Darwin's evolution theory?

[Donkeytron]

[/size][/color][/font]
Oh, so these people are real scientists after all. I see.

[/size][/color]


Oh, so that's the objection, is it? Then let me continue from the post I cited above.

One more side note. Here are just a few papers from scientific peer-reviewed journals that relate directly to either design theory or scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution.

• “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, by Stephen C. Meyer, in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, August 2004
• “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”, by Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke, in Protein Science, The Protein Society August 2004
• “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems”, By: Michael J. Behe in Philosophy of Science 67 (March 2000), University of Chicago Press

Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin’s Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additionally peer-reviewed and peer-edited books addressing design theory have appeared with Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press respectively. There is also a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations.



​

Evolution may not be "going away," but evolution-as-dogma, is. And if you don't even know what a scientific paradigm is and how paradigms work as interpretive frameworks, you'd do well to find out.

Oh you're going to lecture on what science is and isn't? The fact that you put together the words evolution-as-dogma tells me right off the bat you don't know jack about science. Behe and Dembski's books aren't "peer reviewed" by any means. Behe has been repeatedly shown how his arguments in Black Box are incorrect-everything he supposes to require a designer turned out to be perfectly viable through evolution. At this point he's just shilling for publicity.

And hey, you found the only articles remotely related to ID that were published in real journals. Lets see..the first one by Meyer was snuck in to the journal because he knew the editor and didnt actually have it reviewed (the editor was fired). And like I said, being a creationist doesn't prevent you from publishing. It's just that no articles on creationism end up being published. I'll leave you with some testimony from michael Behe in the Dover trial. You know, the one where he says that the definition of science would have to change for ID to be considered science. And astrology would be considered scientific under his definition:

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

 

[Donkeytron]

ya you have a answer for anything you do not like - read about the scientist form Yellowstone Park - even they are looking at this again.

If you mean I have an answer to half-***** drivel cut and pasted from a google search, then yes, I usually do.

 

[GraceInHim]

Oh you're going to lecture on what science is and isn't? The fact that you put together the words evolution-as-dogma tells me right off the bat you don't know jack about science. Behe and Dembski's books aren't "peer reviewed" by any means. Behe has been repeatedly shown how his arguments in Black Box are incorrect-everything he supposes to require a designer turned out to be perfectly viable through evolution. At this point he's just shilling for publicity.

And hey, you found the only articles remotely related to ID that were published in real journals. Lets see..the first one by Meyer was snuck in to the journal because he knew the editor and didnt actually have it reviewed (the editor was fired). And like I said, being a creationist doesn't prevent you from publishing. It's just that no articles on creationism end up being published. I'll leave you with some testimony from michael Behe in the Dover trial. You know, the one where he says that the definition of science would have to change for ID to be considered science. And astrology would be considered scientific under his definition:

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

cut and paste - sorry then will not read it

 

[GraceInHim]

If you mean I have an answer to half-***** drivel cut and pasted from a google search, then yes, I usually do.

You just did it yourself - tell ya what - keep your chimp daddy and I will keep my human daddy

 

[Donkeytron]

You just did it yourself - tell ya what - keep your chimp daddy and I will keep my human daddy

To the block list you go.

 

[GraceInHim]

To the block list you go.

thanks - ahhhhhh - so much peace now

 

[tall73]

Ok I understand now what you're saying. I thought before you were totally unaware of the existence/processes of natural selection. Now that we've got that down...

I think we are both arguing against the wrong thing. What you are suggesting is that long periods of time are required for universal common descent? If so, that may or may not be the case. I think the point is moot anyway, since the age of the earth/fossils/etc. are pretty firm.

Actually it is not moot at all. There are a number of things that call into question the timeline. The one that is problematic is actually radioactive dating. Were it not for radiactive dating I would say the other evidence is rather slim.

 

[Silent Bob]

1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., were erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.—pp. 29-30.

Down right lie. Obviously whoever wrote this either did so before the 80's or has never been in the Mojave where lies the oldest undisputed living thing on this planet the creosote bush. Age: Around 12000 years.

Took me ten minutes also found a plant in tasmania that is around 45000 yo but AIG has an article about it and I didnt want to get into a debate around plants.

2 - Mutation load. Calculations based on genetic load (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms) indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years,—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. (The deteriorated atmosphere after the Flood, with the consequent increase of solar radiation, probably increased this genetic load.)—p. 30.

I would like to see the calculations and where the conclusions are based. From what I know when the mutation load on a population increases their average (keyword!) fitness decreases. Maybe a high mutation load accounts for the large number of living organisms (aka designs) that didn't make it 4000 (according to YECs) years into the world. One of the most common occurances in earth's natural history are extinctions the current amount of species alive today are TINY compared to the incredible amount of species that once occupied this planet and then died. You are indeed lucky to be alive.

 

[GraceInHim]

Cronic

then sorry you feel this way about Lucy - we are humans not animals -

but sometimes humans can act like an animal

 

[GraceInHim]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp

this must be a lie too

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

Yes, the universe is really really old and the earth is also really old. This is true almost beyond a shadow of any doubt. There are way too many lines of independent evidence that corroborate eachother for the earth to be "young". Same goes for the universe (not as many lines of evidence though, at least not that I know of.) Unless you can think of a mechanism for why this would be (except the ol' god made it look old!) then you're out of luck.

-what evidence?
-there are way to many? since when does majority have a ruling in Spiritual beliefs? just because im in a room with 10 poeple who think God isnt real and only 2 who know he is doesnt mean that the 10 are correct
-who do you say the earth "looks" old? are you comparing it to a picture of when the earth was younger? or something?

 

[tall73]

Now, back to our discussion of mutations and natural selection.

The goal for Evolutionists, as was demonstrated in my first post which you never finished, is to find a way to fit enough positive mutations into the necessary time to allow for evolution. Here is there relavent section again:

A popular, and much debated, illustration of the genetic problem is Haldane's dilemma. Here it is in a nutshell:

Imagine a population of 1,000,000 of those [pre-human] organisms quietly evolving their way to humanity. For easy visualization, I'll have you imagine a scenario that favors rapid evolution. Imagine evolution happens like this. Every generation, one male and one female receive a beneficial mutation so advantageous that the 999,998 others die off immediately, and the population is then replenished in one generation by the surviving couple. Imagine evolution happens like this, generation after generation, for ten million years. How many beneficial mutations could be substituted at this crashing pace? One per generation -- or 500,000 nucleotides. That's 0.014 percent of the genome. (That is a minuscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees).

Now of course the original dilemma has some problems:


a. it assumes only one mutation per generation..ie that they would only happen one at a time.
b. It assumes that the whole non- mutated population must die off and be replaced by mutated specimens.
c. The example is regarding differences between chimpanzees and humans, since they are the closest. But of course, the pre-human ancestor's DNA is unknown. What we can determine though is that the LEAST that would do, and that is unlikely, is cut the problem in half. 1.5 percent of the genome, accounting for their branch and ours going completely different directions, which is somewhat unlikely since the adaptive pressures are the same, so the same mutations would seem to be favored.
d. Some would say that a lot of that 3 percent is "junk DNA" but as I already said, that argument is not terribly valid since the opinion on junk DNA is changing.
These are problems, but they don't really address the real issue. It is still rather unlikely that you would get one positive mutation per generation. That is why he states he is giving a rather impossible scenario that favors evolution. They of course say his scenario was unrealistic...but that was the point. It is unrealistic in a way that favors evolution. Getting one positive one is absurdly unlikely. Getting one that lasts and predominates is even more unlikely. Having all that happen still doesn't allow time for the scenario presented for human evolution.

Second, whether the population dies off or is substituted immediately doesn't matter. You are still postulating one positive net mutation per generation which actually is preserved in some population. Even then you are WAY short of the necessary 2 to 3 percent of the genome in the required time.

Evolutionists, not creationists are the ones who have something to prove when it comes to the rate of beneficial mutations, the solution to which is not immediately obvious. It is great to posit huge periods of time for evolution, but that still doesn't mean it happens at the rate necessary. And when you tie certain elements of evolution (human for instance) to particular time frames, then you have to show that they could happen in that time frame.

Again, MUTATION is the only means for adjustments at the genotype level.

 

[Mikecpking]

-what evidence?
-there are way to many? since when does majority have a ruling in Spiritual beliefs? just because im in a room with 10 poeple who think God isnt real and only 2 who know he is doesnt mean that the 10 are correct
-who do you say the earth "looks" old? are you comparing it to a picture of when the earth was younger? or something?

Evidence for an old universe?

Light from distant galaxies; our own galaxy is 100,000 light years accross so light from the outer edge has taken 100,000 years to reach us. The furthest observable object is approx 13,000,000,000 light years away. That is good evidence for an old universe.

Old earth?

A good geology course will show that there have been too many processes to attribute it in the last 6,000 years. Long before radiometric dating, the earth was deemed to be millions as opposed to thousands of years old. For example, an unconformity will show that sedimentation; uplift, folding, erosion, submergence, sedimentation, uplift, erosion takes a real long time!

 

[tall73]

As to the universe, it is quite possible it has been around for a while.

But as to the earth, you also have erosion at current rates that would have wiped out all land by now.

So I guess I am not convinced by your summary.

Now back to the evolution of man. Things such as the differences in these skulls are problematic to explain:

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

Evidence for an old universe?

Light from distant galaxies; our own galaxy is 100,000 light years accross so light from the outer edge has taken 100,000 years to reach us. The furthest observable object is approx 13,000,000,000 light years away. That is good evidence for an old universe.

Old earth?

A good geology course will show that there have been too many processes to attribute it in the last 6,000 years. Long before radiometric dating, the earth was deemed to be millions as opposed to thousands of years old. For example, an unconformity will show that sedimentation; uplift, folding, erosion, submergence, sedimentation, uplift, erosion takes a real long time!

and we are to assume that it has ALWAYS taken a long time ...why cant it just recently slowed down?

no because its possible that the universe is expanding so if everything was created from a central point, that light would have been present from the beginning and would remain there as the distance expanded between us


this explination is based on the THEORY that all the varibles have stayed the same, and that there is no other forces present(which is understandable since your basing it on clearly present things anyways)

 

[Silent Bob]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...3/i1/howold.asp

this must be a lie too

Well if you want it in black and white. YES!!!!

I am at risk of sounding prejudiced but I find it difficult to believe any scientifically sounding thing that comes out of the mouths of people who have signed statements which read:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Now back to the evolution of man. Things such as the differences in these skulls are problematic to explain:

Can you explain the differences in these fossils?

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

how similar do two fosils have to be to be considered for a past form?
it seems to me that your fossil's "similarities" rely on human opinion only

 

[GraceInHim]

again with skulls - LOL -

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

these two are much more similar, in my opinion
<-monkey cheetah->

 

[GraceInHim]

rotflm*O --- you are so funny AG