Darwin put to flight in Bible Belt [Evolution vs. Creationism]

Times of London ^ | 30 January 2005 | Sarah Baxter

[From many - one.]

In between which 2 do you suppose is the "missing link"? ;->

[Dimensio]

Evolution can't explain the origin of life.

I've a nasty long paper to write up, so I will get to the rest later, but this is correct. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. The origin of life is not part of the scope of the study of evolution. The origin of life has never been part of the scope of the study of evolution.

[From many - one.]

"No sir. Evolution can't explain the origin of life....."

It's not supposed to although that is a common misconception among Creationists.

"... It may explain the change of species to adapt to their environments within parameters bestowed at creation, ...."

Correct. That's what it does work on explaining. That makes you an evolutionist.

[DannyTN]

Some "intermediate" species prior to Homo sapiens sapiens:

Well that's a nice list you've got there. But I assume you are aware of the problems. All of the Australopithecus were knuckle walkers. They were apes. There is no transition from Australopithecus to Homo Erectus. Read the following link. The discussion of Homo Hibilis and Homo Erectus is particularly enlightening.

The most famous Homo Hibilis scull #1470, aka Lucy, a scull that was found in 100 fragments was pieced together to look like a flat faced human. Only after a Creation scientist was allowed to examine the skull and started pointing out features that were similar to Australopithecus was the skull recast and now is clearly in the Australipthecus camp. It turned out not to be Homo at all.

It's even more entertaining reading about the gyrations that evolutionists go through to date these fossils. Quite often the finds completely upset their established time frame. I think you will note that the time frames given for certain fossils in the link below are dramatically older than the all too neat diagram that you provided.

Apes to Men?
Old Human fossils
Human 7 million years ago?
The rise and fall of scull 1470- very entertaining
Discussion of the dating of 1470-laughable

The information provided in those links indicate a couple of things. It is hard to distinquish Ape from human fossils, especially when you don't have a good sample to work with in the beginning. There is no clear transition from the ape austrapithicus to homo sapiens. Even when a weak case can be made, dating of other fossils outside of the carefully contrived progression throws a "monkey wrench" into the works. (so to speak)

[DannyTN]

You might want to see post 464. And the reason we are discussing this and don't automatically accept authorities' word for it, is 1) there are authorities who disagree, 2) authorities have been wrong in the past, 3) some of us prefer to think for ourselves, and 4) for the same reason we don't accept the MSM authority. Some authority is obviously biased and not trustworthy.

[From many - one.]

I'm glad you like the list.

I'm not sure of the point of the rest of your post, though. You noted controversy. As part of my work today I was reading about the controversy over the classification of some mosses. That's how the sciences work.

[Alacarte]

There is no evidence of that. You are assuming that because we are here, it must have been because of evolution. But there is no evidence.

What are you talking about? You said there are no advantageous mutations, yet you admit there are 'disadvantageous' mutations, and you point them out! So it's ok for you to accept that those deleterious mutations occurred, but not that the positive ones are part of us today??? What would you consider a positive mutation then!

But there is no evidence. The fossil record ought to hold intermediary forms.

---

Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave many transitional fossils. Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils, either because of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could easily be fossilized. However, in many cases, such as between primitive fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds, there are excellent transitional fossils.

---

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html

Not all geneticists are evolutionists.

All tenured geneticists who actually contribute to the scientific literature are evolutionists.

That's not true. See the following list.

I did, where are they tenured? What have they published... nowhere, and nothing.

Ridiculed scientists- a short list, I've seem much longer

I can't help but notice that none of the science these people were ridiculed for required a supernatural conclusion for their hypotheses... Comparing Galileo with IDers is absurdity! If anything, IDers are the proponents of geocentricism, and biologists heliocentrism! One is based on science, one is based on mythology...

If what you claim is actual science, and not just religious rhetoric, why can't you reference an actual science org to back it up?

[DannyTN]

"You said there are no advantageous mutations, yet you admit there are 'disadvantageous' mutations, and you point them out! So it's ok for you to accept that those deleterious mutations occurred, but not that the positive ones are part of us today??? "

Advantageous yes (sicle cell), add new functional design or information no. Our immune system is not a mutation. It is by design, and would have had to have existed in the first human in a world full of bacteria.

"All tenured geneticists who actually contribute to the scientific literature are evolutionists."

They have published. But the censureship attacks from the evolution community are very strong.

ID Published and credentialed

ID Published and Does publishing matter?

Smithsonian Museum Research Scientist's career threatened after publishing ID paper in peer review journal"

"One is based on science, one is based on mythology... "

No Evolution is based on uniformitarianism and naturalism, regardless of the scientific odds against it. Intelligent design is the best fit to the evidence.

[DannyTN]

"controversy - That's how the sciences work."

Except in the case of Intelligent design and then censureship not controversy is how the sciences work.

[Alacarte]

Advantageous yes (sicle cell), add new functional design or information no. Our immune system is not a mutation. It is by design, and would have had to have existed in the first human in a world full of bacteria.

This is your opinion, and my opinion is different. What really matters is what the people who spend their lives studying the subject say, and they disagree with you.

They have published. But the censureship attacks from the evolution community are very strong.

They may have tried, but they have not published. ID assumes a supernatural conclusion. When you accept supernatural conclusions, you exit the realm of science. It is a simple matter of "if we don't understand why, it must be magic" mentality.

From your misleadingly titled link: ID Published and credentialed

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

800 years ago, the 'best' explanation for natural disasters, disease and the configuration of the solar system was God. The real answer wasn't supernatural then, and it isn't now.

ID Published and Does publishing matter?

This link actually suggests that people should read the scientific literature and draw their own conclusions! Have you looked at a technical biology paper lately? Only a biologist can understand it, let alone draw conclusions from it! Someone has to interpret the data, what IDers are proposing is that they do it for us rather than the people who actually do the research.

Smithsonian Museum Research Scientist's career threatened after publishing ID paper in peer review journal"

She should be fired.

No Evolution is based on uniformitarianism and naturalism, regardless of the scientific odds against it.

Uniformitarianism? Yeah, telling the catholic church that genesis is wrong was really healthy for your social life in Darwin's time. What are you talking about naturalism? There is no science without naturalism! Science without naturalism is called philosophy, when is the last time philosophy cured a disease.

So, just so we're on the same page. You think ID is not part of science because of a conspiracy among the scientific community to stifle the truth, right? This is the only explanation why, despite what you say, the scientific community is 100% supportive of the science of evolution. One or two biologists here and there who question something means nothing, we could find lots of scientists who believe in ghosts and UFO's too. Officially, they support evolution 100%, if there was any serious debate, they would not be so vocal about it... unless there was a conspiracy

[DannyTN]

"What really matters is what the people who spend their lives studying the subject say, and they disagree with you."

What matters is truth. And there are people who spend their lives studying this and who disagree with you.

"When you accept supernatural conclusions, you exit the realm of science. It is a simple matter of "if we don't understand why, it must be magic" mentality."

ID doesn't require a supernatural conclusion. It does require an intelligent operator for which it doesn't attempt to explain what or who that intelligence is. It is no different than evolutionist's saying "if we don't understand where the intelligence came from, it must be evolution." "Regardless of how improbable life could have formed on it's own, or higher level beings formed from mutations and DNA copying errors, it must be evolution, because there is no higher intelligence than us."

800 years ago, the 'best' explanation for natural disasters, disease and the configuration of the solar system was God.

The best answer is still God. We may know how the solar system works better, the organisms that cause disease, and the patterns that cause disasters. But in the end, all of the order that we see in the universe is best explained not by an intelligent designer, not random chance, not cooling gas from an unknown source, but a designer.

Uniformitarianism?

Uniformitarianism is the believe that everything continues as it was from the beginning. That all of the proceses are the same, that there has been no large scale interventions in the universe. This is the belief that the Bible warns about in 2 Peter, that would prevail in the last days whereby people would become ignorant of creation and the flood. It is an uncanny description of Evolution and the effect evolution has had on revising history.

[Alacarte]

What matters is truth. And there are people who spend their lives studying this and who disagree with you.

Not the tenured researchers who actually contribute to science, otherwise there would be some vague reference to them in mainstream science. If there are one or two people, it's the same number of scientists who believe in ghosts. And since the scientific community goes to great lengths to support evolution, and denounce ID, I'd say I've got a lot more evidence.

It is no different than evolutionist's saying "if we don't understand where the intelligence came from, it must be evolution.

Thsi statement presumes a conclusion (intelligently designed) then looks to see if the data fits it. Science does not do that, evolution is a product of the data, not vice-versa. Genetics ended any faint controversy there might have been about the fact tht evolution happens. Though it created many more questions how those mechanisms occurred relative to genetics.

Regardless of how improbable life could have formed on it's own, or higher level beings formed from mutations and DNA copying errors, it must be evolution, because there is no higher intelligence than us.

We don't believe the theory of flight just because we cannot accept the fact that leprechauns use their magic to keep things in the sky. We believe it because it is science. You say there are lots of serious problems with evolution, but not one paper... of all the thousands of evolution papers in the literature, mention these problems. In essence, your 'problems' are non-existant, at least according to the only people who matter, the people who actually contribute to the very science you reference.

But in the end, all of the order that we see in the universe is best explained not by an intelligent designer, not random chance, not cooling gas from an unknown source, but a designer.

Exactly, just accept that god set the natural world in motion, and that those natural processes are exactly that, natural. Which means abandoning your baseless attacks on evolution as bad science.

It is an uncanny description of Evolution and the effect evolution has had on revising history.

So what is the Church's excuse for holding back every other scientific breakthrough in history that offended the bible? Is proving the literal interpretation of the 6 days of creation really any worse than proving the earth is not the center of the universe? I think the blow that god did not make us the center of the universe would be just as bad. But the church managed to reconcile science with religion then, and you'll learn to do it now.

[Tribune7]

You believe it should be assumed that God doesn't exist? Which one?

I've been thinking about your question.

Do you believe:

That there is no God or gods?

That there is a God but His existence has no relevance?

That there is a God but one is not to discuss His existence?