Answers to Creationist Nonsense*

[Kinslaughterer]

Ok, let's start from 0.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. Its mechanisms for that change are natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, mutation, and genetic recombination. Recombination happens during meiosis (do creationists believe in meiosis?) where genetic material is randomly distributed thereby creating a child genetically different and ultimately morphologically different (although they may appear similar) than the parents. Gene flow is the simple exhange of genes between populations such as Asians with Africans. Genetic drift occurs when a small population is isolated and its genome is more fully and quickly expressed, for example the Amish, the people of Pitcairn Island, or to a more severe degree Homo floresensis. Mutation is the simple abnormality that occurs because of a failure of genetic processes such as mitosis or meiosis. An example of mutation would be sickle cell anemia, or Tay-Sachs disease.

Macroevolution--take above adaptations and mechanisms and wait. How do we identify macroevolution? Cladistics, analogous and homolgous traits indecies through systematic quantitative measurements. What traits do animals possess? Ancestral traits are those linked to a common ancestor like four limbs. Not all creatures with four limbs are related some very basic traits are can occur independently but be roughy equivalent such as wings on a butterfly and wings on a hawk. One can see a non-specific or more generalized ancestor develop into a more specialized creature such as the Archaeopetryx which Cyberweez has generously shown to be a transitional fossil not between dinosaur and bird but between reptile and bird.
Both articles sited about horses and whales show the vast variation between current species. That argument is not good because ancestral members of both existed long before others. In other words animals clearly identifiable as equus existed long before modern horses. Take the dog too. Clearly canine animals exist as far back as Pliocene Epoch yet modern dogs show enormous variation yet most breeds didn't exist until human manipulation of evolution occured in just the last few centuries.

Take another primate example,Homo erectus is clearly definable as a separate species by 2 million years ago at that time he possessed a cranial capacity of around 900 cubic centimeters. By 300,000 years ago numerous examples of the same fellow can be shown to have brain cases in the 1200 to 1400 range, very near modern humans yet still maintain differences from modern humans. Go back even farther and you have Homo habilis who is represented just like erectus, by the end of its definable existence it shows the same similarities but still slight differences. They both can be clearly shown to be transitional fossils and numerous examples have been located from around the world, not just a few. This lineage can be continually studied at least as far back as Australopithecus afarensis and "lucy" was far from modern humans yet over 3 million years look what can happen as the earth changes, niches open, niches close, and climates vary. Not all clear lines can be made at this point but the mechanism for the change is obvious to those who study it.

Can anyone show me evidence for creationism? Can anyone show me clear scientific evidence against evolution?

[Cybrweez]

The lack of evidence to say whether or not the supernatural even exists justifies the assumption that it does not affect the natural. To assume the supernatural existing and affecting the natural, we'd also have to assume the nature of the supernatural, and assume the way in which it affects the natural. This would be virtually impossible to do, since there is no evidence for the supernatural. In such a case, any and all theories concerning the supernatural would have to be given equal credence, leading to the status where every person who has an idea about the supernatural will come up with a conflicting model for the way in which the natural works. In essence, it would completely destroy the chances of any kind of standard scientific model being reached.

Good point, a scientific standard would be destroyed. Is that a reason to make the assumption tho? My point isn't to destroy standards, but the belief that science has all the answers is based on the belief nothing interferes w/the natural, which is itself an assumption.

[Cybrweez]

CybrWeez, I'm struggling with this one. It's not reasonable to request evidence of god because he "exists" in the realm of the supernatural? But it is reasonable to discredit evolution because god exists in the realm of the supernatural?

The request of evidence from science has nothing to do w/God. I don't think its reasonable to discredit evolution b/c a God may exist in supernatural. I don't think one who believes in God has to present proof why they do, in order to ask proof of science. The idea of science is to work w/proof and evidence, the natural world.

I mean, the opposition to evolution, based on the fact of (supposed) lack of evidence is quite happy to accept creation with a far more glaring (to me at least) lack of evidence. And that's all right, because god doesn't exist in the "natural" realm, meaning that faith (and creation) doesn't require evidence, but evolution does?

I must be missing something here.

Yes, like Kin. If someone has issues and recognizes the problems w/evolution, it does not mean they believe in creation. It means they don't believe in evolution.

"Supposed" lack of evidence? Even noted evolutionists will say there are plenty of problems w/evolution. I think this is the brainwashing of public schools, that many people don't even know the problems, that's some of the gist of Behe's article. Open discussion of evolution is not allowed, therefore, there must be no problems w/it!

[Cybrweez]

Yes, I'm paying attention. I called him a hack because he didn't even test his own hypothesis. Much like a creationist, he simply stated this doesn't make any sense, then a group of leading biochemists shreaded his argument by actually testing it.

Where is this shredding? I asked for link to Scientific American, I'd like to check it out. Didn't get one. Although someone else mentioned it, and they were impressed w/Behe's response. Apparently, it might not be so shredded. But those types of exaggerated statements are fun aren't they?

You are bordering on ignorance when you can quote two people for your argument and have failed to read the other side. If all you spout is creationism or some creationist supporter (and despite the trappings Behe is just that)

Ur-bane, there's one for you. Kin, I think you forgot the rest of your thought. BTW, as far as I know, from Behe's book and website, he believes intelligent design is behind life's origins and workings. That does not equal creation, despite whatever trappings you see. What other side have I failed to read (besides the SA article, b/c there's no link to it). I've read some of the critiques of Behe's book and idea, and I've read his responses.

[Cybrweez]

Edge, a new species being created from an existing species is observable, its what micro-evolution is. However, Lord Foul's statement that "evolution" is fact is questionable, b/c what type of evolution is he talking about? If he believes macro-evolution is a fact, then there is no use debating w/him.

To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.

My bad. My idea of what macro and micro evolution are were wrong. Here's what I meant:

‘Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

From :
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

The key point being changes in genetic info is observable, but increases, required for particles-people evolution, has never been. Does evolution contain the idea of an increase of genetic information?

[Cybrweez]

Duchess Malfi (?), not to ignore you, but there is another thread about creationism being taught in schools.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Just wanted to say something about the "smart set" that instantaneously rejects those who don't agree with them.
Yeah, I'm a member of a lot of "smart sets". For example, I'm a member of the "smart set" that doesn't believe the earth is flat. I'm also a card carrying member of the "smart set" of people who don't think the Earth is the center of the universe.... the "smart set" phenomenon happens when you have a group of people who disagree with accepted science. It's nothing new, or special to this debate. Anger against the "smart set" comes when the people who disagree with accepted science get frustrated and angry. It has nothing to do with any kind of truth.

[Kinslaughterer]

www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pennock_behe.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/behe_jumps_the_shark/
www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter10b.html
www.philoonline.org/library/shanks_4_1.htm
ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/behe.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
www.americanscientist.org/template/Asse ... ltext=true
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000 ... DF&catID=2
www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=56&t=5331&s=
www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content ... 0_1899.asp

This should be enough reading for the moment and for fun here is an interesting quote by Behe...

Unfortunately but honestly Behe later stated: "Demonstration that a system is irreducibly complex is not a proof that there is absolutely no gradual route to its production" (21), thereby undermining the beauty and power of his falsificator. But Behe did more to undermine his falsificator of Darwinism. In an article in the journal Biology and Philosophy (29) Behe stated "A weak point of Darwinian theory is its resistance to falsification. What experimental evidence could possibly be found that would falsify the contention that complex molecular machines evolved by a Darwinian mechanism? I can think of none". I can think of none? This is an extremely amazing claim. Behe forgets his own mousetraps! What was the point of writing Darwin's Black Box? What was the point of the concept 'irreducible complexity'? What was the point of the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting system, if not refuting their Darwinian origin?

Shredded...

[Edge]

Answers to evolutionist nonsense:

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance over time are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

(2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil is a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

(3) The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered — certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the “record” was conveniently changed to conform with their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.

(4) The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

5) Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

Likewise, when evolutionists argue that similarity in structure or function among various organisms proves evolution, they are mistaken. In actuality, similarity of structure or function proves nothing more than similarity of structure or function because it is very reasonable to assume that a Divine Creator would utilize a single master plan for creation that would consistently adhere to a limited number of basic variations.

(6) Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.

Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects which possess delicately-balanced attibutes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change. Instead, it required a Creator to bring such life-forms into existence in a mere moment of time.

(7) Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

(8) Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By “absolute nothingness,” I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.

(9) One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true.

Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.

(10) Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor — but no free oxygen.

Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. (See, e.g., "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere" by Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham in the March 1982 issue of GEOLOGY.) In other words, evolution could not have even started.


(11) Over the years there have been a number of frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are "missing links" to be found in the fossil record. These frauds and blunders have included:

* Eoanthropus dawsoni, popularly know as the "Piltdown Man"

* Arachaeopteryx, sometimes called the "Piltdown Chicken"

* "The Orgueil Fall"

* Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, meaning "Western ape-man"

* Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "erect ape-man"

* Australopithicines, meaning "Southern Apes."

The sad reality is that school children often are still taught that the aforementioned frauds prove the theory of evolution beyond any doubt.

Sometimes people will say that science and religion do not meet within the realm of human existence because they touch on completely different, unrelated levels of reality. Hence the assertion that science can not prove or disprove the validity of religious belief. Meanwhile, others will claim that science actually disproves the validity of Christian faith.

However, my immediate response to all such assertions is this. If the evidence of history, science, ethics, values and psychology did not prove the truth claims of biblical Christianity beyond any reasonable doubt for an intellectually-honest person, I would not even be a Christian.

Because "true faith" is belief based upon reason and factual evidence and intellectual honesty; it is not blind, emotional faith based upon hypotheses and presuppositions which arbitrarily exclude vital evidence and/or alternative explanations that are more consistent with the organized complexity of our world and universe.

That is why Jesus said that we should love God with all of our heart, and soul and MIND, meaning we should love God, Ultimate Reality and Ultimate Truth, on all levels of human existence, including the emotional, the intellectual and the spiritual. Thus, our worldview of reality should encompass the entirety of human experience in a comprehensive coherent whole.

- Frank L. Caw, Jr

[I'm Murrin]

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance over time are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

Thinking of it as blind chance isn't right. There are clear parameters that narrow the options significantly. The people who argue that the possibility of the results coming about by chance is near impossible often seem to be thinking as though this 'chance' invloves every single possible combination being tried before one works - which isn't how it works, there are only certain changes possible with any single progression, so the element of chance isn't the ruling factor in what does or doesn't happen. The addition of parameters and limits to the probability equations makes the results far less improbable than they would initially seem.

(2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil is a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

Invalid. As has been mentioned, the classification of species as 'original', 'final' and 'transitional' is redundant, since the change occuring is constant between generations, the variation being in the magnitude of such changes.

(3) The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered — certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the “record” was conveniently changed to conform with their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.

Not entirely sure of my response to this point, admittedly. Population growth has never been shown to be gradual in any part of nature - it follows patterns and trends based once again on competition and environment. Example - mass extinctions have been shown to be followed by sudden and large scale population growth and emergence of a multitude of new species.

(4) The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

Small changes can accumulate. Environment dictates what characteristics ensure survival. Key point: Earlier changes can affect what future changes are possible without affecting ability to survive. Assuming that original parameters for genetic alteration will remain throughout descent with modification is wrong, since the changing genetic makeup is dictating the changes possible.

5) Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

Likewise, when evolutionists argue that similarity in structure or function among various organisms proves evolution, they are mistaken. In actuality, similarity of structure or function proves nothing more than similarity of structure or function because it is very reasonable to assume that a Divine Creator would utilize a single master plan for creation that would consistently adhere to a limited number of basic variations.

Assumption of Creation to substantiate argument. No comment.

(6) Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.

Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects which possess delicately-balanced attibutes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change. Instead, it required a Creator to bring such life-forms into existence in a mere moment of time.

Would rather pretend I hadn't seen the line in italics.
About "evolutionary mechanism in living cells": Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is not believed that there is some function of a cell which propagates evolution.

(7) Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

We're not discussing abiogensis. Different subject matter entirely.

(8) Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By “absolute nothingness,” I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.

Assumption of atheism in all supporters of Evolution. Ridiculous and stupidly biased. Once again, we're talking biology, not the origins of the universe here.

(9) One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true.

Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.

I think it was mentioned earlier that the second law applies only to a closed system. In terms of life on earth, there is a constant influx of energy from the sun, meaning this does not apply.

(10) Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor — but no free oxygen.

Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. (See, e.g., "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere" by Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham in the March 1982 issue of GEOLOGY.) In other words, evolution could not have even started.

Do I have to say this a third time? With each successive point this individual seems to get further from the matter at hand and to reveal more and more of his personal bias. The repeatedly implied belief that evolutionism is synonymous with atheism is just... wrong, and shows the authors ignorance of the views of actual evolutionary theorists.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance over time are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

Well, sure, it would make a whole lot more sense. If beforehand you proved that there is in fact any kind of Divine Creator. ASSUMING there is a Divine Creator, obviously it would make more sense for the Divine Creator to have done all the divine creation. For me to believe that the Divine Creator theory was actually more likely, I would first have to be shown that there was in fact a Divine Creator.


This objection points more to aliens than god. heh.

[Plissken]

But who created the aliens? (We're back to the same problem!)

[Kinslaughterer]

I have already addressed and dispelled the entire argument but here is a link that deals with the points again raised.

www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000 ... DF&catID=2

Have you read any of my previous posts? I'm long past beating a dead horse, I'm defiling the corpse at this point.

Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "erect ape-man"

* Australopithicines, meaning "Southern Apes."

T

hese aren't hoaxes!!! What kind of garbage and ignorance is this guy tossing? There are hundreds of examples of erectus and the various australopithecines. For him to even suggest that shows he knows very little about evolution to begin with.

This article was the nonsense originally responded to by the above link.
It really amazing what people can believe when it goes against the teachings of their religion...

[Kinslaughterer]

If anyone is going to try and disprove evolution with science please use some notion that hasn't been fully discredited.
Evolution much like feces happens....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pennock_behe.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/behe_jumps_the_shark/
www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter10b.html
www.philoonline.org/library/shanks_4_1.htm
ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/behe.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
www.americanscientist.org/template/Asse ... ltext=true
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000 ... DF&catID=2
www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=56&t=5331&s=
www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content ... 0_1899.asp

[ur-bane]

You know, I chose to read cybrweez' link on the Eohippus (www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp).
Here is a quote from that particular article:

The fossils

The fossils do not carry signs saying how old they are. Their age is generally assigned to them, depending on their relative depth of burial. Those in the deepest rock layers have the greatest ages assigned to them. Based on the biblical framework, we should expect many, but not all, fossils to have been buried during the Flood, so the oldest would really be only about 4,500 years old. Fossils higher up may have been buried by local catastrophes since the Flood.

Now, the interesting thing is that the author is wrong here. Ages are not "generally assigned" based on depth of fossil burial. The depth is certainly a clue, but the author fails to mention that the surrounding rock is dated and an estimate of the fossil's age is determined based on the rock. The dating procedure is based on known halflives of certain radioactive isotopes. Proven that the degenerative process produces a direct ratio between the mother and daughter isotopes.
How can the author then claim that these fossils are no more than 4500 years old, when the dating methods show these fossils to be tens of thousands of years older?

The dating techniques that are used to verify authenticity of original bible manuscripts are acceptable, because they fit the creationist argument, but those same techniques are simply "thrown out the window" when it comes to fossil records? Amazing how that works, no?

[Sheriff Lytton]

Ever notice how people who oppose the theory of evolution look really unevolved ?

[Fist and Faith]

CYBERWEEZ

Just trying to get your attention. Nobody arguing against the existence of evolution has answered me yet, so I'm singling one of you - you - out.

Its been stated here that evolution, and I'm assuming macro-evolution is meant, is a fact. Man, even just saying that makes me laugh. Some are just curious where macro-evolution has been observed.

............

But I'm questioning evolution, b/c of the many problems. Whether there is a God or not doesn't deal w/the issue of problems in evolution.

As Foul has said, there are two issues:
1) There is the fact of evolution. Life has changed over time.

2) There are some theories that try to understand how these changes occurred. (The most popular of which is, I suppose, random mutation and natural selection.)

MY QUESTION, AGAIN, NOW TO YOU, IS:
Do you agree with #1? Do you think life on the planet is the same now as it has been since life began (regardless of how it began) on the planet? Do you think human beings have existed, looking and behaving exactly as we do now, as long as there has been life? Do you think every species of plant and animal has existed, in the exact forms they now have, since the beginning of life?

Ok, let's start from 0.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time.

Maybe you could back up to -1 for me, and explain what an allele frequency is? What's an allele, and how frequently do we see it? I gather it has to do with genetics.

The dating techniques that are used to verify authenticity of original bible manuscripts are acceptable, because they fit the creationist argument, but those same techniques are simply "thrown out the window" when it comes to fossil records? Amazing how that works, no?

Yes, this happens a lot. Some will tell us how wrong science is, how unreliable it is. But they tell us via the internet! And they reap the benefits of genetically engineered crops; navigational satellites; medical marvels; the light bulb; internal combustion engines; pulleys; and a list that goes on longer than anyone could possibly write - all the while telling us that science is a man-made concept that has no basis in fact, but only exists in the minds of scientists.

[Kinslaughterer]

Alleles (sometimes referred to as genes) are pieces of chromosomes that govern traits (genotypes and phenotypes). The frequency they occur is the frequency represented in a given population. Over time various mechanisms can affect this frequency and and change it. Therefore different traits are represented and given a long enough time and that change can be dramatic.

[Fist and Faith]

OK. Then an example of a change in allele frequency might be as simple as a change in the percentages of eye colors in some animal?

[Kinslaughterer]

Sure enough, all changes are based on a simple genetic frequency. If you change enough of those genes then you have a whole new animal, so to speak.