| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: Science Disproves Evolution |
 |
|
Distinct Types
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions
among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend
in with variations of cats. Actually, some animals, such as the
duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged
evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and
suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single
ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws
and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect
electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill
somewhat like a that of a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like
those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male
platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Such “patchwork”
animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-
called “evolutionary tree.”
There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants
arose from any other major group {a}. Species are observed only going
out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence (b).
a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete
transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has
never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the
field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State
University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–
1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J.
Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985,
p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.
“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists
seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest
evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each
is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the
rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.”
Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol.
3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.
“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has
changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial,
which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin,
The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.
“The fact that all the individual species must be stationed at the
extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized
the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural
evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related
as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is
required by evolution.” Denton, p. 132.
b. “... no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven
M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books,
Inc., 1981), p. 73.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences13.html#wp1008897 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ken
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: Just smore Palucrap |
|
|
| (0) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Frum
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:40 am Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 21:37:11 +0100, Pahu78@gmail.com wrote
(in message
<1b792733-5b74-4858-a80f-07e93c49a778@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
| Quote: |
Distinct Types
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions
|
...........Plonk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Distinct Types
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions
among many living things.
|
Yes, this is exactly what we do see.
| Quote: |
For example, variations of dogs might blend
in with variations of cats.
|
No they wouldn't. Have you, maybe, noticed any variations among
dogs? Maybe slight differences between some dogs? Have you, just
maybe, ever so slightly, noticed just a small difference between,
say, a poodle and a St Bernard? Well that is evolution for you.
| Quote: |
There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants
arose from any other major group {a}. Species are observed only going
out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence (b).
|
and
| Quote: |
b. “... no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven
M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books,
Inc., 1981), p. 73.
|
Lie.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/uncovered/2003/02/19/plant.shtml
| Quote: |
a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete
transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has
never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the
field.” Dean H. Kenyon
|
Nor would we expect to see it. Dean Kenyon is a leading creationist,
author of "Of Pandas and People" which is the leading Intelligent
Design text. This was exposed as dishonest in that it was a straight
edit of an original creationist text with the words like creator
changed to designer. It is debunked here:
http://shortlink.co.uk/u7p
Another own-goal Pahu?
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alwyn
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
In article <tKGdnTqeYrxTyfLVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Have you, maybe, noticed any variations among
dogs? Maybe slight differences between some dogs? Have you, just
maybe, ever so slightly, noticed just a small difference between,
say, a poodle and a St Bernard? Well that is evolution for you.
|
I'd rather say that's breeding for you!
Domestic dogs are surely an argument for Intelligent Design!
Alwyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
Alwyn wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <tKGdnTqeYrxTyfLVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
Have you, maybe, noticed any variations among
dogs? Maybe slight differences between some dogs? Have you, just
maybe, ever so slightly, noticed just a small difference between,
say, a poodle and a St Bernard? Well that is evolution for you.
I'd rather say that's breeding for you!
Domestic dogs are surely an argument for Intelligent Design!
|
I've warned you about giving ammunition to the creationists before. ;-)
Of course it is breeding. It is evolution with unnatural, rather
than natural selection. It does just show the variation you can get
between animals, even when we still consider them to be the same
species.
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alwyn
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
In article <1dWdncKb1czFJ_LVnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Alwyn wrote:
In article <tKGdnTqeYrxTyfLVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
Have you, maybe, noticed any variations among
dogs? Maybe slight differences between some dogs? Have you, just
maybe, ever so slightly, noticed just a small difference between,
say, a poodle and a St Bernard? Well that is evolution for you.
I'd rather say that's breeding for you!
Domestic dogs are surely an argument for Intelligent Design!
I've warned you about giving ammunition to the creationists before. ;-)
|
My point is that you are doing exactly that by being imprecise in your
terminology.
For instance, when you say that evolution is 'fact', a canny creationist
can always come back at you and say that science doesn't work like that:
a scientific theory, however generally accepted by specialists, is
always provisional, never fact. (Of course, actual creationists are a
bit more naive, their slogan being: 'It's just a theory', not realising,
or purposely ignoring, the point I made above.)
| Quote: |
Of course it is breeding. It is evolution with unnatural, rather
than natural selection. It does just show the variation you can get
between animals, even when we still consider them to be the same
species.
|
Well, the 'unnatural selection' is controlled by supposedly intelligent
beings, so I would hesitate about giving this example for a sceptic to
chew on.
Alwyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
Alwyn wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <1dWdncKb1czFJ_LVnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
Domestic dogs are surely an argument for Intelligent Design!
I've warned you about giving ammunition to the creationists before. ;-)
My point is that you are doing exactly that by being imprecise in your
terminology.
For instance, when you say that evolution is 'fact', a canny creationist
can always come back at you and say that science doesn't work like that:
a scientific theory, however generally accepted by specialists, is
always provisional, never fact. (Of course, actual creationists are a
bit more naive, their slogan being: 'It's just a theory', not realising,
or purposely ignoring, the point I made above.)
|
I'd hoped that you had spotted the smiley, but ...
Accepting all you say, there comes a point where the evidence is so
overwhelming that it becomes inconceivable that any other
explanation is credible. There comes a point where the sheer weight
of probability becomes indistinguishable from "fact" - as in the
case of evolution (not just my view, see the link I provided earlier).
It is clear that the majority of creationists have too little
scientific understanding and education to comprehend the usage of
the word "theory" in science. This is why the canny (and largely
dishonest) creationist pushes the notion that the word theory
indicates the speculative nature of the idea.
It is critical that we disavow the naive creationist of this
impression and emphasise the factual nature (i.e. that it is known
to be beyond any reasonable doubt) of evolution.
You can also point out to the naive creationist that we don't
actually need to understand evolution in every detail to recognise
it as a fact. We have little understanding of the underlying causes
of gravity, but this doesn't stop me, you or the creationists that
come knocking at my door, from knowing precisely which way the foam
ball (that I keep in the drawer by the door just for the purpose) is
going to move when I let go of it. The factual nature of gravity,
just like the factual nature of evolution, is not in doubt.
| Quote: |
Of course it is breeding. It is evolution with unnatural, rather
than natural selection. It does just show the variation you can get
between animals, even when we still consider them to be the same
species.
Well, the 'unnatural selection' is controlled by supposedly intelligent
beings, so I would hesitate about giving this example for a sceptic to
chew on.
|
I'm not sure why? Dog breeding is hardly an appeal to the
supernatural. Not even Dave would get himself into a religiously
induced frenzy talking about dog breeders!
Breeding simply replaces the evolutionary pressure from natural
selection with evolutionary pressure from the dog breeder. The
underlying genetic variation and mutation that provides the material
for the selection process in the same in both cases.
Also, we need to bear in mind that what we consider to be a species
is fairly arbitrary, simply a human definition. I can't believe that
if we had found these two in the jungle we would have named them
both "dog":
http://tinyurl.com/38fpl3
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Wynne-Griffiths
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
The message <iYWdnVLTF4bqcu3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet>
from Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> contains these words:
| Quote: |
Accepting all you say, there comes a point where the evidence is so
overwhelming that it becomes inconceivable that any other
explanation is credible. There comes a point where the sheer weight
of probability becomes indistinguishable from "fact" - as in the
case of evolution (not just my view, see the link I provided earlier).
|
There is no evidence whatsoever for the only alternative of a magical
creation by some sort of deity. That notion is supported by nothing more
than an ancient myth and the unsubstantiated belief that because it
appears in the bible it has to be true.
--
********
DavidWG
******** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alwyn
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
In article <iYWdnVLTF4bqcu3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I'd hoped that you had spotted the smiley, but ...
|
Oh, my apologies for not making it clear that the smiley had been noted.
One does not want to come over as humourless. :-)
| Quote: |
Accepting all you say, there comes a point where the evidence is so
overwhelming that it becomes inconceivable that any other
explanation is credible. There comes a point where the sheer weight
of probability becomes indistinguishable from "fact" - as in the
case of evolution (not just my view, see the link I provided earlier).
|
That's the way it looks like to us today, right? According to the
Kuhnian model of the history of science, we are now in a period of
'normal science' as regards evolutionary biology, where the activity
consists of adding details and casting light into dark corners. However,
it is not inconceivable that at some time in the future a 'paradigm
shift' will occur in the matter of the origin of species as it has in so
many other scientific areas.
I'm pretty sure the people who believed in the Ptolemaic model of the
universe saw their view as 'indistinguishable from fact' also.
Phlogiston looked like a sure thing it its day, as did the all-pervading
aether. Yet all those theories eventually got superseded. I maintain it
is of the essence of scientific endeavour that all results and
formulations are provisional: experiments await replication and theories
confirmation; a failure to replicate results or a result that is not
predicted by al theory can have serious consequences.
As Stephoen Hawking wrote in 'A Brief History of Time':
"a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must
accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a
model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make
definite predictions about the results of future observations"
He goes on to state:
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only
a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the
results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure
that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the
other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single
observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Description_and_prediction>
| Quote: |
It is clear that the majority of creationists have too little
scientific understanding and education to comprehend the usage of
the word "theory" in science. This is why the canny (and largely
dishonest) creationist pushes the notion that the word theory
indicates the speculative nature of the idea.
|
I can only agree with you there but would also point out that all
science is to some extent speculative, as described above. There is no
knowing when our most cherished notions may be subverted.
| Quote: |
It is critical that we disavow the naive creationist of this
impression and emphasise the factual nature (i.e. that it is known
to be beyond any reasonable doubt) of evolution.
|
My formulation would be: beyond reasonable doubt for the time being. And
if and when the theory of evolution as we understand it today is
dislodged, it will be in favour of something more sophisticated, that
conforms better to the known facts and definitely not the account from
Genesis.
| Quote: |
You can also point out to the naive creationist that we don't
actually need to understand evolution in every detail to recognise
it as a fact. We have little understanding of the underlying causes
of gravity, but this doesn't stop me, you or the creationists that
come knocking at my door, from knowing precisely which way the foam
ball (that I keep in the drawer by the door just for the purpose) is
going to move when I let go of it. The factual nature of gravity,
just like the factual nature of evolution, is not in doubt.
|
Agreed. Scientific understanding is always going to be partial, in my
view,, and we had better get used to the fact.
| Quote: |
Of course it is breeding. It is evolution with unnatural, rather
than natural selection. It does just show the variation you can get
between animals, even when we still consider them to be the same
species.
Well, the 'unnatural selection' is controlled by supposedly intelligent
beings, so I would hesitate about giving this example for a sceptic to
chew on.
I'm not sure why? Dog breeding is hardly an appeal to the
supernatural. Not even Dave would get himself into a religiously
induced frenzy talking about dog breeders!
|
One could say that in this instance humans are to dogs as God is to the
whole of natural creation. I couldn't hope to convince a disbeliever in
evolution with examples from human breeding activities.
| Quote: |
Breeding simply replaces the evolutionary pressure from natural
selection with evolutionary pressure from the dog breeder. The
underlying genetic variation and mutation that provides the material
for the selection process in the same in both cases.
|
Well yes, that argument may well work with somebody who already believes
in evolution but has doubts. My point is that a creationist will scoff
at it, and perhaps with some justification.
| Quote: |
Also, we need to bear in mind that what we consider to be a species
is fairly arbitrary, simply a human definition. I can't believe that
if we had found these two in the jungle we would have named them
both "dog":
http://tinyurl.com/38fpl3
|
They seem to me quite similar, actually; the difference in size is what
strikes one most, but then juvenile Great Danes are also quite small.
However, I agree with you that 'species' is a very, very hard concept to
define. Creationists tend to go with the Biblical 'kind', but, needless
to say, that is no more satisfactory.
Alwyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ian Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
Alwyn wrote:
| Quote: |
One could say that in this instance humans are to dogs as God is to the
whole of natural creation. I couldn't hope to convince a disbeliever in
evolution with examples from human breeding activities.
|
There's no point in doing this one to death when I think we are
singing from the same hymn sheet (oops).
However, I need to pick you up on the above. You can't make this
comparison at all. Humans and dogs exist, whereas 'god' is purely
mythical. Dogs didn't invent humans to explain their evolution.
regards, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alwyn
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
|
|
In article <6Y2dnfhxAJSHje_VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Alwyn wrote:
One could say that in this instance humans are to dogs as God is to the
whole of natural creation. I couldn't hope to convince a disbeliever in
evolution with examples from human breeding activities.
There's no point in doing this one to death when I think we are
singing from the same hymn sheet (oops).
|
Hehehe!
| Quote: |
However, I need to pick you up on the above. You can't make this
comparison at all. Humans and dogs exist, whereas 'god' is purely
mythical. Dogs didn't invent humans to explain their evolution.
|
Touché!
Alwyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
76 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
