Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[JediGirl]

Common Creationist Arguments

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a scientific-sounding argument which in fact has no scientific validity whatsoever. This type of argument is based on the fact that the average layperson knows so little about science that he or she is liable to judge a scientific argument solely on its style and presentation (eg- "does it sound scientific?", or "does it incorporate scientific-sounding terms?") for lack of any other method of judging its validity.

Suggested Tactics

This type of creationist argument is difficult for most people to defend against, unless they are fairly knowledgeable about science (that's why it's so popular with creationists- they may not know anything about science, but they're gambling that you don't either). In my case, I simply call upon my knowledge of certain basic scientific principles that I learned in university, but I can't instruct everyone to do this, since not everyone has a technical background.

Therefore, it's difficult for me to recommand tactics for laypeople to counteract this sort of argument, but we should keep in mind that creationist pseudoscience arguments are almost never generated out of the mind of the creationist himself. They all tend to come from the same widely distributed pool of creationist literature, which is one of the reasons that creationists all over the world tend to spout the same pseudoscience arguments. I can offer the following suggestions:

Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.

Since these arguments are actually second hand arguments, demand to see the original source for his claim. When you see the source, check the credentials of the author. If they aren't fraudulent, check up on the university where the author got his degree. Odds are that the degree is either honorary, or it comes from a cheap diploma mill (or worse yet, one of the many church-run schools set up expressly for the purpose of handing out degrees to creationists). If you don't have the resources to check up on universities, try looking up the Talk.Origins website at www.talkorigins.org, which maintains a list of discredited creationist "experts" and their bogus credentials.

Examples follow:

"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."

This is perhaps the single most moronic creationist idea I've ever heard (it's also been used to "prove" the existence of God, by arguing that the concept of God is much simpler than the study of science). It's a classic example of creationist pseudoscience. They learn the term "Occam's Razor" and they learn just enough about its definition to abuse it, but they make no effort whatsoever to learn its true meaning.

"Choose the simplest theory" is an oversimplification of the concept of Occam's Razor. The term is named after the 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Occam. It might strike some as strange that a scientific principle might have come from a theologian, but good scientists do not practice appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter who it came from, and the universal acceptance of Occam's Razor is a perfect example of that philosophy.

In any case, he argued that we should never "multiply entities unnecessarily". In other words, cut out extraneous terms from an equation. He used that principle (which is really just an argument against redundancy) to show that it was impossible to deduce God's existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith. The irony is that a theologian realized that there was no logical basis for God's existence more than 600 years ago but modern fundamentalists still can't figure it out, and actually use his name to "prove" the exact opposite of what he himself argued!

For those who cannot appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor in its original form, Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." In plain English, when faced with two scientific theories which make the same predictions, choose the simpler theory. Or, as Stephen Hawking put it: "Cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." (taken from A Brief History of Time).

Like all scientific principles, Occam's Razor is accepted not because William of Occam said it, but because it makes sense. You don't need to appeal to authority or take its validity on faith. If you are faced with two competing theories between which you have no other method of deciding, is it not obvious that the theory containing extra or unverifiable terms must therefore contain redundancies? The fact that the simpler theory can accomplish the same descriptive and predictive feats while utilizing fewer terms and not relying on unverifiable or unobservable phenomena is evidence of superiority.

Consider the analogy of two mechanical devices for making widgets. Both perform exactly the same function. In repeated, exhaustive tests, both are shown to produce exactly the same quality of widget, at the same rate, with the same raw materials. Both produce the same amount of waste. Both consume the same amount of electrical power. They cost the same. In other words, their performance is identical in every measurable way. The only noticeable difference is that device #1 is much simpler than device #2. It contains fewer components and mechanisms, and its operating principle is therefore simpler. Which one would you choose?

Suppose the salesman for device #2 is quite upset that you are leaning toward device #1, and he promises to do better. The next day, he returns with a new device (we'll call it device #3) which is completely sealed in black plastic (the classic "black box"). He says it's the latest, most advanced widget-making machine in the world. You feed it electricity and raw materials, and it spits out widgets. Its performance is no different from device #1 and device #2, but it is not user servicable. You can't see inside to figure out how it works, and the salesman refuses to let you see diagrams or schematics, ostensibly because the operation of the machine is beyond both your intellectual capacity and his. The salesman argues that device #3 is actually simpler than both device #1 and #2 because it has just one component: the black box. Does this make sense to you? Again, which device would you choose?

Occam's Razor is merely a name given to a logical and intuitively obvious thought process of eliminating redundancies. It cannot be used to choose between competing theories whose predictions are vastly different, any more than the simplicity of a drill press can be used to prove that it's superior to a fighter plane. Now that we are equipped with an understanding of the reasoning behind Occam's Razor, we can list some of the reasons that it cannot be used to support either creationism or the existence of God:

1. Occam's Razor is a method of choosing between competing scientific theories. It is irrelevant when comparing a scientific theory to the concept of God or creationism because God and creationism are not scientific theories. There are no objective terms in the concept of God. No equations. No mechanisms. No limits. No methods through which it can be used to predict the outcome of natural processes. No methods through which it can be tested, or disproven. The concept of God is actually the antithesis of a scientific theory, in that one resorts to the divine only when one's reason has either failed or been voluntarily suppressed. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines. It couldn't be used to evaluate a machine versus, say, a piece of music.

2. "God" is actually not a "simpler theory" than science. "God" is merely a three-letter name which is affixed to a deity whose machinations are supposedly so complex that they are beyond mortal comprehension! If God's methods are inscrutable and incomprehensible to humans (as claimed in the Bible and by all Christians), then what business does anyone have claiming that they are "simpler" than a theory which humans can understand? In the analogy above, the concept of God is very much like the "black box". The salesman may argue that it's simpler because it's a nice smooth black box instead of a set of gears and motors, but that's a childish superficiality at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst.

3. Occam's Razor is not invoked unless the competing theories make identical predictions. It is a method of eliminating redundancies, as William of Occam first reasoned, and it only applies when the performance of the competing theories is identical. When two theories make vastly different predictions (as is the case with science and Biblical literalism), then Occam's Razor is completely irrelevant. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines whose performance was identical. If the two machines made widgets of vastly different characteristics, Occam's Razor would be irrelevant.

The use of Occam's Razor to "prove" the existence of God or the validity of Biblical literalism is a classic example of creationist pseudoscience, because it is so emblematic of their method: take a real principle and grossly misinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it truly means.

"The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It states that complexity cannot be spontaneously created, so it is impossible for natural processes to create a complex organism from a simple organism!"

This is one of the oldest, and most popular creationist pseudoscience arguments. It's been kicking around for more than a century, thanks to general public ignorance of thermodynamics. In fact, it's wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start! Perhaps we should start at the beginning, with the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. According to my engineering thermodynamics textbook, the second law of thermodynamics has two basic postulates:

1. All physical processes create entropy (microscopic disorder).

2. The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, ie- entropy can be created but not destroyed.

That's a lot different from "complexity cannot be spontaneously created", isn't it? Big surprise- creationists don't know anything about thermodynamics. Now that we've established their bizarre misconception about the second law of thermodynamics, we should try to understand what strange mental contortions were necessary to go from "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" to "complexity cannot be spontaneously created."

Upon further questioning, creationists invariably reveal the following beliefs about the second law:

1. "The entropy of a living organism can't decrease."

2. "The creation of complexity requires the destruction of entropy."

3. "The second law of thermodynamics applies to spontaneous events, but not to the deliberate acts of man (or deity). That's why humans can build a complex structure but natural processes can't."

These three beliefs are all completely wrong, and they all indicate a frightening ignorance of scientific principles. Let us examine each belief separately:

1. Actually, the entropy of a living organism can decrease, because a living organism is not a closed system. Since it is an open system, entropy can leave and enter. Entropy doesn't have to be destroyed- just moved. The concept of the closed system vs the open system is one of the most basic concepts that we teach kids in high school, and if someone thinks a living organism is a closed system, he must be staggeringly ignorant. Food, water, and energy enter and leave your body all the time, thus making it an open system. Furthermore, an entire species is even less of a closed system than an individual life form, and evolution occurs from one generation to the next, not in a single organism as it ages.

2. Complexity is not the destruction of disorder or the creation of order. In fact, there is more disorder in complex systems, as any student of chaos theory (or government bureacracies) can tell you. There is far more entropy in a nuclear power plant than there is in an ice cube, and a pretty snowflake has much more complexity than the drop of water from whence it came.

3. Physical laws apply all the time, to everybody, regardless of intent or intelligence. If the second law of thermodynamics truly prohibited the creation of complexity, then it wouldn't matter whether the complexity is created by "deliberate" acts or by random happenstance- it would be impossible in both cases. It is utterly unbelievable to me that creationist ignoramuses would interpret any physical law to only apply in the absence of deliberate intervention. No other physical laws of physics are interpreted to apply only in the absence of intelligent intervention- does gravity shut off when humans intervene?

This argument has been so thoroughly disproven, so many times in so many ways, that it's almost comical when people keep bringing it up. They might as well just tattoo their foreheads with the words "scientific ignoramus."

"By taking a random mixture of elements and analysing the probability of elements randomly forming into the correct combinations and orientations to make a simple amino acid, I can show that it is probabilistically impossible for the simplest amino acid to form, never mind the first living cell. Therefore, a Creator must have formed the first organisms, if not all of them."

This argument is invalid for the following reasons:

1. Spontaneous formation of amino and fatty acids has been observed in the laboratory, by subjecting an atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia and methane to electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation. This simulates primeval Earth environmental conditions, therefore it is an observed fact, and not subject to debate.

2. Chemical reactions are not random! Elements only bond in certain combinations. Light a match in a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen, and countless trillions upon trillions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms will react to form H2O. Not H8O, and not H5O, but H2O. Purely random combinatorics are a completely invalid way of modelling chemical reactions.

3. The first living cell did not have to form from raw materials. It would have formed from more primitive components such as RNA, which was proposed many years ago as the first self-replicating molecule. It was even experimentally found to have catalytic capabilities for adding new nucleotides to the end of the chain or removing them, leading to the term "RNA World" to describe the origins of life. But even if RNA is not the candidate we're looking for, there is certainly no need to assume that the first organic self-replicators would have been full-blown single-celled organisms. The early self-replicators (such as RNA, if it was indeed the first self-replicator) would not have left fossils.

4. This entire attack is a red herring, because evolution theory and abiogenesis (the formation of organic self-replicators from simpler organic materials) are two completely different theories. Lumping them together is just as fallacious as lumping evolution theory with Big Bang theory. The process of evolution is heritable change in populations over multiple generations. Because the process of evolution requires multiple generations to occur, it cannot possibly happen before the first living organism! It doesn't kick in until after the first living organism already exists! Even if abiogenesis could be disproved, evolution theory would still be valid.

I should also note that this argument is generally coupled with the fallacious reasoning that "anything we don't understand is proof of divine intervention." Poorly understood phenomena are not invalidations of science- they are opportunities for scientific investigation. If we treat every gap in our understanding as proof of divine intervention, we would be no better than the tribal primitives who attributed divine intervention to everything from solar eclipses to rain. Visit the Probability page if you want to know more.

"Some older species fossils can be found on top of newer fossils. This inconsistency in your so-called 'progressionism' proves that creation theory is correct, since it means that all species were created at the same time."

More bad science, since this only occurs with animal remains that are on the surface. What happens is that severe erosion or a geological upheaval can occasionally expose strata bearing fossils, and of course, when Skippy the Dog runs away and dies near these old fossils, the "Young Earth Creationist" crowd immediately interprets this as disproof of the entire fossil record, the entire field of geology, the age of the Earth, etc.

As usual, their argument is based on ignorance of proper scientific method. This evidence would be disproof of the fossil record if it was impossible to rationalize its existence with that record. However, that is simply not the case. Geologists can examine patterns in the rock to determine whether a region is old or new, cross-cut, the result of upheaval, etc. It is the creationists who will look at a region, assume its age without using proper methodology, and then use fossil findings in that region to "disprove" geology and evolution theory.

"Evolution can explain changes in a species, but where does a whole new species come from? Speciation is the downfall of Evolution Theory!"

This is another case of creationists projecting their own pseudoscientific attitudes onto evolution theory. In this case, they are predisposed to believe that the creation of a species is a sudden, dramatic event at some fixed moment in time. One moment there's species A, and then the next moment there's species B. Much as God created Man from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, they imagine that "evolutionists" describe evolution creating a man directly from an ape. But evolution theory does not work that way.

Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes eventually caused an animal population to become intersterile with its ancestors.

Of course, this would mean that there should be fossil evidence of various intermediate stages between successful species, and there is. Naturally, creationists explain all of the evidence away by pointing the finger at their favourite whipping boy: the global conspiracy of evil scientists, who work tirelessly to cover up the truth and fabricate false evidence. These people watch "X-Files" too damned much.

"I know we've observed micro-evolution, but what about macro-evolution? There is no evidence for macro-evolution!"

The creationist invention of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a good example of how they try to mutilate the terms of science to their own advantage. Biologists do not differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, any more than mathematicians differentiate between micro-addition and macro-addition.

Their argument that there is no evidence for "macroevolution" is ridiculous because "macroevolution" is simply the result of adding a lot of "microevolution" together, and "microevolution" is, by their own admission, completely supported by various forms of evidence.

The other problem for this argument is that there actually is evidence to directly support what they describe as "macroevolution", and it's called "the fossil record". It's evidence because it is consistent with prediction. Of course, that's not enough for the creationists- they demand direct observation of massive evolutionary change in living animals, even though they know that we would have to observe living animals for millions of years in order to obtain the evidence they seek. Can you see the problem with this demand? It's pretty obvious- they are deliberately asking for a form of evidence which is impossible to obtain (millions of years of direct observation), and ignoring a form of evidence (the fossil record) which is relatively easy to obtain.

The universe operates on tiny processes, affecting tiny particles, which add up in tremendous numbers to cause large changes. If someone is going to claim that a slow, steady process cannot create large-scale changes given sufficient time, he had better provide some evidence and reasoning, rather than simply stating it as a fact and demanding impossible forms of evidence to disprove it. Are we to assume that all gradual processes eventually hit "brick walls" and stop, for mysterious and unknown reasons?

Do we question tectonic plate theory on the basis that we've observed small-scale tectonic plate movement but not large-scale tectonic plate movement? Do we insist that no one should believe in tectonic plate theory until we've been able to observe it for millions of years, so we can see long-distance movements firsthand? Do we deny the possibility of large-scale rock erosion because we've only seen small scale rock erosion? Why would a gradual process like tectonic plate movement, rock erosion, or evolution suddenly stop after an arbitrary length of time? What would make it stop? Why make this ridiculous distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" Where is the line drawn between the two? What causes the barrier? These are questions that the creationists don't attempt to ask or answer, because like O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers, they're not serious about uncovering the truth. They just want to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a gullible audience.

The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument is an example of creationists projecting their own mentality onto evolution, and then attacking the resulting strawman, ironically, for the very aspects that come from creationism. Creationism describes separate and distinct species: "each according to its kind". Creationists therefore make the same assumption: species are separate, indivisible, and disconnected. When they project this mentality onto evolution, they run into an obvious problem: there is no way for the process of evolution to "jump" over the invisible "barrier" between species. The problem is that they are assuming that this barrier exists! The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not found in biology; they are creationist inventions. Gradual changes eventually add up, and can turn one species into two, or they can cause a species to change so much that it becomes a distinct species from its predecessors.

As a thought experiment, consider human beings. It is generally assumed that any male/female pair of healthy human beings can produce children. But biological reproduction is a complex process, and it requires great genetic commonality. We know that two modern human beings can produce children, but what about a modern woman and a man from ten thousand years ago? What about a modern woman and a man from fifty thousand years ago? Is there still enough genetic commonality? Species are not delineated by distinct, clear boundaries. Rather, they are defined by intersterility and overt physical characteristics, and there is no "barrier" between species for the process of evolution to hurdle.

[BMCDA]

From that page:

In fact, by analyzing electrophoritic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition. (Wake, Yanev and Brown, 1986) This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?

^{Also posted earlier by VadeRetro in #819}

But where would you draw the line? Why are they the same species if they can't interbreed? Or is there also another definition of species? Why can't the two populations that "close the ring" not interbreed?
So many questions...

[tallhappy]

Evolutionists do not use the terms micro- or macro-evolution!

Couple things. Here the response is so? You know what he means. He means natural selection for micro and initial origens of life and speciation for macro.

Don't proselytize, address the topic he brings up.

VadeRetro has posted the series showing the modification of the jaw bones of reptiles to be ear bones of mammals.

Stuff like this is one of the reasosn people are quite rightly skeptical of evolution. So much of it has been junk science. (Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny -- not even logical).

The behavior of the religious evolutionists is quite apalling as well and turns people off to the subject as well and harms the reputation of science.

It is unfortunate these religious fanatics have tried to hijack science.

[Junior]

Don't proselytize, address the topic he brings up.

If you read the rest of the post, I did address the questions he brought up. Do you do anything but carp at the way the game is played? Do you ever actually add anything to the debate on either side?

[Lurking Libertarian]

VadeRetro has posted the series showing the modification of the jaw bones of reptiles to be ear bones of mammals.

Stuff like this is one of the reasosn people are quite rightly skeptical of evolution. So much of it has been junk science.

How is the sequence of reptile to mammal skulls "junk science"? It is exactly what Creationists claim has never been found-- a full series of fossils which show gradual modifications, each one only slightly different from the predecessor, but eventually leading to a whole new type of animal.

[tallhappy]

If you read the rest of the post, I did address the questions he brought up.

I didn't see that. I saw what you consider addressing the question as proselyltizing.

To address you would have to acknowledge clearly the question asked -- which you didn't do, you denied its validity out of hand. How or why would you answer a question you say makes no sense?

Buddy, science is carping.

[Nebullis]

It is unfortunate these religious fanatics have tried to hijack science.

What takes place on these threads is not always about science, even if, at times, it is. It's not always about religion either. But it can be fun. The creationists on the threads are, for the most part, not interested in science and the discussions repeatedly lead to the same irreconcilable arguments.

Junior is particularly recalcitrant about issues which I have pointed out to him as scientifically incorrect. He carries on with statements like "Evolutionists do not use the terms micro- or macro-evolution!", pictures of humans with "vestigial tails", incorrect definitions of speciation, etc.

When I first started on these threads, I sang somewhat the same tune you do. This isn't science, I'm a molecular biologist, and so forth. But, so what! The creationists are even less about science than the evolutionists here are. I try to infuse a little current scientific knowledge, but I realize that the simpler, pedestrian version of the evolutionary narrative is more than the creationists can handle.

[tallhappy]

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I share your analysis on the two populations.

[medved]

I've never called anyone a liar without having facts to back up my assertion....

So far, I've never really seen anything on these threads which would make me want to call anybody a liar. It used to be that calling somebody a liar was always good for starting fights and anybody who used words like that loosely, as you appear to, was somebody in a permanent state of getting his ass kicked in. That may be something which has changed or a symptom of some sort of a generation gap, but it still sort of throws me for a loop to see anybody using language like that loosely.

[medved]

Is there any evidence that electro-magnetic forces played a larger role in the Solar System in the recent past than they do now?

Most of the crevo people seem to have missed the thread on plasma cosmology the other day.

Item 15 was particularly interesting, noting that

"The cosmologists of the future will be electrical engineers!"

It turns out that most of the cosmos is governed by electrical and magnetic rather than gravitational forces and that we live in a little backwater which is an exception to the rule rather than the rule. When you see something in space which is roundish or amorphous, gravity is usually at work. When you see things like this:

then electromagnetic forces are at work.

There are numerous things out there which are clearly electromagnetic and not gravitational phenomena. In the case of the spiral galaxy above, the arms, particularly the upper arm, show material being held in a straight line until some point at which the field breaks down, after which material very quickly trails away and dissipates.

Again, this is obvious and nobody should need to be Albert Einstein to comprehend it. There is no conceivable way gravity could do something like that.

In the case of our own Earth in the recent past, antique literature describes a more active static electrical kind of world and you don't need to look terribly far to see evidence of major kinds of electrical effects. The fractal rilling and topography of the Grand Canyon, for instance, is precisely what you get when you run an arc welder to rocky ground and blast out channels. The idea of the Colorado river carving that canyon out of rock is a sick joke.

[Heartlander]

The odds of the single ‘ancestor’ coming into existence in the first place are beyond astronomical if one limits their beliefs to ‘natural occurrence’. But, for the sake of this discussion let’s say that it happened – it just beat the odds. Let us truly apply the probability theory to genetic mutations.

“The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!
But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.
In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.,
When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!”

“The evolutionists’ argument is that an a priori adherence to materialism is necessary to protect the very existence of science. If design in biology is real, then the Designer also might be real, and scientific materialists contemplate this possibility (if at all) with outright panic. Science will come to a screeching halt, they insist, because everybody will stop doing experiments and just attribute all phenomena to the inscrutable will of God.
Nonsense. On the contrary, the concept that the universe is the product of a rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe (including our minds) is ultimately based in the mindless movements of matter. Perhaps materialism was a liberating philosophy when the need was to escape from dogmas of religion, but today materialism itself is the dogma from which the mind needs to escape. A rule that materialism should be professed regardless of the evidence, says Behe, is the equivalent of a rule that science may not contradict the teachings of a church. "It tries to place reality in a tidy box, but the universe will not be placed in a box."
The fundamental principle is that "scientists should follow the physical evidence wherever it leads, with no artificial restrictions." Science has come as far as it has because scientists of the past were willing to describe the universe as it really is, rather than as the prejudices current in their times would have preferred it to be. The question is whether today's scientists have lost their nerve.”

“Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196.”

[VadeRetro]

You need to read the thread before shooting your mouth off, pal!

Junior: VadeRetro has posted the series showing the modification of the jaw bones of reptiles to be ear bones of mammals.

slaphappy: Stuff like this is one of the reasosn people are quite rightly skeptical of evolution. So much of it has been junk science. (Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny -- not even logical).

Junior refers to the following:

Please explain how "recapitulation" applies here. Where's the ontogeny? You do not know what you are talking about.

You are slipping in your avowed role of word-twister and useage police. I have made two posts lately, one of which could be interpreted to mean I don't know a gene from an allele. The other could be interpreted to mean that I don't know an intron from functional DNA.

The more you post, the more you show you can't read.

[VadeRetro]

There is no conceivable way gravity could do something like that.

Your inability to conceive is not evidence. Why does that galaxy appear to have a large central whorl and a smaller one beside it?

[VadeRetro]

The idea of the Colorado river carving that canyon out of rock is a sick joke.

You're kidding, right? How about the gorge of the Brahmaputra?

[Lev]

You have not answered my question as to why these species have not been mutating for 400 million years. There are always improvements possible regardless of how limiting the environment may be. In fact, if punk-eek is to be true for example, the species in the limited environment must overcome the limiting environment in order to spread itself past its boundaries. I also see no particular limitation to the coelacanth's environment. The oceans are huge and there is no reason why the species could not have improved itself. Unless of course the demi-god Darwin ordered them to stop mutating, to stop adapting, to stop evolving.

I'll try again.

  fitness
  ^
  |
  |       _ max B
  |      / \
  |     /   \_
  |    /      \       _ local max A
  |  _/        \     / \
  | /           \   /   \__  __
  |              \_/       \/
  |-------B-------X--YA---------> gene pool

Suppose particular species in particular environment has this fitness function. Now, how do we get from point A to a higher fitness point B? Mutations will get some organisms to point Y which has LOWER fitness. They will have fewer offsprings than those staying at point A. Some organisms will mutate even closer to point X but according to the fitness function the closer they get to X the less likely the mutations in that direction will be passed to the next generation. With time environment may change which would cause the fitness function to change, let's say fitness at point X increases - this will allow some organisms to reach B. The fact that there are not many 'living fossils' around indicates that environment does change and species do 'improve themselves', as you say. But in some rare cases they get stuck at a nice and warm point A and don't change much for a long time. Any questions? Which part of this do you disagree with?

[Junior]

Interesting link. I'll be awhile digesting it.

[VadeRetro]

I forget to source that figure every time I post it.

Clifford Cuffey, THE FOSSIL RECORD: EVOLUTION OR "SCIENTIFIC CREATION."

[Junior]

He carries on with statements like "Evolutionists do not use the terms micro- or macro-evolution!", pictures of humans with "vestigial tails", incorrect definitions of speciation, etc.

Number one, the micro- macro- thingy is a creationist creation; it does not appear in any of the books on evolution I have, and I'd never run across it before beginning to debate creationists on these threads. Secondly, I conceded the point on human tails. I specifically remember telling you that all we had to go on was that photograph of the kid with the tail, we did not have any additional information on the tail structure. And as for the speciation definition, as far as I can tell there are several competing definitions of speciation, which the creationists gleefully glom onto so they can change their definitions of macro- and micro-evolution to fit their particular arguments. I've typically stuck with the "unable to mate with any other species" definition.

I will be the first to admit I'm an amateur when it comes to biology, but I do have to point out that I make an effort to track down the information I need and seldom post without having something (a link, a reference, something) to back up my contentions. Mr. tallhappy, on the other hand, has been horribly unforthcoming with any actual information, evidently relegating himself to sitting on the sidelines carping.

[VadeRetro]

The behavior of the religious evolutionists is quite apalling as well and turns people off to the subject as well and harms the reputation of science.

The behavior of Joe Cheapshot tallhappy is quite appalling and turns people off to any thread he pollutes with his venomous presence.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities.

False. Odds are not products of probabilities. Makes one skeptical that the author even understands simple mathematics. Second this would only be true if the mutations were independent. Selection creates dependencies.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Filler post to make a trivial point.