Answers to Creationist Nonsense*

[I'm Murrin]

I see only grasping at straws, out of prejudice against anything that would indicate some kind of higher power.

Which is what many people supporting evolution see when creationists try to argue the opposite. It's all about perspective and conviction. I have a feeling we're not going to get anywhere discussing this.

[Worm of Despite]

Personally, I could never take the leap of blind faith required to accept the theory of evolution.

This is a bit ironic. You are a theist, yes?

I see only grasping at straws, out of prejudice against anything that would indicate some kind of higher power.

Two important distinctions that I'd like to make:

First distinction: Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.

Second distinction: Evolution is not about attempting to prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book is false. It is simply the study of living things and how they develop over time. Whether or not that conflicts with a particular interpretation of a particular scripture is not a consideration. There is no conspiracy amongst scientists to disprove the teachings of any of the thousands of religions who happen to make claims about the processes of life.

[lurch]

...Speakin about not gettin anywhere. I believe that all Creationist should not be allowed to use anything made of millions of years ago stuff. For an example; not allowed to operate anything gas powered, cars , trucks, airplanes, trains, ships etc,,etc. Its just a matter of their convictions and society holding them to it. Nope, not even as a passenger, not allowed. Nor anything of plastic is to be of their use or possesion. If one denies a world history of millions and millions of years ago, then one should be willing to live the consequences. I mean, lets not be duplicitous in ones faith. Here is where I say Ihave more respect for the Amish than the Creationists, because the Amish at least try to live by their menonite and whatever else teachings. The Creationist want everybody else to live By Their Convictions.

Yeaaa. round'em all up and give 'em a State,,Kansas would do. Pull the plug on anything sourced over , say 10 thousand years ago,,from going in, and wish'em good luck. No,no,nope, not allowed out until you pass a test showing your 12th grade level of mathmatics, physics, biology, foreign language and English is up to par. ...and have a nice day...MEL

[I'm Murrin]

Edit: At Foul, not lurch.

[Kinslaughterer]

Well to continue to answer...

3) no one understands how the mechanism of evolution works. it is still a mystery.

Evolution is not a mystery at all. There are several mechanisms that produce the change in allele frequency necessary for speciation. They include gene flow, the founder's effect, genetic drift, mutation, point mutation, hybridization, symbiosis, and randomization in genetic duplication. Also Gould's study of punctuated equilibrium.
Quick side note

I would take issue with that comment. It is become accepted evolution dogma that "genetic drift" alone cannot explain the speciation of our world. There are time-table problems - speciation happens faster than genetic drift would suggest. There are combinatory problems - species have several traits in combination which, taken seperately, would result in a lethal trait, and genetic drift can't explain how they came about simultaneously. There are too many 'missing links' in evolutionary chains.

Finally, there is little evidence of any 'less fit' species running around at this time - genetic drift suggests that there should be some number of species who've taken the wrong evolutionary road and are in the process of becoming non-surviving as we speak. Where are they?

Genetic drift is only one mechanism and speciation can happen quickly sometimes, which is known as punctuated equilibrium. It occurs when an ecological niche opens suddenly, by natural disaster, environmental change, or otherwise relatively sudden event.
There are numerous "less fit" species running around and have always been. Competition and environment decide what is less fit so effectively nearly every other large mammal on earth is less fit than humans yet they won't be out competed for some time (As a dozen species go extinct as I type this...) For instance Australopithecus robustus filled a ecological niche as a seed, nut, and plant eater yet was out competed by early Homo for food and space. Plenty of less fit species have existed thats why 90% of the Earth's life forms are now extinct.

4) there is no fossil evidence. there has never been found a transitional species. most fossil specials appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for millions of years then disappear suddenly.

There is an enormous amount of fossil evidence of mammals, reptiles, plants, amphibians, and birds. The Archaeoptyerx is a great example of the combination of reptilian dinosaur features and actual feathers and near hollow bone structure. An entire sequence of fossils from the tiny Eohippus to the modern day horse, large four legged ancestors of whales show the transition with Rodhocetus and Ambulocetus and many more in the animal world. In particular mans fossil record is much better dating back to 7 million years but for sake of the argument the line from early Homo habilius to anatomically modern humans is probably the best studied with the largest number of examples (we have several thousand erectus from all over the world, and several hundred habilius from areas of Africa). A large fossil find recently in Dmanisi shows a mid transistion in habilius to erectus. By the way transitions are not always blatantly evident, a Homo habilius mother doesn't just give birth to a Homo erectus child one day...

5) there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in actual fossil sequences.

I think 5 was effectively addressed by the above statements.

6) the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts evolution. does this law only apply to isolated systems?

This question comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd Law. If it were valid mineral crystals and snowflakes would be impossible as they form from disordered parts. The 2nd law pertains specifically to closed systems where energy does not leave or enter.

and Edge

I see no evidence, nor believable hypotheses.

I see only grasping at straws, out of prejudice against anything that would indicate some kind of higher power.

Despite equivocation about 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, I personally go with the explanation indicated by Occam's Razor.

Of course you won't see evidence if you choose not to...You can stop believing in gravity and it won't stop it from working...
I would like to know how Occam's Razor supports creationism too. Evolution wasn't created out of prejudice, that statement shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about evolution and its principles. Clearly your prejudice prevents you from accepting verified repeatable experiments and data...

If just once someone anywhere can show and prove the existence of a complex fossil or creature that has no ancestral counterpart and spontaneously lives then we'll toss out evolution.

www.talkorigins.org
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
www.skeptic.com
www7.nationalacademies.org/evaluation/
try some of these, I can also put you through to several books

[The Pumpkin King]

I don't mean to offend religion in any way, but I find the claim of "There's not enough evidence to put blind faith in evolution" among the most rediculous statements I've ever heard. Religion, by its own nature, is a concept based on faith; and in many cases, blind faith, for any questioning of accepted doctrine is automatically considered blasphemous. I admit that science isn't always right, but when it isn't, it constantly reinvents itself until it is. That can't be said with religion. Evolution may be spot on and it may be slightly off, but I can promise you that there's a lot more hard fact going in the favor of evolution being a definite factor in the biological progression of this planet than there is sheer evidence for the creationist concepts of religion itself.

Religions have always been resistant to any change. I consider the entire evolution debate exactly as I consider the debates made ages ago about the nature of the universe and our solar system. Supposedly THAT was blasphemous and outside supported church doctrine for a long time, but it didn't stop it from eventually being accepted due to overwhelming evidence. These days, religious leaders could care less.

I can promise you, in two hundred years, the same will be said about evolution. Religion will persist; it will simply be forced to adapt itself to sensible scientific theory, or risk collapsing due to how terribly antiquated its beliefs have become about the nature of the world.

If the concept of evolution isn't the proper nature of things (despite the fact there's a rediculous amount of fossil and biological evidence to support it), science will come up with something that works. Science is the farthest from blind faith one can get. In fact, I would say that blind faith within the tenants of science itself is a seed for the destruction of its ability to accomplish anything objectively.


Moving on...

As I said before, the current view on the nature of the Earth's history ceases to make much sense without Evolution being a dominant factor in life. Climate changes, geographical changes, and biological changes due to the previous ones (different foods becoming available) force mutation, adaptation, and survival of the fittest to be a dominant factor in the existance of life on this planet. Spreading this adaptation over millions of years can cause very, very radical changes in a species to the point it's totally unrecognizable to its predecessor.

Consider our perspective similar to something that can be easily proven as we humans have experienced it--Linguistics. Each son in a family line spanning thousands of generations will swear that he speaks the exact same language as his father. When you string it together though, you find that, at the tips of each line, even though, along the line, each swears they speak the same language as those adjacent to the other, the two at the end, or even two with significant gaps have difficulty, or even impossibility in verbally communicating with eachother. The larger the gap, the bigger the schism in understanding.

Language subtly adapts over time over the course of generations, as words become more useful and many fall out due to their own unuse or irrelevance to the times. Language structure as a whole changes.

Apply this concept to life. The best, most effecient words have more chance of persisting; more chance of becoming an intrinsic part of the language.

This also serves as an interesting model to to the concept of evolution forming entire new species. It's a proven fact that many languages descended from previous ones, and those, from others. Within each language too, is an evolution as well. The sociological and geographical factors that cause that are very similar to the biological and geographical factors that would cause animals and plants to do the exact same.

Evolution and Linguistics work on very similar principles. Linguistics takes quite a bit less time, and is more observable, but it doesn't change the fact that the very concept of a dynamic system in a network of other dynamic systems (As I said in the previous post, most all of the governing factors of Earth outside of physics are dynamic entities) is a very viable, and probable one. And that there really can't be any other way.

[I'm Murrin]

If just once someone anywhere can show and prove the existence of a complex fossil or creature that has no ancestral counterpart and spontaneously lives then we'll toss out evolution.

...And then the UFO nuts would pipe in.

[Edge]

Well, if you can accept the equation that 'something came from nothing', then feel free to pat yourselves on the back and declaim how 'scientific' you are.

Personally, I prefer logic, even if it contradicts your preconceptions.

[The Pumpkin King]

Well, if you can accept the equation that 'something came from nothing', then feel free to pat yourselves on the back and declaim how 'scientific' you are.

Personally, I prefer logic, even if it contradicts your preconceptions.

And that makes more sense then us, and all life spontaniously popping into the existance by the whim of an omnipotent being?

Oh, please.

Science *is* logic.


[Edit] I decided to add a bit more to this just so it doesn't seem like a random snipe at a member. I respect Edge, but simply don't agree with him on this subject.

Evolution is the answer that makes the most sense at the moment, if one reviews all of the facts we know, from an objective, nonbiased, scientific standpoint. Even the concept itself has undergone many, many changes since its creation. If any other alternative made more "sense", I do believe that the scientific community would be using it.

Scientists don't come up with theories simply to discount religion.

They come up with theories to objectively explain the nature of the universe.

[I'm Murrin]

Well, if you can accept the equation that 'something came from nothing', then feel free to pat yourselves on the back and declaim how 'scientific' you are.

Personally, I prefer logic, even if it contradicts your preconceptions.

When did anyone claim that something came from nothing? As has been reitrerated many, many times in this thread, evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life, only how it progressed from that origin to its current state.


And Pumpkin King: 10 points for bringing memetic evolution into the discussion

[The Pumpkin King]

I think one reason people have problems relating to the concept of evolution well is that humanity as a whole has difficulty comprehending incredibly large distances, or incredibly long expanses of time.

Millions of years simply seems too simple a word to describe, in fullness, how long that is, and how much can happen in it.

It's similar to how we can't possibly comprehend the sheer distance between our sun and its nearest companion, Alpha Centauri. We can say "four lightyears" (If I remember correctly, it's something like that), but that, again, is just an abstract word.

People fear what they can't comprehend or understand. Religion is, since it doesn't necessarily require in-depth understanding; just faith, is quite a bit easier to swallow at face value than the concept of things evolving into something new over the concept of millions of perfectly abstract years. Not that I'm bashing religion or anything, as if it gives someone fulfillment, I guess it's a good thing for them, but in the past it hasn't exactly proven itself as an ideal model for dictating the true nature of all existance.

And, Murrin, I adore my analogies. They're incredibly useful to provide understanding to any other listeners in a debate, as you can take something unrelatable and make a parallel to something that can be grasped easier.

Silly human mind! Concepts of infinity and vast distance/time are for gods!

[Edge]

Oh, ok - let's talk about logic then.

Let's consider that spurious answer to 'why are there still monkeys around, if we evolved from them'... the child/adult theory.

Fact is... I see all around me adolescents, young adults, any number of beings in the transition period between child/adult. Strangely enough, I have never come across any half-monkey/half-humans.

And... you speak about life "spontaneously popping into existence" as if in some unfathomable way that's more likely to occur as some spontaneous, random, accident - rather than at the behest of a superior being?

Yeah, uh... I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

[The Pumpkin King]

If you can provide me with overwhelming, testable evidence as to the existance of an omnipotent, all-seeing being in the first place, perhaps I'll reconsider what you have to say.

Consider monkeys and humans like language.

Italian and Spanish both descended from Latin. Latin is still around simply because, though it's dead, we humans keep it around for nostalgic purposes or somesuch. Life doesn't have that kind of memory.

You can see similarities between Italian and Spanish, as you can betweeh humans and primates; thus, your arguement basically consists of If the Spanish language exists, why is Italian still around.

Humans did not descend from monkeys. Spanish did not descend from Italian. They have common ancestors. There's a drastic difference, there.

[I'm Murrin]

If the idea behind evolution is that species become more suited to survive, then its a given that earlier versions of a species, poorer, now obsolete models, wouldn't exist any more, because they'd become something better.
Individuals die. Species evolve. One becomes the other, and the original is gone. Dead. Non-existant. You don't see an adult somewhere, and then find that same person as a child in a different place.

[Edge]

If the idea behind evolution is that species become more suited to survive, then its a given that earlier versions of a species, poorer, now obsolete models, wouldn't exist any more, because they'd become something better.
Individuals die. Species evolve. One becomes the other, and the original is gone. Dead. Non-existant. You don't see an adult somewhere, and then find that same person as a child in a different place.

There are multiple proofs of the existence of primitive species; fossils, etc. The point is, there are NO proofs of intermediate species.

After all these years, we're still waiting for the hypothesized 'missing link'.

I'm not asking for living examples, just some indication of actual existence of these hypothetical 'intermediate stages' of evolution.

[The Pumpkin King]

If the idea behind evolution is that species become more suited to survive, then its a given that earlier versions of a species, poorer, now obsolete models, wouldn't exist any more, because they'd become something better.
Individuals die. Species evolve. One becomes the other, and the original is gone. Dead. Non-existant. You don't see an adult somewhere, and then find that same person as a child in a different place.

There are multiple proofs of the existence of primitive species; fossils, etc. The point is, there are NO proofs of intermediate species.

After all these years, we're still waiting for the hypothesized 'missing link'.

I'm not asking for living examples, just some indication of actual existence of these hypothetical 'intermediate stages' of evolution.

I reverse the question.

If evolution doesn't exist, how come we don't see modern species among the fossilized remains of the extinct ones? Did they suddenly pop into existance at the appropriate time? Hmm?


Don't consider evolution to be kind of a plateau effect. Consider it to be a stream. A species doesn't evolve to one thing, stay that for awhile, then evolve to something else. It's constant, like a water faucet dripping mutations into the gene pool. You have to view it in a perspective of looking at in millions of years at a time in order for it to make an inkling of sense.

[Worm of Despite]

Something else I'd like to throw in, as the debate seems to be shifting toward the whole "missing link" thing:

Evolution is not about monkeys turning into men, or showing that humans are "merely" animals. Evolution does show that humans developed from an ape-like ancestor, along with other modern apes such as the chimpanzee. We did not develop from apes, but alongside them, in the same way that different branches grow from the same trunk of a tree. The development of humans is one minor aspect of the study of evolution, but most biologists will find more interesting creatures to study.

Evolution is a directly observable phenomenon. There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun. Gene pools change; evolution happens.

[Loredoctor]

Finally, there is little evidence of any 'less fit' species running around at this time - genetic drift suggests that there should be some number of species who've taken the wrong evolutionary road and are in the process of becoming non-surviving as we speak. Where are they?

Simple answer: they can't adapt to the environment as well. Happens all the time. Species becoming extinct.


[quot='Wayfriend"]So, yes, evolution still contains many mysteries. The rules of mathematics and probably may in fact play quite a small part in the overall process[/quote]

Religion contains many mysteries. I ask you, are religions now wrong?

[Fist and Faith]

To those who do not believe evolution has taken place, maybe the best place to start is with a simple question:

How old do you think the earth is? And why?

OK, that was two questions.

Although I'd like to take baby steps - because threads, understandably, go off on tangents quickly - I'll tell you where I'm heading. If you answer that the earth is at least millions of years old, I'd like to know if you think that life is the same now as it was millions of years ago. Do you think there were humans that long ago? If so, why? What evidence is there that we were around that long ago? We'll go through the list of plants and animals alive today, species by species, and ask the same things. No, the fact that there is no evidence of many species having lived millions of years ago does not prove that they didn't. But in light of the fact that there are fossils of so many species that are not living today, and fossils of very few species that are living today, is there reason to believe that every living species has been alive on earth since the earth began?

If you do not believe that humans, or a single other plant or animal species living today, have existed since life began, then how is it you do not believe that life changed?

[Avatar]

I'm not asking for living examples, just some indication of actual existence of these hypothetical 'intermediate stages' of evolution.

I can only refer you to the part of Kinslaughterer's excellent post dealing with the fossil record of the various stages of development in several species.

Guys, Wow! A pleasure to read these posts, all of them, but Kin's in particular, as well as Murrin's, Foul's and The Pumpkin King's. Interesting, informative and well crafted. Kudos.

--Avatar