Hi Guys I'm back. I just couldn't let this one slide.
Originally posted by Rising Tree
The failure of Darwin's theory of evolution can be attributed to four reasons:
Actually the failure of Darwin's theory can be attributed to only one thing: lack of genetics.
However, the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, which was begun by devout Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky with his 1937 work
Genetics and The Origin of species, solved that problem by incorporating the genetic mode of inheritance into evolutionary theory. This is what students learn when they study evolution, not Darwin's theories, but rather a later elaboration of them.
If evolution is true, then the fossil record must show a continuous span of different types of species.
No it must not, since fossilization is a rare event. Thus it is highly unlikely for every ancestor of organisms living today to be preserved. However, some evolutionary histories are well recorded. Take the gradual speciation found in
Forams. In fact evolutionary theory derived for extant organisms explains why gradual speciation is not found in the fossil record. Most speciation events arise from subpopulations isolated from the main group. This is because gene pools of large groups act as buffers against significant change in the short term. Gould and Eldridge realized that large populations, which are less likely to show noticeable changes, are more likely to leave fossils. Thus their theory of the fossil record, punctuated equilibrium was form.
There is only one thing required in the fossil record on a broad scale if evolution is true. Younger fossils must be more similar to modern forms than latter fossils. And guess what? This is what we see.
Science 1 - Pseudoscience 0.
Inventing so-called evidence is a classic sign of failing to admit defeat.
Great. So I guess that you'll admit that creationist are going down in defeat, since they are the only ones inventing evidence.
- Questionable Credentials
- Paluxy Man Tracks
- Paluxy Teeth
- Lies about Archaeopteryx's Authenticity
- C-decay
- Gish's Bullfrog Proteins
- The Bombardier Beetle
- Quote Mining
- No beneficial mutations
- Homology is a circular defination.
- Life consists of immutable kinds
- Chicken Lysozyme
- Lies about the Fossil Hominids
- Barriers to Evoluiton
- Lies about radiometric dating
- Macroevolution and speciation doesn't occur
- Etc...
Science 2 - Pseudoscience 0.
Commonly referred to as the Second Law of Thermodynamics within the physical science realm, it is a common fact of life that ordered systems spontaneously break down into chaotic systems. Anything left unattended falls apart.
No real process can happen that violates the second law of thermodynamics. Since evolution does happen Futyuma D (1997)
Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition. Sinauer Assoc.), it cannot violate 2LoT. The second law of thermodynamics states (emphasis mine):
When real (irreversible) processes occur, the degree of disorder in the system plus the surroundings increases. When a process occurs in an isolated system, the state of the system becomes more disordered. The measure of disorder in a system is called entropy S. . . . [In other words] the entropy of the Universe increases in all real processes.
(Serway R A & Beichner R J (2000) Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, 5th edition. Saunders College Publishing
)
Biological systems are in concordance with this because they use energy from their environment to survive and reproduce. The local reduction of entropy in living organisms is offset by an increase of entropy in the rest of the Universe. (The solar input and the heat generated by biochemical reactions accomplish this.) If the second law prevented evolution, it would also prevent life from existing at all.
Science 3 - Pseudoscience 0.
4. The Law of Biogenesis.
This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the scientific diversity for the origin of the diversity of life, not the origin of life. Evolution requires an imperfect replicator for it to occur. Thus what ever processes that lead up to the origin of that first imperfect replicator are not evolution. However, since this post is about science versus pseudoscience. . .
Again, this is a scientific principle. Throughout the history of mankind, life has never been observed to spontaneously arise from non-life.
Note words "spontaneous" and "history of mankind." Abiogenesis involves neither of these things.
The Miller-Urey experiment attempted to show how life can spontaneously evolve from non-life.
No it did not. The MUE only set out to show how biotic chemicals can be generated by abiotic processes, and it did this, disproving some forms of vitalism.
Evolution has faith-based arguments; creation has science-based arguments.
What is this? Opposite day?
Science 4 - Pseudoscience 0.
The verdict?
Once again creationist misconceptions and falsehoods can't stand up to actual scientific review.
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
Ooo, it sounds both religious and scientific. Let's see which one it actually is.
The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
Religious Belief
The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
Religious Belief
Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
Religious Belief
The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
Religious Belief
Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
Religious Belief
Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
Religious Belief
The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
Religious Belief
Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
Religious Belief
Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.
Religious Belief
Hmm. Am I the only one missing the science in "creation science?"
Now, concerning randomness in evolution, biologists often explain how evolution is not random because of selection. However, we also say that evolution is not deterministic because it is random. Is there a confict here? Not at all because both sentances are using "random" differently and rarely do they ever have to appear together to cause immediate confusion.
Evolution is a random process, in a strict statistical sense. Rising_tree is trying to argue that it is without trends or biases. (That is the only use of "random" that could potentially refute evolution.) However, selection is a biased sieve that filters mutations. Thus it ensures that the process of biological evolution has trends, such that those that survive have offspring that survive. Thus we get adaptations and jury-rigged design, exactly what we see in nature.
But don't worry, I have seen worse.
Where did you get your degree?
