[_ Old Earth _] Scientists against evolution

[ArtGuy]

Ok, here- 29+ evidences for evolution- ... oh, MACROevolution- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Okay, so I read through that, and I have a couple of questions.

That article says, for example:

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Non-seed plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only some angiosperms have woody stems. Conceivably, some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals. A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies.

Doesn't the kiwi bird have "feathers" that are basically hair, like a mammal does? The platypus lays eggs, like bird or reptile. Don't examples like these serve as evidence against this particular point in favor of evolution? If not, could you please explain why?

Secondly, as regards to transitional creatures:

Any finding of a striking half-mammal, half-bird intermediate would be highly inconsistent with common descent.

Again, we have the platypus, which apparently is "highly inconsistent with common descent." Whoops.

More generally, I don't think the existence of certain creatures which happen to appear as intermediaries between other forms is strong evidence for evolution, especially given the huge number of creatures we have. Look at the selection of cars released in 2005. We have SUVs and sports cars and sedans and station wagons and minivans and regular vans and others. Station wagons look like transitional forms between sedans and SUVs. Minivans look like transitions between SUVs and vans. And among individual cars, there are tons that look like you took two other cars and mated them. You have simple cars, like cruddy 2-cylinder weenie-mobiles, and then you have complicated cars rife with gizmos and high technology. But still, this doesn't mean that these cars are the product of gradual evolution. They were, in fact, all created at once by an intelligent agent (or, in this case, a whole bunch of intelligent agents.) If we don't see this as evidence of the evolution of cars, why do we see it as the evolution of creatures?

In addition to these couple of questions, I have a couple of others. First, isn't it true that there are large gaps in the evolutionary model of history? Like, we see two species, and we figure that A must have evolved from B, but we have no actual fossils from this mysterious transitional form? Second, what of the problem of irreducible complexity? Things like the eyeball, which would be useless if you took away any one part? Aren't these things major sticking points in evolutionary theory?

 

[Oran_Taran]

Other men, usually believers, understand the difference between animals and mankind. There is quite a distinction.

which is....?

Okay, so I read through that, and I have a couple of questions.

GASP! you actually read the link I gave you? Doesn't matter if it wasn't all of it, you actually looked at it?!!! you're my hero! lol. I think you're the first person i EVER give that link to that even attempted to read it.

Doesn't the kiwi bird have "feathers" that are basically hair, like a mammal does?

You're right that it looks like hair... oh, here, let's do a lil experiment. Personally I don't know much about kiwis (at least not about their feather structure lol), but using evolution, I predict that if evolution is true... kiwi feathers LOOK like hair, but they come out like feathers, and they have small differences that make them feathers and not hair, etc. I'll search in a second...

The platypus lays eggs, like bird or reptile.

True, but mammals AND birds evolved from reptiles, therefore it's no big surprise that some living mammals lay eggs.

Don't examples like these serve as evidence against this particular point in favor of evolution? If not, could you please explain why?

Sure, they serve as evidence, but it's not very good evidence.
first, because of what I already explained. Second, because there is also this thing called covergent evolution. That is when two unrelated lineages evolve in the same environment, and therefore have similar adaptations. Dolphins and sharks for example... they may look very similar, but that's because they evolved in the same environment and natural selection favors a specific kind of trait.
HOWEVER.... there is always a difference in chemical structure, gene location, a developmental difference, etc. that shows their true lineages. For example, dolphin fins have "hands" inside (carpas, metacarpals, phalanges or however you spell it, etc that are just like other mammals') while sharks have "skeletons" made out of cartilage, and don't have "hands". Same with everything else...
what WOULD be strong evidence against evolution would be TRUE structures in other unrelated organisms. Say TRUE hair (with hair follicles, exactly how hairs grow, etc) in birds, something we do not find... etc

Again, we have the platypus, which apparently is "highly inconsistent with common descent." Whoops.

How?
(to be continued)

 

[Oran_Taran]

as for my kiwi prediction...

and barely any wings either: the vestiges are so small that they are invisible under the kiwi's bristly, hair-like, two-branched feathers.

(wikipedia: kiwi)
and actually, since we're alrady talking about kiwis, note it talks about the vestigial wings.
ok, back to my prediction... It DOES say "two-branched feathers". Personally I have never heard of a branched hair (split ends don't count of course),
aha, look at this site- http://www.kiwirecovery.org.nz/AboutThe ... keHair.htm it even has pictures of the feathers, and they don't look like hair. They don't look like regular feathers either, but they do look like strange feathers... which is what they are :P

More generally, I don't think the existence of certain creatures which happen to appear as intermediaries between other forms is strong evidence for evolution, especially given the huge number of creatures we have

I see your point, but you also have to look at the timeline, the geographical distribution, habits, etc. Put everything together, and it is VERY strong evidence for evolution.

If we don't see this as evidence of the evolution of cars, why do we see it as the evolution of creatures?

Your car example also has a flaw... they WERE created by intelligent beings. Cars are made so that people will by them, and that means that designers will look at what society wants and build cars to look like society sees fit, and therefore cars look alike.

First, isn't it true that there are large gaps in the evolutionary model of history?

Well, there ARE some gaps. Nobody's saying the record is perfect. However, to expect perfection would be crazy. We do have a lot of good lineages mapped out, and the more fossils are found the more those gaps are filled in.
There are a lot of reasons why there are still gaps... one, because fossilization is a very rare event. The vast majority of organisms die and are eaten relatively quickly. Sometimes it's the environment that makes it hard for something to fossilize, such as say a rainforest, where the humidity, heat, biodiversity, and biomass, all contribute to the fast disposal of dead bodies. The open ocean is another example, as the bodies may first float when dead (so a lot of the decomposition happens in the surface) and then when they finally start to sink, they have to do so for MILES before reaching the bottom. And even at the bottom, there aren't very many things down there that will cover the remains quick enough to fossilize them.
There's also the animals themselves. Small animals rot faster, soft animals (say, a slug) are almost impossible to preserve, animals that live in the canopy MAY (this part is my own speculation) be harder to fossilize than animals that dig deep down, etc.
OH, and what's more, the rate of evolution changes. Organims evolve faster if there are a lot of niches to fill, etc.
So yes, there are gaps, but the problem would come if there WEREN'T any gaps. THEN you could say there's evidence of a higher being, as it would be kind of creepy if the 4.5 billion years of the earth were completely mapped out... don't you think?
and having said that... there ARE also a LOT of transitional fossils. The evolution of horses is a good example.

Second, what of the problem of irreducible complexity?

Simply, it doesn't exist in nature, because everything evolved. Nobody has ever found an irreducible compl..icated...? structure in an organism. Creationists say they have, but they haven't.

Things like the eyeball, which would be useless if you took away any one part?

since you provided an example, I'll use that one.
It IS true that if you took one random part, the eye may not work (say the retina). However, you have to keep in mind that there is an order in which things evolve. Obviously the cornea did NOT evolve before the retina...
Also, you have to keep in mind that eyes evolved a long time ago.
Another thing is that some "IC (from irriducible complexity) structures" can be explained by the fact that the structure started out having another function. An example might be the vampire finches in the galapagos island. At first, the beaks evolved to crack seeds and stuff like that, but now it is being used to suck blood from bobies.
having said that... specifically about the eye... Well, Talkorigins is good, why waste my time typing out something that would end up probably being er... not so good?
here- (from order of the best one to the worst one... no need to read them all, I don't want to torture you with my links, Just read enough until you're convinced it could have evolved)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html (key phrase: All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
so in summary,

Aren't these things major sticking points in evolutionary theory?

nope.

 

[ArtGuy]

Oran_Taran, you make some good points, and I admit I don't know how to respond to all of them. I'm going to have to do some research on the matter, from both creationist and evolutionist sources. On the evolutionist side, a friend has offered to lend me a book called "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". Do you think this would be a good choice? It has the advantage of me not having to pay for it.

On the creationist side, I'll have to do some poking about and try to find a good candidate.

 

[Oran_Taran]

On the evolutionist side, a friend has offered to lend me a book called "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". Do you think this would be a good choice? It has the advantage of me not having to pay for it.

I have no idea :P If you have any questions, you can always look up talkorigins.com, or ask me... I have like a million evolution/creationism/ID links.

On the creationist side, I'll have to do some poking about and try to find a good candidate.

he he he... good luck with THAT! :P
Many creationist arguments seem logical and good, but not if you really look at the evidence, their arguments, etc.
There is a reason why 99+% (a figure I got form wikipedia) of biologists accept evolution.

 

[ArtGuy]

There is a reason why 99+% (a figure I got form wikipedia) of biologists accept evolution.

99% of physicists used to accept Newton's laws, too. ;)

 

[Oran_Taran]

what? newton was wrong? since when?

 

[peace4all]

There is a reason why 99+% (a figure I got form wikipedia) of biologists accept evolution.

99% of physicists used to accept Newton's laws, too. ;)

I too am confused.. I was pretty sure newtons laws were right, considering I have tested a majority of them myself in physics class...

 

[Oran_Taran]

If you meant they were INCOMPLETE since einstein came over and expanded them, that's not really being wrong, just the word "laws" didn't fit very well. Here's an interesting article that everyone even mildly interested in science should read. It deals with theories, evolution, einstein, the whole thing. and ESPECIALLY those who are always saying "that's just a theory", which is really annoying:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7490426/

 

[Heidi]

If you meant they were INCOMPLETE since einstein came over and expanded them, that's not really being wrong, just the word "laws" didn't fit very well. Here's an interesting article that everyone even mildly interested in science should read. It deals with theories, evolution, einstein, the whole thing. and ESPECIALLY those who are always saying "that's just a theory", which is really annoying:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7490426/

The difference between Einstein's theories and Darwin's theory is that Einstein agrees with God and Darwin does not. Once again, when scientists agree with God, they will always be right. But when they disagree with God, they will always be wrong. No human being simply knows better than God does despite how many people think they do. ;-)

 

[armed2010]

If you meant they were INCOMPLETE since einstein came over and expanded them, that's not really being wrong, just the word "laws" didn't fit very well. Here's an interesting article that everyone even mildly interested in science should read. It deals with theories, evolution, einstein, the whole thing. and ESPECIALLY those who are always saying "that's just a theory", which is really annoying:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7490426/

The difference between Einstein's theories and Darwin's theory is that Einstein agrees with God and Darwin does not. Once again, when scientists agree with God, they will always be right. But when they disagree with God, they will always be wrong. No human being simply knows better than God does despite how many people think they do. ;-)

Can you show us where in the Bible Einsteins Theory of Relativity is shown to agree with god?

 

[armed2010]

If you meant they were INCOMPLETE since einstein came over and expanded them, that's not really being wrong, just the word "laws" didn't fit very well. Here's an interesting article that everyone even mildly interested in science should read. It deals with theories, evolution, einstein, the whole thing. and ESPECIALLY those who are always saying "that's just a theory", which is really annoying:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7490426/

The difference between Einstein's theories and Darwin's theory is that Einstein agrees with God and Darwin does not. Once again, when scientists agree with God, they will always be right. But when they disagree with God, they will always be wrong. No human being simply knows better than God does despite how many people think they do. ;-)

Can you show us where in the Bible Einsteins Theory of Relativity is shown to agree with god?

 

[Heidi]

According to some, evolutionary science is such nonsense, and flies in the face of things like logic, common sense and the second law of thermodynamics. These individuals would have you believe that evolution is the subject of considerable controversy in scientific arenas. Certainly, if evolution broke the laws of physics, wouldn't physicists have mentioned this to biologists some time ago.

How do these individuals explain that most major universities have entire departments dedicated to the study of evolution. Hundreds of scientists, millions of dollars in research, entire buildings, thousands of students. Wow. Are they all deluded? Are they all stupid? All these highly educated people?


Here is a brief list of some very hightly rated schools that have a "dept of evolution". How do you explain this without dismissing them all as "secular schools" (even though they all have theology departments as well), or by quoting scripture that says stuff like "professing themselves to be wise they became fools", or "many will be deceived in the end times by the Beast".

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University
http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/

Harvard University - Department of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/

Cornell universtiy Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu

Rice Universtiy Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
eeb.rice.edu/

University of California, Irvine Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
ecoevo.bio.uci.edu

UCLA Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.eeb.ucla.edu/



Yale Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
http://www.eeb.yale.edu

The Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
eebweb.arizona.edu/

Oxford, Evolutionary BIology Group
evolve.zoo.ox.ac.uk

University of Tennessee, Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
eeb.bio.utk.edu/

Tulane University Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.tulane.edu

Brown University Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/EEB/








:roll:

No. Because the single bigeest fear in people is admitting they're wrong. Again, it is simply a fact that one species cannot simply change into another species without being able to breed with that species. It has never been witnessed in realit or is provable at all. They are simply man-made scenarios. It is also a fact that apes and humans cannot interbreed. So evolutionists either do not know these facts or they're openly lying about them to save their pride. And since they have received degrees, I hardly doubt they are that ignorant of these facts, so they are simply lying about them to save their own pride. :wink:

 

[Heidi]

It is also a law of ophysics, biology, and reproduction, (God's laws) that all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors, (regardless of whether or not they want to). But evolutionists try to go against those laws when claiming that humans are desendants of apes. So they are clearly violating the laws of physics, reporoduction, and biology by claiming that humans are desendants of apes. But do they care? No, which means they are not interested in the truth, but only in defying God. This again is the degree that men will lie to claim that God doesn't exist. :wink:

 

[ArtGuy]

If you meant they were INCOMPLETE since einstein came over and expanded them, that's not really being wrong, just the word "laws" didn't fit very well.

Well, technically they were wrong, because the results they yield are merely approximations. They're still very useful approximations, which is why my engineers don't need to bother with Lorentz transformations when determining how thick a bridge beam needs to be.

I know that evolution, if correct, doesn't really parallel the Newton-Einstein thing well, I was just making a (feeble) joke.

Though really, if you want to be precise, Einstein's theories disagree with the God of YEC. He proposed that light moved at a constant velocity, and that this was a fundamental and invariable feature of the universe. Einstein was certainly not a YEC.

 

[kellivision]

It is also a law of ophysics, biology, and reproduction, (God's laws)

Ophysics? Never heard of it.:P

that all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors, (regardless of whether or not they want to).

First of all, you'ld have to showus the laws of physics, biology, reproduction (there's a law of reproduction?), and law of God that states: "descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors".

Also, do you really want to go down the path you've chosen? Do you really want to stick with your position of: "all descendants are capable breeding with their ancestors"? Seriously?

But evolutionists try to go against those laws when claiming that humans are desendants of apes. So they are clearly violating the laws of physics, reporoduction, and biology by claiming that humans are desendants of apes. But do they care? No, which means they are not interested in the truth, but only in defying God. This again is the degree that men will lie to claim that God doesn't exist. :wink:

I'm having a hard time taking the above seriously, if it was posted by anybody else, I'ld have invoked Poe's law.

Anyway, once again I'll ask that you provide the laws of physics, reproduction, and biology, tht say what you've claimed. If you can't provide them, should that be taken as the "degree that men/women will lie to claim that evolution doesn't occur"?[/quote]

 

[kellivision]

It is also a law of ophysics, biology, and reproduction, (God's laws)

Ophysics? Never heard of it.

that all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors, (regardless of whether or not they want to).

First of all, you'ld have to showus the laws of physics, biology, reproduction (there's a law of reproduction?), and law of God that states: "descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors".

Also, do you really want to go down the path you've chosen? Do you really want to stick with your position that "all descendants are capable breeding with their ancestors"? Seriously?

But evolutionists try to go against those laws when claiming that humans are desendants of apes. So they are clearly violating the laws of physics, reporoduction, and biology by claiming that humans are desendants of apes. But do they care? No, which means they are not interested in the truth, but only in defying God. This again is the degree that men will lie to claim that God doesn't exist.

I'm having a hard time taking the above seriously, if it was posted by anybody else, I'ld have invoked Poe's law.

Anyway, once again I'll ask that you provide the laws of physics, reproduction, and biology, tht say what you've claimed. If you can't provide them, should that be taken as the "degree that men/women will lie to claim that evolution doesn't occur"?[/quote]

 

[kellivision]

It is also a law of ophysics, biology, and reproduction, (God's laws)

Ophysics? Never heard of it.

that all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors, (regardless of whether or not they want to).

First of all, you'ld have to showus the laws of physics, biology, reproduction (there's a law of reproduction?), and law of God that states: "descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors".

Also, do you really want to go down the path you've chosen? Do you really want to stick with your position that "all descendants are capable breeding with their ancestors"? Seriously?

But evolutionists try to go against those laws when claiming that humans are desendants of apes. So they are clearly violating the laws of physics, reporoduction, and biology by claiming that humans are desendants of apes. But do they care? No, which means they are not interested in the truth, but only in defying God. This again is the degree that men will lie to claim that God doesn't exist.

I'm having a hard time taking the above seriously, if it was posted by anybody else, I'ld have invoked Poe's law.

Anyway, once again I'll ask that you provide the laws of physics, reproduction, and biology, tht say what you've claimed. If you can't provide them, should that be taken as the "degree that men/women will lie to claim that evolution doesn't occur"?

 

[kellivision]

It is also a law of ophysics, biology, and reproduction, (God's laws)

Ophysics? Never heard of it. :P

that all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors, (regardless of whether or not they want to).

First of all, you'ld have to showus the laws of physics, biology, reproduction (there's a law of reproduction?), and law of God that states: "descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors".

Also, do you really want to go down the path you've chosen? Do you really want to stick with your position that "all descendants are capable breeding with their ancestors"? Seriously?

But evolutionists try to go against those laws when claiming that humans are desendants of apes. So they are clearly violating the laws of physics, reporoduction, and biology by claiming that humans are desendants of apes. But do they care? No, which means they are not interested in the truth, but only in defying God. This again is the degree that men will lie to claim that God doesn't exist.

I'm having a hard time taking the above seriously, if it was posted by anybody else, I'ld have invoked Poe's law.

Anyway, once again I'll ask that you provide the laws of physics, reproduction, and biology, tht say what you've claimed. If you can't provide them, should that be taken as the "degree that men/women will lie to claim that evolution doesn't occur"?

 

[Heidi]

If you meant they were INCOMPLETE since einstein came over and expanded them, that's not really being wrong, just the word "laws" didn't fit very well. Here's an interesting article that everyone even mildly interested in science should read. It deals with theories, evolution, einstein, the whole thing. and ESPECIALLY those who are always saying "that's just a theory", which is really annoying:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7490426/

The difference between Einstein's theories and Darwin's theory is that Einstein agrees with God and Darwin does not. Once again, when scientists agree with God, they will always be right. But when they disagree with God, they will always be wrong. No human being simply knows better than God does despite how many people think they do. ;-)

Can you show us where in the Bible Einsteins Theory of Relativity is shown to agree with god?

It is simply a fact that time is an invention of man and man created it from its relativity to seconds, minutes, hours, etc. The theory of relativity is simply based on comparables and on the reality of what's been made. But Darwin on the other hand, refutes the way things are created and claims that one species can simply turn into another species all by itself. There is nothing in reality or science that mimics the way Darwin claims the human being was made.