Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

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

[BMCDA]

The only problem with ID is that it can be applied to anything. How do you differentiate between a rock that is designed and one that is not? If you allow ID as an explanation you can never rule out the possibility that a basalt or granite rock you find somewhere is designed by some supernatural being.

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro: Tell me, why did He experiment for two billion years with just prokaryotes? Why did it take Him so long to get interested in multicellulars? Did he not know how? Why such a long learning curve? Why such a tremendous rush of achievement right in the last half a billion years? Why did the invention of sex seem to make such a big difference?

Aquinasfan: Maybe you could tell Him how He could and should have done it differently. Personally, I hesitate to second guess Him.

You see, here's where evolution has a fairly long-winded story to tell with a lot of implications for how the world works. All of which you chuck for the luxury of saying, "I never second-guess HIM."

I've mentioned clones evolve slowly relative to sexuals. There's a fascinating scenario in which early organisms rather freely exchanged materials through bacterial conjugation. Budding and other cloning techniques then produced a long stasis, ending only when "modern" mitosis developed, leading fairly quickly to meiosis, sex at the cellular level. That produced the Precambrian "sizzle" of suddenly fast evolution leading to the Cambrian Explosion of Creationist pamplet fame. (You still see people posting that all the phyla of life appear full-blown for the first time "at the bottom of the geologic column in the Cambrian.")

The preceding paragraph is the speed-reader's version of Schopf's Cradle of Life, if you want to expand your horizons. (But you don't.)

And you have, "I don't second-guess Him." And you're upset you don't have equal time in biology class!!??

[BMCDA]

A fine example for this is when two populations (B and C) can't interbreed with each other but both can interbreed with a (presumably parent) population A.
I once read some articles about these species but I lost the bookmarks. Maybe you guys know the link or at least what sort of animals these critters are (I think they were rodents but I'm not sure).

[VadeRetro]

There are a few examples of "ring species," in which the geographical range of the bird is a ring broken in one place by some barrier. At the barrier, the populations are too different to recognize each other, but it's a continuum everyhwere else. If that's not exactly what you mean, it's close.

Ring species.

[Heartlander]

In the same respect, natural design is being applied to everything. If man was simply designed by nature then would it be reasonable to say that everything man designs is a natural occurrence?

[VadeRetro]

bird

Didn't mean to be so restrictive. One example is a salamander.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If man was simply designed by nature then would it be reasonable to say that everything man designs is a natural occurrence?

Sure, why not? Otherwise we have the environmentalists's version of Man=Bad and Nature=Good.

[BMCDA]

At least they are not supernatural. From this point of view one can consider them to be natural occurrences. Of course in this case an intelligent agent is involved (space aliens, humans or weaverbirds).

But one always has to take into consideration that something can happen without an intervening agent from outside. Sure, it's hard to imagine how a house or even a computer as we know it today could have evolved without the "help" from humans but these entities are not self-replicators.

Evolution is what happens to imperfect self-replicators in a restrictive environment. As far as I know every organism is a self-replicating entity (either through cloning or sexual reproduction) so an explanation that needs an intervening agent from outside isn't necessary.

[BMCDA]

Yepp, ring species was exactly what I meant. Thanks so far.

[VadeRetro]

"You're welcome so far," he said warily.

[Heartlander]

So, we are just along for the ride and nature is driving us? Hey, we don’t know exactly how we got here or where we are going, but hey, nature has got us this far… we don’t need a reason for everything, just an explanation. (doesn’t even need to be a great explanation)

Since evolution and nature are the driving forces - than everything we do must further it’s cause. No wait, is there a cause? Doesn’t really matter – we can manipulate nature and become it’s god (for lack of a better word).

It seems to me that we have dissected this tree to the point that we have lost sight of the forrest.

[BMCDA]

LOL ;-D

[VadeRetro]

The novelist's touch. ;)

[tallhappy]

I've mentioned clones evolve slowly relative to sexuals. There's a fascinating scenario in which early organisms rather freely exchanged materials through bacterial conjugation. Budding and other cloning techniques then produced a long stasis, ending only when "modern" mitosis developed, leading fairly quickly to meiosis, sex at the cellular level. That produced the Precambrian "sizzle" of suddenly fast evolution leading to the Cambrian Explosion of Creationist pamplet fame. (You still see people posting that all the phyla of life appear full-blown for the first time "at the bottom of the geologic column in the Cambrian.")

Vaderetro doesn't even know what the terms he uses here mean.

[BMCDA]

Hey, we don’t know exactly how we got here or where we are going...

And I have no problem admitting that. There is still a lot we don't know but to simply postulate a supernatural entity to explain what we don't know isn't very helpful.

[VadeRetro]

Was there an imprecision in my use of "modern" mitosis? Can you obviate my point with this point? Can you justify your use of the plural "terms?" Do you ever do anything except show up, announce that nobody but tallhappy knows what they are talking about, invite people to play a few guessing games, and slink off?

BTW, you try compressing a book into a paragraph. I can't begin to capture the flavor of what he's throwing away with his unwillingness to "second-guess." (Can you make science out of that?)

[Heartlander]

Why?

[tallhappy]

Was there an imprecision in my use of "modern" mitosis?

What is modern mitosis? As compared to old mitosis? What's what. Define then molecularly.

[VadeRetro]

Tonight, I'm feeling evil. We're giving tallhappy the tallhappy treatment.

A figure for your consideration. Where does mitosis come in?Where does meiosis come in? Where does tallhappy come in?

Let's throw in a Schopf question. Why does sex matter?

[VadeRetro]

Define then molecularly.

What do bacteria do, and when do they do it? Is it: 1) mitosis, 2) meiosis, or 3) none of the above?