[_ Old Earth _] EVOLUTION - A BELIEVER'S PERSPECTIVE

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If he starts citing evidence, it's science.

Darwinism has always been based on circularity - 'evolutionism is true because evolutionists say it is true'.

You've been misled about that. And it's been true from the beginning. Darwin's book presents evidence in numbing detail. And modern scientists have continued to point to evidence. I don't blame you for being fooled once, but it isn't that hard to find a copy of Darwin's book and learn what it says.

Have you ever found your yet missing evidence that proves man and chimp have a common great-granddaddy or are you still scratching your head? Still scratching - right?

You missed the genetic, chromosomal, and anatomical data presented here? Seriously?

You do understand that denial isn't an adequate response to the data, do you not? You'll have to come up with a convincing reason not to accept the data.

Good luck.

 

[zeke]

Michael Ruse is confused and confusing matters. Evolutionary theory in and of itself can rightly be called science and it is studied and promoted by both theists and non-theists. There may be those who promote it as "an explicit substitute for Christianity," but that does not mean it actually is.

Ruse makes a valid point - evolution 'came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity'. Read a little history on the subject. Remember, he is an evolutionist who promotes the same Darwinian lore that you promote. For the record - what is the difference between your version of Darwinism and that promoted by Richard Dawkins?

 

[zeke]

Barbarian observes:
Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If he starts citing evidence, it's science.

But hundreds of PhD scientists Dissent From Darwinism for the obvious reasons - it does not have the evidence required to keep it afloat. You have been mislead my friend but you can learn from your errors - right?

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism’s key claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."@#$%Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces.

"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."

Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If he starts citing evidence, it's science.

But hundreds of PhD scientists Dissent From Darwinism

About 0.3% of PhD biologists, comparing the Discovery Institutes list with Project Steve. A tiny minority, all for religious reasons.

for the obvious reasons

Some of them are honest about it. Kurt Wise, a YE creationist, admits:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2009/01/honest-creationist-kurt-wise-spills.html

Harold Coffin, who testified for creationism in the Arkansas creationism trial, freely admitted that if it were not for his understanding of the Bible, the evidence would lead him to think the Earth was very old.
http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/ageearth.htm

So a tiny minority, all for religious, not scientific reasons. Your bandwagon approach is a loser for you.


"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."

Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

But Phil seems completely unaware that there are scores of journals also dedicated to problems and criticisms of chemistry, physics and all other sciences, as well. Any science with no problems left to solve, is dead.

Either Phil isn't very smart, or he's trying to be deceptive, or (more likely) someone carefully edited his words to make it appear he meant something he did not.

 

[zeke]

But Phil seems completely unaware that there are scores of journals also dedicated to problems and criticisms of chemistry, physics and all other sciences, as well. Any science with no problems left to solve, is dead.

The facts remain - "scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory" and hundreds of PhD scientists are becoming apostates to Darwinism for the obvious reasons. You can learn from their experiences and correct your thinking - yes? You have been mislead.

Are there credible scientists who doubt Neo-Darwinism?
Yes. Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.

"Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe." ~ Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy

​

 

[Barbarian]

The facts remain - "scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory"

and chemistry, and physics, and metallurgy, and so on. All sciences have a large number of unresoved problems. If not, they are dead, and there is nothing left to learn.

and hundreds of PhD scientists are becoming apostates to Darwinism for the obvious reasons.

About 0.3% of PhD biologists, all for religious reasons. Why such a tiny minority? Because the evidence is compelling. Of course, almost none of them are "apostates", since they entered the field with their religious beliefs in almost all cases.

But many, many more of them have learned about the evidence, and left creationism.

Here's one of those:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Former creationist, and ICR graduate, Glenn Morton

He was one of the lucky ones. More often, creationism leads people to abandon their faith, in the mistaken idea that Christianity is creationism.

You can learn from their experiences and correct your thinking - yes?

I hope that you will, rather than throw away your faith in God. As you see, your bandwagon argument is a loser for creationism; only a tiny minority of biologists accept the creationist faith.

 

[zeke]

and chemistry, and physics, and metallurgy, and so on. All sciences have a large number of unresoved problems.

Yet we do not see hundreds of PhD scientist signing a 'dissent from chemistry' document. Why Darwinism?

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast 'computer program' of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require -- or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have -- or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
It deserves to be heard.
Discovery Institute ​

 

[Barbarian]

Yet we do not see hundreds of PhD scientist signing a 'dissent from chemistry' document. Why Darwinism?

Because chemistry doesn't scare creationists.

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism.

Doctor Chris doesn't know that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life? Hard to believe, but then I know of some PhDs who will tell you that HIV doesn't do any damage to humans. You can always find someone who will say what you want.

Evolutionary theory, from the start, assumed living things, and described how they changed. If you doubt this, show us where, in Darwin's four basic points, it assumes anything at all about the origin of life. Or if you want to concede that point, show us how genetics, which with Darwinism, formed the modern synthesis, predicts the origin of life.

There Is Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

Indeed. The problem is, it lacks evidence. And that's pretty much the end of it.

It deserves to be heard.

In science, you don't get an extra point for being a good sport. You have evidence, or you don't.

Infuriating, maybe. But it works better than almost anything else humans can do.

 

[zeke]

Doctor Chris doesn't know that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life?

Oh, Chris Williams easily blows you out of the water my friend and it is you who misunderstands from whence evolutionism comes and what its real purpose is. You have bought into a lie Barb but you can learn from your error. Again, we do not see hundreds of PhD scientist signing a 'dissent from chemistry' document.

 

[zeke]

In science, you don't get an extra point for being a good sport. You have evidence, or you don't.

And you don't--have the required evidence. I have asked you to support your man-chimp common ancestry notion and you have failed completely---but you have been entertaining.

 

[Barbarian]

Even your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise admits that there are hominid transitionals. No point in denying the fact.

 

[zeke]

Even your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise admits that there are hominid transitionals. No point in denying the fact.

Moot point - we all agree there are 'alleged' hominid transitionals - we just want to see the evidence they are what they are claimed to be. Again I ask - do you have the required evidence to support your man-chimp common ancestry mythology that you have thus far failed to deliver? You do not - do you? If you do present your one very best evidence - or if you can't do that at least present your one best mediocre evidence.

Folks, you can easily see Barb's dilemma here. He boasts about all of this alleged evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor but when the rubber hits the road and he is asked to present this evidence he puts his evolutionary tail between his legs and runs. This is typical of those who have nothing to present. Barb has been sold a bill of goods by his teaching authority. There is hope that he can learn from this.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Even your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise admits that there are hominid transitionals. No point in denying the fact.

Moot point - we all agree there are 'alleged' hominid transitionals - we just want to see the evidence they are what they are claimed to be.

Well, let's see what he has to say about it:

Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.)
[p. 219]

Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
[p. 221]
http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/04.pdf

Again I ask - do you have the required evidence to support your man-chimp common ancestry mythology that you have thus far failed to deliver?

You forgot all of it again? I showed you the transitional hominins, including the anatomical details. I showed you fossil evidence, and the genetic and chromosomal data indicating human evolution from earlier hominins.

Why bother denying it? Everyone can go back and see the evidence.

Do I really have to show it all again to remind you? C'mon. Be honest with yourself, at least.

 

[Asyncritus]

Perhaps it's time for you to have a look at:

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9.htm

 

[Barbarian]

A few silly misconceptions about evolutionary theory from that site:

Thus we see that Darwin himself provided no really hard data to show that men were descended from anthropoid apes- it was all entire speculation!

An inference from evidence. He theorized, based on the evidence, that there would be found transitional forms between humans and other apes, in Africa and Asia. And both predictions were confirmed later. Not bad.

He went on to state (Descent, Chapter Six, ibid) that this lack of evidence for his theory would not trouble anyone who believes in evolution! And we see that it does not!

He correctly predicted that the transitionals would be found, and he predicted where they would be found. This sort of successful prediction is why evolutionary theory is accepted by almost all scientists.

This is rather incredible, that the man whom countless evolutionists over the past century and a half have anointed as the one who proved human evolution beyond a doubt,

This seems to be a complete fantasy. Can you show any scientific paper that makes such a claim?

If this is the sort of site from which you get your ideas, it's not surprising that you are so frequently embarrassed here.

 

[zeke]

An inference from evidence. He theorized, based on the evidence, that there would be found transitional forms between humans and other apes, in Africa and Asia. And both predictions were confirmed later. Not bad.

Can you provide those alleged transitionals on this thread in chronological order? Please, no dead-end ape lines. If you can't provide those transitionals just admit you have been snookered.

snooker: to fool; dupe​

 

[Barbarian]

Let's see... H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. habilis, A. ardipithecus, A. africanus, ... to name a few. Most of these didn't evolve by anagenesis, but by splitting off. So we don't know how long H. erectus (for example) lived on after the genus Homo evolved.

As you learned, even honest creationists admit that these transitional forms exist and are evidence for evolution. Kurt Wise, for example.

Would you like to see that, again? Here's another:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

 

[zeke]

Let's see... H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. habilis, A. ardipithecus, A. africanus, ... to name a few.

Remember, no dead-end ape lines. Is that about it? You failed.

As you learned, even honest creationists admit that these transitional forms exist and are evidence for evolution. Kurt Wise, for example.

<yawn>

 

[Barbarian]

So it always happens, when creationists are finally hemmed in by the evidence. they simply deny it.

Do you honestly think Homo erectus is an ape? Seriously?

Late H. erectus is indistinguishable from early H. sapiens. We can't even say for sure where one becomes the other.

Isn't it time you made your peace with God's creation?

 

[zeke]

Do you honestly think Homo erectus is an ape? Seriously?

Homo erectus is an extinct hominid species. You still have not presented an evolutionary progression from extinct ape lines to man other than more hand-waiving.