Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Speedwell]

1) you are accusing a whole scientific discipline of fraud. Is it just the "evolutionists" who are fraudulent or do we have to extend it to the whole discipline of biology? Other sciences? Astronomy? Geology, Physics?

2a) "No real speciations"? Are there "unreal" speciations? And did these happen? What differentiates a real from an unreal speciation?
2b) How do you know that no "real" speciation happened? Have you been through all the papers reporting observed instances and found fundamental flaws in these reports?

3a) "The" fruit fly experiment: what fruit fly experiment? Drosophila is literally the favourite animal for scientific resaerch, especially genetics (but certainly limited to genetics). There are literally thousands and thousands of experiments with fruit flies. So specify.
3b) "3000 kinds": speaking of made up definitions, kinds is always kept vague on purpose.
3c) So 1 experiment with fruit flies gave us no new species, ergo speciation doesn't happen. Of course there are thousands and thousands of experiments with fruit flies, there are thousands and thousands of experiments with other species, there are expeditions in the wild, but that 1 experiment trumps all

Fruit fly experiments were once so common in early experiments in genetics that news of them has even reached creationists who are not well versed in biology. Because speciation poses such a problem for creationists, they assume it must pose a problem for biologists as well and that therefore genetics experiments such as those carried out with fruit flies must have been devised to "prove" speciation. That the experiments were not carried out for that purpose can be glossed over and the experiments painted as failures.

Much the same sort of ignorance is apparent in creationists claims that the Miller-Urey experiment was a failed attempt to "create life."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolutionists just make up definitions to suit themselves.

That's how language works!

No real speciation has occurred in the wild.

What is your definition of 'real speciation'? (that, presumably, you haven't made up to suit yourself).

 

[Aussie Pete]

Evolution is an observable process. It's simply the changes in biological populations over time.

Claiming evolution doesn't happen is like claiming that tides don't happen. It's just a bizarre denial of reality.

Evolutionist make observations, like everyone else. They come to conclusions, like everyone else. Just one simple example compels me to reject evolution. The Bombardier beetle blows up evolution as much as the critters that try to eat it. And there are countless other examples. Evolution is a bizarre attempt to explain life apart from God.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Fruit fly experiments were once so common in early experiments in genetics that news of them has even reached creationists who are not well versed in biology. Because speciation poses such a problem for creationists, they assume it must pose a problem for biologists as well and that therefore genetics experiments such as those carried out with fruit flies must have been devised to "prove" speciation. That the experiments were not carried out for that purpose can be glossed over and the experiments painted as failures.

Much the same sort of ignorance is apparent in creationists claims that the Miller-Urey experiment was a failed attempt to "create life."

From "Windows to the Universe"
"In the 1950's, biochemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, conducted an experiment which demonstrated that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere.

They designed an apparatus which held a mix of gases similar to those found in Earth's early atmosphere over a pool of water, representing Earth's early ocean. Electrodes delivered an electric current, simulating lightning, into the gas-filled chamber. After allowing the experiment to run for one week, they analyzed the contents of the liquid pool. They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates.

Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions. However, there are still many skeptics of this theory who remain unconvinced. British astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle, compares the likelihood of life appearing on Earth by chemical reactions "as equivalent to the possibility that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein".

I'm with Fred Hoyle on this one. The junkyard is constantly being blown about. No 747, not even a Tiger Moth.

 

[Kylie]

Evolutionist make observations, like everyone else. They come to conclusions, like everyone else. Just one simple example compels me to reject evolution. The Bombardier beetle blows up evolution as much as the critters that try to eat it. And there are countless other examples. Evolution is a bizarre attempt to explain life apart from God.

In what way does that beetle disprove evolution?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Complexity. The idea that a bug can evolve chemical production facilities, a mixing chamber, a flexible nozzle and heat resistant exoskeleton beggars belief. And it has, like the vast majority of life, to do it twice, male and female, geographically and timewise concurrently. Probability factor: zero.

 

[Shemjaza]

Complexity. The idea that a bug can evolve chemical production facilities, a mixing chamber, a flexible nozzle and heat resistant exoskeleton beggars belief. And it has, like the vast majority of life, to do it twice, male and female, geographically and timewise concurrently. Probability factor: zero.

If you can work out the probability, show your maths.

I suspect you just don't like it but have nothing but personal preference as evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution is a bizarre attempt to explain life apart from God.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life. It neither affirms nor denies the existence of God.

 

[Speedwell]

Complexity. The idea that a bug can evolve chemical production facilities, a mixing chamber, a flexible nozzle and heat resistant exoskeleton beggars belief. And it has, like the vast majority of life, to do it twice, male and female, geographically and timewise concurrently. Probability factor: zero.

Are you suggesting that the male and the female of the bombardier beetle species evolved separately, in isolation from each other?

 

[pitabread]

The Bombardier beetle blows up evolution as much as the critters that try to eat it.

No it doesn't.

Complexity.

Complexity doesn't preclude evolution. In fact, simple recursive processes like evolution can be capable of incredibly complex outputs.

The idea that a bug can evolve chemical production facilities, a mixing chamber, a flexible nozzle and heat resistant exoskeleton beggars belief.

This is just an argument from incredulity. Just because you are unable to wrap your head around how something like the bombardier beetle, that doesn't make it a refutation of evolution.

If you really wanted to, you could make a study of the subject to understand how something Iike that could evolve. But I think we already know you don't want to know.

 

[pitabread]

...

 

[Speedwell]

Fred Hoyle, compares the likelihood of life appearing on Earth by chemical reactions "as equivalent to the possibility that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein".

Compared. He died in 2001. But he had a knack for being quotable. He was committed to a steady state universe and despised expansionist cosmology, which he derisively termed the "Big Bang" theory. But the name caught on, and now everybody calls it that.

 

[Kylie]

Complexity. The idea that a bug can evolve chemical production facilities, a mixing chamber, a flexible nozzle and heat resistant exoskeleton beggars belief. And it has, like the vast majority of life, to do it twice, male and female, geographically and timewise concurrently. Probability factor: zero.

So argument from incredulity is all you've got?

If you had even just looked at the Wikipedia article, it would show you how all the components are based on things which already exist. So it's a case of taking things that already exist, changing them slightly (which is perfectly explainable with evolution) and then we get a new functionality. There's no mystery there at all.

 

[pitabread]

Are you suggesting that the male and the female of the bombardier beetle species evolved separately, in isolation from each other?

It seems like he is. I've noticed that creationists have some really bizarre notions of how they think sexual reproduction works and how they think sexually reproducing species evolve.

A rudimentary introduction to how genetics works would probably correct all those misconceptions. But we know that will never happen.

 

[Strathos]

IIRC the popular creationist take on the bombardier beetle involves a convoluted and factually inaccurate description of how its defense mechanism works, in order to try to make it sound like it couldn't possibly have evolved, when the actual reality is quite a bit different.

 

[Shemjaza]

Are you suggesting that the male and the female of the bombardier beetle species evolved separately, in isolation from each other?

Some creationists seem to assume that X and Y Chromosomes apply to all animals and even plants. (When they don't even define sex in all mammals.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some creationists seem to assume that X and Y Chromosomes apply to all animals and even plants. (When they don't even define sex in all mammals.)

Some beliefs of creationists in regards to evolution have a life threatening level of face palmery. Ray Comfort for some reason thought that not only male dogs would have to evolve eyesight on their own, but that female dogs would have to do the same. He can not grasp the concept of traits being passed down through the generations. He thinks that every species has to start from scratch.

 

[Kylie]

IIRC the popular creationist take on the bombardier beetle involves a convoluted and factually inaccurate description of how its defense mechanism works, in order to try to make it sound like it couldn't possibly have evolved, when the actual reality is quite a bit different.

They used a strawman?

*GASP!*

 

[Kylie]

Some creationists seem to assume that X and Y Chromosomes apply to all animals and even plants. (When they don't even define sex in all mammals.)

And even if that were the case, the parts that cause the defense mechanism could be on a part of the DNA that isn't involved in gender.

 

[Aussie Pete]

So argument from incredulity is all you've got?

If you had even just looked at the Wikipedia article, it would show you how all the components are based on things which already exist. So it's a case of taking things that already exist, changing them slightly (which is perfectly explainable with evolution) and then we get a new functionality. There's no mystery there at all.

I suppose Sir Fred Hoyle was a total ignoramus, along with many, many other geniuses who reject evolution. It's an argument from impossibility, not incredulity. Evolution falls over at the first hurdle. Origin of Life. And it keeps falling over. The fundamental argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened so it happened.