• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A question about evolutionary theory

gkat

New Blood
G
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
13
I was wondering if anyone could point me to a source that purports to refute evolutionary theory.

It seems such a logical system that I'm hard pressed to wrap my head around debate against it. I mean, even if "god" created everything fifty years ago, wouldn't the theory still apply from here on out?
 
Wrong forum, dude.

There are lots of sources -- individuals, books, institutions -- claiming to refute evolution. I don't think anyone here will point you to a reference that they find remotely convincing. I recall reading _Darwinism on Trial_ by Phillip E. Johnson some years ago. It dealt more with the politics than the science, unfortunately.

The above websites are the best place to start. They're accessible and comprehensive.
 
The interesting thing is that evolution is essential to creationist "theory."

I'm not making this up.

In order to explain how Noah was able to squeeze two of every species on Earth into the ark, creationists simply say that he fit two of each "kind" of animal, and the huge variety of species we see today evolved from those "kinds."

Asking them to define a "kind," however, requires a great deal of patience.
 
Cleon said:
The interesting thing is that evolution is essential to creationist "theory."

I'm not making this up.

In order to explain how Noah was able to squeeze two of every species on Earth into the ark, creationists simply say that he fit two of each "kind" of animal, and the huge variety of species we see today evolved from those "kinds."

Asking them to define a "kind," however, requires a great deal of patience.
Click to expand...

I never heard that.

You mean two mamals, two lizards, etc.?
 
No, kinds are closer to the top of the tree. But most definitions of kind do require significant evolution to occur in the past few thousand years. A bit too much, I think.

Gkat, read Dembski's No Free Lunch.

~~ Paul
 
Mycroft said:
I never heard that.

You mean two mamals, two lizards, etc.?
Click to expand...
Not quite as broad as that, apparently, but at least some YECs seem to consider, for example, all species of cats from a house-cat to a tiger to be of a kind, all horse-shaped animals to be of a kind, etc.

See here, for example.
 
Cleon said:
Asking them to define a "kind," however, requires a great deal of patience.
Click to expand...
And, interestingly, there is almost invariably great genetic distance between two species which they will identify as the same "kind" than there is between humans and chimpanzees.
 
Dr Adequate said:
And, interestingly, there is almost invariably great genetic distance between two species which they will identify as the same "kind" than there is between humans and chimpanzees.
Click to expand...
Is that so. Can you cite a source? Or should we just take your word for it .... :)

Paul A. said:

But most definitions of kind do require significant evolution to occur in the past few thousand years.
Click to expand...
That statement is just plain bs.

YEC's are easily foiled; "ID" is not. ;)
 
gkat said:
I was wondering if anyone could point me to a source that purports to refute evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
Here's a pretty well-writen site:
http://www.harunyahya.com/16understanding03.php
"Well-written" in the sense that the site is very well laid out and the spelling and grammar are really rather good, not in the sense that the arguments are at all persuasive.

Given a few hours, I'm sure I could TalkOrigin it into the ground, but I don't have a few hours unfortunately.
 
Dr Adequate said:
See Mojo's link to AiG. Observe the diagram showing that cats are one kind.
Click to expand...

And keep in mind that such a claim requires that the cat "kind" representative has "evolved" into the all the cat species in the world in 4000 years. That leads to two comments:

1) That is faster evolution than _any_ evolutionist would ever suggest. Shoot, even by deliberate breeding, domestic dogs are proposed to have taken, what, 10 000 years to get from foxes or wolves or whatever the common ancestor was? Yet, in 4000 years, with no help from humans, evolution is supposed to separate the tigers, lions, pumas, bobcats, lynxes, etc? Even if we give them domesticated cats, they still have to account for all the other species.

2) So much for claims that evolution can't lead to the formation of new species. The creationist model requires it, and faster than would ever be suggested by an evolutionist.

I have always wondered, are bats and mice the same kind? Look at a bat and tell me that isn't just a friggin mouse with wings ("Die Fledermaus" is not hyperbole)
 
Hammegk said:
That statement is just plain bs.

YEC's are easily foiled; "ID" is not.
Click to expand...
Yes, Hammy, I meant in the context of YEC Creationism. In the context of ID, all, some, or none of the theory of evolution might be relevant. No way to know, since they don't have any stinking theory at all.

~~ Paul
 
Dr Adequate said:
See Mojo's link to AiG. Observe the diagram showing that cats are one kind.
Click to expand...
Who doesn't agree that a cat is a cat?

What I wanted to see was the cite on differing dna, with shall we say, "cats", showing more difference than chimp-to-man.

pgwenthold said:

And keep in mind that such a claim requires that the cat "kind" representative has "evolved" into the all the cat species in the world in 4000 years.
Click to expand...
Only for those YECs; personally, I've never met one. Have you?

I have always wondered, are bats and mice the same kind? Look at a bat and tell me that isn't just a friggin mouse with wings
Click to expand...
Ask the dna.


Paul: Hammegk's Theory of ID -- the most minimal intelligence involved is the Strong Anthropic Principle. Tell me again how random evolution selected -- and continues to select-- for quarks, leptons, etc.
 
hammegk said:
What I wanted to see was the cite on differing dna, with shall we say, "cats", showing more difference than chimp-to-man.
Click to expand...
You may find this useful.
Tell me again how random evolution selected -- and continues to select-- for quarks, leptons, etc.
Click to expand...
Wow, ithat's uncanny --- it's almost like Kent Hovind's right here in the room with me. If you really feel such disdain for YECs, why do you keep borrowing their straw men? Now, may I suggest that before you discuss evolution any further you look in a book and find out what it is? Cheers.
 
Dr Adequate said:
You may find this useful.
Click to expand...
Oh, you made a funny. No, I don't purport to be able use a supercomputer to perform my own cladistics studies. I thought you perhaps could cite a study that supported your statement that cat dna has greater variance across "cats" than the chimp to human differences. I take it your statement was hyperbole rather than fact.


Wow, ithat's uncanny --- it's almost like Kent Hovind's right here in the room with me. If you really feel such disdain for YECs, why do you keep borrowing their straw men?
Click to expand...
Interesting. I didn't realize it was Hovind's idea. And would you also care to state that *every* statement made by *every* YEC must be incorrect?


Now, may I suggest that before you discuss evolution any further you look in a book and find out what it is? Cheers.
Click to expand...
May I suggest you run to mommy and ask for a sugar-tit to keep you occupied? Cheers.
 
Mercutio,

Thanks for the links.... I am looking forward to reading the debate, which apparently just hit the fan for a couple of months while I was sleeping....

From the first paragraph of that first link you have, I pretty much have to stop reading. It is clear the linguistic games being played with the quotation marks, and the dual ID mention in the first 2 sentences for the purpose of instant discreditation to the reader-- of which a good scientist doesn't have to begin with, he can start with facts.

The latter portion of what I snipped is false praise and sarcasm, which are unbecoming of any professional response a scientific paper, so I'm pretty much done after paragraph 1 doubting the professionalism of the work. Another ommission in the "false praise" is that ID articles have been pretty much under ban by the scientific community for a long time if for no other reason than that they are ID papers.... but that's another issue. I will however read the rebuttals in the timeline.

Anyway here's the snip:

“Intelligent design” (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a “review article” that folds the various lines of “intelligent design” antievolutionary argumentation into one lump. The article is published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal, a mere fifteen years after the publication of the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, a textbook aimed at inserting ID into public schools. It is gratifying to see the ID movement finally attempt to make their case to the only scientifically relevant group, professional biologists.
Click to expand...

I think more interesting than the 30-day knee jerk reaction timeline was what happened to guy who sort of let the article slip into the paper:

http://www.rsternberg.net/index.htm

Flick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom