ChristianRationalist

I have listened and viewed some of Mr. Hovind's debates. My conclusion thus far of the man is that he has very few valid points, and many irrational arguments and expectations of evolution. For example, on a radio debate with Dr. Pigliucci, Dr. Pigliucci asked him what would make him believe that evolutionary processes have taken place. Hovind responded with the absolutely ludicrous answer of "If a human gave birth to a plant" or something along those absurd lines. There could have been many rational responses, but Hovind uses THAT? It shows his utter incompetence as not only a debater, but also as a scientist who claims to know evolutionary theory. Clearly, in my estimate, he is neither of those.

I am concerned that many Christians are "learning" evolution from this man, because they aren't getting an accurate representation of evolution.

As far as legitimate YECs, Answers in Genesis seems to be the most reliable in terms of interpreting evidence their way, and, they seem to at least be competent in many scientific fields.

-CR

RufusAtticus

Such as? I know that they are completely incompetent in my field, evolutionary biology.

ChristianRationalist

Well, I would say that they have competent scientists in biology, chemistry, botany, geology and paleontology. If you believe that they are incompetent in evolutionary biology, I would instinctually assume it's because they don't conclude that evolutionary theory is true. They claim that the only difference between "evolutionists" and "creationists" is the way evidence is interpreted.

As I said, it really does seem that they have competency in many fields. Whether they have a total grasp on all of the alleged mechanisms and evidences for evolutionary theory I don't completely know, as I haven't scoured the site long enough or thorough enough to evaluate that, but what I have read seems to be acceptable. But, of course, that could be because my understanding of evolution is off as well, I don't know.

-CR

NZAmoeba

yeah, key use of a word from CR there is seem

which is why sites like that are so damaging to the actual ToE, they seem to have a valid point, and people assume that if something had been proven wrong, that it would have been removed from the site.

Of course we'd never expect AiG to put a link on every article of theirs to the corresponding Talk Origins article...

Oolon Colluphid

Well, CR, I’ve just had a browse round AiG -- a thing I rarely inflict on myself, I prefer normal blood pressure. And quite frankly, it doesn’t matter a jot what qualifications these bozos have. A few things I learned from them include that:

• C14 dating is a very dubious method.
• Noah’s ark and the global flood were real.
• men and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
• “Some evolutionists have claimed that the compound eye is a bad design that no good designer would use” (I’d be delighted to add it to my list of such things, but it sure is news to me!)
• claims have been made about the locomotion of the fossil whale Ambulocetus despite the ‘fact’ that “the important fibula bones, pelvis, and tail bones were not found”... Ahem... Well okay, I can’t see a fibula. But that looks like bits of tibia to me... Oh, I see, those bits of pelvis and tail -- and tibia -- aren’t the important ones...
• The Earth is quite young, and that radiometric dating in general is flawed.
• Piltdown and Archaeoraptor cast doubt on all fossils.

And so on. At which point I gave up.

It is superficially persuasive. As one of their writers says, if someone asks you ‘what about all the fossils’, you could ask them to name one, or ask which particular one they have problems with. Most people couldn’t say Acanthostega, Homo habilis, Thrinaxodon or Ambulocetus. And most people, challenged on C14, probably wouldn’t know that it doesn’t rely on assumptions, nor that C14 isn’t relevant for dates over thousands of years (we have a heap of other isotopes with longer half-lives for that ).

And it is insidious. I like to think I know a bit about evolution, but I far too often found myself thinking ‘well I know it’s wrong, and I can see the sophistry involved, but checking this is going to be pretty tough’. To be honest, after half an hour there, and with so many areas I don’t know much detail about on display, I was half convinced -- well, call it 10% -- myself.

Thing is, though, that whenever I have checked into creationist claims, they have always proved false, with (often ludicrous) twistings of reality (that’s what makes scientists so angry with them). Every time. Every time. And I’ve done it a lot.

Therefore, persuasive-sounding or no, highly-qualified or no... science has my full confidence, and AiG has none of it.

TTFN, Oolon

RufusAtticus

CR,

Welcome to the SecWeb. Some of us in E/C can get a little rough, so if you have any problems don't hesitate to PM me or another E/C mod.

Could you give us the names of who you're thinking about?

Nope. They don't even know what evolution is, and have little grasp on the evidence for it. They make false distinctions between macroevolution and microevolution for instance. They lack understanding of evolutionionary theory. I have yet to see a single reseme of a member of AiG that includes any background in population biology or evolutionary biology. Basically, it's a bunch of people with no education on the subject, pontificating on it.

AiG makes it clear that they judge science based on their interpretation of scripture. (It's in their statement of faith.) In otherwords, they assume that their version of scripture is true and ignore whatever evidence contradicts that. We have a word for that: pseudoscience.

I appreciate the fact that you consider this a possibility.

Perhaps. Would you care to elighten us to your understanding by answering some questions?

1. Describe/define evolution, microevolution, and macroevolution as you understand them.

2. What evidence does science recognize to support evolution?

3. What evidence does science recognize to contradict evolution?

4. How does selection work?

5. Where does variation come from?

6. What are other biological forces that shape the structure of populations?

Oolon Colluphid

CR, Rufus's questions are all very useful, and it'd be great if you could have a go at them. I'd suggest that to get through them, just a line or two would do -- don't make it hard work for yourself and think you've got to write an essay on each!

They may help you to clarify your own understandings, and so we are all better placed to see how wrong AiG is... or right!

Cheers, Oolon

ChristianRationalist

I will certainly try and hope that I don't screw it up.

In quick terms: Evolutionary theory states that all life evolved upward from a single cell that somehow developed in water billions of years ago.
Evolution is a change of one species to another. Speciation is an example of evolution.

Microevolution simply means small genetic changes in an organism over a period of time. Macroevolution seems to have a a far more inconspicuous definition. But my understanding of it is accumulative microevolutionary changes of an organism that produce macroevolution.

The simplest definition I have heard of evolution is change in gene frequency.

Bio similarity, paleontology, domestic breeding, geographic distribution.

Some of the proposed mechanisms of evolution are mutations, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection.

Fossil record is the biggest I think. Too many gaps. Also, mutational effects are 99.99% of the time defective.

I think that even in the time that evolutionary scientists put on the earth, the diversity of all life wouldn't of had enough time to diversify into all of the life we have today through selection and mutations, given that mutations really do drive evolution upward.

I don't know if that's what mainstream science considers to contradict evolutionary theory or not, but it is what seems to contradict it to me.

Survival of the fittest. Organisms that are the best suited for the environment stay, and the ones that aren't "fit" get eliminated.

My mommy's stomach? lol, j/k. Variation comes from a change in the nature of DNA. Mutations give rise to new alleles; therefore they are the source of variation in a population.

I....believe I already answered that; not in detail but I don't think that's what you were asking for.

Let me know how I did.

-CR

RufusAtticus

You did better than most people. Let's see if I can clear a few things up.

Not quite. There are two issues with this statement. 1) Evolution is not about upward change. It is directionless. 2) Evoltutionary theory doesn't require life to have arrisen in the sea, although that is what the empirical evidence indicates. (I'm distinguishing the facts of evolution from the theory of evolution.)

True, although not all evolution is speciation. Evolution is best described, IMO, as "the change in the characteristics of populations of organisms over time."

No. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. Microevolution is simply evolution apparant between individuals within a species.

Macroevolution is evolution apparant between individuals in different species or taxa. Some scientists, especially paleontologists, use "macroevolution" to refer to the origin of higher patterns in the fossil record. However, you are correct that large differences are the result of the cumulation of small differences.

That is a good and popular rule of thumb; although, I think it is slightly too narrow to reflect the different ways scientists study biological evolution. For example, paleontologists don't deal with genes.

Good. More specifically it is the concordance among morphological, palentological, experimental, and molecular evidence.

Good. Although, the nature of the mating system is an also evolutionary force.

What do you mean by "too many gaps?" What do you consider a gap in the fossil record? What do you know about molecular data filling in the gaps?

This is not true. Mutations are mostly neutral and have no effect on fitness. Deliterious mutations are more common than beneficial ones; however, as long as there are some beneficial mutations selection can act to promote them in the population. Even with a beneficial mutation rate of 0.0001 per mutation, that is still ~40,600 beneficial mutations per year in the US alone.

Evolutionary scientists don't determing the age of the earth. That is what geologists do, and they use techniques that don't depend at all on evolution.

What makes you think that? Is this some personal conclusion, or have you sat down and tried some doing some math on the subject? Try playing with these simulations to see the rate of evolution. I could get into the literature on the subject, but I'll hold off on that for now.

Of course it also needs to be pointed out that if evolution cannot produce the diversity we have in 3.5 billion years, then it certainaly can't do it in the 4,000+ years since YECs place the Flood.

Close, except you need to continue it to reproduction. Selection occurs because certain types of individuals are able to reproduce better (faster, more numerous) than other types, and this advantage is able to be passed on to their offspring. Viability/survival is just one component of reproductive success.

Good.

You did well. Please follow up my questions on the fossil record and time available for diversification.

Data

Actually as I understand it, most mutations have no effect at all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

EDIT: Beaten..