The Cellar
Page 1 of 10 1 2345678 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Philosophy (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=5730)

DanaC 05-06-2004 08:23 PM
Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism
 
.......Since the topic came up on another thread......It probably doesnt come as a huge surprise to anyone that being an irreligious commy Brit I subscribe entirely to the one and eschew the other.....I would be intrigued to hear what the rest of you had to say on that subject......

As far as I can see, the evidence for Evolutionary science is thick on the ground, but the Creationist stance seems to be based mainly on faith with what scientific endeavour there is being crowbarred in to try and prove the existence of a creator God.......Or am I dismissing that idea too readily?

Is Creationsim merely a religious doctrine with science fitted into it or is it as valid as Evolutionary theory? Should it be taught in schools as equal in weight to Evolutionary science?

OnyxCougar 05-06-2004 08:46 PM
We've had this arguement (in this forum) before, and what it comes down to is that all the non-Christians summarily dismiss any hypothesis that would indicate evolution didn't happen (as if it's not a theory, as if it's fact), and all the Christians do is state their beliefs.

I have been (and continue to be) a non-believer in evolution. I simply don't see how it could have happened that way. I've read alot of books in favor of both theories, and I think that the answers in genesis site is the most scientific of all the Creationist view sites I've seen, meaning, out of all the sites I've been to, it uses the most scientific approach. No one will ever be able to PROVE that God created the earth, and LIKEWISE, no one will ever be able to PROVE that all life on earth started out as amino acids in a primordial soup.

Bottom line is, neither are provable.

My concern on the other thread is your criteria of what are "real" scientists and what aren't. It seems to me you think that the hypothesis itself determines what is "good" science. I disagree with that.

the aig website uses the same principles of science against the theory of evolution. AiG is a Christian site, no doubt, the name gives that away. But they use the SAME scientific methods, laws and structures, and they come up with completely different hypotheses. Doesn't that interest you? I'm not asking you to say, "Oh! well then, I'm a Christian now!" I'm just asking you to think about what it is they are saying and not dismiss it SOLELY because they are putting forth a view that is religious in nature.

Don't you think that it's worth more than an offhand, RELIGIOUSLY based dismissal?

Why is it that a non Belief in Christianity automatically makes many people close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and say lalalalalalala when presented with a scientific hypothesis that differs from evolution?

Edit: department of redundancy department

OnyxCougar 05-06-2004 08:59 PM
From the AiG site:

Quote:
Although many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single
diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.

In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.

However, all of this has been so adequately documented — not only by creationist writers such as Dr Duane Gish (Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No) by also by leading evolutionists — that this is not the issue I wish to discuss here.

Archaeopteryx is a fossil creature with some reptilian and some bird features. Most leading evolutionary paleontologists today would not regard it as a transitional form because it has no transitional structures, and because fossils of true birds have been found in a supposedly earlier geological layer. Under the subheading Archaeopteryx and feathers the author says

‘Is it really impossible for scales to have evolved into feathers? Many birds, from chickens to ostriches, show a continuous gradation from scales on some parts of their bodies to feather elsewhere (Lucas and Stettenheim 1972; Dyck 1985). Moreover scales and feathers are identical in chemistry, molecular structure and mode of development (Spearman 1966). [However, see Editor’s Note 2]

‘Most significant of all is the fact that scales and feathers are interchangeable. Recent laboratory studies demonstrate that chicken embryos can be induced to transform their developing scales into feather, and their feathers into scales (e.g. Dhouailly, Hardy and Sengel 1980). In their structure and appearance such artificially induced feathers are indistinguishable from natural ones. Indeed, it now seems possible for scientists to transform scales to feathers, and vice versa, almost at will! Similar interchanges between scales and feathers are known to occur spontaneously in wild populations of birds. Does the transformation of scales into feathers require massive genetic engineering? The answer is no. The transformation is triggered by a single chemical — retinoic acid, which is probably better known as vitamin A.

‘Archaeopteryx is a splendid example of a transitional fossil, showing an undeniable mixture of reptile and bird characteristics. In every feature except its feathers Archaeopteryx is similar to theropod dinosaurs. That one distinguishing feature — feathers — represents the crucial dividing-line between reptiles and birds. And today, in the laboratory, it is possible to breach that dividing-line by using simple chemical treatment to transform scales into feathers.’

Simple Transformation?
One gets the impression that it is a fairly simple matter to transform scales into feathers with the addition of a single chemical. If so it would not be at all difficult to imagine how scales could have evolved into feathers by only a small genetic change. However, common sense shows the huge flaw in this argument.

First, let us look below at the detailed structures of a feather (left) and scales (right), both magnified 80 times (Photos courtesy of David Menton)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images2/Feather2.gifhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/images2/scales.gif

Superbly engineered for lightweight aerodynamic efficiency, the system of interlocking hooks and barbules means that a quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. But note that every structure or organ must be represented by information (written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA) at the genetic level. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information, or specific chemical complexity, has to exist in the bird's DNA which is not present in that of the reptile. Examine the amazing close-up (below) of the barbules of a feather showing the tiny hooklets and grooves (Magnified 200 times, courtesy of David Menton).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images2/Feather1.gif

At this stage we should be feeling uneasy about the idea that a simple chemical, containing a small amount of ‘information’, could cause such an ordered structure to arise. And here’s the catch, of course. The author himself has already told us that the experiment was done on chicken embryos, which already have the information coding for feather construction. The simple chemical is used as a ‘switch’ or ‘trigger’ during embryonic development.

That is, what we are witnessing is the fact that physicochemical manipulation of the developing embryo can cause a developmental pathway, which would normally result in scales, to result in feathers instead. But the information required to construct/assemble the structure of the feather is already there, and is simply being expressed at a different site. Genetically, there has been no evolutionary change — no information has been added to the organism’s ‘blueprint’ which was not already there.

So what has been achieved is that feathers have been induced to form in birds — although in locations at which they would not usually form. Equally, interference with the developmental machinery in fruit flies can cause a leg to grow where there would normally be an antenna. Such homoeotic mutations, as they are called, are not strictly analogous to the chicken example, but the point is the same, in that the genetic information for forming a leg was already in the embryo. Growing ectopic, or out of place, fur on mammals, or extra legs on flies or cows, demonstrates nothing about the origin of the information coding for fur or legs.

Thus, growing feathers on chickens cannot possibly have any value for the idea of evolution.

What if a researcher reported that vitamin A in a reptile embryo caused feathers to form? Now that indeed would be spectacular evidence for evolution. But no serious scientist would expect that such a thing were possible, for the simple reason that it would be a violation of the fundamental principles of entropy/information theory. The reptile does not contain the information for feather construction in its code. Vitamin A contains less ‘information’ in its chemistry than that required to code for a complex feather. The addition of a small amount of unrelated information cannot spontaneously cause a quantum leap towards information which was not there already.

Put simply, you cannot get something from nothing — this is why there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Exactly the same principle of science forbids reptile feathers as forbids perpetual motion machines.

If a clever genetic engineer were to splice out the information coding for feather construction from a chicken embryo, and splice it into a reptile embryo to cause it to grow feathers, this would confirm the point we are trying to make here — that is, such complex information cannot spontaneously arise — it has to be created or transferred from a preexisting source. And furthermore that an intelligent mind is required to conduct the experiment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed. notes:
See the sequel, The Strange Recurring Case of the Feathered Reptile — a refutation of an evolutionist who tried to answer this article.

After both the Skeptic book and this Creation magazine articles were written, we came across evidence that refutes this claim. For example, feather proteins (ö-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (á-keratins). A feather expert, Alan Brush, concludes:

‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.
This is what I'm talking about. Allllll those "good scientists" that think Archeoptrix is a transitional form completely DISCOUNT any information that sheds doubt on their theory. Doesn't matter how right it is, or how many holes it punches in their arguments. So OTHER people "break their hypothoses" as you call it, but that doesn't make them discard the hypothesis, oh no. Either the "breaking" is ignored, or kept so quiet that no one sees it has been broken, and KEEPS putting it forth as truth, even when it's been disproven.

That is NOT good science.

And there are TONNES of other articles like this one. Not that say "we're right, so believe in God" (although some do...) but more importantly, say "There is a problem with your theory, here are the holes we can shoot in it using science."

And they are out of hand rejected because of WHO puts them forward, with no interest in the CONTENT of the material.

That is NOT good science.

OnyxCougar 05-06-2004 09:14 PM
I also want to point this out, from Talk-Origins.

Quote:
2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false.)

And for every question like this, I would to response thusly:

Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for Creationists, but is rather non-circular evidence for your theory. This includes geological column and/or fossil records. Remember that it is logically possible for both Creationism and your theory to be false.)

And regarding this paranthethical qualifier to the original question:

Quote:
An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution
So obviously, there ARE problems with at least portions of the theories they are espousing. But in refuting their hypothesis, it's not allowed to bring them up? What kind of scientific argument is this?

I want to be clear. I don't know how we all got here. I don't believe my great(x infinite) ancestors were primordial bugs. I don't don't buy that. More importantly, they cannot PROVE it. Yet it's in every science and biology book printed. Now, I don't have a problem with biology. I don't have a problem with how a cell works, that has been proven. But don't try to tell me that over billions of years, information of such complexity and of different chemical components just HAPPENED to occur at JUST the right time and in JUST the right way.... no.

I can't tell you why things are the way they are. But at least I'm willing to keep an open mind and admit when I'm wrong.

I guess that makes me a "bad" scientist.

elSicomoro 05-06-2004 09:21 PM
I think that God created everything...in a way similar to what is described in the evolution theory.

lumberjim 05-06-2004 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I'm just curious. I'm eclectic Wiccan myself, mostly Green, with a little bit of Greek, Roman, and Strega, for a little over ten years. I personally became Pagan because it just seemed like I finally found a belief system that matched the one I already held. Not to mention that it emphasizes personal responsibility, and I think the rituals are much more evocative than any church I've attended.

Anybody else wanna 'fess up?


Sidhe
Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
I think this should be in the "philosophy" forum, but this question has been asked repeatedly. Do some digging, you'll find us.
appparently your split personalities have different religions. Do they argue a lot?

or do you think that godS created everything?



I don't know much about a scientific argument FOR creationism. Its kind of an oxymoron isn;t it? I mean, God has magical powers right? so science wouldn;t have much to do with it. Poof! "here's a bunny rabbit!.....isn;t it cute?" no fossil record, no scientific evidence.

Here's a poser for you....the giant squid has an eyeball that is superior to ours in design. If we were created in God's likeness, why did he give us an eyeball with a blindspot in it? Does God have a blindspot in HIS eyeball? perhaps the squid has need of more acute vision than we do, so it friggin evolved that way.

COuld not the two theories coexist? maybe god created whatever went BANG at the beginning of time, but to think that he plunked Adam and freaking Eve down on this one planet amongst all of the infinite planets in the universe is just plain nuts.

marichiko 05-06-2004 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar


My concern on the other thread is your criteria of what are "real" scientists and what aren't. It seems to me you think that the hypothesis itself determines what is "good" science. I disagree with that.

the aig website uses the same principles of science against the theory of evolution. AiG is a Christian site, no doubt, the name gives that away. But they use the SAME scientific methods, laws and structures, and they come up with completely different hypotheses. Doesn't that interest you? I'm not asking you to say, "Oh! well then, I'm a Christian now!" I'm just asking you to think about what it is they are saying and not dismiss it SOLELY because they are putting forth a view that is religious in nature.

Don't you think that it's worth more than an offhand, RELIGIOUSLY based dismissal?
Point of order. You cannot argue science by making an inaccurate statement about how the scientific method works. A scientific hypothesis is the second step in the rigorous field of endeavor known as the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature.

A poor hypothesis makes for poor science. If you don't like this fact go debate about art or something, but don't expect scientists to take you seriously.

jaguar 05-06-2004 11:38 PM
Quote:
Although many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single
diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.

In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.
That's bullshit.

You're right, it's not good science. It's cherry picking evidence, skipping facts and pursuing a very narrow agenda. It's all I've ever seen from creationist 'science'. As stated on the other thread, it's more of a philosophy than a science, there is zero, precisely zero scientific evidence supporting it.

In terms of the links between reptiles and birds, you might want to research the following fossils/species. I think the reason that creationists picked this area is because feathers do not fossilize well, so getting accurate ideas of what species looked like has been particularly difficult.

Archaeopteryx lithographica
Sinosauropteryx
Confusciusornis
Protarchaeopteryx

Of course some of the other 'evidence' this idiot throws up is even worse, particularly the claims there is no evolutionary advantage to feathers. Proposed reasons include insulation, water resistance, particle filtration, sexual displays, buoyancy and protective coloring.

Of course that doesn't fit so nicely with the wankings of a bunch of blind idiots cherry picking evidence to suit their theory. Every time I come across one of these examples of why clearly god made everything or evolution doesn't work they pic some very small detail and attempt to blow it all out of proportion. The last one I heard which really made me laugh was that the banana was proof that god exists because it's a perfect food for us....

Good page here on all this.

wolf 05-06-2004 11:56 PM
I've never really seen a great disparity between evolution and creationism.

The gods can create things any way they want to, after all, and make adjustments along the way as the design either proves itself or flubs.

lumberjim 05-07-2004 12:15 AM
Creationism is yet another topic that pushes my "asshole button"

I'm so aghast that anyone with in IQ over 80 would buy that fairy tale type explanation for how things became how they are now that I lose a little hope for the human race each time I encounter it. In fact, that's it. I've had enough. Stop the world. I wanna get off!

lumberjim 05-07-2004 12:21 AM
pagans:

is there a specific "creator god"? Could creationism coincide with paganism?

I have said before that i am a pickandchoosist. One of the things I like about paganism is that they see god in the many aspects of nature. They choose to identify them individually and worship them to suit. I also firmly believe in evolution.

Of the individual Pagan Gods, which of them is responsible for the beings that christianity subjugates to man? ... the flowers, birds, crickets, sheep, etc? Gaia? do pagans believe that gaia's womb produced all living things whole in their current state? What do the other religions say? Is creationism a mainly Christian belief? Judaism too, I guess? and is Islam a derivitave of those two? does it have the same stance on this? How about Hinduism and Bhuddism?

wolf 05-07-2004 12:35 AM
There are as many answers to that question as there are pagans.

Some paths honor a single creator god, and consider other gods and goddess as aspects of that One.

Others follow a goddess and a god, recognizing the duality of creation. Some assign different names, faces, and duties to a variety of goddess and gods.

Some see the inherent divinity in all things, beings, creatures, plants, landforms, rocks, etc.

Some make things up as they go along and don't give these kinds of questions all that much thought.

Torrere 05-07-2004 02:27 AM
Quote:
That is, what we are witnessing is the fact that physicochemical manipulation of the developing embryo can cause a developmental pathway, which would normally result in scales, to result in feathers instead. But the information required to construct/assemble the structure of the feather is already there, and is simply being expressed at a different site. Genetically, there has been no evolutionary change — no information has been added to the organism’s ‘blueprint’ which was not already there.

So what has been achieved is that feathers have been induced to form in birds — although in locations at which they would not usually form. Equally, interference with the developmental machinery in fruit flies can cause a leg to grow where there would normally be an antenna. Such homoerotic mutations, as they are called, are not strictly analogous to the chicken example, but the point is the same, in that the genetic information for forming a leg was already in the embryo. Growing ectopic, or out of place, fur on mammals, or extra legs on flies or cows, demonstrates nothing about the origin of the information coding for fur or legs.

Thus, growing feathers on chickens cannot possibly have any value for the idea of evolution.
We've proven that the blueprints for creating scales and for creating feathers are very similar. We've demonstrated a plausible way to make simple changes in life forms. However, we have not seen an experiment in which a process which takes millions of year can be seen to occur from beginning to end before our very eyes.

No, evolution is not provable in the way that "diamond is harder than charcoal" is provable. Neither are: the dinosaurs, the Flood, the existence of black holes, the existance of subatomic particles, the existance of God, the composition of stars, or the age of the Earth.

Would the histories of wheat, strawberries and antibiotics or the work of Gregor Mendel be enough to satisfy your demands for evidence of evolution? Upon which facet of evolution do you focus your vitriol?

DanaC 05-07-2004 03:36 AM
I think the main problem Onyx Cougar had was my out of hand dismissal of the creationist "science" on that site. ....In that she wa sfair enough....I did dismiss it out of hand and without more than a cursory glance at the site and its contents.

I have now had a chance to read a little more thoroughly and I stand by my original opinion, to whit, Creatinist science is pseudo science masqeurading as the real deal. Just because someone uses scientific sounding phraseology and tone doesnt make them a scientist. I have heard equally "scientific" sounding "scholars" give their evidence for Flat Earth Theory and the Bible code. As soon as you examine any of the data in detail their theories do not stand up to scrutiny.

Man invented creationism to answer the questions which scientists weren ot yet able to answer. The need for such fanciful explanations has now been superceded by scientific endeavour.

Catwoman 05-07-2004 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by lumberjim
I don't know much about a scientific argument FOR creationism. Its kind of an oxymoron isn;t it?
I think that just about sums it up. The two perspectives are so disparate that one cannot prove or disprove the other via application of the other's fundamental building blocks to validate the hypothesis. You wouldn't attempt to verify evolution by quoting the bible, would you?

DanaC 05-07-2004 05:25 AM
......wouldnt put it past some folks:alien: :angel: :shotgun:
I have heard some very strange attempts to rationalise scientific theories of evolution with the creation myth as found in Genesis...

Catwoman 05-07-2004 06:21 AM
Takes all sorts... leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss - and they wouldn't understand the truth if it hit them in the face anyway.:rolleyes:

Yelof 05-07-2004 06:45 AM
Quote:
leave 'em to their fantasies I say, ignorance is bliss
On a personal level I agree, I hate getting into arguments about such things as they get no where, however DanaC brought up the issue of what to teach in schools.

Not many creationists will believe this but good science is without an agenda, it is amoral, it is process. Scientific progress should be made with out supposition to the result, many advancements have been made where the originator of the hypothesis himself disagreed or disliked the conclusion, Darwin himself sat on evolution for 14 years before publishing because he was very uncomfortable about his own conclusions. As such evolution fits soundly in the mainstream of scientic process, it is required teaching for anyone who wishes to study biology, it has many uses outside biology, e.g computional science. Learning of the process of evolution is important to understand our modern world and should be required of all high school level students.

Creationist science starts with a conclusion, hides a religious agenda in scientific language that is attractive to those with little scientific knowledge and should be considered religious instruction. Whether religious instruction should be thought in state funded schools is another matter, I attended a school run by a religious order and as such believe all religion should be kept out of all schools, save the mental indoctrination to after school hours, schools should stick to the facts and to moral codes that all society agrees on.

DanaC 05-07-2004 06:47 AM
The problem comes ( imo) when mythos is taught as fact in schools. As I understand it there are many schools in the western world ( particularly in the US) which teach the two theories as equally valid.

Catwoman 05-07-2004 08:14 AM
While children are undoubtedly highly impressionable and susceptible to religious instruction (the main argument for not teaching some of the more obscure, contraversial religions in schools), it is important also not to underestimate their decision making capabilities and power to filter in and out things and theories they may or may not agree with. My schooling had a religious element that I have subsequently (and indeed at the time) rejected. On this basis I think it is essential children are taught as wide a variety of religions and philosophies as time and cognitive ability allows.


Yelof "save the mental indoctrination to after school hours"

It is a sad thing that it should happen at any hour.

Troubleshooter 05-07-2004 08:43 AM
Creation Science isn't.

It's wrong on two differing levels.

1) it doesn't follow the scientific method,
2) why try to prove something you have faith in? Contradictory, paradoxical.

Catwoman 05-07-2004 08:47 AM
and,

3) it's a load of bollocks.

Radar 05-07-2004 08:54 AM
Quote:
Creationism is yet another topic that pushes my "asshole button"

I'm so aghast that anyone with in IQ over 80 would buy that fairy tale type explanation for how things became how they are now that I lose a little hope for the human race each time I encounter it. In fact, that's it. I've had enough. Stop the world. I wanna get off!
Here Here!!!

Pete 05-07-2004 09:56 AM
I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.

elSicomoro 05-07-2004 10:07 AM
There is no proof in science. Only support for or against a hypothesis.

Evolution has its issues, but it has a lot more support than creationism.

Happy Monkey 05-07-2004 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar from AIG websiteAlthough many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.
The problem with claiming that there are "gaps" in the fossil record is that whenever something is found that goes in a gap, two more gaps are created. So, even with more information available, there are more gaps for creationists to complain about. Unless every single historical animal is found and documented, there will always be gaps.
Quote:
In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.
I haven't read the book that this article is critiquing, so I can't speak to what is or isn't in it, but it's simply not true that there are no transitional forms (as defined here) known. Here's a list.
Quote:
Superbly engineered for lightweight aerodynamic efficiency, the system of interlocking hooks and barbules means that a quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. But note that every structure or organ must be represented by information (written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA) at the genetic level. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information, or specific chemical complexity, has to exist in the bird's DNA which is not present in that of the reptile. Examine the amazing close-up (below) of the barbules of a feather showing the tiny hooklets and grooves (Magnified 200 times, courtesy of David Menton).
This seems to be primarily picking apart a poorly written section of a sceptic's book. Which is precisely what I'm doing here, but I'm not claiming that what I'm doing is science.

As for the content, it seems to parallel the eye problem, saying that feathers are too different from scales to have suddenly mutated. Of course they are. It didn't happen that way. The feathers slowly evolved, and there are currently tons of different types of feathers, of varying complexity. A kiwi's feathers are much simpler than those described in the article - they have no hook and barb system, and hang loose.

glatt 05-07-2004 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Pete
I just think it needs to be made clear in school that evolutionism is an unproven theory. It makes a lot of sense but we need to be open to other ideas.
How about consisitency? Should they have a disclaimer before teaching each and every theory in science that the theory hasn't been proven? There are just a handful of scientific laws. Everything else taught in science is a theory.

Most science courses that I have taken discuss the scientific process at the beginning of the course, and teach what a theory is. If the students are paying attention at the beginning of the course, they will understand.

Happy Monkey 05-07-2004 10:23 AM
And even the few 'laws' are just theories that have survived so many attacks that it is generally accepted.

OnyxCougar 05-07-2004 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by glatt

How about consisitency? Should they have a disclaimer before teaching each and every theory in science that the theory hasn't been proven? There are just a handful of scientific laws. Everything else taught in science is a theory.

Most science courses that I have taken discuss the scientific process at the beginning of the course, and teach what a theory is. If the students are paying attention at the beginning of the course, they will understand.
I don't have a problem with science. I don't claim to be a scientist. What I have a problem with is that, as Pete pointed out here (and I pointed out in the other thread on this topic) Evolutionary theory is still just a theory. Just like Creationism is just a theory. Biology is observable. Astronomy is observable. Geology is observable. That's science. Theories regarding Origins is completely UNPROVABLE. Any origins. Sure, some people have ideas that sound good, but then someone else comes along and shows the problem in that theory.

At no time did I intend any one to be converted to Christianity just because they visited a website. But as Dana correctly stated, I was irritated that it was dismissed out of hand, without really looking at it. It was the closemindedness that I had a problem with.

And Jim, as I've said before, I argue for or against a subject at will, so stop trying to categorize and label me as a "Pagan" or a "Christian". Why is that so important to you?

elSicomoro 05-07-2004 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
And Jim, as I've said before, I argue for or against a subject at will, so stop trying to categorize and label me as a "Pagan" or a "Christian". Why is that so important to you?
In this case, your religion could suggest bias.

lumberjim 05-07-2004 11:26 AM
OC, i don;t care if you're pagan, christian, mormon, satanic, or anything. It just strikes me as odd that you will argue both sides of an issue depending on who you're arguing with. Maybe you are undecided in your own mind. that's fine too. I meant the split personality thing as a joke, so please don;t think that I seriously think you're skitzo. I'd say you're more of a sociopath. :)

Yelof 05-07-2004 11:29 AM
The evolutionary process is observable, and has been many times in populations of fruitflies microbes etc

An example experiment

Whether evolutionary process accounts for the diversity of living species on the planet it a theory, and perhaps an unprovable theory as it postulates what has already happened.

The original origin of life is a seperate matter. There are theories that would postulate for the spontanous occurance of self replicating organisms/chemicals but this is a seperate matter from the theory of species diversity through evolutionary process and each must be review seperatly on it's own merits

jaguar 05-07-2004 12:15 PM
As Yelof has said, evolution is observable. There is also a large body of evidence supporting evolution in terms of species development here on earth. There is no solid evidence that contradicts it. There is sweet fuck all supporting creationism, just attempts to find weak spots in the fossil record. If someone finds evidence that something else caused animals to adapt and can back it up with solid science I'm confident the scientific community and most people here will lsiten with open ears, creationism does neither of these and is used as a vehicle by people that know their true beliefs are rooted in religion but don't want to admit it.

DanaC 05-07-2004 12:43 PM
I think my basic problem with that Onyx, is that I dont consider the two theories to be of equal validity. Regardless of what the topic at hand is, there is nothing inherently equal about theories. Some theories are based on evidence, imperical data and peer review ...some theories are based on the flights of fancy of an individual ( Runway of the Gods etc) ...The fact that both are theories does not mean we should automatically award validity to both in equal measure.

beavis 05-07-2004 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by lumberjim


appparently your split personalities have different religions. Do they argue a lot?

or do you think that godS created everything?



I don't know much about a scientific argument FOR creationism. Its kind of an oxymoron isn;t it? I mean, God has magical powers right? so science wouldn;t have much to do with it. Poof! "here's a bunny rabbit!.....isn;t it cute?" no fossil record, no scientific evidence.

Here's a poser for you....the giant squid has an eyeball that is superior to ours in design. If we were created in God's likeness, why did he give us an eyeball with a blindspot in it? Does God have a blindspot in HIS eyeball? perhaps the squid has need of more acute vision than we do, so it friggin evolved that way.

COuld not the two theories coexist? maybe god created whatever went BANG at the beginning of time, but to think that he plunked Adam and freaking Eve down on this one planet amongst all of the infinite planets in the universe is just plain nuts.
once again i arrive late to the good discussions...

i'm kinda with LJ here, i don't see why these two ideas have to be so mutually exclusive. evolution is a stone cold scientific fact, species change over time. as with any theory there are some gaps but i think darwin was onto something when he came to the conclusion that a species will naturally evolve over time to continually optimize its relationship with its environment. that's not to say all life on earth necessarily came from one common ancestor, but at the least establishes this as a possibility worth exploring. eventhough what exactly we as humans originally came from is up to some debate, it's easy to dismiss the idea that we are all here because two people abruptly came into existence. a biological approach would insist that abrupt scenario to be unlikely but not necessarily impossible. on the other hand science has no ground to deny the spiritual truths that are represented by a religious creation narrative. to each it's proper place.

it seems to me that if evolution and creationism are kept in their proper context they are able to better represent their respective truths. if i remember correctly kant himself warned against tainting scientific ideas with metaphysical (and by suggestion spiritual) ideas that are simply logically incompatible.

i for one don't have a problem with creation narratives as long as they are kept in their proper religious/spiritual framework. if the teachings of a specific belief set are recognized as having the purpose of communicating spiritual truths as opposed to being an alternate "creation theory" to a legitimate scientific study of evolution everybody wins. i have a pronounced aversion to "scientific creationists" who approach science with a biblical prejudice. if you set out to "prove" something with enough bias your theories, observations, analysis, conclusions etc. all have the very likely possibility of being tainted with the initial mindset. of course no science is purely objective but in my opinion using science to "prove" religious beliefs ultimately leads to a mockery of both.

marichiko 05-07-2004 03:19 PM
Here is a specific, observable example of evolution in action. During the time of the industrial revolution in England when the number of coal burning factories suddenly increased and soot was being spit out everywhere, a strange thing happened to the Pepper Moth (Biston betularia for all you nomenclature buffs out there). The moth which had always been white, suddenly began to turn black. After observing this phenomenon the hypothesis was made that this was a response on the part of the moths to predation by birds. The white moths stood out clearly against the soot covered tree limbs and trunks, making them an easy target for hungry birds.

A scientist named Kettlewell decided to test this hypothesis. He released an equal number of white and black moths into both polluted and non-polluted areas. After 24 hours he recaptured the moths by attracting them to bright lights. In polluted areas, a significant percentage of dark moths over white ones returned. The opposite was true in non-polluted areas.

This is a simple experiment and anyone who repeats it using the same techniques will get the same results.

Now you can either decide that this is an example of natural selection in action, or you can decide that God looked down from heaven and decided to fling vast handfuls of black moths down in Manchester, England. If He did so, no one observed him doing this. It is an irreproducible theory and belongs in that honored scientific publication, The Journal of Irreproducible Results. You can observe the same thing Kettlewell did, however.

(I swear to Buddha, I don't understand what has happened to the creationists' grasp of logic and simple common sense.)

beavis 05-07-2004 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by marichiko

(I swear to Buddha, I don't understand what has happened to the creationists' grasp of logic and simple common sense.)
i share your frustrations...

Griff 05-07-2004 03:33 PM
Actually, that was a fraudulent experiment. I'm still on board with evolution though.

may have spoke too soon looking for citation

marichiko 05-07-2004 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Griff
Actually, that was a fraudulent experiment. I'm still on board with evolution though.
Not really, Kettlewell also observed predation in action. The postulate has been made that birds have different vision, using infra-red, but no one has proved that they use this exclusively.

beavis 05-07-2004 03:37 PM
me too. it's a simple, provable theory. i don't understand why the fundies take such offense to it.

beavis 05-07-2004 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Griff
may have spoke too soon looking for citation
shit happens...

Griff 05-07-2004 03:44 PM
I'm still digging but what I remember was that the moths didn't actually alight on the limbs and branches of trees where this change would help them avoid birds.

glatt 05-07-2004 03:53 PM
That moth story reminds me of strain improvement programs that occur all the time, all around the world.

You take a bunch of bacteria that manufactures something you want, like an antibiotic.

You start irradiating some, and spraying chemicals on others, until you end up with a strain that produces even more of the antibotic you like. Then you breed those bacteria. And do the same with them.

Pretty soon, after several generations, you have a mutant of the original bacteria that has been artificially selected to produce huge quantities of your antibiotic.

Sure, this process is artificial, but the bacteria don't know that. They are reacting in exactly the same way that they would if they were naturally selected. It's evolution in a petri dish, and it's real. Just ask the multibillion dollar corporations that do it every day.

Griff 05-07-2004 03:57 PM
Sure. Folks do it with livestock all the time. If you look at how gigantic these simental cattle are now compared to the little herefords they used to run, the difference is amazing and documented in breeders books.

OnyxCougar 05-07-2004 04:07 PM
Peppered Moths was a hoax. Here's a reference from AiG with references.

Quote:
Goodbye, peppered moths
A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck
by Carl Wieland

The ‘textbook story’ of England’s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus soot).

The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now ‘stood out,’ and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.

The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.

The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’1

Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.

Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’

However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks during the day.

Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones—in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:

‘But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. … In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.’2

The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).3

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree.4 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’5,6

Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones—the opposite of textbook predictions!7

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.

He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5

Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8

References
H. Kettlewell (1959), ‘Darwin’s missing evidence’ in Evolution and the fossil record, readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, p. 23, 1978. Return to text.
C.A. Clarke, G.S. Mani and G. Wynne, Evolution in reverse: clean air and the peppered moth, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189–199, 1985; quote on p. 197. Return to text.
Calgary Herald, p. D3, 21 March 1999. Return to text.
D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975. Return to text.
J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36. Return to text.
The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999. Return to text.
D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, ref. 4. Return to text.
Unfettered by evolutionary ‘just so’ stories, researchers can now look for the real causes of these population shifts. Might the dark form actually have a function, like absorbing more warmth? Could it reflect conditions in the caterpillar stage? In a different nocturnal moth species, Sargent has found that the plants eaten by the larvae may induce or repress the expression of such ‘melanism’ in adult moths (see Sargent T.R. et al. in M.K. Hecht et al, Evolutionary Biology 30:299–322, Plenum Press, New York, 1998).

OnyxCougar 05-07-2004 04:09 PM
Micro Evolution is observable. No argument. However, Macro evolution, that is, the theory that all life on earth began from a primordial soup with amino acids in it, is the Theory that I am arguing here.

OnyxCougar 05-07-2004 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore


In this case, your religion could suggest bias.
I firmly believe that the people who buy into Evolution as the Origin of Life are in the Evolutionary Theory religion. *shrug*

perth 05-07-2004 04:35 PM
Macro evolution has been categorically disproven, people. Just look here. Middle School level, First place.

QED. And Pwn3d.

DanaC 05-07-2004 04:51 PM
That link leads to an online survey scheme

Yelof 05-07-2004 04:54 PM
Ok the creationists TRY a come back and we get the first signs that this discussion is inevitably going nowhere.

Quote:
Macro evolution, that is, the theory that all life on earth began from a primordial soup with amino acids in it
Macro evolution vs Micro evolution.

Micro evolution is normally defined as the shift due to selective pressure of a gene or group of genes in a population of living organisms.

Macro evolution is normally defined as the formation of new species or taxinomic groups due to selective pressure.

As I explained earlier and as a few of us have been at pains to point out evolutionary theory doesn't gives us much clue on how the whole thing got started, however creationists keep banging on the point claiming it a weak point to the theory it is not a part of.

Demonstrating macro-evolution runs into difficulties as there is no accepted concept of a species at current, however it is accepted in scientific circles that extending proof of micro-evolution to explain the diversity of life is the most parsimonious solution.

More about observed Macro-evolution

Btw Perth why the link to the Polish radio site?

On edit sorry defined micro evolution twice!! duh

DanaC 05-07-2004 05:01 PM
Quote:
I firmly believe that the people who buy into Evolution as the Origin of Life are in the Evolutionary Theory religion. *shrug*
Evolution Theory religion? aheh. Ok. Bags I the role of High Priestess. I bet I could come up with a set of doctrines and dogma that'd make as much sense as Genesis. 'T isnt as if I would have to offer anything but the scantest nod in the direction of evidence in order for bunches of people to "buy" into it. "Buy"being the operative word. Have y'all noticed how many of the creationist sites are selling books/magazines/lesson profiles/etc/etc/etc ? I'd b interested in seeing the demographics on that....Which social grouping is more likely to buy into Creationist myth and which social groupiing is most likely to sell it to them?

perth 05-07-2004 05:01 PM
1 Attachment(s)
Hunh what now? This is what I see when I click that link:

perth 05-07-2004 05:04 PM
Tried it in IE and Firefox. Works for me on both counts.

DanaC 05-07-2004 05:05 PM
Incidentally. Anyone who has an interest in this who hasnt read any Dawkins, his book Climbing Mount Improbable ( improbability? ) is excellent....I cannot claim to remember much of it, its quite heavy going. But really does put some interesting stuff on the table.

DanaC 05-07-2004 05:06 PM
Perth I get sent to an advert for Surveys

Hahahah I love that tag that can just be seen where someone has proved their uncle is not a monkey hahahaha

Yelof 05-07-2004 05:06 PM
1 Attachment(s)
I guess God doesn't want us to see the truth ;)

and instead wants me to listen to Polish radio???

guess he truely works in mysterious ways

perth 05-07-2004 05:08 PM
Weird. Even so, there's the image, for all the world to see, :p

perth 05-07-2004 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DanaC
Perth I get sent to an advert for Surveys

Hahahah I love that tag that can just be seen where someone has proved their uncle is not a monkey hahahaha
Try manually typing the URL, maybe. That site is a riot.

Yelof 05-07-2004 05:11 PM
Dawkins is my hero.

He doesn't take no crap from any theist

DanaC 05-07-2004 05:15 PM
I know aint he great? seriously....sexy too. I mean...I would.....*sparks a joint and pours a glass of wine* did I say that out loud?.....


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 AM.
Page 1 of 10 1 2345678 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.