[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is not based on empirical evidence

[flinx]

Well, this is my very first post to this forum. Hopefully I won't just be repeating what others have already said. Anyway, here goes.

One of the main criticisms that evolutionists throw at creationists is to claim that creation is based on religious belief while evolution is based on science. But is this actually the case? No it isn’t. I think it is quite easy to show that at its core the theory of evolution is not based on scientific evidence. To see that evolution is not science you just have to realize what foundational process has brought about all the scientific knowledge we have today. Every true scientific fact that humanity has developed over the centuries has come about through the experimental process.

In the experimental process a scientist first observes some phenomenon in the world that interests him, and he develops a hypothesis about what might cause that phenomenon. Then he designs an experiment that will test whether his hypothesis is valid or not. He runs the experiment several times and observes the results. He records the data he has observed and makes whatever calculations might be necessary and then he draws conclusions from his observations as to whether his hypothesis is an adequate explanation for the results he obtained. And finally he lets other scientists examine his data and conclusions to see whether he has made any errors or omissions in his analysis. When everyone agrees that the conclusions are valid then those conclusions become part of humanity’s store of scientific knowledge. Those conclusions are only changed if further experimental evidence comes along that modifies or contradicts the earlier results.

So all of our scientific knowledge is based on repeated experimentation and observation. But is the theory of evolution based on the experimental process? Not at all. The evolution of life from non-life supposedly happened in the far distant past and then stopped happening once life was established. No scientist was there to observe the evolution of life from non-life and no scientist was around to observe the evolution of simple life into complex life. No one was there while it was occurring and the process of evolution can never be repeated again. And in our world today we don’t see evidence that evolution is currently taking place. There simply are no animals present on earth that are partway evolved into completely different animals. And when we study the anatomy of animals we never find organs that are changing into different organs with new functions. Every animal is already complete and functional in the environment in which it lives. So it is obvious that evolution is not based on repeatable observations. No one saw evolution happening and no one can make it happen again. That means that evolution is not based on scientific empirical evidence.

What evolution is actually based on is historical evidence. That is, the historical evidence gleaned from geology and the evidence derived from fossil bones dug up from the ground. But historical evidence has one big problem – it is always incomplete and fragmentary. In other words, it is always full of holes. In order to draw conclusions from historical evidence a scientist must attempt to fill in the holes in the record. But no scientist is truly objective when it comes to filling in the missing evidence. The way that a scientist fills in the gaps will always be dependent on that person’s biases and presuppositions. An atheistic scientist who bases his worldview on materialistic naturalism will always come to conclusions that support his naturalistic bias. Just as a creation scientist who bases his worldview on the existence of the omnipotent Creator of the Bible will always come to conclusions that support what God has told us about the world in His word.

Evolution is not based on repeatable, testable observations. It is based on the interpretation of circumstantial, historical evidence. So at its core evolution is no more scientific than creationism is. Both evolution theory and creationism make use of the very same historical evidence. But creationists interpret that evidence based on a theistic worldview filtered through the teachings of the Bible while evolutionists interpret that evidence based on their naturalistic worldview that is most often coupled with an anti-god bias. Both evolution and creation are belief systems that are entirely dependent on the presuppositions of those who believe in them. I’ve seen atheists in this forum claim that evolution is a proven fact of science but I’d have to say that that is just bluster on the part of the evolutionists. Any theory that is based on unobserved, unrepeatable and untestable evidence can never be considered a fact. Evolution is based just as much on faith as creation is. A faith that believes that materialistic processes are an adequate explanation for all the complexity we see in living systems.

 

[Barbarian]

There are several errors here.

First, the scientific method is not necessarily about experiments. If it was, we wouldn't have astronomy, gelology, forensics, etc.

It is about observations. One sees a phenomenon, say like the observation that organisms fit nicely into a heirarchial classification system. (this was first noted by a creationist, before Darwin, Carolus Linneaus)

Then, one considers what might explain this phenomenon. From that, one obtains a hypothesis. One might, for example, hypothesize that populations of organisms change over time, and that the environment determines many of the changes.

One then tests the hypothesis by designing a test which could verify or falsify it. One can take a population of rapidly-reproducing organisms, change their environment, and see if it works.

If it works, (it does) one councludes that descent with modification by natural selection can produce new populations with different characteristics.

But what about common descent? We've verified that natural selection can cause the evolution of new species (this has been directly observed), but how about the idea that all living things have a common ancestor?

Remember, the test of the hypothesis can be an experiment, or it can just be collecting data from nature. So scientists must produce some predictions based on the theory.

For example, evolutionary theory predicted that there must have been fish with legs at one time. It also predicts that there must have been whales with legs. And it predicts that there must have been intermediates between reptiles and mammals at one time.

None of these were known at the time they were predicted, but all of them have science been found.

This kind of validation of predictions is considered compelling in science.

There are, of course, many, many more examples than this. Reproducibility means, in this context, that others have to see the same evidence. That's why scientists are so careful to document where and how fossils were found.

Another line of evidence which is becoming increasingly important is genetic. You might want to look around here and read some of Genewatcher's posts. Although Darwin didn't even know about genes, genetics has greatly increased our understanding of evoluition, and has cleared up a number of problems that troubled Darwin.

Everything we see in organisms is consistent with a natural origin. As to Who it is created nature, that's another issue.

This is why Christians generally have no difficulty with evolution; it's completely compatible with our faith.

 

[mh13]

Evolution is not science it is a pagan religion. Evolution is not true. One kind of animal has never changed into another kind of animal. Evolution could not have even happened. Evolution requires millions of years to take place. We know that the earth is only around 6,000 years old.

 

[Arnold Philips]

Evolution is not science it is a pagan religion.

This is just plain silly. When asked what religion one is, no one has ever said "evolutionist."

Evolution is not true.

Evolution as defined as the change in the frequency of alleles over time is an irrefutable fact. And what do you know, that's all you need.

One kind of animal has never changed into another kind of animal.

If a monkey gave birth to a human, that would actually be very good evidence against the theory of evolution. But, as it turns out, it doesn't happen that way and you're simply basing your accusations on something that's not evolution.

Evolution could not have even happened. Evolution requires millions of years to take place. We know that the earth is only around 6,000 years old.

The earth is much older than that. We have multiple ways to verify the date of something, and they all agree that it's not 6000 years old. I'm afraid no one who knows what they're talking about agrees with you.

 

[Featherbop]

flinx, good post, and you hit on a very important issue:bias. If people can not overcome bias, then they are hopeless for searching for anything that is true.

 

[ThinkerMan]

The evolution of life from non-life supposedly happened in the far distant past and then stopped happening once life was established. No scientist was there to observe the evolution of life from non-life and no scientist was around to observe the evolution of simple life into complex life.

No true whatsoever. This is NOT an assertion of science. The "spark" of life did not necessarily happen once, nor does anyone say it cannot occur again.

Creationists like to quote the astronomical odds of creating life from raw materials, then blast science by asking why new life isn't popping up all over the place. Well, which is it?

I think most scientists would say the odds are long, but possible (if not probable). Not every "new spark" could have taken hold. Like a fish that lays a million eggs, only two need to survive to keep the species going. Life may have been started millions of times, even as we speak, but only a few have taken hold.

Life is found at the bottom of the ocean around geothermal vents that requires no sunlight, unlike really any other form of life. It is entirely possible that this represents a separate "tree" starting from a different "seed of life".

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Evolution is not based on repeatable, testable observations. It is based on the interpretation of circumstantial, historical evidence. So at its core evolution is no more scientific than creationism is.

What a wonderfully refutable assertion. Evolution is based on a consideration of both Malthusian population theory and an understanding of nature, the nature of scarcity and so on. It is further validated by the fact that there is a mechanism by which it occurs. And innumerable tests can be seen to show its veracity.

Both evolution theory and creationism make use of the very same historical evidence. But creationists interpret that evidence based on a theistic worldview filtered through the teachings of the Bible while evolutionists interpret that evidence based on their naturalistic worldview that is most often coupled with an anti-god bias.

Fallacious reasoning. You are infering that evolution = naturalism/anti-god, this is backwards and a misinterpretation of atheism/naturalism. What ought to be said is that naturalism implies that one subscribes to evolution by natural selection, because it is a theory that is based on reality, but does not require divine/unknowable force as its basis. However this does not take away from the fact that evolution IS based on reality.

Both evolution and creation are belief systems that are entirely dependent on the presuppositions of those who believe in them. I’ve seen atheists in this forum claim that evolution is a proven fact of science but I’d have to say that that is just bluster on the part of the evolutionists. Any theory that is based on unobserved, unrepeatable and untestable evidence can never be considered a fact.

This has been shown to be false already.

Evolution is based just as much on faith as creation is. A faith that believes that materialistic processes are an adequate explanation for all the complexity we see in living systems.

Wrong, once more. Evolution and every theory in science today is put through a process of peer editing. Things like String Theory won't become mainstream like Quantum Mech and General Rel until it can go through similar testing. Evolution has passed already. If you wish to understand enough about biology to do your own testing, take a course, it is your right as a reasoning human being.

 

[flinx]

First, the scientific method is not necessarily about experiments. If it was, we wouldn't have astronomy, gelology, forensics, etc.

The three sciences you mentioned; astronomy, geology, and forensics, are based largely on historical evidence just as evolution is and so they all suffer from the same problem that evolution has – the conclusions that scientists present in these fields of study are all open to interpretation. In astronomy, for instance, no one was around to observe the formation of the universe, or stars, or galaxies. Since these events can never be directly observed or repeated, scientists are free to construct different scenarios for these events based on whatever presuppositions they feel are valid. So you end up with many scientists who adhere to a big-bang cosmology while some others still support a steady-state cosmology or some other more obscure cosmology. Likewise, in geology you have materialists who hold to a uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic record and creationists who hold to a catastrophic interpretation of the same data. Even in the forensic sciences you will find that the prosecution in a trial will interpret the forensic data in the most negative light toward the defendant while the defense will put the most positive spin on their interpretation of the data.

The conclusions of any science based on historical evidence are always tentative and open to more than one interpretation because historical evidence is not testable and so can never be known with certainty.

And this is exactly the case with the supposed evidence for evolution presented in the fish-to-amphibian series or the reptile-to-mammal series or the land-mammal-to-whale series. I have no problem with your statement that evidence obtained from direct observations of nature is equivalent to evidence obtained from the experimental process. After all, direct observations of nature are performed in the present and can be repeated by any scientist who wants to go into the field and observe the same phenomena. So direct observations from nature are repeatable and testable just as conclusions from the experimental process are. But no one has ever seen the animals presented in these transitional series in real life and there is no possibility that anyone ever will ever see them in real life. And certainly no one has ever seen one kind of animal evolve into a completely different kind of animal. No transitional series presented by an evolutionist is a direct observation from nature.

So creationists are certainly free to form a different interpretation of this historical evidence. Creationists could point out that from direct observations of nature we find that there are mosaic creatures living in our world today. Mosaic creatures are animals like the platypus and the lungfish. The platypus is classified fully as a mammal but also has some mosaic features of other animals. It is reptilian in that it reproduces by laying eggs and it is bird-like in that its bill looks like a duck’s. The lungfish is classified fully as a fish but has lungs in addition to gills and a heart that is similar to amphibians. But these mosaic creatures are not in the process of changing from one type of animal into another. They are already complete and functional in the environments in which they live. So if we find stable mosaic creatures living in our world today then it should be no surprise that we find stable mosaic creatures present in the fossil record as well. Creationists would say that that is what the animals in these transitional series represent.

This interpretation of the evidence is supported by the fact that all of these fossil animals appear fully formed in the fossil record with no direct ancestors found. They then change very little in their morphology before they disappear again. There is no fine gradation of very similar animals showing, for example, the step-by-step conversion of the fins of a fish into the limbs of a tetrapod. Every animal presented in these transitional series appears to be a completely unique creature with little resemblance to the other members in the series. Now evolutionists could respond that this lack of gradation is due to the hit-and-miss nature of fossilization but creationists would say that the intermediates are not found simply because they never existed.

Creationists could also point out that there is critical information that is completely lacking in each of these transitional series. In each of these series the fossil record has left virtually no evidence concerning the organs and soft tissues of these extinct animals. But the soft tissues are where some of the primary changes would have had to occur if these animals actually did evolve from one kind to another. Some of the unique organs found only in mammals, for instance, are the mammary glands for feeding the young, sweat glands in the skin, a diaphragm for respiration, a large cerebral cortex and the three ossicles of the middle ear. In order for reptiles to evolve into mammals all of these organs would have to be created out of nothing since reptiles have no information in their genome for forming them. And since natural selection has no goal or purpose, every step along the way in forming these new and unique organs would have to be beneficial to the animal in order for natural selection to favor the change. And while these incipient organs were forming, the transitional animal would still have to remain fully functional with both old and new organs in place or else the change could never be completed. Where is the evidence that this organ generation has actually taken place? It simply isn’t there because the fossilization process lacks almost all ability to preserve this type of information. This is one of the big holes in the theory of evolution that evolutionists must fill in with their religious faith in naturalism.

But aside from historical evidence, let’s look at the direct observations from nature you state are evidence for evolution. You mentioned that observations have shown that natural selection can produce new populations with different characteristics and that natural selection can even produce new species. Well, I’m sure that you probably already know that YE creationists would fully agree that natural selection and speciation have been directly observed in our world. Diversification through natural selection is a fundamental part of the creationist model. YE creationists believe that only several thousand kinds of created land animals have diversified into all the various land animals we see today. God placed a large amount of information in the genomes of the parent kinds, for various body shapes and sizes and behaviors, which would allow them to diversify and fill the many environmental niches available in the empty land after the flood. For example, creationists believe that the single parent dog kind has diversified into the wolves, jackals, coyotes, dingoes, and domestic dogs that are presently found in our world.

But you could not call this process of diversification by natural selection a form of evolution; it would more accurately be called devolution. Every new species that branched off from the parent kind received only a subset of the total information present in the parent. Each new species had less information in its genome than the original kind. You can easily see this if you look at what has happened with man’s breeding of domestic dogs. The parent stock of domestic dogs had a wide range of information in its genome for various body shapes and sizes and hair lengths. With selective breeding man has filtered that information to create breeds with specific characteristics. But each of those breeds has lost the information for variety that was previously present. Chihuahuas have lost all information for large size while Great Danes have lost all information for small size and both have lost all information for long hair. You can breed as many generations of Chihuahuas as you want and you’ll never end up with a longhaired Great Dane. The information for making that transition is no longer present in the Chihuahua’s genome.

So this is what is always observed in our world today. We observe either stasis or we observe devolution. Genetic information can be transferred around or it can become specialized or it can be lost completely but it has never been directly observed that new information has entered the biosphere. Evolutionists have not documented a single example of a mutation or a speciation event that has resulted in the creation of new information in an organism’s genome, ex nihilo. Natural selection and mutation have no demonstrated ability to create information “out of nothing.†This is exactly the opposite of what evolution needs to actually work. If mutation and natural selection cannot provide a continuous supply of new information into the biosphere then evolution is impossible. If we don’t see new genetic information continuously appearing in our world today then there is no reason to believe that fish turned into amphibians or reptiles turned into mammals.

 

[flinx]

Life is found at the bottom of the ocean around geothermal vents that requires no sunlight, unlike really any other form of life. It is entirely possible that this represents a separate "tree" starting from a different "seed of life".

I don't think even evolutionists would support you in this assertion. Every single organism on earth uses the same genetic code; every single organism on earth uses ATP to drive its molecular machinery; every single organism on earth uses the same 20 amino acids to construct its proteins. Are you actually claiming that multiple "seeds of life" could arise and end up using precisely the same biochemistry and information coding? I must say you have amazing faith in evolution.

 

[Quath]

A small article on how one can see evolution as opposed to intelligent design in everyday life is in this debate called "Living in an Evidence Free Zone".

Quath

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

First, the scientific method is not necessarily about experiments. If it was, we wouldn't have astronomy, gelology, forensics, etc.

The three sciences you mentioned; astronomy, geology, and forensics, are based largely on historical evidence just as evolution is and so they all suffer from the same problem that evolution has – the conclusions that scientists present in these fields of study are all open to interpretation. In astronomy, for instance, no one was around to observe the formation of the universe, or stars, or galaxies.

WHAT!? HAHAHAHAHA
Are you serious? PLENTY of star formations have been directly observed, we can look deeper into the universe's past to see the formation of galaxies and we can look at the science that works in the universe and observe its earliest form by looking at the background radiation.

Since these events can never be directly observed or repeated, scientists are free to construct different scenarios for these events based on whatever presuppositions they feel are valid. So you end up with many scientists who adhere to a big-bang cosmology while some others still support a steady-state cosmology or some other more obscure cosmology.

Steady state cosmology is marginalized to the point of obscurity now. The Big Bang theory holds dominance over cosmology, not because it is dogmatic but because it works so well with what we can see. The only other theory that competes with it is Plasma theory, which is very nice and lends considerable weight to other lines of though regarding cosmology but is not able to significantly chip away at BBT crediblity. All of this is based on solid physics and direct observation of the universe.

Likewise, in geology you have materialists who hold to a uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic record and creationists who hold to a catastrophic interpretation of the same data. Even in the forensic sciences you will find that the prosecution in a trial will interpret the forensic data in the most negative light toward the defendant while the defense will put the most positive spin on their interpretation of the data.

Now you are just talking nonsense, forensic data is 1: based on observation of crime scenes, chemistry and biochemistry and so on, 2: it is NOT done by lawyers so your bringing up courtroom drama is irrelevant.

The conclusions of any science based on historical evidence are always tentative and open to more than one interpretation because historical evidence is not testable and so can never be known with certainty.

It is verifiable and it can be researched again, by its very nature, but it is not invalid. But you are misguided in that you have somehow got it in your head that hard biology, astronomy and forensics are based solely on historical evidence.

And this is exactly the case with the supposed evidence for evolution presented in the fish-to-amphibian series or the reptile-to-mammal series or the land-mammal-to-whale series. I have no problem with your statement that evidence obtained from direct observations of nature is equivalent to evidence obtained from the experimental process. After all, direct observations of nature are performed in the present and can be repeated by any scientist who wants to go into the field and observe the same phenomena. So direct observations from nature are repeatable and testable just as conclusions from the experimental process are. But no one has ever seen the animals presented in these transitional series in real life and there is no possibility that anyone ever will ever see them in real life. And certainly no one has ever seen one kind of animal evolve into a completely different kind of animal. No transitional series presented by an evolutionist is a direct observation from nature.

1: You are irrationally disqualifying fossil evidence.
2: No, transition trees are not based on direct observation, however they are based in fossil evidence and the evidence shows us two things, that animal :a: was around in this time and animal :b: is around in the next time. We know of no instance showing animal :b: before a certain time. :a: and :b: share many traits, enough that they could be related species, but they are not the same species and could not have brought about fertile offspring. We also know of a process by which a population of species :a: might have developed the traits equal to :b:'s enough to become :b:s themselves. There is enough time for this process to take place.
Now an evolution researcher uses a bit of inductive logic called the Argument from the Best Explanation. Because evolution works as the transitional process in this case and everything is set in a way that would make it possible, it gains favor as the best explanation for what has occured.

So creationists are certainly free to form a different interpretation of this historical evidence. Creationists could point out that from direct observations of nature we find that there are mosaic creatures living in our world today. Mosaic creatures are animals like the platypus and the lungfish. The platypus is classified fully as a mammal but also has some mosaic features of other animals. It is reptilian in that it reproduces by laying eggs and it is bird-like in that its bill looks like a duck’s.

Unless you have got genetic evidence linking Platypi to birds and lizards you cannot say either of these things.

The lungfish is classified fully as a fish but has lungs in addition to gills and a heart that is similar to amphibians. But these mosaic creatures are not in the process of changing from one type of animal into another. They are already complete and functional in the environments in which they live.

Transitional species are a misnomer, as all species are technically transitional. The fact that it functions in its environment means that it has evolved to fit it.

So if we find stable mosaic creatures living in our world today then it should be no surprise that we find stable mosaic creatures present in the fossil record as well. Creationists would say that that is what the animals in these transitional series represent.

And the fact that no evidence of their existence before or after their current range exists doesn't worry you in the least?

This interpretation of the evidence is supported by the fact that all of these fossil animals appear fully formed in the fossil record with no direct ancestors found. They then change very little in their morphology before they disappear again. There is no fine gradation of very similar animals showing, for example, the step-by-step conversion of the fins of a fish into the limbs of a tetrapod.

What can I say? The fossil record is incomplete, that doesn't diminish evolution in any way. It still explains the changes better than any other theory.

Every animal presented in these transitional series appears to be a completely unique creature with little resemblance to the other members in the series. Now evolutionists could respond that this lack of gradation is due to the hit-and-miss nature of fossilization but creationists would say that the intermediates are not found simply because they never existed.

Um? What? Even though most species are unknowable to us, because of the low number of useful fossils avainable, you are making a leap in logic saying that Dimetrodon do not resemble their mousey decendents in any way.

Creationists could also point out that there is critical information that is completely lacking in each of these transitional series. In each of these series the fossil record has left virtually no evidence concerning the organs and soft tissues of these extinct animals. But the soft tissues are where some of the primary changes would have had to occur if these animals actually did evolve from one kind to another. Some of the unique organs found only in mammals, for instance, are the mammary glands for feeding the young, sweat glands in the skin, a diaphragm for respiration, a large cerebral cortex and the three ossicles of the middle ear. In order for reptiles to evolve into mammals all of these organs would have to be created out of nothing since reptiles have no information in their genome for forming them.

Further misunderstanding and ignorance. A good deal of evidence concerning soft organs can be found by examining bone fossils.

And since natural selection has no goal or purpose, every step along the way in forming these new and unique organs would have to be beneficial to the animal in order for natural selection to favor the change. And while these incipient organs were forming, the transitional animal would still have to remain fully functional with both old and new organs in place or else the change could never be completed. Where is the evidence that this organ generation has actually taken place?

Now this is just lack of knowledge of evolution. The likelyhood of survival is a probability curve that is heavily infulenced by genetic structure. If a mutation or change in the functioning of an organ is beneficial to a species survival then that trait is more likely to survive, not the other way around.

<snip>
But aside from historical evidence, let’s look at the direct observations from nature you state are evidence for evolution. You mentioned that observations have shown that natural selection can produce new populations with different characteristics and that natural selection can even produce new species. Well, I’m sure that you probably already know that YE creationists would fully agree that natural selection and speciation have been directly observed in our world. Diversification through natural selection is a fundamental part of the creationist model. YE creationists believe that only several thousand kinds of created land animals have diversified into all the various land animals we see today. God placed a large amount of information in the genomes of the parent kinds, for various body shapes and sizes and behaviors, which would allow them to diversify and fill the many environmental niches available in the empty land after the flood. For example, creationists believe that the single parent dog kind has diversified into the wolves, jackals, coyotes, dingoes, and domestic dogs that are presently found in our world.

YECs however give only 6000-10000 years for this to occur at most a few thousand generations, which is quite simply ludicrous evolution-wise.

But you could not call this process of diversification by natural selection a form of evolution; it would more accurately be called devolution. Every new species that branched off from the parent kind received only a subset of the total information present in the parent. Each new species had less information in its genome than the original kind.

This however has NOT been shown to occur at all. There have been very few occurances of offspring lacking huge amounts of genetic data from their parents. There is also a set mechanism in place to make sure that this does not happen.

You can easily see this if you look at what has happened with man’s breeding of domestic dogs. The parent stock of domestic dogs had a wide range of information in its genome for various body shapes and sizes and hair lengths. With selective breeding man has filtered that information to create breeds with specific characteristics. But each of those breeds has lost the information for variety that was previously present. Chihuahuas have lost all information for large size while Great Danes have lost all information for small size and both have lost all information for long hair. You can breed as many generations of Chihuahuas as you want and you’ll never end up with a longhaired Great Dane. The information for making that transition is no longer present in the Chihuahua’s genome.

You cannot say this. You cannot say that at any time was there an animal that was at once a great dane and a chihuahua and a jackal and a wolf and so on. Evolution does not support this, no biological science supports this and the fossil record does not support this.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
First, the scientific method is not necessarily about experiments. If it was, we wouldn't have astronomy, gelology, forensics, etc.

The three sciences you mentioned; astronomy, geology, and forensics, are based largely on historical evidence just as evolution is

They are, like evolution, partly so. But they are also based on existing evidence, and experimentation. The point, of course, is that they are all capable of making predictions which have been verified. This means that the theories on which they are based are useful and capable of producing new knowledge.

and so they all suffer from the same problem that evolution has – the conclusions that scientists present in these fields of study are all open to interpretation.

All things are open to interpretation. The point is, some interpretations do a better job of prediction than others. And those are the ones that survive. It's why creationism is no longer seriously considered by the vast majority of scientists.

In astronomy, for instance, no one was around to observe the formation of the universe, or stars, or galaxies.

No, that's wrong. We can, for example see stars forming in the Hubble photographs. Not surprisingly, it's very much similar to the predictions made by theories before we had these pictures.

Since these events can never be directly observed or repeated, scientists are free to construct different scenarios for these events based on whatever presuppositions they feel are valid.

Not if they are scientists. That isn't part of the process. You've been misled. And since we can directly observe evolution, it's not merely an historical science.

So you end up with many scientists who adhere to a big-bang cosmology while some others still support a steady-state cosmology

There are several objections that make steady-state impossible. I don't know of any major astronomer who accepts that. Do you?

Likewise, in geology you have materialists who hold to a uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic record and creationists who hold to a catastrophic interpretation of the same data.

It appears you don't know what "Uniformitarian" means. It is not the opposite of Catastrophism. It does not mean everything happened gradually. Catastrophes are facts, as is gradual change.

Even in the forensic sciences you will find that the prosecution in a trial will interpret the forensic data in the most negative light toward the defendant while the defense will put the most positive spin on their interpretation of the data.

Often so. But I know a little of the science involved, and I happen to have a good friend who runs the forensics unit for a large city. And most often, the lawyers for each side blatantly distort the findings. You'll generally find that the forensics people themselves agree on the issues.

And this is exactly the case with the supposed evidence for evolution presented in the fish-to-amphibian series or the reptile-to-mammal series or the land-mammal-to-whale series.

No, that's wrong. Because scientists can make predictions based on the theory, and then search the fossil record to see if those predictions hold, there is very good science involved.

And certainly no one has ever seen one kind of animal evolve into a completely different kind of animal.

Good thing, too. That would falsify the present theory of evolution, and we'd have to come up with a new theory to explain it.

No transitional series presented by an evolutionist is a direct observation from nature.

No, that's wrong. there are many, many such transistionals. We even have some cases where the evolution of a feature is documented in living organisms of the phylum. Would you like an example?

So creationists are certainly free to form a different interpretation of this historical evidence.

They are free to imagine whatever they want. But science can't help them. Science depends on a process of evidence and testing. Creationism depends on faith.

Creationists could point out that from direct observations of nature we find that there are mosaic creatures living in our world today.

That's good, too. Evolutionary theory requires mosaics. Otherwise, we'd be hard put to explain how all features evolve at the same time. There's no known way for that to happen in all cases.

Mosaic creatures are animals like the platypus and the lungfish.

They are, but probably not for the reasons you think they are.

The platypus is classified fully as a mammal but also has some mosaic features of other animals. It is reptilian in that it reproduces by laying eggs and it is bird-like in that its bill looks like a duck’s.

No, the "bill" isn't remotely like that of a duck. This is a duck bill:

Here's a platypus "bill":

Notice that the duck's bill is relatively narrow, and made of a hard, hornlike substance. Note that the platypus bill is very wide, and is a soft, sensitive tissue that is alive. No one would confuse the two, once they've seen both.

The lungfish is classified fully as a fish but has lungs in addition to gills

This is not a mosiac character. Many fish had both lungs and gills, and most still hve lungs, although most of them are vestigial.

and a heart that is similar to amphibians.

That is a transistional feature, yes. But the one that most directly connects them to tetrapods is the naris. (nostrils) They communicate internally.

But these mosaic creatures are not in the process of changing from one type of animal into another.

Like most transitionals, they are successful organisms in their own right. They are just examples of the gradual change of alleles over time, leading to changes of phenotype. The platypus has a complex reptillian shoulder structure, too. And it's only partially warm-blooded. There are fossil platypuses even more reptillian. That's how evolution works.

They are already complete and functional in the environments in which they live.

Right. All transisitonals are. That's how it works. Many of them are replaced as more evolved organisms appear, but that doesn't always happen. Lungfish, for example, declined in number of species, but specialized and found niches where they could compete.

So if we find stable mosaic creatures living in our world today then it should be no surprise that we find stable mosaic creatures present in the fossil record as well. Creationists would say that that is what the animals in these transitional series represent.

Indeed. But each of them is also a step in an evolutionary series.

This interpretation of the evidence is supported by the fact that all of these fossil animals appear fully formed in the fossil record with no direct ancestors found.

No, that's wrong. I alluded to ancestors of platypuses. We find them for the reptile/mammal transition, for the dinosaur/bird transition, and for many others.

One of the most detailed, because of the vast numbers of individuals in the fossil record, is horses. There were many lines of horses that branched off, but we could discuss the one that led to Equus, the genus that remains today. Would you like to do it? Perhaps I could present them in the order in which they are found in the fossil record, and you could tell me which ones you think could not have evolved.

They then change very little in their morphology before they disappear again.

Usually. When an organism becomes well-adapted, natural selection actually prevents evolution. This is called "stabilizing selection." This is why Gould suggested punctuated equillibrium. We tend to see fairly rapid changes in organisms, then a long period of stability. Horses are an exception, as Gould noted. That's why it's so useful to study them. You can actually see the gradual changes.

There is no fine gradation of very similar animals showing, for example, the step-by-step conversion of the fins of a fish into the limbs of a tetrapod.

Didn't use to be. But Clack and her group have done just that....

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/tetrapods.htm

These are tetrapod-like fish and some genuine tetrapods. Note the slow change in the 'hands' that lead to tetrapod limbs.

Here's some earlier ancestors:

You can see the trend in the evolution of fins to legs. That happened, BTW, before the organisms ever came onto land. It turns out that they walked on the bottoms of ponds first. We can explain more, if you like.

Every animal presented in these transitional series appears to be a completely unique creature with little resemblance to the other members in the series.

We can test that with horses, if you like. Would you give it a try?

Now evolutionists could respond that this lack of gradation is due to the hit-and-miss nature of fossilization but creationists would say that the intermediates are not found simply because they never existed.

We don't get complete series very often. But sometimes we do. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Creationists could also point out that there is critical information that is completely lacking in each of these transitional series. In each of these series the fossil record has left virtually no evidence concerning the organs and soft tissues of these extinct animals.

No, that's wrong, too. Because skeletons tell us a great deal about soft tissues, we can often learn much about that sort of thing. For example, we know that the jaw muscles were reworked to produce the powerful mammalian masseter before mammals actually evolved. How do we know? Because we have the zygomatic arch and the insertions for the new arrangement in the fossil record.

Some of the unique organs found only in mammals, for instance, are the mammary glands for feeding the young, sweat glands in the skin, a diaphragm for respiration,

We know that the advanced therapsids had diaphragms, because they lacked abdominal ribs needed for the reptillian ventillation system.

a large cerebral cortex

The earliest mammals had relatively small brains, and a very modest cerebral cortex. We know this from the skulls. Here's an interesting MPEG file of an animal very close to the reptile/mammal boundary. It looks very much like a mammal (note the teeth, the zygomatic arch, etc., but it has a tiny brain for a mammal. There are three clips that let you see every side of this CAT scan of the fossil skull. Check it out.
http://www.utexas.edu/cc/vislab/gallery ... index.html

and the three ossicles of the middle ear.

We have very detailed transitions for that. Note that the fossil linked above still has the reptillian jaw joint, but the angular and articular bones are very small. The trend continues in other therapsids, with a secondary joing forming at the dentary, and the two other bones becoming smaller and smaller until they retain only the function of carrying sound, and are entirely within the middle ear. (the reptile lower jaw serves to carry vibrations to the ear)

In order for reptiles to evolve into mammals all of these organs would have to be created out of nothing since reptiles have no information in their genome for forming them.

No, that's wrong. First, evolution never builds something entirely new. It always modifies existing things. Hence, mammals have a secondary palate, but it is merely an enlargement of a shelf of bone already existing in some reptiles. The diaphragm is just a modification of sheetlike muscles found in reptiles. A primitive version is found in crocodilians.

And since natural selection has no goal or purpose, every step along the way in forming these new and unique organs would have to be beneficial to the animal in order for natural selection to favor the change.

Yep. and the reduction in the articular and quadrate made the jaw stronger. And that made chewing for an extended time possible. Which meant that the animal had to be able to breath and eat at the same time to exploit that to the fullest. Not surprisingly, the secondary palate evolved soon after. And so on.

And while these incipient organs were forming, the transitional animal would still have to remain fully functional with both old and new organs in place or else the change could never be completed.

That's what we see. For example, when the transition between the articular and dentary jaw joints was happening,we see animals like Diarthrognathus, which has both joints.

Some things, like the secondary palate, massater, and differentiated teeth, were not required to appear all at once, and not surprisingly, they are seen to have evolved more slowly.

Where is the evidence that this organ generation has actually taken place?

I've given you a little taste of what we know. Would you like to learn more?

But aside from historical evidence, let’s look at the direct observations from nature you state are evidence for evolution. You mentioned that observations have shown that natural selection can produce new populations with different characteristics and that natural selection can even produce new species. Well, I’m sure that you probably already know that YE creationists would fully agree that natural selection and speciation have been directly observed in our world.

Most "creation scientists" even admit that new genera and families evolve.

Diversification through natural selection is a fundamental part of the creationist model.

After Darwin discovered it. The best "creation science" is the part creationists borrowed from real science.

YE creationists believe that only several thousand kinds of created land animals have diversified into all the various land animals we see today.

Would you say humans and chimps are a single kind? How about a cheetah and a lion? How about a fox and a dog? How much variation do you have for a "kind?"

God placed a large amount of information in the genomes of the parent kinds, for various body shapes and sizes and behaviors, which would allow them to diversify and fill the many environmental niches available in the empty land after the flood. For example, creationists believe that the single parent dog kind has diversified into the wolves, jackals, coyotes, dingoes, and domestic dogs that are presently found in our world.

How about bears? What if we had a fossil that was intermediate between dogs and bears? What then?

But you could not call this process of diversification by natural selection a form of evolution; it would more accurately be called devolution.

Forget Devo. There is not devolution. And we see, for example, that new features in organisms evolve by natrual selection. Do you think all monkeys (not apes) are a single kind? If so, we can give you a good example.

Every new species that branched off from the parent kind received only a subset of the total information present in the parent.

Interesting theory. But there's no evidence for that.

Each new species had less information in its genome than the original kind. You can easily see this if you look at what has happened with man’s breeding of domestic dogs. The parent stock of domestic dogs had a wide range of information in its genome for various body shapes and sizes and hair lengths. With selective breeding man has filtered that information to create breeds with specific characteristics. But each of those breeds has lost the information for variety that was previously present. Chihuahuas have lost all information for large size while Great Danes have lost all information for small size and both have lost all information for long hair.

So, you're saying that we could never breed Chihuahuas to become larger, or Great Danes to become smaller? Or that we could never have a long-haired great dane?

So this is what is always observed in our world today. We observe either stasis or we observe devolution.

You've been misled. We have several examples of useful new mutations in humans over the past few hundred years. Would you like to learn about them?

Genetic information can be transferred around or it can become specialized or it can be lost completely but it has never been directly observed that new information has entered the biosphere.

No, that's wrong, too.

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/260/30/16321.pdf

Evolutionists have not documented a single example of a mutation or a speciation event that has resulted in the creation of new information in an organism’s genome, ex nihilo.

They pulled a little fast one on you, there. Nothing in evolution is ex nihilo. It's always a modification of something else. New information is always modified old information. The old information is most often preserved, because of gene duplication.

Natural selection and mutation have no demonstrated ability to create information “out of nothing.â€Â

You're right. that's not how it works.

This is exactly the opposite of what evolution needs to actually work.

Wrong. That's precisely what we observe working.

If mutation and natural selection cannot provide a continuous supply of new information into the biosphere then evolution is impossible.

True. Fortunately, it does. Additional examples on request.

 

[Guest]

Well, this is my very first post to this forum. Hopefully I won't just be repeating what others have already said. Anyway, here goes.

One of the main criticisms that evolutionists throw at creationists is to claim that creation is based on religious belief while evolution is based on science. But is this actually the case? No it isn’t. I think it is quite easy to show that at its core the theory of evolution is not based on scientific evidence. To see that evolution is not science you just have to realize what foundational process has brought about all the scientific knowledge we have today. Every true scientific fact that humanity has developed over the centuries has come about through the experimental process.

:B-fly: I agree with you,and you are very wise to notice this and not be
swayed by the jargon that has been going around by some of the evolutionists who claim that some people are just not smart enough to
understand what they are saying simply because they were educated
in school before evolution got into the school systems.
You are wise in your thinking in my opinion,and I hope you don't change!
May God bless you always,in our precious & holy Lord,Jesus Christ,amen.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

:B-fly: I agree with you,and you are very wise to notice this and not be
swayed by the jargon that has been going around by some of the evolutionists who claim that some people are just not smart enough to
understand what they are saying simply because they were educated
in school before evolution got into the school systems.
<snip>

I disagree.
No evolution proponent here has said "You're too dumb to understand this."
We're saying you're either ignorant or ignoring the facts of life. It's not a hard concept to understand really. It's just the idea that genetically life changes over time and after enough changes occur to cause the heirarchical structure we see in taxonomy.

 

[Guest]

Evolution is not science it is a pagan religion.

This is just plain silly. When asked what religion one is, no one has ever said "evolutionist."

:B-fly: Wrong again! pagans have long believed in evolution,and it really makes no difference what religion they claimed,we know that they were evolutionists,just like many pagans still are today. You cannot seperate
evolution from it's pagan roots and say it's not religious because history
proves that it is,and Darwin knew this was true,and he studied theology.
Evolution is indeed a religion,and it is still part of many religions today.
How can you take the view of evolution,yet reject where it came from,or denie it's religious history and background?
Do your research,and find out.
It's one thing to claim being an atheist,it's another altogether to claim being an atheist and an evolutionist.
If your an atheist,be an atheist then,though I'd hope you wouldn't be,but if you choose to be an atheist,then be one,why make yourself look bad,and contradict yourself by accepting a religious belief?

 

[Guest]

:B-fly: I agree with you,and you are very wise to notice this and not be
swayed by the jargon that has been going around by some of the evolutionists who claim that some people are just not smart enough to
understand what they are saying simply because they were educated
in school before evolution got into the school systems.
<snip>

I disagree.
No evolution proponent here has said "You're too dumb to understand this."
We're saying you're either ignorant or ignoring the facts of life. It's not a hard concept to understand really. It's just the idea that genetically life changes over time and after enough changes occur to cause the heirarchical structure we see in taxonomy.

:Fade-color Note: I said SOME evolutionists! I didn't say they were all that way,of course you give the impression that you may have called others ignorant because their garbage radars don't accept your views.

 

[Guest]

A small article on how one can see evolution as opposed to intelligent design in everyday life is in this debate called "Living in an Evidence Free Zone".

Quath

:B-fly: There is no fact to any of the assumptions made by man to support evolution at all.

http://www.christiananswers.net
http://www.evidenceofgod.com
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com

 

[Asimov]

:B-fly: There is no fact to any of the assumptions made by man to support evolution at all.

http://www.christiananswers.net
http://www.evidenceofgod.com
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com

blue...there is no fact to any assumptions that you make that can support your argument. You assume that evolution equals atheism, or at least it means you cannot believe in God, when this is strictly not true. There is fact to evolution.

again, let's start with one thing you disagree with on evolution, and we'll discuss it. Name one thing you think evolution is wrong about.

 

[Guest]

:B-fly: There is no fact to any of the assumptions made by man to support evolution at all.

http://www.christiananswers.net
http://www.evidenceofgod.com
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com

blue...there is no fact to any assumptions that you make that can support your argument. You assume that evolution equals atheism, or at least it means you cannot believe in God, when this is strictly not true. There is fact to evolution.

again, let's start with one thing you disagree with on evolution, and we'll discuss it. Name one thing you think evolution is wrong about.

:B-fly: First of all,the idea of evolution was invented by pagan religious folks who also claimed faith in gods/godesses,and I did not say that evolutionists must be atheists,that simply is not true. many religions even today still believe in it.
I really don't disagree with evolution because I don't believe in it.
I may disagree with people because people are real,and we all have our own opinions. How can I disagree with something that is not even real to me?
Simply put,I don't believe in it.

 

[Guest]

:B-fly: There is no fact to any of the assumptions made by man to support evolution at all.

http://www.christiananswers.net
http://www.evidenceofgod.com
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com

There is fact to evolution.

:B-fly: There are no facts to prove nor support evolution.
Maybe to you there is,but there is none to me.