CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[S.J.]

Evolution is a proven fact no matter how much one denies that, or quibbles over the exact meaning, or splits hairs about the use of the word, or disputes the extent of how far or how much a population evolves. Evolution is an observed phenomenon.

Not to the extent evolutionists claim. There's no solid evidence of species evolving into other unrelated species. That has never been observed.

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

That's ridiculous. Adaptation is as close as you're ever gonna get with evolution. Transition from one species to another is a leap of faith, not fact. It's physically impossible.

No- it is well documented

The case of the horse is so well documented it was established in the 19th century.

You can ignore the fossil evidence- but it is certainly there.

Um, no it isn't, and you stating that does not make it true.

 

[Syriusly]

Except it has. If you look at the fossil record you find that the trillions of fossils found there all support evolution. Every single one.

That's ridiculous. Adaptation is as close as you're ever gonna get with evolution. Transition from one species to another is a leap of faith, not fact. It's physically impossible.

If you learn to read the fossil record the transitions are there to see, and that is a fact. Even just looking at the animals around us we see species in the process of separating into unique species.

I'm curious why you claim it is "physically impossible"? You must know something I don't.

Merely finding transitional fossil records, in and of itself, doesn't validate or fail to validate the Theory of Evolution (ToE). The critical thing that the ToE was developed before they were found; however, it predicts that they would be found. Thus what's most compelling about the transitional fossils' having been found is not the fossils' mere existence, but that they were predicted by the ToE before they were known to exist, and low and behold, they exist/existed exactly as predicted. The existence of transitional forms is not the only prediction the ToE makes or implies. There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of predictions that issue directly or via valid deductive reasoning from the ToE. Here are some more of them:

• Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
• Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
• There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
• Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
• Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
• Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
• Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
• Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
• In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
• It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
• From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
• In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
• Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
• In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
  
  This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
• Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
  
  The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
• A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
• The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
  
  This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
• An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
  Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
  
  Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
  
  It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus,Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

It's not just that the ToE says humans derived from "lesser" primates. It's that in order for the ToE to be correct and accurately so, myriad other things must also be so. Thus, as seen in some of the examples above, the ToE leads to things non-biological also needing to be so, and those things too prove to be so in complete concurrence with a scientific theory put forth long before it was determined whether those things were indeed so. In other words, the ToE's predictions are testable and time and time again, every test's outcome reaffirms the prediction.

In contrast, Creation so-called Science's premises have been tested over and over and found wanting.

• "Everything" was made in six days some thousands, not millions, not billions, of years ago. --> Simply measuring the distance light can travel over time tell us there is "stuff" in the universe that is older than it possibly could be were that light created only some thousands of years ago. And what is the "scientific" response Creation Scientists give for that?
  • We don't know what "a day" means. Really? They call themselves scientists yet ask us to rely on the uncertainty of what "a day" means to a God who purportedly dictated a book to folks on Earth knowing fully that for whatever they knew or didn't know those folks knew damn well what "a day" is: the length of time it takes the sun to rise, set and rise again. Nobody needed to have divided a day into 24 congruous hour long segments to know that a day is a span of time to which they had a very keen ability to relate. Any God with half a brain would have said "many, many, many days, more than you and all your family will be alive," or something that conveys the idea of "a very long time." The God of scripture isn't at once omniscient and a complete idiot when it comes to communicating.
  • God created "everything" --> That isn't even testable. The Easter Bunny could just as facilely have created "everything."
• "Ginned up" criticisms with the methodology a given study used. That might hold some weight were it so, but as far as I can tell, there's not one Creation Science theory study that actually has nearly as rigorous and stridently objective approaches to arriving at its conclusions. Call me crazy, but I expect that if "you" are going to find fault with "my" methodology, you'd at least not incorporate rational lapses of sound reasoning in "your own" so-called studies. Everyone can make a mistake, but you'd expect they'd recognize their own mistakes were they so committed to "good science." But do Creation Scientists do that? Not in the least!

Those are just two examples of the nonsense Creation Science tries to assert.

I don't have the least bit of a problem believing there is a God. I, like everyone, can believe damn near anything and my believing it makes me feel better somehow and I know that. I also don't have any trouble believing that the ToE is spot on right.

What does that mean for me? It means that in spite of the Nicean Council having pronounced the Bible (and by extension the Torah and Quran) as being "the word of God," the words in it may not accurately depict what He said or all that he said. It means that determining that some of the events described (not predicted in advance of their happening or being found to have happened) even upon being found to have happened are, more or less, events that did occur.

If I write in my journal that "such and such" happened and I ascribe its means and mode of happening to the Easter Bunny, and if millennia later someone finds my journal, and even later finds out that "whatever" did in fact happen, it means I accurately to at least some degree wrote down and described actual events. My attributions of causality, however, aren't validated by one's determining the events did occur. Such is another major problem with considering Creation Science as science. It is what it is, but what that is isn't science.

Very well put.

The latest issue of the Smithsonian Magazine has some excellent articles on evolution- by the way.

 

[Syriusly]

Creationists, OTOH, assume the answer already and then fit the data into it.

Sorry, but that is exactly what evolutionists do. They conclude the theory is accurate, then jump to the conclusion that species transition into other species as a way to tie their theory together. Problem is, that conclusion requires a whole lot of faith (the very thing they dismiss when arguing against creation).

320's post addresses that completely- which is probably why you ignore it.

As 320 pointed out, evolution has been scientifically tested- using the scientific method.

Evolution, as we understand it now, best fits the facts that we know, and has been tested repeatedly.

There has been no alternative offered that fits the facts, or that has been able to be tested by the scientific method.

 

[S.J.]

Creationists, OTOH, assume the answer already and then fit the data into it.

Sorry, but that is exactly what evolutionists do. They conclude the theory is accurate, then jump to the conclusion that species transition into other species as a way to tie their theory together. Problem is, that conclusion requires a whole lot of faith (the very thing they dismiss when arguing against creation).

320's post addresses that completely- which is probably why you ignore it.

As 320 pointed out, evolution has been scientifically tested- using the scientific method.

Evolution, as we understand it now, best fits the facts that we know, and has been tested repeatedly.

There has been no alternative offered that fits the facts, or that has been able to be tested by the scientific method.

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever. You've merely stated repeatedly that someone else has (which is not true). AND, the absence of an alternative you would accept does not make your theory fact.

 

[320 Years of History]

Very well put.

Thank you.

 

[320 Years of History]

Very good post 320.

Thank you.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

God created everything in a week, but I'm not sure which day he created fossils and put them in rocks. I am sure the answer is in the bible if you look long enough......and it would hurt if you eat some magic mushrooms too.

 

[Syriusly]

Creationists, OTOH, assume the answer already and then fit the data into it.

Sorry, but that is exactly what evolutionists do. They conclude the theory is accurate, then jump to the conclusion that species transition into other species as a way to tie their theory together. Problem is, that conclusion requires a whole lot of faith (the very thing they dismiss when arguing against creation).

320's post addresses that completely- which is probably why you ignore it.

As 320 pointed out, evolution has been scientifically tested- using the scientific method.

Evolution, as we understand it now, best fits the facts that we know, and has been tested repeatedly.

There has been no alternative offered that fits the facts, or that has been able to be tested by the scientific method.

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever. You've merely stated repeatedly that someone else has (which is not true). AND, the absence of an alternative you would accept does not make your theory fact.

I pointed out the evidence that was posted.

Which you ignored.

Not surprising though.

Your absolute faith in rejection evidence prohibits you from accepting science.

 

[Syriusly]

As pointed out by others before me- the ones who reject evolution reject reason and facts.

Pointing out the facts to them again is as irrelevant as pointing out the facts to beavers.

 

[S.J.]

Creationists, OTOH, assume the answer already and then fit the data into it.

Sorry, but that is exactly what evolutionists do. They conclude the theory is accurate, then jump to the conclusion that species transition into other species as a way to tie their theory together. Problem is, that conclusion requires a whole lot of faith (the very thing they dismiss when arguing against creation).

320's post addresses that completely- which is probably why you ignore it.

As 320 pointed out, evolution has been scientifically tested- using the scientific method.

Evolution, as we understand it now, best fits the facts that we know, and has been tested repeatedly.

There has been no alternative offered that fits the facts, or that has been able to be tested by the scientific method.

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever. You've merely stated repeatedly that someone else has (which is not true). AND, the absence of an alternative you would accept does not make your theory fact.

I pointed out the evidence that was posted.

Which you ignored.

Not surprising though.

Your absolute faith in rejection evidence prohibits you from accepting science.

What evidence did you point out? What proof did you ever provide?

 

[320 Years of History]

Creationists, OTOH, assume the answer already and then fit the data into it.

Sorry, but that is exactly what evolutionists do. They conclude the theory is accurate, then jump to the conclusion that species transition into other species as a way to tie their theory together. Problem is, that conclusion requires a whole lot of faith (the very thing they dismiss when arguing against creation).

320's post addresses that completely- which is probably why you ignore it.

As 320 pointed out, evolution has been scientifically tested- using the scientific method.

Evolution, as we understand it now, best fits the facts that we know, and has been tested repeatedly.

There has been no alternative offered that fits the facts, or that has been able to be tested by the scientific method.

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever. You've merely stated repeatedly that someone else has (which is not true). AND, the absence of an alternative you would accept does not make your theory fact.

I pointed out the evidence that was posted.

Which you ignored.

Not surprising though.

Your absolute faith in rejection evidence prohibits you from accepting science.

Dude, I created a thread with the express purpose of giving other theists a platform for making a serious and cogent case for the rationality of accepting the central premise of all they believe re: god, religion, etc. (My OP in that thread is squarely against there being cogently "strong enough to be convincing" rational justification behind accepting that central premise.) So far not one of them has even tried to make a rigorously developed case.

That not one of the dyed in the wool theists who have blathered on in this thread is telling. At the very least, it tells me that not one of them has put enough thought into why they believe what they believe. They are, IMO, merely "sheeple" willing to believe something because they've been told it's so, not because they've actually critically considered all their belief entails and implies, both dogmatically and secularly.

 

[320 Years of History]

As pointed out by others before me- the ones who reject evolution reject reason and facts.

Pointing out the facts to them again is as irrelevant as pointing out the facts to beavers.

Nothing could be more true.

 

[FA_Q2]

As pointed out by others before me- the ones who reject evolution reject reason and facts.

Pointing out the facts to them again is as irrelevant as pointing out the facts to beavers.

Nothing could be more true.

It is a given. The very basis of faith is that it is accepted in the face of a lack of evidence.

I would like to point out there is noting inherently wrong with this. The only real problem is when the very vocal minority start to demand that it is treated the same as a science when they are completely separate concepts.

 

[320 Years of History]

As pointed out by others before me- the ones who reject evolution reject reason and facts.

Pointing out the facts to them again is as irrelevant as pointing out the facts to beavers.

Nothing could be more true.

It is a given. The very basis of faith is that it is accepted in the face of a lack of evidence.

I would like to point out there is noting inherently wrong with this. The only real problem is when the very vocal minority start to demand that it is treated the same as a science when they are completely separate concepts.

Red:
I agree. But the theists who argue against the ToE do so under the auspices of presenting science as the support for their position.

Quite frankly, I have no refutation to present to any theist who simply owns their faith and says to me, "I don't accept the ToE because my faith tells me otherwise and won't allow me to accept the ToE." That's all that need be said. There's no need to put up something that pretends to be scientific or logical.

But that isn't what theists say. On the contrary, they've invented some BS called Creation Science that is anything but science. They engage in what they perceive to be logical discussions on the matter, but that from square one aren't logically based at all; they are faith based.

One has to wonder just what motivates a theist who truly has the strength of his/her faith in God's words as relayed in scripture. If they are so convinced of the verity of scripture, and given that faith is truly all one needs to accept scripture as true, why even bother trying to make an argument about it. Put it up to faith and be done. No further explanation is needed.

 

[S.J.]

They are, IMO, merely "sheeple" willing to believe something because they've been told it's so, not because they've actually critically considered all their belief entails and implies, both dogmatically and secularly.

You're describing evolutionists perfectly.

 

[alang1216]

I find it ironic that no theist has ever said how God created the universe, they only seem to know how he didn't do it.

 

[Syriusly]

As pointed out by others before me- the ones who reject evolution reject reason and facts.

Pointing out the facts to them again is as irrelevant as pointing out the facts to beavers.

Nothing could be more true.

It is a given. The very basis of faith is that it is accepted in the face of a lack of evidence.

I would like to point out there is noting inherently wrong with this. The only real problem is when the very vocal minority start to demand that it is treated the same as a science when they are completely separate concepts.

Red:
I agree. But the theists who argue against the ToE do so under the auspices of presenting science as the support for their position.

Quite frankly, I have no refutation to present to any theist who simply owns their faith and says to me, "I don't accept the ToE because my faith tells me otherwise and won't allow me to accept the ToE." That's all that need be said. There's no need to put up something that pretends to be scientific or logical.

But that isn't what theists say. On the contrary, they've invented some BS called Creation Science that is anything but science. They engage in what they perceive to be logical discussions on the matter, but that from square one aren't logically based at all; they are faith based.

One has to wonder just what motivates a theist who truly has the strength of his/her faith in God's words as relayed in scripture. If they are so convinced of the verity of scripture, and given that faith is truly all one needs to accept scripture as true, why even bother trying to make an argument about it. Put it up to faith and be done. No further explanation is needed.

Again- thank you for your cogent and well written summary of some of the facts regarding evolution.

The problem with arguing with a creationist like SJ and his ilk is that it is like arguing about a person's religious faith with scientific facts.

Religious faith does not require- and frankly shouldn't require facts- it is faith. It is a belief in what they claim is unknowable. I have no essential issue with someone believing in god- any god. I don't even have a problem with a person believing in their own creation myths.

It is mildly irritating that they choose to ignore the science- and that such faith based ignorance is so pervasive in the United States. But mostly they can be ignored.

FYI- there is a reason that not one of them has responded to your post laying out the argument.
They can't.