Personally speaking, it might be more helpful to provide informative links of some substance rather than simply other debate forums where after the first 10 it's obvious those arguing in favor of creationism are misinformed. As nileriver already mentioned there was mention of the second law of thermodynamics to try and refute evolution, but such arguments only demonstrate a lack of understanding for the second law.

In dealing with macroevolution, researching both Stephen Jay Gould and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria would be helpful.
(a second link for the theory)

this link is about a break in that area, the macroevolution one, they have found a gene or mechinism that is or can be responsible for such to happen.


macro gene

ok...if you prefer links then I am happy to accomodate

The scientific case against Evolution: A summary* Part I

and

The scientific case against Evolution: A summary* Part II

Could you explain to me how viruses are proof of macroevolution? I apologize if you must repeat yourself. This topic has been bouncing around. I think people are posting on differing threads and they're mixing a bit. I didn't see anything on this thread about viral activity.


Abs, would you mind explaining how the second law of thermodynamics is not violated in the evolutionary process?

The closed system and the entropy thing would work, mind you that would mean we would all be popsicles now. That second law is why your drink gets warm after sometime, not why life has systems to keep a tempeture/energy from chemical reactions such as metabolism. thirsty, hungry, getting tired?? If the earth was a solid block of steel, thats it, in a compleate void of space it would have a uniform temp, not a planet with techtonic plate movement, solar stuff like convection, an atmosphere, a closed system the earth is two a point, but life does not violate the second law. A non melting ice cube in room tempeture would. Sure eventually the earth may run out of "stuff" to run on, but i have no idea how long that would take. There is a lot of stuff that gets left out on that id point. I could pull more links then i care with related math, but nobody here reads links, so it holds no point for most. I cant set the same match off twice, but the code in dna for life, puts in things for self production and regulation, so then it makes its own energy from stuff, like plants use the light/dark process to make basic sugurs it needs, then makes seeds for the soil, BTW gives back oxygen from the dark reaction and the co2. Life is independent in that form.

Does you energy come from your parents? DNA is constant in an animal's life span. The independent assortment and mutation of genes has nothing to do with energy; it takes just as much energy to cause massive birth defects as to create a better organism.

Actually there really isn't a difference and that's my point. If you accept micro, then by default you are accepting macro.



First, I'm a guy. Second, did I double post?


Mrs. Pigpen:



Because they show: Beneficial mutation and change in the viral species. All macroevolution is, is an accumulation of small "microevolutionary" steps, over time.

There seems to be a misconception about the ToE, in which a creature has an incredible morphological mutation and becomes a totally different species-it doesn't work like that. The evolutionary process works in small steps and a good example is dog breeding. Creationists discount this for two reasons though: One, they think it's intelligently guided and that somehow should invalidate the obvious changes in the characteristics of the dogs, and two, they think there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. There isn't one. There also isn't a mechanism to stop a species from changing slowly over time.

WHy is order formed from disorder, nileriver? Your post didn't answer that question. Open systems or closed systems still follow the same natural laws. And ice cube in a the forest is pretty much (for our practical purposes here) an open system. It melts, adhering to the second law. Why is life created in the first place? Why didn't we remain single celled organisms in the aerosal state, which would appear to be a more accurate representation of the second law. Specifically, why would a non melting ice cube violate the second law, but not the creation of a functioning, independent being? Not being able to set the same match off doesn't really have much to do with the second law. An yes, please do not provide a link unless you are able to explain it. I can't read a textbook today.

Thanks, Meatros. I am a believer in microevolution, but very dubious about macro. Specifically because there are gaps in the fossil records between species. If macroevolution were simply a more long-term extension of micro, why would we have the gaps? I can understand the concept of punctuated equilibrium to a point, but an ingredient seems to be missing there. Where's the ability to mate? Supposing a mutation so opportunistic that a fish would change to an amphibian, for example, how would such an inheritance be passed on? Differing species cannot mate and create reproducing offspring. How was it possible for eons before? Basically, we are suggesting that man, folliage, fish, all living things today (if we adher to the concept of universal ancestry) were the fortunate product of eons of inherited birth defects, commencing with single celled organisms from the ooze. How would this work, especially, as organisms gain complexity? Does the demonstration of asexual reproduction in simple species, for example, indicate that it might happen to higher order species as well?

I haven't read the macro gene link yet, it should be interesting. I will read it now and see if it (the earth shattering new discovery) answers the question about how organisms with mutations so enormous they change a species entirely would produce functioning, reproducing offspring when mated with another non-mutated specimen.

Edited to add (later): The article didn't really explain this, but it was an interesting read nonetheless

Edited to add: Sorry, RU I didn't see your post before. So.... life is independent of energy, because there's DNA? IOW...life does violate the second law? Why? The second law is the law of entropy, not the conservation of energy law

This is going to be brief, so my apologies: Here's an article on Creationist misconceptions.


I hope this answers your questions.

We know these things because we find objective, empirical evidence for them. How do you know there is a God? Because it's been pounded into your brain and you've bought the hype? How do we know there were cavemen? Because we have huge amounts of evidence to support it. How do you know there's a god?



Ah, you've been listening to the creationists again, I see. C-14 dating is one of the most reliable and accurate short-term radiometric dating methods out there, good for +/-576 years in most cases. There are certain very well understood and easily detectable exceptions however which can throw off the dating and creationists, as you pointed out, jump on these tests and claim that because C-14 doesn't work in every case, it must be faulty in all cases. If, in fact, you look at the creationist claims and go back to the original sources, you'll find in almost every case that it is a scientific article SPECIFICALLY DONE to show that C-14 can't be used in that particular case. It has been shown to be extremely accurate in all cases where it is applicable, however.



Many YECs do use 5000-6000 years as their standard. After all, Bishop Ussher's claim of October 26, 4004 B.C. at 9am has stood as the standard by which creationism is judged for many years.



Actually, while there are probable human tracks in the Tuba City trackways, none of the claimed overlapping tracks can be said to be human. This is very much like the claimed Paluxy tracks that simply didn't pan out as creationists claimed.



Only if you have your nose in the Bible and ignore reality. There is absolutely no question whatsoever that man evolved, as supported by millions of fossils, comparative biology and genetics, etc. Only a fool would make the above statement.

Cephus, don't get personal and call people names here. Debate the issues, please.

here, this is a very good link, i do hope you will all read it

entropy and realtiy.

Evolution has to do with DNA which is constant and independent of energy. When does energy come into play in genetics? Once the animal is alive and more highly evolved it is better at getting more food although it is possible it needs more.
Let's say there is a point mutation in the DNA of a turtle. It changes the Codon UAA to UAG. The protein created my rRNA is different. UAA is a protein that does nothing and UAG is a protein that assists in an important area like the kidneys of the turtle. With more efficient kidneys the turtle can grow larger and have a competitive advantage. Over time the turtle's offspring could become a different species or genus of turtle.

well a case can be made that they could be human. Everyone can see for themselves here: The Tuba City Dinosaur and Human Tracks

But since this goes against evolutionary dogma, it is automatically ruled out, according to their biases against creationism. I dont know of too many evolutionists who will look at the evidence with an open mind. Your bias prevents you from doing so.



really? Please show me how the fossil record supports the evolution of man. Just the facts please. Thanks.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::

rancid uncle said:

This is just not true. you are confusing variations of species with actual vertical evolution (which evolutionists claim happened). Yes, there have been many different variations of species. Creationists do not deny the changes that come through the process of natural selection. We deny the possibility of one species evolving into another species.

this is going in a circle, no one reads posts here but me. this is getting silly, i have a theory, its called believe what makes you feel better, and that is what is going on. I have giving links for macro gene mechinism discovery, an entire record of types leading to the last, us. The reality on entropy, dinsosours in the process of becomeing birds, monkeys that do math and communitcate, i dont see what more you want, except maybe footage of a monkey giving birth to a human, which evolution does not claim, but id people do, geological timescales and the realities of dateing and related myths have been done away with, forced evolution has been covered plus evolution at work in reality on a daily basis. Natrual order from chaos has been dealt with, but its just the same things, over and over again.

Comments like this don't help the debate at all.

sorry, its just i read posts and links to good detail, i fear i am the only one for the sake of args cyclic performance.

Well, I never claimed such a thing! I just want proof of the transitionary creatures that are in between the two...is that so much to ask for?

It isn't a name, it *IS* the issue. Take, for example, the Flat Earth Society. They really do exist and are based on Zion, Illinois. They will refuse to acknowledge any evidence that the Earth isn't flat, based on their unyielding belief that their interpretation of the Bible is correct. Anything that disagrees must, by definition, be wrong. The same is true of creationists. They demand that the Bible is perfectly true and anything that disagrees must be rejected out of hand. This isn't science, this isn't intelligence, this is institutionalized ignorance on a grand scale. It is no different than people who believe blacks are sub-human animals based on a particular reading of the Bible. When faith becomes more important than fact, when belief overrides knowledge, when reality gets shouted down because it doesn't agree with a comforting fantasy, there is a problem.



Ah, that's why chimpanzee and human DNA are 98.6% identical, huh? That's why the cytochrome C is identical between the two. Sure, makes perfect sense. Biologically, morphologically and genetically, it is impossible to claim that evolution doesn't occur unless you purposely ignore the evidence.

That is the fossil record, there is about 300 or so possible missing links if you really want to know, but for what is there and dna traceing, it leads all back to africa and africa eve if you want. Thats is why its a science, and why things in evolution change, wehn people dug up a dinosuar in the process of growing wings, it forced a rethink in the community. and please read my link on entropy and reality, in the previous post on this page, it will take about 15 minutes but i am sure valley you will be brimming with thought afterwards

well according to this article: Human and Chimpanzee DNA, there are huge differences that are ignored by evolutionists.

the article goes on to say:

it also says:



But for what is there? What about what isnt there? How can DNA be traced through something that doesnt exist?



is this the dinosaur you are referring to? ARCHAEORAPTOR: FEATHERED DINOSAUR FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC DOESN'T FLY

First, interesting rhetoric, but I have to remind you that evolution is no more a religion then is gravity, thermodynamics, etc. Science doesn't operate the way you apparently think it does.



Talk Origins Skull comparison.
Becoming Human's website-has loads of info.
More human evo.
Hominid Timeline.
A very expansive resource for human evo.
More human evo.
Neanderthals and humans regional guide (not strictly what you asked for, but I think it's interesting).
Smithsonian's Human Origin's project.
A ton more human-evo links.
Scientific evidence for human evo.



Vertical evo? What are you talking about? Usually evolution is more like a tree; a base creature with a lot of branches comprising of different species.

Do you deny mutations? Also, what prevents an accumulation of variations from becoming a new species?
The problem is, is that "species" isn't a really defined term in biology, nor should it be-seeing as everything is interelated (that's why we share so much DNA with chimps).




First, I'd be wary of an organization that purports to have scientific truth, but fails to publish articles in scientifically peer-reviewed journals.

Second, the quote you use is an obvious strawman; No one says that our common ancestor is a banana. We share genes with bananas, and pretty much all other life on earth, because far back on our evolutionary chain (and I'm talking hundreds of millions of years) we evolved from a common source. How do creationists explain *ANY* commonalities in DNA?

I'd suggest you research scientific organizations and not the ICR-I mean, it's a bit obvious that they are more then a little bias, isn't it?

Delete this please

here is something funny


just maybe

Meatros - please avoid double posting. If you were the last person to post in this thread, you merely need to go back and edit your post to add your extra thoughts. If 12 hours have passed since you lasted posted, you may make another post, since your edit window will have closed.

Thanks

ok..let me ask you this: If I were a creationist editor of a journal....and you submitted an article that promotes evolution.....do you really expect to have it published by me? Come on now...be honest! You know that evolution is the dominant belief in the world....would anyone allow creationism to have a platform?

here are the credentials of the scientists at CRI: Credentials

by the way....apparently Duane Gish is good enough to have 40 of his articles published in science magazines. Isnt it ironic that the scientific world accepts his authority about biochemistry....but wont trust his reasearch in creationism? Astounding! oh yes, we pick and choose what we are willing to believe, dont we?

Now that the Jell-O shots have been put away and my screen is back in focus, I'm going to go back a few posts... please bear with me.

Before any current or future posters take this to be a credible source, there are a couple things that should probably be addressed. The first thing that might jump out at you is that evolution, a field of biological study, is being presented by a person not with any degrees in such a field but rather degrees in mathematics and engineering. We also run into a problem within only the second paragraph:
This is a bold faced lie that I'm sure any credible biologist could easily confirm. One need only to look at plant life, bacteria, virii and the finch to name a few. Perhaps the Institute for Creation Research would be aware of this if they actually had a biologist trying to make the case for them rather than unqualified personnel passed off as So-and-So, PhD.

Next offered to us is the claim:
There have already been several links to sites with the research and data surrounding the transitional fossils science has to study today. There's quite a bit of speculation rather than science following this in regards to genetic similarities and the function of DNA in life. Not surprising as creationism (by any name) is not in the least scientific. It does, however, go on to make the same mistake about the second law of thermodynamics... something I would have thought even an engineer wouldn't have a problem understanding:
MrsP asked me specifically about this and several others have already offered up explanations. I will make mention of it again, with a little more detail if I might, as this seems to be a very common misunderstanding in debates surrounding evolution and creationist ideology. Basically, the entropy increase of radiation (from the sun) passing through biological organisms is far greater than the entropy decrease represented by biological evolution.

For anybody else seeking to reference creationist "scientists" in the future, I would make you aware that I will check their references rather than simply accept them as experts on the matter because they are labeled by the ICR with such titles as "Founder and President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research." A mathematician and engineer is not an expert on a field of biological study. It's puzzling that none of those ICR members with biological degrees offered to assist Mr. Henry Morris.

In all of these failed attacks on evolution, I still have yet to see any presentation of where the scientific basis for creationism (again, by any name) is. The tactics employed here are the same employed in almost every debate of this type, attempting to attack evolution to draw the attention away from the missing foundation for creationist ideology.

It's not ironic at all. It's maintaining scientific integrity. Have you read any of the links provided by either myself or others to this debate? I think I've demonstrated that I read yours, which you probably would have been better off if we had neglected. At any rate, I've provided sources demonstrating the lack of any scientific basis for creationism. Until Mr. Gish or his colleagues can work in a scientific manner, their personal beliefs and pseudo-science applied to evolution does not warrant a place in scientific publications.

If somebody can ever offer true scientific rebuttal of evolution they would likely find themselves the recipient of a Nobel Prize and cemented place in history. Science is about revision in light of new data and the pursuit of truth, more than willing to accept true scientific findings contrary to those accepted at the time. Unfortunately, as I can't make clear enough, creationist ideology is simply not science.

Edited to add: Regarding Mr. Gish, I happened to stumble upon this and thought I would share with the group. Apparently Gish is far from playing within scientific boundaries in attempting to discredit evolution in favor of creationism. For whatever credentials he possesses, he appears to make little or no use of them.

No, I wouldn't expect a creationist editor to publish my article; but I said a scientifically peer-reviewed journal article, not a creationist magazine. They are two different things. Science isn't about denying science, if there were creationist articles that were credible they *would* be accepted. The problem is they aren't. As an example, Micheal Behe (IIRC) has published several papers in scientifically peer-reviewed journals-but none of those papers dealt with ID. In fact, he went the route of a book publisher, in order ot avoid review. The fact of the matter is there aren't any creationist scientifically reviewed journals for two reasons:
One, creationists simply don't submit them.
Two, the articles don't stand up against scrutiny.

If you don't like this honesty; please provide a cite where a specific scientific journal denied to publish a creationist article based on bias and not the quality of the article-Otherwise all you are doing is engaging in unsupported speculation.



And the fact that not one has a scientifically peer-reviewed journal on creationism doesn't bother you a bit? I mean, you apparently have attributed this lack of research to a conspiracy, but you've got to be honest-aren't you the least bit skeptical?



Magazines are not scientifically peer-reviewed journals, so no, I'm not surprised. He also holds a PhD in biochemistry, not evolutionary biology. Doesn't it make you wonder why the scientific world doesn't accept his patently wrong and misabused ideas of evolutionary theory? So I'm putting your 'evolutionary conspiracy' in the same bin as 'bigfoot running the illuminati', unless you can provide some hard evidence in support of it.Check this article for the lowdown on Gish. Incidentally check this out:

An article by Alex Ritchie (1991) describes how Gish attributed to a scientist a quote that was never said and while doing so, plagiarized another writer. After following Gish's trail and discovering the messy truth behind the misquotation, Ritchie concluded:

"From 1972-85 Dr. Duane Gish deliberately selected, published and perpetrated a doctored quotation, plagiarised from [Patrick] O'Connell (1969). He then attributed it to [Marcellin] Boule (1937), ...well aware...that it misrepresented the meaning and intention of Boule's text."

Creation theory is anything but, it does not look to put intelligent design into life but Christian design, this is its whole biased argument, that is nothing more then a self perpetuated fallacy. Just for a second dont think about the fact that the human evolutionary tree holds are skulls in resemblance the whole time through, just think about why the theory wants to badly to make it so humans are not in it, its to hold them divine for the eyes of god. Its nothing more then a fancy name for christian dogma. It does not hold or try to prove an agnostic approach to intelligent design in the world, universe and or man, it just tries to use genesis from the bible and a way to put the christian idea of man in particular back into reality. Its funny sometimes to me, that for their own book, the bible that they use for their backing, its relative age to the things evolutionist try to study is not that old, but it itself cannot be proven, you can try to prove genesis but the simple fact is you cant, all you can do is give it a nifty re wording, that goes to show nothing more then the fact the writers of said text did not in any shape or fashion understand the world that they lived in one bit. I would give and ear to creation theory if it was not closed minded and just a front for chistian ideology in the first place. Again and again in a circle i have to defeat the same arguments such as the second law, that argument would work if id people did not leave out some important parts, just again its them trying to serve their own idea with lies and bias. here is an excerpt since no one will read any of my links.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

Edited to remove entire article. Link to them and quote only portions here. We would like to avoid copywrite infringment lawsuits. -Jaime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I see no point in the attempt to argue anymore with such a closed minded group of people. Creation theory is nothing more then a hoax, perpetuated by a group of peoples desire to believe in christ and jesus, it is nothing more then that. The last point i will make is this, i think its funny that they believe so much that dinosaurs walked with man, yet, this building size creatures some of them with sharp teeth up to a foot in length are not worth mention in any religious text on the face of the planet. I am sorry that i will no longer be in this debate as it has no value to anyone. Monkeys on the loose

STOP insulting the members here. If you chose not to debate this, then don't. However, don't tell us you are going to stop and just keep insulting some of us instead.

You do nothing but lash out at people with faith and persistently ridicule and insult. My BELIEFS ARE NOT A HOAX. And to quote Darth Vader, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." I also find it funny that people who are so anti this and anti that are the loudest condemers of other people and their belief structure. There are people on this board who disagree with my life (being that I'm a lesbian), but I highly doubt any of them would question my love and affection for my partner. You on the other hand, say that my convictions have no validation! Where do you get off with that? I don't agree with evilution, but I would never ridicule you for that belief.

I'm not meaning to offend you, but there are a few reason's why Creationism is not only harmful to the institute of learning, but also Christianity in general. It's no reason for insults-but it can be quite frustrating to converse with people who refuse to even consider the evidence (I'm not condeming anyone here-I don't know you people.).

Anti-evolutionists, in general, are brushing aside all of the good that evolution has done (immunities, organ research, the ability to test animals instead of humans), in addition to broading our understanding of biology. Scientists devote their lives to working on evolutionary theory and it can be quite disturbing to find out that generations of future scientists who could further the research are having to fight a religion in order to learn biology.

If you wish to believe that the earth is young, I don't really have a problem. It's when you (not you in particular) attempt to spred scientific ignorance (no offense, but that's what creationism is) then *I* and others who respect science (or work in science) become offended. Dismissing evolution based on pseudoscience (from the likes of Hovind, Gish, etc) is akin to saying dismissing a medical doctor on the basis of astrology.

Obviously a bit of emotional responses from both sides (you know better, nile ). While I accept creationism to be unscientific in every possible way, that does not mean I or anyone else needs to lash out at the [/i]entire[i] belief structure of those who do subscribe to such ideology. A Christian belief in God and Jesus can still exist without having to accept Creationism/ID or reject evolution.

That being said, I would reiterate a point I tried to make in a previous post for those arguing in favor of creationism (by whatever name):

I would like to add this:

Can evolution be proven without a shadow of doubt?

Can Creationism be dis-proven beyond a shadow of doubt?

Until anyone can prove or disprove either(and winning a noble prize in the process). It is very unacceptable to bash an individuals belief.

I'm all about research and independent analysis. I think an understanding of the earth, enviroment and the species, current and past is extremely important. "Knowledge is power" as far as I'm concerned. And I have no problem with evilution being taught in the public school system, it does provide a lot of good information. BUT, to say that without a shadow of a doubt, that evilution is the end all say all of how life started on this planet is presumptious. The same is to be said with creationism. BOTH are a matter of faith in a manor of speaking, neither can be proven 100% true. But to insult ones religious beliefs, which a large portion of people in this country still hold as truth, as a HOAX is highly disturbing and inflammatory.

Proofs are for math, not science. As far as popular vernacular goes though, evolution *has* been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only reason that their is a controversy (not in the scientific arena, BTW, but in the layperson's arena) is because of biblical literalists.



First of all it's evolution, not evilution, unless you are trying to be inflammatory.

Second, science is *never* shut off towards the discovery of new things and evolution is no exception, that's one of the remarkable things about the scientific method. A large portion of this country considers astrology to be valid, appeals to popularity do not make the case for creationism a valid alternative.

As I said, believe what you want; heck be solipsistic!

Sorry about that, I'm trying to get used to this one post thing.

Evolution is already a proven fact. The theory of evolution, as I have mentioned earlier in this thread (as well as in others) is merely in regards to the engine that drives evolution, ie: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibria, etc. Perhaps the common references to "Darwin's theory of evolution..." produces and promotes this misconception, when in fact he put forth the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

Creationism, on the other hand, often finds itself at odds not only with biological evidence, but also evidence and facts in the fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology and archeology. It is discredited regularly with continued findings in each of said scientific fields while simultaneously disallowing itself from altering its position in light of new data, as valid scientific theories do.

Edited to add:
Evolution is not abiogenesis, it is not a theory of how life began on either this planet or any other possible planets, but rather the theory to explain the variety and evolution of already present organic life.

Then why is it called the 'Theory' of evolution, and not the fact of evolution.

Oh and proof please...

Edit to add: Why then do all references to evolution refer to it as a Theory? Once a theory is proven beyond a shadow of doubt, it is no longer called a theory.


By the way: I am playing devil's advocate here. Personally I do not believe in creationism, but I see people bashing others beliefs, which is unacceptable to me.

No comparison what so ever. Medical research is a benefit to all man kind, Christian, Muslim and atheist alike. Evolution ( I was wondering when someone would notice that little jab I was making "evilution" ) is a particular perspective of the Earths history. With or with out it, it would not hinder an persons existence. Comparing medical science and evolution, there is no comparison. There are many, many MANY religious people in the medical practice.

For Sleeper and any others confusing evolution alone with the theory of evolution:

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Evolution must deduce from phenomenon to be natural science and empirical evidence to be natural history. The variations within a species has been the only empirical evidence that the innovators or current propagators of this interprutation of nature ever have or ever will. This was the case from the beginning. I say again, there are no transitions from one species to another, there are now, will always be, and have never been anything other then variations within a species. You will not hear it stated any clearer then that. Except maybe in Genesis.

"The Fixity of Species. Three verses in the Genesis account of creation certainly lead me to believe that species as such were fixed at creation. The famous French botanist Buffon said, 'The type of each species is founded in a mold of which the principal features have been cut in characters, which are ineffaceable and eternally permanent, but all the traits vary; no one individual is the exact facsimile of any other and no species exist without a large number of variations.' (G. Cunningham, Problems of Philosophy)

Darwin himself,in a letter to the famous botanist Bentham, says that "The belief in natural selection must at present be grounded entirely on general causes . ... when we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial which is the ground work of the theory" (Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin). Darwin's bulldog, T. H. Huxley, in Lay Sermons, felt compelled to say that "It is our clear conviction that as the evidence stands it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals having all the characteristics as exhibited by species in nature has ever been originated by selection, to the natural or artificial."( T.H. Huxley, Lay Sermons)

This fact of variation in a species is so prevalant that it can be considered ubiquitous, "The individual is con­stituted of hereditary units . . . called genes, which are as supreme and unchangeable as the atoms of Chemistry. . . . Variation is caused by there-combination of the genes, not by their change. Variation is therefore restricted by the combination possibility of the genes. And these are limited by the crossing possibilities. Then again, since individuals belonging to different species of plant and animal cannot even be paired, much less produce offspring, the combination of variations is confined to the species. Variants are formed, out-crossed and arise anew in a kaleidoscopic sequence within the species. But the species remains the same phere of variation. The various species will remain like circles that do not intersect. Species are constant." Heribert Nilsson (the Swedish plant-geneticist), "[The Problem of the Origin of Species since Darwin." Hereditas. XX. Quoted in Douglas Dewar, "Dr. Julian Huxley on Evolution," Evangelical Quarterly.]

Evolution itself is ecclectic, a peicemeal mosaic of scattered fragments from dozens of disciplines that have one constant theme and one common enemy, metaphysics. The illusion of evolution from fish to reptiles to mammals is based on philosophy that uses shifting empirical details to conceal its actual tenants. Evolution has nothing to do with adaptation or the transposition of living things, its the nihilism (extreme skepticism) of the enlightenment. It is philosophy, nothing more. The issue is causation, especially primary first cause and the evolutionist is trying to distract from this point. ""It appears to me that the scientific investigator is wholly incompetent to say any­thing at all about the first origin of the material universe. The whole power of his organon vanishes when he has to step beyond the chain of natural causes and effects. No form of nebular hypothesis that I know of is necessarily connected with any view of the origination of the nebular substance." (T.H. Huxley, Ninteenth Century) With that the primary first cause just goes poof like magic.

Whenever you are finished preaching you might notice that biology and the particular field of study dealing with evolution is science, and as such does not have any enemies. The case for evolution is neither illusion or philosophy, and it has everything to do with the transposition of living things. Attempting to say it doesn't, and that its only purpose is to oppose some abstract enlightenment -- which appears only to be ignorance from your portrayal of it -- is nothing but a futile attempt to demonize science in order to validate your personal beliefs. In regards to "the first cause," evolution has nothing to say about "first causes" or the origin of the universe.

The facts say otherwise. You and others have been provided with several links both in this debate topic and others. It's discouraging to think how many contributions of other members you've had to disregard to still arrive at this misinformed conclusion.

There are transitional forums from fish to amphinians like Acanthostega or Obruchevichthys. Within smaller groups there are pre-cursors to dogs like Cynodictis or Hesperocyon, precursors to bears like Ursavus elmensis and Protursus simpsoni, transitional forums between the bear's ancestors and seals like Pachycynodon and Enaliarctos. There are many, many, many transitional forums.

I actually mentioned some benefits, which have gone ignored apparently. Medical science has some of it's fundamentals squarely *based* on evolution. The human genome project, cancer research, etc, if not for the theory of evolution, we would have *no* understanding whatsoever about it.

It seems you are confusing evolution with atheism-that's not the case. As a point of fact, I'm a Christian who accepts evolution.

AP:



Quite simply, you are demonstrably wrong. We have witnessed evolution and unless you can give me a mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution, your post is tantimount to empty rhetoric.

No offense, but you apparently have your bible-blinders on. I provided plenty of links regarding *HUMAN* transitional fossils, that you conviently ignore. You don't want to accept evolution, based on a YEC paradigm-that's fine, but please don't pollute others with your bias against science.

Here's some more transitionals.
Horse transitionals and evolution
More transitionals.
More transitional info.
Reptiles to mammals.
Brontosaurus's missing link found.
The evolution of flight.
(and because I know it's coming) Beneficial mutations!

If Darwin was correct in his survival of the fittest writings, there would only be one species in the Galepego's.

The rest of the planet would be inhabited only by we homosapiens, in fact only the fittest of the human race.

(Republicans, of course.)

Oh, you couldn’t be more wrong, RU. Life IS energy.


Let's be specific here. Microevolution is proven. Macroevolution (specifically trans-speciation) is far from proven.


I must confess, I was baiting with my question regarding the second law of thermodynamics. I have absolutely no doubt that life does not violate the second law. I am attempting to illustrate a point, specifically because many of the posters here not only view macroevolution as a foregone conclusion, but appear to believe that any question against it is an unreasonable argument against science, and an obvious demonstration of total ignorance. There is a definite arrogance on this thread.

I challenge that assertion. Need I bring up the premise of ‘spontaneous generation’, which existed among scientists of previous generations? History has shown that if the scientific establishment thinks enough of you to label you a “maverick” (or the medical community labels you a ‘quack’), they are putting you in the same honorable category as: Dalton, the father of chemistry (for his atomic theory), Semmelweis, father of hygiene, who fought (vainly) to save the lives of thousands of women dying from childbed fever (because then the medical community agreed that believing in something you can’t see was the equivalent of believing in spooks), Pasteur, and Albert Einstein (among a plethora of others). Today, any scientist daring to challenge macroevolution is considered a maverick quack, regardless of his/ her explanation. Period.

I asked a direct question…and received many different responses. One brought forth a confusion between the second law and the law of conservation. Another reasoned that a match cannot be relit, sort of confusing the second law with a chemical reaction (or something), the third brought forth a link proving my point:



Snowflakes (and other solids) form when energy leaves the environment. If the assumption is made that the second law isn’t being violated because energy is being added to the system (thus rebalancing the scales to provide for more order in other parts of the environment), doesn’t that fall short as an explaination? If energy is poured into a system, it should INCREASE the entropy of that overall system, not create a stationary entropy environment.

According to this source, the energy is going into the system causing increasing entropy in some parts while decreasing the amounts of entropy in others. New species are forming, with increasing complexity, because although some parts are gaining entropy, others (the living species) are losing it at an equivalent rate….

I accepted that as reasonable explanation until yesterday, when I read some branch off of a link provided by Nileriver on a different thread: http://www.entropylaw.com/

This is, by far, a much better explanation of our environment adhering to the second law of thermodynamics. Apparently (to be brief, because it is a good but long article), the supposition is made that entropy IS in fact, increasing within the system. Life is increasing complexity driven by the need for a more efficient means of maximizing entropy in the system. IOW…the living entities themselves are creating the entropy (through increased aerobic capacity, oxygen flow being released into the environment, capacity to move, thought process, ect.)

So…are the organisms themselves increasingly entropic in nature (as the second article would indicate), or is it the environment becoming more entropic? I would go with something in between, leaning towards the first argument. This requires a slight expansion of the second law of thermodynamics.



Now, isn’t that interesting? The first explanation indicated a different concept entirely…decreasing entropy for life, within an increasingly entropic environment with shifting distributions of energy throughout. I am not familiar with the explanation of the day, but this serves to indicate that many of the assertions for macroevolution are not agreed upon within the scientific community, yet both are offered on these sites as legitimate unadulterated (unquestionable) proof. The distinction is important to me because both concepts are asserted with authority, indicating a clear prejudiced outcome, which leads me to question the validity of other assertions within the field of evolutionary study as well.

Evolution might be the best scientific theory we have, but it certainly isn’t infallible. Many of the arguments in favor of macroevolution aren’t very dissimilar to arguments in favor of a Creator (space aliens, or whatever else you want to believe). Macroevolution simply substitutes the word ‘time’ for ‘God’…such as, 'with enough time anything is possible'… and requires the viewer to take a leap of faith and believe a concept which is beyond the human mind’s capacity to understand (both God and infinity-which evolution prefers to call 'a long long time'... are beyond our perceptions)

It could go either way with me. I have no fixation on proving Creationism (who could? It is an entirely faith based concept), and I believe some of Genesis is a myth used to explain our creation to a very simple people. There is too much "entropy" in my household, honestly, for me to form an intelligent debate on the details of the subject-matter. I am specifically challenging the know-it- all assertions here. We DO NOT, in fact, know it all.

Only if you subscribe to a misunderstanding of survival of the fittest.

Mrs. Pigpen:



Provide a mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution over time, or take back the baseless assertion.

Here's an easy to digest version of Micro-Macro evo:






Unfortunately the only thing you've demonstrated is what was already known; ie, that people do not understand science and that the laws of thermodynamics are easy to get confused.



You entirely miss the point of science. Science does not stick to dogma, it accumulates knowledge and facts. You are also being a bit dishonest: Creationists, some with scientific backgrounds, are challenging evolutionary theory primarily because it interrupts their biblical paradigm. Creationists are the only one's who seem to think that there is something preventing microevolution from becoming macroevolution. You prove my point here, what you do not do is prove your case by providing a mechanism from preventing macroevolution.

I'm not going to get into the nonsense regarding the 2LOT, It's PRATT and here's what the National Academies of Science say:,



This is nonsense. Evolution does not contradict the possibilities of God, you are basically saying because you have a problem imagining it, it could not happen. I can't imagine dieing, does that mean that I can't die?

Edited for brevity
I'm not sure where you're going with our explanations about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and macroevolution, Mrs. P. I haven't seen anyone here, or any scientists either, using the Second Law as evidence of macroevolution. The most prominent theory in support of macroevolution is that of Punctuated Equilibria and, as the name implies, it is simply that: a theory.

The theories of evolution aren't infallible and don't claim to be. That much is evident in the various theories of evolution. However, while the theories of evolution are theories, the occurence of evolution remains an observed fact.

It might be helpful to note that theories relating more specifically to macroevolution aren't simply "given enough time..." but also include different data and observed facts to support it rather than the complete lack of data involved in creationist ideology. Working with "enough time, observed mutations in nature, effects of disease, radiation, etc..." is a far cry from simply working with some speculative force that can not be observed, verified or scientifically tested.

Many Creationists/ID proponents oppose microevolution as well as macroevolution, with one person already in this topic attempting to explain that man was created exactly as is today. Beyond this, however, each of those listed above were able to finally present and support their studies scientifically. Thus far Creationists and ID proponents have failed to do so, with many of their assertions contradicting known facts in several fields of study. There's a significant difference between the Creationists and ID crowd, and those listed in your posting. Their tactics don't even resemble those of a group wishing to be truly accepted in the scientific community.

1.Provide an example of complex cross-speciation breeding, and I will be happy to retract my statement. Your link was more or less a simplistic rehash of the 'it just takes a lot of time' premise I mentioned in a previous post.

2.More condescension. Anyone who disagrees indicates a lack of understanding of science and the laws of thermodynamics. Care to address the inconsistencies I posted? Your defense of my PROVEN point is that I lack scientific ability and understanding. Straw man, anyone?

3.Oh, but it does. It isn't SUPPOSED to stick to dogma, but there is a clear bias which I am not going to illustrate again, because it's becoming a clear waste of time.

I don't have time to address Abs' post, or the rest of yours now, but I will when the kids go to bed tonight.