Login

Join for Free!
119269 members


Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re:

Postby robsabba » Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:40 pm

brainy wrote:I have a question for you robsabba. Do you believe that Homer's Iliad is true history?

No.

Are you going to answer any of my questions?
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Re:

Postby AmairahRyder » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:42 pm

firechild wrote:I don't understand much of that because of the poor translation provided by google. However, I would ask for some supporting evidence for such wild claims. Fish evolving from amphibians and everything evolved from flying animals? This is not only absurd but completely contradicts the fossil records, the genetic evidence and certainly defies logic.



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... :twisted:
AmairahRyder
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:38 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AmairahRyder » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:43 pm

brainy wrote:I have read most of the posts, and have kind of concluded there is a root problem between the Creationists and the Evolutionists. Here it is: Evolutionists say that creationism is only a religion while saying that evolution is fact, while the truth is that they are both legitimate science. I believe that it takes much more faith to believe that we evolved by random chance then to just believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

As a creationist I do believe in evolution.... But only on the micro-evolution level. The problem is that what Darwin saw in the Galapagos islands was micro evolution. What he and scientists do today is simply take micro evolution and build macro evolution around it. Show me the fossil record of the evolution from amoeba to man. You can't do it because it does not exist.

Also what would be your reasons for not accepting the Bible as credible evidence?

Trevor


I identify with you, too. You make a good point. :mrgreen:
Biology, as far as I'm concerned, is still a controversial issue... :twisted:
AmairahRyder
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:38 am


Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby olivortex » Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:59 am

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.
olivortex
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:45 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby TheJP » Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:59 am

brainy wrote:I have read most of the posts, and have kind of concluded there is a root problem between the Creationists and the Evolutionists. Here it is: Evolutionists say that creationism is only a religion while saying that evolution is fact, while the truth is that they are both legitimate science. I believe that it takes much more faith to believe that we evolved by random chance then to just believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

As a creationist I do believe in evolution.... But only on the micro-evolution level. The problem is that what Darwin saw in the Galapagos islands was micro evolution. What he and scientists do today is simply take micro evolution and build macro evolution around it. Show me the fossil record of the evolution from amoeba to man. You can't do it because it does not exist.

Also what would be your reasons for not accepting the Bible as credible evidence?

Trevor

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.
TheJP
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:11 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby robsabba » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:39 pm

TheJP wrote:
brainy wrote:I have read most of the posts, and have kind of concluded there is a root problem between the Creationists and the Evolutionists. Here it is: Evolutionists say that creationism is only a religion while saying that evolution is fact, while the truth is that they are both legitimate science. I believe that it takes much more faith to believe that we evolved by random chance then to just believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

As a creationist I do believe in evolution.... But only on the micro-evolution level. The problem is that what Darwin saw in the Galapagos islands was micro evolution. What he and scientists do today is simply take micro evolution and build macro evolution around it. Show me the fossil record of the evolution from amoeba to man. You can't do it because it does not exist.

Also what would be your reasons for not accepting the Bible as credible evidence?

Trevor

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.
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby AgentBunni » Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:11 am

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:
http://blog.drwile.com/?cat=4
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)
AgentBunni
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:15 am

Solid Arguments FOR Evolution

Postby StevePush » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:38 am

AgentBunni wrote: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.

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.

Macroevolution cannot be observed without fossil records. There are no fossil records that give conclusive evidence for macroevolution, so you simply cannot observe macroevolution.

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)

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).

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.

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)

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/)
StevePush
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 6:15 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Postby enarees » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:16 pm

Any solid arguments against UFO?
User avatar
enarees
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:16 am

Re: Solid Arguments FOR Evolution

Postby AgentBunni » Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:40 pm

StevePush wrote: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.
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)

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)
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

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.
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.

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/)
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...
AgentBunni
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:15 am

Re: Solid Arguments FOR Evolution

Postby canalon » Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:58 am

AgentBunni wrote: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.


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.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Solid Arguments FOR Evolution

Postby AgentBunni » Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:26 am

canalon wrote: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...).
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.

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.

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 :/
AgentBunni
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests