“Also in your insistence that evolution explain every step right down to the chemical and physical level (which is unnecessary), you have still yet to provide us with an alternative theory which can do the job better than the theory of evolution. “
You’d better be able to show your work in chemistry and physics (hard sciences) or your theory is pseudo-science and you end up simply with creative charts, drawings and just so stories of how it might have happened. Which is fine, hypothesis’ are good, but don’t call it fact or near fact as many postings have stated.
No one was here in the beginning so neither side can empirically prove how it all got started but we can look at the evidence and decide how we might provide an explanation. Evolution restricts itself to only one option as do the strict creationists. The whole argument between the two is interpretation of the evidence. At 10,ooo feet evolution can look reasonable until you come back to earth and begin to examine it with the hard sciences (showing your work). Creationists look at the complexity of life including DNA and state, scientifically, this could not have arose on it’s own—breaks the rules of chemistry and physics. DNA does not self assemble from amino acids in any scenario of early earth atmosphere or concocted solutions. Where in the lab have they produced a cell from scratch? By the way, all the amino acids need to be “left handed” which does not occur in nature—you’ll get right and left handed amino acids. Concerning DNA as information--the study of language/information dictates that symbolism cannot arise without intelligence—its antithetical to logic. The DNA code is a “language” if you will, with letters (base pairs) that when strung together are code for actual proteins. This, to creationists, is clear evidence of design along with irreducible complexity. As for the designer—the designer won’t be a part of the design and the evidence for the designer will only be the work left behind. I know that is unsatisfying to pure naturalists like yourself, but it is logical and reasonable.
“That's your job. Like I said, if a snowflake is not designed and a biological organism is, one should hypothetically measure them on the same scale, compare them and when the measure of complexity reaches a certain value, one should be able to determine which of them is designed. “
The snowflake is a result of the laws of chemistry and physics—crystals form because they have to. DNA by the laws of chemistry and physics can’t self assemble from amino acids on its own-they don’t have to--and they won’t. DNA or any living thing has high complexity and won’t self assemble even with all the right parts present--a snowflake is simply H2O lining up due to chemical interactions that have to happen—water always turns to ice under a certain temperature and conditions.
JEFof MN8:43AM November 17, 2009
To Nick: “Change of heart? Yet you still try and turn things around like so: “
Nice try Nick, as I said earlier (did you read my last comment?) I was focused on expressed mutations not neutrals which are the most common. Nothing was turned around and my point hasn’t changed. Detrimental mutations vastly outnumber positive mutations. You need to count on extraordinary odds to rack up only the positive mutations you need and never get a detrimental mutation as well as the positives you gain don’t re-mutate back to the original. The odds can become astronomical to the point where statisticians consider it impossible.
“And yet they don't always cause disease. Which means those who do not develop disease, expecially those with beneficial mutations will still have a reproductive advantage. “
Correct: neutral or near neutral mutations don’t necessarily cause problems. But again, to gain those compounding beneficial mutations to drive positive change is mathematically daunting.
“It's not? Really? Another eye (for example) would not be considered 'new information'? Obviously you have not even considered the development of bilateral symmetry. You are somewhat symmetrical I assume? You have two hands? People have been born with an extra finger on each hand, and if it happens to be functional may even be considered a beneficial mutation. However, it is still 'new information' and what's more, does and has happened.”
Of course not. Your definition of new appears to be that of someone who gets a used car and calls it my new car. It’s already been made—it’s not new as in a new model with extra advantageous features. We are talking about macro evolution—you need new, fully functional, integrated (the brain has to be ready and wired for the new organ as well) information that gives you new (original) functions. Borrowing from another organism (cells) doesn’t count, it still won’t answer the question of how it arrived.
“Says you. You're forgetting the development of cecal valves in Podarcis sicula of Pod Mrcaru, another example of 'new information', and an evolutionary benefit. “
I tried the link one of your comrades gave and couldn’t find reference to this. Be careful how you define new.
“You have also failed to take into account natural selection when you attempt to place roadblocks to prevent evolutionary development.”
Natural selection drives adaptation through selecting from the species best phenotypes--that is all that has been proven.
“I notice also that in your continuance of placing doubts on evolution, you've ignored previous posts which have pointed out that evolution can and does occur, and is a theory which works very well.
Adaptation through variation does occur and unfortunately we all use the same word (Evolution) for this observed fact and the extrapolated idea of an atoms to man or species to species theory.
JEFof MN8:39AM November 17, 2009
Carl, why do creationists shift the topic around so much? I've dealt with many who don't, but more than any other group, creationists tend to abandon their prior arguments and find a new one. Instead of moving on, why don't you answer the posts that were addressed to you in the previous two or three days? Fortunately, I can explain anything that you bring up.
The most glaring issue is that creationists don't understand why certain theories are accepted. Evolution doesn't have to answer every single question. It just simply has to be the best answer given the evidence. From there, it will either be tweaked to explain new evidence, or it can be thrown out if something unexplainable comes along, but like I said, there is no crocoduck to do this. Every fossil found represents a wonderful snapshot of evolution in progress, from the whale fossils with the moving blowhole to Tiktaalik coming out of the sea. There has not been a fossil beyond evolution's explanatory grasp, neither has there really been any fossils out of order from their geological layers. No assumptions required. This is cold, hard proof. Are you gonna bother to think about why this is or merely ignore it?
Now, within five minutes of making my previous post about the antifreeze gene, I had watched a lecture by PZ Meyers about that very gene, and he brought up a very felicitous point. Scientists once showed the step by step evolution of a certain feature, the exact same step by step evolution that creationists ask for, as they say show me the precise evolution, and of course Michael Behe called the work piddling. This is a huge double standard. It's not like this is how it "may" happen and it's only one of many viable answers. The fact of common descent from an asexual ancestor proves that the evolution of sexual traits did happen, and showing the correct evolutionary pathway just reminds us that such evolution is possible.
Furthermore, work has been done on the very origins of sexual reproduction, when it involved a simple fusion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM). We also have organisms alive today that demonstrate a clear progress in sexual reproduction: from organisms that have limited sexual parts, to hermaphrodites that self-fertilize, to organisms that use two individuals to fertilize. This all happened pretty much in the order that suggests common descent. For instance, once the last group arose, you won't find too many organisms that reverted back.
And of course dissenting opinions are tolerated...when they make sense. Creationists fail to understand why evolution is considered a fact, and then they fail to understand why their ideas aren't considered legitimate.
Jacobof MI1:44AM November 16, 2009
<"HOW asexual turned into sexual reproduction DEFINITELY happened. They can only tell you what they "think MAY have" happened.">
It is true, that evolution can't give a step-by-step, mutation by mutation, species by species account of the history of all life on this planet. But it can show many steps and make valid successful predictions because of this. Hence how they found Tiktaalik. How would YOUR alternative make that prediction?
<"And this, of course, is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DEPENDENT on their a-priori ASSUMPTION that it DEFINITELY DID HAPPEN in a completely naturalistic and atheistic fashion.">
True, science can only deal with the natural, it can't deal with magic. But this doesn't make evolution atheistic (hence why many Christians accept evolution). Unless you want to claim gravity, relativity and the germ theory of disease are all atheistic because they don't mention God either.
<"Entertaining ANY fleeting thought that their ASSUMPTION (that sexual reproduction came about by naturalistic means) might be wrong - well, that simply is NOT TOLERATED.">
If you mean that sex is the result of magic, then true, magic is not tolerated in science because... it isn't scientific. However, some may describe some sensual experiences as "magical", and that I can empathise with.
<"All of those lengthy explanations, diagrams, charts, color slides, etc. ("paper science") produced by evolutionists to explain the evolution of sexual reproduction MUST be blindly accepted.">
Not so, scientific papers go through a scientific peer-review process, which means they are critically analysed for accuracy, testability, and repeatable results. It is because evolution is a theory that works, and works well, that it is accepted.
<"Asking for proof such as ANY form of lab demonstration, transitional fossils in various stages of changing from asexual to sexual reproduction, or ANY other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, etc. will only be met with more of #4 above.">
Carl, I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be obsessed with sex. Now if you go back and read a few pages, many posters here have provided examples of scientific evidence of evolution, successful predictions, and why it works. If you get to work on deconstructing some of those first rather than continuing to make baseless claims, perhaps this conversation can take a path other than a circular one.
Nick10:52PM November 15, 2009
Sorry, what was that carl? Ignore everyone to quote mine again?
I really laugh when creationists who KNOW what happened 6000 years ago disparage honest scientists who are quite happy to say 'based on the evidence, this is our best explanation".
"Look at those stupid researchers why can't they be a certain as me? I don't have any proof but I know without a doubt that the universe and everything in it was created 6000 years ago from nothing by god, who then destroyed everything in a global flood 4000 years ago. I don't need evidence, I have faith, so I know it's true"
If carl acted in a respectful manner, and asked appropriate questions in a non condescending way on a relevant website, he would get respectful answers.
Quote mining, and lying and and insulting people is not the way to get respectful responses.
Instead of quote mining dead people, read some science papers, If the science is bad point it out. That's how you will make some headway carl. Not by lying for Jesus.
BathTub10:19PM November 15, 2009
Dr. Scott said "The myriad ways in which organisms reproduce, sexually and asexually, have fascinated biologists for decades and have been examined, in a thoroughly evolutionary context..."
What evolutionists CAN'T tell us is:
1) HOW asexual turned into sexual reproduction DEFINITELY happened. They can only tell you what they "think MAY have" happened.
2) And this, of course, is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DEPENDENT on their a-priori ASSUMPTION that it DEFINITELY DID HAPPEN in a completely naturalistic and atheistic fashion.
3) Entertaining ANY fleeting thought that their ASSUMPTION (that sexual reproduction came about by naturalistic means) might be wrong - well, that simply is NOT TOLERATED.
4) By NOT TOLERATED meaning automatic insults, name-calling, and other condescending forms of treatment.
5) All of those lengthy explanations, diagrams, charts, color slides, etc. ("paper science") produced by evolutionists to explain the evolution of sexual reproduction MUST be blindly accepted.
6) Asking for proof such as ANY form of lab demonstration, transitional fossils in various stages of changing from asexual to sexual reproduction, or ANY other PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, etc. will only be met with more of #4 above.
carlof CA3:17PM November 15, 2009
Here's an excellently written short piece which I think everyone both creationists and science supporters alike should read. Sums up the entire "debate".
...and we get a string of the standard quotes, taken out of context to misrepresent the views of the evolutionary biologists who wrote them.
Just take a step back and engage your brain.
Do you honestly think that virtually all evolutionary biologists know that there is no evidence supporting evolution, but are engaged is a conspiracy to conceal this?
Why? What would be their motivation?
You quote Stephen Jay Gould. Gould wrote a book called "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory". It's a massive tome, going into the subject and it's history in exhaustive depth. Do you honestly think that Gould thought that there was no evidence supporting evolutionary theory? Do you think he was lying when he complained about the way he has been misrepresented by creationists?
Do you think that Kraig Adler, who editted a book called "Classification and taxonomy. Evolutionary relationships of amphibians and reptiles" doesn't think that they have evolved?
Why do you rely on carefully and dishonestly selected quotations, cut and pasted dircetly from creationist web sites rather than try to educate yourself? Nobody is demanding that you accept *any* scientific theory uncritically. In fact, scientists *welcome* criticism. It's from criticism that theories are developed and strengthened, or rejected. If you think evolutionary theory is so weak, and so poorly supported by evidence, why not try to find out the evidence and arguments on which it is based rather than simply regurgitating uncritically material from sources which even a cursory investigation on the internet will show to be deliberately misleading at best?
Richard Forrest1:10PM November 15, 2009
Actually, many biologists have this thing called neutral theory and believe that neutral mutations are the prime driver of evolution. Just about all biologists believe that neutral mutations are important to the process. It's true that beneficial mutations are the driver of adaptations and natural selection because they confer survival advantages, but they work together with neutral mutations.
You need to define new information. There is the increase in the size of the genome, and then there is an actual alteration. To the latter, any change would be considered new. You're in effect getting something that wasn't there before. The Lenski experiment proved that you only need a few mutations to sometimes get to a new function - in this case, transporting citrate to be used as a food source.
Furthermore, gene duplication is important. The best theory for the existence of the antifreeze gene in some species of fish is that it was a duplicated digestive gene that then underwent modification and change. I presume that they know this because of the extreme resemblance between the two. Would a creator build a gene from scratch, or would a blind, trial and error process modify existing genes?
Lastly, what do you mean by core functional element? Sure, you can't just start ripping proteins out and expect something to function, but you can constitute a function in a less complex way so that it misses many of its parts. The blood-clotting system, for instance...many parts that are necessary to humans aren't necessary to other organisms. You can also get a simpler eye. It only looks irreducible in retrospect. Many of the parts of the flagellum exist in other places in the cell, and so the flagellum is merely cobbled together pieces that contribute to one function. Evolution typically goes single change by single change, and you can actually degrade certain parts of a function without losing it entirely. Any one change isn't likely to make a huge difference, although sometimes it does. So it finds a pathway that builds an organism up, changing it slightly function to function.
Jacobof MI4:10AM November 15, 2009
Responding to your earlier post: Einstein did not believe the same thing you do ("I do not believe in a personal God," he said). Newton existed well before he could reasonably be expected to properly know about the emergence of the universe and life. That's like saying, I can take any great man and prove geocentrism because he believed in it at a time when it was accepted as truth. Mutation rates actually fit well within the expected model for evolution (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bookres.fcgi/cell/ch6f32.gif). Comets are proposed to be replenished (the Kuiper belt is observable, the Oort cloud is more theoretical but plausible) - besides, the existence of star light reaching earth actually confirms an old universe, as do a hundred other measurables. The magnetic pole argument denies that it fluctuates, which we know it does. Carbon dating has too short a half-life to be effective on dinosaurs, I believe. The order of fossils in the geological record only makes sense with evolution. There are no fossils out of order from what we would expect with common descent.
Lastly, show that Darwin said those things. Besides, what does that have to do with his theory? Creationists have made the same arguments, even to say that some races emerged from cursed ancestors.You wouldn't claim that creationists support a racist belief. The existence of variation within species only truly makes sense with evolution anyway.
Reader Comments
Back to blog
JEF of MN 8:43AM November 17, 2009
JEF of MN 8:39AM November 17, 2009
Jacob of MI 1:44AM November 16, 2009
Nick 10:52PM November 15, 2009
BathTub 10:19PM November 15, 2009
carl of CA 3:17PM November 15, 2009
Nick 1:11PM November 15, 2009
Richard Forrest 1:10PM November 15, 2009
Jacob of MI 4:10AM November 15, 2009
Jacob of MI 3:44AM November 15, 2009