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.
A month ago someone mentioned Hovinds $250,000 Challenge in a letter in the local paper. I replied with a few points about Mr Hovind and the fradulent challenge, also noting the letter writer misconceptions about evolution (big bang, random chance)
And today another letter writer wrote this.
..
I assume that Ross MacLeod believes in the theory of evolution (ie, macro evolution ; when species over a long time randomly change into other species) If my assumption is correct, could he answer:
How does evolution work? Is there any evidence of evolution (past and present)
We can then guage whether the theory is scientific fact or hypothesis only.
..
Now that's a guantlet thrown down if ever I saw one!
It's a 200 world limit reply. My current draft is this.
....
James Fong (Waikato Times 21st Sept) challenges me to explain how evolution works. I am not a scientist and have only 200 word limit here. I would recommend www.talkorigins.org or http://www.christianforums.com/f70 for a wealth of information.
Evolution begins with mutation, an offspring genetically different to the parent. The mutation is random. Evolution is not. If the mutation offers an advantage to the offspring that allows it to reproduce more often, then the new genetic structure will become more common. Repeat many times in many different situations and you have evolution.
Evidence exists in the form of fossils and genetic code. Scientists in the relative fields examine data and piece it together in the best way they can. The past is not observed personally nor does it need to be. It is reconstructed, such as in C.S.I.
Finally, no scientific theory is ever proven 100%. Gravity, relativity, germs, atoms; all these are scientific theories. Evolution is the best scientific explanation we have to fit the evidence that exists.
Most scientists would willingly admit that they could be wrong. Yet it is an admission seldom seen from the creationists.
....
Any suggestions, warnings or recommendations?
Ryal Kane (Ross MacLeod)
__________________ From childhoods hour I have not been
as others were. I have not seen
as others saw. I could not bring
my passions from a common spring.
From the same source I have not taken
my sorrow. I could not awaken
my heart to joy at the same tone.
All I loved, I loved alone. Edgar Allen Poe
James Fong (Waikato Times 21st Sept) challenges me to explain how evolution works. I am not a scientist and have only 200 word limit here. I would recommend www.talkorigins.org or http://www.christianforums.com/f70 for a wealth of information.
Evolution begins with mutation, an offspring genetically different to the parent. The mutation is random. Evolution is not. If the mutation offers an advantage to the offspring that allows it to reproduce more often, then the new genetic structure will spread through the population. Repeat many times in many different situations and you have evolution.
Evidence exists in the form of fossils and genetic code. Scientists in the relative fields examine data and piece it together in the best way they can. The past is not observed personally nor does it need to be. It is reconstructed, such as in C.S.I.
Finally, no scientific theory is ever proven 100%. Gravity, relativity, germs, atoms; all these are scientific theories. Evolution is the best scientific explanation we have to fit the evidence that exists.
Most scientists would willingly admit that they could be wrong. Yet it is an admission seldom seen from the creationists.
There can be only one.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Heh.
Actually my clan's from the isles not the highlands.
I did have a great uncle Duncan though.
Ryal Kane
__________________ From childhoods hour I have not been
as others were. I have not seen
as others saw. I could not bring
my passions from a common spring.
From the same source I have not taken
my sorrow. I could not awaken
my heart to joy at the same tone.
All I loved, I loved alone. Edgar Allen Poe
Repeat many times in many different situations and you have evolution.
Bait n Switch.
The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the “paradox of the visibly irrelevant”-or, if you can see it at all, it’s too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin
A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"
Originally Posted by Ryal Kane
The past is not observed personally nor does it need to be. It is reconstructed, such as in C.S.I.
CSI is based on real time experiments. They observe blood spatters and body decomposition in controlled real time experiments, and then apply their obervations to crime scenes.
Now try this (i.e. repeatable real time observations) with evolution. How do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science -- the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. ~ Ernst Mayr
We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific .... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ~ Colin Patterson
The domain of origin science was taken over by operation science. Even the unique, unrepeated events of the origin of the universe, of life, and of new life forms were treated as though the were observed regularities in the present. The difference between unobserved past singularities (origin science) was obscured. The search for natural (secondary) caused for how the universe and life operate in the present was gradually extended to how they originated in the past. Overlooked was the fact that events of origin are not a recurring pattern of events against which a theory of origin can be tested. ~ Norman Geisler
Originally Posted by Ryal Kane
Evolution is the best scientific explanation we have to fit the evidence that exists.
If you begin with the assumption that our Creator is irrelevant.
For scientific materialist the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might therefore more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. ~ Phillip Johnson
Originally Posted by Ryal Kane
Most scientists would willingly admit that they could be wrong. Yet it is an admission seldom seen from the creationists.
People only see what they are prepared to see. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool.~ Richard Feynman
Scientists, being as a rule more or less human beings, passionately stick up for their ideas, their pet theories. It's up to someone else to show you are wrong. ~ Niles Eldredge
But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology. ~ Stephen Jay Gould
It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we've seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions. ~ Roger Lewin
In the acquisition of new knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it. ~ William Broad and Nicholas Wade
When dealing with people remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudice, and motivated by pride and vanity. ~ Dale Carnegie
__________________ If it is evolutionism, it is not science. If it is scence, it is not evolutionism.
Bevets, why don't you stop the quote mining for once? You can say things in your own words without needing those. Most of the time your quotes are out of context or irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you would take some time to actually read the quote mined sentences, you'd see that.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
more bevets spam eh? I'd suggest reporting it, since he repeatedly violates the rules anyway and only posts to antagonise users. He's on my ignore list though, so I have no idea what he is saying.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the “paradox of the visibly irrelevant”-or, if you can see it at all, it’s too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould
The only thing Gould says here is that large transitions as seen in the fossil record will take longer than can be directly observed there. No worries for us, we know that already.
Originally Posted by quote mine 2
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin
This doens't hold any value without the arguments why. I don't care whether our queen says that micro-evolution can't be extrapolated, if she won't come with arguments, she's on shallow water. Next to this, Lewin isn't known by me for his accurate quoting himself:
Originally Posted by from site on the Chicago conference
Subject: Ayala Misquote - You need to correct
To the Webmaster of this site:
I notice that in your site you use the alleged quote from Dr Franciso Ayala:
"The paleontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate." as reported by Roger Lewin in his article article "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science Magazine, Volume 210, 21 November 1980, pp 883-887.
I have communicated with Dr Ayala on this "quote" and he has informed me as follows:
"I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I presented a paper/lecture and spoke at various times from the floor, but I could not possibly have said (at least as a complete sentence) what Lewin attributes to me. In fact, I don't know what it means. How could small changes NOT accumulate! In any case, virtually all my evolutionary research papers evidence that small (genetic) changes do accumulate."
In other words, Dr Ayala directly denies having said the words attributed to him by Lewin, and in fact expresses his completely opposite opinion.
May I suggest that in the interests of accuracy and intellectual honesty, you remove the offending quote from your web site, or at least add the rider that Dr Ayala denies the accuracy of the quote.
(Please note that Dr Ayala has given me permission to quote him, but not out of context and not using incomplete sentences. I request therefore that if you choose to use the above words from Dr Ayala in your clarification, that you use the entire text and do not paraphrase or condense in any way.)
Richard Arrowsmith
Adelaide, South Australia
July 26, 2001
Originally Posted by parable
A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"
This 'parable' has been refuted on this forum more than once and is more consistent with creationism.
I'll get back on this later.
Score so far. 1 misquote, 1 irrelevant quote from an inaccurate quoter and a parable refuted a thousand times.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
more bevets spam eh? I'd suggest reporting it, since he repeatedly violates the rules anyway and only posts to antagonise users. He's on my ignore list though, so I have no idea what he is saying.
I know. I need the practice
So far, 1 misquote and 1 irrelevant quote. Am busy now, I'll go over the others if I got more time.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Linear Mode
