Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[dcdurel]

steveandersen:

No faith at all is required. A scientific theory has certain standards that it must meet. It must be measurable and repetable. There are numerous examples of observed speciation both in the lab and in the wild. The theory is supported independently by diverse branches of science and it fits the data remarkable well. Science is about confidence intervals not faith. If something else comes along that fits the data better then a theory is changed or dropped.

perhaps, but you’ll have to prove that. Evolution is one of the most “proved” theories that exists

To me many rejections of evolution seem to be knee jerk in character and set the objector up for a “god of the gaps” dilemma

Actually 40% of scientists do not believe in Darwinian evolution in which everything happens by chance, but they believe in a God directed evolution, in which we have a common ancestor, but God had to direct this evolution. The reason they believe this is because the theory of evolution cannot explain the missing links, the irriducable complexity described by Behe, and they can’t evey begin to explain the origin of life from chemicals to a single cell.

 

[steveandersen]

sigh
give me strength

I don’t mean to be rude or uncharitable dcdurel, but pretty much everything you just mentioned has been refuted for years if not decades and it is just too pretty a saturday morning for me to sit inside at a computer and type it all out again

 

[rossum]

dcdurel:

Actually 40% of scientists do not believe in Darwinian evolution in which everything happens by chance, but they believe in a God directed evolution, in which we have a common ancestor, but God had to direct this evolution.

No scientist should believe that “everything happens by chance” in evolution. Natural selection is an integral part of Darwinian evolution, and natural selection is most certainly not a random process. Mutations are random with respect to their effect on the phenotype, but the sorting of those mutations by natural selection is anything but random. It is not random that a sighted eagle will have more offspring than a blind eagle to take an obvious example.

dcdurel:

The reason they believe this is because

Your mind-reading powers are noted.

dcdurel:

the theory of evolution cannot explain the missing links,

We are finding more no-longer-missing links all the time. Twenty years ago the evolution of whales was nothing but missing links, now we have a reasonably good set of fossils covering the evolution of whales. There are gaps in the fossil record but we have enough fossils to make it clear that common descent is a reality.

dcdurel:

the irriducable complexity described by Behe,

Behe’s irreducible complexity (IC) is an interesting concept, which has lead to some good work on the evolutionary origins of IC systems. Behe is right in that it is not possible to evolve an IC system by direct means, however it is possible to do so by indirect means such as co-option or loss of a part.

My favourite example is the evolution of the Venus Fly-trap, a living example of Behe’s classic example of an IC system: a mousetrap. Start with a Sundew, which catches insects with globules of sticky sap. Speed up the curling of the leaf and reduce the number of sticky stalks. Once the leaf’s reaction time is fast enough there is no need for the sticky globules. That is a Venus Fly-trap. See here for a more detailed description. Even if this is not the way it actually happened, that it could have happened shows that it is perfectly possible to evolve an IC system.

For an example of the evolution of IC systems in a computer environment see the paper by Lenski et. al.

dcdurel:

and they can’t evey begin to explain the origin of life from chemicals to a single cell.

Strictly the origin of life is abiogenesis rather than evolution. Work on abiogenesis is far from complete but science has certainly made a start, see here for details. This article is a bit out of date now as more progress has been made since it was written. We don’t know everything about abiogenesis yet, but scientists are working on it. It is not always wise to base your argument on the existence of gaps in science. Scientists are working to fill those gaps and once the gaps are filled the basis of your argument disappears.

Unlike steveandersen my Saturday has been overcast with frequent showers so I do have the time to re-refute this often refuted stuff all over again.

rossum