super hot (or freezing cold) and moving around at a tremendous rate of knots with meteoric collisions the norm, non-life gave birth to life. Don't question that, it just did.
      And Prokaryote the single cell was born... well, born might not be the word, but he popped into existence somehow.
      This tiniest little primordial germ, we'll call him Proka, was unique, and not just because it spontaneously appeared, but because it did so into a hadean environment so harsh and unfriendly to life as to make the whole reality of its existence utterly unbelievable. But believe it some do.
      But their it was, a super resilient single cell able to live in the harshest conditions imaginable.
      Actually, it turns out Proka wasn't so simple. After all, it had ability to replicate. And it replicated and replicated and replicated and replicated. Until there was heaps of tough little Proka's that could withstand the worst that nature could possibly throw at them. Of course, none of the Proka's cared as to how they could do this. After all, the complexities of DNA just appeared for them, so what was the big deal that they could replicate it. Anyway, somehow, against every expectation and probability known to mathematics and reason, they thrived.
      More time went by, and for reasons unknown, one or more of these tough little critters mutated. Why, you might ask, after millions of years being able to handle any and everything thrown at them, would they suddenly change. Well, no one knows. You might also ask, how? After all, if you're already the simplest life form imaginable, how do you mutate? Ahhh, yes. That built-in DNA information package spontaneously given by non-life at the very beginning; of course.
      Now, with all that potential for change, the Proka's could become anything they wanted, except of course, they couldn't want anything; being brainless. Therefore the conditions for their mutating were simple:
      1. No plan. Every mutation must operate under the strictest guidelines of non-guidance. No inside or outside help. No direction. No mind map. No purpose whatsoever. Only random happen-stance and freak coincidence permitted; all else would suggest a mind at work, and minds haven't evolved yet and therefore that would be impossible.
      2. An external reason necessitating change is required. For example, environmental pressure. Wait-just-a-minute! Proka already thrives in the most high-pressure environment imaginable; he had no need to change. Hmmm. Anyway, that's the second condition.
      3. The mutation must be useful; it must enhance Proka somehow. After all, if you're already the simplest cell, there's not much room left for getting your mutations wrong; and back to the non-living mother you go. Proka, being brain-dead, was not miffed by the extreme challenge presented here. You see, mutations are rarely, if ever, beneficial; and this was his first time too.
      4. It must be inheritable. After all, what's the point of getting a beneficial mutation if you can't share it. Of course, this too was a challenge as mutations rarely get replicated.
      5. Only the tiniest incremental changes allowed. You see, everyone knows that sudden big changes are impossible. A fish doesn't just suddenly grow a leg. Which is a poor example, because under this condition, the fish wasn't even allow to grow a pimple. It could, however,  develop a tiny nodule that, when combined with the nodular amendments of one-hundred-billion other mutations, contributed randomly to what would become a pimple.
      So there you have it, the conditions as they currently stand (though they are known to move around a bit).
      So the Proka mutated, only a tiny little bit, and, hey presto, he was now Proka the simple cell, plus a tiny little nodule.
      Lot's of time passed. Proka had no idea what advantage the nodule gave him, but he replicated it anyway. In fact, the nodule proved to be his salvation, because those not possessing the nodule either died or developed different nodules until, after several more million years, the Proka descendants were as diverse from each other as single celled noddy's can be.
      Even more amazing, some of them had become multi-celled noddy's. Of course, this is more unbelievable than Proka realised, because to successfully mutate so many times for so long to achieve a state where you are less robust than you were at the beginning is really illogical; weren't they supposed to be improving. But, as already discussed, Proka was brain-dead.
      But let's leave Proka for now, and focus on his cousin, the multi-celled Grex. No one is quite sure how Grex occurred. But though the 'how' is a mystery, some speculate that the 'why' was reproduction. Actually, reproduction must have been the reason, because these multi-cells could only increase their numbers via reproduction. They could no longer self replicate like little brother Proka.
      As strange as it may seem, and for some inexplicable reason, brain-dead Grex (they still shared that in common) required a very complex process to occur before they could multiply. However, Grex's could still do it alone.

      To be continued...

      http://naturalselection.0catch.com/File … first.html

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Creationism for the common man: At first there was nothing then for no apparent reason whatsoever and with absolutely no causation this all powerfull all knowing and all good entity came into being, somehow, even though every law of the universe dictates this is impossible then this immensely powerfull and perfect being then created a very imperfect universe for apparently no reason including billions of planets and suns which nothing occupied, then he found one small non remarkable rock who he for apparently no particualr reason decided to care about but only after leaving it lying around doing nothing special for 5 billion years BUT wait even though we know the earth is 5 billion years old the bible says he made creatues just a few days later??? (who knows whats going on there) anyway he then for some reason decided to make a massive amount of creatures but even though he is all knowing and all loving he just let the vast majority of them die out for no particular reason, then the all knowing being made man his favorite creation man and then woman who he had to make out of adams rib for some reason even though everything else was just made out of nothing and being all knowing he must've known they would sin, but when they did he got super rage mad and threw man out of this nice place he had made for them, then he just left them for about 30 000 years untill he decided to help some slaves in a backwards desert area of the world for no explainable reason because they were his people (even though he made all people). Totally logical.

      2. profile image0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        (The story of evolution for the common(sense) man)

        parrster,

        This is a perfect example of why there is so much frustration (which leads to animosity) when talking or discussing these issues with a creationist.

        Creationists typically:
        1. Confuse evolution with abiogenesis - no person with even 1 working brain cell claims to know how life started.  If one wishes to assume life started by the will of a god, have at it. 

        2. Confuse evolution with atheism - the Catholic Church accepts evolution, and they are hardly atheistic.  (See #1)

        3. Create false correlations - claims that early-earth environment were not compatable with life assumes the shape of current life was equivalent with the first life.  There is no correlation between early earth environment and the necessary environment for organisms of today - in fact, that slow, gradual change is exactly what evolution attempts to explain.

        4. Create straw men to fight - claims of DNA requirements are simply wrong from the hypothesis point of view.  It is entirely possible to show a very basic single cell organism that mechanically divides (pounding by the surf on rocks), grows, and consumes without DNA.  It is simply chemistry.  The creationist uses a false correlation (prehistoric organisms must mirror present-day organisms) and then build a false argument surrounding this false premise to tear down.

        When you look at the entirety of creationists' arguements, it is obvious the  fallacy of begging question is at their root, as their constructs all start with a presupposition that god/creation is the only conclusion, and they build their arguments from there.

        1. parrster profile image85
          parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Ahh, but Winston, all good stories must have a beginning, and I thought you'd be quite comfortable with my story assuming abiogenesis. Also, note that my story is 'to be continued', lots of room to address the further evolutionary adventures of Proka and grex.
          I am sure some creationists confuse abiogenesis with evolution; though I am not one them. That said, when you look at the definition of abiogeneisis, 'the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes', it does ring very similar to the speculative summations of evolution.
          Atheism and evolution are indirectly related, for if there was ever a theory of origins to undermine the efficacy of man’s need for God, it would be evolution; a truth the catholic church no doubt rues.
          From my understanding on reading the science on the subject there is an insurmountable difference between having and not having DNA, which no amount of time or mechanical/chemical manipulation can overcome.
          I have to agree with your last statement, I do believe that supernatural creation is the only option. Is is the only option that makes sense across every level. Not without it's difficulties, Christianity non-the-less presents answers to life and living, but not until one first accepts, “In the beginning God...”
          To me, this debate is of little consequence. My fear for others, though, is that in replacing God's work with a theory of man's, and living life within the ultimate premise of that theory, they will rob themselves of true life.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Survival (and reproduction) of the fittest doesn't have much to do with non-living chemistry.

            Evolution is not about origins, and neither is atheism; in that respect they are similar but that's about it.

            If you must accept "In the beginning (a supernatural and undetectable creature from another universe that loves, cares for, wants the company of and destroys it's creations)" to accept creation it is doomed from the start.  It's just not a very realistic way to start a theory.

            1. parrster profile image85
              parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Who said he was undetectable.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Billions of people have looked for thousands of years.  Unless He copied the materials of his universe then he is not made of anything this universe is.  Christian definition includes the idea that we cannot see him (unless, apparently, he so desires).  No one has ever been able to show results caused by Him, in spite of claims to the contrary.

                Add it up - He is undetectable to humanity.

                1. parrster profile image85
                  parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  And yet, billions upon billions upon billions throughout history have sought him and found him through faith.
                  'The one that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him' [the bible]
                  I'm not sure why, when you look at the marvels of the universe, the earth, your own body and mind, that you cannot see the hand of a mastermind. To me it is evident, so evident as to be undeniable.
                  If you could but accept that, and then seek him diligently, you would be surprised.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Therein lies the difference between the theists and the scientist.

                    Billions have sought him, and found their feelings and emotions.  The exact same feelings that other billions have. 

                    That they attribute those feelings to God doesn't make them right - faithful no doubt, but not necessarily right.

                    To look at the marvels of the universe and exclaim "Wow!  I just don't understand how it could happen without God - He has to exist because of my ignorance." is not evidence of anything but our own ignorance.  That ignorance certainly isn't evidence of a supernatural being - just that we have much to learn.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You mean billions upon billions throughout history have been brainwashed to believe in Jesus.

                    Only a very tiny percentage of religions have conversions as one of their indicators, all the rest grew up with their religion.

                    How many Christians came from Muslim families? How many Jews came from Christian families?

  2. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tTr5CTAYsU8/Tgw2Ikqs2tI/AAAAAAAAJj8/U14-Txg_QR4/s320/neanderthal.jpg

    hmmmm let me think about that for a bit

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image80
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Evolution is a slam dunk.

    If you believe that Hiroshima was destroyed by a nuclear bomb, then you agree that fossils are millions of years old.

    1. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      OK, I admit that  I have no idea what the Hiroshima/nuclear/fossil relationship is, so you'll have to explain. Thanks.

      1. PJ Jones profile image60
        PJ Jonesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        LOL.......loving it!

        1. parrster profile image85
          parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Why do I feel like I'm missing something smile

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image80
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Probably because you don't understand nuclear physics. This is one of the problems with creationists: they think that by refusing evolution they are just confirming god.

            What they're really doing is refuting half of what Physics teaches, another half of Chemistry, and another half of Biology.

            1. parrster profile image85
              parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You are quite right, I only understand nuclear physics as well as, say, a person with a BA in Japanese smile

              But I can read, and have read work from Nuclear Physicists on both side of this debate; though I do find one side makes more sense than the other.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image80
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The usage of radioactive isotope half-lifes is what caused the fission bomb to go off over Hiroshima, Nagasaki, every nuclear power plant today, and every fusion bomb ever blown up under ground.

        We use half-life calculations to date fossils.

        You can't choose to agree that half-life's exist when talking about nukes, and then say they don't when we date fossils.

        So? Which is it? Do nuclear bombs exist AND fossils are millions of years old? Or is it that nuclear bombs do NOT exist, Hiroshima was destroyed using a different kind of bomb, and nuclear power does not exist, while fossils are only thousands of years old?

        1. parrster profile image85
          parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks for explaining the connection you were making. Not being a physicist, I can only quote from those that are trained on this subject.
          One such Physicist emphasised that radiometric dating doesn’t actually measure age at all. Rather, and I quote, "it measures the ratio of the radioactive ‘parent’ element to the stable ‘daughter’ element in, say, a sample of rock today. And the age must be inferred by using these measurements in a calculation, and this relies on several unverifiable assumptions; for example; that there was no daughter element present when the rock was formed; the daughter element is entirely due to decay of the parent in the sample; that no amount of either parent or daughter has leached into or out of the rock since its formation; and that decay rate has not changed over time. If any of these assumptions are incorrect, it can dramatically change the calculation of the age. Since it is impossible to know for sure whether any of these have happened, it is not reasonable to trust the calculated age as accurate.”
          This Nuclear Physicist further points out that, “In cases where the actual age of the rock is known, radiometric dating techniques typically give wildly erroneous ages. For example, rock formed in a lava flow from Mt. St. Helens in 1986 was radio-metrically dated as 2.6 million years old!”. The frequency of such errors in this type of dating method led him to add, “If, every time you read a newspaper report concerning an incident about which you had first-hand knowledge, you found that the newspaper report was totally wrong, how many of these would you read before you began to suspect that all the reporting was wrong?”

          1. profile image0
            AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            (This Nuclear Physicist further points out that, “In cases where the actual age of the rock is known, radiometric dating techniques typically give wildly erroneous ages)

            Parrster,

            This discussion about "rock dating" is a red herring, and it is a good example of your confirmation bias as Creationistic.

            There is no controversy in carbon-14 dating, which dates carbon-based material as far back as 60,000 years, and is used for what was once living matter. 

            Once a plant or animal is determined to be 50,000 years old, it doesn't matter what date is placed on a rock - the carbon-14 dating crushes the claim of the young earth because it is accurate and shows animals and plant living on earth well before the 6.000-7,000 year Creationist claim.

            This is a common theme in Creationistic argumentation, even from the Ph.D.s and their various sponsors, to create strawmen they can attack or to offer red herrings accompanied by a non-valid correlation.

            The creationists' argument is not science, it is an attack on science.

            1. mischeviousme profile image59
              mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              It's pride. We tend to defend that which we believe we know, creationists are no more guilty of this than any other group. I say, let them have their sky fairy and let them be left behind. One day science will find a working synthesis between man and nature, let the creationists continue to believe they are above it.

            2. parrster profile image85
              parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this
          2. kerryg profile image85
            kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            In addition to what AKA Winston wrote, the scientist who claimed to "date" rocks formed by the Mt St Helens eruption as 2.6 million years old used K-Ar dating, which is known to be inaccurate for anything less than 6000 years old (most laboratories, including the one the scientist used, don't have equipment sensitive enough to date anything younger than several million years old), because the half-life of K-40 is so long (more than 1 billion years) that there's simply not enough time for Ar-40 to accumulate in measurable quantities for anything younger.

            The surprise with the Mt St Helens situation isn't that the K-Ar dating method dated a newborn rock as 2.6 million years old, it's that the scientists doing the dating expected an accurate result using that method at all. If he did, then he's incompetent and not worth listening to, and if he didn't, then he set out to deliberately deceive the public by using a method he knew would give a wildly inaccurate result. I would also add that if the so-called expert nuclear physicist you're quoting in your post knows less about radiometric dating than this lowly little BA in Russian, then he or she probably is not "trained in the subject" at all and is not worth listening to either. wink

  4. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    This is where William Dembski, Ph.D., get his support: The Discovery Institute.  And this is the amount of "science" these people try to provide:  The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was renamed, The Center for Science and Culture, and both were part of the parent organization, The Discovery Institute.  Here is their mission in their own words:

    THE WEDGE STRATEGY
    CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE
    INTRODUCTION

    "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

    Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

    The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

    Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

    Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

    Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."


    There's some real scientific initiative for you, 'seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

    Anyone who believes the creationsit propaganda from The Discovery Institute and its many guises must be too brain damaged to know any better - there is no other explanation for it.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Brain dead.

    2. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I guess you've slam-dunked Dembski in many peoples minds with that barrage. However, his questions still stand regardless of where you think his motives lay.

  5. nickster790 profile image60
    nickster790posted 5 years ago

    there are transitional fossils you simply fail to understand the theory. there is evolution going on around us everyday living things that over time need to change and adapt to their environment this can be proven with simple observation.

    1. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I would agree that micro-evolution goes on everyday, but macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        They are the same process with the only difference being periods of time.

        1. parrster profile image85
          parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I cannot see how they can be the same.
          Although many evolutionists assert that micro-evolution is 'small changes' (arrival of a new dog breed), while macro evolution is 'large changes' (fish-to-mammal type change) -and there is an element of truth there- the real definitions go much deeper than that.
          All observed small changes (micro-evolution) have occurred via genetic loss or recombination. A Galapagos Finch can recombine information to produce differing beak sizes. A bacterium can lose information to gain resistance to poison. However, recombination or losses cannot produce large changes (a fish-to-mammal type change), because large changes require entirely new information. The fish must gain new information that makes lungs, legs, locomotion, brain etc.
          Therefore so the definitions of micro-evolution and macro-evolution are as follows:
          Micro-evolution: a change produced by a recombination or loss in genetic information.
          Macro-evolution: a change produced by a gain in genetic information.
          Many evolutionists declare that micro-evolution is just a smaller version of macro-evolution -i.e., macro is simply micro+time. But this is false. The two processes are fundementally different. Micro-evolution cannot accumulate into macro-evolution in the same way that rearranging a bike manual will not result in blueprints for the space shuttle.
          Even the famous German zoologist (and evolutionist), Bernard Rensh, once provided a long list of leading authorities all inclined to the view that macro-evolution cannot be explained in terms of micro-evolutionary processes, or any other currently known mechanisms. Of them he said, “These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists.”

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Your assumptions are rather flawed, I think. 

            First, all DNA is composed of only 4 chemicals, A,D,T, and P - it is only through recombining these in different ways that we see the different species throughout the world.  No new chemicals (information) are added to the DNA - the order is merely changed.

            In addition, you have completely written off the chance of a mutation (radiation, chemical, physical causes) that give rise to "new" information.  This happens on a constant basis.  While it usually results in no real change, or a deadly change, it can also result in a real, beneficial change.  Enough of these and you have a new species.

            Bike manual to space shuttle blueprints:  Rearrange the pages.  Rearrange the words.  Rearrange the letters.  Disregarding the size of the manuals (not applicable to a DNA string) and you could, indeed, come up with a shuttle manual.  No - you won't have a "blueprint" but if the simile is to be reasonable then the "DNA information" is composed of letters, not lines, diagrams and pictures.  To do otherwise might be more like asking a dog to change, through evolution, to a completely alien creature composed of silicon instead of carbon, feeding on gamma rays and having no DNA at all.

            Micro evolution is not merely loss of information; it is also rearranging information to gain new information (DNA strings, remember?) and new traits (a bigger, better heart, perhaps?).  Enough micro evolution and you will, indeed, have a new species.  Macro evolution will have been accomplished.

            1. kerryg profile image85
              kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              +1

            2. parrster profile image85
              parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this
            3. parrster profile image85
              parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Hi Wilderness, not sure if you read the last link I provided, but here is another that addresses DNA information and mutations.
              http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … iation-dna
              Read the whole article, however the relevant reading is under the sub-heading, Sentence Model.
              It was heavy reading, but it I think it concisely refutes the overly simplistic model  that '...all DNA is composed of only 4 chemicals, A,D,T, and P -it is only through recombining these in different ways that we see the different species throughout the world.'

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Then, that would be a very good indication you don't know much about evolution.



            Nope, macro-evolution is the sum of long periods of micro-evolution; genetic drift, selection, mutation and gene flow.



            Your analogy is false. You are talking apples and oranges.

      2. profile image0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        (I would agree that micro-evolution goes on everyday, but macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science)

        parrster,

        That is because no single scientist has lived a billion years to personally observe the micro changes that add up over time to be macro changes.

        What you call macroevolution is simply microevolution over eons.

        1. scottcgruber profile image87
          scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I like the analogy of microwalking and macrowalking. If you accept that someone can walk around the block or across town, it is microwalking. Someone walking across the country would be macrowalking. Can you really believe in microwalking but not macrowalking?

          1. parrster profile image85
            parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Do you honestly consider micro/macro walking a faithful analogy for micro/macro evolution? They share nothing of value in common.

  6. nickster790 profile image60
    nickster790posted 5 years ago

    when you look at how fossils are formed its pretty impressive just how many there are but fossils are not the only thing that scientists use. they can also look at DNA and find that we humans share a common ancestry with apes. so when there are fossils missing we can still determine it

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think there are plenty of fossils around I have found more than a few as a kid playing at a nearby quarry, but its really not the point, even if there were very few fossils evolution stands by itself on our own genetic path, even brief logical thinking like why so I have an appendix or why do I share so many genes with Chimps will get you there.

      1. parrster profile image85
        parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        You are correct, fossils are relatively easy to find. However, the point is, none of them evidences transitional mutations outside the norm of the species.
        Care must be taken with logical inference, for the conclusions drawn are only as factual as the premises leading to them; and premises are only assumptions. My objection is that the assumption of evolution is being presented as an observable fact; as British physicist, and evolutionist, H.S.Lipson noted: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit with it.”

        1. kerryg profile image85
          kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "You are correct, fossils are relatively easy to find. However, the point is, none of them evidences transitional mutations outside the norm of the species."

          As Bill Bryson puts it, "Homo erectus walked the Earth for well over a million years and inhabited territory from the Atlantic edge of Europe to the Pacific coast of China, yet if you brought back to life every Homo erectus individual whose existence we can vouch for, they wouldn't fill a school bus."

          We have the remains of perhaps 5,000 or 6,000 individuals from the entirety of hominid evolution, and the numbers aren't that much better for any other single family or species. You think we have enough information to even determine what the "norm" is, let alone recognize a "transitional mutation" if we saw one?

    2. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I believe approximately 6,000 "hominid" fossils now exist. However, they can be placed into one of two groups: apes or humans. True, some have odd characteristics or abnormal bone structure. Does that mean humans evolved? No. No different than the variations in bone structure  seen around us today. Some large heads, some small. Some angled jawbones, some square. Some pointed noses, some flat. Indications of evolution? Or simply occasional differences in humans?

      1. secularist10 profile image87
        secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        You are simply mistaken. The differences between the skeletons are greater than, say, the difference in the skull of a Chinese person and an African person. But they are not as great as the difference between a Chinese person and a monkey, for instance.

        Therefore they occupy an intermediate zone. Enough intermediate fossils have been found to support evolutionary theory. Creationists simply demand more and more evidence, more and more fossils. They demand a level of perfection in evidence that is unreasonable, and that they do not demand for other scientific theories. And far more perfection than they demand for their own creationist concepts.

        1. parrster profile image85
          parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          No, not making it up, you are mistaken in the matter. Leading evolutionists admit it. For example, author of Mechanisms of Molecular Evolution, evolutionary anthropologist Naoyuki Takahata said: "... there are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how H. sapiens emerged".
          There are no immediate zone transitional skulls, top evolutionists admit it. I ain't going to argue.

          1. secularist10 profile image87
            secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Well the very guy you cite is author of a book called "The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent." So he doesn't seem like the kind of guy you want to associate with, lol.

            But as for fossils, of course "technically" speaking, we can't explain exactly how humans emerged with the existing fossil evidence. Nobody can know anything 100% for that matter.

            This is the same game creationists always play, as I referenced above. They asked for intermediate fossils. Well, there they are. Then they say "well, it's not enough. You need to explain exactly how it happened, moment by moment, individual by individual, over tens of thousands of years, or evolution is finished." That is ridiculous. They purposely set an unreasonable standard  so they can claim they "beat" evolution.

            Again, where's the equivalent skepticism for creationist statements?

            Creationists tend to take the natural self-doubt and humbleness of scientists and exploit it to their own ends, saying "see?! he admits he doesn't know X!"

            If you want to dispute the intermediate-ness of these fossils, then you are going to have to cite some specifics.

            1. parrster profile image85
              parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I could quote other evolutionists who admit to not having the evidence to support their claims, yet continue to "believe" in it.
              Stephen Jay Gould lamented: “Palaeontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study”.
              Ernst Mayr, who admitted: “Nothing has more impressed the palaeontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. This is the reason so many of them were supporters of saltation-al theories of evolution”.
              George Gaylord Simpson: “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by palaeontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants”
              All leaders in their field, all admitting absence of evidence.
              A true scientist allows evidence to lead where it does, shutting the door to no possibility unless proven otherwise. Most evolutionists I communicate with have rejected ID outright, won't even allow it as a possibility in their ruminations and speculations. That's not science, that's bigotry.
              On the other hand we have scientists like British physicist H.S. Lipson. Lipson concluded: "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. Like other evolutionists who have voiced similar views, Dr. Lipson hardly was ecstatic about his conclusion, a fact he made clear when he wrote: "I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it".
              What a unique idea, actually accepting the experimental evidence rather than employing bombast and vitriol in an attempt to coerce people into believing evolution!

              1. secularist10 profile image87
                secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                There cannot be experimental evidence for any supernatural claim because supernatural claims are inherently untestable and unverifiable (therefore not scientific).

                I already said that scientists are humble. They should be. That's who they are. That's what science is all about. Creationists, who come from the religious tradition, which is a tradition of total absolute certainty, point to this humbleness and honesty in science and see it as a weakness. They see it as proof that scientists have nothing to offer. They fail to grasp what science is all about--not total certainty, but hesitancy, skepticism and doubt.

                I and the others above already dealt with the issue of fossils. You can't have fossils without bones, and most bones disintegrate. Why are you ignoring that?

                For someone who talks about bombast and evidence, I hear a good dose of bombast ("that's not science, that's bigotry"), but no evidence. So I'll ask again: care to share some specifics on the topic of hominid fossils?

                1. parrster profile image85
                  parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  There is a difference between being able to test the verifiability of something experimentally and accepting that it is a possibility beyond current experimental methods. One of the key reasons I object to so much evolutionary thought is the inherent rejection of the supernatural as, it seems, a prerequisite to all theorising and speculation. It seems to be that, if we can't test it, it can't be.  That is neither logical, or humble; and may lead to some very inaccurate theorising.
                  Creation scientists follow the same principles of scientific investigation, however they simply accept the premise that God is/or may be the first cause. They are ostracised for this by naturalistic evolutionists (who premise, very confidently it seems, that there IS NO intelligent first cause).
                  You have related humility to being hesitant, sceptical and doubtful. However, I do not see this in regards evangelistic evolutionists who are anything but  hesitant, sceptical and doubtful in regards their denial of God; in fact they premise all their speculations, it seems, with that primary belief.
                  Actually, I found no one who has presented here or other evolutionary websites undeniable evidence of transitional fossils, only speculation founded on a narrow premise. If we don't have the bones, or adequate fossils, how can we claim so confidently that they prove evolution; because that's what I'm hearing.
                  My apologies if you found the term bigotry bombastic, but what other word is there for an intolerance of any suggestion of the Supernatural as a posit to scientific investigation.
                  I give you one example of how premising a creator led to scientific discovery and the beginning of the science of oceanography. The full story can be found via the link below.
                  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=361

                  1. secularist10 profile image87
                    secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Well, the Maury story you linked does not demonstrate that premising a creator leads to scientific discovery. It demonstrates that one man was inspired by his reading of the Bible to search for the facts. Good for him. So were the earliest scientists.

                    You do not need to believe in God to believe in the currents of the ocean. Surely you do not believe that, do you? And if you don't need to believe in God to accept those facts, then the question of God is totally irrelevant on that topic. You need only be curious and with an open mind.

                    "It seems to be that, if we can't test it, it can't be."

                    The scientific method and naturalism do not claim that. That is your interpretation. All they claim is that it cannot be accepted as fact. Just because it "might be" does not mean we must accept it or take it seriously. Only if we can test for a claim does the claim carry any weight. Otherwise we can all just posit whatever untestable fantasy we want and claim we have made science! LOL!

                    Actually it is both very logical and very humble. It is logical because the human brain simply cannot know something for sure unless it verifies it in some way, using a reliable method. And it is humble because it realizes individuals and groups are fallible--they make mistakes. So we should focus our intellectual pursuits on what we can know for sure, and what can be verified and made certain.

                    The simple fact is that the supernatural is not needed to explain the diversity of life.

                    The fossil issue is addressed above.

                    I do not see hesitancy in regards to evangelistic creationists who are anything but hesitant, skeptical and doubtful regarding their belief in God; in fact they premise all their speculations, it seems, with that primary belief. smile

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    You're barking up the wrong tree, evolution does not reject the supernatural, physics does.



                    Yes, it is logical but who cares if its humble, that is irrelevant.



                    No, they don't.



                    They are ostracized because they don't employ science and have no evidence to back up their claims.

                  3. kerryg profile image85
                    kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    "One of the key reasons I object to so much evolutionary thought is the inherent rejection of the supernatural as, it seems, a prerequisite to all theorising and speculation. It seems to be that, if we can't test it, it can't be.  That is neither logical, or humble; and may lead to some very inaccurate theorising.

                    Creation scientists follow the same principles of scientific investigation, however they simply accept the premise that God is/or may be the first cause. They are ostracised for this by naturalistic evolutionists (who premise, very confidently it seems, that there IS NO intelligent first cause)."

                    I'm not sure if we just know different scientists or if it's just our different perspectives, but quite the opposite is true for me.

                    I know many scientists who accept the possibility that God created life and guided the process of evolution. They just accept that this is not and never will be a testable hypothesis, so they keep plugging away at hypotheses which are testable in an attempt to improve our understanding of the origins and evolution of life.

                    The creationists, on the other hand, reject even the possibility that life does not have a supernatural origin and generally reject the premise that life, once created, was capable of evolving without supernatural interference as well. As a result of their rigidity, they're forced to base their entire theory on an untestable hypothesis, which is just plain bad science, and it's for this reason that they're "ostracized," not because of any anti-religious bias on the part of the broader scientific community. Scientific journals don't publish papers based on untestable hypotheses because they're not science.

                    "Actually, I found no one who has presented here or other evolutionary websites undeniable evidence of transitional fossils, only speculation founded on a narrow premise."

                    Describe something that you would recognize as a valid transitional fossil and we'll point you in the direction of one or explain why your expectations are incorrect.

                    "I give you one example of how premising a creator led to scientific discovery and the beginning of the science of oceanography."

                    Maury believed in God, but that's a very different thing than "premising a creator." He believed he saw God's design in the layout of the ocean currents after he had already mapped them out. He didn't use his belief in God's design to predict where unknown currents would flow.

                  4. scottcgruber profile image87
                    scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    "One of the key reasons I object to so much evolutionary thought is the inherent rejection of the supernatural as, it seems, a prerequisite to all theorising and speculation. It seems to be that, if we can't test it, it can't be."

                    And that is, in a jurisdictional sense, absolutely correct.

                    Science can only test the natural - that which exists. If it can be measured, observed, quantified, and otherwise tested, it is in the natural realm and can be studied by science.

                    The supernatural is - by definition - immeasurable, unobservable, unquantifiable, and untestable. In other words, it doesn't exist.

                    While scientists might hold personal philosophical views that involve supernatural beings, science itself cannot acknowledge the supernatural as a cause for natural phenomena because it is impossible, by definition, for the supernatural to even BE a cause for natural phenomena. If the supernatural is measurably affecting matter and energy in the observable world, it becomes natural.

                    For example, if an "intelligent designer" is somehow manipulating the mechanisms of gene mutation to deliberately influence evolution, it would have to be exerting a mechanical or chemical force on the DNA transcription enzyme to make it happen. If this is actually seen happening in any stage of cellular reproduction, it will be observable, measurable, and testable, and will no longer be considered supernatural because it will be understood as natural.

                    This is where Creationism and Intelligent Design fall apart. They are trying to insert the supernatural where it cannot possibly be. This is both bad theology and bad science.

                  5. profile image0
                    AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    (There is a difference between being able to test the verifiability of something experimentally and accepting that it is a possibility beyond current experimental methods)

                    parrster,

                    You are correct there are two sides.  One side is science; the other side is philosophy/religion.  What's the problem?

              2. kerryg profile image85
                kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                The Gould is from 1977, as already discussed.

                George Gaylord Simpson has been dead since 1984. That quote is from 1944. Would you read Ptolemy to check out the latest advances in astronomy? I'm beginning to suspect you might.

                I can't find a source for the Mayr quote, but it's written in the past tense, suggesting that it's been taken fairly dramatically out of context. Pass on the source and we'll see what he really said. smile

  7. pisean282311 profile image54
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    evolution theory falls much much short in comparison to 400 religions of the world with their story telling ability....science can't come close because it still manages to come up with some proof unlike religion which is based on creative faculty of story telling ....for e.g. turning x into y or defying gravity and such stuffs....only possible in hollywood movie or religion...science must hire religious writer to match it...

    1. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      And your point is?

      1. pisean282311 profile image54
        pisean282311posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        @parrster point is simple...darwin's theory didnt come from revelation but observation...science theory is not based on some invisible angel theme...yes theories can be false and thats where lies beauty of science...it is step forward unlike religion which stands frozen in time where one human claimed something ....religious books have too been proven wrong number of times but it wont admit it...lacks courage...science would stand corrected when ever theory is proven wrong...

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image80
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Steven Hawking's "A Briefer History of the Universe" isn't really a fun story, but it is a great read.

  8. nickster790 profile image60
    nickster790posted 5 years ago

    micro evolution as you said happens every day over long periods of time it turns into larger changes you admit that micro evolution happens well i have news for you that's all there is too it little changes over time large amount of time = more changes

    1. mischeviousme profile image59
      mischeviousmeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Then there's y leaps the evolutionar that occur during near extiction events. Such as the ice ages and during global food shortages. But it does tend to be many small changes.

    2. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Micro-evolution: change brought about by recombination or loss of genetic information.
      Macro-evolution: a change produced by a gain in genetic information.
      Many evolutionists declare that micro-evolution is just a smaller version of macro-evolution -i.e., macro is simply micro+time. But this is false. The two processes are fundementally different. Micro-evolution cannot accumulate into macro-evolution in the same way that rearranging a bike manual will not result in blueprints for the space shuttle.

      1. profile image0
        AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        (Many evolutionists declare that micro-evolution is just a smaller version of macro-evolution -i.e., macro is simply micro+time. But this is false. The two processes are fundementally different)

        parrster,

        Once again the creationist creates a strawman to attack.   It is only the creationist who declares a fundamental difference in processes - the biologist rarely if ever uses these terms because he knows that they the same thing.

        FWIW, here is the actual distinction between micro and macro when discussing evolution:

        "Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species.

        Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species."

        There is nothing in these definitions that refer to processes.  The process argument is another in a long line of unproven assertions made by creationists backed by, once again, The Discovery Institute or some branch or cousin of it.

  9. Stump Parrish profile image59
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    Why is it that those who lack one iota of evidence for talking snakes, virgin births, and a boat filled with 2 of every species of animal that ever existed, demand absolute proof of evolution? Evolution is a logical conclusion arrived at by studying all available evidence from several different  areas of scientific study. This is unacceptable to people who accept a fairy tale based solely on one book written by primitive people that borrowed most of the fable from a multitude of fairy tales that preceded it. Nothing in the bible has ever been proven to be true and yet this is accepted with out question. These people ignore the total lack of scientific proof for their beliefs and demand the more of the same for that which is based upon the available evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

    How about for a change you show me verifiable proof that woman was magically created from the rib of man. Please by all means explain how Noah managed to round up two of every species from around the world while sitting in one place. Explain how polar bears and penguins made the journey to the middle east and how this collection of animals managed to survive for 40 days and 40 nights with out food for the plant eaters and with out the carnivores eating everything. These people dispute the available scientific proof and accept that it must have been magic.

    The need to prove what really happened resides with those who lack any form of evidence for their beliefs and I repeat, how ridiculous it is that they have the audacity to question a logical explanation based upon a large pool of supporting scientific evidence. The only controversy that exists resided in the heads of those who prefer fantasy to fact,

  10. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    I understand your dilemma and usually hesitate to weigh in on such delicate matters here in the forums. Emotions run too high.

    Evolution has enough evidence within the fossil record to be our best theory, so far. DNA supports it, as does observation of small adaptations of species we currently study.

    If you want to assume ID; do it. But, leave room for the possibility you are wrong. Let science leave the possibility out. 'God dun it' makes for poor science.

  11. Disappearinghead profile image82
    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago

    For all Christians here present, might I suggest you have a read of the book "The Language of God" by Francis Collins. He has spent his career in genetic research and was the director of the human genome project. He was in his youth an atheist, but became a Christian because for him science could not answer some fundamental philosophical questions.

    However, he concludes that Evolution of man and apes from a common hominid ancestor is absolutely proven in our genes. There are specific markers, junk DNA, etc, etc that makes the case for evolution watertight.

    Why does half the Church object to evolution on principle anyway? What are they afraid of? And as mentioned in other's posts, how can creationists be so hypocritical in demanding a level of proof in evolution that they refuse to apply to creationism or a 6000  year old universe?

  12. moonfroth profile image76
    moonfrothposted 5 years ago

    Parrster--m'MAN!--this kind of Discussion, and many more like it that you've started, is the reason I Follow you!  Who gives a damn what's "right" or "wrong" in this endless (but fascinating) debate?  We certainly aren't going to resolve it here.  But you possess this uncanny ability, in your quiet and reflective way, to come up with Propositions that are like a flamethrower aimed at a tank of gasoline!  You bring out the good thinkers, the intellectuals that understand good sources are the foundation of meaningful argument, the brightest and the best.  I mean, just look at the QUALITY of the posts you generated?

    Earnest would have loved this one!  Thanks Parrster!

    1. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks moonfroth. I too enjoy this sort of debate. Although I admit to being taxed at having to make so many responses;  not being a scientist means every comment inevitably leads to copious reading on my part.
      You are quite correct, the intellects gathered here are formidable and well versed in their belief system, and I respect them all for that; though not necessarily agreeing with the conclusions they draw using their intellect.
      Can't say that impressing Earnest would have been my ambition, but, wherever he is, I wish him the best.
      And all the best to you also moonfroth; and everyone else on this forum as well.

      1. moonfroth profile image76
        moonfrothposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Parrster, I'm not at all surprised that you have to research extensively to keep up with your respondents in this forum. I'm just grateful that you take the time to do so, hence`shoring up the`level of thought in the forum..YOU wanting to impress the late Earnest was not what I had in mind!  I mentioned him only because he enjoyed a brisk intellectual debate.                                       ;





































































        ```````````````;

  13. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Why do we have an appendix? Why do men have nipples? Some will claim that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years, yet, recent discoveries suggest that evolution can happen in a single generation. Just a factoid.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image88
      Philanthropy2012posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution depends on selection pressure, population and % chance of mutation as well as other things.

      A large bacteria colony can evolve many new bacteria in a day because of conjugation (plasmid sharing, they literally swap genes with each other) and their high mutation chances (and the given large population).

      You see this everyday and it's a real problem, especially when huge selection pressure like an antibiotic is applied and not sustained, in which case some bacteria are likely to have a mutation that gives better defence, and reproduce, causing resistance. This is sometimes referred to as an evolution race.

      On the flip side, endemic species (species of animal that are isolated and found in one place e.g. lemurs on  Madagascar) rarely evolve, because in order to fit their niche (their role/function in the environment) they have to be something very specific.

      I find it funny when people say "evolution has to be fast or slow" as if there's some sort of magic driving force behind it saying "a new species will evolve every 100 years".

      Evolution is based on what goes on in the real world, it doesn't adhere to some sort of foolish rule lol

      1. parrster profile image85
        parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Every observable instance of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics has been traced to one of the following three mechanisms:

        1. Some bacteria in the population are already resistant to the antibiotic, and become the dominant strain via natural selection (information neutral);
        2. The genetic information needed for resisting the antibiotic is obtained via plasmid transfer from another bacteria (information neutral); or
        3. Resistance to the antibiotic results from an information-neutral or information-losing mutation (information neutral or information negative).

        In all cases, genetic information is either conserved or lost. In no case do we observe new information being generated—which is required for macroevolution to be even theoretically possible.

  14. scottcgruber profile image87
    scottcgruberposted 5 years ago

    Well, I think it's safe to declare victory for the evolutionists in this thread. We've reduced the original poster to a desperate Gish Gallop of science denier copy-paste. It happens a lot when creationists get backed into a corner by the facts.

    1. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It is true, I could not from my own store of knowledge answer all your comments (I never alluded to being an expert), neither do I have the time to research as required to so many (I am but one man with a busy life). The links take you to capable men and women  of science that have answered your questions, and who are anything but backed into a corner.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        You and those "capable men and women of science" you refer have done no such thing. I checked those links and found little more than faith based declarations disguised as evidence.

        That also have the same story lines as most cranks and crackpots spew, that of how evolution has fooled the entire scientific community (less the 0.14% creationists) into believing in evolution as some faith based declaration.

        Funny how that works and comes around back to haunt them. lol

  15. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    parrster,

    I have found there to be two basic kinds of people in this world.  One side begins with a narrative and then ignores data that does not conform to the story.  The other type of person looks at the data first, then tries to piece together a narrative that fits all aspects of the data.

    Theists start with narrative, which explains to me why they are mostly Republicans who discount John Maynard Keynes as an economist (as he was one of the brightest minds of the 20th century)
    But Keynes made enemies with this quote: "When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do, sir?"

    What do you do, parrster, when the facts do not match your narrative?  It appears you simply ignore them or attempt to change the facts to fit your narrative.

    Good luck with that.

    There are so many holes in your short reply that it would take a hub to point them all out and respond - it has become redundant at this point you to do so an it is obvious to all that you would prefer to believe a misinformed narrative rather than science and facts.  But I do have to comment on your last words, as they are the basis of all you do, including this thread: your reasoning is to pass on your beliefs to others, thinking that only your side is right.

    Sorry, but that is an arrogant stance and it is unwelcomed.  You don't have answers -  all you have is faith that a fable might be true.

    1. parrster profile image85
      parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting take on things; that the world is limited to two types of data collectors. You're on the side that's interpreted the data all correctly I take it.
      Throughout this forum I have intently read every comment and then made a point of reading up on the subject when I struck something beyond me (there was a lot of that); and not just from creationist sites. If you were expecting me to respond with scientific rebuttals to every comment made, than I am sorry to disappoint; I neither have the training,  capacity, time or wherewithal to do that. If you were also expecting me to slap myself in the forehead and say “of course, they've presented all the facts, I will now change my world-view”, then you will also be sorely disappointed. For one thing, many comments made here had the pretence of being factual, but with some digging I discovered things are not quite so cut and dry. To some of these comments I supplied links to more scientific responses than I was willing, or able, to make myself.
      I side with a factual based, scientifically sound group; Creation Scientists. I trust them and their research. It makes sense to me. Although it is not without some difficulties, I am not about to abandon it just because Winston presents his set of “facts” to the contrary.
      You are correct that I have a earnest desire to make people aware of their need for a relationship with God; I would be hypocritical if I did not. But the motive is not because I want to be right, far from it.
      And finally, Winston, making judgement calls on people motives & personal honesty is also unwelcome.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        There really is no creation debate, one side says we have this old book written by people who thought the world was flat and diseases were caused by witches that says that a god created the universe.
        On the other side you have a group of people who say we have earnestly researched the facts of the universe, studied it as much as we possibly can, cross checked our beliefs, had them scrutinied by eminent minds and this is our solution, it's not a definite but its the best we can come with given our knowledge. To any logical mind there is no comparisom between the two.

      2. kerryg profile image85
        kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        "I side with a factual based, scientifically sound group; Creation Scientists. I trust them and their research. It makes sense to me. Although it is not without some difficulties, I am not about to abandon it just because Winston presents his set of “facts” to the contrary."

        That's exactly the problem. They're neither factual based nor scientifically sound, yet you believe they are because what they say fits in with your preconceived notion of the truth. Nor do you have the training to recognize when so-called creation scientists are misleading you, like your detectingdesign.com link implying that excess argon negates the accuracy of K-Ar dating and is covered up by evolutionists as part of some big conspiracy to hide the truth, when in fact it is a known and openly discussed issue with that dating method that scientists have ways of correcting for.

        1. parrster profile image85
          parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          So it comes down to which set of scientists we should trust, and which side isn't listening only to that which fits their theory. Hmmm. Back at ya 'ditto'.
          Ultimately each of us is accountable for where we place our faith, and where we choose not to. The impact we have on this world will largely be determined by what/who we chose to believe in; not to mention the impact upon ourselves.
          I have chosen God; as illogical and strange as that may sound to the ears of many of this forum. His reality is only growing to me as I seek him more diligently. The knowledge of Him is a truth that transcends the empirical senses. But it is not founded in arrogance or ignorance, but in a simple humility that admits 'God is and I want to know Him'. This done, God moves toward us also.
          I believe that science confirms God, I hear it said by the many creation scientists I listen to.
          That, I'm fairly certain, leaves us at an impasse. For there is a change of heart and mind required from either one or the other of us if we are to agree. I will not abandon my faith, for in Christ I have found truth and life, why then would I want to.
          Are you willing to abandon yours?

          1. kerryg profile image85
            kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Nobody is asking you to abandon your faith. We're only asking that you stop pretending your faith is scientific.

            Though there may be some small details left to be hashed out, I consider the process of evolution and natural selection as the mechanism of that process to be pretty much as close to proven fact as you can get with science. However, just because God was not necessary to the process does not mean He did not choose to involve himself by guiding it along. Just don't try to claim that your faith in His involvement is anything other than faith.

            Also, don't forget that the theory of evolution doesn't actually say anything about the origin of life at all, and the various hypotheses about abiogenesis are nowhere near proven fact, so in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, you can go ahead believing that God created life to your heart's content. Once again, just don't pretend that your faith is "factual based" and "scientifically sound."

            Faith is the antithesis of science, which is why I, as a scientifically minded person, am perfectly happy to admit that nobody really knows how life began (although we have several plausible hypotheses), while you, as a person of faith, are unwilling to even consider the possibility that you do not know.

            1. parrster profile image85
              parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Do you accept there might be a creator?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, by the exact same magnitude of accepting unicorns and dragons.

              2. scottcgruber profile image87
                scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I find it highly unlikely. If there is a creator, he's either a blithering incompetent or a cruel sadist who worked very hard to make it look like he made all life through trial and error.

              3. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Sure.  We might be accidentally creating universes all the time.  A creator is possible, but a god is not.

              4. kerryg profile image85
                kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I am personally an atheist-leaning agnostic, so I do accept the possibility of a creator but think one is unlikely.

                God or no god, however, I do emphatically reject a literal interpretation of Genesis and find it incredible that anyone believes that an all knowing, all powerful deity would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the creation of the universe to a bunch of illiterate Bronze Age sheep herders, rather than coming up with a suitable metaphor to make it more understandable for them. Once you accept that Genesis is not the literal, unvarnished truth, evolution/natural selection and creationism are not incompatible in the slightest. My husband is religious and believes in both God and evolution with no problem at all.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, and we have witnessed throughout history the destruction caused by those who believe in gods and the complete lack of accountability they displayed.



            Pure gobbledegook. Creationist "scientists" do not use science. You are following charlatans and frauds.



            lol Real science and facts don't require faith.

            1. scottcgruber profile image87
              scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Exactly. I don't know why this concept is so difficult for some people.

              1. parrster profile image85
                parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                So, are you saying that evolution is a proven fact?

                1. scottcgruber profile image87
                  scottcgruberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes. It is a proven fact that living things change over time. The exact lineage of all life from our common ancestor, and the exact mechanisms by which they happen, comprise the theory of evolution. Thus evolution is both fact and theory.

          3. profile image0
            AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            (So it comes down to which set of scientists we should trust....Ultimately each of us is accountable for where we place our faith....)

            parrster,

            It's not about faith.  It about acting and thinking reasonably.  It was Sam Harris who originally pointed out this indisputable fact - we either have good reasons for our beliefs or we do not.   Creationists do not.  It is that simple.

            Religions by their nature invade the territory of science, making claims based on horrible evidence that reality operates in certain specific ways; a god hears and sometimes answers prayers; a soul enters a zygote at the moment of inception; that if you do not believe the right things, you will suffer terribly after death.

            These are all claims that reality is a certain way, but the evidence that backs these claims is nothing more than hearsay and subjective interpretations of human actions.

            You can try to spin this anyway you want, but the end result is people who have any degree of intelligence see the attempts to portray creationism as equal to science understand those attempts are disingenuous, because they realize there is nothing reasonable or rational or scientific about faith.

            1. parrster profile image85
              parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              How do you define intelligence?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                With a dictionary?

              2. profile image0
                AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                (How do you define intelligence?)

                There is a basic fact of human action, in that when it comes to determining the validity of a proposition, one either makes an intellectually honest appraisal of the evidence and the arguments, or one does not.

                The intelligent person does the former.

                Edit: Or you might want to look at this new study by lead researcher Gordon Hodson from Brock University in Ontario:  "Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change...."

                1. parrster profile image85
                  parrsterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  [There is a basic fact of human action, in that when it comes to determining the validity of a proposition, one either makes an intellectually honest appraisal of the evidence and the arguments, or one does not.]

                  I find it rather ironic that one can admit intelligence is required to make an honest appraisal of the evidence, but deny that intelligence is required to bring a universe into existence to the level of complexity we see around us.


                  [The intelligent person does the former.]

                  Below are links to several lists of highly intelligent individuals who made an appraisal of the evidence. Great minds with vast scientific knowledge. On that hard earned knowledge they then concluded that evolution is false and the universe bears all the marks of a created place. To paraphrase the thoughts of one of those menyioned, Dr Wilder-Smith, [a former triple doctorate evolutionist who debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world]; in his opinion, “the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.”
                  Too often we hear the evolutionary corner mock the creationist corner as some flim-flam pseudo-science. Yet each of those listed in these links are, or were, highly respected influencers and leaders in their field; smart enough to make any dozen of the rest of us look stupid; possibly even you Winston.
                  Often I hear it said that we less academic folk should heed to the “truth” of evolution because its “science” is backed by respected academics... well, um, all that can be said to that is “Ditto” regarding creationism.
                  A favourite ploy of evolutionists is to portray all Creation Scientists as pseudo-scientists, whereas some of the leading scientists in their fields are creation scientists. These links contain only a tiny sampling of scientists who are recognised by their secular peers and others as being among the very best in their fields, or who have outstanding academic achievements. There are many more.

                  http://creationists.org/outstanding-cre … tists.html
                  http://creationists.org/former-evoltion … tists.html
                  http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/


                  [Or you might want to look at this new study by lead researcher Gordon Hodson from Brock University in Ontario:  "Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change...." ]

                  Regarding the study you reference, I think you use it out of context. To quote a commentator on the study:
                  “The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured.”

                  To quote Wikipedia, “Social conservatism is a form of authoritarianism often associated with the position that the national government, or the state, should have a greater role in the social and moral affairs of its citizens, generally supporting whatever it sees as morally correct choices and discouraging or outright forbidding those it considers morally wrong ones.”

                  I am not a social conservative. Neither am I, by any stretch of the imagination I can fathom, a racist.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    That is because you are comparing apples to oranges.



                    lol 



                    "The Bible teaches us that we are the living
                    lessons that God uses to demonstrate His
                    divine wisdom to the angelic beings as He
                    works in us. How God deals with us in this
                    world demonstrates His character to the
                    angels! " --Dr. Wilder Smith



                    Sorry, but creationism doesn't even meet the requirements of pseudo-science. flim-flam, maybe.



                    And yet, the above quote by the good doctor doesn't make him look very intelligent at all, quite the contrary.



                    lol Hilarious joke.

                  2. profile image0
                    AKA Winstonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    From "Psychologytoday" regarding the Dunning-Kruger Effect:

                    "The skills needed to produce logically sound arguments, for instance, are the same skills that are necessary to recognize when a logically sound argument has been made. Thus, if people lack the skills to produce correct answers, they are also cursed with an inability to know when their answers, or anyone else's, are right or wrong. They cannot recognize their responses as mistaken, or other people's responses as superior to their own."

      3. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        And yet, you're perfectly willing to come on to a public forum and deny exactly what it is you don't understand or are even willing to spend time on.



        No, you didn't, you provided links to folks who also did not understand the subject matter.



        No, you side with those who share your irrational religious beliefs.



        And yet, it is so obvious.

  16. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    (I side with a factual based, scientifically sound group; Creation Scientists. I trust them and their research)

    parrster,

    This is why there is no real debate.  You want to believe a religious narrative, regardless of data.  No one denies you the right to believe what you want.  You want to argue why you believe what you believe, yet you state quite plainly you only accept the creationist viewpoint.

    (You're on the side that's interpreted the data all correctly I take it.)

    This is the problem creationist seem to always make (probably because they are theists), that there must be a right/wrong dichotomy assumed.  No.  Creationism is rejected because it is religion, not science.  The data side doesn't say we are right, but it does say this appears to be right when we analyze all the data.

    What do we do when the facts change?  We change our minds.  What do you do, parrster?

  17. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    "Creation scientist" is an oxymoron.

  18. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago

    parrster,

    The bottom line is this - we either have good reasons for what we believe or we do not.  We actively practice critical thinking and intellectual honesty or we do not.

    Good luck with your superstitions.

  19. Bastgar profile image60
    Bastgarposted 5 years ago

    I need to correct a few things here for you because you are using outdated information as well as incorrect terms and flawed logic.
    First Microevolution is the change of frequency in the alleles(types of genes) within the gene pool of a species. An example of this is best demonstrated to the lamen by the phenotypes observed with in a species. As an example let’s look at the coats colours and size of domesticated dogs.  Dogs are generally thought to have been domesticated from wolves 15,000 years ago. In that time dog breeders have selected various traits to encourage. That is why we have dogs that range in size from smaller than a bread box to "are you sure that’s not a small horse with a drooling problem?", as well as shorthaired single coated dogs to woolly monstrosities like my old Malamute.
    Macroevolution is Culmination of these changes over time. Neither of these facets of the Theory of evolution deal with either the changing form one creature to another (speciation) or the generation of new alleles(mutation).
    Mutation deals with spontaneous unpredictable random changes to an organisms genetic information which can occur in a myriad of different ways. Damage to the organisms own DNA can occur from physical sources such as radiation and carcinogens.  The Next most common would occur during the processes of duplication and recombination that occur with cellular life cycle.
    Damage based mutation is best evidenced by cancer.  One poignant example would be melanoma. Damage occurs in a cell when high energy light ways strike the nucleus disrupting the genetic information of said cell. Upon duplication (mitosis) the cell is replicated more or less exactly and results in two cells. This process when repeated enough leads to tumors which are stage 1 cancerous growths. If the damage to the genetic material happened to effect the genes responsible for speed of cellular reproduction the cell may go into overdrive and become life threatening.
    Recombinant and duplicitous mutations happen during the cellular life cycles of both mitosis and meiosis. Duplication occurs within the steps of mitosis. During mitosis chemical structures quite literally read and translate DNA but instead of being used to make proteins as normal they are used to duplicate the genetic structure. This duplication does not occur in a singular linear fashion. Instead it occurs in multiple spots along the DNA strands at simultaneous times patching together the genetic code of the cell. During this process some DNA information is lost from areas known as Telomeres. This whole process can lead to mistakes that are passed on though generations.  In a similar fashion during meiosis parts of one chromosome are chopped off and added to another who’s replaced part is grafted back onto the original chromosome.
    Now given the complexity of this process I could see why you would not think that any new information has been generated being that all the A’s, T’s, C’s, G’s, and U’s were there all the time. But the above mentioned process can insert parts of genes into the middle of others so when they are read whole new proteins are created. Also the individual sections are decoded in groups of threes that correspond to different amino groups. If a single base pair is deleted than every corresponding triplet is changed.
    Finally we come to the issue of speciation.  This is where most creationists get hung up. The definition of a species has changed over the years. Prior to genetic mapping the axiom was if two creatures couldn’t mate to produce a genetically viable offspring they were different species.  An example would be a horse and a donkey. Yes the donkey can bear a mule with a horse but the mule is sterile. But this rule was not always followed as most dogs could mate with wolves to produce viable offspring. While at the same time not all dog breeds could be mixed (think great dane and pug). This classification was system was later dropped in favor of determining genetic drift in large part due to scientific advances that allowed us to compare genetic drift but also for the fact that it could be applicable to asexual organisms.
    The summation of most creationists’ arguments is merely that a dog is still a dog whether or not it is a Mastiff or a Pomeranian, so therefore no speciation ahs occurred and thus evolution does not exist. They will also say that the Pomeranian lost genetic information to become small and therefore no new information was created thus a Pomeranian being breed is not evolution mere devolution.  As a counter to this ridiculous argument I suggest you look into the domestication of Maize also know as corn. Genetic information in this case had most assuredly been created due to the cob which wild Maizze lacks.
    After reading the above paragraphs you should have the most rudimentary understanding of genetics and evolution. So should now be prepared to understand the answers to the five questions posed by  “Dr Dembski”.

    Q1.) Where are the transitionary fossils?
    Please reference the theory of Punctuated equilibrium.  After reading said material in depth you will begin to understand that sweeping genetic change occurs rapidly within the span of geologic time thus transitionary forms exist for a much smaller amount of time than that of either parental or the progeny species.
    Finally let me say that if you were to view the fossil record as a flip book. Which would be a major mistake that most creationists attempt. As you flipped though the book and came to the section where species A changed into Species B how many frames would you need to believe it. Some would need only a few while others would need 60 frames of second for several minutes and even then would question the veracity of what they had seen.
    Or in other words for those who have no faith no amount of proof will do while with those with no faith no proof is needed.  What means is creationists and atheists will both scrabble over the “proof” denying and insulting each other because both are blinded to the truth cause neither will open their eyes.  So the question is do we have a reasonable amount of proof to justify the leap of logic towards speciation.   I believe the answer to be yes and the overwhelming majority of moderate scientists do as well.
    Q.2) Dawkins is an idiot who claims that organisms only appear to be designed not to actually be designed. How can one say that with any degree of certainty.
    In truth both Demski and Dawkins can take a long walk off of a short pier when science is involved. Both of them allow their religions to cloud the truth here. The truth is you can’t say the organisms were designed because the look designed any more than you can claim that weren’t designed and only appear to have been due to complexity.
    Either way this statement does nothing to discredit evolution any more that the fact Jesus has less historicity than that of king Arthur does to discredit Christianity as a religion. Lets for a moment assume that some being designed all of existence in every facet and possibility.  The theory of evolution merely in this case would be the mechanism for which organisms change after being designed. Frankly I am more impressed by a deific figure that could comprehend a system such as evolution and fabricate it whole cloth than one who just say poof everything is created and nothing will ever change only degrade.
    Q3) People are searching for aliens but not god. That’s hypocrisy they should be trying to confirm god through the morphology of creature not looking for intelligent life.
    I want everyone reading this to imagine a steak knife. It was crafted with serrations to be sharp and progressively rip through flesh. Now I want you to picture the teeth of a T-rex and notice the similar serrations. Finally I want you to picture a shard of glass that broke from a falling window pane. Which of those sharp serrated objects were designed.  With only the objects to look at we have no way to indetify which if any were designed.
    So while we “may” have the creation of a god surrounding us we can not begin to ascertain if that is the case merely by looking at the complexity of items before us. In my previous example someone could look at the knife and say that it was a natural occurrence because it has very simple materials involved with it.  Meanwhile this whole time you have been assuming that piece of glass just fell and broke into that shape we find out it was napped obsidian made by humans to form a crude blade.
    On the other hand we can theoretically detect intelligent life.  But we must be careful of over reaching our own understanding. When pulsars where first detected we thought maybe we were receiving a signal from intelligent life. Turns out it was only a rapidly spinning collapsed star. Point is seti does receive a lot of scrutiny, in fact more than intelligent design.
    Q4) There are microscopic machines in humans that can’t have arisen by evolution.
    This comment is very broad and general. Are we talking mitochondria or protein polymers . Because in the cell wall there are proteins that when a molecule touches on the outside they change Shape to literally drag the extra cellular molecule through the  cell membrane. It is actually quite amazing.
    This all occurs because molecules retain a certain shape while at different energy levels. Molecules binding to these proteins change the energy levels and thus the shape of said proteins. This changing of shape can cause proteins to expand or contract like little miny servos. The funny thing is that proteins are the simplest things built directly from DNA. So why couldn’t those dna sequences have evolved to and been retained within the genetic code.
    Next of all when you have all of these simple components how long before some random change combines them to make cilia.  From there how long until cilia mutate into flagellum. Maybe it never occurs maybe a day I don’t know I wasn’t there. As a point of observation though I would like to point out that millions of generations of bacteria can occur within the time span of a day. With that thought in your head pick any two species of bacteria and I can guarantee that they share less genetic information than you and and a pop tart do.
    Q5) You can’t test evolution so it must not exist.
    Scientifically I would like you to create an experiment that proves that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the USA. You can’t but that doesn’t mean its not true. There are many different ways to come to a conclusion those include: observation and testing, inference, deduction, many more
    Either way we have a theory that has evidence supporting it. Creationists like Dr Dembskilook at it and say it doesn’t need any evidence it is self evident. Atheist like Richard Dawkins see it and say no amount of proof could ever exist to convince them. Wait sorry I got that wrong that’s when they talk about god not about evolution.
    TL:DR
    In summation the processes that govern the adaptation and functions of life and for that matter all of existence are complicated beyond the scope of this little post. Indeed to full understand evolution you would need to open your mind to many different disciplines form chemistry to theoretical mathematics. In addition to truly search for the truth you would need to abandon the preconceived notions you have about just about everything you hold dear including god. And until you are able to do that no amount of proof will change your mind.

 
working