http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

[Hades]

seems creationists are more prone to writing with outbursts of anger.

"Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense."

 

It appears as if its written with anger and insecurity guiding the person's fingers.

Im writing a large thesis paper on evolution and the scopes trial; after accumulating a plethora of information and testimony, im now beginning to compute the data. When i come across articles like this one, i find that these creationists find holes in a theory; low diversity among cheetah dna? God created everything. Coelacanth found off madagascar? God created everything. Then, these accusations are self-supported using a quote from the bible as a means of justification, "Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created..., and that's why your ideas of evolution are wrong!" Its aking to using a word to define itself. Esoteric means to be esoteric..... (b/c god exists)

 

I don't think many of us that believe in evolution would ultimately say God doesnt exist at all, u are absolutely wrong for thinking that. I do not attend church, pray, or consciously belief in a god, yet i see no need to vanquish the idea if i see evolution for what it is.

 

 

http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm

 

i also found this one particularly interesting

[Hellbender]

seems creationists are more prone to writing with outbursts of anger.

 

well, duh!

 

"Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense."

 

Exactly what are they talking about here?

 

It appears as if its written with anger and insecurity guiding the person's fingers.

Im writing a large thesis paper on evolution and the scopes trial; after accumulating a plethora of information and testimony, im now beginning to compute the data. When i come across articles like this one, i find that these creationists find holes in a theory; low diversity among cheetah dna? God created everything. Coelacanth found off madagascar? God created everything. Then, these accusations are self-supported using a quote from the bible as a means of justification, "Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created..., and that's why your ideas of evolution are wrong!" Its aking to using a word to define itself. Esoteric means to be esoteric..... (b/c god exists)

 

Yeah, creationists love to point out, or imagine, flaws in evolution and use it as proof of their religious creation story. Yah gotta love it.

 

I don't think many of us that believe in evolution would ultimately say God doesnt exist at all, u are absolutely wrong for thinking that. I do not attend church, pray, or consciously belief in a god, yet i see no need to vanquish the idea if i see evolution for what it is.

 

I whole-heartedly agree.

[Hades]

 

 

 

Exactly what are they talking about here?

 

 

 

 

how if natural selection favors the more adapted, advanced, practical organisms to survive, the transitional period in the development of a bird wing, and also the development of its hollow bones, to be to long a period of non-beneficiality, hence the organism would have died.

[Aardvark]

how if natural selection favors the more adapted, advanced, practical organisms to survive, the transitional period in the development of a bird wing, and also the development of its hollow bones, to be to long a period of non-beneficiality, hence the organism would have died.

 

That is a misunderstanding of the process of evolution. Any intermediate, transition step must, in itself, be beneficial. Evolution has no foresight, it doesn't plan ahead.

 

The transitional period of devoloping a birds wing would have not included any stage of non-beneificiality. Instead it would have been the slow accumulation of benefits. For instance a slightly flatter arm allowing the creature to glide and jump longer distances. A slightly less dense bone structure enhancing that benefit.

 

Every step would have conferred some immediate advantage on the organism.

 

For a clear explanation i recommend 'Climbing MT improbable' by Richard Darwkins.

[dan19_83]

"Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense."

 

 

lol, I hope they don't.

[Gnieus]

Creationists: Groundhog Day ...

[Gnieus]

That is a misunderstanding of the process of evolution. Any intermediate' date=' transition step must, in itself, be beneficial. Evolution has no foresight, it doesn't plan ahead.

[/quote']

 

Ehh ... I think it's a misunderstanding that everything has to be beneficial.. neutral or mildly negative is possible. Example: appendix...

 

The transitional period of devoloping a birds wing would have not included any stage of non-beneificiality. Instead it would have been the slow accumulation of benefits. For instance a slightly flatter arm allowing the creature to glide and jump longer distances. A slightly less dense bone structure enhancing that benefit.

Every step would have conferred some immediate advantage on the organism.

 

Nope if something grows and it's neutral until it's beneficial that's fine imo. That way a whole lot of complicated stuff can suddenly evolve if useless pieces float about until the final protein/etc evolves that makes a whole complex useful evolutionary. example could be immune system.. Behe's Black Box and minimal functioning systems.

 

For a clear explanation i recommend 'Climbing MT improbable' by Richard Darwkins.

 

My personal opinion is that Dawkins starts to be become as unhelpful to evolutionary scientific progress as the creationists.. Nice contribution yet about as fanatic as the "opposition" and a bit simplistic.... AFAIK Dawkins "probability" seems to always be a uniform pdf .

 

But true (operational) science involves repeatable' date=' observable experimentation in the present, which includes physics, chemistry, experimental biology and geology, etc. (see also Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science). Dawkins has made no notable contributions to any of these, or even to the history or philosophy of science. His main claim to fame is his ingenious story-telling about what might have happened in the unobservable past.

[/i']

 

I can only agree, although I strongly believe in Evolution..

[Aardvark]

Ehh ... I think it's a misunderstanding that everything has to be beneficial.. neutral or mildly negative is possible. Example: appendix...

 

No, if its neutral or mildly negative it will wither away, example:appendix...

 

 

 

Nope if something grows and it's neutral until it's beneficial that's fine imo. That way a whole lot of complicated stuff can suddenly evolve if useless pieces float about until the final protein/etc evolves that makes a whole complex useful evolutionary. example could be immune system.. Behe's Black Box and minimal functioning systems.

 

No. I'm afraid you really misunderstand how evolution works.

 

Evolution has no foresight at all. It does not know what will be beneficial in the future. Only things/traits, that are immediately beneficial will grow/remain. If it is neutral or negative it will disappear.

 

The complex things that exist all evolved step by step with each and every step being beneficial in itself.

 

 

My personal opinion is that Dawkins starts to be become as unhelpful to evolutionary scientific progress as the creationists.. Nice contribution yet about as fanatic as the "opposition" and a bit simplistic.... AFAIK Dawkins "probability" seems to always be a uniform pdf .

 

Dawkins is a fine scientist. He can come across as unpleasant, arrogant or fanatic, but his science is good.

[-Demosthenes-]

The problem is that some "Creationists" don't know what evolution is.

"Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense."

This person obviosly DOES NOT know what evolution is or how it works, if he did I think it is far more likely that he would accept it rather than reject it.

[Aardvark]

The problem is that some "Creationists" don't know what evolution is.

 

This person obviosly DOES NOT know what evolution is or how it works' date=' if he did I think it is far more likely that he would accept it rather than reject it.[/quote']

 

Wilful ignorance is hard to break.

[-Demosthenes-]

I guess I need to rethink that a little bit, you are very right.

[Mokele]

Ehh ... I think it's a misunderstanding that everything has to be beneficial.. neutral or mildly negative is possible. Example: appendix...

 

Yes and no. If a single, isolated trait is negative, it *will* be selected against. Neutral traits can go either way, totally at the mercy of genetic drift.

 

However, if the negative or neutral trait is linked, geneticly or developmentally, to an advantageous trait that makes up for the fitness loss and results in a net benefit, it *can* stick around. Or is there's just plain no alternative allele. Nothing stops evolution dead in it's tracks like lack of variation.

 

Nope if something grows and it's neutral until it's beneficial that's fine imo. That way a whole lot of complicated stuff can suddenly evolve if useless pieces float about until the final protein/etc evolves that makes a whole complex useful evolutionary.

 

Agreed with some caveats, namely that any neutral system is vulnerable to genetic drift and that most "sudden" appearances aren't a result of the process you mention.

 

For instance, the stumpy wings of most flightless birds are not the product of gradual loss, but a single mutation to a developmental gene that controls the entire process of wing development. In the reverse, a single mutation to a gene that controls finger development causes mice to grow *incredibly* elongate fingers, more reminiscent of those of bats (but without the webbing). In both cases, a single mutation can instantly produce huge variations, if the mutation is in one of the developmental genes that controls and orchestrates the complex process of development, overseeing literally hundreds of other genes.

 

Also, current purpose does not have to be the original purpose. Feathers seem to have evolved as thermal insulation, and were only later co-opted for flight. In early insects, flaps of chitin on the back were used to aid thermoregulation, but after a certain size, they gained aerodynamic properties, at which point they began to evolve into wings.

 

example could be immune system.. Behe's Black Box and minimal functioning systems.

 

Behe's "irreducible complexity" crap is nothing more than an arguement from incredulity. Just because we cannot see how the system would work without all the current components does not mean that there cannot be simpler forms before it.

 

For instance, the immune system: Many species have immune systems which are nothing more than simply roving phagocytes. I understand that insects have a lethal and effective system all their own, quite different from ours. Things work together nicely because evolution favors mutations that cause that, but that does not mean there were prior, inferior systems (perhaps because of less need).

 

Mokele

[Gnieus]

Edit

[Gnieus]

Yes and no. If a single' date=' isolated trait is negative, it *will* be selected against. Neutral traits can go either way, totally at the mercy of genetic drift.

[/quote']

 

Yes

 

 

However' date=' if the negative or neutral trait is linked, geneticly or developmentally, to an advantageous trait that makes up for the fitness loss and results in a net benefit, it *can* stick around. Or is there's just plain no alternative allele. Nothing stops evolution dead in it's tracks like lack of variation.

[/quote']

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Agreed with some caveats' date=' namely that any neutral system is vulnerable to genetic drift and that most "sudden" appearances aren't a result of the process you mention.

[/quote']

 

 

 

For instance' date=' the stumpy wings of most flightless birds are not the product of gradual loss, but a single mutation to a developmental gene that controls the entire process of wing development. In the reverse, a single mutation to a gene that controls finger development causes mice to grow *incredibly* elongate fingers, more reminiscent of those of bats (but without the webbing). In both cases, a single mutation can instantly produce huge variations, if the mutation is in one of the developmental genes that controls and orchestrates the complex process of development, overseeing literally hundreds of other genes.

 

Also, current purpose does not have to be the original purpose. Feathers seem to have evolved as thermal insulation, and were only later co-opted for flight. In early insects, flaps of chitin on the back were used to aid thermoregulation, but after a certain size, they gained aerodynamic properties, at which point they began to evolve into wings.

 

 

 

Behe's "irreducible complexity" crap is nothing more than an arguement from incredulity. Just because we cannot see how the system would work without all the current components does not mean that there cannot be simpler forms before it.

[/quote']

 

I am not for Behe, the process I mentioned could happen or not or other.. Bit like Dawkins .. many words ... how something could possibly have evolved.

 

For instance' date=' the immune system: Many species have immune systems which are nothing more than simply roving phagocytes. I understand that insects have a lethal and effective system all their own, quite different from ours. Things work together nicely because evolution favors mutations that cause that, but that does not mean there were prior, inferior systems (perhaps because of less need).

Mokele[/quote']

 

Possibly but that's all argued without proof, that's why many scientists try to make models on real data to minimise the probability of being wrong. Inventing possible ways as we go along, will never shut the creationists up, as they will also do the same. We need as hard science as we can get. Otherwise we are just exchanging fairytales with the creationists.

[swansont]

Possibly but that's all argued without proof, that's why many scientists try to make models on real data to minimise the probability of being wrong. Inventing possible ways as we go along, will never shut the creationists up, as they will also do the same. We need as hard science as we can get. Otherwise we are just exchanging fairytales with the creationists.

 

Nothing is going to shut the creationists up.

 

The fact of the matter is that certain evidence gets destroyed in the process. Instead of wringing one's hands and focusing on the evidence that can't be recovered, you focus on the other lines of evidence that can be recovered.

 

It's the same reasoning that allows you to convict a murderer even though there's no eyewitness.

[Mokele]

Possibly but that's all argued without proof, that's why many scientists try to make models on real data to minimise the probability of being wrong. Inventing possible ways as we go along, will never shut the creationists up, as they will also do the same. We need as hard science as we can get. Otherwise we are just exchanging fairytales with the creationists.

 

Oh, there probably is some evidence of more primitive immune systems and such somewhere, but since that's not my field, I don't know it.

 

However, even a possibility without any basis is enough to destroy Behe's arguement, which is that there is no possible way the system could function without all the current components nor evolve from simpler systems. By showing that such a possibility exists, we prove that the system is not "irreducibly complex".

 

Whether those possibilities play out or not, we have still shown that there *can* be a solution, which effectively counters Behe's claim that there cannot be one.

 

Nothing is going to shut the creationists up.

 

In a discussion elsewhere on this board, I pointed out that creationists wouldn't be swayed if you had a time machine and watched evolution happen from the first cells onwards. They're claim the time machine was built by Satan to decieve us or something.

 

Mokele

[Gnieus]

I think the misunderstanding here is

1.) Of course some form of informed speculation is valuable as long as backed up by some hard science

2.) Yet hundreds of hundreds of pages of speculation is a different matter

 

There are loads of scientists doing 1.)

 

We don't need a Theism/Atheism War. As mokele states creationist never listen to evidence so Dawkins and the creationists can go to some Island and battle it out there, although they might not want to as less money can be earned.

 

The Theism/Atheism War including Evolution has been won in the 18th century with the advent of science...

 

Evolution doesn't disproof God, only the Bible. That Dawkins uses the Creationists for his atheist agenda should hopefully be obvious. He is as bad as them as far as I am concerned. Just the other side of the coin.

[Deified]

I haven't noticed these qualities in Dawkins' work. Then again I have only read a little bit of his stuff. Could you point to some articles or quotes where this is clear? If not, that's fine too, but I won't change my opinion of the man just because I heard some rumors.

 

I agree that excessive speculation is pointless, but educating the general public, at least on a conceptual level, about important aspects of modern science... that IS a worthy aim.

[Gnieus]

Could you point to some articles or quotes where this is clear?

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

 

Enough of an atheist agenda or do you need more?

 

IMO he seems to fail to recognise the survival aspect advantages that a religion can bring. If you are calm in the face of death you got in my opinion a higher probability of survival as if you are sh***ing yourself cause you know nobody is gonna help you. He should be intelligent enough to accept it exists and why it exists instead of having a crusade against them. As long as fear is there people will try to make up stuff to cope with it. That's my --->opinion.<--

[Mokele]

so Dawkins and the creationists can go to some Island and battle it out there, although they might not want to as less money can be earned.

 

I dunno, I'd pay to see that. Especially if it's to the death.

 

Mokele

[-Demosthenes-]

Evolution doesn't disproof God, only the Bible. That Dawkins uses the Creationists for his atheist agenda should hopefully be obvious. He is as bad as them as far as I am concerned. Just the other side of the coin.

I need to clear this up. Evolution does disprove the Bible in the literal popular interpretation, but not in many other interpretations including when it is seen as partially or otherwise symbolic.

It does disprove my interpretation of the Bible.

 

Furthermore, the basics of evolution conflict with little or no religious concepts when fully understood, evolution being merely the change of alleles in a population over time.

[Gnieus]

I need to clear this up. Evolution does disprove the Bible in the literal popular interpretation, but not in many other interpretations including when it is seen as partially or otherwise symbolic.

Yes.

 

Furthermore' date=' the basics of evolution conflict with little or no religious concepts when fully understood, evolution being merely the change of alleles in a population over time.[/quote']

 

When reading the Dawkins quotes I am not so sure if he would agree.

 

I do though.

[Kleptin]

"We don't have enough evidence to say that Darwin's theory of evolution is 100% flawlessly correct, so let's just say that a supernatural force mysteriously created everything at the same time and that they all have the same form as they do today"

 

I can see the Creationist battle plan against evolution

 

1. Deny and hope that darwin will be drowned out by popular belief

2. Since many people believe in darwin now, Deny until actual evidence is recovered

3. Since fossils have been discovered, pick on evolutionism with the micro/macroevolution arguement. If worse comes to worse, respond with

"(Enter evidence here) was placed on the earth by God to test our faith"

4. Change the interpretation of the bible in a new version to make creationists look less wrong