Darwin or Design?

[AquinaSavio]

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

That’s a start.

I didn’t see a single picture…

The term is paleontologists, not evolutionists.

Aren’t you getting a little tired of playing the specifics game? I was obviously talking about evolutionist paleontologists.

Bats into possums? Where did you learn that?

I didn’t learn that anywhere. I just heard silly claims about it. The point being, how did creatures survive while they were changing into different species? Each animal has certain characteristics that help it survive (a giraffe has a long neck to eat from trees). How did such creatures survive while they were evolving?

 

[Alberich]

There are 6 BILLION people on this earth. As of yet, not one of them has evolved into anything new and beneficial. Scientists have every single animal in the world at their disposal for study and STILL we have not seen evidence of macroevolution, or even real microevolution.

I do not consider bacterial resistance to antibiotics to be evidence of microevolution, since it does not involve the creation of new genetic material.

I think you misunderstand what scientists refer to as evolution.

Evolution doesn’t mean that you will see individuals “evolve,” but that evolution occurs across entire populations over the span of generations. Furthermore, evolution does not mean that new genetic material is created. Pre-existing material can be deleted, recombined, or co-opted for secondary purposes.

You don’t have to believe that evolution occurs, but as we say that there aren’t 100 people in the world that hate the Catholic Church–they only hate what they think it is–I would say that there aren’t 100 people in the world that would refuse to accept that evolution occurs–provided they really understood what it was.

Pax tecum,
Alberich

 

[Saint_Michael]

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

That’s a start.The term is paleontologists, not evolutionists.

Bats into possums? Where did you learn that?That sounds a bit like the question “Do you still beat your wife?” The question is based on a false premise so it can’t be answered as phrased.

Peace

Tim

"Moeritherium, Numidotherium, Barytherium (early-mid Eocene) – A group of three similar very early elephants. It is unclear which of the three came first. Pig-sized with stout legs, broad spreading feet and flat hooves. Elephantish face with the eye set far forward & a very deep jaw. Second incisors enlarged into short tusks, in upper and lower jaws; little first incisors still present; loss of some teeth. No trunk.

Paleomastodon, Phiomia (early Oligocene) – The first “mastodonts”, a medium-sized animals with a trunk, long lower jaws, and short upper and lower tusks. Lost first incisors and canines. Molars still have heavy rounded cusps, with enamel bands becoming irregular. Phiomia was up to eight feet tall.
GAP: Here’s that Oligocene gap again. No elephant fossils at all for several million years. "

Very convicing…W e have one pig sized animal with an “elephantish” face NO TRUNK, then a medium sized animal with a long trunk, then nothing for millions of years, yet this links them as a transitional fossil how? Why are these animals even linked at all, they aren’t the least bit similar, then all these “elephantish” animals dissapear for millions of years only to re-emerge seemingly out of the blue.

Isn’t it possible these animals listed here aren’t transitional at all, but in effect the two comepletely seperate species with no link like they appear to be?

 

[Michael_G]

If someone wants to believe in creationism, I won’t mock them, though I’ll disagree. .

All of the dogmatic evolutionist here on this board are screaming that evolution as in neo-Darwinism is an absolute fact. You all neglect to tell there is an evergrowing scientific community out there from all over this country and all over the globe in well respected institutions, Professors in all branches of science who are rejecting neo-Darwinism.

"Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, “embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.” Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."

discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Dissent From Darwin “Goes Global” as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory
Scientific Dissent From Darwinism Continues to Grow

By: Staff
Discovery Institute
June 20, 2006

Dissent From Darwin “Goes Global” as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory
The list is now located at the website, www.dissentfromdarwin.org

SEATTLE — Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The fastest growing segment of the list is scientists from outside the United States. International scientists now represent just over 12% of all signers, and as a group has seen nearly 40% growth in the past four months.

“I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma,” said Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

“Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all,” added Leguizamon. “Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say.”

The list of 610 signatories includes member scientists from National Academies

 

[JPrejean]

For the amount of species we have fossils of these intermediate fossils would be abundant.

One could just as easily (and more accurately) say that if monogenism were true, then the artifact evidence of an original source of humanity would be obvious. Moreover, there would be biological evidence, as the mitochondrial DNA does not depend on evolution, but rather on rules of heredity in biological reproduction, so your denial of evolution won’t get you around that problem either.

The point is that you are putting an inconsistent burden on others to explain gaps in the evidence, but you haven’t shown why their claims demand that they fill in these gaps (as Orogeny notes, internal consistency does not demand this), so you seem to be appealing to some general obligation to provide an explanation where observed phenomena deviate from the expected consequences of a particular hypothesis. In that case, you should subject your own hypothesis to the same standard and should provide some explanation. I’m sympathetic to the difficulties you must be having with the concept, but that doesn’t license attacking others based on your subjective difficulties.

 

[Orogeny]

I didn’t see a single picture…

You are smart enough to not need pictures. Read that link. It is very good even if it is very basic.
Here is another link for you: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Aren’t you getting a little tired of playing the specifics game? I was obviously talking about evolutionist paleontologists.

Specifics are important, AquinaSavio. Don’t belittle them. If you want to discuss things, be as specific and accurate as you can.

I didn’t learn that anywhere. I just heard silly claims about it.

Well, that isn’t a particularly strong citation.

The point being, how did creatures survive while they were changing into different species? Each animal has certain characteristics that help it survive (a giraffe has a long neck to eat from trees). How did such creatures survive while they were evolving?

You are speaking of irreducible complexity. You assume that only the end product is usefull. That is not the case. Behe uses this argument against the evolution of the flagellum (although, with all the recent publications on this topic, he may have dropped this, I don’t know), but he has been very thoroughly refuted.

Peace

Tim

 

[Saint_Michael]

The point is that you are putting an inconsistent burden on others to explain gaps in the evidence, but you haven’t shown why their claims demand that they fill in these gaps (.

Of course they need to fill in the gaps when the gaps are so abundant it makes the entire direction of evolution change course into quick burst in evolution instead of slow imperceptable changes. It’s not an unfair burden at all, the burden is of course on them as our position is on faith and will never be proven and we admit that from the get go. You can’t claim something to be fact, and truth, as have seen in this thread with many gaps needing to be filled in.

While mitocondrial, DNA does hurt Adam and Eve existing at the same time it DOES show humanity coming from one woman (which is a start), and it’s very early in the research. It also shows that Neandertal is NOT an ancestor of modern man as once thought. Again Neandertal walked the Earth supposedly 150,000 years with essentially zero change, cro-magnom man shows up, poof Neandertal gone. that’s the fossil record, that’s what the fossil record has always shown. One species comes on the scene one goes away, in the blink of an eye (by evolutionist standards).

 

[Orogeny]

"Moeritherium, Numidotherium, Barytherium (early-mid Eocene) – A group of three similar very early elephants. It is unclear which of the three came first. Pig-sized with stout legs, broad spreading feet and flat hooves. Elephantish face with the eye set far forward & a very deep jaw. Second incisors enlarged into short tusks, in upper and lower jaws; little first incisors still present; loss of some teeth. No trunk.

Paleomastodon, Phiomia (early Oligocene) – The first “mastodonts”, a medium-sized animals with a trunk, long lower jaws, and short upper and lower tusks. Lost first incisors and canines. Molars still have heavy rounded cusps, with enamel bands becoming irregular. Phiomia was up to eight feet tall.
GAP: Here’s that Oligocene gap again. No elephant fossils at all for several million years. "

Very convicing…W e have one pig sized animal with an “elephantish” face NO TRUNK, then a medium sized animal with a long trunk, then nothing for millions of years, yet this links them as a transitional fossil how? Why are these animals even linked at all, they aren’t the least bit similar, then all these “elephantish” animals dissapear for millions of years only to re-emerge seemingly out of the blue.

Why do you think, other than being athiestic scientists, scientists consider those animals to be transitionals? Do you think that those athiestic scientists just made it up?

Isn’t it possible these animals listed here aren’t transitional at all, but in effect the two comepletely seperate species with no link like they appear to be?

Yes, that is possible. However, since the fossils have been very thoroughly studied and the scientists have published their results and conclusions and they have not been shot down by the scientific community, I would say that the likelihood that there is no link is very unlikely. If, however, you have knowledge based on your research to refute those findings, please do publish them, debate them at scientific conferences, convince enought experts that you are correct and the record will be changed. If not, it is just conjecture based on your interpretation of scriptures.

Peace

Tim

 

[Alberich]

Evolutionists always revert back to their fossil record but where are the millions of transitional species in the fossil record?

We have millions of fossils of organisms from millions of years ago. For evolution to be true the forming of higher life forms from lower life forms gradually, would’ve produced even more transitional species fossils than actual specimens we currently have. They aren’t there, they’ve never been found and we’ve been looking for going on 200 years now. And they shouldn’t be hard to find is the crazy thing, there should be billions of transitional species out there to be discovered in the Earth’s crust, they should be no harder to find as regular fossils of extinct species. But they aren’t there aside from a few that are being debated. But there should be no debate, they should be overwhelming in their number.

What we see in the fossil record, over and over and over again is one species abruptly and quickly overtaking another. That is why evolutionists are changing their tune to not slow impercetpable mutations but quick spurts in the mutations because that is what the fossil record shows, and that goes against what evolutionists have preached for 140 years now.

All species are transitional. There are many–many–known examples of transitional species in the fossil record. And if we are somehow unable to provide a complete fossilized set of remains for every species that has ever existed…so what? The requirements for remains to become fossilized are quite stringent (usually only the harder bits; softer bits only under the right pressures, pH, soil/air composition, &c), and it is not to be expected that all species will be preserved.

What’s more, geology itself can go in “spurts,” contrary to the old saw that natura non saltus. Different strata may indicate different amounts of geologic time, &c.

Finally, it is important to note that one of–if not the–key elements in establishing phylogenies today is DNA and RNA. By looking at the same genes across different species, the evolutionary relationship between those species can be closely determined. (In my own research, this is key: I utilize several strains of mouse with known genetic components to research responses to influenza immunization and infection. Because the genetic elements under scrutiny in the mouse are homologous to those in humans, results and conclusions can be extrapolated and applied to human vaccines.)

Alberich

 

[PhilVaz]

magic << I do not intend to read it, but I would be interested in some photographs of transitional forms, I have only seen between 3-5 in my entire life. >>

Absolute proof!

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/FunnyTrans.jpg

Sorry Karl, I need to go back over your 1997 article. Looks like you use the word to refer to “gradualism” which is one definition.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

All of the dogmatic evolutionist here on this board are screaming that evolution as in neo-Darwinism is an absolute fact. You all neglect to tell there is an evergrowing scientific community out there from all over this country and all over the globe in well respected institutions, Professors in all branches of science who are rejecting neo-Darwinism.

Sigh. There is always one person who has to try to use this incredibly silly argument. Ok, if you must do it that way, here you go:

talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

This no more proves that evolution is true than your list proves that it is false. This is called an argument from authority and it doesn’t work.

Peace

Tim

 

[Alberich]

Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics

arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm

Species differentiation for my arguments must be of a totally different kind as in fish to amphibian, bird to mammal, not variation within kind as a variety of fish

I would suggest that, when discussing scientific theories, it is best to use the terms as used be scientists. When scientists refer to speciation, they mean that they can point to a species and its ancestor species, as two distinct species. This can be two different types of mammals (wolf to dog), or two different phyla (cynodontiae to humans).

Evolution

espouses disorder (chaos) to order (complexity). This is a direct
contradiction to what Einstein calls the premier law of science—the second law of thermodynamics which states that everything moves from order (complexity) to disorder (chaos).

Not quite. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in any closed system, entropy increases. To allege that evolution decreases entropy is to gerrymander a system that Newton himself wouldn’t recognize. In this vein, it wouldn’t be difficult to state that we don’t exist, either, as our development from zygote to embryo to baby, child, and adult is nothing but a continuous increase in the order of our bodies. But this is to ignore the dissipation of heat in producing this order, the decrease in order attendant to the breakdown of the foods we ingest, &c.

For

Evolution to be valid, we must go with scientific, observable facts.
We must follow the scientific method…

Yes, we should. Continued in the next post…

Alberich

 

[JPrejean]

Of course they need to fill in the gaps when the gaps are so abundant it makes the entire direction of evolution change course into quick burst in evolution instead of slow imperceptable changes.

But nothing logical in the claim demands such a consequence. Orogeny pointed out the difference between gradualist and punctuated equilibrium theories, which responds directly to this concern. “Gaps” can only militate against a theory if what is being posited allows no gaps, and that clearly isn’t the case for evolution.

It’s not an unfair burden at all, the burden is of course on them as our position is on faith and will never be proven and we admit that from the get go.

I agree that they aren’t on equal footing (and we haven’t even reached the question of which is more preferable), but then you have to judge each for its internal consistency, and my point is that you aren’t accurately reproducing the internal claims of evolution so as to show an inconsistency. You seem to have cut off the discussion at the knees by accusing evolutionists of being inconsistent without actually showing it.

While mitocondrial, DNA does hurt Adam and Eve existing at the same time it DOES show humanity coming from one woman (which is a start), and it’s very early in the research.

I agree that this could be. But as I mentioned, mitochondrial DNA isn’t the only consideration against monogenism.

One species comes on the scene one goes away, in the blink of an eye (by evolutionist standards).

Are you suggesting that God specially annihilates species even as he specially creates others? Or that he specially creates new species in response to the extinction of others? I confess to never having heard such a thing before.

 

[Alberich]

Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics

Evolution states that life arose from nonlife. What are the observable facts?

1. This has never been observed to happen.
2. Spontaneous generation of life—life from nonlife—was proven invalid in the mid 1800s by Louis Pasteur. Used to be called Law of Biogensis
3. As smart as man believes himself to be, how in the world are
   we expected to believe that life arose from nonlife by random
   chance, when man cannot produce a simple form of life, even a single cell organism, from chemicals of life
   in a test tube?

The premise is incorrect. Evolution is concerned solely with the change in populations over time. How they began is not a concern. Rather, you should state that “abiogenesis” states that life arose from nonlife. From this…

1. Agreed.
2. In a limited sense (he only proved that spontaneous generation–a form of abiogenesis much more limited in scope than the one currently discussed–did not occur), but I will agree.
3. What if we were to engineer a single-celled organism some day? From an evolutionary standpoint, nothing would change. How populations change over time would not be affected by abiogenesis.

Evolution states that life evolved from simple, single cell forms to

more complex, multicellular organisms, and finally to man via chance mutations and time. Furthermore, the mutations had to
produce new genes in order for new species to occur.

This gets closer.

What are the observable facts?

1. This is a preposterous mechanism. Not only has this event
   never been observed, but it would ultimately require new male and
   own kind. (Observable fact.)

This is much too broad. What hasn’t been observed? Chance mutations? I observe them day in and day out in the lab. We know time has been observed… I have even seen new genes in organisms.

And what does the “new male” and “own kind” refer to?

1. Sir Francis Crick (the discoverer of DNA—the genetic code) calculated the probability of one in 1 x 10

260 (that is,
one followed by 260 zeros) that nature could ever produce by chance even a simple protein, let alone two new species of the same kind, both male and female.

Without a discussion as to why Crick so believed this, a reference to authority isn’t much of an argument. Additionally, merely showing long odds (and I’ve always heard this as 1 in 10^113…) is no argument. The odds against somebody winning the lottery is remote. Yet it happens every week…

One more post…

 

[Alberich]

1. Mutations are going in the wrong direction

to support

Evolution theory. All known mutations are either benign or harmful to an organism. There is not one known mutation in the human race proven to be of benefit to man. We have over 2,000 known human genetic disorders. Scientific observation shows mutations are moving from order to disorder, or chaos. This is the exact opposite of what evolutionists require to support their claims. (Observable fact.)

Interesting, above you claimed that evolution was about moving from order to disorder. Now it’s from order to disorder? Nonetheless…

There are plenty of neutral mutations. An adenine in a non-coding region (an intron) changes to a cytosine. Nothing happens. There are also benign mutations: resistance to viruses or bacteria, ability to deal with extreme heat or exposure, &c. And yes, there are deleterious mutations, too.

Einstein’s right, Darwin’s wrong.

1. Evolution states that we have moved from simple to evermore
   complex life forms, but what we actually observe is ***extinction ***of species, as in survival of the fittest or
   “natural selection.” Natural Selection can only preserve what is there already it can never produce anything new. We have never
   observed one new species come into existence.

Untrue in many respects. We have seen new species come into existance. Canis familiaris was domesticated from Canis lupus, and is a distinct species therefrom. That is just the most common example.

Further, extinction occurs, but this is predicted by, and to be expected with, evolution. Science does not, however, predict that all evolution will be in the direction from less to more complex. And it is far from correct to state that natural selection can not produce anything novel–there are too many examples of such “new” things to shake a stick at!

Scientifically there is not any known

mechanism or observable mode **for increasing genetic information **in an organism except that which man does himself.

Again, incorrect. I refer you to genetic inversion, chromosomal inversion, mis-matched sequence alignments, and all the consequences they entail.

Pax tecum,
Alberich

 

[Michael_G]

I would suggest that, when discussing scientific theories, it is best to use the terms as used be scientists. When scientists refer to speciation, they mean that they can point to a species and its ancestor species, as two distinct species. This can be two different types of mammals (wolf to dog), or two different phyla (cynodontiae to humans).

Alberich

Yes, while wolf may be a speciation of the dog, is still of same kind, it just demonstrates variation within kind, as some call microevolution, it does not demonstrate macroevolution as in one kind changing into something totally different, reptile to bird, amphibian to reptile.

Alberich:
I

Not quite. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in any closed system, entropy increases. To allege that evolution decreases entropy is to gerrymander a system that Newton himself wouldn’t recognize. In this vein, it wouldn’t be difficult to state that we don’t exist, either, as our development from zygote to embryo to baby, child, and adult is nothing but a continuous increase in the order of our bodies. But this is to ignore the dissipation of heat in producing this order, the decrease in order attendant to the breakdown of the foods we ingest, &c.

Yes, we should. Continued in the next post…

Alberich

In order to counter or deny the second law, one must have a mechanism for harnasing energy, a nautrual mechanism to produce life, a natural mechanism show that one kind of creature can transform itself into a totally new kind of creature, it must be observable, reproducible, or it becomes a matter speculation and is no longer science. We observe that mutations are harmful or benign we do not observe benificial mutations, we observe losses of genetic information, we have no know means of increasing usable genetic information in an organism heat from sun or not. The second law of Thermodynamics stands here unless you provide an observable and reproducible mechanism for these events.

 

[Alberich]

where in all of public media, gov’t education, universities is it ever taught that evolution is in someway guided by God, not there, it is taught is a complete given by purely natural means thus entirely elimating God from the equation.

The reason for this is simple: Evolution, as it applies to observable phenomena, is a theory testable by objective means. God is not.

You believe evolution is completly demonstrated, pray tell what is mechanism for life sprining from non life, it is pure speculation, since it has never been observed, and is therefore completly outside of science . Where has anyone ever seen a dog produce anything other than a dog, or any kind produce a new higher form of life, never been observed, therefore it is outside of science it is speculation.

Again, evolution does not address the beginning (the “genesis,” if you will) of life; evolution addresses the change in already existing populations.

And what are you asking? Do you expect somebody to be convinced that evolution is hooey because no dog has ever had kittens?

Pax tecum,
Alberich

 

[Michael_G]

1. What if we were to engineer a single-celled organism some day? From an evolutionary standpoint, nothing would change. How populations change over time would not be affected by abiogenesis.

…

If we engineer a single celled organism from the chemicals of life it would demonstrate that it took intellegince to do it and nothing more.

And what does the “new male” and “own kind” refer to?

One more post…

a missed copy and past should read:
ultimately require new male and female mutated organisms of the same kind, produced at exactly the same time, with gene additions, since we know that species always produce after their
own kind

Without a discussion as to why Crick so believed this, a reference to authority isn’t much of an argument. Additionally, merely showing long odds (and I’ve always heard this as 1 in 10^113…) is no argument. The odds against somebody winning the lottery is remote. Yet it happens every week…

One more post…

oh really, I believe the number is than anything beyon 10 to the fifth power is consider to be an immposbility of ever happening.

 

[Alberich]

Yes, while wolf may be a speciation of the dog, is still of same kind, it just demonstrates variation within kind, as some call microevolution, it does not demonstrate macroevolution as in one kind changing into something totally different, reptile to bird, amphibian to reptile.

What is “kind?” In my experience with this term, it is a slippery term used to allow for the fact that some evolution may occur, but that the user of the term does not want to admit to some wider application of evolution. Therefore, given the depth of geologic time, the word “kind” is invented. Fuzzier than species, but is it wider than genus? than family? Since we are discussing scientific theory, please explain “kind” scientifically. To which of the taxa does it correspond?

Additionally, even if you admit that evolution can occur in very small increments, such that A can change into B, and Y into Z, but A cannot change into Z, you still have the following problem. From one point in time, we can observe A change to B. From a later point, we can observe B change to C. Eons later, we may see P (which was once C) change to Q. Eventually, Y (which was once Q, which itself was once A) changes to Z. Microevolution, as a concept wielded by those that would deny evolution occurs, is a double-edged sword.

In order to counter or deny the second law, one must have a mechanism for harnasing energy, a nautrual mechanism to produce life, a natural mechanism show that one kind of creature can transform itself into a totally new kind of creature, it must be observable, reproducible, or it becomes a matter speculation and is no longer science. We observe that mutations are harmful or benign we do not observe benificial mutations, we observe losses of genetic information, we have no know means of increasing usable genetic information in an organism heat from sun or not. The second law of Thermodynamics stands here unless you provide an observable and reproducible mechanism for these events.

I don’t even know where to begin here.

First, if we observe the Second Law in action one time, we don’t need to repeat that exact event to say that it held true in that instance.

Second, whether or not one creature can “transform itself into a totally new kind of creature” is not what evolution is about. Evolution is about the changes in populations over generations. Again–nobody expects to see Bobo, the family dog, birth a litter of kittens. Nobody expects a pineapple to fall out of a tree and change into a banana before it hits the ground. And nobody expects to see a flying fish turn into a bird on it’s umpteenth foray out of the water.

Pax tecum,
Alberich

 

[Orogeny]

a missed copy and past should read:
ultimately require new male and female mutated organisms of the same kind, produced at exactly the same time, with gene additions, since we know that species always produce after their
own kind

If you are copying and pasting from another source, you must credit that source. A reference is needed.

Peace

Tim