Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

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

[VadeRetro]

So what is the proof that Dinosaurs did not have mammary glands?

No. What is the reasoning. And I asked you first. I'm fully aware that ID would have nothing to say on the subject.

You attack evolution in your posts, but you make rather a point of being abysmally ignorant of same. If I'm tallhappying tallhappy these days, I might as well tallhappy you.

What does evolution say about the possibility of teats on a dinosaur and why does it say it? After all, you know that what it says is wrong, so you must know what it says and why it says it.

[BMCDA]

Evolution cannot be used to prove that a god does not exist, only that a god is not needed to explain what the Theory of Evolution is supposed to explain. But the same applies to every branch of science.

Take Astrophysics for example: we know how neutron stars or white dwarfs form but of course they also could have been created by some omnipotent being. Or can you rule that possibility out?
A rock that you find somewhere in the mountains could have been formed deep in the earth's crust millions of years ago but there is also the possibility that it was created by an omnipotent being and placed just where you found it only a day ago. It's possible after all.

So according to your logic every branch of science has to leave the door open for an intelligent designer but somehow this is only an issue with the Theory of Evolution.

Therefore an intelligent designer isn't an explanation at all. You only know that he did it but not how. If this designer is a supernatural entity then you'll never figure out how he did it because the supernatural is per definition not understandable by natural minds (if it were understandable then it wouldn't be supernatural). So once a supernatural designer is accepted there is no need to look for further explanations.

An intelligent designer could have created all species that ever existed but if he did then he did it in a manner that they look as if they evolved. So why assume his existence? Only because we think it might be cooler if we were designed as if it were if we only evolved? But why do many people think it would be cooler to be designed (even if the design is sloppy i.e. as if we evolved) instead of having evolved?

Evolution doesn't offer the best solution only a solution that is at least better than the previous one. Many systems in our bodies are indeed very complex but suboptimal. We are not able (at least at the moment) to build such complex systems but nonetheless we are able to see that their principle is flawed. Take the human eye as an example: it is a very complex organ and it surpasses every camera we can build but the nerves and blood vessels are in front of the retina. No one would build a camera in that way. Sure we can but that wouldn't be very intelligent. However, this is absolutely fine with evolution because evolution works with the material it has at hand so we don't have to expect perfect design because there is no intelligence behind. (It's compareable to a bush that has to grow through a maze. The walls of this maze are made of lasers for example so they cut off a branch if it tries to penetrate the wall. So only those branches continue to grow which don't touch the walls.)

[VadeRetro]

But why do you avoid the issues?

In particular, I'm trying to help you find your way to the issues here. You seem to have avoided responding.

[Aquinasfan]

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. We all know the story. The problem is, there isn't any evidence.

My question is: how does punk eek explain the gaps in the fossil record and the fossil rule of morphological stasis better than variation by micromutation, if punk eek is variation by micromutation (in "isolated groups").

I don't see how it solves the problem that it was brought forward to resolve.

[VadeRetro]

To Nebullis: The problem is, there isn't any evidence.

This is crazy. There is no making you see what has already been posted/linked. I can't help but see this kind of unresponsiveness in a bad light.

The paper

Spencer-Cervato, C. and Thierstein, H.R., 1997. First appearance of Globorotalia truncatulinoides: cladogenesis and immigration. Marine Micropaleontology, v.30, p.267-291.

reports on the species Globorotalia crassaformis. There is a location in the South Pacific where this species gradually turns into a transitional species, G. tosaensis, and then into G. truncatulinoides. The gradual change took 500,000 years.

In the Indian and Atlantic oceans, in slightly more recent sediment, we find the "sudden" appearance of the descendant species. This "suddenness" is therefore from migration, not Creation.

We know that these are different species (and not just strange looking fossils of a single species) because both species still exist today.

A Marine Microfossil Example. (Sound familiar?)

When you want more, I have more. When you want more transitionals . . .

My point is, you guys are always quoting Darwin in 1859 puzzling over the fossil record, or Gould in 1972 arguing with "NeoDarwinists." That's been over for decades.

But creationists make a point of not keeping up, of not understanding, of not even remembering. That's hard to overlook.

[Aquinasfan]

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

Do you know why God designed the world this way? I'd like to know the answer myself.

[VadeRetro]

You see, shells are made by the organism to protect itself. They are not part of the organism. It is like trying to prove the evolution of beavers by showing their dams!

Can you tell by looking at a beaver dam that it was not made by a robin or even a muskrat?

[BMCDA]

Well, then give him ring species (dang, somehow I'm obsessed with ring species). This is an example I really do like (there are of course many others):

Ring Species: Salamanders

The various Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast all descended from a common ancestral population. As the species spread southward from Oregon and Washington, subpopulations adapted to their local environments on either side of the San Joaquin Valley. From one population to the next, in a circular pattern, these salamanders are still able to interbreed successfully. However, where the circle closes -- in the black zone on the map in Southern California -- the salamanders no longer interbreed successfully. The variation within a single species has produced differences as large as those between two separate species.

Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.

One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.

In concept, this can be likened to a spiral-shaped parking garage. A driver notices only a gentle rise as he ascends the spiral, but after making one complete circle, he finds himself an entire floor above where he started.

A well-studied example of a ring species is the salamander Ensatina escholtzii of the Pacific Coast region of the United States. In Southern California, naturalists have found what look like two distinct species scrabbling across the ground. One is marked with strong, dark blotches in a cryptic pattern that camouflages it well. The other is more uniform and brighter, with bright yellow eyes, apparently in mimicry of the deadly poisonous western newt. These two populations coexist in some areas but do not interbreed -- and evidently cannot do so.

Moving up the state, the two populations are divided geographically, with the dark, cryptic form occupying the inland mountains and the conspicuous mimic living along the coast. Still farther to the north, in northern California and Oregon, the two populations merge, and only one form is found. In this area, it is clear that what looked like two separate species in the south are in fact a single species with several interbreeding subspecies, joined together in one continuous ring.

The evolutionary story that scientists have deciphered begins in the north, where the single form is found. This is probably the ancestral population. As it expanded south, the population became split by the San Joaquin Valley in central California, forming two different groups. In the Sierra Nevada the salamanders evolved their cryptic coloration. Along the coast they gradually became brighter and brighter.

The division was not absolute: some members of the sub-populations still find each other and interbreed to produce hybrids. The hybrids look healthy and vigorous, but they are neither well-camouflaged nor good mimics, so they are vulnerable to predators. They also seem to have difficulty finding mates, so the hybrids do not reproduce successfully. These two factors keep the two forms from merging, even though they can interbreed.

By the time the salamanders reached the southernmost part of California, the separation had caused the two groups to evolve enough differences that they had become reproductively isolated. In some areas the two populations coexist, closing the "ring," but do not interbreed. They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.

Ring species, says biologist David Wake, who has studied Ensatina for more than 20 years, are a beautiful example of species formation in action. "All of the intermediate steps, normally missing, have been preserved, and that is what makes it so fascinating."

[VadeRetro]

Do you know why God designed the world this way? I'd like to know the answer myself.

These are not science questions. To make everything a "Why did the designer do it this way?" issue and then punt is a sham of science, and not even a plausible sham.

ID has nothing to teach us.

[VadeRetro]

Beautiful post! Aquinasfan needs to see this too, as he's still telling Nebullis there just is no evidence.

[js1138]

What is this nonsense about shells not being part of an organism? Does this mean that insects' exoskeletons are not part of the organism? Or that hair is not part of an organism?

[Aquinasfan]

Your snail sequence pretty much proves that human beings developed from a primordial soup many years ago and that I shouldn't be concerned that the fossil record shows morphological stasis as a rule. The only problem remaining is the evolution of the woodpecker beak. Care to hazard an explanation?

[Junior]

I haven't noticed you having the testicular fortitude to publish your "theory" for peer review.

Oh, I forgot, the entire scientific world is conspiring to keep your ideas from seeing the light of day.

Quick, post your out-of-context Junior quotes as a reply.

[VadeRetro]

The only problem remaining is the evolution of the woodpecker beak. Care to hazard an explanation?

Nope. It's a new one on me. Not that I'm incurious, but I don't know that one. The only attempted evolutionary treatment that I've seen is the hostile one you linked earlier concocted by the ID zealot.

I've been getting "Stump the Dummies" played with me for three years now on these threads. Occasionally I get stumped. Even when somebody comes up with an evolutionary scenario, say, for the bombardier beetle, the creationists seamlessly and without acknowledgement retreat to the next trench of "And what's the proof of that?" Count all the "maybes" on that web page!"

When you first linked the woodpecker pages, I commented that a Behe proof of design is that Behe didn't understand how a thing could have evolved. A Dawkins rebuttal is that "Evolution is smarter than you are!"

Looking at a woodpecker, I'm inclined to ask, "Well, how did you get your tongue all tangled up like that?" It might answer, "Works for me!"

Not understanding something isn't a miracle. We used to think everything was a miracle and that was wrong.

[VadeRetro]

I see you've actually asked me about the beak, not the tongue. Clearly, you meant the tongue. Anyway, that's where I see the greater puzzle.

[edsheppa]

The only problem remaining is the evolution of the woodpecker beak. Care to hazard an explanation?

Ah yes. Clearly if one doesn't know everything then one doesn't know anything.

[Heartlander]

Thank you for your honesty.
It does shed a little light on your ‘zest’ – as evolution (with ID) can coexist with Christianity but an agnostic ‘must’ rely on evolution.

To totally rule out ID without the conclusive data does not seem scientific. I submit that ID has brought extremely valid questions about evolution to the table that otherwise may never had been asked. We apply ID to different aspects of science and life (It would seem you have applied it to posts on this thread –LOL) but we say ‘it is not valid in biology’. Cosmology and genetics may bring that statement into question.

[BMCDA]

Thanks! I hope it helps. If not here is an other website on these fascinating critters.

[VadeRetro]

From that new link:

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?

The point of my "Where is the barrier?" question to Aquinasfan many pages back. There is no barrier.

[VadeRetro]

To totally rule out ID without the conclusive data does not seem scientific.

You can't rule out ID because there can be no conclusive data. ID has nothing to tell us. It's religion.