Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Originally posted by randman
How about this Jerry?
"Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. .... The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming."
So far so good. They definitively lay out on the line at the get-go that not all of the observations that support evolution (in general) are direct ones, and that the total observations, both direct observations of evolution and observations of indirect evidence which supports evolution adds up to an overwhelming amount. Very good.
Note that now observations which support evolution count as observing macro-evolution itself.
Where does it even imply this?? The fact is that direct observations of evolution ARE supportive of macro-evolution, but I don't think that it is anywhere implied that macro-evolution is observed when the observations mentioned are of micro-evolution.
Besides that, the definition as TO gives it, of macroevolution, includes speciation that has been observed directly.
Jerry, you need to focus not just on semantics here, but the impression TO is trying to create. Take the following.
They are actually trying to clear up FALSE impressions (wonder where those false impressions came from..) If you are finding a false impression created at T.O. you have yet to demonstrate it.
" 'Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.'
Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. ...
"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact."
It is clear then that "evolution" for the Creationists here is macro-evolution, and thus to state Creationists are wrong to say "evolution has not been observed" is a deliberately false statement since the word "evolution" in that suppossed false statement is actually "macro-evolution" as the context makes clear. What TO should say is that despite "evolution" not being observed on a macro-level, micro-evolution has been observed and we feel it is evidence. But the whole tenor of TO is confused, wrought with intellectual dishonesty and wrangling such as counting "evidence" as "observation."
The fact is that evolution HAS been directly observed on the micro- level, speciation HAS been directly observed, and macro-evolution has been indirectly observed. Now what part of the "evolution has never been observed" false claim from creationists do you think still holds water?
Originally posted by randman Jerry here TO claims the chemical properties of carbon are sufficient to create life forms. Read it. I am telling the truth here.
"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, .."
Isaak clearly states here that abiogenesis occurs "according to their (molecules) chemical properties." He goes on as to how these properties create self-replicating forms which combine with "natural selection" to create life forms, "especially" with "carbons."
Why are you putting words in his mouth??
He does not say that abiogenesis occurs according... he says that atoms and molecules arrange themselves according...
What kind of bait & switch are you trying to pull?
"Isaak oversimplifies the whole notion of evolutionary change by telling us that, “Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.”
Evolution or Variation?
Isaak here conveniently fails to mention whether by “change in a gene pool over time” he means exactly that (i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution”), or whether he means “macro-evolution”—which is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them. "
Originally posted by randman "Isaak oversimplifies the whole notion of evolutionary change by telling us that, “Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.”
Evolution or Variation?
Isaak here conveniently fails to mention whether by “change in a gene pool over time” he means exactly that (i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution”), or whether he means “macro-evolution”—which is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them. "
"Even without these direct observations" is false right there because macro-evolution has not been observed as you admitted to.
But he goes on to say without direct observation, "it would be wrong to state evolution has not been observed."
Geesh, Jerry, are you just plain blind? He states that indirect evidences according to evolutonists mind you count as observing evolution. Think about it. EVEN WITHOUT DIRECT OBSERVATION, IT IS WRONG TO SAY EVOLUTION HS NOT BEEN OBSERVED.
If you can't see how that is propaganda, good-bye. There ain't much hope for you. The statements "evolution has not been observed" which Isaak admits means "macro-evolution has not been observed" is actually very true, and "evidences" which are not actual observation of it happening cannot make that statement false.
"Besides that, the definition as TO gives it, of macroevolution, includes speciation that has been observed directly."
But he talking about Creationists statements being false not his. He thus must show that the way they mean it is false, not build up an alternative definition, which is clearly contrary to what creationists mean, and then state the Creationists are making a false statement. This is a straw man argument of the worst kind because he is lying basically and knows it. He knows what critics of evolution mean when they say it has not been observed, and yet he uses misinformation and his own prejudicial definitions to attack critics of evolution, not on what they are actually stating in their criticisms, but in the word-games played by a propagandist.
"Even without these direct observations" is false right there because macro-evolution has not been observed as you admitted to.
I didn't admit that. I actually just substituted the word "speciation" and said that it has been observed to occur. According to the TO definition (a perfectly scientific and valid one) macro evolution is evolution across the "species" boundary.
But he goes on to say without direct observation, "it would be wrong to state evolution has not been observed."
Which is correct, given that we have lots of INDIRECT observations, which are STILL OBSERVATIONS (though not direct) and STILL OF EVOLUTION.
Geesh, Jerry, are you just plain blind? He states that indirect evidences according to evolutonists mind you count as observing evolution. Think about it. EVEN WITHOUT DIRECT OBSERVATION, IT IS WRONG TO SAY EVOLUTION HS NOT BEEN OBSERVED.
That's right, even though we also have direct observations of it.
If you can't see how that is propaganda, good-bye. There ain't much hope for you. The statements "evolution has not been observed" which Isaak admits means "macro-evolution has not been observed" is actually very true, and "evidences" which are not actual observation of it happening cannot make that statement false.
No, the statement isn't true. Evolution at the micro- and macro- level has been observed, both indirectly and directly. It cannot be correct, therefore, to claim that evolution has not been observed at all. Talk about propaganda!
"Now what part of the "evolution has never been observed" false claim from creationists do you think still holds water?"
So now, Jerry, you too falsely claim macro-evolution has been observed. The fact is no Creationist has ever said variation and micro-evolution has not been observed so to say that is what they are referring to is just a false statement. What they have stated is that macro-evolution, which is the theory of common descent by the way, has not been observed, and they are 100% right, and you are completely wrong. Your statement is a perfect example of how evolutionists rely on overstatement and disinformation to try and convince rather than educate thier readers.
"What kind of bait & switch are you trying to pull?"
Is he not talking about abiogenesis? The context is abiogenesis relies on the principles of matter that we have observed and not "chance." Btw, he doesn' even bother explaining what critics mean by "chance" or "randomness" but he does make it clear that the properties of physical matter is the mechanism that creates abiogenesis.
Linear Mode
