My flatmate, who used to post here as "LightHorseman" some of you may remember him. Anyway, he has been fighting the good fight in a different forum, which I have been watching with some interest. Anyway, hes finally come acropper and could use some help. I suspect that what we have here is an example of quote mining, but it is beyone me to address the specifics in the example.
Could any of the older and wiser heads provide some support? Cos as it stands, the Creationists seem to have him bailed up
Thanking you muchly in advance, and on behalf of Light Horseman
Luv EnemyParty
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightHorseman
... yes it has. creationists insist on calling it "micro"-evolution, yet evolutionists do not, nor ever have, suggested that "macro"evolution ever consisted of anything but micro-evolution multiplied across thousands of generations. And it is observed
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."
[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), "Evolutionary theory under fire," Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]
Quote:
The second law? entropy within a closed system increase? How does evolution violate this? Solar system wide, entropy increases. However, energy from the sun and radiactive elements tht keep the Earth's mantle and core hot, power evolution, so there is no contradiction here that I am aware of.
"The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." [C. J. Smith (evolutionist), Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]
Of course, as the article points out, adding raw energy to a system increases rather than decreases entropy.
Quote:
Earth has literally thousands of transitional fossils. Would you like some examples?
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), "Paleontology and Uniformitariansim." Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid." [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
"Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories." [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
Quote:
Random mutation is one of the mechanisms for biological "innovation", however evolution proceeds under the guidance of natural selection, which is a specific and powerful mechanism.
"If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution." [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
"Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species chances of survival, but simply enables it to track, or keep up with, the constantly changing environment" [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]
"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder." [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
Quote:
True, evolution can NEVER be PROVED true. But then nothing in science can be.
Wrong. Many things have been proved true. We call them laws. A single falsification makes them no longer laws, but they are still laws. The description of some laws such as gravity have been modified as they were better understood, but the fact remains there are things in science that can be and have been proved true.
"However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. ...We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables." [Davis E. Green (evolutionist, Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger (evolutionist, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland), Molecular Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407]
Quote:
However, evolution is EXTREMELY well supported, by literally millions of pieces of evidence...
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), "Paleontology and Uniformitariansim." Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=480782
Could any of the older and wiser heads provide some support? Cos as it stands, the Creationists seem to have him bailed up
Thanking you muchly in advance, and on behalf of Light Horseman
Luv EnemyParty
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightHorseman
... yes it has. creationists insist on calling it "micro"-evolution, yet evolutionists do not, nor ever have, suggested that "macro"evolution ever consisted of anything but micro-evolution multiplied across thousands of generations. And it is observed
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."
[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), "Evolutionary theory under fire," Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]
Quote:
The second law? entropy within a closed system increase? How does evolution violate this? Solar system wide, entropy increases. However, energy from the sun and radiactive elements tht keep the Earth's mantle and core hot, power evolution, so there is no contradiction here that I am aware of.
"The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." [C. J. Smith (evolutionist), Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]
Of course, as the article points out, adding raw energy to a system increases rather than decreases entropy.
Quote:
Earth has literally thousands of transitional fossils. Would you like some examples?
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), "Paleontology and Uniformitariansim." Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid." [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
"Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories." [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
Quote:
Random mutation is one of the mechanisms for biological "innovation", however evolution proceeds under the guidance of natural selection, which is a specific and powerful mechanism.
"If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution." [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
"Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species chances of survival, but simply enables it to track, or keep up with, the constantly changing environment" [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]
"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder." [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
Quote:
True, evolution can NEVER be PROVED true. But then nothing in science can be.
Wrong. Many things have been proved true. We call them laws. A single falsification makes them no longer laws, but they are still laws. The description of some laws such as gravity have been modified as they were better understood, but the fact remains there are things in science that can be and have been proved true.
"However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. ...We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables." [Davis E. Green (evolutionist, Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger (evolutionist, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland), Molecular Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407]
Quote:
However, evolution is EXTREMELY well supported, by literally millions of pieces of evidence...
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), "Paleontology and Uniformitariansim." Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=480782
