Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal

AIG ^ | 2002/07/11 | AIG

[Dominic Harr]

That's not only non-obvious, but it's been coercively disproven by experiment as I have noted.

I'd say it's obvious, happens in every system you can observe that I'm aware of, and has been proven by experiment and real-world experience, as I've noted.

You, I think it's proven, have other reasons for attacking Darwin. Reasons that have nothing to do with his theory. You agree with the specifics of the theory, but insult the man and anyone who admits to believing in the theory.

It appears you do this because you're actually advancing another agenda. You believe you have evidence that Man did not 'evolve'. So you attempt to discredit the entire theory of evolution, even tho you believe it's specifics.

This leads you to outright manufacture evidence, like with that pic of the big rock. Or in this case, misrepresenting the results of the fruit fly experiment.

Now I'm a big science fiction fan, so I read your posts enthusiastically. I love a good, unusual theory. But your definition of 'evidence' and mine are so different that there's no chance we could ever have a meaningful discussion about your other theories.

The only meaningful exchange we can have is me pointing out that you *do* believe in the specifics of evolution.

Then cognitive dissonance will set in.

Consciously, you can easily ignore me. But you brain is aware of the dichotomy. You will have to resolve the problem. You will think about it subconsciously. You're a human, you can't help it.

It's that point -- a bunch of small changes always equals a big change. Can't ignore it, even if you blindly deny it. The 'micro' v. 'macro' difference is only a matter of timespan.

That's interesting, to me. When faced with believing two ideas that contradict each other, some people freak out. Some people change their minds. Some people become morbidly depressed.

I'm curious how the various individuals will deal with this dichotomy.

[MEGoody]

"The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time."

So some presume. But there is a big jump from affirming that the size of a bird's beak can vary to making the claim that the bird turned into a whole other animal. The one has been observed, the other has not.

[f.Christian]

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial/technological progress(no evolution--zero)...moral/social character-values(private/personal) INTELLECTUAL GROWTH!

[Gumlegs]

See gratuitous compliment in my post 858 in this thread.

[Blowtorch]

But they claim they don't agree with so-called 'macro' evolution, even tho the only difference is 'time'.

This statement simply has not been demonstrated, in experiment or in nature.

The bugs have changed.

The bugs more resistant have reproduced, but the bugs are the same. This is natural selection, a fact of nature. No morphing into something else. Others on this thread have also already pointed out that no new information has been or is being added.

You are claiming that natural selection=Darwinism=belief in evolution. This is you big point that you've been making, and therefore asserting that everyone is an evolutionist. This is not the case, for Darwin makes the jump from natural selection to evolution, which are not the same thing.


From Macro vs. Micro Evolution
by David Skjaerlund

"Charles Darwin sparked a revolution in scientific thought with the publication of his book, The Origin of Species, in 1859. With his concept of evolution by natural selection, Darwin attempted to render invalid the biblical idea that "every living thing produces life after its own kind."
In the first half of Species, Darwin cited evidence for "micro-evolution," or changes on a small level between species. His discovery of the several different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands with similar characteristics, derived from a common ancestor, comprised his evidence for micro-evolution. The 14 different species of finches vary according to plumage, size (from the size of a sparrow to that of a large blackbird), beak morphology, behavior and environmental habitat. They were each very different, yet closely related.

From this observation, Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or "macro-evolution." He used the evidence from the first half of his book on micro-evolution to suggest that the same mechanism could produce all life forms. However, this concept of macro-evolution is not supported by modern scientific evidence. Although we can explain and understand the mechanism behind micro-evolution, we still can only theorize about possible explanations for macro-evolution - since it has no scientifically valid occurrences."



So the evidence of the morphing process-macro evolution as it's called, is nil. With this morphing process happening "every day" as you claim, we should see fossil evidence of transitional species everywhere. We don't.

You can claim that natural selection=Darwinism, but it's not true. Darwin made the case for evolution and morphing, which isn't supported by the fossil record or demonstrated in nature.

[medved]

As I have noted, the experiments conducted with fruit flies in the eearly decades of the 1900's provided coercive proof that no amount of microevolution will ever produce macroevolution. End of story.

[f.Christian]

"You appear to intend to allow the impression that the Pope rejects all theories of evolution no matter how formulated. That's simply false. The Church does accept the theory of evolution, just not certain versions of it. It also rejects any interpretation that would be used to ... but you say you don't need my help on the issue, so I'll drop it with the note that the theory of evolution is taught as a valid scientific theory in Catholic schools up to and including the University level."

The Bible says..."the whole world would be deceived---the very elect(God won't allow it)---if it were possible"!

Religion was practicing 'evolution' long before Darwin...ever hear of Martin Luther---the reformation?

[Elsie]

MV, this is getting to be no fun at all. Neither side wants to listen to the other on this subject, so let's vector off into another, similar one.

Life from non-life.

---

This planet has many megatons of bio-mass - living tissue of some type, stored as ants, bacteria, slugs, whales, oak trees, krill, lizards and Dolly Parton's ample..... no, scratch that one (two).

If this planet of ours was just bare rocks, sand, dust and water and a witches brew of chemicals, what did the FIRST little beastie EAT when it DID finally appear?

Ya fling a dead cat into a gravel pit and all the little microbes do NOT start a new, growing mound of life around its carcase.

So what shall we think?

[Gumlegs]

And all this time we thought you were a Creationist.

[f.Christian]

Religion(false) was practicing 'evolution' long before Darwin...

ever hear of Martin Luther(no evolution)---the reformation(Truth/science)?

[Ann Archy]

You must not have any children...if you do and you think they were just some accident of nature, that would be even sadder.

[Gumlegs]

Thanks for clearing that up. I was beginning to worry.

[f.Christian]

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/THEOLOGY/man/SCIENCE/govt. does not/NEVER change.

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress(no evolution...zero---ziltch/none)...moral/social character-values(private/personal) INTELLECTUAL GROWTH---expertise/professionalism!

[agrace]

I don't find any thought threatening. I am completely secure in my beliefs, proven and unproven, and while I am no scientist (as I said before), I feel comfortably well-read all around. I'm familiar with evolution, young-earth creationism, progressive creationism, and basically everything in between.

I'll continue to disagree with you about adaptation being evolution, because I disagree that change within a species is evolution, and that's all adaptation is. I'll continue to disagree that the only difference between micro and macro is time because no one can prove that change from one species to another has ever happened, is happening or ever will happen, no matter what length of time is added to it.

And with regard to Darwin, I believe I said that I AGREE with what Darwin said about adaptation, but disagree with his further suppositions that became the theory of evolution.

I find it hard to believe that you can't find one bit of young earth evidence that looks at all compelling. If you are truly as opened minded as you indicate by saying anything's possible, then there has to be a point or two that seems plausible. The ONLY thing that really bothers me is the age of stars, and our ability to see so many light years away. Impossible to dismiss. But it is possible that there are time issues that we don't fully understand. Time doesn't always run the same, depending on where one is. It's a fascinating subject. But anyway...

As my husband likes to say, evolutionists have a problem with the idea that there is a designer, yet they want us to believe we came from a rock! :)

Thanks for the exchange. I don't usually post on the crevo threads because much of it is a bit too technical for me so I appreciate your responses. Have a good afternoon.

[Dominic Harr]

But there is a big jump from affirming that the size of a bird's beak can vary to making the claim that the bird turned into a whole other animal.

In every other system, when you make a large number of small changes to an object you end up with an object that is radically different than the object you started with.

This is no "jump", any more than it is surmising that if I push a ball down stairs, the ball will bounce down to the bottom.

It's observable in almost every system.

[medved]

Evolutionists have basically sold-out and bet the farm on their own position. The situation you'd compare it to is that of the behavior of the Japanese government after the fall of the Marianas; in other words, they'll delay the inevitable as long as they possibly can but, after that, the collapse will come swiftly.

[f.Christian]

uh...hmmm---you see the ball bouncing up the steps---evolution!

[Avoiding_Sulla]

My belief just makes me conscious of a positive/negative God, a God who is both capable of good and evil.

What you seem to be believing borders on or intrudes upon Dualism. Read C.S. Lewis on the subject (in Mere Christianity in the chapter "The Invasion"), and he'll provide you with more to chew on than most who post here.

On a thread a few months ago, The rise of neo-paganism I tried my hand at appending to C.S. Lewis my own humble views on the subject where I addressed another comment similar to this of yours --

Not only did he create beautiful things, but he also created death and disease and pain and suffering. So, along with the beautiful side of life, there's also an exceedingly ugly part. And that is where God failed.

At that thread I concluded my comments:

At the end, Lewis describes supernaturally what we see in the natural world. Just as we see natural and man-made parasitics accompany all work or potential for work in the well studied science of thermodynamics, Lewis said this about the bad force.
Put it more simply still. To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.... The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things -- resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself. That is why Dualism, in a strict sense, will not work.

I'll try to tailor my response to your declaration with this suggestion.
Combine God's potential with His granting free will. Then consider that granting as having been done so as to similarly unfetter the potential of His highest creatures.
This may provide you at least another perspective to view your considerations. Do that, and gain an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, and you may reconsider your assessment of what you call failures. I see those "failures" as consequences of tangible existence, creation if you will, arising out of The Potential.

Now, for someone such as yourself, who finds failure in practices that do not measure up to your ideals (which, from what I garner, is that perfection must be perfect), this may indeed be a futile invitation. However, there is always the chance that you'll find some value in my view -- and I wanted to offer you that chance -- that it may be more a matter of us mere mortals misunderstanding perfection.

medved, I alerted you because I saw that you responded to pointy's same sentence. Perhaps you understand my invoking of thermodynamics here more than others and can add something.

[Dominic Harr]

The bugs more resistant have reproduced, but the bugs are the same. This is natural selection, a fact of nature.

"This is natural selection, a fact of nature."

I rest my case. You believe Darwin, and agree with natural selection. You insult Darwinism for other reasons.

Just consider the obvious contradiction in you sentence above.

They're different, more resistant, which means they are not the same.

Fundamentally changed.

And a bunch of small changes to an object means you will have an object that is very different from what you started with. That is a simple, observable fact.

[Dominic Harr]

And with regard to Darwin, I believe I said that I AGREE with what Darwin said about adaptation, but disagree with his further suppositions that became the theory of evolution.

Ah, I'm sorry, I did miss your saying this.

I just find it so interesting that ya'll agree with the specifics of the theory, and only disagree when his theory contradicts you other beliefs.

I find it interesting your attempts to seperate 'micro' and 'macro' changes, as if big changes weren't related to little changes. Your experience proves this untrue in everything you observe. If you make a bunch of small changes to something, you will end up with a very different something.

As for the young Earth evidence, no, I'm afraid I haven't seen anything even the least little bit compelling. In fact what I read makes it clear we have two very different ideas about what "evidence" means. But I love reading the stuff. It makes for an awesome story, and would make a tremendous movie someday.

And anything is possible. I certainly could be wrong.