Posted on 08/05/2008 4:13:42 PM PDT by big black dog
Look, I apologize, this is a self serving vanity post. I want this to be short -- I am not driven by any religious viewpoint. Yes, I was raised that way and can still point out the arguments they make.
I don't want to do that right now. I want to hear from people who discount evolution from a strictly non-dogmatic point of view.
“Build a car and you would violate the creationist second law”
not really a good argument since a car requires a builder.
“Things go from simple to complex all of the time locally in time and space”
where is the evidence that an organism mutation has occurred by gaining info, rather than losing info?
In the real world, even a "designer" can't violate the genuine second law of thermodynamics. You would be laughed off of a science forum for that statement.
where is the evidence that an organism mutation has occurred by gaining info, rather than losing info?
"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
The argument is over. We know the answers.
If we evolved from primates, why are there still primates?
This is a question so trite, and exhibiting such lack of understanding, that even creationist websites often suggest that it not be used. They write:
...the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct. Source
I still fail to see what evidence you have.
I suggest this is because you have been unwilling to examine that evidence, taking rather the strawman arguments made by most creationists as accurate. Perhaps if you actually examined the real evidence you would have a different understanding of the subject.
And don’t those mutations occur inside that species? At least that’s the gist of what I understood from what I’ve read.
Mutations occur in individuals and, if not too harmful, can spread throughout a population over time. The most favorable mutations will spread the quickest. The most harmful mutations will kill the individuals in which they occur. Through this mechanism, change between two populations can occur if they become reproductively isolated. That is what happened with the forest apes: one branch was forced first to the edges of the forest, then into the adjacent grasslands. Mutations helped them adapt to their new conditions, while there was no selection pressure forcing the apes who remained in the forest to change much. Those in the grasslands had a lot of selective pressure, and changed a lot. That line eventually led to us.
Your theory of evolution is still just a theory, and scientists don’t have any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
In science a theory is the highest form of explanation; there is no higher level to attain. Therefore, calling the theory of evolution "just a theory" is meaningless.
A theory is the current best explanation for a set of facts. It must explain all of those facts, and none of those facts can seriously contradict that theory. To become a theory, a hypothesis must have undergone testing and criticism, and have passed those tests. A powerful theory must also successfully make predictions. The theory of evolution has been tested for 150 years, and has survived those tests. It also successfully makes predictions. It, in fact, is a more robust theory in its field than the theory of gravitation is in its field. In other words, we know a great deal more about how evolution occurs than about how gravity occurs.
I hope these answers help you to understand these matters better. You have been fed some very simplistic, and incorrect, information.
Ignorance of evidence is not absence of evidence.
First off let me thank you for enlightening me on how stupid I’ve been. “...the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists BELIEVE (your word, not mine)....”. Again, nothing conclusive. Telling me my questions are meaningless and trite doesn’t help your cause either. Sometimes common sense prevails and you fail to convert others to your way of thinking. Again, if you want to believe this THEORY go ahead. The fact that you must denigrate me for believing the way I do reinforces my argument that there’s no valid evidence to substaniate your position. You have faith and so do I, we just happen to have faith in different things. I lack understanding about your point of view and you lack understanding about mine. I have been willing to read things about evolution from a scientific perspective. Are you willing to read the Bible so you can gain some insight into my undertanding? I kind of doubt it. Let’s just agree to disagree.
Fine. But when you make arguments against the theory of evolution, you should at least have some understanding of the issues. You have been repeating oft-refuted propaganda. That does your case no good.
I have examined much of the material on creationist websites, so I have a good understanding of the issues. Perhaps you should do the same.
Is there any real evidence to support what you’re saying? Radiometric or radiocarbon dating is not an exact science, which leaves room for doubt. How many findings of these scientists were thrown out until they got the results they were looking for?
Yes, there is a lot of evidence. In my field (archaeology) I do a lot of radiocarbon dating--nearly 600 so far. And I don't throw out a lot of results at all!
What we do when we data a site is look for stratigraphy (natural soil layers), and cultural components. We then date each of these based on cultural items (bead or point styles, for example), superposition (deeper layers are older), and radiocarbon dating. And we don't do just one date--on my last major excavation I obtained 32 dates. In one case I got a date 1500 years older than all the rest; I did several more dates in that stratum until I understood what was going on. That older date was indeed supported by other dates, as well as cultural differences.
As far as radiocarbon dating not being an exact science and there being room for doubt: which would you prefer to bet on, the 99% or the 1%? Radiocarbon and other forms of radiometric dating have been well tested and shown to be reliable. The different radiometric dating methods agree with each other and correlate well with other methods of dating. This is the type of thing that if you were making a bet, you would bet the rent money on the techniques being largely accurate rather than inaccurate.
I provided some good links upthread. The first one is written from a Christian perspective and hosted on a Christian website. Take a look at least that one.
According to Einstein the Earth, Moon, and Sun travel in straight lines. Their mass bends space such that it appears to us they orbit each other.
No, the Earth, Moon and Sun travel in elipses relative to one another due to the localized curvature of space. The Earth does in fact orbit the Sun and the Moon does orbit the Earth. You are confused. Each one describes a strait line path within their own curved space, but they are not alone in the universe.
You are accusing Einstein of being confused. A lot of people have bet against him and lost. The Earth and Sun actually travel in straight lines. The Earth orbiting the Sun is not what's going on, although that simplistic model is sufficient for many purposes. My point is that scientific debate is never over and the models you use to operate will likely all be proven wrong someday.
The reason many people cannot accept natural selection to explain human evolution is because it just doesn't add up. Why did humans evolve so fast compared to other animals and where are the genetic variations on theme? I believe the answer is that humans did not evolve by natural section but by many hundreds of thousands of years of tribal warfare, which is not natural selection at all. Most modern evolutionists stick to the idea of natural selection only. They find the thought of a violent past too repulsive to accept. But they are wrong.
They didn't
where are the genetic variations on theme?
the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16136131
I believe the answer is that humans did not evolve by natural section but by many hundreds of thousands of years of tribal warfare, which is not natural selection at all. Most modern evolutionists stick to the idea of natural selection only
Yes it is by definition of natural selection
.....Yes it is by definition of natural selection .....
precisely correct.
It is not old or modern tribal warfare only. The best modern example of natural selection in action is the 1945 wholsale raping of German women by Russian troops. The biological purpose of the raping is to introduce Russian genes into the German gene pool. .
It can be argued that black Africans defeated their neighbors and sold them to slavery. The superior gene pool prevailed over the inferior pool. The result was a strngthening of those left behind. The action was natural selection in action
Modern man is new by evolutionary timelines. We can’t say with certainty how the natural selection occured but being uncertain is not a bad thing
Warfare is an unusual branch of evolution and I've never heard it classified as natural selection. Is the atomic bomb going off in Japan natural? Was the extermination of 6 million Jews during WWII natural? Of the European Jews that survived is their IQ being measurably higher than the total Jewish population before the war natural? Could their unusual intelligence be the result of 2,000 years of unnatural persecution? I'm failing to see how war is the definition of natural selection.
Cite a source on brain evolution please
Are you suggesting it is supernatural selection?
That is not what I learned when I was in graduate school. Look back to the early Homo species and note the brain sizes.
What you are suggesting is that the size increases and associated cultural advancements were accompanied by no increase in brain complexity. That is pretty dubious.
Justify your claim or admit it's just BS.
Competition within a species is certainly part of natural selection.
BTW nobody is accusing Einstein of being confused. Just you.
Humans are truly privileged animals with brains that have developed in a type of extraordinarily fast evolution that is unique to the species.
There are a few large holes in the natural selection theory. People reject the theory as it stands because in the case of humans it just doesn't add up. Something else was going on. I find it funny how evolutionists dance around these holes with leaps of faith as strong as any religion.
No, but the holes in the theory give people valid reason to reject it. It may not have been supernatural but it was super something.
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.