Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

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

[PatrickHenry]

BTW, speaking of proving your assertions, we are still waiting for you [g3k] to produce:

Case law REQUIRING the teaching of evolution in U.S. schools (there is a lot barring the teaching of creationism, but that is no the same thing, as one could simply say the school will not teach anything along these lines and not be in violation of that ruling).

I remember that thread. In response to the assertion that the court mandated evolution, I posted links to the leading US Supreme Court cases on the subject. Remarkable silence followed, even though I recall following up a few times with requests for counter-evidence.

[Gumlegs]

Pretty good definition of science. (I notice you can do links when you're so inclined). It contains the following statement, which I doubt that anyone on the evo side would dispute:

The process itself is a method of building, testing, and connecting falsifiable models to describe, explain and predict a shared reality.

Back at post 530 of this thread I posted a statement by the Pope in which he states that belief in evolution is not contrary to Catholic teaching. Belief in evolution cannot, therefore, be "atheistic." The Pope also notes its scientific qualities. He was probably using a definition of science quite like the one you used.

In the case of creationism, young-earth or otherwise, how would you go about constructing a falsifiable model to test it?

By the way, it's come out recently that Mendel faked his data. Does that mean genes don't exist?

[VadeRetro]

As I told Junior, it is the ultimate in arrogance and the ultimate in lameness to ask readers here to wade through tons of articles to find the proof you refuse to show them.

Where a key point depends only upon a few paragraphs or an imgage, I will quote same in-line, while providing a link in lieu of a footnote. There are cases in which it is the whole article, perhaps the mere existence of same, which is the refutation of some contention. I would not dream of blasting The TalkOrigins Compilation of Vertebrate Transitional Fossils in-line, for instance. There are far too many of those bad boys, and all I'm answering is the stock dumb-dumbism that not one such thing has ever existed.

Nobody but you does that silly "Post it here" nonsense.

[gore3000]

Stop making excuses, post the proof here for all to see. You ashamed of giving proof of your theory? Prove me wrong for all to see! Is not that what you want? So do it and stop making excuses.

[VadeRetro]

Click me!

Click me!

[Virginia-American]

! Give one proof Junior, just one!

I consider the fact that humans and chimps share an **identical mutation** that prevents the synthesis of vitamin C as proof in and of itself. Don't you?

What do you consider whales that are occasionally born with legs? Evidence that [the designer] was so stupid [he she or it] put land animal genes in a marine animal, or evidence that the whales inherited these genes from a terrestial ancestor?

[PatrickHenry]

I consider the fact that humans and chimps share an **identical mutation** that prevents the synthesis of vitamin C as proof in and of itself. Don't you?

It's certainly an interesting piece of evidence for common descent. But calling it "proof" might be a bit of a stretch.

[gore3000]

I consider the fact that humans and chimps share an **identical mutation** that prevents the synthesis of vitamin C as proof in and of itself. Don't you?

The evolutionists certainly do say the above. However, there is a problem with it. When we mapped the human genome, two companies did it. Only 1/5 of the genes they identified were the same. I am not sure that the chimp genome has been studied even better than man. So first of all, I am very suspicious of that statement. Secondly, that would be an example of devolution - making a species less fit. Mutations seem to do that. Thirdly, I do not know how large that gene is, but if is like most genes 500 or some base pairs long, that one mutation made it unworkable in both man and chimp is not to be wondered at. It is a slim chance, but not an impossible coincidence. Lastly, the genes of different species are never the same even if they code for the same function. That is why the sperm of one species will not impregnate another species, why the blood of one species cannot be used on another species, why the legs of one species are not the same as those of another species, etc.

[gore3000]

Stop making excuses, post the proof here for all to see. You ashamed of giving proof of your theory? Prove me wrong for all to see! Is not that what you want? So do it and stop making excuses.

As I say, no click, post it here. Guess you are ashamed to let everyone see your "proof".

[VadeRetro]

NO CLICK?

[gore3000]

He did it through the process of evolution.

So you are saying that God created the world and everything in it but he does not interfere in the world at all? Is that it? So you would say you are a deist then?

[Junior]

Secondly, that would be an example of devolution - making a species less fit.

First off, there is no such thing as "devolution" (except a certain '80s pop band). Evolution simply means "change." The opposite of change is "stasis."

Secondly, neither chimps nor humans make vitamin C for the very simple reason that we both get plenty of it through natural sources. When the mutation turning off our vitamin C maker appeared, it had absolutely no effect on the survival of the original owner, so saying it made the critter less adapted to its environment is clearly mistaken.

[Junior]

Nope. Roman Catholic.

[Aquinasfan]

This is getting pathetic. Every degree of visual sensor and nervous system are present in existing species today.

Yeah, but they exist in organisms which are entirely integrated and functional. I'm looking for a lion with a half-formed wing. That type of thing.

You're an example what happens when someone gets all his science from pamphlets.

Ouch. That hurts.

[Aquinasfan]

As for half-developed nervous systems, what would you consider that to be? Would it be the stimulus-response receptors found on jelly-fish, the non-centralized nervous system of the starfish, the ganglia-controlled stimulus-response system of insects? You need to be a little clearer.

Thank you for an intelligent response. All of the examples that you cite exist in fully functioning, integrated creatures. What I'm looking for is a skunk with gills. Or a mouse with a half-formed wing. Or an Octupus with legs. Fossilized mutational "duds."

For example, some people point to the archaeopteryx as a transitional form, which is certainly a logical possibility. But the reason that I don't find it particularly compelling as evidence of evolution is that it seems to have been a creature that was capable of functioning well "as-is." And, in fact, a bunch of archaeopteryx fossils have been found, seemingly demonstrating that it came into being fully formed and functioning and left the same way, just like most other creatures, if we are to judge by the evidence in the fossil record.

(Or take the platypus. Is it a transitional "dud?" Is it the "missing link" between muskrats and ducks? Or is it a fully-formed, integrated, functional creature?)

At least that's what we should expect from "punk eek." If evolution happened by micro-mutation, then the fossil record for evolution should be even more compelling, absolutely filled with "transitional forms." But the evidence is quite the opposite.

[Aquinasfan]

Is this the first time anyone ever explained punctuated equilibria to you? Of course it's "differentiation by small mutation." All scientific theories of evolution involve "differentiation by small mutation"; punk-eek is not all that different from classical darwinism in that respect.

OK. There are two logical possibilities. Evolution by small mutation or large mutation. The only problem with the former theory is the lack of evidence in the fossil record. The only problem with the latter theory is that it's absurd.

Here'a an exerpt from "Talk Origins" regarding punk eek:

The theory of Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species.

[All of this is evidence of intelligent design, yet Gould and Eldridge stand the evidence on its head]

PE relies upon the insights of study of modern species for its principles. These studies indicate the importance of consideration of geography and interspecies interactions upon predictions of the distribution and abundance of transitional specimens. While Eldredge and Gould acknowledge that geological processes contribute to the "gappiness" of the fossil record, [more evidence against evolutionary theory inverted] they also assert that PE is by far the more important consideration in that regard. [assert away fellas. That's all you got.]

2. The Problem of Paleospecies

Paleontologists have to recognize species from their fossil remains. The problem of "What is a paleospecies?" [Indeed, if everything's in transition. But then, nothing's a problem for these guys] led Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to propose the theory of punctuated equilibria [no lack of imagination here]. The term "paleospecies" makes explicit the distinction between the classification of species from fossil remains and the process of recognizing species in modern populations. This problem involves geology, taphonomy, taxonomy, and -- though often ignored -- geography [and don't forget good ol' slight of hand].

Mayr's Biological Species Concept uses the criterion of reproductive isolation to distinguish species in modern populations. Paleontologists who pursue taxonomic endeavors (which includes most of them) have to classify their finds generally based upon morphological features. The rareness of preservation of tissues containing DNA, or even of soft tissues, limits the range of diagnostic characters which may be utilized. The paleontologist has no access to such information. (Whether modern biologists really do have access to that information is a matter of some little debate in the literature.)

The fossil record is incomplete. [Or non-existent concerning "transitional forms"] This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause to confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography. [Riiiiiight. That explains the lack of evidence.]

Paleospecies, then, have to be recognized as species from morphology alone, where the available morphological characters are drawn from a skewed distribution, the pattern of fossilization is skewed, and the geographic correlates of fossilization are limited in extent. [Zzzzzzzz...]

[Aquinasfan]

Isn't Johnson a lawyer? Or am I mistaking him for someone else? If he is a lawyer, wouldn't you consider him to be an improper authority (as in the fallacy of Appeal to Improper Authority) when it comes to evolutionary science?

Not at all. An argument from authority can have validity, but it isn't necessarily decisive, especially at a time when many professions are grounded in the erroneous philosophy of materialism, as much of evolutionary theory seems to be.

Moreover, as a lawyer, Johnson is familiar with the structure of arguments and in identifying philosophical assumptions. If an error in argument or philosophy exists in evolutionary theory, then Johnson should be better able to find it than a natural scientist.

Johnson is carrying on the task of materialist debunking that was well established in the 20th century. In music, Shoenberg's "system" reigned in university music departments for decades while it drove people from concert halls in droves. Few people took Freudianism seriously, yet it was an accepted branch of psychology for decades. And we all know how the "scientific" theory of Marxism reigned in university poli/sci departments until recently.

Finally, Johnson is surrounded by able scientists and philosophers at his foundation which can be found at www.arn.org. William Dembski is a notable example.

[VadeRetro]

I'm looking for a lion with a half-formed wing. That type of thing.

That's just bogus, of course. Would you settle for a bird with a half-wing, half raptorian claw?

Or would you like a detailed treatment of eye evolution?

How Could An Eye Evolve?.

The problem with your lion-wing is it's a standard "When have you ever seen a snake turn into a bird?" strawman attacking something which no scientist would propose as the way evolution works.

Basically, all of your arguments reflect a keen study of the creationist pamphlets of the late 1970s. There's some slop in the dating but I'd say it's no later.

[VadeRetro]

Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium.

Don't forget to click on the links for evidence of smooth change in the fossil record and of punk-eek scenarios. There'll be a quiz.

So you have this and then you have "Someone or something goes around magically making new species every so often." Or did it all happen one time 6K years ago but you're too embarrassed to talk about your story?

See, that's the real problem, religion. That and maybe ancestral pride. Nobody complains about string theory, although it's far more tentative than whether or not evolution occurs. String theory doesn't conflict with Genesis, and string theory doesn't say your ancestors were apes, then lemurs, then reptiles, then amphibians, then fish, then slime molds as you go farther and farther back.

[Aquinasfan]

That's just bogus, of course. Would you settle for a bird with a half-wing, half raptorian claw?

No. This does nothing more to prove the theory of evolution than does an archaeopteryx or a platypus. Just like the platypus (kiwi, penguin, flying squirrel, etc.), this creature seems to be integrated and fully functional.