Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives

Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.

Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

the horse ‘evolution’ hypothesis has been already discounted by science

“even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.”

Here's an excellent example of how creationist Web sites distort what scientists say. Simpson certainly did not back away from "the horse evolution hypothesis." What he thought was misleading was the then-popular depiction of horse evolution as a straight line--the "linear" progression I referred to earlier. Here's what he really thought:

"Simpson made the evolution of the horse one of his specialties; his detailed, quantitative studies, published in his classic book Horses (1951), exploded Marsh's 'single-line' evolution of the horse from a fox-sized hoofless ancestor.

"Instead, Simpson showed the complex and diverse branching of the horse's ancient relatives, not only through time, but over geographica area, as early populations pushed into various habitats, adapting first to forests, then to open grasslands. Horses represented a complex, branching bush of diverging species—nothing like a line leading straight from Eohippus to old Dobbin."

And a direct quote: "Eohippus is referred to the Equidae because we happen to have more complete lines back to it from later members of this family than from other families."

[[Here’s an excellent example of how creationist Web sites distort what scientists say. Simpson certainly did not back away from “the horse evolution hypothesis.” ]]

They didn’t distort anything- He DID back away from the graphs- Are you distorting by saying he didn’t?

As well what you are neglecting to point out is that the species are all the same KIND- and are nothign but variations- the toe issue as pointed out include genes being turned on and off- the only way htis can happen is if they are all the same KIND- As well the breaks in the ‘branches’ are so severe that one can not reconcile one species to another with any intellectual honesty.

“In 1980, a four-day symposium was held at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, with 150 evolutionists in attendance, to discuss the problems with the gradualistic evolutionary theory. In addressing this meeting, evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.”

“The inconsistency of the theory of the evolution of the horse becomes increasingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered. Fossils of modern horse species (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) have been discovered in the same layer as Eohippus.155 This is an indication that the modern horse and its so-called ancestor lived at the same time.

The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:

But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time”

http://darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.html

“It is interesting to note that while claiming that intermediate forms for the reptile-to-mammal transition have been found, some evolutionists admit that no immediate ancestors for any of the 32 mammalian orders have been discovered. Thus, George Gaylord Simpson, after stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (”Eohippus”), which evolutionists assume was the first horse, and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, goes on to say “This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals…The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.”3 http://www.icr.org/article/169/

The Eohippus had 18 ribs, and infact was more closely related to the hyrax, not hte horse- but you won’t find that in aNy propoganda branch graphs.

” The earliest of this series, Eohippus, is properly called Hyracotherium. This is not horse-like; it has 4 toes and 18 pairs of ribs, and its feet are padded and dog-like. The next-oldest, Orohippus, had 15 pairs of ribs. Pliohippus had 19 pairs, and the modern Equus has 18 pairs. Does this sound like a genuine series of transitions? Especially not, when we consider that fossils of Eohippus and the modern Equus have been found side by side in surface rocks.”

http://www.rae.org/bits24.htm

As well, the remainder of species in the KIND showed nothign but trait variation- nothign is said abotu hte fact that their supposed ancestors had entirely different gene instructions which could not have been biologically passed off to the horse- no NEW ifnromaiton was gaiend- however, what we do see is information dissappearing and even changing fully within KIND parameters.

[[And a direct quote: “Eohippus is referred to the Equidae because we happen to have more complete lines back to it from later members of this family than from other families.”]]

That is simply untrue

[[but Rush Limbaugh is right. ID is a mask for suppernaturalism.]]

Good golly- Tiem and time agian it has been shown ID is no such thing- it is a science that clearly indicates intelligent design- period- it makes no claim about who or what the itnelligence is- Heck soem ID proponents feel that nature itself is the intellgience and have conducted studies to try to determine IF nature is capable of the itnellgience seen in the design (to no avail I might add)- so tell me JS- how is ID a supernaturalism then if some proponents who are groudned in and vested in ID don’t even believe in God but feel Nature is hte intellgience?

[[Shapiro does not invoke any supernatural causes, and he criticises Behe for unnecessarily bringing religion into science.]]

IF this is what Shapiro does then he too has shown himself UNObjective and thus not scientific as He’s a priori already ruled out any other explanations other than naturalism or whatev3r he believes.

ID doesn’t ‘bring religion into science’- it makes no mention of religion nor of the itnellgience- all it does- and quite validly so, is show enough evidnece to show that nature could not have created IC and that another explanation is necessary.

As I’ve said repeatedly- when someone finds 1000’s of examples of IC- it is unscientific to suggest that ONLY Naturalism can be the cause ESPECIALLY when they not only have zero evidence to support htis AND when a natural process MUST include a supernatural process itself to overcome the biological impossibilities of hte supposed natural process. So please- enopugh with hte insinuations that ID isn’t ‘science because it presents evidence that an intelligence must be invovled in IC because your naturalism MUST also appeal soem kind of supernaturalism as well if it is to be true.

No. To imply that is to ignore the huge changes that occurred.

To imply what? So you're saying that the difference between the pictured skeletal models are much more varied then all the variations of all the dogs?

For example, you are not seeing the change from 4 toes on each front foot and 3 on the hind feet, to only one on each foot in modern horses.

It is true that I did not notice the number of toe counts. But just what does that prove? Loss of information? We now have special breeds of cows who don't grow horns, and cats who don't grow hair or tails, and dogs that don't grow.

I've even heard of blind lobsters who lost the DNA needed to see because they lived so long in the dark that there was no selective pressure to favor sight.

Why couldn't a toe bone have got lost from the genes after a while? I don't see how the loss of something proves the gain of something. "Yes, boys and girls, that's how we got everything, by very slowly losing it!"

Thanks,

-Jesse

You might have a point if they were all running around today, or if Equus skeletons were found mixed in with Orohippus skeletons. But they're not.

Why would they have to exist all at the same time or in the same place? Dog breeders didn't do it just right and have one wolf that gave birth to a poodle, a great dane, a terrier, colie, bulldog, etc. Matter of fact, it took many many generations each with slight changes.

Maybe you don't mean that literally, but in case you do: nobody thinks dogs evolved into horses, and only in the broadest sense do they think fish evolved into dogs.

Thanks for the info. I'm clearly not well familiar with the evolutionary tree's exact order. Is there any chance you might be so kind as to provide me a link to a good one -- one that I can print out 17x32 or whatever and learn lots from? Thanks!

You've got to go all the way back to the development of jaws..

And eyes, and teeth, and, and... :-) I still like the idea of this ferocious little creature who's pretty much a primitive slime blob with these big complicated eyes, powefull jaws, and these fangs. :-)

There are transitional specimens along each branch, but nothing that shows something intermediate between branches--one wouldn't expect there to be.

I'm not saying that there should be intermediates between branches (except in the case of a severe ring species) but that the lines flowing along the branches ought to have very finely spaced fossils of development. But if I can find a really good chart then I'll be able to know more what I'm trying to talk about.

Thanks very much,

-Jesse

They didn’t distort anything- He DID back away from the graphs- Are you distorting by saying he didn’t?

Here's what you originally wrote:

the horse ‘evolution’ hypothesis has been already discounted by science

“even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.”

Nothing in there about the graphs. The clear implication of what you wrote was that Simpson backed away from the horse evolution hypothesis, period. That's not true.

I'm equally suspicious of the quote from Rensberger. For one thing, the paragraph you quote didn't appear in the first version of his article that appeared in print (in the NY Times), but was added in the version that appeared in a different paper the next day. Some question whether Rensberger actually wrote that paragraph, or whether it was instead added by the Houston Chronicle editor.

For another, this is the same Rensberger who wrote in 1997, "First, there’s absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is real and, although knowledge of some mechanisms is incomplete, much is known about how evolution works." He continues, "Perhaps the oldest known transitional sequence involves the horse. It starts about 55 million years ago with a terrier-sized creature that had four toes in front and three in back....The lineage evolved through at least 14 steps, each represented in the fossil record by a successful species, until the modern horse, a pony-sized Equus, the genus to which modern horses belong, appeared about 4 million years ago." He really doesn't seem to have a problem with the modern view of horse evolution.

[[And a direct quote: “Eohippus is referred to the Equidae because we happen to have more complete lines back to it from later members of this family than from other families.”]]

That is simply untrue

Doesn't it make you a little uncomfortable to quote someone in support of your position and then, when confronted with a contradictory quote from the same person, simply wave it away like that?

The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

There's quite a lot of conjecture and "It might be so it must be" in that page you provided. I wondered if I even detected a little techno-jargon in there. But I don't know enough to sort technojargon out of that topic -- do you? Are you certain (by some means other then your sheer faith in the auther) that there wasn't ant techno-babble in there?

So apparently, according to modern physics, the big bang is far from impossible and, in fact, may be the "path of least resistance"!

Yeah, physics that nobody can demonstrate to me. And saying "oh, well, the big bang is now possible because it's possible for the negative energy that to release large amounts of positive energy.." just differs the problem: We still have the problem that such a thing cannot be demonstrated to even be possible. (While that website had a few lines stating that it was possible, it is no more proof that it's possible then when some website quotes people saying that intelligent design is possible.)

We still have the problem of something having taken place which requires that the laws of physics as we've always known them, to be suspended or not exist. It's still requires a faith in something that we cannot reproduce and which aren't even possible with the current known laws of physics.

-Jesse

Why would they have to exist all at the same time or in the same place?

You said the horse skeletons appeared to you to be variations within a species or genus--or whatever you meant by "kind"--and compared the variation to different kinds of dogs. My question, which I guess I didn't express very well, is how then do you account for the fact that these variations succeed each other in the fossil record? If they're just variations like dogs, how come there aren't any fox-sized horses running around now? Why do we appear to have one variety, then the next variety, and so on?

I'm clearly not well familiar with the evolutionary tree's exact order. Is there any chance you might be so kind as to provide me a link to a good one -- one that I can print out 17x32 or whatever and learn lots from?

This is my favorite, because it's pretty extensive and has nice pictures. You'll find fish showing up about halfway down the orange-red group at the top left, near the label "450 m yrs." Mammal-y things show up a few branchings above that, in the same group.

It might. Those arguing for a young earth and a literal global flood about 4,350 years ago are doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and based on virtually no supporting evidence.

So far I haven't found the the evidence to be anywheres near overwhelming. I have noticed some things about people, however. There are some things in life which just aren't conclusive, and people will tend to address these things using their world-view as a starting point. You're probably aware that to me, evolutionists look to be ignoring the evidence, just like to you creationists appear to be ignoring evidence. Do you think that your world-view has no influence on your decision on whether a given fact is considered evidence or not? Do you think that you're more willing to buy into an idea that fits your worldview then one that doesn't fit your world view, all things being equal?

I think the answer can be found in the fact that the you're operating under a definition of science which categorically throws out as untrue any evidence which requires a non-natural process at any point in the past.

Such a operating mode works fine if it's certain that no supernatural thing ever happened. But as long as it is possible that there was an intelligent designer, then science dogmatically rules out a possible thing. Why can't science be more evidence-based rather then dogma based?

The problem with dogmatically ruling out a certain possibility is that if that certain possibility is true, then we will go very wrong trying to explain the observed phenomenon in all the wrong ways.

I have talked to enough people to know that creationists aren't the only religious ones. Lots of people who believe whole-heartedly in evolution take it purely on faith in things they haven't seen from people they don't know. I really appreciate your patience in helping me with all my questions!

Also, I'm on the lookout for a good family tree chart or whatever you call them, which I can study -- a good one that I can print out poster size and which has lots of information, rather then just a tiny one that shows a few skulls or whatever.

Back to whether my belief in the Bible would prevent me from using the scientific method, I'll agree that there are many little evidences or factettes which look to you to support evolution and look to me to support intelligent design. I can see how one's world-view could sway them one way or the other. But as far as the empirical sciences (like chemistry, experimental biology, etc.) would be O.K -- I could still use the scientific method on those without trouble, right?

One hypotheses I had as a teenager and have always been told was wrong still amuses me. I read (And demonstrated) that running an electrical current through oxygen produces ozone. I found by experimentation that by running an arc through rarefied air for a few minutes caused the arc to turn from its original maroon color to a pure beautiful sky-blue. I also had heard that the ozone layer blocked UV. And I had learned about luminescence in which one wavelength is absorbed the energy is re-radiated at a longer wavelength. I then hypothesized that the ozone layer absorbed the sun's UV, and re radiated it at that nice sky blue color. Oh, and I read that some company was testing the ozone layer thickness with a UV laser. Sadly I never did get around to testing the hypotheses. (At the time I didn't have the tools available.) And yes, many people have explained to me about light scattering :-). But I do now have a UV germ lamp, and I could probably figure how to build a spectrum graphing device to see what sort of wavelength pattern the blue sky has.

Thanks,

-Jesse

Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space.

Pull the other one. It may be empty of matter, but there is something there. Otherwise, we'd have matter coming out the wazzoo, since most of the universe we can inspect is "empty space"(devoid of matter). I know of virtual particles and particle pair production. But you have to have other things around for matter to be produced.

And that negative gravitational energy, I think is called "potential energy". The same principle applies to the positron and electron. The charges on those particles produces an attraction which is called potential energy until we allow the particles to move closer together. Then it becomes kinetic energy. However, unlike two massive uncharged bodies, the electron-positron pair gives a bit more energy than the potential/kinetic energy when they get close enough. They annihilate.

Plus. one other factor, photons have no mass. They have energy. So what offsets the energy tied up in the photons?(speaking of a zero energy universe)

[[Nothing in there about the graphs. The clear implication of what you wrote was that Simpson backed away from the horse evolution hypothesis, period. That’s not true.]

That isn’t hte way I took it as the article mentioned that the horse evolution AS TAUGHT (and sadly is still being taught despite 50 years ago being proven false) was proven untrue

[[Some question whether Rensberger actually wrote that paragraph, or whether it was instead added by the Houston Chronicle editor]]

Write him- I’m sure you can find an email addy soemwhere

[[Some question whether Rensberger actually wrote that paragraph, or whether it was instead added by the Houston Chronicle editor]

So let me get htis straight- You doubt He said somethign and quesiton the integrity of those hwo quoted him- but oyu have absolutely no qualms about hte fact that He flat out lies by statign that there is absolutely no controversy within science about evolution? Lol-

[[Doesn’t it make you a little uncomfortable to quote someone in support of your position and then, when confronted with a contradictory quote from the same person, simply wave it away like that?]]

No not hwne htey later back away from earlier beliefs when confronted with evidneces which refute hte earlier beliefs- As well, I find it more compelling htat these same folks who claim “There is no controversy in science concerning evolution” and later change hteir minds about somehtign that was supposed to be so ‘solid’ (yet rife with assumptions and compelte guesswork and imaginary scenarios and unknown variables) I keep hearign how ‘solid’ macroevolution is, yet when carefulyl examined, I see nothign but fluff and contradictory statements and confessions that quite frankly are kept from the mainstream- because after all, we wouldn’t want Macroevolution looking unstable now would we?

[[My question, which I guess I didn’t express very well, is how then do you account for the fact that these variations succeed each other in the fossil record?]

Firtst of asll- you are aware that some hwere foud in the same supposed timelines, right? Yet they are put up in a neat little graph indicating htey all formed a nice neat evolutionary line- that isn’t true.

Secondly, you are aware that we don’t find these toes in intermediate steps, right? All we see are uniquely created fully formed toes-

Thirdly, you are aware that the first of hte so called ‘horse relatives’ were a compeltely different KIND, right? A Hyrax, or rock badger.

How do we accoutn for hte ‘being in a neat timeframe’? Several problems- first, you have to have faith that the dating methods are accurate- you have to assume htey are- there simply is no way of knowing- secondly, as mentioend before, they were not found in the neat timelines you and hte sites suggest- soem of hte older larger were foudn in the same layers- third, you have to ASSUME they are all related (which as we’ve shown, they have been shown not to be) yet you have no DNA to compare the species with- few homological similarities are meaningless- forht- you have to rely on someone’s imagination and ‘reconstruction and descriptive powers’ and must have faith that they aren’t mistaken. As one of hte links I pointed out showed, you don’t know how many bones were found, which ones were found, and how much relies on ‘fill in guesswork’, fifth- Even Simpson’s ‘timelines’ don’t show any progression from continent to continent- soem of hte finds were completely disconnected geographically and again you have to rely on someone’s imaginative powers to fill in the gaps. sixthly- EVEN IF a few of these species, after all the guessing and assumptions are figured in, were related, they still fall within the KINDS- and as you well know, species can varygreatly within KINDS- the info for hte toes it turns out can be switched on and off, and htis woudl show nothign more than that being hte case-

[[This is my favorite,]]

Really? You do know how many problems are associated with that, right? “Mammal-y” things? Where? You mean the LOBE FINNED FISH? They are a unique species KIND and no scientist uses them as a ‘cross-over psecies’ anymore. As well, the gaps between the ‘major ‘transitional’ species is staggering. In order to get this graph, they HAVE to set a rat sixed creature immediately before a hippo sized one, and it’s as well been shown there is no relaTION to the two- that is a very serious gap Ha Ha. I’m sorry- but htewse graphs are pure fantasy- fien for fantasy novels, and fantasy stories run on National geographic and other such media outlets that care nothign for scientific integrity, but htye don’t stand up to real scientific scrutiny.

[[I’m not saying that there should be intermediates between branches (except in the case of a severe ring species) but that the lines flowing along the branches ought to have very finely spaced fossils of development.]]

Instead, what we got are rat sized species (fully formed and fully functional and completed I mgiht add) set before a hippo sized creature (I beleive they were the cynodonts and therapsids) and we’re told “The evolution from sea to land, and hte evolution of hte ear is so complete that it is beyond question”? I find it funny how ID is called a religion, yet the faith needed ot beleive in such Macroevolution graphs is tremendous- the graphs don’t include clear lines, not even close- The world should be innundated with grossly mishappened forms showing a much closer transition than we find, because of trial and error which should have grossly outnumbered the ‘succesful adaptations’, and we shoudl be finding far more of htese grossly mishappened forms, yet nope- all we’re finding are completed fully functioning species examples with huge gaps between the supposedly related species- Even the suppsoed ‘branch off’ species lines are fiuleld with gaps, but we’re told “it’s not a problem as there are ‘things we don’t understand ‘just yet” “But” “We’re close”- they aren’t any closer today than they were 150 years ago- they just have fancier imaginations than htey did in the anciuent times. Rat to hippo- related- don’t ask quesitons cuz Macroeovlution is close to explaining origins and common descent.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.