If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[KerrMetric]

A gift to nolidad.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2815921-modern-creationist-scientists-heroes.html

 

[nolidad]

gladuas writes:

Human beings.

So there wwere a bunch of them around then I assume you are saying?

Of course not. Because mutation is not synonymous with evolution. We do have good evidence that mutation + natural selection has transformed sarcopterigian fish into amphibians and reptiles over time.

But you and I both know that your buddies at talkorigins .org and all other evolutionists state that mutations are the basic engine of evolution.

Speciation is the end-point of the evolutionary process. All groupings above the species level are groups of species arranged in categories for human convenience. Every division between one supra-species group and another is the consequence of speciation at some point in the past. There is no such thing as the instantaneous emergence of a new family or order or any higher taxonomic rank. All of these are dependent on speciation.

Well we know that is what teh theory states but what we are looking for ar ethe facts to prove the theory true. You said evolution is a proven fact. More and more as we study genetics scientists are seeing the vast differences between the different kinds. Today w ecan tell the difference between human and animal blood, muscle , hair etc etc. Jumping these barriers is where evolution cannot show by selection and mutation. We get the could bes, possiblies, it seems, it suggests ad nauseum.


Kerr Metric writes:

You make my point for me. Which one of those is actually a working academic researcher in the applicable sciences at a major research univrsity? Which one?
In fact, how many of them are full time employees of ICR or AIG?
How many of them specifically perform research and publish in physics, biology, astronomy or geology that directly impinges on the evolution or universal origins arena?
Why do some of these people publish regular science that includes old earth arguments in their work - Baumgardner and Faulker have?

Why don't you bother to read the posts and find out for yourself!! Then you wouldn't have to ask me. Someo fhtem are in universities. They don't write on evolution for they reject it as valid science as evolutionists reject creationism as valid science.

As for old earth argumetns-- email them, I really don;'t want to do your work in answering questions for them when you can email them your self.

I am a physicist (PhD) working formerly in stellar physics/geophysics modelling and now work in planetary science. If I need to I can always use my wife who is a PhD molecular biologist. If you think my real name is getting posted on a message board then you are sadly mistaken.
By the way, Project Steve was a hilarious counter. The Steves outnumber the Creationists by a mile and they actually have a lot of them from real universities.

Well I accept you are no tlying. and no I di dnot wish fo ryou to post your name on the boards! Well at least you have been well educated, just to bad you took a wrong turn to evolution though

As for the Steve thing-- it is just a smokescreen to try to steer attention away from the fact that creation science is manned by folks who are real scientists doing real research. As for the ratios of evolutionists to creationists who hold masters and doctorates: I would venture it is 99.8% for evolution and .2% for creation science. David and Goliath all over again!

There are many lists of mutation effects on the genome so that I'm sure you can Google them. I'm also sure they have been listed at you on this very forum.

No one isarguing the fact that there are many mutations known, I am just asking how speciation can be proven to not be simple prexistent variation versus genetic altering mutation? There is no one who has answered this yet.


LADY KATE:

I haven't forgotten your posts, but being a husband, father, step father, worker ant, in school, and in the praise band at church. I have to fall behind again tonight. Will respond to your posts ( I know whoopie do!!) when I can!

 

[KerrMetric]

Why don't you bother to read the posts and find out for yourself!! Then you wouldn't have to ask me. Someo fhtem are in universities. They don't write on evolution for they reject it as valid science as evolutionists reject creationism as valid science.

As I linked to in my post above yours I made a whole thread taking each one of the 31 on your list and analysing them. Very few are in universities, when they are the colleges are not exactly renowned are they? In fact most of the active ones seem to be a strange beast called the Professional Creationist making his/her money of the backs of gullible people actually throwing money at these clowns. Some of them are even blatant hypocrites saying one thing professionally and the opposite when taking their Judas money.

No one is arguing the fact that there are many mutations known, I am just asking how speciation can be proven to not be simple prexistent variation versus genetic altering mutation? There is no one who has answered this yet.

If you actually read (and understood) the journal literature on this you needn't be asking this.

 

[notto]

More and more as we study genetics scientists are seeing the vast differences between the different kinds. Today w ecan tell the difference between human and animal blood, muscle , hair etc etc. Jumping these barriers is where evolution cannot show by selection and mutation. We get the could bes, possiblies, it seems, it suggests ad nauseum.

Surely you can point us to some research to support this point, right?

1) Define 'kind'.
2) define 'animal'
3) Name one difference between all human and animal blood, muscle, hair, etc. Just one.

Thank you.

 

[nolidad]

A gift to nolidad.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2815921-modern-creationist-scientists-heroes.html

Well thanks!!

But their response is as subjective as I suspected. The do not like the fact that they aren't evolutionists, or that many are not actively involved in ongoing research in creation science or origins. Good bad or indifferent they are bona fide scientists in their fields, few are actually full time staff of ICR and if they chose to teach, I say bully for them! Better to teach 1000 than to researcch to have the evolutionists refuse to peer review their work and just dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Willtor]

Well thanks!!

But their response is as subjective as I suspected. The do not like the fact that they aren't evolutionists, or that many are not actively involved in ongoing research in creation science or origins. Good bad or indifferent they are bona fide scientists in their fields, few are actually full time staff of ICR and if they chose to teach, I say bully for them! Better to teach 1000 than to researcch to have the evolutionists refuse to peer review their work and just dismiss it out of hand.

This is an incorrect view of researchers. The researchers typically are the professors at universities. It's from their courses that they get their slave labor... uh, research assistants. A student working on a PhD thesis may publish 2 or 3 papers on a particular topic. This is where the articles for peer-reviewed journals come from.

 

[KerrMetric]

Well thanks!!

But their response is as subjective as I suspected. The do not like the fact that they aren't evolutionists, or that many are not actively involved in ongoing research in creation science or origins. Good bad or indifferent they are bona fide scientists in their fields, few are actually full time staff of ICR and if they chose to teach, I say bully for them! Better to teach 1000 than to researcch to have the evolutionists refuse to peer review their work and just dismiss it out of hand.

My comments were fair. When someone works only as a mouthpiece for ICR for 4 decades I mention it.

Yes I don't like the fact they don't work in the areas BECAUSE that makes them unqualified to speak on the subjects with authority. You aren't bona fide when since grad school you haven't done a darn thing except be a Creationist or something else unrelated. It makes you a wannabe at best. Calling ICR a teaching group is an insult to even high school teaching.

Yeah, that peer review which sort of demands you know what you are doing and have something to contribute is a bugbear isn't it? Or at least it is for the blatatly unqualified and incapable.


By the way nolidad, don't in future make posts telling me these cranks are in major universities or chairs of departments of said universities as you did a few days ago. OK? Because it makes you seem biased at best when the facts are posted as I did with that thread I linked to. Capiche?

 

[Donkeytron]

Well thanks!!

But their response is as subjective as I suspected. The do not like the fact that they aren't evolutionists, or that many are not actively involved in ongoing research in creation science or origins. Good bad or indifferent they are bona fide scientists in their fields, few are actually full time staff of ICR and if they chose to teach, I say bully for them! Better to teach 1000 than to researcch to have the evolutionists refuse to peer review their work and just dismiss it out of hand.

When articles are rejected from peer reviewed journals, the editors provide a detailed letter about why the article didnt meet the criteria for publication. Can you link to any of these letter received by creationists? If not, then we can conclude there must be another reason creationists dont publish.

 

[KerrMetric]

If not, then we can conclude there must be another reason creationists dont publish.

Well as someone who referees for several journals I'll give you the reason. They don't submit to them since they actually don't do any research. Even the ones who write the nonsense in Creation ex Nihilo aren't really researching. What they do is a literature search and then make some bogus comments about what they misunderstand, oops find. There is no Creation science going on folks. No real theorising and experiment or observation. No data to analyse, no conclusions to be drawn or recommendations for future work. It's all a con job to keep the flock happy and the ICR or AIG donations coming in.

That is why!

 

[The Lady Kate]

But you and I both know that your buddies at talkorigins .org and all other evolutionists state that mutations are the basic engine of evolution.

They are a vital mechanism.... that's not the same as saying it's all there is to it.

Well we know that is what teh theory states but what we are looking for ar ethe facts to prove the theory true. You said evolution is a proven fact. More and more as we study genetics scientists are seeing the vast differences between the different kinds.

There is no such thing as a "kind" in the biological sense... at least nothing that can be defined in any meaningful way.

Today w ecan tell the difference between human and animal blood, muscle , hair etc etc. Jumping these barriers is where evolution cannot show by selection and mutation.

What barriers? Humans are animals.... biologically speaking.

We get the could bes, possiblies, it seems, it suggests ad nauseum.

Which is better than what the Creationist side "suggests..."

LADY KATE:

I haven't forgotten your posts, but being a husband, father, step father, worker ant, in school, and in the praise band at church. I have to fall behind again tonight. Will respond to your posts ( I know whoopie do!!) when I can!

No need to rush.

 

[gluadys]

And the proven evidence to support this assertion is???

That it is the only known way to insert an new allele into a genome. Even AiG will confirm that for you.

Now if
god knew that it took billions of years this is not a lie why????

It is not a lie because God did not inspire the author to give a science lesson; God inspired the author to impress on his hearers why it is important to keep the Sabbath.

 

[gluadys]

gladuas writes:



So there wwere a bunch of them around then I assume you are saying?

Were and are. Adam & Eve are not allegories for just some human beings, but for all human beings past, present and future.

But you and I both know that your buddies at talkorigins .org and all other evolutionists state that mutations are the basic engine of evolution.

No, mutations are fuel; natural selection is the basic engine of evolution.

And just as your car won't get anywhere without both fuel and engine, neither will there be any evolution without both mutation and selection.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Good bad or indifferent they are bona fide scientists in their fields,

I have a masters in Physics and actually have my name on a peer reviewed paper (yup that is 'a' as in singular ), but I don't call myself a scientist because quite frankly I don't do science...

few are actually full time staff of ICR and if they chose to teach, I say bully for them! Better to teach 1000 than to researcch to have the evolutionists refuse to peer review their work and just dismiss it out of hand.

My alma mater is a College with a student population of about 1800 and the nearly all the science professors are active in research with a fairly large number of peer reviewed publications.

 

[nolidad]

I have a masters in Physics and actually have my name on a peer reviewed paper (yup that is 'a' as in singular ), but I don't call myself a scientist because quite frankly I don't do science...

My alma mater is a College with a student population of about 1800 and the nearly all the science professors are active in research with a fairly large number of peer reviewed publications.

Well nearly all the scientists I listed are active in research, but the line was drawn that it doesn't count for much because they are not researching in "prestigious" univerisites or are nobel laureates.

You have to understand something-- scientists who are YEC are not going to get many peer reviewed publications from the science population in general if the paper is inshowing why some facet of biological evolution or long ages is wrong! Reason-- the review boards are loaded with staunch evolutionists who think young ages is impossible. This is the reason why orgs like CRS, ICR et al are forming their own peer review panels. To make sure that the work being done is accurate and honest and that the research does not have fundamental flaws that would cause the conclusion to be in great error.

You have to remember evolution is considered incopntorvertible fact. So to challenge itwould be like an atheist going in to an evangelical church and dsaying " I have proof God doesn't exist". Just as the atheist will not get a reception for his concept-- so won't a scientist with info saying long ages and evolutrion is wrong not receive an impartial review in secular science.

 

[nolidad]

gluadys writes:

That it is the only known way to insert an new allele into a genome. Even AiG will confirm that for you.

First sorry for butchering your screen name earlier!

Well that is mutation-- inserting something new that was not already present before. But mutation is not the combining of two present conditions and creating a third!

An example: (please this is not meant as a racist comment) a black man marries a white woman and have children that are called "mullato". The children are not mutants but simply the combining of the two race stocks into a third stock. Nothing "new" was added to the gene pool at all, but just a simple combining of two existing codes. Now if the baby was born kelly green and it is known that kelly green is not part of the genetic info for homo sapien sapien then yes you have a mutation!!

Were and are. Adam & Eve are not allegories for just some human beings, but for all human beings past, present and future.

So then what are the very clear and precise geneologies from Adam to Christ allegories of?? Does that mean if we are to expand on your theory here that Jesus is just an allegory for the "savior" within us all???

No, mutations are fuel; natural selection is the basic engine of evolution.

And just as your car won't get anywhere without both fuel and engine, neither will there be any evolution without both mutation and selection.

Well excuse my less then perfect use of allegory here. But either way without mutation bringing about enormous change over enormous time there is no evolution for natural selection to preserve.

Just some ramblings at his point. The theory says that all changes that are preserved are advantageous to the species,

1. In order for it to be an advantege the prior condition had to become a disadvantage. 1a) In order for this to be true then the root stock should have died out unless of course the advantage was only localized.

2. Every change had to take hold, prosper and flouish in the species meaning there had to be an upswell in population of the "new" creature in order to pass on the new traits.

3. This new advantage put other creatures at a disadvantage (the predator prey cycle) So it forces the predator to have to evolve, which forces its predator to evolve which forces its predator to evolve etc. etc. So when one species adapts to advantage it places other species at disadvantages- causing the pressure to force it to change. We know this is true from natural studies and the well proven fact that all nature is in a symbiotic relationship.

4. If evolution is a general concept for all of life- then the species that did not evolve the new "advantageous" mutation should be left at a disadvantage and more vunerable-- but the fossil and living record rebuts this concept for we have countless creatures that are basically the same today as they have been for "millions" of years .

5. So where is the evidence of all this adjacent extinction and advantage going on? I remember an evoltutionist saying how the giraffe got its long neck. Well what about the trees-- what protective measures did they evolve to counter the evolution of the giraffe to reach higher up to feed off the leaves which would in turn kill all the trees cause there were still the smaller necked critters eating th eleaves at lower levels??

Well more later-- I woke up before the alarm and was hoping to keep from falling to far behind. there is only one of me (aren't you glad for that ) to the four or five of you all responding to me. You do keep me hopping so I should be grateful for that!!!!!

 

[shernren]

scientists who are YEC are not going to get many peer reviewed publications from the science population in general if the paper is inshowing why some facet of biological evolution or long ages is wrong!

Prove it.

Well that is mutation-- inserting something new that was not already present before. But mutation is not the combining of two present conditions and creating a third!

An example: (please this is not meant as a racist comment) a black man marries a white woman and have children that are called "mullato". Th echildren are not mutantsa but simply the combining of the two race stocks into a third stock. Nothing "new" was added to the gene pool at all, but just a simple combinng of two existing codes. Now if the baby was born kelly green and it is known that kelly green is not part of the genetic info for homo sapien sapien then yes you have a mutation!!

So isn't the nylon bug a mutation that adds information? http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

1. In order for it to be an advantege the prior condition had to become a disadvantage. 1a) In order for this to be true then the root stock should have died out unless of course the advantage was only being localized.

Simply not true. Analogy: If I don't study I might score 90% for my exam; the next time around I study and score 95% instead. Is 90% a bad score just because I could do better than it? Nope.

And you're right, "advantage" is localized. Take a bunch of polar bears, perfectly adapted to the polar regions, and dump them in the desert - they'll all be dead in weeks. All their "advantages" have suddenly become deleterious.

4. If evolution is a general concept for all of life- then the species that did not evolve the new "advantageous" mutation should be left at a disadvantage and more vunerable-- but the fossil and living record rebuts this concept for we have countless creatures that are basically the same today as they have been for "millions" of years.

But then again if a population is perfectly adapted to its environment, then the selective pressure will tend to resist change to the gene pool rather than encourage it. Evolution doesn't always fix what ain't broken. Normally the environment changes, and selective pressure changes the gene pool to fit the environment, and therefore there is evolution. But until you can suggest improvements in the design of the sharks, say, I don't see any reason that evolution wouldn't tend to conserve the sharks instead of altering them.

5. So where is the evidence of all this adjacent extinction and advantagesd going on? I remember an evoltutionist saying how the giraffe got its long neck. Well what about the trees-- what protectiv emeasure s di dthey evolve to counter the evolution of the giraffe to reach higher up to feed off the leves which would in turn kill all the trees cause there were still the smaller necked critters eating th eleaves at lower levels??

The best theory now is that giraffes' long necks evolved as a result of sexual selection, not for advantage of high reach for foraging.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys writes:



First sorry for butchering your screen name earlier!

No prob.

An example: (please this is not meant as a racist comment) a black man marries a white woman and have children that are called "mullato". The children are not mutants but simply the combining of the two race stocks into a third stock. Nothing "new" was added to the gene pool at all, but just a simple combining of two existing codes. Now if the baby was born kelly green and it is known that kelly green is not part of the genetic info for homo sapien sapien then yes you have a mutation!!

But the black man is black because his ancestors developed and conserved mutations to produce more than average quantities of melanin and the white woman is white because her ancestors developed and conserved mutations that suppressed the production of melanin.

That is why both alleles already exist in the human species. The rest, as you say, is Mendelian sortation.

So then what are the very clear and precise geneologies from Adam to Christ allegories of?? Does that mean if we are to expand on your theory here that Jesus is just an allegory for the "savior" within us all???

Only if you have reason for considering that Jesus was not an historical individual. As for the genealogies, since we have no verification of any person from Adam to Noah, we don't know at all that they are precise. Legendary genealogies with inflated ages are common in ancient literature.

Well excuse my less then perfect use of allegory here. But either way without mutation bringing about enormous change over enormous time there is no evolution for natural selection to preserve.

We would have no evolution at all without natural selection. Natural selection does not preserve evolution; it makes evolution happen.

Shenren beat me to answering the rest and I have to catch my morning bus.

 

[jetzeppelin]

Evolution is a valid science. Actually, evolution has been observed in the lifetime of a human being, and happens all the time. The problem that people have is that there are gaps in the complete theory of evolution. It's easy to understand that all mammals came from the same ancestor. However, linking a mammal to a tree is much more difficult. The transition animals are very difficult to find (i.e. mammal/reptiles). The other part is how the first organism actually began.

Anyone that completely denies evolution is either stupid or ignorant, because parts of the theory have actually been observed during the lifetime of a human in the past century. That is, like 50 years, not eons. There are numerous case studies about this, and new species of animals have been created as a result of human activity.

The broad implication of evolution is harder to stomache since we really can't tell yet.

Anyway, I can't believe that it's the 21st century, and we still have religious people trying to fight scientists, when time after time after time again, they've made discoveries that have changed our world. People need to just chill out about it.

The earth goes around the sun. Not the other way around.

That is completely untrue. Not true to any extent. Perhaps MACRO-evolution has been observed, but micro evolution has never, ever, ever been observed. If it had there would be no controversy over evolution's validity. And it's not. Valid that is.

 

[jetzeppelin]

No prob.




But the black man is black because his ancestors developed and conserved mutations to produce more than average quantities of melanin and the white woman is white because her ancestors developed and conserved mutations that suppressed the production of melanin.

That is why both alleles already exist in the human species. The rest, as you say, is Mendelian sortation.





Only if you have reason for considering that Jesus was not an historical individual. As for the genealogies, since we have no verification of any person from Adam to Noah, we don't know at all that they are precise. Legendary genealogies with inflated ages are common in ancient literature.




We would have no evolution at all without natural selection. Natural selection does not preserve evolution; it makes evolution happen.

Shenren beat me to answering the rest and I have to catch my morning bus.

What reasons would Moses have to inflate or make upo the genealogies of Genesis? Tell me that, please give me an answer to this question: why would moses be untrue about the genealogies?

 

[The Lady Kate]

What reasons would Moses have to inflate or make upo the genealogies of Genesis? Tell me that, please give me an answer to this question: why would moses be untrue about the genealogies?

What reason do we have to believe that Moses himself wrote those geneologies?