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.

[Lev]

Where is the contradiction?

[gore3000]

">Clearly if each species evolved from each other, if each species was perfected through survival of the fittest, we should see after a while at least, that each species had the exact same gene for each function. Yet this is not the case. -me-

Are you sure that's not a disproof of design?

I am positive. A Creator would have no problem at all making each species a little bit differently. Evolution on the other hand would have a big problem making each gene different in each species. For one thing it takes a lot of evolutionary time to do so, for another, why should it? If it works, what reason would there be according to "survival of the fittest" to change it? None at all.

[gore3000]

Where is the contradiction?

On the one hand you say that isolation is not necessary on the other you say that isolation is the way to go for spreading a mutation. Sounds contradictory to me. Sounds like you are trying to take both sides of the question - if it is isolated then you have evolution, if it is not isolated then ------ you have evolution.

[gore3000]

"Nope. What works, works. "

VEry lame response. All it amounts to is "if it happened it must have been evolution because we know that the answer to a question can never be God did it". Circular reasoning Vade, that is the question we are trying to answer and you just showed that you cannot refute my statement.

Maybe you would like to try again: Now you have random mutations working together to achieve a goal! Do these random mutations talk to each other? Do they know what the goal is? Do they have a plan for making the organism more fit?

[Lev]

On the one hand you say that isolation is not necessary on the other you say that isolation is the way to go for spreading a mutation.

Can you READ??? Do you know the difference between "makes possible" and "increases the chances"???

[Lev]

Until the wings are operational, the organism would be less fit than other individuals without this improvement.

Are mixed drinks "less fit" than other drinks???

[Junior]

Until the wings are operational, the organism would be less fit than other individuals without this improvement.

Dear sir, do you ever read the entire posting, or do you pick out a few words here and there and argue against them to claim victory -- you sort of remind me of the Japanese holdouts from WWII occassionally still found in the Pacific (quick, medved, excerpt that line above, but make sure you don't take it in context!).

The "half-wing half-arm" as you would call it served a very useful function -- it allowed for the rapid climbing of trees to escape predators, a theory, by the way, you "commented on" only two months ago on these threads, so I know you are not unfamiliar with it. Just to enlighten you, a researcher watched young birds with half-formed wings flap those half-wings while climbing trees. After a bit of observation he saw the flapping of these protowings was holding the bird to the trunk, allowing the bird to run with ease up its side.

I've noticed something on these threads: whenever anyone comes up with a rational explanation for something you immediately chime in with a diatribe on that explanation never being observed. But when the rational explanation is supported by evidence, you either ignore it, claiming you never saw it, or you twist it saying it doesn't apply to extinct animals. One must come to the conclusion that:

1) There is more than one person masquerading as gore3000, and the individuals involved do not keep one-another apprised of the current state of the argument;

2) gore3000 is a realtively unsophisticated string of code consisting of a search function and a standard stock of replies (this theory is bolstered by your choice of screenname and your inability to update your replies between threads);

3) gore3000 is a relatively unimaginative (remember, imagination is the tool of the devil) individual who considers outright lying to be alright as long as one does it for God. In this case, I don't want to be anywhere nearby when you go to meet your maker.

Aside from your adoption of more colorful fonts (which seems to be all the rage in creationist circles), your diatribes have not changed one iota since the first day you posted on these threads. You are an example of why Christianity is on the outs throughout most of the world -- why Europeans are abandoning it in droves. You refuse to see the evidence in front of, instead clinging stridently to an increasingly untenable position. When the undecided see the evidence before them, and then here how that evidence means nothing because Godidit, they are going to dismiss the latter view as primitive and irrational. The Roman Catholic Church (Praise the Lord) having been burned by the Galileo gambit, understands that interpretation of Scripture cannot fly in the face of evidence or the Church becomes irrelevant and is replaced by something else. This is why the Catholics interpret Scripture in light of the evidence and why it continues to be the largest church both inside and outside the U.S. Fundamentalist Christian denominations (by which I mean those who take the first book of the Bible as being a word-for-word, no ifs, ands or buts, literal account of how things were done) have made very little headway in regions where science is understood.

If Christianity is to survive, it needs to get with the times. This does not mean abandoning its core teachings -- those are timeless. What it means is, if the evidence is overwhelming that a literal interpretation of Scripture is wrong, then either Scripture is wrong (which is the conclusion many of the undecided draw) or the interpretation of Scripture is wrong. You seem to tread a third path -- that the evidence is wrong, or that a cabal of Satan-worshipping scientists faked the evidence even though no conspiracy could be maintained with the literally tens of thousands of individuals involved. Continue fighting your rearguard action -- I'm sure it makes you feel good -- but a thousand years from now the fundamentalist movement will have joined the long list of extinct heresies.

[Junior]

Aaargh! Spelling errors are the result of too little sleep and not enough coffee!

[Aquinasfan]

Another thing that the evolutionists like to forget is that the genes of each species, even when coding for the same function, are different from each other. The genes (and there is more than one necessary to provide all the necessary capabilities for eyesight) for the eye are different in each species even though they work towards providing the same functionality.

Thanks for mentioning that. I remember reading in Darwin on Trial something about the genetics and morphology not corresponding.

[Aquinasfan]

After a bit, the squids eye would come to adapt to daylight existence. The reason these critters' eyes are perfect for their particular existences is that millions of years of environmental pressure and experimentation have hit upon the current setup.

Again, a nice story. But where are the transitional fossils? As time goes on, the fossil record looks even worse for microevolution than it did during Darwin's time. Besides being "gappy," you have the problem of unevolved, "living fossils" like the coelecanth and the horseshoe crab.

[Aquinasfan]

VadeRetro has a wonderful picture of the wing/arm of a therapod dinosaur. It's a real eye-opener. One need not really consider anything "half-formed" -- it does what it needs to do (be it simply assisting in climbing a tree) at the time it exists;

Which is my point. It's a fully formed, integrated functional, creature as are all other creatures and fossils that I have ever seen. And like the archaeopteryx, it probably exited the fossil record the same way it came in.

There are two problems with the theory of variation through micromutation, the overwhelming lack of evidence in the fossil record and the lack of an even remotely plausible mechanism for beneficial variation. Other than that, it's a great theory.

Do you consider your back to be "half formed?" Honestly? Do you ever wonder why human beings suffer from back problems? Our backs are not fully developed for an upright stance. Our legs are pretty much nearly fully adapted (we do have problems with our knees which are related to this), and of course our arms are "fully adapted and integrated."

As a matter of fact, I do have a bad back. 8-o But even if I grant your point, the fact remains that the human body is an example of a "high-functioning," staggeringly complex design. I have a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, and taken simply from a mechanical point of view, the human body makes the space shuttle look like a tinker toy in terms of comparative mechanical complexity.

Also, your example is a case of "dysteleology" as William Dembski phrases it, and is more a problem for theology than natural science. (The section I quoted above is worth at least a quick read.) The term "Intelligent Design" is not to be taken to mean "optimum design," but rather design by an intelligent agent. For example, although I know that the AMC Pacer is not an example of optimal design, I know that it was designed by an intelligent agent and not by chance.

[Aquinasfan]

There are living examples all over the place: penguins, bevers, manatees, wulruses, "walking" catfish, "flying" fish, sloths, etc. One could run all though the animal kingdom and point out all kinds of beasts with various oddities. What do you think a penguin's wing is all about? A bever's tail? The camel's hump? The pelican's pouch? Etc. All of these features are specialized adaptations from some earlier stock. Everything now alive is potentially in transition. That's how life is.

Yes, that's one way to look at it. And I had looked at it that way for decades, as it was the only "scientific theory" regarding animal/human origins that had been presented to me. But since reading Johnson's Darwin on Trial, I have found the evidence for ID to be much more compelling. In this case, in the exampes you cite, all of these creatures function very well in their particular ecological niches, and could just as easily be pointed to as examples of design.

We all know the story. What we need is evidence. Either fossil evidence or a remotely plausible mechanism for explaining the rise of staggeringly complex creatures, like human beings.

[gore3000]

Are mixed drinks "less fit" than other drinks???

No, they are more fit! They have to be. They are the result of intelligent design!

[Aquinasfan]

Now note, none of this is going on in the blink of an eye -- It still takes generations for the genetic differences to render the resulting populations unable to interbreed.

OK, then once again the theory is faced with the problem of the "gappy" fossil record. Where are the countless "micro-transitional" forms?

Another problem remains. According to the theory, at some point one creature in the "daughter population" must mutate sufficiently to become "reproductively isolated" from the "parent population." But at the same time this same creature would become "reproductively isolated" from the rest of the "daughter population," unless another member of the daughter population happened to mutate similarly and simultaneously.

[Aquinasfan]

Paleontology is not a science, it a self-fullfilling prophecy.

LOL! Ouch.

[gore3000]

"Aside from your adoption of more colorful fonts (which seems to be all the rage in creationist circles), your diatribes have not changed one iota since the first day you posted on these threads. "

I consider the above a compliment Junior. You see, while there are a myriad amount of lies there is only one truth. I am glad you admit that I am consistent.

Now as to the reptiles with wings, you seem to forget that a wing is quite different from an arm. It has a lot more bones for one thing. The bones are a lot lighter (in fact the bones of birds are a lot lighter than those of other animals). You also need a beak in order to feed when you do not have arms. In short, flight seems to require an almost complete change of the organism. These changes need to be simulataneous and they change the habits and way of life of the organism in many ways. They also would take a large amount of time to occur which make the species less fit while it occurred. Your supposition has a lot of holes in it Junior as is not backed up by the transitional species which would be necessary to show this to have actually occurred.

[PatrickHenry]

... in the exampes you cite, all of these creatures function very well in their particular ecological niches, and could just as easily be pointed to as examples of design.

Yes. "Design" explains everything. And nothing. Tell me, if everything is a design, brought about by these wonderful, invisible cosmic designers, what is your explanation for harmful mutations? They are consistent with the theory of evolution, but they shouldn't exist in a "designed" biosphere.

[Junior]

If the fossil record is yielding only one individual in several thousand generations (a conservative estimate, considering the time spans we are dealing with), it is going to appear spotty and gappy. Now, for your second contention -- we are dealing with populations, not individuals. If individuals from the separated populations were to be bred, they'd breed fine for several generations after the split. However, as the genes in the two populations grow more and more divergent, the viability of any offspring decreases (horses and mules are sufficiently diverged that any offspring is rendered sterile, but offspring do result). Eventually, the two populations' genes are so divergent that viable offspring are no longer possible. At no point did any of this divergence require two individuals with the same mutation crop up at the same time -- the genes spread through the entire isolated population over time. And over time the mutations in the two separate render the two populations incompatible.

[VadeRetro]

Well there is a very good reason why we do not. Paleontology is not a science, it a self-fullfilling prophecy. If it has 3 earbones then they call it a mammal - even though they do not have the slightest idea whether it had mammary glands or not.

And they do that despite all the modern non-mammalian species running and flying around that gore3000 can name with hammer-anvil-stirrup earbones. Show those evos no mercy, gore! Start naming them!

[VadeRetro]

In spite of lots of good dinosaur specimens we do not know if they had mammary glands,

Evolution says that mammary glands on a dinosaur would be stunningly unlikely. Please do not skip this next question, it's very revealing of what's going on here. Do you understand what you are arguing against, evolutionary theory, well enough to say why mammary glands on a dinosaur are basically excluded? (Here it is again. Evolution has something to tell us. In ID/creationism, anything goes.)

. . . we do not know if they had scales, feathers, green skin, brown skin, purple skin,

There are instances of skin impressions.

. . . we do not know if they were warm blooded or cold blooded and a hundred other characteristics which are very much a part of a species . . .

In many cases, we have bone evidence of warm-bloodedness in later dinosaurs. There are many things, such as just for one example whether two similar creatures would have been sexually compatible or had completely speciated, it cannot tell us. So what? You want too much for the incompleteness of the available data. That's a problem for all serious theories equally.