Creation vs Evolution

[csr]

Why is it that in the matter of evolution, all sorts of people, lacking the burden of actual knowledge, feel free to express their prejudices and biases in public?

The question is a bit over-wrought, yes?, but I think there are two things. First, we state our opinions because we are interested in hearing corroboration and refutation. Second, even lacking a thorough knowledge base, there are certain delimiting facts that one encounters in the literature. There is no evidence to support macro-evolution, micro-evolution does not create information, age-determining methods are oddly contradicted here and there (e.g., fossil trees cutting through layers “millions” of years old), etc… There is no contradiction between faith and the scientific method.

Anyway, it is very unkind to our Creator to allege that He only says that He created us, that actually He permitted us to evolve from accidental electric shocks directed into a primordial soup or something (oh, and no proteins are formed this way except very primitive amino acids). I think God has more dignity than this, praise Him.

Interesting web site: creationscience.com/

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

No-one answered the questions I asked, so I’ll ask them again: Why is it that in the matter of evolution, all sorts of people, lacking the burden of actual knowledge, feel free to express their prejudices and biases in public?

SocaliCatholic:

Pride.
If I take evolution as fact, may I humble myself and propose that you would be making an illogical assumption by assuming that the resulting product of evolution [man] should indeed not be acting precisely in the manner that evolution itself allowed them to act.
You can not have your cake, and eat it too.

 

[csr]

Apologia100:

1. How long does it take for a striation in the geological column to form? 10 years, 100,000 years…

Ten minutes?
Phil P:

And please don’t bring up Mike Behe again, he is a theistic evolutionist.

If Behe is correct about something that matters, his contribution can be welcomed. Behe’s strength appears to be in developing a theory of irreducible complexity.

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

No-one answered the questions I asked, so I’ll ask them again: Why is it that in the matter of evolution, all sorts of people, lacking the burden of actual knowledge, feel free to express their prejudices and biases in public?

SocaliCatholic:

Pride.
If I take evolution as fact, may I humble myself and propose that you would be making an illogical assumption by assuming that the resulting product of evolution [man] should indeed not be acting precisely in the manner that evolution itself allowed them to act.
You can not have your cake, and eat it too.

Well that’s an interesting conclusion. I’m not really sure how pride leads people to to make an exhibition of themselves in this way. Generally speaking, those who have no knowledge of most branches of science successfully resist pontificating about them - but that seems not to be the case when it comes to evolutionary biology. People who are entirely unable to state what the Modern Synthesis claims, boldly oppose it. There are people for whom the term ‘biological species concept’ means absolutely nothing, and for whom the terms allopatry and sympatry are so much meaningless gabble, who confidently state that speciation has not been shown to occur. There are those who repeat ad nauseam that there are no transitional species, who are entirely powerless to recognise a transitional species even if it is described in painstaking detail. Almost everyone who expresses an opinion contrary to the fact of evolution lacks the most elementary understanding of the genetic code and the significance of the difference in divergence between synonymous and non-synonymous DNA sequences.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Melchior:

Alec,

You dismiss a valid claim by taking a paragraph to ask questions that you do not answer, and then you make a defintive conclusion that the analogy has no value based on absolutely nothing but a few unaswered questions.

The questions were unanswered because they were rhetorical. OK - let’s try again for those of a literal mind:

I said: ‘Why on earth would one conclude, given skeletal data, that a mule is a transitional beween a donkey and a horse’ and the answer is…there is no skeletal data that would lead one to this conclusion. If I am wrong I am sure Apologia will post a reference to the primary literature that supports the idea that a mule is, skeletally, transitional between a donkey and a horse.

I said: ‘what specific transitional features between donkey and horse exist in a mule?’ and the answer is … none. Ditto challenge to Apologia to post evidence from the primary literature if he disagrees.

I said: ‘Why indeed would one conclude that donkeys evolved into horses when we find them in the same geologic horizons?’ and the answer is we wouldn’t. If species appear only in the same geological horizon, no scientist will conclude that one evolved from the other.

I said:‘What are the primitive features in donkey’s skeletons to compare with derived features in horse’s skeletons?’ and the answer is… there are none. No biologist would claim that there are a suite of primitive features in donkey compared wioth derived features in horse. Again, Apologia is free to post primary literature sources to prove me wrong.

It is no wonder you believe in macro-evolution. You are willing to make completely unsubstantiated pronouncements without even coming close to proving your point.

There is no-one on this board who makes more references to the primary literature to support their claims than I do. In this case it is not I who am making clims that need to be supported but Apologia.

And you act as if Apologia has said nothing worth discussing. Until you learn to actually critically examine something you are in no position to be convinced of anything based on facts or good reason. You will remain convinced only by your own speculation and selective “facts”.

Well actually Apologia has said nothing worth discussing because the donkey/mule/horse argument focused on the palaeontogists of the future is a fallacy. Palaeontolgists of the distant future, using the same diciplines of modern palaeontologists would not conclude that horses, mules and donkeys are in an evolutionary sequence. That argument is a strawman.

Alec
ww.evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

buffalo:

The best answer I can give is that Revelation has told us about some things and is silent on others. Catholics have information on the origins of man. Revelation doesn’t speak to us much about quantum physics or string theory.

I think that that is a valid and interesting observation and one that has a good deal of truth about it. Most lay people do not have public opinions about science except where they feel that they can take a stance based on the authority of divine revelation. Evolution is, of course, the most notorious example, but the findings of geology, cosmology, and astronomy are also violated in ths way.

I would respect the argument that goes: ‘Ignore all this science - Revelation tells us otherwise and Revelation takes precedence.’ However people do not argue like this but insist of attempting to demonstrate things, even things that are claimed based only on the authority of Revelation, by using the logic, evidence and arguments of science. That draws them into the most grotesquely incorrect claims, draws the into profound error and even lies.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[csr]

I certainly don’t know all the specialized terms that are being referred to, but I think science has a known tendency to coin terms and reify concepts erroneously and build too much on theories. There are significant problems with the concept that we evolved, and the concept of evolution has itself spawned so many unhealthy paradigms and behavior patterns that it is unlikely to be true for that reason: the truth would be ennobling, not degrading. For a long while it was thought that archeology would “debunk” the Bible, but it turns out that the Bible is now helping to inform archeology. A similar pattern will play out with science, I think. Science will come to affirm what has always been believed by the Church and the Church Fathers. Science without faith is always in danger of falling into a new form of gnosticism. There is something to be said for the simple dove.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

hecd2:

I think that that is a valid and interesting observation and one that has a good deal of truth about it. Most lay people do not have public opinions about science except where they feel that they can take a stance based on the authority of divine revelation. Evolution is, of course, the most notorious example, but the findings of geology, cosmology, and astronomy are also violated in ths way.

I would respect the argument that goes: ‘Ignore all this science - Revelation tells us otherwise and Revelation takes precedence.’ However people do not argue like this but insist of attempting to demonstrate things, even things that are claimed based only on the authority of Revelation, by using the logic, evidence and arguments of science. That draws them into the most grotesquely incorrect claims, draws the into profound error and even lies.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

hecd2,

I enjoy reading your posts becuase I enjoy talking with scientific minds however,

Obviously there is a very large group of people who claim evolution as fact, but what other branch of science has actually arrived at a scientific conclusion without actually first observing a previously unexplained natural phenomena that evokes our curiosty and then using existing scientific method of investigation to explain discoveries such as the perhilion shift of mercury first being observed and defying what we know about gravity under Newtons laws, but then being explained using Einstien’s relativiy?

In other words, what other examples do we have from science that claim something as fact such as evolution without actually making an observation first either with our eyes, a microscope, or telescope like the Chandra X-ray observatory or Hubble Space Telescope?

It appears that with evolution alone, **we work up to the conclusion ** that it actually happened, versus other discoveries of science that observed something interesting like the earth orbiting around the sun and not the sun around the earth, then using science to explain why

At best, if you believe that fossil records show whales with feet or transitional animals (I understand that everything is litterally supposed to be transitional) that still leaves us with the fossils as that which is actually observed, which is where we get our data to run experiements, but there is no data to run experiments from evolution itself as nobody was actually alive to pull the data and work forwards. With evolution alone, it appears that it bastardizes science by attemping to draw a conclusion as if it was actaully observed without actually observing the phenonena.

 

[wanerious]

SocaliCatholic:

hecd2,

I enjoy reading your posts becuase I enjoy talking with scientific minds however,

Obviously there is a very large group of people who claim evolution as fact, but what other branch of science has actually arrived at a scientific conclusion without actually first observing a previously unexplained natural phenomena that evokes our curiosty and then using existing scientific method of investigation to explain discoveries such as the perhilion shift of mercury first being observed and defying what we know about gravity under Newtons laws, but then being explained using Einstien’s relativiy?

In other words, what other examples do we have from science that claim something as fact such as evolution without actually making an observation first either with our eyes, a microscope, or telescope like the Chandra X-ray observatory or Hubble Space Telescope?

It appears that with evolution alone, **we work up to the conclusion ** that it actually happened, versus other discoveries of science that observed something interesting like the earth orbiting around the sun and not the sun around the earth, then using science to explain why

At best, if you believe that fossil records show whales with feet or transitional animals (I understand that everything is litterally supposed to be transitional) that still leaves us with the fossils as that which is actually observed, which is where we get our data to run experiements, but there is no data to run experiments from evolution itself as nobody was actually alive to pull the data and work forwards. With evolution alone, it appears that it bastardizes science by attemping to draw a conclusion as if it was actaully observed without actually observing the phenonena.

Sorry for jumping in sideways, but I disagree with what you are asserting. Did Darwin himself not observe many closely related species over many years before trying to propose a scientific theory explaining the observations? Did biologists and geologists not first uncover layer after deep layer of sediments and fossils, leading to taxonomic trees that suggest common descent? Did molecular biologists not notice that similarities among the DNA proteins of different species diverged in close correlation to the taxonomic trees, thereby independently supporting (and in some cases, modifying) evolutionary relationships? On the contrary, it has worked as science is supposed to, with observational data and hypotheses bootstrapping each other.

Also, just to make the point, there are many situations where the best theories are predictive, leading their observational corroboration by years or decades.

 

[hecd2]

Apologia100:

First, I have to admit that i was a little taken aback by the fellow who accused me of not know how science works. That is the first time in my 37 years I have ever been told that, considering I have a BS in Biotechnology from UM and a 3.85 GPA. I have a couple of questions for you, since it appears that you are so much smarter than I.

This is the fallacy called the argument from authority. Your BS is irrelevant. All that matters is the evidence and logi you present.

1. How long does it take for a striation in the geological column to form? 10 years, 100,000 years, 10,000,000 years? Best guess? verifiable evidence? Scientific speculation?

I assume by ‘striation’ you mean what geologists call ‘beds’ , ‘strata’ or ‘layers’. And the answer is anything from hours in the case of a volcanic deposit to a mm per 1000 years in pelagic deposits. There are many different mechanisms that lead to deposition of sediment that eventually forms beds in the geologic column. The fact that you are looking for a single value of depositional rate shows a lack of understanding of basic geology, I’m afraid. I suggest you consult an undergraduate geology text.

1. How long does it take for one species to evolve into another?

Again, the fact that you are looking for a single value shows a rather superficial understanding of the science. Some speciation happens very quickly (say, for example viruses and bacteria at one level, cichlid and stickleback fish at the next - I can give you references in the primary literature to this and everything else that I post if you like). At the other extreme, some species appear stable for a million years or more. Rate of speciation depends on the species, the environment, the geography, the climate and many other factors.

If it takes less time for a species to evolve than it does for the stratifcation of the geological column, wouldn’t you find several transitional subspecies within one layer of the column? or is that against the rules?

We don’t generally find primitive and derived species in the same geologic horizon in the same place. But we don’t expect to as allopatry is the main mechanism for speciation.

Therefore if, as I postulated, a species can undergo several observable microevolutionary changes within a short time period (geologically speaking), if the donkey and mule were in fact genetic ancestors of the horse, you would find them within a single layer in the geological column.

Well we would find them in a single horizon as they are contemporaneous but the one is not the genetic ancestor of the other, and no palaeontologist would conclude so, given their fossils in a single horizon.

So my theory has merit.

So it doesn’t.

Science will never know the context of the formation of anything but the gross anatomy of the fossil record.

But even if what you say is true (which it is isn’t) the gross fossil record is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution and that is only one of the lines of evidence for that fact.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Toni]

6 days! Whom among us is to say how long a day is to God?

My belief also… Man made time, with God there is no time…

 

[SocaliCatholic]

wanerious:

Sorry for jumping in sideways, but I disagree with what you are asserting. Did Darwin himself not observe many closely related species over many years before trying to propose a scientific theory explaining the observations? Did biologists and geologists not first uncover layer after deep layer of sediments and fossils, leading to taxonomic trees that suggest common descent? Did molecular biologists not notice that similarities among the DNA proteins of different species diverged in close correlation to the taxonomic trees, thereby independently supporting (and in some cases, modifying) evolutionary relationships? On the contrary, it has worked as science is supposed to, with observational data and hypotheses bootstrapping each other.

Also, just to make the point, there are many situations where the best theories are predictive, leading their observational corroboration by years or decades.

Thanks for jumping in… and thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut!!

In response to what you said about the findings from different branches of science, I do not dispute what you say are their findings nor am I qualified to dispute those findings in each respective field.

Perphaps my writing skills are not up to par, but what I am trying to assert is simply this:

1. Do you agree that all scientific theories and hypothesis originate by observing phenomena in the natural universe with either

1)our bodily senses or
2)our bodily senses aided by the use of tools such as a telescope or microscope?

e.g. observing the falling of an apple from a tree, the orbit of the stars, the bones in the ground, the behavior of atoms, the behavior of light…

2. In what branch of science is there a fact or theory that was arrived at by the same methods of deduction from various scientific data in the same manner as to how the theory of evolution was arrived at?

e.g. was evolution actually observed, or are we claiming that evolution occured by observing phenomena which we believe to have resulted from evolution, such as fossils.

3. If we are drawing the conclusion that evolution occured by bringing together different pieces of scientific data from different branches of science, in what other branches of science is this same method of drawing conclusions practiced?

e.g. Could we conclude that we would know what the sun literally looks like by studying water evaporation, shadows, and photosythesis, but never having actually looked at the sun itself?

 

[PhilVaz]

SocCath << In what branch of science is there a fact or theory that was arrived at by the same methods of deduction from various scientific data in the same manner as to how the theory of evolution was arrived at? >>

Physics and astronomy for the finite age of the universe. We weren’t there to observe the universe being created. Geology for the age of the earth. We weren’t there to observe the earth forming.

Both of these are inferences (deductions) that are considered “facts” in science: the universe at 10 to 20 billion years old, the earth at 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old.

SocCath << e.g. was evolution actually observed, or are we claiming that evolution occured by observing phenomena which we believe to have resulted from evolution, such as fossils. >>

Evolution is observed small-scale since that’s how science (as I understand) works. You aren’t going to observe a dinosaur turning into a bird, or a reptile into a mammal. You will observe natural selection working on finch beaks in the Galapagos, peppered moths, and other observed instances of speciation.

Read the Evidence for Macroevolution from Theobald. How do you explain all this evidence from a “creationist” or “intelligent design” standpoint? Looks like God must have used evolution to create the plants, animals, and us since He left us all this evidence.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

STOP PRESS

Robert Gentry, Polonium Halos, Alka Seltzer, and Dripping Faucets absolutely prove the earth is 6000 years old!

Plop, Plop, Fizz, Fizz, Oh what a Young Earth it is

Stream above or if you have a faster connection you can

DOWNLOAD HERE

Phil P

 

[csr]

PhilVaz:

Evolution is observed small-scale since that’s how science (as I understand) works. You aren’t going to observe a dinosaur turning into a bird, or a reptile into a mammal. You will observe natural selection working on finch beaks in the Galapagos, peppered moths, and other observed instances of speciation.

The “observed instances of speciation” are a pretty poor showing:

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant “Copperopolis” population with plants from the nontolerant “Cerig” population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

This is a ‘typical’ quote, showing failure and initially bizarre conditions.

In beak-of-the-finch cases no information is created in any case.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

PhilVaz:

Physics and astronomy for the finite age of the universe. We weren’t there to observe the universe being created. Geology for the age of the earth. We weren’t there to observe the earth forming.

Both of these are inferences (deductions) that are considered “facts” in science: the universe at 10 to 20 billion years old, the earth at 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old.

The age of the universe and the age of the earth is not a scientific parallel to evolution.

The age of the universe and the age of the earth are a numeric approximation.

Certain groups are not claiming evolution as numeric approximation but as a literal fact

 

[hecd2]

TheGarg:

I see your lips movin, but all i can hear is “Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah”…your explanitions are all fine and good, but just remember this, the consequence for a christian being wrong, is a dirt nap, the consequence for non-believers is hell…you’d better pray your right …er, well, i guess you have no one to pray too…good luck! May the Peace of the Lord be with you

This technique is known as argumentum ad baculum (or argument by threat).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

csr:

hecd:

Why is it that in the matter of evolution, all sorts of people, lacking the burden of actual knowledge, feel free to express their prejudices and biases in public?

The question is a bit over-wrought, yes?, but I think there are two things.

I don’t think the question is overwrought. I am constantly amazed by how prepared people are, when they have the bit of religion or politics between their teeth, to make apparently authoritative statements from a position of almost complete ignorance or acquaintance only with YEC sites

First, we state our opinions because we are interested in hearing corroboration and refutation.

Yes but you wouldn’t state your opinion on the other scientific disciplines I listed earlier in the thread. The fact is that your and others’ knowledge of evolutionary theory is as little developed as your understanding of RNA interference, for example. In fact, I suspect the answer to my question is that those who adopt this approach have decided for philosophical or religious reasons, that evolution cannot have occured. They prefer to deny a caricature of the thing than do the hard work to understand the thing itself.

Second, even lacking a thorough knowledge base, there are certain delimiting facts that one encounters in the literature.

Right. Since you refer to the literature here, you will have no difficulty in posting references to the papers that support what you say below. Don’t worry - I’m not holding my breath

There is no evidence to support macro-evolution,

No evidence? Well let’s see, there is biogeography, the nested hierarchy of species, morphological and molecular homology,embryological similarities, vestigial characters, the existence of convergence, the existence of intermediates (yes, they do exist, we can take many examplesone by one and you can tell me why they are not transitionals, if you like) and countless lines of evidence from molecular biology that are way too many to list - for example the fact that between mouse and man the divergence rate of four fold degenerate sites is exactly the same as that found in neutral sequences such as ancestral pseudogenes. Actually the existence of ancestral pseudogenes and ancestral retrotransposons is very strong evidence for evolution.

micro-evolution does not create information,

Oh really? I suppose you can a) define what scientists mean by information and b) give us a reference to the work that shows that observed mutation does not create it.I can post several referneces that support the fact that it can.

age-determining methods are oddly contradicted here and there (e.g., fossil trees cutting through layers “millions” of years old), etc…

Ahhhh - the polystrate fossil fallacy. Why don’t you give us a respectable reference to a paper which describes this phenomenon and laments that it is a problem for basic geology?

Anyway, it is very unkind to our Creator to allege that He only says that He created us, that actually He permitted us to evolve from accidental electric shocks directed into a primordial soup or something (oh, and no proteins are formed this way except very primitive amino acids). I think God has more dignity than this, praise Him.

That’s your opinion that you are entitled to but it carries no weight whatsoever in science. And while you are about it, perhaps you could tell us what a ‘very primitive’ amino acid is?

Interesting web site: creationscience.com/

Walt Brown is a crank. I don’t say that lightly. We can discuss any one of Walt Brown’s claims if you like. And ‘creation science’ is an oxymoron.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

csr:

I certainly don’t know all the specialized terms that are being referred to, but I think science has a known tendency to coin terms and reify concepts erroneously and build too much on theories. There are significant problems with the concept that we evolved, and the concept of evolution has itself spawned so many unhealthy paradigms and behavior patterns that it is unlikely to be true for that reason: the truth would be ennobling, not degrading.

You don’t know what the terms are that are being used, basically because you have no idea what the biological Theory of Evolution actually is. Can you tell us? You are opposing it, not because you understand it and have compelling arguments against it, but because you don’t ‘like’ it and therefore have decided, a priori, that it cannot be true. In saying ‘the concept of evolution has itself spawned so many unhealthy paradigms and behavior patterns that it is unlikely to be true for that reason’ you show a deep misunderstanding about the way science works. Science reveals the way the universe is, not how we wish it would be. It’s time we grew up and faced the truth.

I wonder whether you can support your claim that ‘science has a known tendency to coin terms and reify concepts erroneously and build too much on theories’ That doesn’t seem to fit with the fact that science has been uniquely successful in revealing truths about the natural world.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

SocaliCatholic:

hecd2,

I enjoy reading your posts becuase I enjoy talking with scientific minds however,

Well, thank you let me try to say something sensible now.

Obviously there is a very large group of people who claim evolution as fact,

Yes, the overwhelming majority of biologists ( we are talking 99%+ here) accept the fact of evolution for good reasons

but what other branch of science has actually arrived at a scientific conclusion without actually first observing a previously unexplained natural phenomena that evokes our curiosty and then using existing scientific method of investigation to explain discoveries such as the perhilion shift of mercury first being observed and defying what we know about gravity under Newtons laws, but then being explained using Einstien’s relativiy?

Darwin developed his theory to explain a number of observed phenomena. Darwin was, after all, a wonderful naturalist whose knowledge of animals and plants was detailed and deep and who had fantastic observational powers. If you read ‘The Origin of Species’ you will find many observations that are puzzling and that are explained by evolution guided by Natural and Sexual selection.

But your analogy is somewhat flawed in other respects. Einstein certainly didn’t develop GR to explain the the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. He developed it for more fundamental reasons including the basic observation that acceleration and gravitational attraction are indistinguishable. The solutions to Einstein’s field equations make predictions about certain phenomena such as the perihelion precession of Mercury and the gravitational deviation of light by the sun (the latter of which was tested by Arthur Eddington during a total solar eclipse in 1919, I think). So it was not the observation of gravitational deviation of light from Euclidean space that led to GR. Rather GR was developed as a rather mathematical response to certain ‘thought-experiments’ that Einstein proposed. GR made certain predictions about the behaviour of light that have been shown to be highly accurate and that therefore supported the value of GR in describing the natural universe.

In other words, what other examples do we have from science that claim something as fact such as evolution without actually making an observation first either with our eyes, a microscope, or telescope like the Chandra X-ray observatory or Hubble Space Telescope?

The theory of Evolution rests on physical observations. I don’t understand why you think it is different. You seem to give evidencecarried by the tiny proportion of the total electromagnetic spectrum in the human visible region special weight. The electromagnetic spectrum is much biger and there is other physical evidence not based on light (based on sound for example, such as the history of the universeup to 379,000 years after the Big Bang.

to be continued%between%