There is no 'educated guess' involved. We can date the fossils themselves with one radiometric dating technique and come up with a very accurate date. We can date the rock in which it is found with an entirely different technique and come up with the same date. Radioactive decay is very well understood and very predictable. so much so that we've been unable to alter decay rates by any method. Believe it or not, science does constantly check to make sure rates remain the same and that no natural force can change the readings. To date, with very few exceptions, radiometric dating is one of the most accurate and consistent dating methods we have ever discovered and it points absolutely to an old earth.

There's nothing baffling about it unless you haven't taken the time to actually learn anything about it. In that case it is not the fault of the scientist if you are baffled but rather your own for choosing intellectual laziness regarding the subject of discussion.


You aren't one to shy away from misrepresentation are you? Evolution is not an attack on theism at all. You neglect the fact that theism is not dependent on the idea of life being magically created as purported by creationist pseudo-science. Despite recognizing the error in believing that each species had been independently created, Darwin remained a Christian throughout his entire life.

I'm having a hard time discerning what point you were trying to make in presenting quotes from Gould. Assuming he's "Darwin's bulldog" mentioned later in your post, he didn't say there were no transitional fossils. By your own quotes he said -- in 1977 -- that there was "precious little." While that not only indicates already that there were transitional forms at that time, it doesn't include all the findings and research conducted over the next 26 years. If there is any myth making occuring on the side of evolution, you've failed to show it.

"You neglect the fact that theism is not dependent on the idea of life being magically created as purported by creationist pseudo-science"

Deny it!? Why would I ever want to deny that, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command...(Heb. 11.2) I wouldnt dream of denying my theistic assumptions. What about the naturalistic assumptions of the evolutionist? This kind of double standard is too cliche to be an actual attempt at a rational reason but I'll bite. The assertion of the evolutionist that life somehow spontaneously generated purportedly brought about life from nonliving molecules is itself pseudo-science.

"What should be our response to all this? Evolution postulates that life arose from nonliving matter as a result of a purely naturalistic, completely mechanistic, and equally mysterious process on a prebiotic Earth. This process—which parades under such names as abiogenesis, chemical evolution, biopoiesis, or spontaneous generation—is one of the foundational concepts of organic evolution. When British evolutionist G.A. Kerkut published his classic book, The Implications of Evolution, he listed the seven nonprovable assumptions upon which evolution is based. At the very top of that list was: “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (1960, p. 6)." spontanteous generation


This is done with calloused disregard for the very natural science evolutionalist claim as their standard of proof. This isn't the demonstration or description of observable phenomenon. Its not something demonstrated by substantiating a hypothesis through experimentation,its never been observed empirically. Its not a law of science, its not a theory, it doesnt even qualitfy as an hypothesis since its unprovable. Its a myth in every sense of the word.

"The experiments that formed the ultimate basis of this law were first carried out by such men as Francesco Redi (1688) and Lazarro Spallanzani (1799) in Italy, Louis Pasteur (1860) in France, and Rudolph Virchow (1858) in Germany. It was Virchow who documented that cells do not arise from amorphous matter, but instead come only from preexisting cells. The Encyclopaedia Britannica stated concerning Virchow that “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’ (every cell arises from a preexisting cell) ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (see Ackerknect, 1973, p. 35).

Down through the centuries, countless thousands of scientists in various disciplines have established the law of biogenesis as just that—a scientific law stating that life comes only from preexisting life and that of its kind. Interestingly, the law of biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories. Also of considerable interest is the fact that students are consistently taught in high school and college biology classes the tremendous impact of, for example, Pasteur’s work on the false concept of spontaneous generation. Students are given, in great detail, the historical scenario of how Pasteur triumphed over “mythology” and provided science “its finest hour” as he discredited the then-popular concept of spontaneous generation. Then, with almost the next breath, those same students are informed by their professor that evolution is supposed to have started via spontaneous generation."
Biogenisis

Now I will only say that Darwin maitained some kind of a religious identification, thousands of liberal scholars simply redefined God and turned their philosophy into theology. Darwin probably did the same thing. Darwin may of claimed to have been a Christian but his denial of the immutability of species was the metaphysics of atheism.Immutability is not a term used in natural science, its a term applied to God alone in metaphysics. Bottomline, If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its a duck. As far as Darwin's bulldog, that was a reference to Huxley who argued Darwin's evolutionary fairytales. He in fact had hoped to have his Origin of Species published after his death and wouldnt dream of argueing it. It was only when someone else had come up with the same thing, he decided to publish it. Huxley was the bulldog not Gould, he is considered a hero to most evolutionists.

Not all theistic beliefs rely on creation stories excluding the possibility of evolution. Just because your particular belief requires a denial of evolution does not make evolution an "attack on theism."

For all your self-proclaimed brilliance, you have somehow waded through several debates relating to evolution apparently still without any conception of what evolution is. Evolution has nothing to do with life spontaneously generating from nonliving molecules. It certainly does not say anything about the formation of the universe as you address either.

Since your quoted link provides the same misrepresentation of evolution, I might suggest you find another source of information if you expect to be taken seriously in future discussions about evolution.

You at least seem have a concept of what biogenesis is so perhaps in the future you will find yourself capable of making the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis.

The theory of abiotic synthesis of organic compounds is NOT pseudo-science. The hypothesis was tested in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey by recreating the atmospheric conditions of early Earth which contained much less oxygen than it does now. They used a mixture of gases with lower molecular weights such as methane, ammonia and water vapor and did observe spontaneous reactions which produced amino acids, sugars, lipids (fats) and the bases from which DNA and RNA are made. Since then several other laboratories have repeated the experiment with varied mixtures of gases and achieved similar results so long as there was little oxygen present to oxidize the molecules and reverse the reactions. (This information is paraphrased from the book Biology, 5th edition by Campbell, Reece and Mitchell).

That's not to say that God had nothing to do with it.

I am a chemistry major with an emphasis in biology and despite what I have learned so far about the theories of evolution and spontaneous generation, I still don't believe that something as complex as an eye, a kidney, or any other such organ could have resulted from millions or even billions of years of evolution. Most mutations are single base-pair deletions, insertions, or substitutions, and they could not be selected for one at a time. It's not like the X-men where one mutation gives you super healing ability. The thousands genes for an eye (which themselves consist of more thousands of base-pairs of DNA) would have to have mutated one at a time in order to produce the new organ, and in the meantime an organism carrying some mutations toward a functional eye would not have been any more fit (likely to reproduce) than an organism without any of those mutations. Honestly, evolution can only do so much.

billions of years is something most humans cant really think about. Look how long 2000 years is in relitive means, billions of years is quite a long time to say the least.

I agree, so is the concept of eternity or infinity. But how can we measure those vast amounts of time? We can truly only measure that which we have something to measure it against.

As I said, it wouldn't matter how long it took because the integral part of Darwin's theory is that genetic variation can be selected for. If it takes more than a few mutations to occur in one individual, a new trait would never be selected for in a given population. A half-eye that doesn't work yet would not add to the fitness of an organism. The more I study the complexities of animal physiology the more convinced I become that this could not have been some kind of random occurence.

That’s why most things that are alive today are successful in their native environments. Look at a sloth, that is not much of a success story one would think, but there it is. At what point does the animal kingdom not have eyes of some sort, are some better then others?

There are serious evolutionary biologists in the field, in labs, and in debates shaping what we have to talk about.

Another point is this, is there any advancements in animal body types, be it an eye or land animal legs, that is not bent on something besides the physical environment, or that animals niche in the world

Edited

I've heard the eye argument thrown out there before. Let me know if the concise report offered by PBS is not to your liking and I'll try providing you with something more complex if you prefer.

You mentioned that you are a Chemistry major with an emphasis in biology, but I'm not sure how much that has brought you into contact with studies of evolution. For what it's worth, theories of evolution are no longer confined simply to Natural Selection but also includes Genetic Drift and Punctuated Equilibria.

Yes I have taken Ecology and Evolution, and I understand random genetic drift and speciation (allopatric vs peripatric). Using genetic drift to explain evolution is to say that some traits came about by chance, and I do believe that peripatric speciation occurs (that is, geographically isolated species may change enough to become reproductively isolated) Also, disasters add to the genetic variation in a species by rapidly reducing the number of individuals to what may be a disproportionate ratio of genotypes (much like sticking your hand into a gumball machine that is filled with half red and half blue gumballs: you probably wont grab 3 red and 3 blue). All this I understand and accept as evidence that evolution exists, but I still don't believe that evolution alone brought us here.

If I could for a moment point this out to members on both sides of the argument. That's a very understandable position because neither the fact or theory of evolution says it alone is responsible for our presence here on Earth. From what I understand there are some religious beliefs which have reconciled themselves with evolution by taking the position that it occurs, possibly even as Darwin and others have postulated, but that it is simply the means by which God goes about perfecting his creation. Evolution is not an inherent enemy of theism as some might try to depict.

I think we need to be really careful about confusing the theory of evolution with the theory that natural selection is the only factor driving it. In an interesting book called Beyond Natural Selection I read the theory that certain evolutionary paths might be more "followable" than others because of the way genes work. Why are there no six-legged animals larger than insects? In some situations they'd be more fit, and four-legged structures have developed independently many times. There are zillions of ways that eyes could work, but only a few are actually represented in nature. It's possible to look at genetic variation as a maze, where each step represents a possible genetic change. Some parts of the maze are reachable via a variety of paths, whereas others are unreachable not because they're unfit in and of themselves but because all of the paths leading there lead through unfit intermediaries. Some types of genetic change are also more likely than others, leading to a kind of genetic pressure - distinct from selection pressure - along certain paths. Remember, a single genetic change doesn't always to have a single identifiable phenotypic change; the "this gene gives you blue eyes" example is more the exception than the rule. Also, it's not necessary that each genetic change increase fitness. It's sufficent merely that it does not decrease fitness to a level below viability.

The eye, then (an example specifically studied in the book) might actually be highly "reachable" via genetic pathways. As complex as an eye is, it might require only a few genetic changes, none leading to unfit creatures. There might be a genetic pattern for eyes that's easy to reach from an un-eyed state, as strange as that might seem to someone who has not studied the actual mechanisms of genetic variation and seen how non-linear it can be. Maybe you could say it's still the result of design, but it's a design far more subtle - embedded in the very alphabet of our genes, not the words they spell let alone the creatures thus created - than the kind of design usually talked about.

I am in complete agreement with Abs Like Jesus. Evolution is not an obligate enemy of theism.

An allopatric is something that separates a population into two groups (volcanoes, earthquakes glaciers, or rivers). Alfred Wallace in the Amazon jungle discovered the source of the biodiversity there, the huge rivers that are seasonally dry or flood. He described what came to be known as natural selection. "The theory of natural selection rests on two main classes of facts which apply to all organised beings without exception, and which thus take rank as fundamental principles or laws. The first is, the power of rapid multiplication in a geometrical progression: the second, that the offspring always vary slightly from the parents, though generally very closely resembling them..."

Interestingly enough he makes a claim I have yet to see supported by him or anyone else.

..."But we claim for Darwin that he is the Newton of natural history, and that, just so surely as that the discovery and demonstration by Newton of the law of gravitation established order in place of chaos and laid a sure foundation for all future study of the starry heavens, so surely has Darwin, by his discovery of the law of natural selection." Wallace on Darwin

Natural selection is not evolution:

This 'multiplication in geometrical progression' and 'offspring while resembling parents' are 'slightly different' is microevolution not macroevolution. Comparing this mythology of common ancestory over special creation to the law of gravity is ridiculas. The difference is one of proof over presumption. I can tell you exactly how Newton demonstrated the principles of motion to the Royal Society in London and the world. After 10 pages of claiming that experimentum crucis was the birth of inductive science and the litmos test for truth in natural science, no one every seriously asked what that experiment was. This estalished that natural science like natural history had to be demonstrated by experimentation (as with optics) or observable. as with comets in the night sky or moons around Jupitor. Unlike Darwin, since Darwin is accepted even though transitional fossils dont exist and evolution has never been demonstrated. There is no comparison of the law of gravity and evolution, one is a proven science the other is a myth losely based on natural science. Biodiversity based on ecological isolation, temproal isolation and behavioral isolation does not prove evolution as opposed to special creation. When a naturalist speaks of immutability of species as opposed to common ancestory he is talking about Genesis 1. He is talking about how God created living creatures to begat according to 'kind'. Here is the Creationist interprutation of the evidence:

"Species do change. Creationists and evolutionists both agree on that point. Evolutionists suggest, however, as did Moore, that “if species can change, it is possible that some dogs represent evolutionary stages between dogs and other things, such as wolves or jackals.” Creationists, on the other hand, suggest that the original dog family very likely may have included the potential for producing the more than 200 different breeds of domestic dogs, the Australian dingoes, coyotes, wolves, jackals, foxes, and maybe even hyenas, even though these animals now are classified as different species. As Walter Kaiser commented:

God created the basic forms of life called min [kind—BT/BH] which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes (1980, 1:503-504).Changing species

If Im asked is Genesis 1 compatable with natural selection and the biodiversity within what the Bible discribes as kinds. Sure, no problem. If we are talking about the evolutional mythology of live spontaniously generating out of nonliving material. If I am seriously expected to accept that natural science has proven common ancestory with monkeys. Im not buying it, natural science is ok, evolution is a myth.

Natural selection is a mechanism for evolution, though certainly not the only one. Microevolution is still evolution, though not at the scale of macroevolution. Choosing only to recognize evolution as macroevolution may work for you, but that's not the way it works.


There are transitional fossils, you have been provided the links to research them and have clearly not done so. I'm not going to continue your exercises in redundancy by providing them so that you may prove once again your intellectual laziness regarding this subject. That you could come this far in this debate, after all the others, while still misinterpreting evolution as abiogenesis and a cosmological model stands as a testament to your disdain for the research and links provided not only by myself and other members, but by those true scientists who have devoted their lives to the study and understanding of nature.


It's no wonder you have this idea of evolution being mythology when you can't seem to grasp what it actually is. While you've demonstrated before your disregard for links, it seems you must also not bother to honestly read through the other posts in a debate. I just pointed out to you yesterday the mistake you were making in defining evolution as abiogenesis. To be seriously expected to accept common ancestory with other primates we would first have to expect you to honestly research the subject, now wouldn't we?

While natural selection is not the only factor driving evolution, it is the most important. It is the only factor which leads to traits we would consider "designed" or "tailored" to an organism's environment. Genetic drift deals mostly with variation which has little effect on viability and has led to the accumulation of DNA which serves no apparent purpose (a little less than half of our genome actually codes for functional proteins). And speciation is a function which relies on selection based on differing environmental factors.

And I'm sorry to have to reiterate myself but abiogenesis has been tested and is accepted as a viable hypothesis (see above). Just because it could have happened by itself does NOT preclude the existence of God.

"Natural selection is a mechanism for evolution,"

Natural selection, as defined by the naturalist I quoted, is the basis for the mechanistic assumptions of evolution, not proof for it. Evolution can not even be compared to real scientific proof of a natural law even though it claims natural law as proof. Now as far as the links I was provided and supposedly ignored in my intellectual laziness. That was not the first time I was directed to paleontology as a source for 'proof ' of the myth of evolution. Supposedly the common ancestor of the turtle,lizard, snake, crocodile, dinosaur/bird, and mammals was some kind of a stem reptile. This can be tallied up by counting the 'derived characters' that species share:

1).First there are the 3-toed foot of the Coelophysis.
2).Then the wishbone, breastbone, and loss of 4th and 5th digits, of Alosaurus.
3).Followed by the downlike fearher of Sinosauropteryx
4).Later the Longer arms, hand and complex feathers of the famous Protoarchaeopteryx
(which is supposedly the holy grail for paleontologists like Gould)
5). More recently the arms that are as long or longer than legs and feather that support
flight ofr Archaeopteryx and last but certainly not least you have birds.

Another supposed 'proof ' based on these mechanistic assumptions is simularities of Amino Acids. Supposedly the sequence similarities are used to measure evolutional relatedness based on cytochrome c (a respiritory protein). Here are our relatives listed in descending order of closeness relative to amino acid simularities.

1)Chimpanzee; 0 differences - The closest but incapable of abstract thought
2)Rhesus monkey;1 difference - This little fella is like a cousin twice removed
3)Rabbit ; 9 differences - Shouldnt expect an invite to the family reunion
4)Cow; 10 differences - No comment, I might get into trouble with this one
5)Pigeon;12 differences - Im assuming our closest bird relative
6)Bullfrog; 20 differences -I thought they were funny in the Bud ads
7)Fruit fly;24 differences - This species seems traped at the insect level
8)Wheat germ;37 differences - This is going way back in the family tree
9)Yeast ; 42 differences - Yes you are related evolutionally to decomposeing bread based on Amino Acid simularties. ( Paraphrased from Life, a biology textbook but you can find the same thing in any high school or college textbook on the subject.)

Now to tell me that these scattered fragments are 'proof ' that there was no special creation, and all life has a common ancestor is the stuff of myth and legond not science. Ive read (and quoted BTW); Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, Gould, Gish, and oh yea, Newton. Where you seperate the scientist from the fundamentalist zealot is summed up in one word, 'proof'.

"As Charles Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, put it in a letter to Charles on November 23, 1859 (one day before the publication of The Origin of Species: “Concerning species, in fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling” (as quoted in Francis Darwin, 1888, 2:29).

Evolutionists dogmatically assert that evolution is a fact, yet admit that it: a) is based upon non-provable assumptions that are “not capable of experimental verification”; b ) bases its conclusions upon answers that are “largely conjectural”; c) is faced with evidence “adverse” to the available facts; d) is built upon “watered down” facts; and e) has both historical and causal aspects that “are far from completely known.” Little wonder Dr. Kerkut stated concerning the theory of evolution: “The evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis” (1960, p. 157). What a far cry from the assessments of Gould, Rennie, and their colleagues in the modern evolutionary camp."
A prior and evolution

This is not a slam on science per se, the use of inductive method was how Christians, not atheists, developed natural scinece. The myth that mechanistic assumptions led us out of the Dark Ages is a subject for another thread. To say that this philosophical spin on natural science is not opposed to theism is to ignore the central focus, origin (A.K.A. genesis).

You read Darwin and Gould, yet came to the conclusion somehow that evolution was "...mythology of live spontaniously generating out of nonliving material." Shall I flip through an encyclopedia of Greek philosophers and claim to have read Socrates, Plato and Aristotle?

The next time you choose to read something in regards to biology or evolution, perhaps you might take the time to understand it before commenting on it.


It accompished what repeating what you quoted me as already having said? I didn't say Natural Selection was proof of evolution, but rather that it was evolution contrary to your claim that it wasn't.


Did you expect something other than paleontology when you asked for evidence of transitional fossils? Do you think if you keep asking us about paleontology long enough we'll make a mistake and respond with chemistry or astronomy? You ask for paleontology, you get paleontology.


Attempting to oversimplify relations and misrepresent data might sound good in the pseudo-science you've been reading, but it won't get you very far if you're attempting to portray honest science. Amino acids are by far not the end all, be all of biological similarities in the study of evolution. I would say you know that, but considering your past confusion who can be sure what you willingly distort and what you distort out of ignorance.

And I do feel confident in relegating your reading material to pseudo-science as they make the same erroneous claims and misrepresentations as you have presented us here. From your provided link:


Apparently neither Mr. Thompson, Ph.D., nor Mr. Harrub, Ph.D., could distinguish the differences between evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution perseveres regardless of whether life came about through biogenesis or abiogenesis. The fact of evolution is in no way predicated on abiogenesis being established.

It's no wonder that they would falsely believe:

I imagine it's rather easy when they find themselves incapable of understanding even what evolution even is, repeatedly confusing it with the theory of abiogenesis. They've also proven rather adept at quoting out of context and distortion.

Here is just some personal logic i guess, i think it will be fun for a change.

If an advanced life form, say a whale, is rather embedded and or fit for its environment, and no operant existed to provide say danger to itself or its resources, would it stop evolving. If evolution slows down the higher up you get, and evolution seems to work for fitness, and grows in accord to the physical world, would that not maybe give rise to intelligent things, such as humans. I know a lot of this debate has to do with not just evolution, so i thought i might throw this out there

And one more point, say two humans with distinct genetic heritage breed, why is the offspring able to survive, i just want to know from the posters.

I did not understand your question, Nileriver, about the whale and the evolution of intelligence.

It two beings from a species, but ones from separated genetic pools, breed you will have an effect called hybrid vigor. Not only will they survive but the offspring will thrive, outperforming those offspring from breeding within their respect gene pools.

Why can they breed? If there are similar chromosomes with genes ordered in the same manner, I expect you can share DNA without a problem.

Well, its like this, if you have something like a whale, and nothing in its environment poses a threat to any aspect of its survival, would the species cease to evolve, or could microevolution be a collective key for species success then. And with the fact evolution seems to go for environment fitness, or the ability to survive in the physical world, why would that not lead to intelligence.

Yes, it would seem that human dna, regardless of various difference can go with itself, that makes me wonder how human difference came about in the first place, such as white people

nileriver,

You wrote: "If an advanced life form, say a whale, is rather embedded and or fit for its environment, and no operant existed to provide say danger to itself or its resources, would it stop evolving.?

Why no, It would sprout wings and fly away like the stem reptiles did.

Abs your just too good to be true,

You wrote: "You read Darwin and Gould, yet came to the conclusion somehow that evolution was "...mythology of live spontaniously generating out of nonliving material."

No I read them sometime after I learn basic biology. The real problem is that you need to go from molecules to amino acids, nucleotides carbohydrates and lipids. Then engineer RNA, DNA, and Lipid spheres before the first primordial cell is formed. The really tricky part is the nucleic acid sugars ribose and deoxyribose are asymetric (like a left hand and right hand). To make 150 years of trying to deal with this paradox (no pun intended) there are still only two myths fabricated to facilitate this: 1. Meterorites 2. Chirality spontaniously generated from molecules with the ability to replicate. I hope that isnt too oversimplified, us intellectually challenged are kind of lazy about such things as science.

You wrote: "The next time you choose to read something in regards to biology or evolution, perhaps you might take the time to understand it before commenting on it."

Ditto

You Wrote: "I didn't say Natural Selection was proof of evolution, but rather that it was evolution contrary to your claim that it wasn't."

I understood what you said, I just didnt agree with it because the statement was basless. Natural Selection is not evolution as defined by natural scientists, i.e. Wallace. One requies mythical trasitional fossils, and the other is changes within a species (kind) that is brought about by special creation (God).


You Wrote:"'you asked for evidence of transitional fossils?...you get paleontology."

I ask for transitional fossils I get birds with teeth and horses with toes summed up in my last post, not that the actual fossils really matter. Who needs proof when you have cartoons.

Eukaryotic cells somehow aquire mitochondria, chloroplasts, membrane material at the critical stage where single cells to become organisms, no explanation how. But all of the sudden we are into the Cambrian explosion where they appear out of nowhere, highly developed, no explanation. [the link to the dozens of scientists opposed to creation science shrugged this off] Like I said before and apparently will have to say again, no transitional fossils whatsoever, not in Darwin's writtings, Goulds fossils, or natural history.

The difference between how they do it in modern times and Darwin's, Darwin sketched his mythical creatures out. Now they fabricate these creatures useing something called cladistics. The transition from Hominoids (common ancestor of humans and apes) to hominid (ancester to humans) are marked by scarce fossil evidence but plenty of graphic cartoon like characters in textbooks. Then last but certainly not least the bipedalist which is more or less early man. After that comes Lucy, a horribly deformed human, not a transitional fossil. Then the Ice man, who took Rush Limbaugh's place on the cover of Time which makes him my all time favorite fossil.

"...but considering your past confusion who can be sure what you willingly distort and what you distort out of ignorance."

Ill give you credit for being 100% consistant with the ad hominem arguments. I do think there is one point worth making about this reflexive (possible Freudian) reaction. It does underscore the prevalance of confusion, ignorance, and distortion that these arguments of science, falsely so called, generate. ( Again my references paraphrased from 'Life', the textbook, not the process)

I'm really hoping to get to the part where I dont understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics thats my favorite myth of all.

I'm losing count how many times you have failed to pick up that you are incorrectly representing evolution as abiogenesis. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. If you have a vision problem let me know and I will increase the font for you. Nothing to do with the origin of life. While that should have been clear after even a rudimentary biology class it should be agonizingly so if you have truly read either Darwin or Gould.


Duly noted. Mythical has now been expanded to include any links you find yourself mysteriously unable of clicking on. Should I ever have the funds I'll be sure to take you on a field trip to the museum so that you can turn your back to the fossils directly. Any bus preference?


You got transitional fossils. Considering your repeated confusion of what evolution actually entails I don't suppose it's all that surprising that you would expect evolution to depict birds and horses millions of years ago exactly as they are today.
Additionally:
What is a transitional fossil?, Primitive fish to bony fish, Fish to amphibians, Amphibians to reptiles, Reptiles to mammals, Reptiles to birds, Primates, First hoofed animals, Horses, Whales and dolphins


Must we start a tally on how many times you take this off the topic of either evolution or creation to deal with abiogenesis? It's like a moth to a flame.


If only they weren't honest observations...

Anarchy Praxis:

1. How did the Human race arise on earth?
Do you think God slapped Adam together from dirt? Did we evolve from Chimps? Did Adam have a bellybutton? Why did God give him nipples?

2. What type of evidence would you accept for evolution?
Of course, when I say "evidence," I do not intend it as an invitation to your usual little dance number. Try something novel: an actual answer!

3. Please, enlighten us with your (no doubt brilliant) understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I know it must be hard to explain this stuff to us, we're so dumb... but would ya please try?

According to the theory of natural selection, a genotype with superior fitness will eventually dominate a population. What makes one genotype more fit than another is primarily environmental pressures. So, if there are no pressures on a given population, no one genotype will be able to dominate and evolution will come to almost a standstill. Genetic drift and gene flow (emigration and immigration) will still have some effect on the predominant genotypes, but it will be minimal.

nileriver, in some cases intelligence does not increase fitness as much as other traits do such as size or muscle mass which have obviously developed in many many animals. And all animals have some degree of intelligence, it is simply how useful intelligence is in a given environment that determines whether it develops even further.

As for you second question, a mini-lesson in genetics. As a species, we share a given set of chromosomes, 22 autosomal (meaning they do not determine sex) and 1 sex chromosome. Furthermore, we have 2 copies of these chromosomes, one of which is inherited from our father's sperm and one from our mother's egg. All of these chromosomes contain the SAME genes. A gene is a specific sequence of DNA which determines some trait. (i.e. an eye-color gene) The term allele describes which version of a given gene you inherit (i.e. the blue-eyed allele).

So to answer why two humans from completely different genetic makeups can have viable offspring: they both carry identical genes, different alleles. Every living human has at least one functional allele for every necessary trait (many have 2 functional alleles since we have 2 sets of DNA ), otherwise he or she would not have survived. The only variation which can exist is variation which was not lethal to the parent.
So, no matter how different the father's and mother's alleles are, as long as none of them are lethal, the offspring will be viable like the parents were (except in the case that both parents are carriers of lethal recessive alleles which, if passed on from both parents to the child, could result in a nonviable zygote).

Whoa sorry to post 2 in a row but this seems appropriate for a separate message. Let's not discuss the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this thread, I saw where it took the last Creation vs. Evolution debate and besides it is of absolutely no relevance to the theory of evolution. AP, if you really want to discuss thermodynamics then please start a new thread.

pheeler: If you really want to make a second point within four minutes, please use the Edit button. You are clearly aware of the fact that we frown on double-posting, yet you did it anyway. If you wish to draw attention to a second point, there are many ways of going about it. You can introduce your point in boldface - or in italics - or both. We also have a number of colors from which to choose. Or you can underline your text.
________________

You can also create a separator between different points.

In addition, you can vary the size of the type.

If you wish to make recommendations about how to post, maybe you should lead by example and follow the recommendations of the admin.

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

Now, back to the thread - where, hopefully, we'll see Anarchy Praxis answering a few questions...

Can you back that up? Preferably without too much gratuitous jargon?

I just wanted to say; I'm reading a great book now that will clarify and demystify evolution for you AP, it's called Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate. Upon reading it, you will see that Evolution is not a myth, nor the cartoon you present (I'm not trying to offend you, but your rhetoric is a little over the top).

Billy Jean-I wasn't referring to *your* rhetoric, I was referring to Anarchy Praxis's rhetoric: ie, evolutionism and equating it to mythology. He can call it a hypothesis all he wants, but evolution is neither a religion, nor a myth.

Once you read a little more about evolution, you will realize that Anarchy Praxis's rhetoric is indeed over the top, ill informed, and in the end, just plain wrong.

And free speach and personal convictions are what? Why is his or my "retoric" over the top? I guess we're just uneducated, religious fools... I admit that my knowledge of evolution is limited. But it doesn't stop me from calling it for what it is: GARBAGE.

Edited to add: Abs has recommended that I read up on evolution to be a more effective debator on this topic, and I'm taking him up on his advice. But AP has consistantly given thoughtout and informed ideas that do not warrant the label "over the top rhetoric".

How does this help the debate at all? Be constructive.

Why do so many have trouble being civil, constructive and on-topic in evolution/creationism threads? It's ridiculous how many of these we have to close.

... DON'T answer me here. It was rhetorical... (but if you must, start a new thread )

Actually, I wasn't aware that double-posting was frowned upon but it will not happen again since now I do.

And to elaborate on my previous comment: Genetic drift is basically the random change in allele frequency in a given population. It usually applies to mutations which do not affect an individual's fitness (otherwise selection would take over) However, a series of inconsequential mutations which have been accumulating for some time due to drift can cause new traits to be acquired, but the rate is so much slower than selection (because it is random) it is more of a sidenote.

Gene flow, as I said, is the emigration of individuals in or out of a population. Sometimes, a separate population will start to add to the gene pool of another. This actually slows down evolution because individuals who may have traits which have been selected against in one environment are now reintroducing their alleles to it. Thus, the greatest change in a population's genetic makeup occurs when it is geographically isolated from other populations of its species (Like in Australia or the Galapagos).

Oh and I apologize for using so much jargon, but it's hard to explain these things without using the most correct words when I know that some people do know exactly what I'm talking about and might criticize me for paraphrasing something incorrectly. I will try to define more of the terms I use, and I am not trying to dazzle or impress anyone with big words (I really hate when people think that can win a debate).

Ah, Tim Berra's book. I heartily recommend it to all as a very basic primer in the creation/evolution debate, he gives a very basic overview of not only the scientific evidence for evolution, the problems of creationism and the legal and scientific struggles between the two, but gives a wonderful reading list in the back for further study.

Also a good book, although it might be hard to find these days, is Foundation, Fall and Flood: A Harmonization of Genesis and Science by Glenn R. Morton. Granted, I'm a little biased on that one as I did manuscript review. It's a good book from a more Christian point of view that harmonizes the Bible with science quite well.

I am aware of the fact that natural science is not the heart of the issue. I also realize that natural history is not much help. I'll be glad to concede that neither natural history and natural science is intersted in God as the source of life on this planet. I know enough about natural science and natural history (paleontology) that they cannot back this up empirically. So what is the issue that the creationist and the evolutionist are so dogmatically opposed to one another over? In my opinion it is natural philosophy.

Unless or untill we trace this controversy back to the source the point where the two depart is pure semantics. The word for the day is 'immutability', as applies to species, as applied to origins, as applied to life as we know it. It comes down to this word, what if anything in natural science is 'immutable' in natural science. The creationist answer is on the table if you think about it. What is the naturalist's response?

It seems to me that most of the "dogmatic opposition" is on the side of a small minority of creationists, who phlegmatically oppose even the idea of evolution.



Immutability = not capable of change.
Change is perhaps the most fundamental nature of the universe. There is no evidence of immutability in this world, on any level.



What is "this?" These two sentences don't make a lot of sense as they are. You will be glad to concede that natural history and natural science are not interested in God as the source of life? I'm understanding you so far. Although there are any number of religious scientists. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be this: "I'll be glad to concede that neither natural history or natural science have an interest in actively opposing the idea of God as the ultimate or fundamental cause."

"I know enough about natural science and natural history (paleontology) that they cannot back this up empirically." Here's where it gets confusing. They cannot back what up? Their interest? Huh?

I don't mean to sound insulting, but this post is a perfect example of why people get frustrated debating you. There is no real sense to be made from these two paragraphs. Once you parse them out, they are nonsense.


Which two? Creationism and Evolutionary theory? What source? How exactly does semantics come into play here?



Perhaps - and I mean well by this - you should attempt another way of posting. Be clear and direct. As an example:

THIS is the controversy, as I see it.

THIS is the source point where this comes from.

HERE is how it relates to the concept of immutability.

THIS is the creationist answer.

Instead, you give us this jumble of words, and when no one has a clue what you are trying to say, you claim the rest of us are ignorant or missing the point.

Anarchy Praxis writes:


Of course not. Science is interested in one thing and one thing only: truth. If there was evidence to support the supernatural creation of the universe, then science would pursue it. The problem, and what theists refuse to accept, is that God seems to have left absolutely no sign of his existence anywhere. Even in places we'd expect evidence to exist from the Bible, it simply doesn't exist. There isn't a trace of the Noachian flood in geology, even though we have evidence of many, many lesser floods. Every shred of evidence we have points to an ancient Earth, not one created in the last few thousand years. We can still find the heat echoes of the Big Bang in every direction we look. The evidence is overwhelming that a naturalistic origin to the universe occurred. In fact, we can look at the Bible and prove, beyond any doubt, that what is described in Genesis simply never happened unless you want to believe that God purposely hid all the evidence, changed all the data in order to deceive man.

The difference between science and religion is simple. Science examines the evidence to find out what is. Religion considers their beliefs and demands what should be. Science is open to change. Religion is not.

Given the two, I'll take science every time.



The problem is that 'immutability' does not describe life. We see evolution every single day. We see bacteria mutate to become immune to vaccines. We see animals mutate in color. The wealth of data on this is overwhelming.

I think the problem here isn't the 'immutability' of science, but the demands of 'immutability' by theists. Theists, by and large, aren't comfortable with a universe that isn't stable. They want something that has been, is and will always be. God never changes. Heaven has always been there. When you die, you don't go away, you stick around. Very simple and straightforward.

Unfortunately, that's not how the universe works. Science seeks to discover how things work, not to impose an a priori belief structure on reality and hammer it into place when it doesn't fit. Reality is what is. If reality doesn't fit into your little religious pigeon holes, then your pigeon holes are wrong.

When Darwin wrote Origin of Species he was proposing an argument based on an essay by Malthus which was not natural science nor natural history, it was natural philosophy. The principles out lined in the essay are based on the principle that drives empirical science and inductive scientific method. " experience is the true source and foundation of knowledge" (Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population). His essay and Origin of Species are arguments and elucidations (explainations) of theory, which is philosophy not natural science in the empirical sense. It is not only permissable for natural science to weave theory and practical considerations it is vital. The principle he elucidates is actually a common sense observation "Population increases geometrically, sustence increases arithmetical", in other words population increases faster then the enviroments ability to sustain life. The Malthusian model claims that 'divergence of character', which is another way of describing natural selection, is how survival is determined in nature. Anyone interested in the philosophy of science might want to check this out. This is the philosophical treatise that inspired the argument in Darwin's Origin of Species.
Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population

In the first five of the 14 chapters Darwin describes observations underlying the theory of natural selection. He talks about artificial selection (especially important) in domesticated animals and compares them to how nature selects preexisting variants. Chapter 3 describes the Malthus struggle for existence, and chapter 4 details the environmental influences. In chapter 5 there are a series of 'guesses at the sources of natural selection. Chapter 6 he anticipates arguments against the theory and most of the rest he takes the detals from his observations and explains them using this theory of natural selection. Thats why the book was revised six times by 1872, it was theoretical. The premise of Origin of Species is very straight forward and clearly metaphysical in its character, anyone contending that this has nothing to do with God should read Darwin. A theist who belived in special creation was actully way ahead of him on the principles natural variation and developed what are truly scientific laws based on experimentation not philosophy. Mendel crossed and cataloged some 24,034 plants and came up with two scientific laws. Darwin makes some observations and forms a theory that is actually an attack on theistic belief. The science involved has nothing to do with the metaphysics of evolution except as a smoke screen. The philosophy he was arguing against is described here:

" Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual phenomenon,' or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, 'a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous, process.'" (Philosophy of Creation, Rev. Baden Powell)

There are two issues here of interest to a theistic world view, the principle of creation and the miraculous. If God created the earth and all of life then it is by definition supernatural. Im accused of not knowing what the issues are here but I do. Darwin is claiming that God did not create different species independantly as described in Genesis.

"namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous." (Taken from the first chapter of Origin of Species). If you look at the context you will notice that it is the bottomline i.e. main point

Origin of Species

Evolution says that we evolved from single cells called Eukaryotic cells. I mention that for this to happen certain things have to be developed like the origination of molecules that are made of identical atoms that have to be mirror images of each other, amino acids. I am directed to follow a link to some website about abiogenesis and Borel's law of statistics creationist use to claim this is virtually impossible. That was never the issue, to go from molecules to Eukaryotic cells requires certain things happen. I never made any reference to statistics. All I am saying is that this transition from molecules to amino acids that produce living cells without the benefit of genetics information from a parent cell is a transition. For these cells to produce the Cambrian explosion is a transition, for hominoids to produce hominids is a trasition. Transition based on a priori supposition that God didnt 'create' any of this. The redundancy of saying God had nothing to do with it will not make it true. There is another presumption that anyone who belives that life originated with God in a special creation described in Genesis is ignorance of natural science. This is prejudice plain and simple, not the science that maintains " experience is the true source and foundation of knowledge". What I have, and other Christians have 'experinced', with regards to the study of life and rational understanding of reality is that God created life as described in Genesis. Evolution is not science its metaphysics based on naturalistic presumption.

That, of course, assumes that modern science pays any attention to what Darwin wrote. Darwin's works are 150 years out of date and his observations and conclusions have faced challenge and change. This is another classic tactic of creationists to attack out-of-date sources, claiming pseudo-religious basis and then demand that the science of evolution, which has grown far beyond that point, must somehow be flawed.

Do try to find something within the last 10 years, alright?

Where Darwin got his ideas from is not important. What does it matter that he was reading Malthus? He made his own observations about what he saw in nature and extrapolated a theory from it. He was inspired to do so by philosophers, but his logic was not based on philosophy. He proposed a systematic mechanism by which life could have progressed. Since then, evidence has been found to support his theory, but it can not and will not ever be proven. And neither will the idea that God created everything as it is. No one was actually there. Both beliefs require faith in something we cannot see.

Emphasis added

Evolution still says nothing about the origin of the earth or the origin of life. It doesn't even argue with the premise that a benevolent God may have sparked life on this planet. What it does argue, and what it conclusively shows, is that life is not immutable. Changes occur; evolution occurs. The only thing evolution disputes, by way of fact rather than belief, is the scenario portrayed by Genesis in the Christian Bible.

Personally speaking, I haven't seen in this debate any presumption of ignorance. I have seen observations, but even those were due to displayed lack of knowledge of a subject, not solely out of a belief in Genesis.


Evolution is science, fact and theory. There have been many discoveries in the century plus years since Darwin proposed his theory by way of natural selection. Whether evolution occurs by natural selection or by other means, and whether the process is driven by nature or by divine means, one thing can be determined for certain. The account presented in Genesis -- and the position maintained by strict Creationists -- that life was created as is without alteration over the years, is wrong.

Neither God nor religion are eliminated by the fact that life changes on this earth contrary to the claims of Genesis and Creationist ideology.

Red in Tooth and Claw

The fact is that the life forms (species, kinds) specially created by God as described in Genesis are immutable. Darwin lied when he said we would find transitional fossils. He knew his philosophical minipulation of the laws of science depended on this. The reason this was done is because the very idea of God was rejected before anyone even consulted the facts. This supposedly has nothing to do with our origins and yet Darwin names his book Origin of Species and declares from the beginning it is an attack on special creation. It is not science, it is not theory, it is not a hypothesis and most importantly it is not faith (or even a viable substitute). It is a myth meant to dispell belief in the Living God, and they as much as admitt it. Thats why these debates get so heated its an insult to the substantive and moral elements of faith. I dont mind so much it being considered science since science is part of it, but it makes me physically ill when its called faith, it lacks any real substance.

"The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.(Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)

These are not Creationists, they are evolutionists and it is incredibly easy to refute evolution on the facts. All you have to do is listen to paleontologists and evolutionist on the facts of transitional fossils and they will do it for you. Darwin, Gould, Huxley, Watson, and Crick (of the famous DNA experiment) all agree. Transitional fossils never stand up to close examination. don't take the word of an creationist who is ignorant of the facts, listen to what famous scientists have to say about this mythic creatures that are supposed to be our ancestors.

Scientists speak on fossils


The National academy of Science tells a different story about these imagined transitions, they describe what the call 'little more then chimpanzee' Lucy. The reason is because she is a monkey and the classification as a transitional fossil was about 12 years.

" Australopithecus, whose earliest known fossils are about four million years old, is a genus with some features closer to apes and some closer to modern humans. In brain size, Australopithecus was barely more advanced than apes. A number of features, including long arms, short legs, intermediate toe structure, and features of the upper limb, indicate that the members of this species spent part of the time in trees. But they also walked upright on the ground, like humans."

Science and Creationism, a view from The National Academy of Science Webpage

The trouble with little Lucy (as she has come to be known) is that she was just a monkey. This has been conclusively proven but for some reason these cartoons never go away. You will find that all transitional fossils have a half life of about 20 years. Their credibility lives on in the elaborate art work that immortalizes them in textbooks and museums.

"Australopithecus afarensis was discovered in November 1974 by Donald Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia. Dr. Johanson believes that this creature (known popularly as “Lucy”) is the immediate ancestor of man (see Johanson and Edey, 1981)… Moreover, other evidence has come to light which suggests that Lucy is little more than a chimpanzee. Evolutionist Jeremy Cherfas noted: “Lucy, alias Australopithecus afarensis, had a skull very like a chimpanzee’s, and a brain to match” (1983, 93:172). Adrienne Zihlman observed: “Lucy’s fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp” (1984, 104:39). Charles Oxnard, while at the University of Chicago, reported his multivariate computer analysis, documenting that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes (1975, 285:389-395). Finally, in the March 1996 National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: “Lucy has recently been dethroned” (189[3]:117)."

Human evolution and the record of the rocks


I wish evolutionists would quit trying to prove that special creation didnt happen then act as if this had nothing to do with the Christian faith. This is an attack on Biblical Christianity, in fact anything but Christian will do. They obviouly prefer this primordial soup fantasy or meterites laced with functional Eukaryotic cells over God. The fact that what is known as 'irreducable complexity' with regards to cell functions makes this impossible to qualify empirically. The way a cell works is the RNA functions like a locomotive(Cranes, bulldozers, dumptruck etc), DNA is like the boxcars. In the boxcars there are the parts of things like mitochondria which functions like a power generator in the cell being constructed. Mitochondria produces ATP (like electricity for cell machinary) for the cells factories like ribosomes which manufacture protiens, the building block of living cells. As I have explained, possible into thin air, amino acids necessary for this have to be asymetrical (left and right handed). Scientists while managing to produce the chemicals on one side have never duplicated the asymetry necessary for life. This is the bare minimum AKA ireducible compexity.

"This has been called irreducible complexity. Even small parts of the components of cells can be unimaginably complex. An example of this is the enzyme adenosine triphosphate synthase, found in all living cells including animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. The elucidation of the structure of ATP synthase won a 1997 Nobel Prize. Every cell contains hundreds of these miniature motors embedded in the surfaces of the mitochondria…the genetic information and RNA plus proteins needed to construct the ATP synthase are in total even more irreducibly complex than the ATP synthase itself. (A car-making factory is more complex than a car.) …The concept of abiogenesis is vital to the atheistic evolutionist. It follows in their thinking that if life can arise spontaneously"


Primeval Soup Experiments

The primary motives for rejecting special creation where not intellectual they were moral. They will tell you God is irrelevant and Natural science is amoral. Truth be told, that is the whole reason for evolution. It never had anything to do with natural selection because the laws of science for it where allready established well before Darwin (by Christian scientists BTW). Evolution isnt a science its a pagan myth. Did you ever wonder where the term liberal came from? How about what liberal politics and liberal theology had in common,? Its moral relativism, staight up, flat out.

"In other words, belief in a God and in another world is so interwoven with my moral sentiment that as there is little danger of my losing the latter, there is equally little cause for fear that the former can ever be taken from me. (Kant, Cirtique of Pure Reason)

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contempories, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially and instrument of liberation. The liberation we desire we simulaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom: we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting whese people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: We soud deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. (A. Huxley, Ends and Means)

"I was set against God...He and His hell were the mightmares of my childhood; I hated Him while I still believed in Him, and who could help but hate? I thought of Him as a fantastic monster perpetually spying, perpetually listening, perpetually waiting to condemn me. (H.G. Wells)

"We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; be­cause comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to sur­vive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a "higher" answer— but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating." (Stephen Jay Gould, Life magizine)

I could list a dozen more; Mills, the moral philosopher and utilitarianism (pleasure = good), this was later developed into pragmatism. Dewey, the father of modern education and instrumentalism ( desire = good). Evolutioists will tell you that God and morals have nothing to do with this, thats a lie.

I'll give anyone wanting to a chance to respond and tomorrow I'll sum up my main points. After that I think I'll stay away from these arguments of science, falsely so called, for a while. Those mythic cartoon creatures are starting to give me the creeps. I'll get into this moral relativism element in another thread sometime. You might not agree with me about this but just because you cant see it, dosent mean its not there.

The facts are we know dinosaurs existed, prior to the facts of the bible. Regardless, if you do not want to agree with the fossil record that does not make it go away either. Just because you dont want to see it does not mean its not there

If evolution is being destroyed so i can have someone’s idea forced of how you should look at reality, that is sad beyond words. NO one stops you from running around in circles all day praising Jesus if you want. I am not here to MAKE you believe evolution either.

The debate has moved from evolution vs creation to some kind of philosophy battle and should have another thread.


BTW, Darwin did not lie about transition fossils, he made an educated guess or hypothesis to support his theory. I think then any scientific workings are bending to you, or lies to destroy something sacred.

That's hardly surprising, most creationists wouldn't know evolution if it bit them. They're so busy misrepresenting it because they insist a priori that it's wrong. My favorite quote from a creationist in a debate was: "I don't know what evolution is, but I know it's wrong."

nileriver writes:


Darwin knew of very few fossils which would be transitional at the time, yet made predictions that they would be discovered. And surprise, surprise... they were. That demonstrates the strength of science, it has predictive power. This is opposed to creationism which predicts nothing and is still proven wrong.

More of the same I see...



Darwin didn't lie and life forms are not by any means immutable. We can tell that much just within the last several years of observing life on this planet.


The idea of God was not in anyway rejected by evolution, and certainly not by Darwin. It isn't even necessarily an attack on special creation but rather an attack on the idea of creation as presented in Genesis, the presentation Darwin and his contemporaries would have been familiar with. In that sense it was because in the account of Genesis we are asked to believe that life is immutable. It isn't. All your talk of evolution being a myth with the nefarious intentions of dispelling belief in God is empty rhetoric which is forced to misrepresent evolution to even stand a chance at succeeding. An honest look at what evolution actually is, and what the theory actually says, will reveal your accusations for what they really are.


The only person out of that list who would have any place commenting on transitional fossils, and who certainly didn't agree, is Stephen Jay Gould. Neither Darwin nor Huxley had the chance to review the information we have today and neither Watson or Crick were qualified for any comments regarding paleontology.

From these already lovely gems, Anarchy, you go on to again use apologeticspress.org as a source, despite their apparent lack of credibility from your earlier citations. It is merely a personal suggestion, but you might want to find a more credible source that knows what it is talking about in the future.


So, in addition to confusing evolution for abiogenesis, our friends from apologeticspress.org have now successfully confused apes for monkeys (they aren't the same thing), and furthermore misinterpreted exactly what Lucy represented: a human ancestor.


Neither ideas of primordial soup or comets laced with organic material eliminate a belief in God or the belief that God is a catalyst for life. The only opposition to special creation is if you choose to limit your definition of special creation to one identical, or similar, to what is presented in Genesis with life being created then as it is today.

In specific regards to abiogenesis, that it hasn't been replicated in the lab as of yet doesn't discount it as a valid theory. It remains a possibility and in contrast to Creationism actually has some probability of occurence.


"Special creation" as you appear to define it is rejected on scientific grounds. Evolution is, contrary to your pseudo-scientific sources and continued misrepresentations, is not a myth of pagan or atheist origins. It is science, flat out. Quoting the opinions and beliefs of random high profile people does nothing for claims of motive in presenting the theory of evolution. Perhaps if you (Anarchy Praxis) would take the time to actually review honest science and what evolution actually is, rather than continue flocking to pseudo-scientific that intentionally distort and misrepresent the arguments, you would be able to comprehend that evolution is not some consipracy against theism, and that it really does say nothing in regards to the existence of a God or the hand such a God might play in the role of life.

Can someone explain, from a creationist standpoint, why cell mitochondria have or need their own DNA if they are not an indication that eucaryotes evolved from procaryotes by forming mutually dependent colonies, just as fungi and algae form lichens?

There is no explanation, creationists, by and large, are not qualified to explain such things. Heck, creationists don't even understand such things. It's much easier to throw their hands in the air, say "God" a bunch of times and declare victory.

ABS,

Your like a living strawman, I couldnt give myself better prompts if I wrote them myself. I dont know if Watson and Crick meet you lofty standards for paleontology, they only shared the Nobel Prize for their work on the molecular structure of DNA in 1962. They shared it with a third guy and there should have been a fourth but he died. I suppose that being part of the the bigest breakthrough in deciphering DNA qualifies you to understand dead bones very well, they were only expert in living systems, not dead monkeys. I imagine you never even bothered to follow the link to read the list of dozens of scientists including, including Darwin and Gould, complaining about the lack of transitional fossils.

Anyway, thanks for the Google search Web page on Australopithecus afarensis, but I had allready done that. Both papers quote from the same article where Lucy is said to have been recently 'dethroned', it was actually by a younger, more chimp like creature. Of course you would of actually have had to read them and care where they were getting their information to do that. I realize (from Bible/Bable) you dont look at primary source documentation to establish crediblity, you have sarcasm and a Google search engine. Oh and Im sorry I dont have a link to a page, with cartoons, of the new missing link monkey, I know how much you like those.

Julian,

Dont know much about mitochondria in fungi and such. I certainly cant speak for Creationism at large. All I know is that Eukarotes have to have ATP to function and protiens to build. Maybe they hijacked them from other hypothetical bacteria or something, bottomline, I dont have a clue. Sorry I cant give you a more in depth answer but cell mitochondria getting along fine without their own DNA is waaaaaay out of my depth.

I was going to finish up with something a little more substantive but all Im drawing is sarcasm and not a whole lot of real science. I still think that God was the primary target of evolution and consequently, atheists have abandoned the concept of causation and are spirialing into the void of atheistic irrationalism. I still believe that God created life as we know it in six days to procreate according to 'kinds', not transmutate from dead molecules, to soup, to cells, to fish, to reptiles, to monkeys ,to humans, ad infinitum, ad nausum. Evolution is impossible to prove at the most critical points of evolution, the transitions. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Doyle, Hound of the Baskervilles). Maybe Im just too simple minded for all these comic book creatures, it all sounds like an epic mythology to me. If I want to read mythology I'll get a book on the Grecian myths, at least there is a moral to their stories. Now in the words of Martain Luther 'I am through, I am through'.

Would that, by any chance, be the same science that led you to say apes were monkeys, that evolution is the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter, and that life is immutable?

Watson and Crick would not have been qualified to say anything of transitional fossils. Their discoveries and their shared Nobel Prize in Physiology has nothing to do with paleontology, and it certainly doesn't automatically grant them authority over the subject. As to the other quotes by anointed-one.net, sadly I did take a glance at them along with the apologeticspress.org nonsense. I've seen that page before and already know -- if anybody can't tell by looking at it -- that quotes are taken out of context, and that some of them, despite being out of context, still don't support the intent of the page.

I have taken the time to follow the links you have provided no matter how misleading, pseudo-scientific or downright dishonest they have been. I suppose I've held some misguided hope that you would resort to honest resources and tactics at some point over the course of this debate.



If you had already done that, why did you refer to Lucy as a monkey, when it was clearly neither a monkey or an ape, but with the closest characteristics falling between a human and an ape? And dethroned is not synonymous with discredited. I provided you the link since your obvious confusion between apes, monkeys, and what Lucy actually represented gave me the impression that you hadn't seen any sources beyond your pseudo-scientific ones which did confuse them all.

Lack of scientific understanding may lead you and others of the creationist persuasion to falsely label evolution as mythology, but through it all -- through all your misinformed and failing attacks on a fact and theory -- it would appear there has been absolutely nothing provided as evidence in support of creationism. There's a reason for that, but I wouldn't want to deprive you of your golden calf.

AP will never stop, hehe, I think hes trying to convince himself more than others.

Life is immutable? good to know, thanks.