Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

Macro-evolution

Recommended Posts

I've honestly never seen that definition of speciation before. I thought that speciation was just merely a partitioning of the gene pool. >.> Perhaps they changed the definition of speciation just as they changed the definition of vestigial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. "I have already shown you plenty of examples where small changes cannot add up to the big change you assume to have occured, yet this has been ignored." You haven't show anythingof the sort, all you have shown are more "irreducibly complex" systems. These are not a barrier. Not according to logic, not according to science, and not according to the courts.

 

2. I don't have to provide you with a detailed account of every single one for the same reason that you wouldn't have to show someone every single example of an object falling from a height in order to convince them of gravity.

 

3. One the principal has been established, which it has, it can be applied to other things as well.

 

4. Here's an example: a stone archway is irreducibly complex - removal of any one stone will cause it to collapse - but we build them quite readily over existing supports which are later removed.

 

5. I don't know exactly how the gastic system evolved, or how certain metabolic pathways have evolved, but these are not a barrier to evolution because the principal has been established and we know it works.

 

6. To say that these systems couldn't have evolved is an argument from ignorance and is therefore logically invalid. Perhaps what you should say is "I can't think of a way in which these systems could have evolved". It does not mean they cannot have evolved.

 

71133[/snapback]

1. The examples demonstrate the "barrier". What, (real world), examples do you have that demonstrate that there is no "barrier"... I never knew scientific validity rested on courts of law... Here I was thinking it was ALL down to empirical evidence

 

2. Just one will suffice

 

3. How has the principle been establised, what evidence is there that demonstrates it in terms of reality and factual data that have been analysed via experimentation, (since that is what science is, just pondering on ideas is philosophy)

 

4. As has been discussed your bridge-archway analogy, (first it was a bridge now an archway), doesn't logically fit evolution. Since it doesn't consider the mechanisms of evolution, the fact that the cells / organisms are alive and HOW the changes/ , (blocks) come about

 

5. See point 6 below, your words here are evidence for it.

 

6. Actually to say they didn't evolve is not only scientific, it is also the null hypothesis; until it has been demonstrated in reality, you cannot claim something occured or not scientifically, (you still can philisophically, but science says NO till you have empirical evidence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've honestly never seen that definition of speciation before. I thought that speciation was just merely a partitioning of the gene pool. >.> Perhaps they changed the definition of speciation just as they changed the definition of vestigial.

71208[/snapback]

A lot of evolutionists that come here change the definition of the words concerning evolution to suit their needs during a debate. Such as claiming micro and macro are the same because they cannot provide an actual process after all these years. So now it's: If one can happen, so can the other logic.

 

If you think about it, proving evolution is like selling a used car. We will tell you all that is good, twist the truth, and you'd better not ask to many questions. But we will make you a deal today if you will convert to our way of thinking.

 

The more they come in here doing stuff like this, the more I see desperation on their part. And their desperation brings anger at anyone who would dare challenge them on their beliefs. And the anger brews hatred which you can see all over the web and we witness here everyday. And because it's being used to mainly hate Christians, it supports the anti-Christ spirit which will be part of the last days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said "proteins are produced from DNA and that only specific proteins are needed is a totally different situation to generic blocks that have no defined origin" How is this different?

71133[/snapback]

Quite simply really… We can prove proteins are produced from DNA, and that only specific proteins are needed. But we cannot realistically (or empirically, as the OP calls for) prove ANYTHING about macro-evolution. Why, because it has no foundation but that of hypothesis.

 

I used specific shaped blocks, in real life you need specific genes. They seem analogous to me, but if you can show me a significant difference, that would actually prevent this sort of process from happening in real life, I will accept it.

71133[/snapback]

Okay…

First – Provide the blocks.

Second – Provide the information for the blocks.

Third – Provide a way for the blocks to pass information to other blocks.

Fourth – Provide a way for the blocks to continually replicate.

And Fifth – Provide a logical, rational and scientific reason that ALL of the above is of random origin and not designed.

 

But, most importantly (and you need to follow closely now, because this is your biggest problem)… From where did the blocks originate?

 

 

You haven't show anythingof the sort, all you have shown are more "irreducibly complex" systems. These are not a barrier. Not according to logic, not according to science, and not according to the courts.

71133[/snapback]

Actually, they are indeed a “barrier†to evolution on every level. But Gilbo already provided the explanation in post # 52.

 

 

I don't have to provide you with a detailed account of every single one for the same reason that you wouldn't have to show someone every single example of an object falling from a height in order to convince them of gravity.

71133[/snapback]

Actually, according to the OP, yes you do! But the problem here is this: You have yet to provide even ONE empirical fact to support your hypothesis. NOT EVEN ONE!

 

All you have done is provided personal opinion, after personal opinion, in a biographical manner; as if that alone were factual evidence. You provide “smoke and mirrorsâ€ÂÂ, “bluster and bloviationsâ€ÂÂ, “equivocations and prevaricationsâ€ÂÂ, with the hopes that you can get away with selling your snake oil. But, if you keep this up, you’ll have to hitch up your horses, and move your sales wagon down the road where you can maybe make some money hawking your wares.

 

At best, you’ve been entertaining. At worst, you’ve provided the “bad example†we can use when explaining “how not to act†in an honest and responsible forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One the principal has been established, which it has, it can be applied to other things as well.

71133[/snapback]

Ah, stealing from design, in an attempt to prove evolution… This is interesting indeed!

 

Here's an example: a stone archway is irreducibly complex - removal of any one stone will cause it to collapse - but we build them quite readily over existing supports which are later removed. I don't know exactly how the gastic system evolved, or how certain metabolic pathways have evolved, but these are not a barrier to evolution because the principal has been established and we know it works. It has been shown to be applicable to biology in peer reviewed scientiffic literature - check out this if you have a Science subscription: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/312/5770/97.abstract .

71133[/snapback]

Actually, all you have done is provide a good case for “designâ€ÂÂ, and a stumbling block for evolution. Unless you are insinuating evolution is sentient, and can design and create… Then my friend, you are deep into a religious fervor.

 

Further, if you are not going to provide a link that everyone can access, you are in violation of forum rules. AND, it just further proves your dishonesty and elitist snobbery. I personally have a subscription to numerous scientific and review sites, but I find it quite repugnant to hide behind a subscription for argumentation. And as a further note: One can claim to have a subscription, make other BOLD assertions, while all the time hiding behind the fact that they hold no such subscription at all.

 

To say that these systems couldn't have evolved is an argument from ignorance and is therefore logically invalid.

71133[/snapback]

Hmmm, to make such an assertion, with absolutely NO evidence to support it itself a good example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantum logical fallacy. Further, to make such a fallacious accusation is also a prime example of the Argumentum ad Ignoratio Elenchi. And to do so, with absolutely no correlative basis is a non sequitur.

 

Therefore, your entire premise is illogical, and ill advised.

 

 

Perhaps what you should say is "I can't think of a way in which these systems could have evolved". It does not mean they cannot have evolved.

71133[/snapback]

Actually, you should perhaps adhere to the OP, and provide evidence and facts. You attempts at dabbling in logic and sarcasms aren’t working for you.

 

Perhaps you should say: “I cannot provide evidence for my evolutionistic world-view. Therefore it is a religionâ€ÂÂ. Or, “I cannot adhere to the forum rules and thread OP’s, therefore I should not pretend my opinions are factsâ€ÂÂ.

 

 

Now which established scientiffic principals does evolution defy exactly?

71133[/snapback]

ALL of them actually; Macro-evolution doesn’t meet any of the criteria of the empirical scientific method. (this is your chance to finally prove me wrong with some facts... That is, if you think you can!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do those who believe in evolution continually ask the question, "What is to stop microevolutionary changes from eventually becoming macroevolutionary ones? Do they not realize that the fact that they are even ASKING the question ALREADY defeats their naturalistic premise, since it has changed the argument from one about the "evidence" to one about "philosophy"? They don't even realize it.

 

Nobody goes around asking the question, "What is to stop this tomato seed, that I plant in the ground under plenty of sunshine of which I water daily, from growing into a green pepper plant?" Why is a question like that not asked? Because we have OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE (Empirical) of this, is why we don't ask questions like that. To ask such a question would be to "suggest" that there is a "small" possibility that the tomato seed will grow into some other vegetable or "fruit". We have OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF REALITY that has CONTINUALLY shown that tomato seeds produce tomato plants. Nothing is to stop a tomato seed from growing into an orange tree if you "imagine" hard enough. :D

 

It should be just as "silly" for an evolutionist to ask the question since they should ALREADY HAVE empirical evidence of the answer. But they NEVER do. Instead they want to bog us down with "philosophical" arguments of CREDULITY. (Why is it NOT "possible"?) Why couldn't a tomato seed "sloooooowly" and eventually become a green pepper or some "other" vegetable? Well my friend, until you can provide more than just a "philosophical" argument, the natural "evolutionary" process that you claim is happening should be quite easily demonstrated.

 

I can easily show you how a tomato seed will become a tomato plant. Can you show us any examples to the contrary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparantly pictures of blocks making a bridge is empirical evidence of evolution.....  :D

 

(I would have thought it was empirical evidence of blocks making bridges)

71140[/snapback]

It seems that adz87 wants to totally disregard the OP, which states:

 

Could someone post "empirical evidence" for macro-evolution?

 

Either that, or he believes “mere opinion†= “empirical evidenceâ€ÂÂ… Or “Design Evidence†= “Evolution Evidenceâ€ÂÂ.

 

71140[/snapback]

Moving goal posts must be hard work in reality, but in the metaphysical  world, it requires nothing more than shifting a few words around.

71143[/snapback]

Yeah its kinda funny and sad how most of the evos on here do that kind of stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think adz87 is coming back, because he is no longer able to hide behind the world view of being agnostic. I changed it to atheist because that was how he was debating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah its kinda funny and sad how most of the evos on here do that kind of stuff

71222[/snapback]

That is the only way that most atheists can debate. Unfortunately it makes it rather difficult to have an intelligent and coherent conversation with most atheists when it comes to these matters. I have seen misinformed Christians, but many atheists are purposely misinformed because they will not accept anything contrary to their naturalistic philosophy. It is truly a sad phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it that most people just don't really care about the big questions in life anymore.... IMO our world is slowly progressing into vice and obsession of self

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think adz87 is coming back, because he is no longer able to hide behind the world view of being agnostic. I changed it to atheist because that was how he was debating.

71231[/snapback]

Apparently… But then again, it’s only been two days; he may be too busy to answer (Easter is coming tomorrow), or he may be rethinking his position and has seen the error of his world view. It takes a big ban to swallow one’s pride and admit when the truth is the truth. It was tough for me as well.

 

But, I may be totally wrong... He may not be back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interests of fairness, I asked a die-hard evolutionist if there was any discovery which would cause him to reject evolution, and he replied with "show me a fossil bird in Devonian strata". This would indeed be very difficult for evolution to explain and would force many to abandon, or at the very least drastically revise, the theory of evolution.

Want to bet?

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...indpost&p=71210

 

 

What I want to know is this: is there a parallel example in creationism?

Yes. Show us any novel genetic information created by natural selection. It shouldn't take millions of years, since we can observe millions of generations of bacteria in a single human generation.

 

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to lag behind guys, I have been away for a while and unable to access a computer. It seems I have a lot to get through...

"I can tell you that your claimed world view does not apply. You every answer is pro-evolution, and anti-Bible which is anti-God. So I'm changing your world view to atheist, because you have not proven to be an agnostic.

 

Agnostic in simple terms is someone that does not know. Your disagreements with the Bible say you already made up your mind."

 

I don't think that's true or fair. An agnostic is someone who is not sure about the existence of God or the supernatural. An atheist is someone who has made up their mind that there is no God and no supernatural. I already said that I thought these things were a possibility. I do not believe in the literal truth of genesis, but if that makes me an atheist then a fairly substantial lot of church goers are atheists too. I would be willing to accept the literal truth of genesis if there were scientific evidence to back it up indeed I did for some time. It's just that when I took the same critical thinking that I used to apply to evolution and pointed it at my own beliefs, it all just fell apart at the seams. Before then, I had read only creationist sources and watched documentaries which simply assumed evolution was true. I wrongly inferred that evolution could not be defended, as there was all this creationist material refuting it, and the documentaries did nothing to actually defend it, merely assumed it was true from the start. When I started reading sources which actually defended evolution, however, I found their arguments convincing. For now I think it's sufficient to say that I have no real opinions about the supernatural, it may exist or it might not. I don't know, and I never claimed to. You are of course welcome to change my mind.

 

"1. What initial evidence was this? was it empirical? Or was it based on supposition like Darwins other idea, Pangenesis."

 

Empirical observations backed up by logic. Initially it was supported by the fossil record and Darwin's extrapolation of small changes back through time into large changes. While initially controversial in the scientific community, further research added a lot of support to the theory (soon after its publication for example, archeopteryx was discovered, providing a bird / reptile link). Further research has in palaeontology cemented the theory's position in science by providing many more fossils in the places and ages that we would expect. The sequence of hominid fossils for example, shows such a smooth transition from ape-like creatures to modern humans that creationists cannot agree which ones are ape and which ones are human. If you want some good empirical evidence then check out the fossils shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

 

The theory was also backed up by many genetic studies. A good example of this is a recent finding in human genetics: Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas the other "great apes" which evolution predicts are related to us, have 24. Because there are 3 species which have 24 pairs of chromosomes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans), and only one with 23 (humans), evolutionists assumed that the ancestor which had produced all these species had 24 pairs. They reasoned that in humans, one pair must have fused together, and that this must obviously have happened after we branched from the rest of the hominid line. How would we tell if such a thing had happened? Chromosomes have a central piece of DNA called a centromere, and one at each end called a telomere. If two chromosomes had indeed fused, we would expect there to be one chromosome which looked like 2 chromosomes stuck together, i.e. with a telomere at one end, a centromere 1/4 the way along, then 2 more telomeres in the middle, one centromere 3/4 the way along, and another telomere at the end, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chromosome2_merge.png . Evolution made this prediction, and then the scientists set out to test it. They found the chromosome, in humans it is chromosome number 2. This makes perfect sense if evolution is true, but I have yet to hear a creationist even attempt to explain it (feel free to be the first though). There is a short video clip here for those interested:

. This is, of course, empirical evidence.

 

Regarding gilbo12345's points 3 through 7- A species of bacteria, Burkholderia, has recently developed a complex 7 step metabolic pathway which it uses to break down 2-4 dinitrotoluene (DNT, an ingredient in TNT). This metabolic pathway must have developed recently because DNT is a synthetic compound invented by humans. It did this by co-opting proteins which were already in existence for other functions - every one serves at least one other purpose in the organism. This is how scientists believe most of these "irreducibly complex" systems came about. You can read about this and other examples here: http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview...b6&size=largest . I found the second paragraph down on the right especially interesting.

 

Yet to claim they did with no empirical evidence is even worse!! Actually not believing in something until there is empirical evidence that directly asserts it is called being scientific...

 

Not necessarily. If you watch a car driving along and it disappears out of view for a moment behind a house, only to reappear again, the logical conclusion is that it continues to drive even when we couldn't see it. Sure, if we allow for supernatural factors it might have teleported or phased out of existence only to reappear again, but parsimony says it probably didn't. In the same way, when we have evidence of an old universe (distant starlight, radiometric dating, etc.), evidence evolution from the fossil record, from genetics, from avatisms and vestigial remnants left over from an organism's past, we have observed examples of new species being produced, we have observed examples of new enzymes being produced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase), we have the distribution of species (why are there no marsupials in Europe or Asia for example? Evolution explains, creation does not explain), we have computer models that support it. When all of modern science points to evolution, to discount it based on one argument from ignorance seems worse to me.

 

"If it is non-functional then it cannot be selected for, since evolution is ONLY about the preservation of genetic material that is seen to give an advantage over its competitors."

 

That is absolutely correct, however the parts of irreducibly complex systems may very well be useful on their own. Indeed Michael Behe was humiliated in court recently when it was shown that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. For a start, the base of the flagellum is very similar to a type three secretion system (TTSS) found in other bacteria, which performs a function on its own. To quote some of Ken Miller's work: "If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum... The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed.". You can read the full article here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

 

"Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?" See the above part on human chromosome number 2 for a start, also I have already provided a pretty comprehensive list of whale vestigial features and avatisms which no-one has even addressed. If you want a more detailed list, this one covers many areas of science - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent. What is the creationist answer to these vestigial whale features? Why should whales have muscles to move external ears which they don't have? Or genes for growing teeth when they actually have baleen? Evolution predicts these things, but I have yet to see a creationist give any answer at all.

 

Here is an example of the definition of macro-evolution. Right from the encyclopedia of science: The development of new species and the extinction of old ones.

 

In that case macro-evolution has been observed and documented by creationists themselves. For the "development of new species" (your words), see here http://creation.com/brisk-biters . A new species was produced. This is, without question, the "development of a new species". It is also empirical evidence. The question of the OP has therefore been answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think adz87 is coming back, because he is no longer able to hide behind the world view of being agnostic. I changed it to atheist because that was how he was debating.

71231[/snapback]

Nope... He's back:

 

Posted Image

 

Although he may be just reading, and might not attempt to continue in his equivocations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Show us any novel genetic information created by natural selection. It shouldn't take millions of years, since we can observe millions of generations of bacteria in a single human generation.

Enjoy.

71237[/snapback]

We know that mutations can duplicate genes, and we know they can change them. If a gene is duplicated, obviously this is not new information (you can't buy 2 copies of the one book and learn twice as much from it), but if a mutation changes the copy, new information can then be produced. There is an observed example of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

These bacteria have developed a new enzyme they did not previously have. Surely this is new information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's true or fair. An agnostic is someone who is not sure about the existence of God or the supernatural. An atheist is someone who has made up their mind that there is no God and no supernatural. I already said that I thought these things were a possibility. I do not believe in the literal truth of genesis, but if that makes me an atheist then a fairly substantial lot of church goers are atheists too. I would be willing to accept the literal truth of genesis if there were scientific evidence to back it up indeed I did for some time. It's just that when I took the same critical thinking that I used to apply to evolution and pointed it at my own beliefs, it all just fell apart at the seams. Before then, I had read only creationist sources and watched documentaries which simply assumed evolution was true. I wrongly inferred that evolution could not be defended, as there was all this creationist material refuting it, and the documentaries did nothing to actually defend it, merely assumed it was true from the start. When I started reading sources which actually defended evolution, however, I found their arguments convincing. For now I think it's sufficient to say that I have no real opinions about the supernatural, it may exist or it might not. I don't know, and I never claimed to. You are of course welcome to change my mind.

I hate that you lost your faith, talkorigins and other pro evolution sources actually increased my faith.(The Bible also warns us against "fine sounding" arguments.) I've been reading Science journals for years, Scientists don't know as much as these atheist sources let on. A majority of their ideas on origins are still in highly theoretical phase.(Especially in regards to astronomy and astrophysics.) There is nothing empirical about the naturalistic world view. Period. If you have any questions about Creation, let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that mutations can duplicate genes, and we know they can change them. If a gene is duplicated, obviously this is not new information (you can't buy 2 copies of the one book and learn twice as much from it), but if a mutation changes the copy, new information can then be produced. There is an observed example of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

These bacteria have developed a new enzyme they did not previously have. Surely this is new information?

71418[/snapback]

 

YET the promoters needed to transcript that gene will be the same hence the signal system that is used to turn the gene on / off and produce the gene product will be the same as the old function...

 

Hence if an entirely new function was created then it would not work properly, (as it will be turned on / off at the wrong times, thus leading to a decrease in efficiency of the cell; why use resources for something that is not needed)...

 

On the flip side if the signal system is still correct for the function, then for all intents and purposes then the function is not completely new and is just a variant of the original function... Nylonase is an example of this. A bacteria's main function is as "nature's recyclers" hence being able to recycle nylon is just a variant of its original function... (Just like how some bacteria with a particular gene , (or plasmid), can digest lactose)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that mutations can duplicate genes, and we know they can change them. If a gene is duplicated, obviously this is not new information (you can't buy 2 copies of the one book and learn twice as much from it), but if a mutation changes the copy, new information can then be produced. There is an observed example of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase

These bacteria have developed a new enzyme they did not previously have. Surely this is new information?

71418[/snapback]

No it isn't. It's the same gene producing a different amino acid sequence. Very similar to penicillin-recognizing family of serine-reactive hydrolases.

 

http://www.jbc.org/content/280/47/39644.abstract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't quite the same though, it's a copy of the gene which was then modified. The organism now has a new enzyme, and a new ability that it did not have before. If this isn't adding new information, can you please define for me what we would need to find which would count as new information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't quite the same though, it's a copy of the gene which was then modified. The organism now has a new enzyme, and a new ability that it did not have before. If this isn't adding new information, can you please define for me what we would need to find which would count as new information?

71707[/snapback]

The E-coli turning into a beetle would be new information, its still E-coli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't quite the same though, it's a copy of the gene which was then modified. The organism now has a new enzyme, and a new ability that it did not have before. If this isn't adding new information, can you please define for me what we would need to find which would count as new information?

71707[/snapback]

Talking about not the same?

 

First, it remains a gene, does it not? This is not evolution; this is simply gaining new information if it is anything at all. I gained new abilities when I learned how to play guitar; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new ability. I gained new abilities during the processes of earning post graduate degrees; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. While in the military I earned many certifications, diplomas and honors for studies, achievements and missions; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. I am gaining new abilities during the processes of studying for my graduate degrees; I’m not evolving, I’m gaining a new abilities.

 

I have been modified, and yet I remain a man…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about not the same?

 

First, it remains a gene, does it not? This is not evolution; this is simply gaining new information if it is anything at all. I gained new abilities when I learned how to play guitar; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new ability. I gained new abilities during the processes of earning post graduate degrees; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. While in the military I earned many certifications, diplomas and honors for studies, achievements and missions; I didn’t evolve, I gained a new abilities. I am gaining new abilities during the processes of studying for my graduate degrees; I’m not evolving, I’m gaining a new abilities.

 

I have been modified, and yet I remain a man…

71718[/snapback]

Oh come on Ron, give it a few million years! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that you lost your faith, talkorigins and other pro evolution sources actually increased my faith.(The Bible also warns us against "fine sounding" arguments.) I've been reading Science journals for years, Scientists don't know as much as these atheist sources let on. A majority of their ideas on origins are still in highly theoretical phase.(Especially in regards to astronomy and astrophysics.) There is nothing empirical about the naturalistic world view. Period. If you have any questions about Creation, let me know.

71419[/snapback]

The testimony is more of a: down with creation, and up with evolution. And I challenge you to change my mind by presenting better evidence than what I have already accepted (if the testimony is true). The reason I say this is because I hear the same version of the same testimony, just altered a little, quite often. All are atheists trying to make the Christian think he has a chance. That way you will try and he will try to convert you (like the list on how to convert a Christian to atheist).

 

Examples of the same testimonies with a little insight:

Creation is just not good enough, so I converted to evolution.

God just did not do it right, makes people look stupid. Because all believers can say is: God did it.

Evolution is more convincing and makes me look real smart to believe it.

I can "see" the evidence for evolution, I can't see creation or it's evidence.

Now I might change back if you can convince me. But I will only accept what science accepts which makes your chances ZERO. But if you keep trying I just might convert you.

Kent H*vind made us all look stupid so we decided evolution was the best alternative.

If YEC were correct, why did H*vind end up in jail?

etc...

 

And on and on it goes of the same song and dance, just different ways of saying the same thing. Which basically always is:

 

1) Evolution is smart.

2) Creation is stupid.

3) And I challenge you to convert me.

 

The only time an atheist will actually challenge you to convert him, is when it's all a game to him. And his heart has hardened enough against God that he does not even worry about conversion. But he will laugh at you for making the effort. The whole thing is to invoke an emotional response so he can use it against you.

 

You get an atheist who is not firm in his beliefs, he would be afraid to challenge you to convert him because he knows he is not set in his ways and conversion is a possibility.

 

So I change his world view to atheist because all his posts are pro-evolution and anti-God. Upon doing so he switches to this conversion testimony.

 

1) You don't convert to being agnostic. Because being agnostic is not a belief because you are not suppose to know what to believe. So his testimony just told you what the truth is. And confirms what I already knew.

2) If he were truly agnostic his challenge for conversion would also be for atheists. But he has already chosen by choosing their main anti-God belief, evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed hard to overturn an established theory. Creationism wasthe established theory once, but evolution then overturned it on account of having more supporting evidence.

71133[/snapback]

Really??? And you were going to provide this "more supporting evidence" when?

 

And what I mean by evidence is not the standard evolutionary canard of professional opinion, but actual “empirical†evidence as the OP calls for. You know that which you have yet to provide, and I have continually pressed you for.

 

I don’t see you lasting very long since you cannot provide anything but faith statements as facts.

71137[/snapback]

See the above part on human chromosome number 2 for a start, also I have already provided a pretty comprehensive list of whale vestigial features and avatisms which no-one has even addressed. If you want a more detailed list, this one covers many areas of science - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent. What is the creationist answer to these vestigial whale features? Why should whales have muscles to move external ears which they don't have? Or genes for growing teeth when they actually have baleen? Evolution predicts these things, but I have yet to see a creationist give any answer at all.

 

Here is an example of the definition of macro-evolution. Right from the encyclopedia of science: The development of new species and the extinction of old ones.

 

In that case macro-evolution has been observed and documented by creationists themselves. For the "development of new species" (your words), see here http://creation.com/brisk-biters . A new species was produced. This is, without question, the "development of a new species". It is also empirical evidence. The question of the OP has therefore been answered.

71415[/snapback]

Okay, let’s take a look…

 

evolutionists assumed

71415[/snapback]

When you “correctly†used the word “assumed†here, you knocked ALL of the empiricism out of your hypothesis. Now, it must be understood that evolutionists assume all the time, AND pretend that they are stating facts. And yet they don’t understand why (or refuse to see that) they are making a mistake in doing so. Much of their pseudo-facts are based upon presupposition, innuendo and ‘a priori’ needs as evidences. If you took an honest look at your postings adz87, and the evolutionist’s writings you use as evidences, you’d soon see the plethora of assumptions based upon pseudo-facts.

 

Further, in as much as your statements concerning “vestigial organs†in general, and “whale vestigial features†more specifically; ALL of your pseudo facts are based upon assumptions and presuppositions as well. So you want to hear a “Creationists answer to these vestigial whale featuresâ€ÂÂ. It is really quite simple really… your explanation is assumptive, and is nothing more than a pre-supposed attempt to explain macro-evolution. It is an ‘a priori’ attempt on the behalf of the evolutionist.

 

The first thing we need to understand is, that in principle (i.e. logically), it is not possible to prove that an organ is useless (vestigial) because we do not know enough (let alone everything) about said organ to make such bold statements. In other words, if you don’t know what an organ is for, then how do you know it is “vestigialâ€ÂÂ? Unfortunately, it (the word “vestigialâ€ÂÂ) has become a catch-all word for evolutionists to use for organs they have no explanations for, they then claim these as evidence FOR evolution.

 

Don’t get me wrong, creationists call certain organs “vestigial†as well, but creationists don’t use them as evidence, creationists look for the answers. Why; because there is always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. Now, according to Creation scientists such as Dr. Don Batten, Dr Jonathan Sarfati (amongst others) this has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.

 

Secondly, even if these “alleged vestigial organs†are no longer needed, it would prove “devolution†not evolution. Why: because if these organs are still being carried around “uselessly†for a supposed “millions†of years, how is that evolution… It is not, it is devolution! Much like the totally unfounded hypotheses that the whale evolved from an aquatic creature, then it didn’t like the water, so it evolved into a land dwelling wolf-like creature, didn’t like that, and de-evolved back to an aquatic creature.

 

Here’s the thing; the creation posited model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation (see Genesis chapters One through Eleven for an explanation as to why). However the evolutionistic model needs to find examples of organs, which are increasing in complexity. But, they are having a hard enough time reconciling their extreme faith in a lack of a natural explanation for their materialistic/naturalistic origins (abiogenesis/particle-to-people etc…) let alone their “evolution of the gapsâ€ÂÂ.

 

Anyway, as to the Hip bones in whales?

These bones are alleged to show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help *that word not allowed* erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females. (Wieland, C., 1998. The strange tale of the leg on a whale. Creation 20(3):10–13.)

 

Conclusion: Vestigial organs do not prove (or help to prove) evolution in any way, no matter how much adz87 (and other evolutionists) want! And according to Evolutionary zoologist S. R. Scadding (University of Guelph) “The ‘vestigial organ’ argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one cannot prove that something does not exist (in this case a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically. The best we can do is to state that despite diligent effort, no function was discovered for a given organ. However it may be that some future investigator will the discover the function. Consequently, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldn’t identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.†(Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution? Evolutionary Theory 5:173–1761981).

 

 

A few more quick points:

 

The appendix actually functions within the immune system; it is part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue system. The appendix is a highly specialized organ, a complex well-developed structure with a rich blood supply. The submucosa (tissue layer) is thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lymphocytes (Scadding 175; Ham and Wieland 41; Glover 34f.; Vines 39).

 

The coccyx (“tailboneâ€ÂÂ) “serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus†(Scadding 175; cf. Vines 39).

 

Wisdom teeth are useful, “especially if other molars wear down or decay†(Vines 39). Although we in our culture find that wisdom teeth often have to be removed, this may be because our modern diet is “too soft to give our teeth the exercise they need to achieve their full potential†(Vines 38).

 

See also:

1- Bergman, Jerry, and George Howe. 1990. “Vestigial Organs†Are Fully Functional. Terre Haute, IN: Creation Research Society Books

2- Glover, J. Warwick. 1988. The Human Vermiform Appendix  a General Surgeon’s Reflections. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 31-38.

3- Ham, Ken, and Carl Wieland. 1997. Your appendix... it’s there for a reason. Creation, Vol. 20 No. 1 (Dec 1997â€â€ÂFeb 1998), pp. 41-43.

4- Scadding, S. R. 1981 (May). Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution? Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, pp. 173-176.

5- Vines, Gail. 1998 (Apr 25). A waste of space. New Scientist, Vol. 158 No. 2131, pp. 38-39.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll respond to his points too when I have time. I've been busy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms