Darwinism in schools?

[PumpkinSeed]

Check my multiple posts. I have given logic and factual data to support my position. You have avoided my posts and made this claim. Or shockingly, you have given yourself over to accepting that even the human brain with 100 million nerve cells interconnected by 10 thousand miles of fibers arranged itself. Mixing physics, biology, geology with conjecture does not make evolution science. You are taught to believe it no matter what without observation. Evidence? Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. Random processes do not construct reality, the smallest element, a functional protein or gene is so complex beyond anything imaginable.

There should be evidence of clear evolutionary ancestors in the fossil record of the transitions of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds. In fact there should be BILLIONS of transitional forms in the fossil record. Test that ,please, and avoid condescending language in reference to how I apply science. This is not a game of one pedestal above another. Thank you.

Fossils do not form so easily. Also, there are transitional fossils.

 

[rossum]

Any place where a structure is both complex and indispensable it doesn’t work.

You are incorrect. Irreducibly Complex mechanisms can and do evolve. Even Behe himself agrees that IC can evolve. See Behe and Snoke (2004).

I’ll give you two big ones:

The language of DNA

Is not “indespensible”. DNA is not indespensible because we have RNA-only organisms with no DNA.

ATP Synthase Motor

Is not “indespensible”. There are many organisms which lack such a motor.

If you meant “irreducible” then you are not showing anything, since we can already show that irreducible mechanisms can and do evolve.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yes gravity is a fact. I said some call it a theory, and some do not. The reason some do not is because it is evident and provable. The theory of gravity shows why it happens, and it does happen.

Gravity is both a fact and a theory. The fact stays the same, though we may add more facts. The theory changes as we add more facts. Eddington’s 1919 experiment added the fact that light was affected by gravity. Newton’s theory said that light was not affected by gravity, while Einstein’s theory said that it was, and predicted by how much. That is why the theory of gravity was changed: Newton’s theory was in error so Einstein’s theory replaced it. If you do not understand this, then you are going to find science difficult.

You cant make a transition from one species to another and show it as you can with gravity.

False. Again your creationist sources have been lying to you. Species transitions have been observed in the wild and in the lab.

I am satisfied that we didn’t rely on your sources when we traveled to the moon. Remember the very thick layer of loose dust estimated at 50 to 180 feet? Evolutionist warned NASA they would sink deep into it. This was based on the billions of years old “science”. Those large saucer shaped feet on the Lunar Lander really had there work cut out for them (lol).

Not only are you using creationist sources, you are using the worst sort of creationist sources. Even other creationists recommend not using the ‘Moon Dust’ argument any more. See Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International. Not only are you using bad creationist arguments, you are using arguments that even other creationists have rejected. How do you expect to convince us with arguments that even other creationists do not accept?

As I have said before, you do not have the required knowledge to separate the wheat from the chaff, so what you are posting here contains far too much chaff. You need to learn more so you can present a better case.

rossum

 

[Farsight001]

Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.

All you’ve done is shown me that they like to lie about what they really are, which I already knew in detail. If they do experiments, then where are they? If they make testable predictions, where are they? Just saying you have them is not enough.

 

[Farsight001]

So where does their disbelief come from?

Peace,
Ed

Uh…satan. I thought that was kind of obvious.

 

[Farsight001]

Wrong. Are you becoming another species? Or, a humanoid becoming another type of humanoid? With that logic do you believe in 5 billion years you should have an additional appendage? Or does evolution know enough to put a cap on things as suggested by some?

All forms ARE transitional. He and you and I are not a “form”. At least get the terminology right. And you guys still wonder why we think you have no idea what you’re talking about?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So far none of these assumptions has been substantiated by either observation or realistic calculation.

OK, I assume this was in answer to my question of whether you believed that the theory of prehistoric flips of the earth’s magnetic dipole was scientific. Now I will tell you the “observations and realistic calculations” that support this theory. Certain materials, when heated to a high temperature, take on the current magnetic field. Then when the materials are cooled those materials retain the magnetization permanently. So then scientists examined some undisturbed prehistoric campfire sites and carefully measured the magnetism of the materials left behind by the fire. They found that for a certain age of campfire, all the magnetic orientations are backwards from what they would be if they were made today. So without the benefit of observing the flip first-hand, science concludes that it is likely that the earth’s magnetic field has reversed in the past. So now that you know how they came to this conclusion do you still reject it as unsubstantiated?

Of course we were not originally talking about magnetic fields. We were talking about evolution. I only brought up the subject of magnetic fields to remove the emotion that surrounds the subject of evolution to see if you had a sound basis for your opposition to evolution. You say it is not a fair comparison. Why not?

 

[buffalo]

All forms are transitional. Everything is in the process of becoming something else.

MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED IN 270,000 YEARS

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and limited variation within.

 

[buffalo]

You are incorrect. Irreducibly Complex mechanisms can and do evolve. Even Behe himself agrees that IC can evolve. See Behe and Snoke (2004).

Is not “indespensible”. DNA is not indespensible because we have RNA-only organisms with no DNA.

Is not “indespensible”. There are many organisms which lack such a motor.

If you meant “irreducible” then you are not showing anything, since we can already show that irreducible mechanisms can and do evolve.

rossum

I need some sources. ( I know Behe’s position so skip that one)

 

[johnnyjones]

Fossils do not form so easily. Also, there are transitional fossils.

Right, it takes special conditions. Whether they" form easily" or not, should not deny the abundance necessary.

 

[johnnyjones]

All forms ARE transitional. He and you and I are not a “form”. At least get the terminology right. And you guys still wonder why we think you have no idea what you’re talking about?

Whos “we” . Scientists are emotional human beings who carry with them a generous dose of subjectivity into the supposedly objective search for truth. No convincing transitional forms have been found to fill the gap between creatures that can fly and those that cannot . Appearing ABRUPTLY in the fossil record with complete , fully functional wings are birds, bats, flying reptiles and flying insects.

Archaeopteryx had wings claws and teeth. Some reptiles have teeth and some do not. Some fossil birds had teeth, some did not. Claws are not distinguishing either. Some living birds have them such as the ostrich, the touraco and the hoatzin. There is no question that these are 100% birds. Importantly, this creature had feathers. The feather impressions revealed them to be fully functional. There is no evidence of reptilian scales developing into feathers. No animal except a bird has ever been known to have feathers.

 

[Baelor]

"buffalo:

MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED IN 270,000 YEARS

And before then?

There is no evidence of reptilian scales developing into feathers. No animal except a bird has ever been known to have feathers.

That is not how evolution works. Species do not spontaneously turn into other species; they branch off from common ancestors. We are talking about a process that takes millions of years. It is not hard to imagine feathers forming over that time frame.

 

[johnnyjones]

And before then?

That is not how evolution works. Species do not spontaneously turn into other species; they branch off from common ancestors. We are talking about a process that takes millions of years. It is not hard to imagine feathers forming over that time frame.

Of course not spontaneous. The point about Archaeopteryx is that is was promoted widely as a definite transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. But transitions are too gradual to detect right? In addition there were a series of horse fossils of varying sizes. These horses also varied in their number of toes and ribs. Some evoultionists have claimed these absolutely proved that modern one toed horses macroevolved from a very small mammal which had multiple toes.

Many professors have taught this theory as FACT including biologist and paleontologist Dr. Gary Parker. However, after a detailed study, he rejected the theory and no longer teaches it. He and many others have concluded that the museum exhibits showing horses evolving are misleading and contrived. They DO NOT represent good science.

 

[marvinb1]

I am catholic but also a scientist. to me intalgent design has no place in a science class, it is not a scientific theory, their is no way to diprove it. there is so much proof for evolution look at dogs. they are basicly man controled evolution.

 

[edwest2]

This still doesn’t explain why you think the answer to your question is so important.

I agree with you there. But how does that fact bear on the truth or falsity of evolution?

Earlier, you stated that if God was recognized as being part of science then this issue would diminish in importance. There is no scientific basis for that idea. As has been posted here repeatedly, belief and science are separate. You seem to be concerned, then not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED IN 270,000 YEARS

The fossil record shows abrupt appearance, stasis and limited variation within.

Completely untrue. We are on average a foot taller. Our pinkies are shorter. We have less hair. The list goes on and on, and that’s just the last 2000 years, let alone another 250k.

Do you mind perhaps speaking the truth at least once? Thanks.

 

[Farsight001]

I need some sources. ( I know Behe’s position so skip that one)

Google is your friend. To have become so deeply interested in evolution and to not know such sources suggests to me that you have willfully and consciously avoided looking for them.

 

[buffalo]

Completely untrue. We are on average a foot taller. Our pinkies are shorter. We have less hair. The list goes on and on, and that’s just the last 2000 years, let alone another 250k.

Do you mind perhaps speaking the truth at least once? Thanks.

These are adaptations.

 

[Farsight001]

Whos “we”.

People who understand evolution.

Scientists are emotional human beings who carry with them a generous dose of subjectivity into the supposedly objective search for truth.

Doesn’t change their research or the information discovered from them.

No convincing transitional forms have been found to fill the gap between creatures that can fly and those that cannot.

When your mind is closed to other possibilities, not even God himself can provide something that is convincing. Your unwillingness to see what is right before you doesn’t change reality.

Appearing ABRUPTLY in the fossil record with complete , fully functional wings are birds, bats, flying reptiles and flying insects.

Why do you capitalize abruptly like it is important? Oh…that’s right, you don’t understand evolution, so you remain under the delusion that abrupt appearance is somehow a problem.

Archaeopteryx had wings claws and teeth.

Not entirely. Some would argue that it didn’t have wings, as it could not flap them and actually fly, but only glide.

Some reptiles have teeth and some do not.

And? You are oversimplifying things to about 5 powers of ten. The fact that some reptiles do not have teeth is quite irrelevant, especially since archaeopteryx came from dinosaurs, which were not reptiles, and became birds, which are also not reptiles. The comparison is utterly pointless.

Some fossil birds had teeth, some did not.

Which ones didn’t have teeth? And just so we’re clear, I ask this only out of curiosity. It doesn’t really change things.

Claws are not distinguishing either.

Once again, a gigantic oversimplification of things. Technically, people have claws too - that’s what finger nails are. How is this relevant?

Some living birds have them such as the ostrich, the touraco and the hoatzin. There is no question that these are 100% birds.

This is also quite irrelevant.

Importantly, this creature had feathers. The feather impressions revealed them to be fully functional.

Fully functional in what regard? Feathers insulate, they assist in gliding, in flight, in keeping water out, and multiple other things. You need to elaborate on what you mean by fully functional.

There is no evidence of reptilian scales developing into feathers. No animal except a bird has ever been known to have feathers.

Yes, yes there is. There are piles of papers and books on the subject. At least look for something before you claim it doesn’t exist.

 

[Farsight001]

These are adaptations.

So? adaptation is still change. You said, and I quote “MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED”. I gave multiple examples of change, proving your claim that there has been none to be a lie.