Creationism will only destroy science

[random_guy]

I would think on these forums that we can probably agree that, however God made it come about, His creation is amazing. The details down to the smallest part of the cells and beyond -- through the amazing beauty in the heavens. Wow!

This I can definitely agree to. It's one of the reasons I am working to become a scientist, so I can study His Creation. From a simple cell to a blue whale, it's all amazing and beautiful. One thing I think more people need to do, and something I've started to do, is to spend a night outside, laying on the grass, gazing at the stars. It really makes you think about how well organized the universe is.

 

[sfs]

This view at the least would have the benefit of not contradicting scripture directly. I was under the impression it was frowned on more by the scientific community though than the religious.

Oh, there is still plenty of evidence for shared ancestry for, say, animals and plants; it's just not as good as the evidence for more local shared ancestry. Science always prefers views that have evidence over views that don't, so unless evidence becomes available against such shared ancestry, the scientific community will continue to favor it.

On the other side, I doubt any theory that includes common ancestry for humans and gerbils will be very attractive among creationists.

I bolded the part that struck me as having something to do with what I was trying to say. You didn't make a prediction based on evolution as the origin of species. You made a prediction based on what you knew about mutation in humans and the similarities and dissimilarities in the genetics of two species.

Nope, still wrong. Based on what's known about the genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees, I adopted the hypothesis that they are recently related by common descent; that is, the only function of the known genetic similarities was to produce a particular hypothesis about the origin of these two species. If humans and chimpazees had identical genomes six million years ago (which is equivalent to saying they had a common ancestor), and their differences now are the result of mutations, then the predictions I made follow. The assumption of shared ancestry is central to making the predictions.

I suspect when you get down to dissecting that one fused chromosome for what it does, it is not going to make a lot of sense that it fused and then somehow magically worked out to be beneficial to the emerging species.

The fusion need not have been beneficial to the species -- as long as it wasn't too harmful, it could have spread by chance. Most mutations spread that way. (What does "emerging species" mean here, by the way? A species is a species. If it later gives rise to another species, that doesn't make it an emerging species.)

The way it looks is, to my mind, doubtlessly a result of form following function.

You may be doubtless about this point, but it seems to be groundless to me. The form in question is the presence of telomeres and a centromere in a chromosome. We know what the function of those are: telomeres make nondestructive replication of the ends of chromosomes possible, and centromeres are the place where the cellular machinary attaches to pull chromosomes apart during cell division. Having extra, nonfunctioning telomeres and an extra, nonfunctioning centromere makes no sense from a functional point of view. Your conviction that form follows function is a good example of faith, a faith that is not based on anything present in the data.

One thing is certain, it doesn't do a thing to confirm or deny that they both came from a common ancestor that observing that they look similar didn't already do.

Except that the existence of the nonfunctioning centromere and telomeres makes perfect sense if they came from a common ancestor and no sense at all if they didn't.

Now if you'd care to go into detail rather than spattering references all over the place and then sitting back and, in my view, chuckling while you wait for people who do not have Phd's to admit they do not understand the depths of all this, that might be helpful.

I'd be happy to go into detail, but have no desire to write a book on the subject. Could you pick some particular point and ask for more detail? And could you drop stuff like this "sitting back and chuckling" business? Discuss issues, rather than imagining insults to respond to. (Incidentally, I don't have a PhD in biology, and have not taken a course in it since ninth grade, so I'm not likely to care much about whether someone has a degree or not.)

Alternatively, you could discuss the issues I brought up originally that no one has really answered to any great degree. You could even take the tack of starting from the things I asked to begin with and walking the conversation upwards.

Fine. Your original distinction, between an experimental science like physics and one like evolution, which relies more on inference, has little validity. What matters for a scientific theory is whether you can test it or not, not whether you can do experiments. Direct experimentation is a particularly convenient way of making tests, but there is nothing qualitatively different about the reasoning process used in the two kinds of science. Experimental physics (which is what I do have a PhD in) requires inference just as much as evolutionary biology, and you can screw the one up as easily as the other. Except for the most trivial data, there is no such thing as "direct observation" in either one. In both, you use background knowledge and assumptions to interpret data; the only difference in experimental science is that you get to manipulate (sometimes in the ways you intended) the conditions under which the data are generated.

You can't sit here and tell me it takes too much time and effort because you've already SPENT all sorts of time and effort on this already, so why not do it right? You know? I mean, this stuff doesn't even appear to require all the darned calculus I had to take in college and never got a chance to use... seems you ought to be able to do better than take someone's Phd level article and just splash it across the screen and expect anyone to have any faith in you concerning what it actually means.

Since I haven't told you that it would take too much time and effort, and I haven't splashed any articles across the screen, and I haven't asked you to take anything on faith, I have to ask what the heck you're talking about here.

 

[wtopneuma]

you can read the discussion yourself.
don't bite off the whole field at once,
start with the flagellum:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
this:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html
is the background for this:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
which is one of the most extensive essays on the topic.

here are several more on the topic worthwhile reading:
this is an early version of the talkdesign faq and is a lot easier to read.
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm

this is a review article on flagellum:
http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm


now remember almost all of this work was put into motion by _Darwin's Black Box_, people literally took his examples and looked closely at them.


now after flagellum, you can read about blood clotting proteins, the next big example in Behe. start with google for the relevant words and Doolittle, who has spent a professional lifetime on the issue (plus i had him as a prof, so i can remember his name)

Thank you for the links. I do gather that the evidence is not conclusive but simply another theory added to many theories by both sides for hundreds of years. Besides, there are many other issues I would welcome your input on. What insight do you have to the origins of the phyla for the Cambrian explosian, which suddenly appeared. It would seem that this goes against the basis for evolution over 2-5 million years. Secondly, some scientist say that the amino acids neccessary for the origins of life by evolution did not exist in the earths atmosphere. Third, how come there have been no evolutionary crossovers of animal species throughout all of history such as births from a dog and a horse, a fly and a mosquito, a spider and a beetle, etc. Fourth, how come schools have taught evolution as fact when scientific evidence has never gone beyond evidence to support a theory? I am not trying to give you a hard time. This just gets it all out in the open for all.

 

[random_guy]

Thank you for the links. I do gather that the evidence is not conclusive but simply another theory added to many theories by both sides for hundreds of years. Besides, there are many other issues I would welcome your input on. What insight do you have to the origins of the phyla for the Cambrian explosian, which suddenly appeared. It would seem that this goes against the basis for evolution over 2-5 million years. Secondly, some scientist say that the amino acids neccessary for the origins of life by evolution did not exist in the earths atmosphere. Third, how come there have been no evolutionary crossovers of animal species throughout all of history such as births from a dog and a horse, a fly and a mosquito, a spider and a beetle, etc. Fourth, how come schools have taught evolution as fact when scientific evidence has never gone beyond evidence to support a theory? I am not trying to give you a hard time. This just gets it all out in the open for all.

The bolded section is actually evidence for evolution. If we ever found any of those, it would falsify evolution.

Next, evolution is both a fact and a theory, much like gravity. Evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over generations, and gravity is defined as the force of attraction between masses. Both are observable. The theories explain each. Also, theories are not promoted to facts. This isn't pokemon.

As for abiogenesis, it's a completely separate topic then evolution. God could've created the first life or it may have came into existence on its own, but it has no concern to evolution. Evolution only comes into play after life began.

As you can tell, your post contains many errors about evolution and science in general. I suggest you take a biology course, read a biology book (or any science book for that matter), at least get a basic background in science before you enter the debate. It's hard to take someone seriously when they don't have the basic knowledge. If you truly want to attack evolution, you need to learn what it is.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Third, how come there have been no evolutionary crossovers of animal species throughout all of history such as births from a dog and a horse, a fly and a mosquito, a spider and a beetle, etc.


nested vertical hierarchies, where the defining element is that all elements to be duplicated or co-opted to form different structures must be found in their immediate ancestors.

no chimeras, no swapped modules, no reuse of well designed and well tested structures. the same kinds of things appear and reappear made from different precursors.

 

[sfs]

Sorry, I missed this earlier . . .

So you're saying if over the course of the years, speciation turns out not to be the origin of species, that that would not be how science works?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you test predictions based on a hypothesis. If the predictions are borne out, then the probability that the hypothesis is true increases. If the predictions are not borne out, then the probability goes down. Science works either way. In this case, the predictions were confirmed by data.

You're denying that speciation observed over time would actually be more convincing than finding "common ancenstry" in a plant?

I'm denying that observing speciation would affect our confidence in common descent in any significant way. Common descent is already so well supported that direct observation of a particular instance of speciation would do little to add further confidence, especially since it would be difficult to generalize a single instance into a recurring pattern. Furthermore, particular cases of speciation have been observed and many obvious cases of recent speciation can be inferred, and every step in speciation, from slight differences in populations to subspecies to distinct species that hybridize sometimes, to fully independent species, can readily be found in nature.

Observing speciation directly can teach us a lot about speciation, but it is not necessary to establish that speciation happens.

 

[notto]

What insight do you have to the origins of the phyla for the Cambrian explosian, which suddenly appeared. It would seem that this goes against the basis for evolution over 2-5 million years.

The Cambiran 'explosion' lasted over 10 million years. The type of life that is found in that period is much different than the types of life we are famiar with today. There were no jawwed fish, reptiles, mammals, or birds. There was a rapid increase in the diversity of life but that would be expected - there were lots of niches to fill. The diversification of life, the evolution of new phyla, families etc, continued for much longer. If you think that this 'explosion' is evidence for some type of special creation, you have been misled.

These are the types of animals that were living during the period.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01

 

[wtopneuma]

Theory-a conjecture or guess based on a possibility. WebstersEvolution-gradual progressive changes in genetics within a species over a long period of time. (laymans term for allele). Websters.Problem-There is much evidence pointing towards regression instead of progression.Problem-The Cambrian explosion does not allow enough time for many of the evolution claims.I agree with you about what you put in bold, but that came from a scientist, not me. Perhaps you need more knowledge of logic and theory. Theory remains theory until there is enough evidence to support the premise as being true.

 

[sfs]

Theory-a conjecture or guess based on a possibility. Websters

Ouch. What a lousy definition, at least in a scientific context. Here's the relevant definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

"4. a. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. "

Evolution-gradual progressive changes in genetics within a species over a long period of time. (laymans term for allele). Websters.

Did that really come from a Webster's dictionary? Which one? Because it's also lousy. Here's the Merriam-Webster definition, which is decent, even though it doesn't really match the modern technical definition: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." Nothing about progress, and nothing about it being within a species.

Problem-There is much evidence pointing towards regression instead of progression.

Since "progress" isn't defined in biology, it's not at all clear what you mean here. There is plenty of evidence that some organisms have grown more complex over time, and plenty of evidence that some have grown simpler.

Problem-The Cambrian explosion does not allow enough time for many of the evolution claims.

Please provide the calculation of the time required.

Theory remains theory until there is enough evidence to support the premise as being true.

See the OED definition above. Theories always remain theories, at least until they are discarded.

 

[wtopneuma]

The Oxford says little different. It says known facts. Evolution is based on known theories, not facts. Start naming some things that are definite proven facts for evolution, not theory.

 

[sfs]

The Oxford says little different. It says known facts.

Let's see. . . your definition said that a theory was a guess based on a possibility, while the OED definition says it's a confirmed hypothesis based on facts -- and you don't see much difference between the two definitions. Interesting. I am also still interested in the source of your definitions. You wrote "Webster's" after them; where did they actually come from?

Evolution is based on known theories, not facts. Start naming some things that are definite proven facts for evolution, not theory.

1) The existence of lactose tolerance in northern Europeans, combined with the presence of a long, unbroken haplotype at the lactase gene at high frequency in the same population, along with large allele frequency differences between populations at the same locus.
2) The existence of an extremely large population difference for a small region near the Duffy blood antigen locus, with one allele at nearly 100% in populations where vivax malaria has been endemic.
3) The correlation between human diversity and human/chimpanzee divergence in different regions in the genome.
4) The fact that primates who can't produce vitamin C all share the same defect in the same gene.
5) The fact that families of SINE transposons that are shared across many species show many differences between individual members, indicating that they have been accumulating mutations for a long time, while SINE families that are present in only a few species show very few mutations.

And so on, for many thousands of facts. Scientists accept evolution because it enables them to explain and predict facts, and they're going to keep on accepting it until somebody finds an alternative that works at least as well.

 

[Mallon]

The Oxford says little different. It says known facts. Evolution is based on known theories, not facts. Start naming some things that are definite proven facts for evolution, not theory.

I'm slow to understand the creationist insistance on refering to the dictionary for definitions of evolution or science. Such definitions are usually incomplete, and rarely convey how scientists use the terms. Similarly, I think many Christians would object to one dictionary's definition of God: "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."Dictionary definitions fall short of fully explaining such broad concepts as God, science or evolution, and I would contend that they ought not be used here.That said, contrary to wtopneuma's argument above, evolution is not based on other theories (and if it is, I would like to know which these might be). Rather, evolution is a theory based on facts. These facts include phenotypic variability within populations, isolated reproduction of such populations, genetic change through time, natural selection and the inheritance of selected traits, observable unidirectional change in the fossil record, etc. If wtopneuma does not believe these to be facts, then I would challenge him to disprove them here.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm slow to understand the creationist insistance on refering to the dictionary for definitions of evolution or science. Such definitions are usually incomplete, and rarely convey how scientists use the terms. Similarly, I think many Christians would object to one dictionary's definition of God: "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."Dictionary definitions fall short of fully explaining such broad concepts as God, science or evolution, and I would contend that they ought not be used here.That said, contrary to wtopneuma's argument above, evolution is not based on other theories (and if it is, I would like to know which these might be). Rather, evolution is a theory based on facts. These facts include phenotypic variability within populations, isolated reproduction of such populations, genetic change through time, natural selection and the inheritance of selected traits, observable unidirectional change in the fossil record, etc. If wtopneuma does not believe these to be facts, then I would challenge him to disprove them here.

The scientific definition of evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time. That makes everyone an evolutionist since no one could serious argue that alleles do not change. The theory of evolution involves, but is not limited to, the inheritablity of adaptive traits and whether or not their are limits to livings systems ability to transform into an altogether different 'kind'.

By the way, God is defined by His:

1) Immutablity
2) Eternal qualities
3) Aseity (utter indepedance) and
4) Omnipotence

Christian theism would include the Trinity as essential doctrine but not as an actual definition of the use of Theos or God.

 

[PETE_]

observability and testability are not both necessary to scientific status, because observability at least is not necessary to scientific status, as theoretical physics has abundantly demonstrated. Many entities and events cannot be directly observed or studied—in practice or in principle. The postulation of such entities is no less the product of scientific inquiry for that. Many sciences are in fact directly charged with the job of inferring the unobservable from the observable. Forces, fields, atoms, quarks, past events, mental states, subsurface geological features, molecular biological structures—all are unobservables inferred from observable phenomena. Nevertheless, most are unambiguously the result of scientific inquiry.

 

[PETE_]

unobservability does not preclude testability: claims about unobservables are routinely tested in science indirectly against observable phenomena. That is, the existence of unobservable entities is established by testing the explanatory power that would result if a given hypothetical entity (i.e., an unobservable) were accepted as actual. This process usually involves some assessment of the established or theoretically plausible causal powers of a given unobservable entity. In any case, many scientific theories must be evaluated indirectly by comparing their explanatory power against competing hypotheses.

 

[wtopneuma]

Let's see. . . your definition said that a theory was a guess based on a possibility, while the OED definition says it's a confirmed hypothesis based on facts -- and you don't see much difference between the two definitions. Interesting. I am also still interested in the source of your definitions. You wrote "Webster's" after them; where did they actually come from?


1) The existence of lactose tolerance in northern Europeans, combined with the presence of a long, unbroken haplotype at the lactase gene at high frequency in the same population, along with large allele frequency differences between populations at the same locus.
2) The existence of an extremely large population difference for a small region near the Duffy blood antigen locus, with one allele at nearly 100% in populations where vivax malaria has been endemic.
3) The correlation between human diversity and human/chimpanzee divergence in different regions in the genome.
4) The fact that primates who can't produce vitamin C all share the same defect in the same gene.
5) The fact that families of SINE transposons that are shared across many species show many differences between individual members, indicating that they have been accumulating mutations for a long time, while SINE families that are present in only a few species show very few mutations.

And so on, for many thousands of facts. Scientists accept evolution because it enables them to explain and predict facts, and they're going to keep on accepting it until somebody finds an alternative that works at least as well.

Enough facts to move something from an hypothesis to a theory does nothing else. It does not establish the theory as truth. If an hypothesis only had 1/10 of 1% support, that would move it to a theory. Evolution is still a theory after approximately 200 years of trying to gain enough factual support to make it a truth. Hoaxes by evolutionist, though few in number, may mean there is less evidence then formerly. The electron microscope has futher eroded the evolution theory. I know that one very well known scientist even says that most scientist will wonder within 30 years how they could have ever believed in evolution. I know that there are at least 100 scientist with impressive degrees from top universities and career activities which totally disagree with the evolution theory. You need to be more tolerant with those who disagree with you because there is a valid other side which may have more scientific evidence supporting it then does evolution. Keep in mind that non-christians jumped on Darwin's theory in their fight against God, and Darwin himself bemoaned how people were proclaiming his theory as fact, for he was a good scientist who did not like any theory being proclaimed fact before proof established the theory as truth. This has not happened. Evolution is still a theory.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Enough facts to move something from an hypothesis to a theory does nothing else. It does not establish the theory as truth. If an hypothesis only had 1/10 of 1% support, that would move it to a theory. Evolution is still a theory after approximately 200 years of trying to gain enough factual support to make it a truth. Hoaxes by evolutionist, though few in number, may mean there is less evidence then formerly. The electron microscope has futher eroded the evolution theory.

what is this evidence that the EM eroded?

I know that one very well known scientist even says that most scientist will wonder within 30 years how they could have ever believed in evolution.

what is the evidence that causes them to wonder?

I know that there are at least 100 scientist with impressive degrees from top universities and career activities which totally disagree with the evolution theory.

what is the evidence that causes them to disagree.

You need to be more tolerant with those who disagree with you because there is a valid other side which may have more scientific evidence supporting it then does evolution.

what is the evidence supporting this valid other slide.

Keep in mind that non-christians jumped on Darwin's theory in their fight against God, and Darwin himself bemoaned how people were proclaiming his theory as fact, for he was a good scientist who did not like any theory being proclaimed fact before proof established the theory as truth. This has not happened. Evolution is still a theory.

what evidence do you have that theories are ever promoted to a fact by the amount of proof offered?

please note that the posting you replied to with this offered 5 very specific pieces of evidence for the TofE, your response did not address any one of them, nor did it offer a single piece of evidence that we can actually research and discuss.

 

[sfs]

Enough facts to move something from an hypothesis to a theory does nothing else. It does not establish the theory as truth. If an hypothesis only had 1/10 of 1% support, that would move it to a theory. Evolution is still a theory after approximately 200 years of trying to gain enough factual support to make it a truth. Hoaxes by evolutionist, though few in number, may mean there is less evidence then formerly. The electron microscope has futher eroded the evolution theory. I know that one very well known scientist even says that most scientist will wonder within 30 years how they could have ever believed in evolution. I know that there are at least 100 scientist with impressive degrees from top universities and career activities which totally disagree with the evolution theory. You need to be more tolerant with those who disagree with you because there is a valid other side which may have more scientific evidence supporting it then does evolution. Keep in mind that non-christians jumped on Darwin's theory in their fight against God, and Darwin himself bemoaned how people were proclaiming his theory as fact, for he was a good scientist who did not like any theory being proclaimed fact before proof established the theory as truth. This has not happened. Evolution is still a theory.

The evidence that I am aware of is massively in favor of evolution, and every month brings yet more evidence in the same direction. From creationists I sometimes hear that there is lots of evidence on the other side, but it has always turned out to be junk when I have examined it. If it can even be found -- often the story is that somebody's brother's friend knows a guy who has evidence against evolution. Not very persuasive.

 

[PETE_]

Micheal Bebe has some good stuff.

 

[random_guy]

Micheal Bebe has some good stuff.

So where in his evidence does he deny common ancestory? As far as I can tell, Behe supports common ancestory. Do you still want to cite Behe work as evidence against evolution even though he supports common ancestory?

EDIT: I'm also ignoring the fact that Behe has published no scientific papers that refutes evolution, nor has he run any experiments that supports ID/refutes evolution. But that's for another thread.