Is there any evidence for evolution?

[Gregory Mallett]

I have an apology to make to everyone. I had mistakenly quoted Mike Snavely as a supposed biologist, but I was just informed by a personal email from him that he is indeed not a credible biologist. That being said, here's his email...

Hello Gregory,
Thank you for the e-mail. I hope you are doing well in your forum discussions with the evolutionist - they have no leg to stand on scientifically.

I am not a biologist. All of my material is strained through trained professionals in all fields. One of the easy-escape ploys being used commonly today by those who don't have a leg to stand on is to cite the lack of credentials. At one point, I was teaching in a high school about dinosaurs. A student asked me afterwards what degree I had in the field. I told him I had none. He then asked how he can trust me since I don't have a PhD in one of the sciences concerned. I responded that since he doesn't have a PhD in the field either, then his criticism is not valid and also untrustworthy. The issue goes round and round.

I've encountered the same issue with followers of Hugh Ross. One of them claimed that since Dr. Walter Brown (whose work on global flood issues I use extensively) has no degree in hydrology, then he can't be trusted. Using the exact same argument, I asked this man if he ever shares the Gospel with anyone. He said he did. I asked him how he could be trusted since he doesn't have a degree in theology.

People will use any escape they can to avoid the truth.

 

[USincognito]

How about presenting a few of his arguments that you find most compelling?

 

[AdamSK]

Maybe he could email you his math?

 

[Nicky Blass]

I have an apology to make to everyone. I had mistakenly quoted Mike Snavely as a supposed biologist, but I was just informed by a personal email from him that he is indeed not a credible biologist. That being said, here's his email...

Hello Gregory,
Thank you for the e-mail. I hope you are doing well in your forum discussions with the evolutionist - they have no leg to stand on scientifically.

I am not a biologist. All of my material is strained through trained professionals in all fields. One of the easy-escape ploys being used commonly today by those who don't have a leg to stand on is to cite the lack of credentials. At one point, I was teaching in a high school about dinosaurs. A student asked me afterwards what degree I had in the field. I told him I had none. He then asked how he can trust me since I don't have a PhD in one of the sciences concerned. I responded that since he doesn't have a PhD in the field either, then his criticism is not valid and also untrustworthy. The issue goes round and round.

I've encountered the same issue with followers of Hugh Ross. One of them claimed that since Dr. Walter Brown (whose work on global flood issues I use extensively) has no degree in hydrology, then he can't be trusted. Using the exact same argument, I asked this man if he ever shares the Gospel with anyone. He said he did. I asked him how he could be trusted since he doesn't have a degree in theology.

People will use any escape they can to avoid the truth.

He was obviously raised to be a creationist, sadly he's working hard to square real life with what he was taught to believe.

 

[46AND2]

I have an apology to make to everyone. I had mistakenly quoted Mike Snavely as a supposed biologist, but I was just informed by a personal email from him that he is indeed not a credible biologist. That being said, here's his email...

Hello Gregory,
Thank you for the e-mail. I hope you are doing well in your forum discussions with the evolutionist - they have no leg to stand on scientifically.

I am not a biologist. All of my material is strained through trained professionals in all fields. One of the easy-escape ploys being used commonly today by those who don't have a leg to stand on is to cite the lack of credentials. At one point, I was teaching in a high school about dinosaurs. A student asked me afterwards what degree I had in the field. I told him I had none. He then asked how he can trust me since I don't have a PhD in one of the sciences concerned. I responded that since he doesn't have a PhD in the field either, then his criticism is not valid and also untrustworthy. The issue goes round and round.

I've encountered the same issue with followers of Hugh Ross. One of them claimed that since Dr. Walter Brown (whose work on global flood issues I use extensively) has no degree in hydrology, then he can't be trusted. Using the exact same argument, I asked this man if he ever shares the Gospel with anyone. He said he did. I asked him how he could be trusted since he doesn't have a degree in theology.

People will use any escape they can to avoid the truth.

Kudos to him on his quick reply...and to you for investigating.

That said, I have an issue with his comments. It doesn't take a PhD to make relevant discoveries in any field of science. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers by people without doctorates.

What we were objecting to was the title you gave him of biologist. It implies a level of expertise on the subject. A simple mistake, and we appreciate you setting the record straight.

 

[RealityCheck01]

All previous "evidence" for evolution is slowly being disregarded discarded. The actual theory as a whole is quietly being abandoned within the scientific community, though this fact is not know to many.

Can you give any evidence for this, Gregory Mallett, e.g. a list of maybe hundreds of biologists who used to believe in evolution and now do not?

For some reason, people who study fossils do not expect the surface of the Earth to be covered with fossils. I think the "math" is wrong.

Science does not involve proving that something is 100% correct - that is mathematics. Science is a process where evidence is collected and theories are written to explain that evidence. The theories that explain more of the evidence than others survive. We have an enormous amount of physical evidence for evolution collected from before Charles Darwin to today. The theory that explains most of the evidence is the modern evolutionary synthesis.

What evolution has to offer is amazing insights into the marvelous way that our world (God's world if you like) works. Evolution allows us to make advances in medicine that save lives.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I have an apology to make to everyone. I had mistakenly quoted Mike Snavely as a supposed biologist, but I was just informed by a personal email from him that he is indeed not a credible biologist.

That is not too much of a problem, Gregory Mallett, since knowledgeable, competent amateurs can have valid contributions to science.

The problem comes when they make assertions that knowledgeable, competent professionals would disagree with. For example that "the surface of the Earth should be covered in fossils math" when fossil experts are not surprised at the relative rarity of fossils. If that math were correct then it would not be in a DVD. Mike Snavely would have written a paper, submitted it to a journal on fossils and it would have been published.

Things get worse when we go looking for accessible Mike Snavely literature and find his idea for the formation of the Grand Canyon in another DVD: a dam breach, then a runaway cataclysm! Even a non-geologist such as me knows the difference between a meandering canyon and the fairly straight trenches created by a dam breach.

Also not promising is Aunt Lucy | Hominids, Apemen, and Other Fables

There are no scientific laboratory models that indicate Darwinian evolution has ever occurred, or that it is even possible. Therefore, the only other source that could possibly verify the theory would be the fossil record – – – literally, solid evidence!

Which is the good old debunked no transitional fossils creationist claim.
A lie by omission: "The fossil record basically indicates that huge numbers of creatures were buried in mud (sedimentary layers)." should be "The fossil record basically indicates that a relatively small percentage of creatures were buried at different times and thus in different ages of the Earth."
The simple fact that we can find fossils A, B and C in different layers where B shares features of A and C means that B is a transitional fossil between A and C.
A lie about expecting "billions and billions of “intermediate” (ape-men) fossils" to be found. Open one book about fossils and Mike Snavely would have read that a tiny percentage of deaths result in a fossil forming. The overwhelming majority of bodies are eaten. Most of the rest just rot because the conditions are not right.

 

[Gregory Mallett]

Can you give any evidence for this, Gregory Mallett, e.g. a list of maybe hundreds of biologists who used to believe I evolution and not do not?

For some reason, people who study fossils do not expect the surface of the Earth to be covered with fossils. I think the "math" is wrong.

Science does not involve proving that something is 100% correct - that is mathematics. Science is a process where evidence is collected and theories are written to explain that evidence. The theories that explain more of the evidence than others survive. We have an enormous amount of physical evidence for evolution collected from before Charles Darwin to today. The theory that explains most of the evidence is the modern evolutionary synthesis.

What evolution has to offer is amazing insights into the marvelous way that our world (God's world if you like) works. Evolution allows us to make advances in medicine that save lives.

Sure! If you want hundreds of quotes from modern scientists refuting evolution, read Don Boys Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith. I will warn you that he is very biased an rather immature in tone at times, but the points he raises and the quotes he lists are nevertheless legitimate.

And in regards to science not always being 100% proven, this is true. Even though we may have rock-solid, irrefutable evidence that he earth is round, we may find out in two hundred years that it's actually all a grand illusion; a trick of light or something like that. But for now, we can safely assume that the earth is indeed round based on the evidence we have. This isn't the case with the theory of evolution. There are still many gaping holes just'a waiting to be filled, too many internal contradictions within it that we cannot actually call it fact.

Your first clue if whether or not we can trust something that science tells us is true is whether or not there are researchers working out all the kinks; do you see scientists trying to prove that an aerofoil can produce lift? No, because it's already been tested and proven and is proved thousands of times a day. Do you see people trying to prove the origin of mankind and the origin of the first self-replicating cell? Well yeah, because it's an incomplete theory. How can we call an incomplete theory undisputed fact?

Well, here's one reason: it's the more convenient alternative to special creation. Some people, not everyone mind you, are very quick to accept whatever "science" comes up with because they'd rather believe in something that doesn't hold them accountable to the law of God, which is written on the hearts of every single human soul on earth.

Now I'm not saying that science is not allowed to investigate new ideas and test them over periods of time to make sure they are true, because this is what is happening today. We want to know more about where we came from and so we are in a searching process. This is perfectly acceptable! What isn't acceptable is when you take a theory which has not yet been proven through and through as law, and you tell us that it is law, and everyone else who disagrees is a bigot. That's just not logical, it's not even good science.

Now for the math that you guys have been requesting, well here it is, or at least a part of it.

First we need to break the numbers down so they are easier to chew on. Let's take 3.8 billion years of evolution, cut that into, say, 5 million. Maybe even 5 million years is hard to stomach, so let's turn that into 100,000 years. Alright, 100,000 years is the number.

Let's say we have two of a species, male and female, whose environment is so harsh and dismal that they can only double in population every 1000 years of reproduction. That's overly generous. Let's see what happens when we do the math...

Every one thousand years, the population will double, as follows. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32728, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576, 2097152, 4194304, 8388608, 16777216, and so on and so forth. That was only 24 of the 100,000 years of evolution. The final figure come out to be ridiculously big! Remember that these figures are only approximate estimates, I haven't accounted for the myriad of other factors that could have potentially altered their numbers, such as famine, rapid climate change as well as the infinitesimal chance that any of the remains could have fossilised and remain fossilised for us to find in the future.

Now that's just 100,000 years, let alone, 5,000,000, let alone 3,800,000,000. And that was only one species!

Anyways guys, I have like four atheist-evolutionists on my tail right now, all demanding resources and evidence (which I would be happy to provide, circumstance permitting), and maybe I'd like to keep responding to your prompts, but my situation is a bit crazy right now. I'm training under the Canadian Air Cadets program for my Private Pilot's licence and as such am ridiculously busy, I just don't have the time to keep up with all the questions. So as a result this will be my last reply to this particular thread.

It all boils down to logic for me. I don't have a very scientific view of evolution, I approach it from a more logical perspective and come to my own conclusions as best as I can from there, using external resources to aid me in my quest to find the facts. In light of the amazing faith I live out every day and by the conclusions I've come to on my own, the theory of evolution just does not make any logical sense to me whatsoever.

Cheers,

Gregory M

 

[USincognito]

Whoever this Don Boys is, he's a quote miner and PRATT merchant.

https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/don-boys-on-evolution/

 

[46AND2]

Sure! If you want hundreds of quotes from modern scientists refuting evolution, read Don Boys Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith. I will warn you that he is very biased an rather immature in tone at times, but the points he raises and the quotes he lists are nevertheless legitimate.

And in regards to science not always being 100% proven, this is true. Even though we may have rock-solid, irrefutable evidence that he earth is round, we may find out in two hundred years that it's actually all a grand illusion; a trick of light or something like that. But for now, we can safely assume that the earth is indeed round based on the evidence we have. This isn't the case with the theory of evolution. There are still many gaping holes just'a waiting to be filled, too many internal contradictions within it that we cannot actually call it fact.

Your first clue if whether or not we can trust something that science tells us is true is whether or not there are researchers working out all the kinks; do you see scientists trying to prove that an aerofoil can produce lift? No, because it's already been tested and proven and is proved thousands of times a day. Do you see people trying to prove the origin of mankind and the origin of the first self-replicating cell? Well yeah, because it's an incomplete theory. How can we call an incomplete theory undisputed fact?

Well, here's one reason: it's the more convenient alternative to special creation. Some people, not everyone mind you, are very quick to accept whatever "science" comes up with because they'd rather believe in something that doesn't hold them accountable to the law of God, which is written on the hearts of every single human soul on earth.

Now I'm not saying that science is not allowed to investigate new ideas and test them over periods of time to make sure they are true, because this is what is happening today. We want to know more about where we came from and so we are in a searching process. This is perfectly acceptable! What isn't acceptable is when you take a theory which has not yet been proven through and through as law, and you tell us that it is law, and everyone else who disagrees is a bigot. That's just not logical, it's not even good science.

Now for the math that you guys have been requesting, well here it is, or at least a part of it.

First we need to break the numbers down so they are easier to chew on. Let's take 3.8 billion years of evolution, cut that into, say, 5 million. Maybe even 5 million years is hard to stomach, so let's turn that into 100,000 years. Alright, 100,000 years is the number.

Let's say we have two of a species, male and female, whose environment is so harsh and dismal that they can only double in population every 1000 years of reproduction. That's overly generous. Let's see what happens when we do the math...

Every one thousand years, the population will double, as follows. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32728, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576, 2097152, 4194304, 8388608, 16777216, and so on and so forth. That was only 24 of the 100,000 years of evolution. The final figure come out to be ridiculously big! Remember that these figures are only approximate estimates, I haven't accounted for the myriad of other factors that could have potentially altered their numbers, such as famine, rapid climate change as well as the infinitesimal chance that any of the remains could have fossilised and remain fossilised for us to find in the future.

Now that's just 100,000 years, let alone, 5,000,000, let alone 3,800,000,000. And that was only one species!

Anyways guys, I have like four atheist-evolutionists on my tail right now, all demanding resources and evidence (which I would be happy to provide, circumstance permitting), and maybe I'd like to keep responding to your prompts, but my situation is a bit crazy right now. I'm training under the Canadian Air Cadets program for my Private Pilot's licence and as such am ridiculously busy, I just don't have the time to keep up with all the questions. So as a result this will be my last reply to this particular thread.

It all boils down to logic for me. I don't have a very scientific view of evolution, I approach it from a more logical perspective and come to my own conclusions as best as I can from there, using external resources to aid me in my quest to find the facts. In light of the amazing faith I live out every day and by the conclusions I've come to on my own, the theory of evolution just does not make any logical sense to me whatsoever.

Cheers,

Gregory M

Well, we do hope you come around occasionally. I can appreciate being too busy to spend much time on here. I've had to take breaks from time to time, myself.

Regarding your numbers, what makes you think that even doubling in population every 1000 years is reasonable? There have been large swaths of time when the populations of our ancestral species experienced no growth, and even NEGATIVE growth.

But this argument is more problematic for creationists than that. Given reasonable growth rates, there would not have been a population big enough on earth after the flood to build the pyramids, or for a dynasty in China, or a host of other things.

 

[Job8]

Yes, there is.

Of course there is is. One can find evidence for any delusion.

 

[AdamSK]

No animal population consistently doubles. It reaches a stable balance with its environment. This is ecology 101.

If the rest of your math is that poor, it's no surprise that no legitimate scientist buys it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why do you call Mike Snavely a biologist? Does he hold a professorship in biology? Does he have a lab position doing research in biology? Does he have a PhD in biology? Has he had papers published in peer reviewed biology journals?

Mike Snavely is a Christian minister, if you had bothered to do a Google search you would know that. He is perfectly competent to discuss evolutionary biology since it requires no great skill or learning, it's not like he is building a nuclear reactor in his garage. Natural history is almost entirely philosophical and essentially transcendental since it lays claim to all of life through all of time. What is more is I have yet to see an evolutionist argue anything on here that wasn't on a sixth grade reading level, you don't need a professional academic or scientist.

You should stop making claims about what the math shows if you can't actually provide the math.

What do you think you need math for, math solves problems, your problem is philosophical not some quantifiable question.

 

[mark kennedy]

Please quote a biology or physics textbook defining the "law of degradation."

Probably a reference to the second law of thermodynamics, if you spent a little more time reading and less sniping you could have figured that out at a glance.

 

[Papias]

I have an apology to make to everyone. I had mistakenly quoted Mike Snavely as a supposed biologist, but I was just informed by a personal email from him that he is indeed not a credible biologist.

Thanks Greg.

Note to everyone - this is a clear indication that Greg is a person of integrity who is really thinking about these issues, regardless of where we each stand. Kudos, Greg!

In Christ-
Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

1. It is the theory of evolution. It is sad that in many education systems it is taught as fact.

Notice they never define the theory. All scientific theory is a unified theory that explains all the given facts, Darwinian evolution doesn't do that. What they do is contrive a presupposition like recapitulation that states that all living development reenacts natural history. That means every step from fertilization to maturity is a Darwinian proof, that's not science, that's supposition. Darwinism is an effect without a cause, it's just assumed that the cause is naturalistic so when they don't have a clue they say the magic word, 'natural selection', and poof the beneficial trait pops out of thin air.

2. It is probably the best scientific theory we have to date.

Theory of what? Evolution isn't a theory, it's a change in allele frequency over time. That's not a theory, it's a phenomenon.

3. Evolution, interesting flys in the face of the law of degradation, where things, slow down, grow old, rust and decay.

I think you mean the second law of thermodynamics. Just as an example, this is a typical argument from a Creationist website:

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder. (Second Law of Thermodynamics—Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?)​

4. It is this fact, perhaps more than any other that makes the theory attractive to Christians, because in order to change the direction governed by the laws of nature presupposes another force of energy to be added to the equation. This makes Evolution as a Theory and very compelling case for the existence of God.

That's not unlike the Intelligent Design arguments, actually a very common conclusion to a lot of similar observations. They used to call what you are describing divine providence, which is distinctively different from a miracle which is a direct act of God in time and space.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[AdamSK]

Probably a reference to the second law of thermodynamics, if you spent a little more time reading and less sniping you could have figured that out at a glance.

And if he answered my question and actually quoted the second law, we could have a productive discussion about how it doesn't say what he thinks it says.

Mike Snavely is a Christian minister, if you had bothered to do a Google search you would know that.

He made a claim, I addressed his claim. If he hadn't claimed that Snavely was a biologist, I wouldn't have asked about Snavely's credentials as a biologist.

What do you think you need math for, math solves problems, your problem is philosophical not some quantifiable question.

I think that if someone makes a claim about math, they need to provide math. If they don't have any math, then their claim to have a position based on math is not substantiated.

Your criticism in this case appears to amount to the idea that I shouldn't ask him to support the claims he makes. Instead, you should ask him not to make claims he can't support.

 

[mark kennedy]

Some of them, yes. Others, no. I want to see what both sides have to say. Some of the creationist books were actually written by ex-atheists who point out all the flaws quite lucidly because they been on the other side and know what their talking about.

I've read some really biased ID books and I've read some really biased evolutionist books, but the flaws I've observed remain the same.

I actually learned more from famous atheists like Dennet and Dawkins. Dennet was the first Darwinian that actually understood the philosophical nature of the subject matter and Dawkins was to first to address the differences in cranial capacity between men and apes. The ID I have read is really just biology and while I enjoy Creationist essays from time to time I like things a little more in depth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

And if he answered my question and actually quoted the second law, we could have a productive discussion about how it doesn't say what he thinks it says.

Like there is anything productive about being rude to someone who is being a perfect gentleman.

He made a claim, I addressed his claim. If he hadn't claimed that Snavely was a biologist, I wouldn't have asked about Snavely's credentials as a biologist.

Then look it up and if he is not a biologist say so, the melodrama doesn't impress anyone. Actually it's sad that evolutionists can spend so much time on the subject and never learn anything because they are to busy feigning some false indignation. It's bad acting is what it is.

I think that if someone makes a claim about math, they need to provide math. If they don't have any math, then their claim to have a position based on math is not substantiated.

You like math, ok, let's do some math. This is the table based on 1.33% divergence:

Table 3. Estimates of mutation rate assuming different divergence times and different ancestral population sizes

4.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.7 x 10^-8
4.5 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.6 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.5 x 10^-8
5.0 mya, pop.= 10,0000 mutation rate is 1.5 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.3 x 10^-8
5.5 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 1.4 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 10,000 mutation rate is 2.1 x 10^-8
6.0 mya, pop.= 100,000 mutation rate is 1.3 x 10^-8​

Table 4. Estimates of mutation rate for different sites and different classes of mutation

Transition at CpG mutation rate 1.6 x 10^-7
Transversion at CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transition at non-CpG mutation rate 4.4 x 10^-8
Transversion at non-CpG mutation rate 5.5 x 10^-9
All nucleotide subs mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-8
Length mutations mutation rate 2.3 x 10^-9
All mutations mutation rate 2.5 x 10^-8​

Rates calculated on the basis of a divergence time of 5 mya, ancestral population size of 10,000, generation length of 20 yr, and rates of molecular evolution given in Table 1. Calculations are based on a generation length of 20 years and average autosomal sequence divergence of 1.33% (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Michael W. Nachmana and Susan L. Crowella Genetics, 297-304, September 2000)

When the actual divergence is found to be between 5% and 6% does the calculation of the mutation rate change? There is a reason why this is crucial.

we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common. (Genetics 2000)
​

With the multiplicative effects on fitness, or rather, with the deleterious effects working in concert being hard to reconcile to such a high mutation rate, what happens when it quadruples?

Your criticism in this case appears to amount to the idea that I shouldn't ask him to support the claims he makes. Instead, you should ask him not to make claims he can't support.

You know, just making snide remarks isn't an argument, it's a weak rhetorical device. Your making an ad hominem argument that focuses on the individual without addressing anything of substance being discussed. It's a fallacy, an argument that never happened. If he doesn't respond you can blame yourself for never actually having said anything.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[AdamSK]

Like there is anything productive about being rude to someone who is being a perfect gentleman.

When was I rude?