Questions for Evolutionists

by RWC 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Xander

  Clearly animals have evolved within their species over time, but have they changed from one species to the next?

  If you'd read the above sources, you'd see the answer to this. The problem is: who defines what is one 'species' vs another? We do. Thus, the differentiation is entirely artificial.

  That's the biggest flaw in creationists argument. Change observed 'within their own species over time', as if there was some black and white line surrounding the definition of each species. There is not.

  presumably plants at first, began to evolve.

  Actually, it doesn't look like plants were first. Read the above site. Really, you need to. Go to 'Browse the Archive' which has the 'Must-Read Files' section. LOTS of good stuff there.

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  Xander

  And here is a page directly explaining this very problem - what is a species? Has 'speciation' (the evolution of a new species from an existing one) been observed? (Yes, it has)

  Etc.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  DanielHaase

  1. Why do we have a tailbone?
  2. Why do we have a useless organ (appendix)?
  3. Why do we have incisors?
• 

  Nemesis

  RWC:
  Here is a link explaining ‘kind’ in regard to species, genera, family etc. that may be of interest to you.
  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html
• 

  Abaddon

  Adonai

  Thanks for the link; I love Creationist websites, and I have to say that this one is well put together (some aren't). However, well-put together and accurate are two different things.

  One tendancy of such sites is the unsupported assertion, for example;

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c004.html

  In this example they use the leviathan and behemoth spoken of in Job as 'evidence' that dinosaurs co-existed with men. They don't actually give any evidence (like human remains and dinosaur remains being found in the same strata, or being dated to the same period), I suppose you get that after you pay the money and buy the book they recommend. Strange really, as copyright rules would allow them to give extracts of any scientific data contained in this book...

  One tendancy is not to revise material because it is suitable to support Creationism;

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c032.html

  Now, it is now well known that the dinosaur remains refered to in this were a composite constructed to decive, which it did do for a time as it was damn good. But, to let people looking for proof of creation that evolutionists police their own science, and have
  discovered the fraud would not be 'on message'. Also, the fact that the person who did this used two or three fossil sets from species completely unknown to science, two of which show important transitional features, is perhaps best left unmentioned if you are actually trying to prove the opposite.

  Another example;

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

  "Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals."

  The integrity of someone citing from a book (which whilst very important in the development of evolutionary theory has now been out-dated by 150 years of digging alone) is very open to question. A teacher marking an essay on evolution would mark a student down for mixing their tenses in the above statement and giving a misaprehension to the reader, for it should read;

  "Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. At the time it contained no proof for macroevolution of animals."

  Yes, Darwin worried about the lack of transitional fossils. But. there are now enough transitional fossils to choke a horse, fill a cathedral, hell, fill shelves and rooms in museums all over the world.

  This proves that this oft repeated assertion is an out-dated cachecism of creationists desperate to shore up their belief structure; the links provided to talk origins elsewhere in this thread demonstarte amply that there ARE transitional fossils, and although not every scientist accepts them all, and although there is arguement about subtlty of theory, the creationist who uses the 'no transitional fossils/macro evoultion argument is either ignorant of the latest (i.e. past few decades) developments or willfully deceptive.

  Another example is that of the 'human' footprints found running alongside dinosaur footprints in various fossil baring strata. These have, without exception, been proved to either NOT to be human footprints, or to have been examples of fraud. This doesn't stop the
  same series of sorry photos appearing on creationist site after creationist site.

  Another common technique on such websites is the straw man approach; can't win arguements with evolutionists? Then make your own up and win those!

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html

  "Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous -- to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old."

  Herein, without ever explaining why such a discovery would disprove evolution (it doesn't), or require dating techiques to be re-written (it doesn't) the writers of the article seek to convey that impression.

  Sometimes the 'dazzle with science' approach is used, as with this;

  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html#10

  Here, the whole theory of plate tectonics is stood on its head on the basis of a Nature article that revealed the oriontationtation of the eath's magnetic field had possibly changed rapidly. This rapid change is taken on assumption as an indication of a 'Young Earth', despite the fact ONLY THE RATE OF CHANGE is alleged in the original article to have taken place rapidly, NOT the period of formation of the alternating zones of magnetic polarity. I repeat, the cited article doesn't make any allegation regarding the age of the Earth, only that the magnetic field, when it changes, changes very quickly.

  But, you wouldn't know that due to the 'blind with science' technique used here, unless you took the time to check things.

  Here's another theories tied to the same research, claiming firstly, large asteroid impacts cause the flips of field, and secondly, that these are tied in to 'Planet X' or 'Vulcan', a unproved distant massive planet on the edge of the solar system;

  http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/barry/related.html#8a

  No mention of a Young Earth here!

  People needn't be embaressed about believing in Creationism from reading such things. It's what the articles are designed to do to people, and I have little doubt about the good motives of most of those that compile this data or put, er, faith, in it. It's convincing even when someone is trying to be impartial;

  http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/~wenning/PHY111PBL/Group_5/consensus.html

  In the above site a group of students set out to see if Creation science should be taught alongside evolutionary science. They say 'yes', as the examples they give seem to bear that out. However, from their first arguement (velocity of c.) they make mistakes, fail to consider alternate arguements or present other theories, or rely upon incorrect or even discredited data. The very language of the essay is couched in such terms their desired outcome seems obvious from the second paragraph.

  http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/~wenning/PHY111PBL/Group_5/consensus.html

  Basically one can make a good case for creationist sites using a level of linguistic ingenuity and terminolgoical inexactitude very similar to another group of people holding onto a set of beliefs that they have to protect at all cost from being shown to be false.

  One thing they do not do, no matter how clever they are, is to prove the theory of creation... ironically, the greatest insult a creationist thinks they can direct at evolution, that it is a theory (ignoring the misconceptions creationists tend to have over that word) is also true of their own beliefs.

  And the reason sometimes evolutionists stay out of these arguements is that it takes time to refutre things properly, and sometimes we can't be bothered, specially if we've done it the week before and the books and websites that we draw out knowledge from are freely availably to anyone with an inclination to find them - RWC, it's great you're going to do some research... the very phrasing of your questions at the start of this thread showed you, although obviously not stupid, had not learnt enough basic science to be able to defuse the seemingly convincing arguements that creationist put forward.

  Finally, no Biblical creation does not mean no god, it just means that Bronze-Age goatherds are not scientists. You can carry on believing in god, and evolution, provided you accept (and it's about time) the Bible isn't literal. I agree with Cygnus, that there is no god ANYWAY, but ultimately that arguement is one of opinion that cannot be proved either way, whereas the arguement of evolution over creation is one that might be a matter of opinion, but one where there is only reasonable proof on one side.
• 

  ianao

  1. Why do we get the willies when we get cold? (chill-bumps)

  2. Why do people try to even have discussions when everyone is just ignoring the other person's points for fear of being wrong?

  3. Why am I so damn addicted to this discussion board?
• 

  RWC

  I read the talk origins sites that were posted. Although they were very technical I took from them the following:

  1. We can say that animals evolved from one species to the other because we established the species in the first place. That sounds alot like fitting science to the theory which would violate the principles of science.

  2. Because we have established what it takes to be a bird and what it takes to be a reptile, because we hae found one animal that seems to have elements of both, that is a transitional animal and evidence of macroevolution. A major leap that should not be made if we established the definitions of a species in the first place.

  3. There is alot of assumptions and faith in the theory to make it sound scientific, but at the end of the day, these scientists are believing in things that they have little if any evidence of or that they are sure there will be evidence of discovered later.

  4. The idea that because everything is so closely related to the other that it must have come from a common source is not a very big leap from saying that God created everything. The dispute is the source of course, but science has not found that common source, so it has faith in something that it can't prove. People who believe in God for the same thought process are called stupid and uneducated. Scientists who express that same thought process are simply putting their faith in man and the scientific process.

  In the end, it appears that both scientists and creationists are believing in what each would call the unknown.
• 

  Abaddon

  RWC;

  1. We can say that animals evolved from one species to the other because we established the species in the first place. That sounds alot like fitting science to the theory which would violate the principles of science.

  Just checking, are you saying that because we use a system of classification to determine whether something is a vegetable, and if it is, whether it is a Brussels sprout or a daffodil, or whether something is an animal, and if it is, whether it is an elephant or a cat, we are fitting science to the theory?

  I hope not, because that's a ridiculous arguememt, like saying because we can say purple comes from blue, we are fitting theory to science, because we established colours in the first place.

  2. Because we have established what it takes to be a bird and what it takes to be a reptile, because we hae found one animal that seems to have elements of both, that is a transitional animal and evidence of macroevolution. A major leap that should not be made if we established the definitions of a species in the first place.

  Yes, and? So, because you've now read clear evidence that there appear to be transitional forms between dinosaurs (you say reptiles, I'm correcting you) and birds, that this wouldn't be the case if we didn;t define repltiles and birds.

  It doesn't matter WHAT you call it. There would still be links between fossil a and fossil b. Look up Lineaus, and learn a little about how animals are classified in modern science. Your arguement doesn't make sense, I mean that in a nice way, I know this is new to you, and I get things inside out when I learn something... for one thing, where available, structural similarities in skeletal form and discerned internal structure are backed up by other evidences.

  Humans and chimps for example, are not classified as being closely related just because bones look the same, but because of genetic and indeed behavioural reasons.

  But, the basic principle of the theory is proved in every species alive today. Where there is great structural similarity there is great genetic similarity. To assume this only applies to modern animals is to cluch at straws.

  3. There is alot of assumptions and faith in the theory to make it sound scientific, but at the end of the day, these scientists are believing in things that they have little if any evidence of or that they are sure there will be evidence of discovered later.

  Yes, some is congecture, but you are trying to make out in your own head that it is all congecture when it is not.

  4. The idea that because everything is so closely related to the other that it must have come from a common source is not a very big leap from saying that God created everything. The dispute is the source of course, but science has not found that common source, so it has faith in something that it can't prove. People who believe in God for the same thought process are called stupid and uneducated. Scientists who express that same thought process are simply putting their faith in man and the scientific process.

  In the end, it appears that both scientists and creationists are believing in what each would call the unknown.

  There is evidence for evolution. Not perfect. Not complete. Not 'never to be revised because we have it all right now'. But you are failing to compare the wealth of physical evidence for evoulution (and specifically against the Genesis account) to the evidence for god.

  If you applied the reasoning you are now applying to evolution to god, you would be an agnostic; you can't play by two sets of rules!!
• 

  Xander

  Yes, some is congecture, but you are trying to make out in your own head that it is all congecture when it is not.

  And this is the biggest point here.

  It's called the 'theory' of evolution, not because there is any question as to its validity. It's fact. Evolution happens, we can see it happen today, and we have proof it happened in the past.

  It's a 'theory' because we don't know ALL the details of what CAUSES it to happen.

  All we know for sure is that evolution DOES HAPPEN. Again, read the talkorigins.org site. That all life came from a single origin is pretty much not disputed.

  Now, if you want to believe that a divine being was responsible for the first spark of life, and guided 'evolution', well I can't stop you. There is no evidence to contradict that idea, but realize (as the j-dubs did), that the bible does not support such a theory, if taken literally.

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  RWC

  I have learned alot. Thank you all.