|
|
| (32 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | + | {{debate-science}} |
| | + | |
| | Post Your Thoughts | | Post Your Thoughts |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | + | |
| | + | Just like to point out that there is no theory of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is just a discription of genetic drift over time to cause noticable genetic differences. It is very missleading to have this labeled as a theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | For my side (evolution), I have one site. Take a good long look at it. |
| | + | |
| | + | http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html |
| | | | |
| | == Yes == | | == Yes == |
| Line 11: |
Line 19: |
| | #All life on Earth shares molecular features. | | #All life on Earth shares molecular features. |
| | #*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST) | | #*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST) |
| | + | #**'''Counter:''' Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart. |
| | + | #**'''Counter:''' Recent scientific discoveries <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref>, have demonstrated a proven link between non biotic molecular features and biotic RNA. The counters raised by Aschlafly and others on this point are empirically shown to be false.--[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 08:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT) |
| | #*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species? | | #*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species? |
| | ##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein) | | ##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein) |
| Line 23: |
Line 33: |
| | #Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation. | | #Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation. |
| | #*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity. | | #*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity. |
| | + | #**'''Counter:''' Lateral [[gene transfer]] between viruses and bacteria to more complicated life forms has been proven to occur and can account for increased mutations over time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | #**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity. | | #**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity. |
| | #***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST) | | #***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST) |
| | #****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always. | | #****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always. |
| | + | #*****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' inert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | #****'''Additional Counter:'''Decay, scattering and defects are not part of the evolutionary theory. What proof is there that disasters increase over time? The increase of entropy in the universe is not even comparable to the process of evolution, which is the opposite of randomness. Evolution relies on natural selection, which as its name suggests, selects the best adapted organisms to reproduce, not random organisms. |
| | #****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]] | | #****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]] |
| | #****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | | #****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | #*****'''Counter:''' On the contrary, mutations such as this are beneficial. To take another example, the chance mutation that caused the Banana to come in to existence has helped a single tree spread it's genetic material to most of the globe. Taking a narrow view of what is an evolutionary benefit is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution. An adaptation that causes a plant to establish a symbiotic relationship with the dominant species can be more helpful to a plant's survival than, say, one that helps it spread its seeds wider in the local area. |
| | + | #******'''Counter:''' Beneficial to humans yes, but detrimental to future evolution and genetic diversity of the watermelon species. --[[User:KarmicNoose|KarmicNoose]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EST) |
| | + | #*******But natural selection does not select features that increase diversity in a population; it selects features that increase the odds of reproduction in an individual—and preference by an agricultural species greatly increases an individual's odds of reproducing.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | #****'''Counter:''' Ginger/red hair in humans is an example of a harmless, recessive mutation.-- |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process. | | NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process. |
| | + | #*'''Counter:''' Mendel's findings were incomplete, and were ignorant of certain structures such as chromosomes, or processes such as mutation. The latter presents a perfectly viable way for an organism to receive genetic code not present in its parents.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | #*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates] | | #*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates] |
| Line 39: |
Line 57: |
| | #*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination. | | #*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination. |
| | | | |
| − | Counter- The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another species. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog. | + | #*'''Counter:''' The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another breed. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog. |
| | -Chris J | | -Chris J |
| − | ::: Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST) | + | #**'''Counter:'''Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST) |
| | + | #**'''Counter:'''If a DNA molecule was of infinate length this argument would stand. Since DNA has a finite length it is entirely possible to remove all 'Mutt' genes from a heredetory family of dogs with selective breeding over time. Because of recombinant DNA and meisis crossover it makes it unlikely to occur - but not impossible. Joshua Z is correct, the maths is wrong. |
| | | | |
| − | Which part is unclear? The statements concerning the fossil record and crossbreeding within a species are simple, factual observations. If the argument concernig rate of change in units of Darwins is not based on a linear function, what is it based on? And to clarify- by saying that Change approaches a horizontal assymptote, I mean that change continues over time, but becomes infinitely small and and never exceeds a fixed point. The dog may, through natural reproduction, become another kind of dog. But observation tells us that it will never sprout wings and become a bird.
| + | If you look at the forms of virtually every animal alive today, the early embryo stages are virtually identical. This shows that they evolved from the same ancestor. If you look at the limbs of a lot of animals, and even the limbs of fossils, they have virtually the same structure. |
| − | -Chris J
| + | |
| − | :::: Ok, for starters, you refer "observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote" - it isn't clear what your relevant vairable is that is being bounded. Continuing, your next sentence claims that "it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another species." I'm not even sure what to make of this sentence since dog breeds aren't separate species. You furthermore assert that "it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed" if anything this is what one might have thought before Mendel. Since alleles come in discrete entities and one does not have genetic continua, this is false. Not only is it false, it is irrelevant, since whether we are able to breed something to be identical to some pre-existing similar organism is irrelevant. Your summary remarks that "The dog remains a dog" and your rephrase that "observation tells us that it will never sprout wings and become a bird" are simply assertions and not very relevant ones anyways(evolution wouldn't expect a dog to "sprout wings" although there are excellent examples of transitionals between true flyers and others). The terminology is so vague as to make it unclear exactly you mean that a dog will always remain a dog. Do you mean there will be never be a reproductive barrier? Do you mean that it will fit what your intuitive notion of what a dog looks like?. (Also, while we are on the topic of defintions, you use both "species" in a non-standard way, and use "kind" in a way that isn't even standard for creationists. If you are going to use terms in a non-standard fashion, defining them would be good). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:40, 13 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | :::::Chris, I think you have a misconception of how common descent works. The claim that no dog will become anything other than another kind of dog is, in fact, true, according to evolutionary theory, not a challenge of it. The statement is essentially no different than the claim that mammals never become anything other than mammals, or eukaryotes will never be anything other than eukaryotes. Common descent specifies that evolution happens via nested clades: groups within groups, not one group becoming another. This can be confusing because Linnean taxonomy is static, not cladistic.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 18:22, 20 February 2007 (EST)
| + | I find a surprisingly good argument supporting macroevolution is that of languages. For example, all modern Western languages are essentially derived from Latin. This is repeatedly indicated in the similarities of words between languages such as English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. You could say that all languages are descended from Latin. Populations broke away from the "main" latin base, corrupting the original until, centuries later, we have dozens of unique languages that readily can be proven to have descended from Latin. The same basic principle applies to macroevolution. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]] |
| | | | |
| − | ::::::Evolution proposes that complexity increases such that more advanced species somehow emerge from less sophisticated ones. This is has never been observed, has never been duplicated in a laboratory, and requires a reduction in entropy at constant energy that contradicts all observations. All observations are of devolution, or the disappearance or reduction in complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 20 February 2007 (EST) | + | :This is a poor argument, since German and English did not descend from Latin.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 19:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| − | ::::::: That's incorrect. Evolution does not make any claims about some species being more or less advanced. Evolution does not work on a ladder. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you claim that increases in complexity have never been observed. As in many cases, this may depend on what you mean by complexity. However, regardless of what you mean a variety of mutations have been observed in humans and other species which add essentially new functions to the species. One common example of this is bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:07, 20 February 2007 (EST)
| + | Not necessarily directly, but there are very similar grammatical structures and even entire words that are similar between the three languages (English, Latin, German) |
| − | | + | [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 15:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)]] |
| − | I specified that evolutionary change is the dependent variable, or Y-value, bounded by a horizontal assymptote, with time as the independent variable, or X-value. Your second remark is entirely correct- I misused the word "species" when I meant to refer only to changes between breeds. Observation has shown that some dominant genetic traits tend to be passed on to an organism's offspring, but alleles place boundaries on the change that can occur through this process. It is true that it is difficult to quantify evolutionary change, since it does not appear to progress in any certain direction- another challenge to the above argument concerning the progress of evolutionary change over time. I chose a rational graph with the dependent variable bounded by a horizontal assymptote as an illustration because the aforementioned argument seemed to assume that evolutionary change could be expressed with respect to time or reproductive cycles by a linear graph. I chose the example of cross breeding because it is an example of the reproductive cycle being manipulated to produce maximum evolutionary change. The natural rate of change would be much slower, if indeed there were any measurable change. My statements about a dog "remaining a dog" and not changing species were meant only as examples of the genetic limitations of evolutionary change through natural reproduction, which is generaly limited by species, though somtimes by more inclusive levels of biological classification.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : I'm not sure I completely follow some of what you said such as "Observation has shown that some dominant genetic traits tend to be passed on to an organism's offspring"- alleles are passed on just as frequently whether they are dominant or recessive. We are however, getting to the crux of the matter (although I incidentally note that you ignored the issue of discrete genetics), saying that change is "generaly limited by species, though somtimes by more inclusive levels of biological classification" is not useful. Beyond the species level all classification has a highly arbitrary element to it, at which point it isn't at all clear *why* you would presume that evolution at that level wouldn't occur (there is no sign of any magic barrier or such). This has also the incidental problem that speciation is in fact common. There are possibly hundreds of observed speciation events and I could easily provide (if you wanted) 10 or 15 of them and the relevant citations. (Also, many creationists support not just that speciation has occured but that rapid speciation occured right after the Deluge(indeed, in AIG's account this speciation happened far more uniformily and far faster than any biologist would ever predict and far faster than any observed level). To some extent this reflects a changing of the goalposts- 100 years ago no creationist acknowledged any form of evolution, then in the 1960s the evidence got overwhelming enough that the creationists conceded "microevolution" meaning evolution within species, and more recently many creationists now agree that evolution above the species level can occur, but not much above it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Reply:'''
| + | |
| − | :::The boundry that defines into what an organism can and cannot evolve is not a "magic barrier" but its own DNA. An organism can only lose genetic information. There has never been an observed exception to this rule. What Chris tried to demonstrate (I think) by his example of a dog is that a dog can change but it cannot become anything beyond the limit set by its own genes; it cannot "sprout wings and become a bird"
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:00, 13 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::::: Ben, this doesn't help at all. This is yet more vague assertions with undefined terms. And almost any defintion of the terms will in fact render the statements false. For example the claim that "an organism can only lose genetic information" - so in this context what do you mean by information? Do you mean in terms of Shannon's measure of information? This is easily seen to be false. Do you mean in terms of Kolmogorov complexity? Again, the claim is false. Indeed, by any reasonable defintion the claim is false. To see why consider the following: Consider some function f that is a function of the current genetic makeup of some creature and turns out some non-negative real number representing how much information there is in that genome. Now, suppose creature A through either mutation or recombination has offspring A' and f(A') < f(A) (that is, A' has lost information). Then the mutation that goes from A' to something with genome A is an example of a gain in information. Since all mutations are reversible, we've established that for any reasonable defintion of information, information can be gained (modulo the essentially trivial case of all genomes having the same information value) [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:27, 13 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | #*'''Counter:''' Despite a century of teaching evolution in American schools, the majority of Americans still reject it. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists, and the proof just isn't there. Darwinists would be better off looking for another theory to try to replace Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | >95% of academic biologists support it.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :'''Comment on logic''': I am sorry, but your answer is an appeal to authority, a common logical mistake. But its ok. I am sure there is still more evidence to support your point? [[User:David R|David R]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : '''Reply''': You say that "95% of academic biologists support it." What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have often wondered if there was a place were one could view this sort of information. It would be most helpful.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : You go on to say that "Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology." Again, what evidence do you have to support this statement? Here are some creation biologists, to name a few:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
| + | |
| − | * Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
| + | |
| − | * Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
| + | |
| − | * Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
| + | |
| − | * Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
| + | |
| − | * Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
| + | |
| − | * Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
| + | |
| − | * Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
| + | |
| − | * Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
| + | |
| − | * Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
| + | |
| − | * Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : All of them have doctoral degrees in some sort of biology and all argue against macro-evolution and for creationism. Are you claiming that all of them have a poor understanding of biology? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:29, 17 December 2006 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : '''Another Reply''': I assume that you have a better understanding of biology upon which to base this attack? Please enlighten us; how would a wise biologist refute the facts that seemingly disprove evolution? Where is the host of intermediate links? When have biologists observed an organism acctually '''''gain''''' genetic information through a mutation rather than lose it? [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :: '''Response''': I take it your claim is that all mutations cause a loss of genetic information. This claim is false. Consider: if all mutations cause a loss of genetic information, then point mutations cause a loss of genetic information. But all point mutations are reversible—that is, the nucleotide that changes can change back. So if the original point mutation caused a loss of information, the reversed mutation must cause a gain in information.--[[User:Stereotypical A|Stereotypical A]] 20:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::: REPLY: It requires intelligent intervention to reverse a mutation. Lost genetic information will not be restored simply by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:52, 20 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::: Absolutely false. Point mutations can go either way (and frequently do). In fact, there are a number of tests which measure how mutagenic various mutagens are by using this property. Basically, you take a type of bactera which has a point mutation that leaves it unable to synthesize a necessary amino acid and then you grow a colony of that bacterium and expose them to the desired mutagen. Then you measure what fraction of the colony can survive if you remove the necessary amino acid from the medium. This sort of test has been done for about 30 years now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:58, 20 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | Having studied and worked with scientists for a decade, and spending another decade debating armchair evolutionists, I've found that it is usually someone unsuccessful in the hard sciences (physical, chemistry, biology and you might add mathematics) who is drawn most to evolution. The late evolution-promoter Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was merely a geology major at Antioch College. Big evolution promoter Richard Dawkins was an assistant professor at Berkeley, and then a lecturer, and then it's not clear to me what his academic status was for a while. Meanwhile, real experts, such as Richard Sternberg who has TWO PhDs in evolution fields, have been critical of the theory. But Sternberg was harshly disciplined for daring to question the theory, and few are anxious to risk similar retaliation.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | >It is at least a puzzle to understand how Creationism accounts for seemingly-badly-designed aspects of anatomy and physiology. For example, the eyes of cephalopods (squid, octopus) and those of vertebrates (mammals, including humans) are strikingly similar in their general "design" with one conspicuous exception. In the cephalopod eye, the retina is structured exactly as one would expect: the light-sensitive receptors face forward, toward the lens, and the nerve fibers that join to form the optic nerve exit in the back.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In the human eye, however, the retina is structured in a very surprising way that is exactly the reverse. The receptors face ''backwards,'' and not only the nerve fibers that collect to form the optic nerve but also all of the blood vessels that nourish it are in ''front,'' where they block the view and cast shadows on the retina. The result is that the human eye has a large and seemingly unnecessary blind spot, and that very intricate processing by the brain is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | It all works, of course, but it is puzzling as to why an intelligent creator would design it this way, particularly given that the much older cephalopod eye does it the "right" way. No doubt it is ''possible'' to explain this (just as it is ''possible'' to explain fossils by saying that God created the fossils along with everything else in 4004 BC).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | It seems much easier to explain this as a series of incremental adaptations rather than as being "designed" the way a human engineer would design a camera. Of course that does not mean that the incremental adaptations were necessarily guided by pure natural selection as envisioned by Darwin, either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:01, 18 December 2006 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : '''Reply''': I don't know where you got the thing about creationists believing that God created the fossils in 4004 B.C., but I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the product of Noah's flood as it is described in Genesis. [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :: The fossil and geological record is entirely inconsistent with this belief. Even if everything was, against all other evidence to the contrary, laid down in a single flood event, how come not even a single Cambrian fossil floated up into what mainstream geologists think of as modern strata, or a dinosaur sunk down into the Cambrian strata? Why are fossils laid out in the column in a very particular nested pattern of change over time rather than sorted according to which bodies float best or worst? [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : '''Reply''': I believe that almost everything you say here provides evidence '''for''' creation. Let me explain... in you first paragraph you state that mammals "are strikingly similar in their general 'design'". This is true but does this support macro-evolution? I think not. Wouldn't macro-evolution produce many different types of "eyes" that would work? Why are they all so similar?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::In fact, there ARE many different "evolutions" of eyes in the animal kingdom: many different sorts, in fact. However, the expectation that there would be many completely different types of eyes in one particular sub-branch that already started out having one particular SORT of eye is not what evolution would suggest, and isn't what we see. Common descent proposes descent via modification, not complete past-disregarding innovation. As such, we would expect that all mammal eyes would be nested variations of the same basic origin, and in fact that is exactly what we find. 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : You go on to say that in the human the eye is just different from all these other eyes. You say this provides evidence against creation because, if it were true, why is it not the same as the others. Well, doesn't this also support creationism? Why would just one be different? Because our creator was original, he was an artist, not a robot. As for the "very intricate processing by the brain <nowiki>[that]</nowiki> is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels." This is more evidence for creation. Why would natural selection create a process like this? It seems pointless to us, but those "intricate" processes were intricately '''designed'''. Maybe our creator was trying to show that he existed... He created this one eye that wouldn't work; if it not for these amazing brain processes. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:11, 18 December 2006 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::It's certainly a point of view... but didn't you feel that you needed to work just a bit to arrive at it?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::Although it's certainly ''possible,'' I don't believe that God involves himself in the design details of vertebrate anatomy, and I certainly don't believe he goes to the effort of putting in deliberate design errors as a trick to test peoples' faith. I think a lot more likely that God created the general conditions under which evolution by natural selection takes place, and the "wrong" anatomy of the vertebrate retina is the result of the constraints of having evolved in gradual steps. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 19 December 2006 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : '''Reply:''' There is nothing to indicate that the human eye is an "error"; it works wonderfully. Also under the belief that God is omnipotent, I have no trouble as you do in believing that God would design the details of vertebrate anatomy, especially in light of the arguments against evolution below (with the possible exception of argument #7). Why would he let life progress at random when he could create every thing "fearfully and wonderfully" to reflect his awesome greatness?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''3''' There is a double nested hierarchy. That is, all life forms two nested hierarchies, one morphological and one genetic and these hierarchies correspond to how they evolved. While it is true that when designers as we know them design things they design them with similarities, they do not design them in nested hierarchies. Human designers will use an idea in one place and then copy that section over somewhere else. (For example, one would not expect an engineer to design the panda's thumb but rather expect the engineer use the pre-existing thumb design from primates). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:01, 13 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[User:stubbstarbuck]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | As with every evolution debate, most of the anti-evolution stance is misinformed about the theory of evolution to the point where many of their points aren't even counter to the theory of evolution, but to some unnamed proxy theory that no one, especially someone who knows anything about evolution, would accept.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I would suggest reading http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php to learn the basics.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | But here are the major misconceptions.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 1) Evolution is not a progressive process. No one has ever said that it is. It's a misinterpretation of a t-shirt that has a bunch of apes turning into humans on it. So many people get this wrong it's become a cliche. A bacteria species and a human are every bit as evolved as each other, each in their own niche. Even complexity is a relative term. An eyeball is as complex, in many ways, as a flagella, or even the digestive process of an amoeba.
| + | |
| − | 2) Natural selection is not the only way genetic mutations can move through populations. Another process is genetic drift. Mutations that are not fatal or beneficial can become part of a genotype and stay there. Traits only need to beneficial or not too harmful to allow an individual to pass on its genes. Evolution does not have to work well; it just has to work. For example, the human back sucks for upright walking. No engineer would design it that way - but it works well enough that we don't die before having offspring.
| + | |
| − | 3) Scientific theories are constantly revised, and they're used to explain natural phenomena, not "prove them right". Stop quoting Darwin, and try to understand science better. No physicist quotes Newton when discussing relativity and quantum mechanics, because his classical theories are actually wrong. They work well at slow speeds far away from massive black holes, but they don't appear to be correct in the sense that they explain everything physical. Literally they require fixed time and space which doesn't fit with observation, but we don't throw them out - they are revised, or used with exceptions.
| + | |
| − | 4) Evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics. You don't understand thermodynamics if you think that. Energy is constantly added to our closed system (for all intents and purposes) by that big bright ball in the sky. However, you are right - when our sun burns out, we're all gone. But - the theory of evolution will still be valid.
| + | |
| − | 5) Macroevolution is microevolution over a longer time scale. It is not a separate theory. I don't even know why they have different names. This is just a misconception of deep time. Let me help you. If you use a millimeter to represent one year, then life began on this planet the equivalent distance of a flight from Las Vegas to New York (2,000 miles). The last 10,000 years are equivalent to 10 meters (roughly a half a football field). The last hundred years take up 10 centimeters (about 5 inches). That's an incredibly long time for life to evolve into new species. Even Homo sapiens takes up almost 1/4 mile.
| + | |
| − | 6) Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We both evolved from a similar species whose population split at some point, possibly more than once. See point 1 above.
| + | |
| − | 7) Evolution and the biological species concept are more complex than the generalizations we use, which is probably where a lot of the confusion comes from. No respecting biologist would tell you there is a strict species definition; we only have guidelines. We have trouble defining individuals! For instance, is a Portuguese Man O' War an individual or a colony? What about a honey bee? The queen lays all the eggs by fertilizing with a drone that might even be her own progeny. They could all be the same genetically. Are twins individuals?
| + | |
| − | 8) Accepting evolution does not preclude a belief in God. Sure, many people who accept evolution reject religion, or are even atheists, but this is separate from evolution. It doesn't even mention it.
| + | |
| | | | |
| | ==No== | | ==No== |
| | | | |
| − | If you have questions about Evolution/Creationism see the articles on this website [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/]
| + | There is a theory of macroevolution, even though its own proponents deny it. Macroevolution is the theory that [[natural selection]] will create new species out of mutations, gene splicing errors and other natural phenemona, '''without''' any need for supernatural intervention. |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''No'''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | As a scientist, I can categorically state that the ''Theory of Macroevolution'' is not true. This is because '''there is no such theory'''. The Creationist division of evolutionary processes into ''micro'' and ''macro'' is false and disingenuous. What Creationists refer to as ''microevolution'' is merely the short-term expression of the exact process that results in speciation (which is the correct name for what Creationists term ''macroevolution'').
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The fact that evolution has occured, has been happening for several billion years, and is still going on as you read this is irrefutable, except by fraud, forgery and lies. The honest scientific literature is full of examples. The driving forces behind evolution have also been clearly identified (external environment, internal environment, competition for resources, sexual preferences etc). The majority of the mechanisms involved have been identified. All that remains under debate are the precise details. Not whether evolution happened, not how long it takes to happen, and not why it happens - just the exact details of ''how'' it happened.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ----
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution ''does not even qualify as a theory!!'' According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if '''''ANY''''' data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :You need to actually cite some of this information, not just claim that there is some. The evidence is remarkably consistent with evolution, in fact, in a way known as evidential convergence. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''No'''
| + | |
| − | : 1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.
| + | |
| − | ::'''Counter:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Some transitional forms]
| + | |
| − | :::'''Counter:'''
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::All of these examples given in the above about the evolution of the whale are nonsense:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus Pakicetus] -- What makes this a "link"? It was nothing but a land mammal gone extinct.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus Ambulocetus] -- The reason given that this is a link is complete nonsense. It resembles a whale??? Most trees resemble eachother, they all have a trunk, branches, leaves, etc. Does this mean that all trees are somehow missing links between each other?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorudon Dorudon] -- I guess Wikipedia supposes this is a missing link because it uses sonar??? Same as example above.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus Basilosaurus] -- Another extinct species called a link because it "resembles" a whale.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurhinodelphis Eurhinodelphis] -- No reason given that is may be a missing link.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalodon Mammalodon colliveri] -- The article just makes an unsupported statement. I would consider this article for deletion (no notability).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::[[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:46, 3 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::: '''Counter''' This may be an example of where going to specialized sources rather than relying on Wikipedia would be in order. However, some of these do in fact make clear why they are considered transitionals. For example, Pakicetus (as discussed in the Wikipedia article) had an inner ear structure that was very cetacean.(Not mentioned in the article but also relevant, Pakicetus had teeth that were very similar to some of the later transitionals in this list although not quite of the standard cetacean form) Proceeding, ambulectus had a bone structure consistent with something which spent time both walking and swimming and bears some similarities to Pakicetus. Basilosaurus looks almost like a modern whale except for the vestigial limbs. I'm not going to go into the others in detail but that should make it clear that there is good reason to see these as transitionals. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:49, 13 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::::'''Additional Counter''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/Why_there_are_no_transitional_fossils Why the are no transitional fossils].
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : 2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!
| + | |
| − | :: Darwin was just speculating, and said so, and it hardly matters whether he was right or not anyway. As it happens though, he wasn't all that far off regardless: whales and dolphins are indeed descendants of land mammals (their closest living genetic relative is the hippo). All dolphins and whales form embryonically, just like other mammals, in such a way that "leg buds" appear on the embryo. However, in their case, these legs are later reabsorbed again. However, this process is not always perfect: some whales have even been discovered with atavisms of hind legs, legs attached, amazingly, to the remnants of their vestigial pelvis. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : 3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.
| + | |
| − | ::And what evidence would that be?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : 4. All mutations are harmful.
| + | |
| − | ::'''Counter''' This is a false argument. Firstly, it is estimated 1/3 of point mutations (mutations affecting one link in the DNA and no others) are not harmful. Secondly, though the number is small, there are documented cases of mutations being beneficial - an example is sickle cell anemia. This mutation is a flaw in the hemoglobin gene of humans, causing these molecules to covalently bond into long, bristly fibers inside the red blood cell that distort them into a sickle cell shape. This mutation makes sickle cell individuals immune to malaria, and many of the people residing in countries where this disease is prevalent have this mutation. The people affected by this mutation have lived and multiplied, thereby disproving this myth. Also see Counter argument to #5. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Reply:''' Phyllis, I don't know where you got your information on sickle cell anemia but it was certainly a biased source. You have not given the full story; 25% of those with sickle cell anemia die prematurely! '''''This is not a good mutation.''''' As the closest thing to a good mutation that evolutionists can come up with this is not supportive of evolution at all.
| + | |
| − | --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Benjamin please use statistics meaningfully. For your 25% to have significance you would need to compare it to the premature death rate of people without this mutation. You would also have to carefully define premature and look at the populations that have the mutation (if they are a population succeptible to malaria then they probably have poor living conditions). Also can you site a source for the 25%? -- [[User:Chris F|Chris F]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Further Reply:''' Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations. Simple probability predicts this: a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form. The odds are overwhelming. It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places. If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place? That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes? Of course not. It never happens.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::I don't see how you can claim that it is overall harmful. It confers immunity to a highly destructive disease to the majority of the population that has the trait. The price of the acute disorder is not a bar to it being an overall benefit for a population, especially since even those sufferers often live long enough to reproduce. Beneficial and detrimental are generally contextual and environmental, not absolute. The recent mutation (we was tracked back to a single man in Italy) that causes immunity to LDH cholesterol (and thus to many forms of heart disease caused by fatty modern diets) is certainly beneficial in modern society. Tetrachromatism in women (four color vision) is likewise a very neat mutational development, but it's not clear that it confers any selective advantage. In a different environment it might be beneficial or even detrimental for some reason.07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Further Reply:''' Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Comment:''' You should try to bear with Mr. Schlafly's abstract analogies (I know that they rarely make sense) and respond to his points that are doing you any harm; e.g. "Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful. The same is true for all mutations."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *This is not '''exactly''' a counter to [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. But... Darwin was writing in the days when breeders were starting to do amazing things with selective breeding, which was one of the things that impressed him. Selective breeding is still going on and it is still amazing. In 1910 the average domesticated chickens laid 80 eggs a year; by 1999 292 eggs a year. There are similar stories for milk production per cow, meat per chicken, etc. Some of the improvement is due to changes in feed, antibiotics, hormones, whatever, but most of it is from selective breeding. So the question I would ask is: if all mutations are harmful, then where do breeders find the slightly improved animals to select as the progenitors of the next generation? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:46, 22 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : The vast majority of mutations are neutral or have no observable phenotypic change. Furthermore, of those mutations which are not in those categories, for most mutations whether or not the mutation is beneficial is highly connected to the environment which the relevant organism is found (sickle-cell anemia provides a vivid demonstration of this). However, other examples which are more directly beneficial. For example, many bacteria have gained mutations for immunity to various antibiotics, while other bacteria have gained mutations that allow them to eat nylon (a purely synthetic material). A more prosaic example is lactose tolerance. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:43, 6 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : 5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.
| + | |
| − | ::'''Counter''' This is not true. For example, through a specific type of sympatric speciation, new species of plants are able to form and have formed in abundance. It occurs from meiosis not occuring properly in the production of gametes. These "mutant" offspring are a new species and cannot produce offspring with the species they came from, yet can produce fertile offspring with other plants that were mutated the same way. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Reply:''' This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism '''''gaining''''' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | :Nonsense. There is only one precise measure of information, and that is Shannon information. By that metric, virtually any change at all to an organism is an increase in genetic information. If that's not what you meant by information, however, then there are other ways to frame the question, and countless observed cases for every one. In fact, if say you accept microevolution then I'm sorry to say that you by definition accept that genetic information can increase. Anytime a gene pool is skewed via natural selection to alter the frequency of alleles in some adaptive way, the gene pool is clearly _gaining_ information about the particular environment it is in!
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Further reply:''' Right. The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST) | + | |
| − | :'''Further reply:''' The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]
| + | |
| − | ::'''Comment:''' I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only ''lose'' genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the ''gain'' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | ::'''Comment:''' Evolution does not imply that the species or population gets "better" or improves. Evolution only means that change occurs. Furthermore, if a mutation occurs in a non-coding region, and the cell thereby gets the ability to do something new, would that not be a mutation that causes the "gain" of genetic information? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 00:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : 6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.
| + | |
| − | ::'''Counter''' Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrassing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A '''closed''' system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.
| + | |
| − | ::::'''Comment on "closed system":''' So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun. Where does the Sun get its energy? What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away? Molecules are ''still'' breaking down within the Sun. No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics. [[User:David R|David R]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::::'''Further comment:''' That's right, David. By the way, the injection of energy into a system ''increases'' entropy. The only way to decrease entropy is intelligent ordering or intervention. Without that, entropy and disorder always increase. Whatever species existed 5000 years ago, in the absence of divine intervention there must be less ordered, less advanced, fewer species today. We see many examples of this: species go extinct each year, breeds of dogs degrade (e.g., Golden Retriever), even humans have increased incidence of asthma and other health problems from generation to generation. Take a look at how smart humans were just 100 or 200 years ago by looking at their writings, and compare that to the average human writings today. Entropy predicts degradation of everything over time in the absence of intelligent intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:26, 14 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | ::::::The injection of energy into a system increases enthalpy, not entropy, Aschlafly. DNA, proteins, and other highly-ordered macromolecules stay together not because of intelligent intervention, but because of enthalpic contributions that offset the entropic cost. Also, you state that "Entropy predicts degradation... in the absence of intelligent intervention", just after you comment that everything is degrading. Wouldn't that imply, then, the absence of intelligent intervention?
| + | |
| − | ::'''Counter:'''"All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time." This is just false. We know living things become more complex and organized over time, because we can see it happening, e.g. a seed growing into a tree.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : 7. There is vast beauty in the world which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1)
| + | |
| − | ::'''Counter''' This is an irrelevant argument. What evidence exists to say that evolution cannot produce beauty? Besides that, what is the definition of beauty? Beauty can be a life form adapted to its environment, beauty can be a beneficial mutation, beauty can be monomers spontaneously forming polymers when dripped on hot clay...all examples of evolution. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::This argument "against" evolution is terrible! Though evolution is false this isn't why. Unfortunately for evolutionists everywhere your counter argument does no better supporting evolution than the first one did disproving it.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::: Brilliant autumn foliage is beautiful. You won't find anyone who sincerely denies it, exact perhaps the most hardened evolutionist. But it is impossible for the beauty in brilliant autumn foliage to have evolved before humans even existed.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::: Evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature. Over 99% of Americans think there is beauty in nature. Take your pick. Count me as part of the over 99% majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::::I don't think "evolutionists generally deny that there is intrinsic beauty in nature." Where did you get that? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm curious to know. Do creationists go around saying such a thing?) Stephen Jay Gould wrote "Shall we appreciate any less the beauty of nature because its harmony is unplanned?" Darwin wrote
| + | |
| − | ::::::"The view seen when crossing the hills behind Praia Grande was most beautiful; the colours were intense, and the prevailing tint a dark blue; the sky and the calm waters of the bay vied with each other in splendour;" "The number of beautiful fishing birds, such as egrets and cranes, and the succulent plants assuming most fantastical forms, gave to the scene an interest which it would not otherwise have possessed." "The beautiful view of the distant wooded hills, reflected in the perfectly calm water of an extensive lagoon, quite refreshed us." etc. etc. etc.
| + | |
| − | :::::Maybe you think that evolutionists must seal their minds into logic-tight compartments in order to appreciate the beauty of nature while at the same time trying to explain it from natural causes, but they do it nonetheless. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Reply:''' I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : 8. Abiogenesis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.
| + | |
| − | ::'''Counter''' Regardless if it's possible or not, it's not an argument against macroevolution.
| + | |
| − | ::'''Counter''' You don't know that it's impossible. No one knows what the simplest life form is, but pretending that abiogenesis concerns the simplest MODERN life (i.e. a modern cell) is nonsense: that's not what's being suggested at all. Besides, talking about stacking chemical reactions that observably naturally occur is not "springing from nothing."[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 23:49, 20 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''No''': In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are '''''still''''' missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject. <blockquote>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)</blockquote>
| + | |
| − | :So wait, you are citing as your most recent survey of the fossil evidence something written in the '''1800s'''??? It's also more than a little dishonest to quote someone introducing a problem and then pretend that they didn't, as Darwin did, go on to answer the objection at great length. Finally, there are also no such things as "missing links" in a biological sense: this is a misconception. We will never have a fossil of every single species, let alone individual, that ever lived. And we don't need to. The fossils we do have are already more than enough to map out the overall picture and general relations of species, and all these fossils are consistent with the very specific pattern of geologic and geographic distribution that common descent demands of them. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution '''''never''''' happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :: ''''Counter''' The above claims are simply false. We have hundreds of major transitional fossils(which is what I presume you mean by "missing link") between a variety of different groups. Examples include Australopithecus as transitional between humans ape like ancestors and humans, hasiophis terrasanctus (sp?) a transitional snake with hind limbs and many others. Name almost any major grouping and we will have transitional fossils between the various groups. For some groups we have very detailed transitional sequences. For example, between fish and tetrapods is a particularly good example, and the transitions between land mammals and whales have become well developed over the last 20 years. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : 9. The "Anthro-Simianic Paradox" -- If great apes evolved into humans, why are there still great apes? The inherent inconsistency in the pro-Darwinistical position can be verified scientifically, using the foam dinosaurs that grow larger in water. Place a package of tiny foam dinosaurs (representing apes) into a sink (representing evolution). All the dinosaurs will grow to giant proportions (representing humans) and no tiny foam dinosaurs will be left. Clearly, scientists must examine alternate hypotheses for the evolution of giant foam dinosaurs (human beings).
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :: I'm presuming this is a parody. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Evolution is a Racist Philosophy ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178)."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens. (Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of the Human Races," Natural History, Jan./Feb. 1926. Reprinted in Natural History 89 (April 1980): 129.)" -evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::Is a comment from a book written at a time when racism was commonplace at all relevant? If this site wants to become at all credible, quotes taken both out of context and out of the social situation in which they are written should be removed. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *The full title of Darwin's book is ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''
| + | |
| − | **It's worth noting though that "races" in the title refers to kinds of animals: it's never used to refer to people and in fact the book never mentions human beings at all until the very end, and then only briefly. It's rather dishonest to try and imply that this particular book says anything about human races.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 18:44, 20 February 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | *Hitler's atrocities were based on evolutionary philosophy.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::Evolution has certainly been used by racists in support of their views. Racists have used many things, including Christianity, in support of their views. Think of the burning crosses of the Ku Klux Klan.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::And, yes, Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day... which was the time when the British Empire was busily colonizing places inhabited by dark-skinned people. You would have been hard-pressed to find many people in Darwin's England who were ''not'' racists, by today's standards.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::I think the point being raised here is an appropriate one to raise. But I think "evolution is a racist philosophy" is an exaggeration. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:36, 22 January 2007 (EST)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| | | | |
| − | :::Christianity is not racist at its core, yet it is made to seem racist by some. Jesus came to save all, not just more "advanced races." Evolution '''is''' racist at its core, yet it is made to seem like it's not. Dpbsmith, you say that "Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day," this is true, but what does that have to do with he argument? Are you saying that racism influenced him when he came up with evolution, in the way that he uses evolution to support racism? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)
| + | The refusal to own up to the existence of the theory is the first suspicious thing (like Satan worshippers denying they worship Satan). The second suspicious thing is the use of all kinds of tricky '''illustrations''' and descriptions, instead of offering to show evidence. |
| | | | |
| − | :::1) I'm acknowledging that the quotation from Darwin ''can'' fairly be described as racist. 2) I'm saying that many evil things are done in the name of many causes, and that people who do evil things will usually find a way to justify them. 3) I'm saying that I think more people have been killed by people claiming to be acting in the name of Jesus than by people claiming to be acting in the name of Darwin.
| + | Both are earmarks of [[Pseudoscience]]. |
| | | | |
| − | :::It is sometimes difficult to believe just how prevasive racism was from, perhaps, the mid-1800s through the mid-1900s. When The New York Times reviewed Longfellow's ''Song of Hiawatha'' in 1855, the reviewer said that Longfellow had "embalm[ed] pleasantly enough the monstrous traditions of an uninteresting, and, one may almost say, a justly exterminated race." That doesn't excuse Darwin. But it does put it into context. I think I agree with you to the extent that Darwin said things that can be fairly called "racist" and that Jesus did not. I don't agree that that makes evolution "racist at the core." OK, I think I've made my point clearly enough... I'll leave you to get in the last word if you like. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:26, 22 January 2007 (EST)
| + | On the other hand, it is for only a matter of religious faith to deny the theory. I certainly can't prove it's false, any more than its proponents can prove it's true. It's their faith against mine. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| − | :::: Also note that racism on Darwin's part in no way matters for whether the modern theory of evolution is either racist or correct. First, in general, the truth or falsity of any idea is independent of who it came from (if Darwin were a serial killer who liked to steal candy from babies it would not change the validity of his ideas in the slightest (if you don't believe me, perform the same thought experiment with [[Newton]] or [[Josiah Willard Gibbs]])). Second, the modern neo-synthesis is far removed from Darwin's original notions. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:34, 6 February 2007 (EST) | + | ::::::'''Counter''': Except ''they'' have empirical evidence that is sufficient to explain. Where's yours? (Keep in mind that supernatural revelations are anecdotal evidence. Sorry). Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, so it's actually their reason against your faith. [[User:Cthx]] |
| | | | |
| − | :::: As a matter of fact, Darwin's attitudes on race were far more enlightened than most of his religious critics. Darwin was a dedicated and outspoken abolitionist, and advocate of rights for African Americans, and he argues in his works that African Americans and Europeans are actually far MORE ALIKE than most people thought at the time. Don't forget that the religious beliefs of his day were that either black people had been specially created separately from white people, or that they were a severely decayed form of white people. Darwin argued instead that all races were of very recent common origin. It's no co-incidence that millenia of racism collapsed almost overnight after the biological revolution that Darwin sparked showed that race is a relatively minor and confused factor.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST) | + | ::::::'''Comment''': The reason that the 'proponents' of macroevolution do not own up to this theory is, in fact, because they are NOT proponents of this theory. It is actually CREATIONISTS who refer to this as 'macroevolution'. The 'proponents' of this theory simply lump both 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' under one term - 'evolution'. The reason for this is quite simple - creationists admit that 'microevolution' occurs, as it has been proven to happen. Evolutionists say that 'macroevolution' is 'microevolution' continuing to happen for an extremely long time, so why use two different terms for the same thing? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:28, 24 February 2008 (EST) |
| | | | |
| − | ==The Scientific Method==
| |
| − | As I am being taught in biology at Middle Tennessee State University, the '''Scientific Method''' is that which is applied by scientists in the following order:
| |
| − | *'''Observation'''. The scientist observes the phenomena.
| |
| − | *'''Hypothesis'''. The scientist makes an educated guess as to the reason(s) for the phenomena.
| |
| − | *'''Experimentation'''. The scientist does a series of experiments to test whether the hypothesis is correct.
| |
| − | *'''Conclusion'''. The scientist's results from the experiment. If the hypothesis is proven to be wrong as a result, it is rejected. If proven right, the hypothesis is upgraded to a '''theory'''.
| |
| | | | |
| − | Now, with regard to evolution, there is a massive failure of the scientific method as used to support evolution. The scientist cannot use observation when he assumes animal A evolved into animal B; the scientist needs to see that happen, otherwise everything else collapses.
| |
| | | | |
| − | I think the Scientific Method can be successfully exploited in the [[evolution]] article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
| + | The bible makes it clear how the species came into existence, and it gives us the most logical explanation we have. Is there any point in denying it? [[User:GodisTruth|'''<font color="#990099">Truth</font>''']]<sub>[[User_talk:GodisTruth |<font color="#009999">is power</font>]]</sub> 13:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT) |
| − | :Counter - Direct observation is not required for something to be scientifically valid. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 00:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | + | ::::::'''Counter''': Yes, in that the Bible is most likely wrong: it is a collection of texts and stories. How is it "logical" to have species appear out of no-where? What happens to the air that was there before the animals appeared? Doesn't this supernatural Genesis contradict all natural laws we observe? If anything, this seems to be illogical.[[User:Cthx]] |
| | | | |
| − | ::So, what you just said was that a scientist need not observe the fish turning into the frog, that we are to take his word for it that it happened. Is that your statement? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | | | |
| − | :::No, we don't need to observe a phenomenon directly to draw conclusions about it. If you come home to find your window broken, with shards of glass all over your living room carpet, and a brick sitting right in the middle of it all, you can infer what happened by observing the aftermath. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| + | Actually Cthx, The Old Testament doesnt contradict any of the natural laws of the universe. In fact, the Bible states that God created the naturalistic principles working in the universe. Things that were writtne thousands of years ago that did not make sence before are barely starting to make sence now. 17 times in the Old Testament it says that God stretches out the heavens. Nobody knew what that meant before but now we see that the universe is expanding. He also says that he holds all things together and that he stopped creating. Well we know this now. That nothing can be created or destroyed and everything is being held together. Were not figuring out anything that God isn't already in charge of. A last note. Matthew 22:29 says, "Ye do error, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Don't get upset however and become hard hearted and stubborn. Open your heart. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." (Revelation 3:20) [[User:wapfeffer]] |
| | | | |
| − | :::Galileo did not "see" the Earth moving around the Sun; he only saw evidence that it did. Then he hypothesized that the Earth circled the Sun, and not vice versa. Does the fact that Galileo did not personally observe the rotation of the earth mean that his hypothesis is invalid? [[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 15:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | + | :But Wapfeffer, all of the empirical evidence points torwards Evolution, and in science religious beliefs must be taken at face value. Science does not care what anybody believes, it just takes the availible info and comes up with the most logical explanation for said info. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 14:18, 7 March 2008 (EST) |
| | | | |
| − | ::::Galileo observed the motion of the planets, and hypothesised that all the planets revolved around the sun. This fact was proven later by direct observation. And we can all draw conclusions about the window by demonstrating via an experiment the same thing. But you're still assuming animal-A evolved into animal-B without any evidence whatsoever to back that claim up. Again, you're relying on the scientist's word that this happened. If animal-A evolved into animal-B, I want to see proof of such demonstrated; I don't want to rely on someone else's word because they said so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| + | Yes capercorn methinks you are correct. ;) |
| − | :::::Do you believe in germs? Do you need to understand the optical system of a microscope in order to believe in the existence of germs? The claim that is made is not that we evolved from chimpanzees, but rather that chimpanzees and humans had a common ancestor (that was neither human nor chimpanzee). There is a significant amount of evidence of this (that I am sure some here will dispute) from commonality of DNA structures to prehistoric hominids that exhibited characteristics of each modern species. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| + | --[[User:Tortilla|Tortilla]] 11:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT) |
Just like to point out that there is no theory of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is just a discription of genetic drift over time to cause noticable genetic differences. It is very missleading to have this labeled as a theory.--TimS 11:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
For my side (evolution), I have one site. Take a good long look at it.
If you look at the forms of virtually every animal alive today, the early embryo stages are virtually identical. This shows that they evolved from the same ancestor. If you look at the limbs of a lot of animals, and even the limbs of fossils, they have virtually the same structure.
I find a surprisingly good argument supporting macroevolution is that of languages. For example, all modern Western languages are essentially derived from Latin. This is repeatedly indicated in the similarities of words between languages such as English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. You could say that all languages are descended from Latin. Populations broke away from the "main" latin base, corrupting the original until, centuries later, we have dozens of unique languages that readily can be proven to have descended from Latin. The same basic principle applies to macroevolution. [[AdamNelson 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]
Not necessarily directly, but there are very similar grammatical structures and even entire words that are similar between the three languages (English, Latin, German)
[[AdamNelson 15:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)]]
There is a theory of macroevolution, even though its own proponents deny it. Macroevolution is the theory that natural selection will create new species out of mutations, gene splicing errors and other natural phenemona, without any need for supernatural intervention.
The refusal to own up to the existence of the theory is the first suspicious thing (like Satan worshippers denying they worship Satan). The second suspicious thing is the use of all kinds of tricky illustrations and descriptions, instead of offering to show evidence.
On the other hand, it is for only a matter of religious faith to deny the theory. I certainly can't prove it's false, any more than its proponents can prove it's true. It's their faith against mine. --Ed Poor 15:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
The bible makes it clear how the species came into existence, and it gives us the most logical explanation we have. Is there any point in denying it? Truthis power 13:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
