Evolution is not science

[Heissonear]

.

OK, some are a little slow I see.

The OP recently included 20 items against evolution. A point by point refute has not occurred.

Let me take just one point as I have in past posts and emphasize: for any Naturalist to show me in the sedimentary rock record over the past 500 million years to show one Ancestral "species" to Descendent "species" transition fossil series as real world proof of evolution.

That's just 1 of the 20 on the list to refute.

Suduction Zone couldn't do it. Let's see if any one else can "prove" evolution by, you got it, evidence.

If evolution is based on science then prove it.

 

[gungasnake]

The claim is that every one of these quotes and all others like them have been taken out of context in so egregious a fashion as to invert the meaning of the original statement, whatever that might have been.

An intelligent reader should only need to peruse a few of these statements to comprehend what a crock of BS that is.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

*snip redundant, asinine drivel*

You said that already. Now present some actual data.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The claim is that every one of these quotes and all others like them have been taken out of context in so egregious a fashion as to invert the meaning of the original statement, whatever that might have been.

An intelligent reader should only need to peruse a few of these statements to comprehend what a crock of BS that is.

I dare you to present a single, solitary piece of evidence in support of your position, from a primary scientific source.

 

[gungasnake]

Another one by Fred Hoyle...

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random
is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think
that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in
every respect deliberate... It is almost inevitable that our own measure of
intelligence must reflect higher intelligence -- even to the limit of God."

Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe
Prof of Astronomy, Cambridge University
Prof of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics
University College, Cardiff
Evolution from Space, J.M.Dent, 1981, pp 141,144

 

[Heissonear]

You said that already. Now present some actual data.

Your science has failed you and other Naturalists. Where is the real world fossil record? Show me the series of fossils that show morphological changes from one species to another in sequential layers of strata.

Where is your "evidence"?

.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Your science has failed you and other Naturalists.

I have the overwhelming majority of practitioners on my side, and all the data. You have a miniscule and insignificant fringe on yours, and zero data. You lose.

Where is the real world fossil record?

You can figure this out for yourself with about five minutes worth of research, as can anyone reading along. Also, even if there were no fossils AT ALL, the evidence from genetics alone would be sufficient - again, something anyone can figure out with a rudimentary study of the subject.

I know that means nothing to you, but it doesn't matter. I have these exchanges for the benefit of people reading along, not for myself and absolutely not for you.

 

[HitchSlap]

Your science has failed you and other Naturalists. Where is the real world fossil record? Show me the series of fossils that show morphological changes from one species to another in sequential layers of strata.

Where is your "evidence"?

.

Did Neil Shubin use the ToE or prayer, to find Tiktaalik?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In case anyone reading along is confused, my challenges for creationists to present data in favor of their position are entirely rhetorical. I know for a fact that they can't.

 

[Split Rock]

The rarity of "beneficial" mutations is such (even assuming that they exist)
that, in order to undergo two or more beneficial mutations at a time, there would have to be very, very large numbers of the harmful kind as well.

The individual and the species would die.

1. I gave you an example of a beneficial mutation... yet you continue to post things like "even assuming they exist."

2. Beneficial mutations are selected for, while detrimental mutations are selected against.

 

[Split Rock]

In fact I have a much better grasp of this stuff than YOU do. In real life, if you wish to avoid being quoted as having said something, there is a terrifyingly easy way to accomplish that:

DON'T SAY IT!!!!

So, you agree with me that all the "creation scientists" and I.D. thinkers I quoted are secret evolutionists (or as you like to say "evolosers")? Yes or no, please.

 

[gungasnake]

If the crash damage prevents theft of the car,then yes,it is a beneficial modification

It's NOT a mutation which could ever agglomerate with other like mutations to render the Volkswagon as a Maserati Merak in good condition. THAT is what evolution requires.

 

[freezerman2000]

Then you needed to use an analogy dealing with a living organism,NOT an inanimate object.

 

[freezerman2000]

THIS is from the CDC..the modifications sure are not beneficial to us,but to the bacteria themselves,yes they are..

Q: How do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
A: Antibiotic resistance occurs when bacteria change in some way that reduces or eliminates the effectiveness of drugs, chemicals, or other agents designed to cure or prevent infections. The bacteria survive and continue to multiply causing more harm. Bacteria can do this through several mechanisms. Some bacteria develop the ability to neutralize the antibiotic before it can do harm, others can rapidly pump the antibiotic out, and still others can change the antibiotic attack site so it cannot affect the function of the bacteria.
Antibiotics kill or inhibit the growth of susceptible bacteria. Sometimes one of the bacteria survives because it has the ability to neutralize or escape the effect of the antibiotic; that one bacterium can then multiply and replace all the bacteria that were killed off. Exposure to antibiotics therefore provides selective pressure, which makes the surviving bacteria more likely to be resistant. In addition, bacteria that were at one time susceptible to an antibiotic can acquire resistance through mutation of their genetic material or by acquiring pieces of DNA that code for the resistance properties from other bacteria. The DNA that codes for resistance can be grouped in a single easily transferable package. This means that bacteria can become resistant to many antimicrobial agents because of the transfer of one piece of DNA.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) produced a nine-minute animationExternal Web Site Icon explaining how antimicrobial resistance both emerges and proliferates among bacteria. Over time, the use of antimicrobial drugs will result in the development of resistant strains of bacteria, complicating clinicians' efforts to select the appropriate antimicrobial for treatment.

Here's the web site that was mentioned in the answer..
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/ucm134359.htm

 

[Heissonear]

.

Beneficial mutations anyone? Nothing like real world results?

Just line people up to have x-ray or other mutation methods and lets see what results.

Oh, cancer, the cells went goofy.

You have heard it before - 99.999% of all genetic mutations are deadly. Of course over millions of years of geologic time the beneficial mutations happen to always produce the ramp from high to higher life forms, even until homo sapiens.

Evolution is a faith people walk in, and it never happened.

.

 

[lasthero]

Wow. I complain about quote mining, and you go and prove me right. Let's just look at a handful of these.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been
a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

This is Gould arguing against gradualism and for punctuated equillibrium. In the section of the paper that this is ripped from, he's basically arguing the problems with a gradual model and outlining why his model accounts for such things. He is not arguing against evolution.

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth?" (p. 206)

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest
objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292)

In both cases, he then goes on to explain further and propose answers. He is not arguing against his own theory - he sets up a question, then answers it. To only show the question and pretend like he was stumped is dishonest in the extreme.

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that
it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

In the paragraph this is taken from, Kemp is simply criticizing the claim that the fossil record is incomplete.

The fact that the fossil data did not, on the whole, seem to fit this prevailing model of the process of evolution - for example, in the absence of intermediate forms and of gradually changing lineages over millions of years - was readily explained by the notorious incompleteness of the fossil record. In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be "wrong". A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?

Spearheaded by this extraordinary journal, palaeontology is now looking at what it actually finds, not what it is told that it is supposed to find. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the "punctuated equilibrium" pattern of Eldredge and Gould. Irrespective of one's view of the biological causes of such a pattern (and there continues to be much debate about this), it leads in practice to description of long-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of the differential survival, extinction and proliferation of species. The species is the unit of evolution.

Yeah. He's really arguing for creation, there.

And those were just three random examples I picked.

 

[lasthero]

You have heard it before - 99.999% of all genetic mutations are deadly

Yeah, and it was a lie the last time I heard it.

Humans have mutations. We're born with them. All of us. If that many of them were deadly, we'd be dead hundreds of times over. You are talking out of the wrong hole.

 

[lasthero]

Eh, what the heck. A few more.

Circular Dating

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of
rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never
bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth
the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be
hard-headed pragmatism."

J.E. O'Rourke, Evolutionist researcher
"Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy"
American Journal of Science, Jan 1976, p. 48.

Let's look at the conclusion at the end of this, shall we?

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work against his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach.

Does that sound like he's saying dating methods can't be used, that they rely on circular reasoning, that they can't be trusted? It sounds like the exact opposite.


I'm also noticing an odd trend - a lot of these quotes are ancient. Which doesn't necessarily mean they're misleading, to be fair, but it's odd that none of the sites I find these quotes on link back to the actual source - most of the just site it, and the source is so old that it would take weeks, if not months to track it down, which very few people are obviously going to do. So it's obvious you, nor the person you got these quotes from, probably not even the person HE got these quotes from, ever saw the quotes in their full context. In fact, I don't think any of your quotes are even from this century.

Just saying - it's almost as if the person who compiled this list wanted to avoid quotes that could be easily checked. Moving on.

"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there
is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of
conservative creationists, that God created each species separately,
presumably from the dust of the earth."

And here we go again. The full context.

We need to remember that the only evidence about the way events occurred in the past is found in the geological records. However sophisticated advances in molecular genetics and molecular engineering may become eventually, the fact that a genetic change or even a new species might be generated eventually in the laboratory does not tell us how new species arose in the past history of the earth. They merely provide possible mechanisms. At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth. My own view is that this does not strengthen the creationists' arguments.

And later on, he goes on to say this:

It is strikingly clear in the geological records, when life had reached the stage where organisms were capable of living in a previously unoccupied region of the planet, such as the move from estuaries to dry land, the appearance of plants growing to great heights which provided a location (habitat) for climbing animals, or when birds and insects actually moved up and flew in theair[sp] above the earth's surface. Large numbers of new species appeared at these times; this has been called radiation, a spreading out of life.

 

[bhsmte]

Eh, what the heck. A few more.




Let's look at the conclusion at the end of this, shall we?



Does that sound like he's saying dating methods can't be used, that they rely on circular reasoning, that they can't be trusted? It sounds like the exact opposite.


I'm also noticing an odd trend - a lot of these quotes are ancient. Which doesn't necessarily mean they're misleading, to be fair, but it's odd that none of the sites I find these quotes on link back to the actual source - most of the just site it, and the source is so old that it would take weeks, if not months to track it down, which very few people are obviously going to do. So it's obvious you, nor the person you got these quotes from, probably not even the person HE got these quotes from, ever saw the quotes in their full context. In fact, I don't think any of your quotes are even from this century.

Just saying - it's almost as if the person who compiled this list wanted to avoid quotes that could be easily checked. Moving on.



And here we go again. The full context.



And later on, he goes on to say this:

Do creationists attend quote mining school?

 

[HitchSlap]

That's BS, there ARE NO such examples. In particular, there are no examples of a mutation which could be viewed as a step in the direction of a new and/or more complex KIND of animal.

The stuff we keep reading amounts to mutations amongst bacteria which leave the bacteria still a bacteria, and things like sickle-cell which do less harm than some other external threat which they allow an organism to avoid serendipitously.

An analogy I heard recently at a discussion involving evoloserism which struck pretty much everybody as unusually funny:

Picture it being about 1965 or thereabouts at the absolute height of the popularity of the little VW beetle-bug, and the evil Dr. Fu Manchu devises a way to get rich(er) in the grand-theft auto business by creating a machine to steal large numbers of the beetle-bugs; he takes a plastic mold of a beetle-bug with its doors closed and windows up and shortly has fleets of large trucks going down the streets at night with huge vacuum devices ending in hard rubber attachments which fit straight over a beetle bug, attach to it via suction, lift it up, and put it in the truck.

Shortly all VW owners are living in mortal dread, and are chaining their beetle-bugs to large trees at night.

All except Suzie Johnson that is. Suzie crashed her VW into a tree at about 12 mph; bent up the hood, the right front fender and the passenger door rather badly but, other than that, it still runs decently enough. The frame wasn't damaged and the engine and drive train were in the rear. And, naturally enough, the damage would prevent Fu Manchu's device from fitting her VW or stealing it.

The 64,000 question is, would anybody refer to the crash damage as a "beneficial modification"??

This is an exact analogy to the claims which evolosers make for bacterial mutations being beneficial.

Did Neil Shubin use the ToE or prayer, to find T. roseae?