|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/22/2008 5:48:11 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7505
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
My knowledge of eugenics history is limited. From what I know it is morally repugnant, but at the time still considered science. Today though to put it lightly, eugenics 'lacks consensus'.
I would say that is a pretty good evaluation of the matter, but I think the reason it came to be rejected by the 'consensus' had less to do with it's lack of scientific merit, and more to do with it losing favor politically and socially.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/22/2008 6:03:49 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
We know that birds existed before any land animals, so that alone means there was no transition between the two.
Then we should find bird fossils in strata that are below any other land animal. That is not what is found. Creationism makes inaccurate predictions.
quote:
Incidentally, how do you experiment with evolution? Non-Hitler experimenting with evolution I mean.
ERV's are a great example. The evolution of apes (including humans) has been strongly established by fossil evidence. The proposed evolutionary history has orangutans branching off first followed by gorillas, then chimps, then humans. Therefore, a comparison of orthologous ERV's should produce the same pattern where genomic placement and ERV sequence are concerned. This experiment has been done and it fits the predictions of evolution.
quote:
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Aug 31;96(18):10254-60.
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences.
Johnson WE, Coffin JM.
Department of Molecular Microbiology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
The genomes of modern humans are riddled with thousands of endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage. Most HERVs are nonfunctional, selectively neutral loci. This fact, coupled with their sheer abundance in primate genomes, makes HERVs ideal for exploitation as phylogenetic markers. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) provide phylogenetic information in two ways: (i) by comparison of integration site polymorphism and (ii) by orthologous comparison of evolving, proviral, nucleotide sequence. In this study, trees are constructed with the noncoding long terminal repeats (LTRs) of several ERV loci. Because the two LTRs of an ERV are identical at the time of integration but evolve independently, each ERV locus can provide two estimates of species phylogeny based on molecular evolution of the same ancestral sequence. Moreover, tree topology is highly sensitive to conversion events, allowing for easy detection of sequences involved in recombination as well as correction for such events. Although other animal species are rich in ERV sequences, the specific use of HERVs in this study allows comparison of trees to a well established phylogenetic standard, that of the Old World primates. HERVs, and by extension the ERVs of other species, constitute a unique and plentiful resource for studying the evolutionary history of the Retroviridae and their animal hosts.
full paper: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=10468595
quote:
It seems to me that you would somehow have to get one critter to change into another critter in a laboratory to do it, otherwise, you're just observing dead stuff that looks a lot alilke.
It's a bit like reconstructing a crime scene. Forensic scientists use evidence at the crime scene to establish the order of events and the guilty parties (given an ample amount of evidence). Evolution is no different. The event has already happened. If modern biodiversity is due to evolution then there should be specific markers which indicate that it happened in the same way that a bloody fingerprint at a murder scene can tell us who the guilty party was.
Once evolutionary distance is established then one can use this information to determine gene function using phylogenomics and comparative gneomics.
quote:
Methods Mol Biol. 2008;439:387-401. Links
Comparative genomics-based prediction of protein function.Gabaldón T.
Bioinformatics Department, CIPF, Valencia, Spain.
The era of genomics has opened new possibilities for the computational prediction of protein function. In particular, the comparison of fully sequenced genomes allows us to investigate the so-called genomic context of a gene, which includes its chromosomal positioning relative to other genes as well as its evolutionary record among the genomes considered. This information can be exploited to find functionally interacting partners for a protein of unknown function and thus obtain information on the biological process in which it is playing a role. Such comparative genomics-based techniques are increasingly being used in the process of genome annotation and in the development of testable working hypothesis.
So not only is evolution important for understanding natural history it is also important for understanding gene function in modern species.
As for modern applications of evolution to modern species our domesticated plants and animals are great examples. We have taken the wolf and produced a ring species where the extremes of dog morphology prevent reproduction. For example, if you put a chihuahua and a great dane in the same pen it is very, very unlikely that they would produce offspring. For all intents and purposes great danes and chihuahuas are different species and different critters. Teosinte is another great example. This grass most resembles wheat and barley. Over centuries of selective breeding at the hands of men teosinte is not corn. The two hardly resemble each other anymore.
quote:
Oatmeal looks like grits but they aren't related
Sure they are. Both are products from grasses. All grasses share a common ancestor, as does all life.
quote:
... Water looks like sulfuric acid, but they aren't related...
Water and sulfuric acid are not biological organisms.
quote:
I look like Elvis but we're not related...
This is the first time I have run across a creationist who does not believe that all humans do not share a common ancestor. You might want to think on that one a bit.
quote:
Point is, many things look alike, even sharing some of the same characteristics, but honestly have little to do with one another.
The characteristics that all life shares is arbitrary. For example, the DNA codon ATG codes for the amino acid methionine. There is no physical reason that ATG must code for methionine. The relationship between the codons and the amino acids they code for is arbitrary. So why would all life share the same codon usage? For the same reason that you and your extended family share the same codon usage, common ancestry.
It could be argued that DNA is the only plausible stable polymer that could result in complex, multicellular life. I have argued back and forth with biochemists on this one, and I have come to agree with them. It would not be that stunning to find life in other solar systems that use DNA, or a very close analog. However, there is zero expectation that life on another planet would use the same codons.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/22/2008 7:24:24 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Nope... The existence of the nails proves there was a designer. 
We know that birds existed before any land animals, so that alone means there was no transition between the two.
Incidentally, how do you experiment with evolution? Non-Hitler experimenting with evolution I mean. (since it fits within the scientific method) Could you go into detail as to how that's done? (As I said, I'm no biologist) It seems to me that you would somehow have to get one critter to change into another critter in a laboratory to do it, otherwise, you're just observing dead stuff that looks a lot alilke. Oatmeal looks like grits but they aren't related... Water looks like sulfuric acid, but they aren't related... I look like Elvis but we're not related... Point is, many things look alike, even sharing some of the same characteristics, but honestly have little to do with one another.
As you say, you are no biologist. As a matter of fact, neither am I. But I have taken the time to learn a bit. Your first problem is that you expect the wrong sort of thing from evolution. You expect "one critter to change into another".
Critters don't change. Any critter born is what it is and stays what it is.
What changes in evolution are not critters, but populations.
Secondly, they don't change into anything completely different. If they did, we wouldn't be able to figure out who they are related to. But we can. What that means is that even when a population changes, the more recent population is a modification of the earlier population---not an entire new rewrite. There is always something of the older population still retained in the newer population.
So evolution isn't just about similarities. And it is not just about differences. It is about both of them together making a unique pattern.
Now as to changing a population in this way--that can be done experimentally on a small scale--and it has been done. And it has been observed in nature as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 7:57:04 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan42
quote:
So, we can't go with the statement that it's science merely because scientists say it is science, because that's circular reasoning, right?
Correct, that would be circular, but it is just barely strong enough for purposes of organizing a curriculum.
OK, cool. Using that logic, we should teach Biblical Creation in schools. (Actually I DID learn Biblical Creation in school, none of my teachers thought evolution was even close to being true, so they never taught it as fact)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 8:09:52 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
I just don't think that evolution is ever going to gain recruits if they keep on making the false assumption that "because two things are similar, they must be related." Human studies of taxonomy attempt to classify things according to what can be observed, but this is a HUMAN system, and very flawed...
The Bible says that everything was created according to it's "kind." An ape is not going to change to a human, a cow is not going to change to a whale, and a bird is not going to change into a dinosaur, or whatever it is that you believe... Look, I get such an array of answers from evolutionists about what they believe that they NEVER form a consensus! I can never keep up because it changes so much. At least get your stories straight if you're going to attempt to deceive me.
This all STILL boils down to DO YOU BELIEVE GOD'S WORD? If you think that the Biblical Creation story is not true, then you believe God to be a liar. If you believe God to be a liar, then you don't believe in the God of the Bible. If you don't believe the God of the Bible, you are going to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 9:54:33 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
This all STILL boils down to DO YOU BELIEVE GOD'S WORD? If you think that the Biblical Creation story is not true, then you believe God to be a liar. If you believe God to be a liar, then you don't believe in the God of the Bible. If you don't believe the God of the Bible, you are going to hell.
I believe the biblical stories of creation are true. I do not believe they are history.
If you think a story has to be history to be true, I think you have a problem defining truth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 10:39:04 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
This all STILL boils down to DO YOU BELIEVE GOD'S WORD? If you think that the Biblical Creation story is not true, then you believe God to be a liar. If you believe God to be a liar, then you don't believe in the God of the Bible. If you don't believe the God of the Bible, you are going to hell.
I believe the biblical stories of creation are true. I do not believe they are history.
If you think a story has to be history to be true, I think you have a problem defining truth.
You say the Bible stories are true, but not true history? Wow, I'm glad I don't have to live with conflicting paradigms. Good luck with that.
Jesus believed Genesis as true history, you can't? Do you know something He didn't?
Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
John 8:56–58—Abraham
Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah
Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
John 3:14—Serpent
Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah
He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.
He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17; 15:1–9; 22:29; (cf. 5:43, 44); Mark. 7:1–12. (Destroying faith in the Bible as God’s Word will open the door today to a ‘new’ Tradition.)
He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 10:40:42 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
I just don't think that evolution is ever going to gain recruits if they keep on making the false assumption that "because two things are similar, they must be related."
It's the pattern of homology that points to evolution. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. There are actually similarities that would falsify evolution, such as a bird with three middle ear bones.
quote:
Human studies of taxonomy attempt to classify things according to what can be observed, but this is a HUMAN system, and very flawed...
If all humans disappeared right now birds would not have three middle ear bones, mammals would not have three lower jaw bones, and birds would not have teats. The theory of evolution explains why these things are or are not observed.
quote:
The Bible says that everything was created according to it's "kind."
Science tries to explain reality, not holy texts.
quote:
An ape is not going to change to a human,
Humans are apes. Your statement is equivalent to claiming that a sea gull will never turn into a bird.
quote:
a cow is not going to change to a whale,
That would falsify evolution. Modern species do not evolve into other modern species.
quote:
and a bird is not going to change into a dinosaur,
Birds are dinosaurs.
Your understanding of the theory of evolution is so turned around that your rejection of evolution means little. Perhaps you should learn what the theory states before you reject it whole cloth.
quote:
Look, I get such an array of answers from evolutionists about what they believe that they NEVER form a consensus! I can never keep up because it changes so much. At least get your stories straight if you're going to attempt to deceive me.
Knowledge is always changing. Only religions have unchanging dogmas. The thing that you gripe about here is actually the strong point of science.
quote:
This all STILL boils down to DO YOU BELIEVE GOD'S WORD?
Do you believe God's Creation?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 11:04:13 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
I just don't think that evolution is ever going to gain recruits if they keep on making the false assumption that "because two things are similar, they must be related."
It's the pattern of homology that points to evolution. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. There are actually similarities that would falsify evolution, such as a bird with three middle ear bones.
quote:
Human studies of taxonomy attempt to classify things according to what can be observed, but this is a HUMAN system, and very flawed...
If all humans disappeared right now birds would not have three middle ear bones, mammals would not have three lower jaw bones, and birds would not have teats. The theory of evolution explains why these things are or are not observed.
quote:
The Bible says that everything was created according to it's "kind."
Science tries to explain reality, not holy texts.
quote:
An ape is not going to change to a human,
Humans are apes. Your statement is equivalent to claiming that a sea gull will never turn into a bird.
quote:
a cow is not going to change to a whale,
That would falsify evolution. Modern species do not evolve into other modern species.
quote:
and a bird is not going to change into a dinosaur,
Birds are dinosaurs.
Your understanding of the theory of evolution is so turned around that your rejection of evolution means little. Perhaps you should learn what the theory states before you reject it whole cloth.
quote:
Look, I get such an array of answers from evolutionists about what they believe that they NEVER form a consensus! I can never keep up because it changes so much. At least get your stories straight if you're going to attempt to deceive me.
Knowledge is always changing. Only religions have unchanging dogmas. The thing that you gripe about here is actually the strong point of science.
quote:
This all STILL boils down to DO YOU BELIEVE GOD'S WORD?
Do you believe God's Creation?
Maybe you are descended from apes... You ought to know your own kin better than I do. Look, if you say that man is an ape, then God is an ape. I hate that I even wrote that... You have NO IDEA of the Holiness of God, or you would glorify Him as such...
As for me, I choose not to study counterfeits when I have fact right before my eyes. Your eyes are blinded as your heart is darkened as taught in Romans 1.
"Do you believe God's creation?"
You seem to think that man's observations trump the Word of God - basically saying that man is smarter than God. REPENT!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 11:41:04 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1025
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
You seem to think that man's observations trump the Word of God
Scientific observations are careful examinations of the real universe that we inhabit. I don't know anything about trumping, but these observations correspond to the real world. When looking for facts about nature, one should turn to the book of nature.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 11:47:47 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
You seem to think that man's observations trump the Word of God
Scientific observations are careful examinations of the real universe that we inhabit. I don't know anything about trumping, but these observations correspond to the real world. When looking for facts about nature, one should turn to the book of nature.
Right... OK, well, the next time you're in a field on a really hot Summer's day and you see a lake on the horizon, be sure to stop over for a drink.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 12:54:48 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Maybe you are descended from apes... You ought to know your own kin better than I do.
I am an ape. You are an ape. What is wrong with that? Do you feel equally uncomfortable being a mammal or a vertebrate?
quote:
Look, if you say that man is an ape, then God is an ape. I hate that I even wrote that... You have NO IDEA of the Holiness of God, or you would glorify Him as such...
Where in the Bible does it say that God is an ape?
quote:
As for me, I choose not to study counterfeits when I have fact right before my eyes. Your eyes are blinded as your heart is darkened as taught in Romans 1.
So is that a criticism of evolution that should be taught in high schools?
In another thread I claimed that "criticisms of evolution" were a thinly veiled attempt to insert religion into science class. It appears I am correct.
quote:
You seem to think that man's observations trump the Word of God - basically saying that man is smarter than God. REPENT!
If we can't interpret the creation correcty due to our flaws what hope do we have of correctly interpretting the Bible? Is our supposed God given mental capacity that flawed? What does that say about God?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 12:58:21 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
You seem to think that man's observations trump the Word of God
Scientific observations are careful examinations of the real universe that we inhabit. I don't know anything about trumping, but these observations correspond to the real world. When looking for facts about nature, one should turn to the book of nature.
Some people are not able to separate the map from the territory. If I read a map and conclude there should be a mountain where none exists in reality then I first assume I am reading the map incorrectly. If I am not reading the map incorrectly then I assume the map is wrong.
Creationists do this in the entire opposite direction. For them, if the map shows a mountain where none exists then there had to be some catastrophic event between the printing of the map and the observation which made the mountain disappear. The map just has to be right because somebody wrote it down.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 1:03:22 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
I can type until my fingers fall off, but it is not within my ability to reveal truth to you, only God can do that if He so chooses to. Therefore I will leave you to your thoughts and your own ideas of truth - but as I have referenced before I will leave you with some Scripture. You will hate it, but it is truth. Read it all.
Romans 1: 18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 1:10:22 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
I can type until my fingers fall off, but it is not within my ability to reveal truth to you, only God can do that if He so chooses to. Therefore I will leave you to your thoughts and your own ideas of truth - but as I have referenced before I will leave you with some Scripture. You will hate it, but it is truth. Read it all.
First off, I don't hate scripture. Not at all. I just find it irrelevant to science and our understanding of reality.
In this thread I asked for valid criticisms of evolution that would be appropriate for a public high school science class. Scriptures do not fit the bill.
quote:
Romans 1: 18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:20 is quite revealing. It states that we can understand God by studying the creation itself. This is a big problem for young earth creationists. The creation clearly shows a billion year history. What creationists tell us is that this history is faked. Therefore, I can only conclude that one of the hidden attributes of God is deception. If God tries to deceive me with His creation then why should I trust God's Word?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/23/2008 1:18:05 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1096
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
From what I read so far, here is a summary of the criticisms presented.
1. Evolution doesn't follow the scientific method.
I have shown that this isn't true. The theory of evolution is being applied in genetic studies and the theory makes testable predictions.
2. A long cut and paste from JonCo54.
It is a long drawn out logical fallacy. The fallacy of personal incredulity. It is a popular argument among IDists. It states that if something is complex it couldn't have come about through random or natural processes. Why? Because the author can't think of a way that it could. Luckily, reality is not limited to what a single person can or can not imagine.
3. Evolution contradicts the Bible.
This one is pretty easy. This criticism is in no way a scientific criticism so it fails right off the bat. Secondly, it violates the Establishment clause. Thirdly, nowhere in the scientific method does it state that new theories must be sent to every religious sect for approval before scientists can accept the theory.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 2:59:12 AM
|
|
|
Annie64
Posts: 830
Joined: 6/4/2007
From: Indianapolis, IN
Status: offline
|
Are there really no peer-reviewed criticisms to evolution? I find that very hard to believe. In fact, I don't believe it at all. The article that JonCo54 posted did bring out some good science that has been peer reviewed, I would think. He did not say, as Method said he did, that it didn't happen because he couldn't imagine how it could, but that it didn't happen because chemicals do not react that way. He brought out a lot of information to support his claim and all of it seemed to be science drawn from chemistry and biology and applied to the criticism of evolution. What would be wrong with that being taught to high school students? Because it would (gasp) give students of faith permission to believe?
_____________________________
On Christ the solid rock I stand
ALL other ground is sinking sand.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 3:26:12 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Annie6
What would be wrong with that being taught to high school students?
The only thing wrong with that being taught to high school students is that it is currently too new and untried in the court of opinion.
You don't teach String Theory to high school students for the same reason; it is a waste of time and money.
If on the off-chance that Intelligent Design wins a consensus of support by scientists, then we can completely replace the chapters in the biology books about macro-evolution with an explanation of that someone really smart designed life but that we'll never know who this smart guy is.
Until such a time, Intelligent Design does not belong in the science classroom.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 4:44:09 AM
|
|
|
MusicianDad
Posts: 288
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
Unlike PromisLander, I'm no architect, but I do know that a house is only as strong as it's foundation. The foundation that Evolution is built on is that life springs unbidden from inanimate matter. As I've stated in another thread, when evolutionists go on about the fine points of their theory, they remind me of a builder who constructs a high-rise with no foundation. Sure, the fancy cabinets look great, but the whole thing is coming down with the first rain. Show me how life comes from non-living matter and I'll be all ears about Darwinism.
< Message edited by MusicianDad -- 5/26/2008 4:56:20 AM >
_____________________________
Heartland Rocks!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EK9opsMo0jg
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 8:59:03 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
Unlike PromisLander, I'm no architect, but I do know that a house is only as strong as it's foundation. The foundation that Evolution is built on is that life springs unbidden from inanimate matter.
Ni, it is not. If it were proven beyond doubt that life could only be jump started by a miracle, that would not affect the theory of evolution at all. Evolution is not about the origin of life. Evolution applies only to already existing life. It does not require a foundational theory of the origin of life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 8:59:38 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 441
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
My knowledge of eugenics history is limited. From what I know it is morally repugnant, but at the time still considered science. Today though to put it lightly, eugenics 'lacks consensus'.
I would say that is a pretty good evaluation of the matter, but I think the reason it came to be rejected by the 'consensus' had less to do with it's lack of scientific merit, and more to do with it losing favor politically and socially.
I agree.
Eugenics should not be practiced, because it is not ethical.
Science shows that humans can be bred like cattle. It should be pretty obvious that just because something is possible, does not mean that we MUST do it. Science shows that it is possible to detonate a nuke in London. Should we do it just because it is possible? Of course not, that would be plain stupid. Science shows that it is possble to jump off a high building to your death. Should you do it? I think the answer is obvious.
So, in conclusion, just because artificial selection can be applied ot humans (just like any other organism) does not mean that we should.
Also... how is that a critisism of evolution anyway?
You might as well critisice the theory of gravity by saying that it predicts people can fall to thier deaths.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 9:14:02 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Annie64
Are there really no peer-reviewed criticisms to evolution?
Such criticisms are all outdated. For example, one of the first and strongest criticisms of Darwin's theory is that novel traits would soon be lost as they were blended with ordinary traits in reproduction. Darwin had no answer to that criticism, as both he and his critics were working with an incorrect model of inheritance. Then the work of Mendel was discovered and this criticism became passe.
By the `1940s all criticisms of evolution had been shown to be incorrect and the theory correct. There are still plenty of papers on the finer details of evolution, but the basic theory has passed all challenges and been so productive of new knowledge that biology without evolution is now unthinkable.
quote:
He did not say, as Method said he did, that it didn't happen because he couldn't imagine how it could, but that it didn't happen because chemicals do not react that way.
Of course, he is not discussing evolution. He is discussing the hypothesized chemical origin of life. Different matter, although still part of biology. So this is a criticism of some of the ideas advanced about abiogenesis---how life got started when there was no life. It is not a criticism of evolution.
quote:
He brought out a lot of information to support his claim and all of it seemed to be science drawn from chemistry and biology and applied to the criticism of evolution.
"seemed" is the important word. If you are not a biochemist yourself, can you tell real science from apparent science? I am not a biochemist--not a scientist at all, in fact---and I know I can't tell. I wouldn't be able to show where he is wrong (if he is) and I might not be able to understand a biochemist who does see where he is wrong.
So why would we present this to high school students if they need college level biochemistry to figure out whose claims are right and wrong? Let them learn the biochemistry first, then let them tackle an article like this.
quote:
What would be wrong with that being taught to high school students? Because it would (gasp) give students of faith permission to believe?
Don't students have permission to believe even if scientists discover the chemical mechanism by which God created life? Why would discovering a natural means of abiogenesis take away anyone's permission to believe?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 9:37:45 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 441
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
Unlike PromisLander, I'm no architect, but I do know that a house is only as strong as it's foundation. The foundation that Evolution is built on is that life springs unbidden from inanimate matter.
Evolution does not say this, actually. But you would have known this if you knew how evolution actually works.
Evolution sais that imperfect replicators that compete will adapt to thier surroudings as a population. Thats it.
Notice how the origin of life does not feature in what evolution sais? Good.
quote:
As I've stated in another thread, when evolutionists go on about the fine points of their theory, they remind me of a builder who constructs a high-rise with no foundation.
You see what you want to see.
The foundation of the theory of evolution is evidence based on reality.
quote:
Sure, the fancy cabinets look great, but the whole thing is coming down with the first rain. Show me how life comes from non-living matter and I'll be all ears about Darwinism.
Like I said, abiogenesis does not equal the theory of evolution.
What I find strange about this whole thread is that creationists have lots of critisisms against evolution, until you ask them. They they don't have anything. They just bring up irrelevant distractions that do not address evolution, but strawmen.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution - 5/26/2008 10:01:02 AM
|
|
|
MusicianDad
Posts: 288
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BVZ
quote:
ORIGINA | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
