Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[Asyncritus]

Good grief. Barbarian. Won't you ever give up this nonsense. Abundant? Let's see the abundance.


More optimism. There are stronger descriptions, of course, but I'd be banned if I used them.

Let's see some of the abundant evidence for the evolution of platypuses. Here's a starter for 3 points:


Assuming that there was a split, of course. And 100 mya! More la-de-da land fairy stories.


Yes. Demonstrate tracheae, bronchi and alveoli and how a fish, submerged could possibly survive underwater using these organs, and why it would develop them in the first place.



That's a lion fish and a lion.

See any evolutionary connection? Yes, the name is similar, but, anything else?...Hmmm



Scientists can believe what they like, even absolute nonsense. Let's see this abundant evidence.
No cheating now - none of these silly phylogenetic diagrams, all fanciful and totally inaccurate.

And don't even mention Tiktaalik or Latimeria!! (Remember them?) That was a bunch of dufffers, wasn't it?


Woohoo, Barbarian! What an amazing assertion! Here are hundreds if not thousands of serious scientists saying evolution is nonsense (there's a bunch of them listed on the front page of this forum), and here are you nodding solemnly and gravely, as if there was no doubt about it.

Knowledge of the law of gravity sent men to the moon, allows calculations and predictions of the tides, and other huge truly scientific and practical predictions.

And there's Skell and Chain saying evolution is useless in the design of experiments, and of no worth whatsoever. Chain was particularly scathing, but as you say, no quotations are allowed!

How can you make such demonstrably false statements?



Correct science does so. Evolution is a religion, as the OP says. There's such a thing as circumstantial evidence, and it's usually completely wrong. That's all evolution has. It can't even demonstrate any reasonable number of speciations! Far less, the origin of genera, families and higher orders.



No it's not. Michael Ruse says so:

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

'The creation myth of our time' is an excellent description. It's god is natural selection, its prophet is Dawkins (and Darwin), its angels are mutations, and its disciples are well, its just too sad. More's the pity.


You didn't SHOW any examples. You merely made some flat, unsubstantiated assertions. Not admissible as evidence.



He didn't choose nature to make our physical selves. He chose to do it with His own two hands. "All these things have my hands made, saith the Lord." (Isa 66.1) I don't see any hands in the earth.


Of course it would be - just like social Darwinism and the products of that. Evolution is amoral, and removes the inconvenience of God and His Laws of behaviour.



If we are the products of nothing but blind forces, then why shouldn't nature, 'red in tooth and claw' be our guides? We're merely repeating behaviour we inherited from our ancestors. And who can blame us for doing so? After all, its in our genes, unalterable, and irrevocable.

No, evolution IS a religion. It has never been observed, it cannot be repeated and its continued existence depends largely on its power of blackmail over the scientists who wish to remain employed.

How many Americans still believe in God despite donkey's years of evolutionary brainwashing? 50%? Or is it 60%?

Says something, doesn't it?

Here's Lewontin:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ​

 

[Tristan]

Here's Lewontin:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ​

That quote is so full of personal opinions, I can't find the smallest of facts that it could be grounded in.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Milk-Drops, thank you for the reply. You may already know but it's been awhile since I've stated that I do very much enjoy science. I'm also not opposed to what has been discovered and labeled "Evolution". Further, if we accept the theory on the basis of what is observed and restrain our conclusions to what has been witnessed? There is no "religiosity" involved.

I know Sparrow, I just like to be thorough when I post.

We all operate under the burden of assumption. You may think me as the "opposition" because I'm a member and Moderator of the Young Earth Creation forum. But you should know that my posting rights to that forum came because I said that I was open to the idea. What I should confess is my ignorance and not my knowledge. I don't know and can't rightly declare what I have not seen. But when it comes to that, to the limits of my observed knowledge, pardon me as I point to the fact that what limits me here does not seem to limit others.

That's cool dude. For the most part, I don't see to many people here as the "oposition", with an exception or 2. I just enjoy talking and discussing things.

 

[Tristan]

Why do science and God have to be in conflict? That's what's absurd to me. For crying out loud, God created this universe! I don't deny the evidence in God's creation. I don't morph the world to match my beliefs. My beliefs need to match the world God created. There is literally no conflict between science and God.

Evolution is the method by which God developed life.

 

[Asyncritus]

That quote is so full of personal opinions, I can't find the smallest of facts that it could be grounded in.

Hey Tristan

Lewontin was professor of genetics (I think) at Harvard university.

He's probably looked a bit harder than you. Knew a bit more too.

Thanks

 

[Asyncritus]

Why do science and God have to be in conflict? That's what's absurd to me. For crying out loud, God created this universe! I don't deny the evidence in God's creation. I don't morph the world to match my beliefs. My beliefs need to match the world God created. There is literally no conflict between science and God.

Evolution is the method by which God developed life.

That's the point. Science and God are not in conflict. God and evolution are - but that's because evolution is not science, as I've been showing for years. It is incapable of accounting for such a lot, I don't know why they hang on to it.

But the end of its road is in sight.

Biologists (and there are a lot of these) have woken up to the fact the mutations don't produce anything new, after 55000 generations of bacteria, that is. Natural selection is on the way out, and has been for a long time, ever since Kimura published his findings.

Doesn't leave a lot. Creation, direct creation, is a far better fit to the facts.

 

[Tristan]

Hey Tristan

Lewontin was professor of genetics (I think) at Harvard university.

He's probably looked a bit harder than you. Knew a bit more too.

Thanks

Thanks for the argument from authority. Doesn't mean it's not an opinion. If you can provide some of what he had to say about WHY he asserted that, I'd be happy to discuss.

That's the point. Science and God are not in conflict. God and evolution are - but that's because evolution is not science, as I've been showing for years. It is incapable of accounting for such a lot, I don't know why they hang on to it.

But the end of its road is in sight.

Biologists (and there are a lot of these) have woken up to the fact the mutations don't produce anything new, after 55000 generations of bacteria, that is. Natural selection is on the way out, and has been for a long time, ever since Kimura published his findings.

Doesn't leave a lot. Creation, direct creation, is a far better fit to the facts.

Evolution is scientific. It was developed through the process of science.

I don't believe in random mutations. Darwinism is outmoded. The modern theory of evolution is a lot more sophisticated and refined. It's too bad so many people hang on to the old beliefs.

 

[Asyncritus]

I can't give you a review of Lewontin's work and the reasons for his opinions. But from the quotation above, you can see that he was a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist, hanging on to what he believed, despite the fact that he knew that it was garbage.

The discomfort with evolution is growing.
Some years ago, Gould and Eldredge were forced intellectually to recognise that gradual Darwinism couldn't hack it, especially in view of the fact that there are (and remain) such enormous gaps in the fossil record. So they came up with the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory, which tries to escape the force of the fossil record's flat denial of the theory of evolution. Here's Eldredge:

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations.... When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.

This is the verdict of modern paleontology: The record does not show gradual, Darwinian evolution. Otto Schindewolf, perhaps the leading paleontologist of the 20th century, wrote that the fossils “directly contradict” Darwin.

Because they knew this, they produced this foolish punctuated equilibrium theory, which looks just like another name for creation to me.

Michael Denton, who is an evolutionist of sorts, wrote an excellent book called Evolution: A Theory In Crisis. He brought up dozens of facts which completely bury it. Yet he clung on to what he described as 'directed evolution': probably because he had to have some kind of apparently scientific support .

But you can see just how stupid such an idea is.

A process depending on random mutations and the so-called 'natural selection' (which, BTW, has been seriously attacked recently), cannot possibly be 'directed' in any form or fashion: simply because 'directed' implies a 'Director' i.e. God, and that is something scientists simply will not swallow.

So the poor guy is stuck high and dry. He knows full well that evolution could not take place - and yet he can't go the whole hog and declare that God did it. His scientific reputation would be finished - it probably is, any way.

So you are right to think that mutations couldn't do the trick. But what do you put in its place? I can't imagine, and you'll have to tell me.

 

[Tristan]

Evolution definitely took place, just not Darwinian evolution based on random mutations.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Evolution definitely took place, just not Darwinian evolution based on random mutations.

Darwin never stated that evolution happens by random mutations. Darwin introduced the concept of natural selection. Mendel introduced mutations. It was the combination of both Darwin's work and Mendel's work that laid the foundation for evolutionary biology that we have today.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I can't give you a review of Lewontin's work and the reasons for his opinions. But from the quotation above, you can see that he was a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist, hanging on to what he believed, despite the fact that he knew that it was garbage.

You just contradicted yourself. You said you can't say anything about his opinions or work, yet you also state that you know he knew it was all garbage. You can't have it both ways. Also, he can't be dyed in the wool of a made up religion that only exists in the eye creationism apologists.

The discomfort with evolution is growing.

No, actually its getting smaller. Then again, if you only get your news from creationist propaganda sites and ignore people repeatedly point out studies that are more current, are not quote mines, and contradict what you say.

Some years ago, Gould and Eldredge

You never posted anything new here. Just repeats after repeats of the same few studies that have been shown to be wrong. If the decent is growing, why are you posting the same arguments and references over and over again?

So they came up with the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory,

If by came up with, you mean took the new evidence and formed the theory around the new facts, yeah they made it. It made the theory of Evolution make way more sense.

Because they knew this, they produced this foolish punctuated equilibrium theory, which looks just like another name for creation to me.

Rapid specieation due to new niches opening up for organisms, allowing for a long periods of time with less selection pressures. Is on the same as saying "God did it"

Michael Denton,

Another reuse. Anyone who wants to see how this quote will fail should just check out of the other hundred Async threads where he brought up Denton, and has the same argument every time where it eventually just devolves into Async just insulting everyone for being silly evolutionists when he can't shift around anymore.

A process depending on random mutations and the so-called 'natural selection' (which, BTW, has been seriously attacked recently)

By recently, you probably mean 10 to 30 years ago.

So you are right to think that mutations couldn't do the trick. But what do you put in its place? I can't imagine, and you'll have to tell me.

Why should anyone bother, when ever anyone attempts to have a conversation with you, it just devolves into you insulting people and spamming threads with the same quote mines and false articles over and over again.

 

[Asyncritus]

Darwin never stated that evolution happens by random mutations. Darwin introduced the concept of natural selection. Mendel introduced mutations. It was the combination of both Darwin's work and Mendel's work that laid the foundation for evolutionary biology that we have today.

Natural selection is a random-based process. If white moths sit on black trees, then they are the ones most likely to be picked off. That is not 'selection': it's merely the obvious.

That there is some 'natural selection' in the sense above, cannot be doubted, and for one, I don't doubt it.

But to say that that can account for the existence and origin of the millions of species in the world today, is foolish in the extreme. Yet, that is exactly what the evolutionists say: in fact, they can't say anything else. There's nothing else to say.

 

[Asyncritus]

You just contradicted yourself. You said you can't say anything about his opinions or work, yet you also state that you know he knew it was all garbage. You can't have it both ways. Also, he can't be dyed in the wool of a made up religion that only exists in the eye creationism apologists.

In case you've forgotten, here's what he did say. I've highlighted the bits that show that he thinks it's all garbage.

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

That sounds pretty much like 'it's all garbage' to me.

No, actually its getting smaller. Then again, if you only get your news from creationist propaganda sites and ignore people repeatedly point out studies that are more current, are not quote mines, and contradict what you say.
You never posted anything new here. Just repeats after repeats of the same few studies that have been shown to be wrong. If the decent is growing, why are you posting the same arguments and references over and over again?

Because truth remains the truth, and neither you nor I can change it. From Darwin's day to this, nobody has ever shown, without any kind of doubt, that transitional fossils exist. Yes, there are, and have been stupid claims - fake claims by the dozen too, especially in the fossil birds from China - about the certainty that these are transitionals.

There aren't any, no matter how much Barbarian hypes them up.

If by came up with, you mean took the new evidence and formed the theory around the new facts, yeah they made it. It made the theory of Evolution make way more sense.

Evolution does not make any sense, once you start thinking about it for yourself and by yourself.

Simple things make nonsense of it. Like, for instance, there are single celled creatures that don't have a nucleus, and there are single celled creatures that do have a nucleus.

Can you see the nucleus in the second picture? There isn't one in the first.

Those without a nucleus are more 'primitive' than those that have a nucleus. That's what they say.

But the problem is, how does an organism without a nucleus become an organism with a nucleus? What drives the change?

Answer: dunno.

Rapid specieation due to new niches opening up for organisms, allowing for a long periods of time with less selection pressures. Is on the same as saying "God did it"

There's no such thing as rapid speciation. In case you haven't heard, good old Lenski bred 55 000 generations of bacteria, and not a single new species arose.

Now if it takes 55 000 generations to produce 0 new species, how long do you think it took to produce 1 000 000 new species, as in the Cambrian?

So what 'rapid speciation' are you talking about?

Another reuse. Anyone who wants to see how this quote will fail should just check out of the other hundred Async threads where he brought up Denton, and has the same argument every time where it eventually just devolves into Async just insulting everyone for being silly evolutionists when he can't shift around anymore.

As I say, the truth doesn't change. Denton brought up solid facts which haven't changed since he wrote the book. Why not have a read of it, unless you're scared of the truth?

By recently, you probably mean 10 to 30 years ago.

Not so.

Here's one:

IDers like to portray evolution as being built entirely on an edifice of darwinian natural selection. This caricature of evolutionary biology is not too surprising. Most molecular, cell and developmental biologists subscribe to the same creed, as do many popular science writers. However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evol...nism-is-a-caricature-of-evolutionary-biology/
Michael Lynch, May 2005

Lynch is a Member of the National Academy of Sciences, and wrote that in 2005, 8 years ago. He's probably added to it since then.

Why should anyone bother, when ever anyone attempts to have a conversation with you, it just devolves into you insulting people and spamming threads with the same quote mines and false articles over and over again.

I don't insult people. I insult stupid ideas - like evolution. That's what the ToS says should happen, and it's been repeated a few times now. I'm sorry if you think that insulting the idea is a personal insult: it is not intended to be. I don't know you, and don't wish to be offensive.

If you think my ideas are worth insulting, please do so: I'm a big boy now, and I look at these things objectively.
And if the moderators don't get you for insulting me with accusations of quotemining and spamming, then they should, because that's a reportable offense.

But I don't quotemine. If you think that I do, then prove it. There's a quote above. Show that that is a quotemine, or withdraw your remark.

 

[Barbarian]

That quote is so full of personal opinions, I can't find the smallest of facts that it could be grounded in.

In general, when creationists argue with scientists, the scientists will bring up facts, and creationists will rely on quotes. Since science is based on facts, not quoted material (which often turns out to be misleading) creationism always loses.

That one is a prime example. Facts are the enemy for creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

The discomfort with evolution is growing.
Some years ago, Gould and Eldredge were forced intellectually to recognise that gradual Darwinism couldn't hack it, especially in view of the fact that there are (and remain) such enormous gaps in the fossil record. So they came up with the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory, which tries to escape the force of the fossil record's flat denial of the theory of evolution.

Here's Gould, on that line of argument:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

But as I said, opinions don't count in science. Let's test Asyc's belief. Async, show me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional for you. You're on.

 

[Barbarian]

IDers like to portray evolution as being built entirely on an edifice of darwinian natural selection. This caricature of evolutionary biology is not too surprising. Most molecular, cell and developmental biologists subscribe to the same creed, as do many popular science writers. However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evol...nism-is-a-caricature-of-evolutionary-biology/
Michael Lynch, May 2005

And according to the laws of population genetics, natural selection--the phenomenon that culls less-than-stellar variation from populations--simply isn't as effective in smaller populations.
In Lynch's scenario, random mutations that arose by chance, such as the inclusion of extra DNA in a gene, slipped past natural selection, building up in populations over the billions of years that eukaryotes have evolved. The buildup of mutations in small populations--a phenomenon known as "drift"--can outpace natural selection, leading some characteristics to become established in populations even if they don't make evolutionary sense. It all boils down to a game of numbers: the smaller the number of individuals in a species, the greater the role chance plays in the evolution of its genome...
Nor has his research been ignored by the intelligent design (ID) community. "I push this idea of what we call non-Darwinian processes--drift and mutation," says Lynch. "But people in the ID community always take it out of context. They hear 'non-Darwinian,' and they read that as non-evolution, because they equate evolution with natural selection. So they love to quote me."

It's a subtle but significant point. Natural selection, sometimes called "Darwinian selection," is only one of several mechanisms by which evolution proceeds. Even Charles Darwin himself argued that natural selection was not the only agent of evolution. Lynch agrees, emphasizing the role of chance events in genome evolution.http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v28n2/evolution.shtml
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v28n2/evolution.shtml

Imagine that. Since I learned about neutralist theories and how they fit into the Darwinian theory in the 1960s, it looks like the problem is that some people don't get Darwin's theory very well. Ignorance is the enemy.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Natural selection is a random-based process.

Survival rates don't tend to be random.

If white moths sit on black trees, then they are the ones most likely to be picked off. That is not 'selection': it's merely the obvious.

It is selection, because that is exactly what the theory predicts. The organisms less adapted to the ecosystem won't live that long. A bunch of white moths living in an area filled with black trees will more then get eat.

But to say that that can account for the existence and origin of the millions of species in the world today, is foolish in the extreme. Yet, that is exactly what the evolutionists say: in fact, they can't say anything else. There's nothing else to say.

If you took the time to actually study phylogeny, instead of just saying its foolish nonsense, there is no other way to explain the origin of modern species. Your ignorance doesn't make the theory foolish. It is however foolish to make claims and call other people foolish over topics you have ignorance of.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Because there is abundant evidence for the evolution of mammals from reptiles. Would you like to learn about some of it?

Good grief. Barbarian. Won't you ever give up this nonsense. Abundant? Let's see the abundance.

Sure. Mammals are distinguished from reptiles by a single lower jaw bone, the dentary. Reptiles have three. The reptilian lower jaw has two functions. One is bite, and the other is to transmit sound waves to the middle ear. This is why reptiles often put their lower jaws to the ground; it helps to pick up vibrations.

Over a long sequence of fossils in therapsid reptiles, we see the dentary getting larger, and the three other bones getting smaller but still associated with the middle ear. Eventually, a second jaw joint forms at the dentary, while retaining the primitive one (reptiles such as Diarthrognathus). And a bit later, we see the old jaw joint completely gone. Later, we see the three other bones even smaller, and more closely attatched to the middle ear. And they still exist in humans as the three ossicles of the middle ear.

,

Is there evidence for this in living organisms? Turns out, there is. In the opossum, the adult has the usual mammalian arrangement, with a single dentary bone, and the other three in the middle ear. But in the newborn opossum, in the pouch, we see those three bones still attached to the dentary. They later disassociate from the lower jaw, and only retain a connection with the middle ear as you can see happening in the fossil record.http://books.google.com/books?id=MZ0KAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=opossum fetus middle ear dentary&source=bl&ots=kM4PWOU1tt&sig=yjhhi3p2vWPcQegl0pBKmOMuBmk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oXioUuiPDNPRkQf464DgDA&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=opossum fetus middle ear dentary&f=false

We can also see an entire suite of other mammalian characters evolving gradually in therapsids, such as reduction and loss of cervical ribs, reduction and simplification of the shoulder girdle, complex dental formulae, a second occipital condyle, and so on. Would you like me to show you these things?

Barbarian, regarding a modern transitional mammal:
Yep. It was probably a surprise to learn that platypuses are transitional between reptiles and mammals. Just what the theory predicted. Egg-laying, reptilian skeletal features, a cloaca, and more.

More optimism.

Evidence is good cause for optimism, yes. As you see, a mammal that retains many reptilian features, like reptilian eggs, robust and complex shoulder joints, sprawling posture, and so on, is another important bit of evidence for the evolution of mammals.

Let's see some of the abundant evidence for the evolution of platypuses.

Sure. Platypuses don't have teeth. But their embyros do. The teeth are later lost. There are fossil platypuses, of species that had teeth as adults.

Barbarian notes the evidence for lung formation in fish:
In fish. Some of them still use the swim bladder as a gas exchange organ. And we can find all sorts transitional forms of primitive lungs still in existence in living fish.

Would you like to see that?

Yes.

O.K.

Evidence from paleontological and anatomical data:
http://biologylabs.utah.edu/farmer/publications pdf/1997 Paleobiology23.pdf

The lungs of tetrapods and the swim bladders or lungs of fish both arise from the same tissue in embyros, as a outpouching of the esophagus. In some fish, such as ganoids like gars, the bladders are still connected to the esophagus as ours are, and they serve mostly as lungs, delivering oxygen to the blood, and removing carbon dioxide. Lungfish have even better developed lungs and at least one species cannot live without breathing air.

Demonstrate tracheae, bronchi and alveoli and how a fish, submerged could possibly survive underwater using these organs, and why it would develop them in the first place.

this abundant evidence.[/QUOTE]

See above. But there is also this:

Note an entire sequence of transitional fossils, showing the development of lobed fins into tetrapod limbs. In fact, it's impossible to say where fish leave off, and tetrapods begin.

And don't even mention Tiktaalik or Latimeria!!

Tktaalik was a transitional, as you see. And as you learned a long time ago, coelacanths are also not on the line that led to tetrapods, although they are close to the base of that line.

Barbarian observes:

As surely as gravity. In fact, better than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still don't know for sure why gravity works.​

Here are hundreds if not thousands of serious scientists saying evolution is nonsense (there's a bunch of them listed on the front page of this forum)

Comparing that list to Project Steve (to qualify, you have to have a doctorate in biology or a related discipline, and be named "Steve" or some variant) we find that about 0.3 of biologists doubt evolution. As I said, it's more solid than gravity. (your list, BTW, does not list scientists who say evolution is nonsense; you might want to go back and learn about it)

and here are you nodding solemnly and gravely, as if there was no doubt about it.

See above. Would you like to see the numbers? The bandwagon argument is a very bad one for creationism. It always backfires, as it did this time.

Knowledge of the law of gravity sent men to the moon, allows calculations and predictions of the tides, and other huge truly scientific and practical predictions.

As you learned, evolutionary theory has given us antibiotic protocols to slow the evolution of resistance, and allows us to predict new forms of resistance that might appear. Even Alexander Flemming, using evolutionary theory, predicted and warned about the evolution of resistance.

And there's Skell and Chain saying evolution is useless in the design of experiments, and of no worth whatsoever.

See above. Surprise. Reality beats opinions any day.

How can you make such demonstrably false statements?

Barbarian observes:
Science works by inferences from evidence. As you just learned, nothing is more scientific than these conclusions.

Correct science does so.

Yep. Science works on facts, creationism depends on quotes.

Evolution is a religion, as the OP says.

Easy way to check. Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he starts talking about evidence, it's science. If he starts quoting Darwin, it's faith. That's how we know creationism is a religion.

There's such a thing as circumstantial evidence, and it's usually completely wrong. That's all evolution has. It can't even demonstrate any reasonable number of speciations!

As you admitted, there are a number of demonstrated speciations. I showed you that the observed rate (even if you assume we found every single example) is enough to amount to millions of speciations during the Cambrian Explosion. So more than enough.

Far less, the origin of genera, families and higher orders.

You're fond of citing Gould, so...

Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould.

Philosophy is not about science. Science, as you might know, is about inferences from evidence. I just showed you some examples.

You didn't SHOW any examples.

No point in denying it. Any one can check and see. And I just gave you some more.

Odd way to paint God's most beloved creation. He chose to use nature to make our physical selves. Why is that so offensive to you?

He didn't choose nature to make our physical selves. He chose to do it with His own two hands.

He says all living things, including man, were made from the earth. And of course, God doesn't have hands, or a nose, or kneecaps. He's a spirit as Jesus said. And spirits have no bones, God says.

Barbarian observes:.

I find it very troubling that someone might think pedophilia would be OK if evolution is a fact.​

Of course it would be

That troubles me, Async.

just like social Darwinism and the products of that. Evolution is amoral

So is plumbing. You think plumbing means pedophilia is O.K.?

Barbarian observes:
Given that you've been reminded that what is true about nature is not a guide to human conduct, I'm puzzled as to what you're saying here. From the beginning, Darwin pointed out that nature is not what we are compelled to follow.

If we are the products of nothing but blind forces, then why shouldn't nature, 'red in tooth and claw' be our guides?

Darwin, considering his theory, thought not. And you oppose his theory and think so. That's pretty much all the evidence we need.

 

[Tristan]

Just to throw in another ...I'm not entirely sure of how to articulate everything, but this is how I see it.

I don't believe in an evolution where information is magically created from mutations. It's important (at least for me) that we make a clear distinction between Darwinism and modern evolution because both systems tend to be mixed and used interchangeably when there are some important differences.

The odds of mutations being the driving force for evolution are pathetically low. Mutations are frequently harmful. If you change the code, it's likely that you're going to get a combination that doesn't work. This of course isn't the only issue...because sometimes you're going to get a combination that does work. Statistically speaking, it's bound to happen at some point. The issue is that a single mutation has to spread across an entire population. This requires a whole bunch of fortuitous bottlenecks happening at regular intervals in our history...and the history of other animals. The whole thing is rather miraculous.

What makes a lot more sense to me is that the genetic information exists already, and based on the environment, certain genes are switched on and off. In fact, I read an article a while back (I wish I could find it) that explained how cells actually make these changes proactively! We've found evidence that they're aware of their environment and can switch these genes on and off on their own. In fact, there are certain parts of our DNA that are specifically meant for this.

In the end though, this has nothing to do with whether or not God created the universe. All we're doing is observing the world around us and learning the process by which God created life as we know it. The only people that are threatened by this are YECists...which I guess make up a fair number of our members here. Nobody can ever seem to answer why we're taking facts and modifying them to fit our beliefs (or ignoring them). We're denying God's creation...

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-genetic-big-role-human-evolution.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/education/body/switching-genes-on-off.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26872/

 

[Barbarian]

Async writes:

Natural selection is a random-based process.

Demonstrably false. It's been repeatedly shown to increase fitness over time. Even most creationists now admit that much. Flemming, for example, predicted that natural selection would make bacteria more fit in an environment with antibiotics, and his prediction was, as you know, confirmed by reality.

Would you like to see some more examples?