Posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Opinion
Monday, Feb. 23, 2009
Evolution debate persists because it's not science
By Raymond H. Kocot
...
But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.
Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...
(Excerpt) Read more at myrtlebeachonline.com ...
Ah the “scientists hate God” delusion.
And it is evidence that only marsupial mammals lived that long ago, and placental mammals were a more recent development that edged out marsupials everywhere except Australia.
Just as Antarctica is evidence that when it drifted too far south, the animals that inhabited the Earth were far different than the ones that inhabit it today.
Calling the creature a flying squirrel is a misnomer.
What it actually is is a gliding squirrel, and there is no indication that any of the gliding creatures (transitional or otherwise) ever developed into a flying creature.
Inbreeding is what produces the breeds of dogs that we have.
By breeding within families, canids are artificially selected for a narrow range of traits deemed desireable, such as a superior sense of smell, very short legs, digging ability, speed, water-loving, etc. Genes become concentrated.
Where some traits can't reasonably be selected for, we must have artifices such as ear-trimming and tail-docking.
Interbreeding concentrates genes that produce some populations of desireable traits (hybrid vigor), but also undesireable traits (diseases).
Inbreeding in humans (and canids) eventually polarizes the gene pool, producing both genius and cluelessness. In canids, those "losers" are euthenized: In humans (to put it bluntly), those "losers" are left out of the breeding stock.
Collectivist societies will attempt to select out traits to produce "desireable" populations.
Some canine diseases, like hip dysplasia aren't discovered in a timely manner, and continue in the breeding stock.
Throughout written history of certain ancient civilizations, one can view the effects of inbreeding because history is written by the successful "genius" aspects of a civilization.
While I'm not the one to ask about the Amish, I'd expect a certain number of the brighter progeny to be selected out. (Abandoning that faith to pursue material happiness, whilst the remainder are left to muddle through).
Inbreeding within ethnicities retains both positive attributes (genius) and negative attributes (certain diseases) which don't manifest themselves until after the carrier has already passed on those negative traits.
Not so. There are marsupials in the Americas.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
What alleged evolutionary advantage would placental mammals have that would allow them to edge out marsupials? And if that was the case, why the success of marsupials in succeeding in some places and not others?
http://www.northern.edu/natsource/mammals/northe1.htm
“Because walking is so awkward with the membrane between their wrists and ankles, being on the ground makes them very vulnerable to predators. Protection is found by both living in the trees and being active after dark. “
amd:”The change from a glider to a flier would be a gradual process if the flier experienced an advantage.”
In which case, the intermediate arm/wing would not be suitable for either flying or walking, leaving them vulnerable to predators, much as the flying squirrel is.
amd: “Similarly a river living mammal could easily develop a multipurpose leg that also had function as a flipper, like a seal. A seal has not lost function of its front legs, they are now better flippers than legs.”
Plenty of animals swim just fine with the legs they have.
*would be*. *could be*. It’s all speculation. Nobody knows for sure, including the scientists who propose these explanations.
The fossil record is clear that during the age of the dinosaurs there were only small and mostly marsupial mammals.
Then after the dinosaurs there was an expansion of placental mammalian species that edged out marsupials everywhere except Australia where none made it across the ocean.
What “alleged” advantage could there be for an animal to directly feed blood and nutrients through a direct connection in the womb? For a person with “mom” in their name you sure drew a blank on that one!
A seal's front legs work just fine as legs.
A “gliding” squirrel hasn't lost the use of its arm, and neither has a bat.
The intermediate need only be of general use for both for it to differentiate into solely or mostly one purpose or the other. Just like a flying squirrel or a seal when compared to a bat or a dolphin. Obviously I am not saying one is an ancestor of another, but the transition from gliding to flying or semi aquatic to fully aquatic are not transitions for which we have no living (or fossil) examples.
As I said. In a question you refused to address.
If you believe all species descended from what few could fit on a boat a few thousand years ago, you believe in evolution that is much stronger and faster than anything supported in the scientific literature.
And what mechanism do you propose stops this ROBUST evolution, hundreds of times stronger than what biologists propose, from moving the animal beyond “kinds”?
There are species of spiders that ‘live’ underwater and ‘breath’ underwater- of course they only briefly make forrays into the water, and can only breath by tapping into trapped underwater airbubbles, but by golly, since they are ‘aqautic spiders’ I must hterefore assume they are descended from Brown Trout, which as we all know, have been known to briefly ‘breathe’ out of water, and since they can leap great distances in the air this would of course indicate that htese brown trout are descended from air breathing ‘flying Squirrels’, who as you know, simply could not make a go of it on the ground, and feared becomming extinct, so, while some million or so other ground dwellers did just fine on the ground, these critters took to the trees (Which apparently had no predators), and since these ‘flying’ squirrels are able to glide from tree to tree- gliding right over hte heads of all the other poor saps on the ground who were surviving just fine, and since flying squirrels like to drink water, then this must hterefore mean that ‘flying squirrels’ are henceforth descended from ‘flying fish’.
Evidence? How dare you request any evidence?!!! Skin flaps under squirrels armpits evolved into fully functional wing structures, and squirrels evolved avian lungs and muscle structures all in anticipation of one day soaring high in the sky dag nabbit! And that is that! Just look around you at al lthe hological ‘similarities’- that should be proof enough that everythign descended from pond scum right there! How dare you quesiton Sir god Darwin?!!!
"The striking superficial resemblance between the bones of the theropod dinosaurs (the so-called "bird-like" dinosaurs) and Archaeopteryx (one of the most ancient birds - which lived roughly 150 millions years ago) has led scientists to hypothesize that birds are descendants of these dinosaurs. The bones of the wing of Archaeopteryx look very much like the bones of the theropod dinosaur, Deinonychus. Indeed, the resemblance is so striking that it convinced a very large percentage of the scientific community that birds are descended from the theropod dinosaurs."
"This "Birds are Dinosaurs" theory has become one of the dominant theories of evolution, since its introduction 20 years ago by John Ostrom. The theory is in real trouble now, since a recent study has demonstrated that the bones that make up the wings and feet of birds and the theropod dinosaurs are not derived from the same digits.1"
"What does it matter if birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs? If birds are not descended from theropods, they are not descended from any other known species. Here is a quote from the University of California, Berkeley website:
"The opponents of the theropod hypothesis refuse to propose an alternative hypothesis that is falsifiable. This is probably because there are no other suitable candidates for avian ancestors".2
This is quite an admission, and demonstrates the dogmatism of Darwinism. The paradigm takes precedence over the data, since falsification of descent of birds from theropods would falsify all of evolutionary theory."
The First Study
The wings of birds develop from digits II, and III, and IVThe paleontological evidence for the derivation of the wings and feet of birds is completely lacking, since there is no known predecessor of Archaeopteryx. Therefore, the fossil record cannot answer this question. However an ingenious idea by Alan Feduccia (an expert in the study of bird evolution) led to the study of the embryology of reptiles and birds to determine from which digits the wings and feet of birds are derived. The authors of the study showed that during the development of the hand (or wing) of the bird, there was a transient appearance of digit V, which did not occur in the alligator and turtle, which develop all five digits. These results clearly indicate that the bird's wing is derived from digits II, III, and IV.
The Second Study4-5
BackgroundThe lungs of birds, mammals, and reptiles are vastly different in terms of morphology and function. The lungs of mammals and birds are far more efficient than those of reptiles, which allows for prolonged periods of intensive physical activity. The lungs of mammals consists of millions of alveoli, which are highly vascularized air sacs. The degree of vascularization (the capillary blood supply surrounding the alveoli) and the large surface area allow for efficient exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide, which allow for mammals' high metabolic rate. The lungs of reptiles are termed "septate," consisting of the equivalent of a large single alveolus divided by vascularized ingrowths, or septae. The bellows-like septate lung of the reptile is poorly vascularized, which prohibits endothermic ("warm-blooded") metabolism. The avian (bird) lung is also a septate lung, but consists of a series of extensive, highly vascularized air sacs, which extend into both the thoracic (chest) and abdominal cavities.
Evidence 1: The structure of the pelvis and ribs of the theropod dinosaurs is incompatible with the breathing apparatus of Archaeopteryx or modern birds
Evidence 2: The structure of the lungs of the theropod dinosaurs is indistinguishable from that of modern reptiles
According to an article by Alan Feduccia:
"Despite the popularity of the dinosaurian origin of birds, many ornithologists and physiologists, in particular, have hadtremendous difficulty with the theory (8, 10, 11) becauseof a huge and growing body of contrary evidence and the fact thata ground-up origin of avian flight is considered a near biophysicalimpossibility (12). Aside from criticism concerning the cursorialorigin of avian flight, there are problems related to the geologic,temporal occurrence of putative dinosaurian ancestors, which occursome 30 to 80 million years after the appearance of the earliestknown bird Archaeopteryx, and these forms become more and moresuperficially birdlike as one approaches the latest Cretaceous.There is also the fact that virtually all of the anatomical featuresused to ally birds and dinosaurs have beendisputed."9 [LINK: GodandScience]
"The opponents of the theropod hypothesis refuse to propose an alternative hypothesis that is falsifiable. This is probably because there are no other suitable candidates for avian ancestors".2
Imagine that.....
An often overlooked point in the following passage is the underlying Hebrew words, “muwth muwth” which are translated “surely die” but literally mean “die die.”
Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. – Revelation 20:6
There is one Wind (pneuma) blowing through existence, though, which can. "The wind blows where it wants to, but you can't tell where it comes from or where it's going. The same with everyone born of God's Pneuma."
The life that we have with Christ in God is not subject to physical death or the second death. It can never die, because He lives. His Name is I AM.
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39
For instance, as she and allmendream have noted, what is called random (really meaning, unpredictable ) in nature does not stand as proof that God does not exist.
However, the insistence that there is no purpose to the physical creation – especially the physical life of men – denies of the power and Person of God. And for that reason, such a claim is an affront to all of us who know Him and love Him.
Whereas science may exclude purpose on the principle of “methodological naturalism” to do its work, it is just as far out its league to suggest there is no purpose as it is to suggest there is no God or indeed anything supernatural. The scientific method does not apply to such questions, science does not have the right toolset to address such questions.
And truly many scientists know this and stay away. But of course there are a few – like Dawkins – who do theology under the color of science. So naturally the reaction from the Judeo/Christian community is swift and severe.
Conversely, there are some who do theology under the color of science. In my opinion, that glorifies the creature, not the Creator, and therefore is ill conceived. And predictably, the reaction from the science community is swift and severe.
If it were up to me, I would center the debate on the principles, like betty boop and metmom and xzins have tried to do on this thread.
metmom for instance raised the principle that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And truly, that is an important principle in what I would call the “hard” sciences like physics, chemistry, astronomy and microbiology.
The “historical” sciences like paleontology, archeology, anthropology and Egyptology hold to the opposite principle: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously, their physical evidence is spotty at best because not every thing that once lived left a physical record of itself. So they fit the evidence they uncover “into” a theory of a continuum, a blueprint, a paradigm. It is only when the evidence cannot fit (e.g. if they were to find the fossil of a man in the same place as a T-Rex) that the theory is falsified.
With the hard sciences, the theory itself is subjected to rigorous and continuing tests – any one of which could falsify the theory.
The theory of evolution has a foot on each side. In the microbiologist’s lab, mutations can be provoked and/or observed. In the paleontologist’s dig, the fossil is fit “into” the paradigm “tree of life.”
And the principle betty boop and I keep trying to drive home is not to overstate any of it, not to project the one onto the other. That the paleontologist observes different species in different strata does not ipso facto mean that each variation was brought about strictly by naturalistic means such as observed in the microbiologist’s lab. Nor can it say that therefore God does not exist. Nor can it say that it was not purposeful.
It may be true that every atheist believes in evolution. But not everyone who believes in evolution is atheist. To make such a condemnation is equally an overstatement.
And moreover, is the language still used by some of the most eminent biologists of recent times. For instance, the Nobel prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod, who insists that everything we see all around us in nature, biological and otherwise, is the product of "sheer, blind chance."
I dunno, xzins. Seems to me if a claim like that were true, it would refer to a process nothing short of the miraculous. For a chain of accidents is to be credited with the order of the natural world. On this principle, order rises, spontaneously you see, from disorder.
But jeepers, when exactly did Darwinists start believing in miracles like this?
Order cannot rise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period.
Even the atheist must admit to space, time, physical laws and constants as “guides” to the system. And science has no materialistic explanation for the origin of space, time, physical laws and physical constants.
Moreover, science has no effective materialistic explanation for the origin of life, inertia, information (successful communication), autonomy, semiosis, consciousness or conscience.
So when some scientists like Dawkins – using the reductionist “methodological naturalism” and the scientific method – look over the upper rim of their glasses at us Christians and declare that the spirit and soul do not exist or that the mind is just an epiphenomenon of the physical brain or that there is no ghost in the machine or that God is a delusion – we understandably shake our heads. Conversely, it is just as annoying to them when we do theology under the color of science.
Exactly correct, thus those that try to shoe horn theology into the scientific method are rather daft. Science doesn't have the right tool set to address such issues.
I don't believe people who do this are silly or crazy, rather that it's just human nature to focus narrowly. A person dying of cancer, when he stubs his toe will instantly, wrongfully consider the toe his number one health problem.
IMHO, we all just need to back away, get our priorities straight (it's about the Creator not the creature) and look again at the forest of evidence, including both physical and non-physical.
Man did not live contemporaneously with dinosaurs. The majority of species that ever existed are now extinct. The continents have moved over the ages of the Earth and when Antarctica drifted too far south it was inhabited by extinct species.
Higher purpose, higher morality, higher love, higher hope....all disappear or morph under chaos or situationism.
You wrote:
If an eyewitness were present at creation, and then relayed observations, that would have bearing on the discussion. Our Bible states just that. An eyewitness has descibed significant details of creation.
It's wrong to go beyond those details, but it's equally wrong to ignore them.
Likewise, it's wrong for me to deny the skeleton of a T-Rex. It does exist, and its existence has a proper explanation. I must not go beyond the facts, nor should I ignore them. Natural revelation also has its message to me from God.
Dawkins tries to do exactly htis by insinuating that there is no spirit, and that any such thoughts are mearely due to a mutaiton which keeps people ignorant apparently- He beleives that belief in God is due to a virus (which he also beleives, beleive it or not, that it can be spread by coughing or sneezing). Nat Geo, the Discovery channel, PBS and hte History Channel ALL tryto inject their brand of theology into evolution all the time- As do a great many scientists that beleive in Macroevolution- their god however is nature that apparently is capable of the doing hte impossible- But heaven forbid Creationists bring up the metaphysical, and point to the spirit and higher knowledge coming from the Holy spirit, in ADDITION to discussing hte physical evidences seen in nature- Why then they are branded as ‘daft’ for doing so- What’s ‘good for’ the Goose, apparently isn’t good for hte Gander
Evos and Dawkins feel that they are in a position to bring the metaphysical into the discussion when it comes to pronouncements that there is no God, the demand for presuming methodical naturalism, or where the belief in the supernatural even comes from (viruses? Give me a break...), but go into a tailspin when non-evos bring up anything that smacks of intelligence, design, or a creator.
Seems like they think they are somehow the only ones qualified to speak on the metaphysical when it concerns science even when they know (and admit) that they have no basis for any of their pronouncements.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life.
God's glory is reflected in the heavens. The testimony of starlight is not all a trick and a lie but speaks to the grandeur of God; he is Eternal, and eternally patient, he is forbearing, and his forbearance is eternal. Do not lose sight of this one thing my FRiend, A day for God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day.
Thank you so very much for sharing your testimony, dear brother in Christ!
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.