Hmm, I anticipate a major misunderstanding of macroevolution.
ORIGINS
- The chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle).
One, that would be an argument against abiogenesis, not evolution, two, it's bunk anyway. To put it short, the early earth was a big place with lots of good locations for organic matter to react around in the correct ways and millions of years to experiment. Furthermore, life didn't start with fully equipped cells.
(I don't want big ugly embedded videos in my post, but the origin of life and origin of the genetic code videos by cdk007 are well worth looking at for plausible ideas on how life as we know it came about)
DEVELOPMENT - To produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox).
Care to explain, 'cause I have no idea what you're talking about. Development requires alterations in gene regulation, not genetic material. Barring a few errors, all your cells still have the same genetic material as the fertilised egg you started from. And gene regulation in all your cells changes constantly with environmental conditions (simple example: your salivary glands will turn on production if you're looking at an appetising pile of food)
STASIS
- Enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton).
Given that every cell in your body encounters tens of thousands of DNA damage events every day, they'd better do.
However, and here's the catch: DNA repair systems are not 100% error-proof! NOTHING in biology is!
GEOLOGIC COLUMN
- Out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss).
What, where?
DESIGN
- Irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe).
It doesn't, and this is so thoroughly debunked you should be ashamed to bring it up. But for the benefit of lurkers, I'll deploy a few of my favourite debunkings here:
And Lenski et al.'s (again) virtual evolution experiment: irreducible complexity is surprisingly easy to evolve. (And here's an excellent CF post describing the experiment for the lay reader)
DNA REPAIR
Not again!
The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, Nobel Prize for Chemistry
As I've said, it's good but NOT PERFECT. And I'm pretty sure Professor Barton would agree if you didn't quote him out of context.
CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES
Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species & the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt
You're quoting Goldschmidt? Goldschmidt? (This Richard B. Goldschmidt, I presume?) Man, that guy died fifty years ago, and his idea of macroevolution was hopeful monsters. Evolutionary biology has moved on since Goldschmidt. I'm sorry if you haven't. (On a side note, hopeful monsters aren't that far-fetched given developmental genetics, but I don't think they are considered a major player in evolution)
As for speciation, here's some observed examples for you. And here's some more.
(And I'm not entirely sure why creationists harp on about speciation; I suppose if they knew how fuzzy the boundary between species can be they would be less enthusiastic about it)
MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL
Oh dear. Pratt-pratt-pratt... *perseveres*
Any random change in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system.
RUBBISH. In fact, a surprisingly large proportion of random changes can be beneficial, at least in bacteria (<-- Look, more stuff from the Lenski lab!)
And living things are the most complex functioning systems in the universe. Science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.000000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.
The human genome is about 3 billion base pairs. A billionth of that is about 3 base pairs. I've heard that every new human being has over a hundred novel point mutations. Go figure.
(And then we haven't mentioned silent mutations, which may have no effect at all, or mutations to nonfunctional/parasitic DNA, which probably won't shake your system all that much)
The genetic difference between human & his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a gap of at least (48,000,000) 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.
See above.
The Fossil Record -
Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock / life / time over the earth is therefore a fantastic & imaginative contrivance. The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material.
Perhaps because there's no "lack of transitional series". There's plenty of them. And if you feel like complaining about stratigraphic correlation, get acquainted with the Karoo basin.
The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation".
I'll hand this over to a geologist. I don't remember the details of the explanation, and TalkOrigins is dead today
Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field - Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.
No, for several reasons.
(1) I have seen some data used to demonstrate that "exponential" decay. A line fit them exactly as well as an exponential curve; not to mention that there wasn't a single error bar on any of the data points.
(2) Even if the decay is exponential, direct measurements only go back a very short period. Exprapolating from a <200 year interval to 20 000 years ago is a massive no-no in science. (Hey, magnetic fields could fluctuate on a longer time scale than that!)
(3) Even if the decay is exponential and represents a true long-term trend, it can only pinpoint the earliest possible time of the last magnetic field reversal. We know that the earth reverses its magnetic polarity every once in a while, and that pole reversals involve a weakening of the main dipole (here's model). So the earth's magnetic field is an oscillator. That means it goes up and down. That means it doesn't go indefinitely in one direction.
The Global Flood -
The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world.
Yes, just like there are dragon traditions. Myths may have a basis in reality (floods do happen, after all, and quite big ones, too), but more likely than not they embellish and exaggerate that grain of truth until it's hardly recognisable.
M.E. Clark & Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation & periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers. It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.
Citations? And how does the global flood deposit shales, for example?
Population Statistics -
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number.
From whose back end doth that estimate come from?
Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years.
Citation please.
Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089 Obviously, the universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.
Say with me: Extrapolation Is Dodgy. We have no reason to assume that ancient humans grew at that kind of exponential rate throughout their (pre-)history. Exponential population growth happens when there's nothing to keep a population in check. I'd think the most reasonable assumption is that the hunter-gatherers of old were somewhat in check. No antibiotics, no cities where lions don't go, no sterilised water supply, no C-sections, whatever.
I'll leave the rest for someone else, I think. This reply already consumed about 3 hours of my day, and that's slightly more than a healthy dose of PRATTs.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
Last edited by Naraoia; 15th December 2008 at 11:22 AM.
Misrepresenting people galore. Gould argued (hope I don't misrepresent him) that we don't observe small-scale evolution in the fossil record because things like speciation usually take place rapidly (geologically speaking, mind you!) and in small isolated populations. I don't think he ever said that you can't observe transitions in the fossil record at all; and in any case, large-scale transitions are aplenty (see here for vertebrate examples). As for Stebbins, where did he say that, and in what context? If it's this GL Stebbins, he doesn't seem like he would say something like that without qualifications. So citation, please.
Naraoia,
I was curious about the Stebbins quote-mine, myself, and found it in context;
At the outset we should realize that the great majority of biologists accept as demonstrated the fact that organisms have evolved. To be sure, no biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms. Nevertheless, races and species have been produced by duplicating in the laboratory and garden some of the evolutionary processes known to take place in nature. The reason that major steps in evolution have never been observed is that they require millions of years to be completed. The evolutionary processes which gave rise to major groups of organisms, such as genera and families, took place in the remote past, long before there were people to observe them. Nevertheless, the facts which we know about these origins, some of which will be discussed in Chapter 7, provide very strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that the processes which brought them about were very similar to those found in modern groups of animals and plants which are evolving all around us today.
G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution, 2nd edition (Prentice-Hall, 1971)
The quote mine is in context, above, in bold. DOesn't quite say what Zone wants it to, with the surrounding paragraph, does it? Its among the more deceitful misrepresentations of a person's life-work. Satan must be quite proud of its perpetuation by the "Faithful"...
I was looking over some of what has been said, and just picked out this one quote:
The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation".
This is just saturated with prejudice and falsehoods!
"never be filled".. (says who?)
"supposed column"
"record of fossil plants is in favor of special creation"
And "saturated with polystrate fossils...tie all layers to one time frame"
This has been said over and over by how many people but it doesnt get more true by repetition.
BThere is no need for enough to "saturate" the strata. Just one would be plenty.
All that would be needed is ONE true polystrate (creationist word btw) fossll that actually does extent through strata that... according to the best geological interpretation...would have to take hundreds, thousands of millions of years to form.
There is not one such thing that has ever been found.
People arguing against evolutiuon usually do a sort of document dump, so many things to try to answer. How about one at a time?
All that is needed to end the discussion is one true "polystrate" fossil that proves the creationis view.
So lets see one, and if not then the unprejudiced would have to see that point is lost to the creationist.
I was curious about the Stebbins quote-mine, myself, and found it in context;
Thanks for the quote!
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
People arguing against evolutiuon usually do a sort of document dump, so many things to try to answer. How about one at a time?
To be fair, I didask him for "detailed arguments proving evolution 100% wrong". I should've expected a dump
BUT in the same post I also said I'd love to see Zone's definition of evolution, and that was somehow lost in the dumping process.
So, Zone, what is your definition of evolution again?
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
Grar English teacher smash! It's a quotation. "Quote" is a verb, the noun is "quotation". Just because it's come into common usage because of laziness does not mean it's correct.
Grar English teacher smash! It's a quotation. "Quote" is a verb, the noun is "quotation". Just because it's come into common usage because of laziness does not mean it's correct.
Thanks for the correction
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
Grar English teacher smash! It's a quotation. "Quote" is a verb, the noun is "quotation". Just because it's come into common usage because of laziness does not mean it's correct.
Actually, Merriam-Webster's online acknowledges "quote" as a variant of "quotation" and dates it to 1888.
The OED knows it, too (quoted for those who don't have access):
Originally Posted by Oxford English Dictionary online
quote, n.2
2. a. A quoted passage or remark; = QUOTATIONn. 5. Recorded earliest in quote mark n. at Compounds.
1885Pall Mall Gaz. 23 Jan. 6/1 The ‘interviewer’ (..has not the time come for leaving out the quote marks?). 1888Pall Mall Gaz. 12 Dec. 11/2 Stodgy ‘quotes’ from the ancients? 1922T. S. ELIOTLet. ?Jan. in E. Pound Lett. (1951) 236 Do you mean not use the Conrad quote or simply not put Conrad's name to it? 1968Listener 25 July 108/2 Don't ask me questions, since I have no wish to figure as the father of all the quotes in your stories. 1993Humanist in Canada Winter 38/2 The categories with the largest numbers of Russel quotes include Belief, Democracy, Education.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"Come on, put your bloody thinking caps on!" - Dr Tony Prave, geology lecture
) 
See above.
Linear Mode
