Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
See, I like firechild. (S)He gets right to the point in what (s)he's trying to say, and says it correctly. I completely agree with him/her.
Biology, as far as I'm concerned, is still a controversial issue...
I identify with you, too. You make a good point.
Biology, as far as I'm concerned, is still a controversial issue...
Creationism is not a science.
The main tactics of creationist is to twist and corrupt any viable scientific information and then say that it is wrong. To criticize the theory of evolution, one must understand it before.
Geology, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, among others, are science.
Research is an essential part of science.
Creationist "scientists" are supposed to do some research but we still await for serious information that would debunk the theory of evolution, wich is more and more confirmed by the research that is ACTUALLY DONE in the real scientific fields by real scientists.
Faith has nothing to do with science, but these two things are compatible.
An exemple of this compatibility is Ken Miller, who involved himself in the debate. Videos can easily be found on youtube.
Evolution and creation can be mutually exclusive. Why is this difficult to comprehend?
Micro/macro evolution -- this doesn't exist. There's evolution. There's natural selection (the process) which leads to evolution amongst generations. This is observable. Micro/macro is creationist FUD.
I just wanted to point out that the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are terms used by evolutionary biologists. They have been perverted by creationists, but they are real terms. Microevolution refers to evolution within a species, while macroevolution refers to evolution leading to speciation and the development of higher taxa. There is some discussion about whether there are additional mechanisms responsible for the evolution of higher taxa. Mass extinctions, for example, are implicated in allowing the evolution of new higher taxa by making room for adaptive radiation of surviving groups.
So...what you are saying is that microevolution is known to be real (is observable) and macroevolution is extrapolated data based on what can be seen of microevolution? I totally agree. Macroevolution cannot be observed without fossil records. There are no fossil records that give conclusive evidence for macroevolution, so you simply cannot observe macroevolution. If you find one and an explanation of why it is conclusive evidence and several valid sources for your find (not outdated sources) and show me that there is absolutely no way to disprove the evidence, I will take back my statement gladly.
Anyhow, here's a paper written by Dr. Jay Wile, a professor at the University of Rochester who has written several science textbooks, several of which I have gone through (including his biology course).
http://homepage.mac.com/christschurch/B ... /enemy.pdf
The article is not so much about the validity of evolution as it is about how evolutionists bend, hide, and lie about data for the sole purpose of "proving" evolution.
The part of his blog related to this discussion:
If you don't find anything on the first page, don't worry...there are plenty more pages to look through (just scroll to the bottom and click "previous").
A solid argument against evolution:
Evolutionists state that there are many creatures with similar body parts (ex: human hands, ape hands, bat wings, dolphin fins, etc), and use this as evidence for evolution. However, the DNA that governs these body parts is not similar, therefore, this cannot be used as evidence for evolution and can even be used as evidence against it.
Source: Exploring Creation With Biology by Dr. Jay Wile (his biology textbook. I can't remember the page numbers)
Your proposition is illogical. Saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is like saying you believe you can fly from Los Angeles to New York, and you believe you can fly from New York to London, but you do not believe you can fly from Los Angeles to London with a connection in New York.
Wrong. "So, we have fine fossil documentation of gradual change, all the way from Lucy, the 'upright-walking chimp' of three million years ago, to ourselves today." (Source: Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, New York: Free Press, 2009)
Dr. Wile is entitled to his opinion, but he is not an authority on biology. According to his website, his Ph.D. is in nuclear chemistry. Contrary to your statement, he is not a professor at the University of Rochester (he says he got his doctorate there) and he apparently has had academic appointments only during the years 1990-1995.
Wrong again. An article on the science blog SEEDMAGAZINE.COM explains how differential expression of the same gene, Prx1, directs development of the mouse's paw and the bat's wing. (Source: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article ... ouses_leg/)
A bad analogy. If you think it through from the perspective of someone that doesn't believe there is fossil evidence for evolution, it should be more like "you know you can fly from Los Angeles to San Fransisco, so you believe you can fly from Los Angeles to London." If you had the ability to observe macroevolution, your analogy may be a bit more valid. However, even if we have fossil records we can only use them as proof for evolution if we interpret them in a way that supports evolution. If that doesn't make sense, then explain logically how my statement is illogical. I can believe an organism can grow 5 inches out of the ground in a day without believing it will continue the pace and become 152 feet tall in a year. Again, extrapolated data is not proven data, just assumed.
Fossils cannot prove evolution. "Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ssing-link)
I don't have the money to buy the book, so I can't really see the rest of what he says there. Which fossils were you speaking of again?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/? ... 9s+No+Lady
Good point. My bad on the "professor at..." business. However, his statements about "non-sequence" and "cytochrome-c" were what I was aiming for. They are still valid and cannot be ignored simply by saying they are his opinions or that he is not a professor in the field of research we speak of.
One experiment? Not several experiments with different species of mice and bats? No confirmation that this is not just a "coincidence" restricted to mice and bats? Where is the credibility in that experiment? I thought experiments had to be repeated to reduce the possibility of error...
@enarees any argument for UFOs? All the sightings I've heard of have been hoaxes and mistakes...or not possible to confirm...
So the fact that students are not able to recognize what fossils belong to what group in the whooping amount of (at least) 8h is a proof of what exactly?
I am not familiar with human fossil classification, but it seems that this might be a weak argument. I would have a better chance of being convinced if the argument was that no 2 professional paleontologist were able to agree on the sequence, or that new groups were added to fit each fossil. But that is not the case, so professional seem to manage to fit fossils in the existing groups most of the time.
By the way if I were to give a group of student someone's medical history without any special experience in the medical field. Do you think they would be able (in at least 8h) to establish a correct diagnostic? In my experience, I would not count on that if my life was hanging in the balance (students in 4th microbial disease course have difficulties matching case-studies with disease even when plenty of clues and selected relevant information is provided to match better the books available...).
The cytC data is a bit more perplexing since he does not provide where he gets his data from. I wonder where he got his data, and how he estimated the evolution's prediction. In his blog he seems to give reference (I give him a big thumbs up for that) but in this quite short pamphlet that you seem to consider relevant, it is interesting to note that beyond quotes (out of context, that can be misleading) the little data presented do not comes with any relevant quotes.
Because of that it is hard to give it too much thought.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
I dunno...looks like a research project to me. The students are asked to give the ages of the fossils based on what evolutionists have said about the ages, but they can't simply because different evolutionists have said different things. What it is saying is that evolutionists can't agree on the age of fossils. They aren't doing the work themselves, they are looking at other people's work for answers.
I agree. Without sources, it seems to lose much of its credibility. All I have to say is, "good luck finding a source for that one." It's difficult to find any sources for those things these days :/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests