Evolution or Creationism, Where does the evidence lead?

[H3LL]

EB, I would be curious as to what you consider to be reliable evidence as well as how you judge the source of that evidence.

I always find this a difficult subject with a believer because, for me, any believer in any god will accept very poor standards of evidence, such as "Someone I don't know says so. So it must be true."

You have already stated very clearly your belief in a god and that is your choice and we won't go there in this thread.

I would appreciate you letting us know what constituted good evidence and how you judge the source.

For example, I would take Darwin and Hovind to help.

Darwin's theory of evolution required initial assumptions that then needed to be supported by evidence. Those assumptions and evidence then require checking, confirming and repeating by others. Many, many others. All the information gathered is available both from Darwin and the myriad of people in the years after him for you to check and see the inescapable conclusions.

Hovind also makes assumption in a manner no different than Darwin. So far this is fine. Then there is a problem. There is no evidence. None. Just more assumptions. If there was any reliable evidence for Hovind's ideas, they would be checked, confirmed and repeated. This doesn't happen. This cannot happen. There is no reliable evidence to support what he says.

Added to this, we have a further problem. Hovind is a proven liar, fraud and peddler of disinformation who is know to associate with people that have been called liars by a judge and is a man that has been shown to have little grasp of even basic scientific concepts. This should make one suspicious of his motives.

However, lets pretend for a moment that Darwin is the known liar, fraud and peddler of disinformation and Hovind is as honest as the day is long.

Darwin still has evidence that supports what he says that can be checked and checked carefully as he is a known liar and fraud. Evolution is still valid.

Hovind still has nothing. ID/Creationism is still invalid.




Finally, I would like you to consider, what to me, is a vital question:

Assuming evolution is wrong and ID/Creationism (or its various flavours) is correct (it isn't). What possible, practical use does it have in any scientific field? Biology, geology, medicine, physics, whatever? You choose.

Try to think of any technology that can be developed from the "science" of ID/Creationism.


My conclusion would be that even if right, ID does not work and evolution, even if wrong - works.

Having theories that work is what science is about.

ID/Creationism isn't science.

.

 

[godless dave]

I guess I wasnt a true creationist in the sense of the word. I will still believe there is a God and never will deny that.

No one is asking you to. The idea that accepting evolution means giving up a belief in god is a flat-out lie told by unscrupulous preachers.

Because for us (humans) to continue to advance our civilization further we must have an underlying belief that there is something more than death at the end. Otherwise we will never achieve any more than we now know and more than likely revert back to a barbaric society.

I couldn't disagree more, and I'm curious how you came up with such a bizarre idea, especially since almost all barbaric societies believed in gods and life after death. But that doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Consider what cyborg said:

Doesn't your love for your family provide a better motivator since your children are going to have to live with the world you help to shape?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

EB...

It's "ED" (or "ed" as I use it since he used lower case for his ID), and it seems to me like you were replying to his first post. Did you read the 100ish since then? He's pretty much given up on Creationism and appears to be taking a TE approch to ID (assuming he's even familiar with their "arguments") if one at all.

 

[smloeffelholz]

I am attempting to reopen this thread and get another YEC from the Skeptoid website to come debate on this forum. I am not sure if he will show up, but if he does, I would appreciate any and all help. Below are the general rules I set when this thread began.

This thread is intended to be used by those discussing this topic on the skeptoid website. This will hopefully allow a more in depth discussion by avoiding the 1500 character limit that is enforced at skeptoid. Anyone who wishes to post is more than welcome, but please keep your comments directed at the subject and not at the posters.

I do have a couple of requests for those who wish to post on this thread. First, please keep the argument on topic. This is not a debate on the big bang, or abiogenesis, or god. This is intended to discuss the science behind evolution and creationism. Second, try to refrain from using the shotgun method of debating. Do not simply post 20 broad questions or speculations at once and expect someone to write an entire novel for you. If possible, stick to discussing only a few key topics per post so the thread remains readable. Third, if you are going to use quotes or studies, please do your best to cite them in their full context and where the information was found. Too often, people pull quotes out of text in order to prove a point the quote was never meant to make.

This being said, I look forward to this discussion and hope that everyone involved keeps it civil and informational.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I hope he or she shows up.

 

[smloeffelholz]

I hope so too. This guy has been trolling the Skeptoid website where the 1500 character limit has made a cohesive rebuttal nearly impossible. You cannot answer a single question adequately with that limit, much less if he asks two or three in one post. Currently he is claiming that he cannot join JREF because of an anti-virus configuration problem. If he does end up coming, your help will be much appreciated.

 

[Garry Webb]

The Trinitarian troll!

Since I am no longer bound by a word limit, please allow me a few lines to set up my proposed query. When I use the term "evolution" I am referring to the Darwinian ideology of special evolution from one organism to another, and not simply "change" as the true definition of evolution suggests. One of the problems in debating the modern theory labeled as "evolution" is that the molecules-to-men adherents have high jacked the term. Most creationists will readily confess that living things change, only that the change is limited to within any given species. Genetic variation is a fact of nature and not automatically Darwinian ideology. Modern evolutionists have attempted to make arguing against Darwin as hard as possible by changing the theory from its original doctrines. An example: "Myth #1- Men evolved from apes. This is the oldest and wrongest misconception about evolution. Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species. Some criticisms of evolution show illustrations that fraudulently purport to show what evolutionists claim: that a salmon changed into a turtle, which changed into an alligator, which changed into a hippo, which changed into a lion, and then into a monkey, and then into a human being. Of course such a theory would seem ludicrous. But it's pure fantasy and has nothing in common with real evolution." Now, everyone is well aware that evolutionists believe that men evolved from apes and every "evolutionary tree of life" shows that is exactly what is being displayed. That’s the bad thing about the Internet; you cannot hide history, only try to change it. The only thing that is disputable is whether or not you are going to be honest enough to call your transitional, intermediate "missing links", apes or humans! Is a branch, twig, bud, or leaf of an oak tree ever a maple or sycamore? Once an oak, always an oak! Unless of course, an avid arborist grafts in some other type of tree; but that would then be intelligent design, not evolution. This new version has been formulated in an attempt to justify the reality of what is witnessed against scientific facts. Nothing more! If Darwinian evolution is true, it has always been true. Some that hold to the "proven" theory of Darwinian evolution also claim a belief in a divine being or "god". Arguably, this belief is almost un-avoidable when considering the beginning of "natural life"; especially when you attempt to explain a process of animate life from a previously un-living something, and totally driven by chance and random occurrences. I realize that this leads away from this topic and will not pursue it here, but if the evolutionary process is the standard by which life has come to be, it should be open for the debate. And tell me why creationists are chided to “prove a God” and evolutionists get a free ride, not having to explain the foundational origin to their theory? What did the first organism evolve from? What did those chemicals evolve from? What did those gases evolve from? What did that matter evolve from? I do not expect to get an answer; I do not believe that there is one for evolutionists. Even Charles Darwin wrestled with this mountain sized speedbump! In his introduction to "The Origin of Species", Darwin declared that "When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species — that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." It is an injustice that Darwin never tried to explain this "mystery of mysteries", or any origin of any species; I believe, because he knew where it always leads and as one of your own has stated “that is unthinkable”! While insisting that "It is, therefore, of the highest importance to gain a clear insight into the means of modification and coadaptation", Chucky D stated that "the most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ…"; and that from nothing, if I may intone! Those of us that refuse to accept Darwinian Theory as an acceptable scientific probability are disallowed from questioning the very first processes; those that would be necessary for Darwinian evolution to establish itself and then become the "natural" process in which all life has been established and developed. In the final chapter, "Recapitulation and Conclusion", Darwin stated that "Glancing at instincts, marvellous as some are, they offer no greater difficulty than does corporeal structure on the theory of the natural selection of successive, slight, but profitable modifications." It was in this light that Darwin (again in “The Origin”) demanded “ that if it could be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then my system would absolutely fall apart.” My question is grounded in that challenge. How about the first organism? According to the standards by which the evolutionary process has been applied to the creationists resistance of Darwinian proposed evolutionary theory, has the system of chemical animation that is needed to produce life in its simplest form now been scientifically documented and accepted as fact within the scientific community? Is Miller/Urey the answer? They were so unsuccessful, that the very environment that “created” their little Frankenstein had to be isolated to keep it from killing it! Let's look at what the real evidence shows, and remeber, let's try to stay on topic!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Since I am no longer bound by a word limit, please allow me a few lines to set up my proposed query.

First off, feel free to blather on as much as you want here, but please please break your posts up into paragraphs so your ideas will at least have the appearance of cogency.

When I use the term "evolution" I am referring to the Darwinian ideology...

If you want to be taken seriously around her you won't use loaded verbiage like "ideology" or nicknames like "Chucky D"...

...of special evolution from one organism to another, and not simply "change" as the true definition of evolution suggests.

Then let me correct you so that you can use the term evolution properly. It refers to the change in genetic makeup of populations in response to their environment. This manisfests in small morphological changes which, over long periods of time, can result in speciation.

One of the problems in debating the modern theory labeled as "evolution" is that the molecules-to-men* adherents have high jacked the term.

* See my second reply above.
And actually, no. Science did not hijack the term. Darwin proposed a theory of evolution and, except for some additions (like genetics - which verified his predictions), it's the same theory scientists refer to today. Creationists have tried to hijack the term and make it mean something that it does not. That's their problem, not one for science.

Most creationists will readily confess that living things change, only that the change is limited to within any given species.

What do you mean by species? Are you literally referring to species (in which case I'll have an interesting teaching moment about descent and phylogenetic trees for you) or are you referring to "kinds" or "baramins"? You need to be specific.

Genetic variation is a fact of nature and not automatically Darwinian ideology. Modern evolutionists have attempted to make arguing against Darwin as hard as possible by changing the theory from its original doctrines.

Everything in these two sentences is backwards. Darwin understood traits were passed with modification, so didn't Mendel. Once Watson and Crick discovered DNA we were off to the races in figuring out how traits were passed on and how they could change. A great example of this is the Hox gene that determines body plans. It's the same gene in insects, fish and mammals, but expresses itself differently in each. Also the theory hasn't had to be changed much such Darwin wrote Origin. In fact Douglas Theobald cites him directly and extensively in his 29 Evidences for Macroevolution essays.

An example: "Myth #1- Men evolved from apes. This is the oldest and wrongest misconception about evolution.

Not a myth. Humans are apes that descended from an ape like common ancestor that we share with our fellow apes.

Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species.

That's half, and I bet inadvertently, correct. Populations, over time, build up mutations which, if not spread amonst the entire population, can result in subspeciation. Further, over longer periods of time, those new subspecies populations can lead to new taxonomic relationships between those subspecies. I refer back to my teaching moment comment on descent and phylogenetic relationships. It's a pretty long discussion that will warrent its own separate post.

Some criticisms of evolution show illustrations that fraudulently purport to show what evolutionists claim: that a salmon changed into a turtle, which changed into an alligator, which changed into a hippo, which changed into a lion, and then into a monkey, and then into a human being. Of course such a theory would seem ludicrous. But it's pure fantasy and has nothing in common with real evolution."

Huh? Yes there are such incorrect claims made by Creationists. Are you trying to suggest they don't because I can point you towards Kirk Cameron and his Crocoduck fiasco? Apart from that and the superfluous quotation mark I can't see what point you're trying to make.

Now, everyone is well aware that evolutionists believe that men evolved from apes and every "evolutionary tree of life" shows that is exactly what is being displayed.

I pointed out where "humans evolved from apes" is a gross oversimplification above. Humans are part of the Hominoidea that includes all living apes (including us) and our extinct common ancestors and cousin species. As far as the tree of life goes, here's the Hominidae (just great apes) page on the Tree of Life webproject. You can spend hours clicking on the taxonomic links to see how humans fit into the tree.

That’s the bad thing about the Internet; you cannot hide history, only try to change it.

Ask Kent Hovind about the Darwinism Disproved website.

The only thing that is disputable is whether or not you are going to be honest enough to call your transitional, intermediate "missing links", apes or humans!

Really? You must not know much about the debate or the actual science then because as my two links above show there are a number of taxonomic levels within "apes" that have been applied and we where to group living or fossil finds within those groups. As far as the hominid fossils (direct human ancestors or extinct cousins), you do realize that all of them (chronologically speaking) from Australopithicenes forward have their foramen magnum located at the bottom of their skull meaning they walked upright and there are no other upright walking apes than hominids right? Taung child

I'd also note that Creationists themselves cannot even decide which fossils are "ape" and which are "human". If you think you can step up to the plate, check out the this image below and draw the line between ape and human. A is a chimpanzee. N is a modern human.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7739&d=1185236157

 

[Klimax]

Since I am no longer bound by a word limit, please allow me a few lines to set up my proposed query.
Huge snipage done...

Wall of text.Bad idea.Structure it into paragraphs and please,take a look at Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology,where you'll find some discussion regarding evolution.(among other things)

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Wall of text.Bad idea.

So is quoting a giant post in its entirety.

- me too, thanks for snipping it down.

 

[Klimax]

So is quoting a giant post in its entirety.

Sigh.At least I did not parcel it to one line text,one line empty...
Still got edit-window...

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

So. Where was I. Ah, yes...

Once an oak, always an oak!

I do hope you'll take me up on my offer to help you understand speciation, descent and phylogenetic relationships.

Unless of course, an avid arborist grafts in some other type of tree; but that would then be intelligent design, not evolution.

Right. Of course such things aren't included in evolutionary theory so I don't know why you mention them. Cows with spider DNA in their milk or fish with phosphorescent diatom DNA are lab creations, not what we find in nature nor what evolution deals with.

This new version has been formulated in an attempt to justify the reality of what is witnessed against scientific facts. Nothing more! If Darwinian evolution is true, it has always been true.

Huh? The theory of evolution has yet to be falsified and every observation made so far has verified its predictions.

Some that hold to the "proven" theory of Darwinian evolution also claim a belief in a divine being or "god".

Those would be called Theistic Evolutionists for the purpose of the discussion and there are a large portion of the planets population.

Arguably, this belief is almost un-avoidable when considering the beginning of "natural life"; especially when you attempt to explain a process of animate life from a previously un-living something, and totally driven by chance and random occurrences. I realize that this leads away from this topic and will not pursue it here, but if the evolutionary process is the standard by which life has come to be, it should be open for the debate. And tell me why creationists are chided to “prove a God” and evolutionists get a free ride, not having to explain the foundational origin to their theory? What did the first organism evolve from? What did those chemicals evolve from? What did those gases evolve from? What did that matter evolve from?

You're all over the place here, but abiogenesis, big bang, etc. is another topic and smloeffelholz asked:

I do have a couple of requests for those who wish to post on this thread. First, please keep the argument on topic. This is not a debate on the big bang, or abiogenesis, or god. This is intended to discuss the science behind evolution and creationism.

I do not expect to get an answer; I do not believe that there is one for evolutionists.

First, if you conflate "evolutionists" with "atheists" you're incorrect. Second, you can get an answer but, third, this thread is not the place for that discussion. Please stick to the topic which is the science behind Creationism and evolution.

Even Charles Darwin wrestled with this mountain sized speedbump! In his introduction to "The Origin of Species", Darwin declared that "When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species — that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." It is an injustice that Darwin never tried to explain this "mystery of mysteries", or any origin of any species;

Apart from the fact that you don't seem to understand what "mystery of mysteries" he was referring to, he spent the rest of Origin explaining it.

I believe, because he knew where it always leads and as one of your own has stated “that is unthinkable”!

Are you talking about the Collin Patterson misquote/quote mine?

While insisting that "It is, therefore, of the highest importance to gain a clear insight into the means of modification and coadaptation", Chucky D stated that "the most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ…"; and that from nothing, if I may intone!

You could, but you'd be entirely incorrect since homology shows that structures and organs in descendant species evolve from existing or simpler but similar structures and organs in ancestral species. You'd also be ignoring the 150 years of evidence collected since the writing of Origin and the bounty of discoveries made in the 50 years since we unlocked DNA - see the Hox gene link in my earlier post.

Those of us that refuse to accept Darwinian Theory as an acceptable scientific probability are disallowed from questioning the very first processes; those that would be necessary for Darwinian evolution to establish itself and then become the "natural" process in which all life has been established and developed.

No you're allowed to ask any question about evolutionary theory you want. You just need to have some basic understanding of what it is and what it is not.

In the final chapter, "Recapitulation and Conclusion", Darwin stated that "Glancing at instincts, marvellous as some are, they offer no greater difficulty than does corporeal structure on the theory of the natural selection of successive, slight, but profitable modifications." It was in this light that Darwin (again in “The Origin”) demanded “ that if it could be shown that any system or organ could not be produced by many small steps, continuously improving the system at each step, then my system would absolutely fall apart.” My question is grounded in that challenge.

No it is not. You question appears to be a myopic focus on abiogenesis, but you may ask any question you want about evolution which, as Darwin knew, applied to extant life.

How about the first organism? According to the standards by which the evolutionary process has been applied to the creationists resistance of Darwinian proposed evolutionary theory, has the system of chemical animation that is needed to produce life in its simplest form now been scientifically documented and accepted as fact within the scientific community? Is Miller/Urey the answer? They were so unsuccessful, that the very environment that “created” their little Frankenstein had to be isolated to keep it from killing it! Let's look at what the real evidence shows, and...

If you want to discuss abiogenesis, go to the Science subforum. If you want to discuss evolution, then let's get started and...

...remeber, let's try to stay on topic!

... you might want to turn on your irony meter.

 

[Garry Webb]

Trinitarian Troll

I had to double check the topic! Let's see. It's: Evolution or Creationism, Where does the evidence lead? Creationism has a beginning; didn't evolutionary life?

So, you have chosen the old "argument from grammatical correction" approach, I see. And thank you for setting me straight and demonstrating the correct way to blather! I had no idea that cogency meant using twice the space of the post that you are attacking and retort on every sentence. I do stand corrected. Why waste time blathering, I will get to the topic that you clearly avoided in your wordy bloviation.

Why did you bring up abiogenesis or Big Bang? Did I? No! Abiogenesis does not even exist in the real world, but here we are. You do not believe that everything came from nothing do you? It must have come from something, and if evolution, as you believe it to be is the natural processes of life and insist that science proves it to be, surely you can explain the first process. You insist that Darwinian evolution is science, then I will insist that since science is a means to discover and increase human understanding of how the physical world actually works, why set limits to how much of the physical world can be debated.

Obeying your command to "Please stick to the topic which is the science behind Creationism and evolution", and in the spirit in which it is offered, I again ask the question proposed in my first post: How about the first organism? According to the standards by which the evolutionary process has been applied to the creationists resistance of Darwinian proposed evolutionary theory, has the system of chemical animation that is needed to produce life in its simplest form now been scientifically documented and accepted as fact within the scientific community? Remember, "Where does the evidence lead?"

Did you notice? I used paragraphs!

 

[smloeffelholz]

Garry, if you are going to quote something, please quote it accurately. The myth listed on the Skeptoid site is "Men evolved from modern apes." The word modern makes that sentence completely different, and correctly points out a common creationist myth. Brian was trying to make the point that humans did not evolve from the apes that you can see in a zoo today. The truth is that humans and the modern great apes all share a recent common ancestor and exist in a similar portion of the nested hierarchy that is the evolutionary tree.

Also, when Brian was talking about an animal not changing into another animal, I am almost positive that was just terrible wording to make his point (keeping an episode about evolution around 10min is a chore and it seems he missed his mark on this point). I believe that the point he was trying to make is that no organism, in its own lifetime, will change into a different organism, or that no organism will ever produce progeny completely unlike itself (ie a rat never gave birth to a bat). These are both important points to make because these are myths that some creationists (Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort were mentioned earlier) use to argue against evolution.

When you are asking for explanations about how life formed from non-living materials, or how space-time came to be, you are asking questions about abiogenesis and the big bang respectively, regardless of whether you use those words or not. The reason I do not want those topics discussed in this thread is because they are completely different disciplines than evolution. Evolution deals with changes in existing living organisms (the origins of species), not the steps required to create a cell from non-living matter (the origins of life). Though I would gladly discuss those topics with you, this is not the right place to do it. UrS mentioned a thread on these topics, so perhaps he could post a link to them. That way we can keep this thread on topic, and still discuss the theories you are interested in.

I would appreciate it if you would read (or reread) the first post in this thread. The requests that I made in that post are to keep the thread readable, to avoid the good ole' Gish Gallop (your first post was on the edge of being one), and to prevent ad hominem attacks (which your second post flirted with).

 

[Garry Webb]

Trinitarian Troll

I have been familiarizing myself with what evolutionists insist is the evidence that most proves evolution and I came across and began to read the article
“15 Evolutionary Gems”, so I decided to study each “Gem” (cubic zirconium, actually) one at a time.

On the “Stand Up For Real Science” website, a pro-Darwinian blog, I found an article entitled “Indohyus: Yet Another Piece of the Puzzle”. I can't help but snicker at the "evidence" that was posited to be "proof" that this little gem was the ancestor of whales.

As I am prone to do on occasion, I first attempted to Google an actual picture of a skeletal fossil by which I could compare the similarities and descriptions. But, alas, as is usual in the world of Darwinian ideology, a few small fragments, nothing complete, and then cartoons and drawings. If you would be so kind, please visit blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk to confirm that what I am saying is true.

The article says that "This little animal has been named Indohyus, although the skeleton is not complete the skull has been found and the preserved middle ear structure is identical to that found in the cetacean group. (No complete skeleton but they know every detail about it.) Isotope analysis of the teeth is a little "ambiguous", but has led to "speculation" that this animal was "probably" a herbivore and that it "may have" fed in water, although another "interpretation of this data" would conclude that Indohyus "probably" fed on land but spent a lot of time in an aquatic environment." In this article it is admitted that “Indohyus was clearly not a cetacean, but “it may have been” a close cousin to the ancestors of cetaceans. Indeed…there is very little resemblance between Indohyus and modern cetaceans.”

Further investigation reveals that there is a living creature that resembles the little cartoon Indohyus, called the African mousedeer, or chevrotain, which lives on the forest floor but hides in the water to take cover from predators. And surprisingly, the drawing of the Indohyus has feet that are not anatomically familiar to a chevrotain or the drawing of the skeleton. Oops! “Ironically”, Hans Thewissen professes that the common ancestor of whales and Indohyus “may have been” a herbivore plant-eater that took to water to hide out, but eventually switched to a swimming, meat-eating lifestyle, which it passed down to modern cetaceans.”

In another article @ "The Scientific American", entitled "Closest Whale Cousin—A Fox-Size Deer?" I read that the actual evidentiary fossil was discovered 30 years ago in Kashmir, and was dated at least two million years younger than the earliest known cetacean fossils. Oops! The feature considered the link to cetaceans is “a thickened medial lip of its auditory bulla, the involucrum, a feature previously thought to be present exclusively in cetaceans. Involucrum size varies among cetaceans, but the relative thickness of medial and lateral walls of the tympanic of Indohyus is clearly within the range of that of cetaceans and is well outside the range of other cetartiodactyls.” But through a thorough investigation of "involucrum", it is discovered that it can be formed in any creature through injury, disease, or at the time of death. In the real world of science, involucrum is defined as a sheath that covers or envelopes, especially one that forms around the sequestrum of new bone. A sequestrum being any fragment of bone or other dead tissue that has separated during necrosis, which is the localized death of cells or tissues through injury or disease.

The story closes with this statement: "The new analysis does not yet unseat the hippo as cetaceans' kissing cousin, because it only takes into account anatomical features, not molecular ones, says Maureen O'Leary, a professor in the department of anatomical sciences at Stony Brook University on Long Island, N.Y. She says that her own categorization of artiodactyls supports the hippo as the closest relative to cetaceans, but notes that it did not include the features uncovered by the Ohio team."

This argument could be settled very easily by doing DNA comparisons of modern whales, hippos, and mousedeer. I venture to bet that we will never hear the results! Gotta go for now, I have 14 more gems to study.

 

[Klimax]

I had to double check the topic! Let's see. It's: Evolution or Creationism, Where does the evidence lead? Creationism has a beginning; didn't evolutionary life?

So, you have chosen the old "argument from grammatical correction" approach, I see. And thank you for setting me straight and demonstrating the correct way to blather! I had no idea that cogency meant using twice the space of the post that you are attacking and retort on every sentence. I do stand corrected. Why waste time blathering, I will get to the topic that you clearly avoided in your wordy bloviation.

Here no such restriction on length of post is and we prefer paragraphs as it makes reading and responding easier.(and looks better)

Second it was advice not argument.Beware of logical falacies!
And last I pointed at another subforum as it contains most of discussion and most knowledgable people on subject.(forum too big to be present in every section)But you are correct you are not off-topic,yet

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Garry, try chilling out a bit and let's have a discussion rather than a debate.

I had to double check the topic! Let's see. It's: Evolution or Creationism, Where does the evidence lead? Creationism has a beginning; didn't evolutionary life?

It was noted above, "This is intended to discuss the science behind evolution and creationism", so lets stick to the science. And you question doesn't make any sense. There is no "evolutionary life". There is life which, after it got started, evolved. Evolutionary theory doesn't really care whether life on Earth got started through abiogenesis, panspermia, an act of fiat creation by God or is a science experiment of hyperdimensional high schoolers. Evolution only addresses life that exists. If there is no life, there is no evolution. Once there is life, evolution cannot - from what we've determined - be stopped.

So, you have chosen the old "argument from grammatical correction" approach, I see. And thank you for setting me straight and demonstrating the correct way to blather! I had no idea that cogency meant using twice the space of the post that you are attacking and retort on every sentence. I do stand corrected. Why waste time blathering, I will get to the topic that you clearly avoided in your wordy bloviation.

Instead of diversions like this, how about you stick to the topic and discuss the content that I presented above? I gave you plenty of subjects and areas for us to get into in response to subjects and areas you raised.

Why did you bring up abiogenesis or Big Bang? Did I? No!

Actually you did here:

And tell me why creationists are chided to “prove a God” and evolutionists get a free ride, not having to explain the foundational origin to their theory? What did the first organism evolve from? What did those chemicals evolve from? What did those gases evolve from? What did that matter evolve from?

particularly the bolded part. Abiogenesis was also the gist the last couple column inches of your post.

Abiogenesis does not even exist in the real world, but here we are.

I don't really know what you mean by this, but since abiogenesis is a separate topic from evolution I'll move on.

You do not believe that everything came from nothing do you?

Evolutionary theory isn't about "everything" coming from "nothing" and neither is abiogenesis for that matter. But since this isn't about evolution I'll move on.

It must have come from something, and if evolution, as you believe it to be is the natural processes of life and insist that science proves it to be, surely you can explain the first process. You insist that Darwinian evolution is science, then I will insist that since science is a means to discover and increase human understanding of how the physical world actually works, why set limits to how much of the physical world can be debated.

I already explained above that evolution doesn't care where life came from. It is an explanation of what happens to life that exists. Would you like to discuss evolution?

Obeying your command to "Please stick to the topic which is the science behind Creationism and evolution", and in the spirit in which it is offered, I again ask the question proposed in my first post: How about the first organism? According to the standards by which the evolutionary process has been applied to the creationists resistance of Darwinian proposed evolutionary theory, has the system of chemical animation that is needed to produce life in its simplest form now been scientifically documented and accepted as fact within the scientific community? Remember, "Where does the evidence lead?"

You use the bold part to set up a framework for your question then immediately toss it aside and ask a question outside of that framework. Evolution is about life that already exists. Would you like to discuss evolution or not?

Did you notice? I used paragraphs!

Yes, and seriously, thanks. We don't have the same constrains here as Skeptiod (though I think there is a 15,000 character limit).

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

UrS mentioned a thread on these topics, so perhaps he could post a link to them.

Here's a recent, though dormant one on abiogenesis with a lot of interesting stuff and Garry is free and welcome to bump it with his questions.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72638

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I have been familiarizing myself with what evolutionists insist is the evidence that most proves evolution and I came across and began to read the article
“15 Evolutionary Gems”, so I decided to study each “Gem” (cubic zirconium, actually) one at a time.

You do realize that those articles reference other articles that appeared in Nature and you're going to need to read those articles to get the full data set on the gems right?

On the “Stand Up For Real Science” website, a pro-Darwinian blog, I found an article entitled “Indohyus: Yet Another Piece of the Puzzle”. I can't help but snicker at the "evidence" that was posited to be "proof" that this little gem was the ancestor of whales.

As I am prone to do on occasion, I first attempted to Google an actual picture of a skeletal fossil by which I could compare the similarities and descriptions. But, alas, as is usual in the world of Darwinian ideology, a few small fragments, nothing complete, and then cartoons and drawings. If you would be so kind, please visit blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk to confirm that what I am saying is true.

I always wonder why Creationists seem to think that viewing the fossil itself will somehow be more telling than a drawing or mock-up. Garry, are you a paleontologist, anatomist or an expert in mammal physiology? What do you think you'll be able to discern from a photograph that paleontologists and experts on mammal physiology were unable to from direct study of the specimine?

And the photo in the Scientific American article shows a very substantial piece of maxillary (if not all of it) and a number of cranial bones. The article cites the middle ear bones being part of the find and it looks like that part of the skull is preserved in the part supported by the holders little finger. I also found the original Nature article which has a photo of all the bones found.

The article says...

Leaving aside for a minute the numerous caveats that are offered in the news articles and the fact that the Scientific American title had a question mark in it showing the conclusions of Thewissen were still up for further investigation. Why don't you read the Nature article and critique to content there instead of secondary sources.

This argument could be settled very easily by doing DNA comparisons of modern whales, hippos, and mousedeer. I venture to bet that we will never hear the results!

I'll take that bet. Much work is being done on genetic phylogenies and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls is a question that generates a lot of interest and funding.

Interesting that you'd spend so much time on one inconclusive fossil while ignoring the much larger body of evidence for whale evolution.

 

[Garry Webb]

Trinitarian Troll

I continually hear the argument that the 98% DNA similarity between chimps and humans absolutely proves that, like Mr. Sinner has so aptly stated above, "Myth #1- Men evolved from apes…Not a myth. Humans are apes that descended from an ape like common ancestor that we share with our fellow apes." Not only are we descended from apes, we are still apes.

When I use Brian's quote "Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species", Mr. Sinner confirms that "That's half, and I bet inadvertently, correct. Populations, over time, build up mutations which, if not spread amonst the entire population, can result in subspeciation. Further, over longer periods of time, those new subspecies populations can lead to new taxonomic relationships between those subspecies." Again Mr. Sinner; "I pointed out where "humans evolved from apes" is a gross oversimplification above. Humans are part of the Hominoidea that includes all living apes (including us) and our extinct common ancestors and cousin species." We are living apes!

So I did a little research on the vaunted fruit fly experiments to recall what I thought evolutionists have insisted was evolution in action and witnessed. In my search, I came across the neatest little machine called The Random Mutation Generator. (If you want to really see evolution in action, check it out. It is a real eye opener.) But that's off topic.

That aside, I found an article that clearly contradicts what Steve has argued. An article titled "Fruit Fly Genetics" from guardian.co.uk insists that Theodosius Dobzhansky's experiments prove that new species through evolution has now been witnessed.

And I quote: "Because Darwinian natural selection had traditionally been considered a slow paced affair that was difficult - if not impossible - to test experimentally, critics had often dismissed the subject as unscientific. But here was a perfect demonstration of evolution in action. This was no million-year wait for a two millimetre increase in the length of a leg bone. This was evolutionary change in front of your very eyes…In accumulating genetic differences, Dobzhansky saw how two populations might also accumulate differences in body size, colour, genital architecture, behavioural idiosyncrasies, and a thousand other characteristics that could eventually make them reluctant or unable to mate with one another. In these distinct genetic profiles, Dobzhansky believed he was seeing the origin of species in its infancy." Evolution in action! One living species becoming a different living species.