Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Dionysian · 08-18-2002, 07:59 PM

<a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm" target="_blank">http://www.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm</a>

I don't know if anybody has read this but I was wondering if this is an accurate account of evolution.

scigirl · 08-18-2002, 08:08 PM

Hello TPaine (after thomas perhaps??),

Yeah the site checks out with me. It's quite good actually - I'm going to bookmark it. Has good genetic explanations and, more importantly, pictures. Thanks!

scigirl

The Lone Ranger · 08-18-2002, 08:11 PM

Yes, not too bad.

However, it starts out with yet another repetition of the "evolution is a theory regarding the origin of life" claim.

Otherwise, from what I've seen, not bad at all for a popular treatment.

Cheers,

Michael

The Dionysian · 08-18-2002, 08:14 PM

"Hello TPaine (after thomas perhaps??),"

Yes it is. The reason I asked about this article is so that maybe now when creationists make false claims they can be referred to this handy site.

Doubting Didymus · 08-18-2002, 08:21 PM

I don't think this site will help you with creationists. There is a fairly big focus on the things that evolution isn't particularly good at explaining yet, and I think creationists would just selectively focus on those things rather than realise that that is exactly what science is all about.

(Then again, I don't think any site would convince a creationist. Remember that their immortal soul is on the line)

Albion · 08-18-2002, 09:05 PM

Well, the site does draw a useful distinction between scientific problems with evolutionary theory as it's presently set up and creationist problems. It's clear that they're expecting further scientific work to answer the former, which is very much at odds with the latter. Sometihn tells me that this distinction willb e lost on creationists, though.

Honestly, I think your best bet is to make yourself as knowledgeable as you can about the basics of evolution and the basic creationist objections, and try and answer them youself. Creationists won't even read sites like that one except to mine quotes from it.

That site also doesn't go into another creationist favourite, which has to do with radiometric dating and the fossil record, although it points you to other sites that do.

Dr.GH · 08-18-2002, 10:26 PM

The How-stuff-works article is rather weak on the question of abiogenesis. It seems to accept the idea that the ToE stands or falls on abiogensis, or at leasst, it does not strongly reject that argument. Further, the notion that evolutionary processes could not obtain prior to the formation of a cell is incorrect, as natural selection can clearly operate at a molecular level. The article seems unaware of the RNA and pre-RNA hypothesis.

I only read the one section.

08-18-2002, 07:59 PM	#1
The Dionysian Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: who knows Posts: 154	Evolution explained on howstuffworks.com <a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm" target="_blank">http://www.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm</a> I don't know if anybody has read this but I was wondering if this is an accurate account of evolution.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-18-2002, 08:08 PM	#2
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Hello TPaine (after thomas perhaps??), Yeah the site checks out with me. It's quite good actually - I'm going to bookmark it. Has good genetic explanations and, more importantly, pictures. Thanks! scigirl

08-18-2002, 08:11 PM	#3
The Lone Ranger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 1,230	Yes, not too bad. However, it starts out with yet another repetition of the "evolution is a theory regarding the origin of life" claim. Otherwise, from what I've seen, not bad at all for a popular treatment. Cheers, Michael

08-18-2002, 08:14 PM	#4
The Dionysian Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: who knows Posts: 154	"Hello TPaine (after thomas perhaps??)," Yes it is. The reason I asked about this article is so that maybe now when creationists make false claims they can be referred to this handy site.

08-18-2002, 08:21 PM	#5
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I don't think this site will help you with creationists. There is a fairly big focus on the things that evolution isn't particularly good at explaining yet, and I think creationists would just selectively focus on those things rather than realise that that is exactly what science is all about. (Then again, I don't think any site would convince a creationist. Remember that their immortal soul is on the line)

08-18-2002, 09:05 PM	#6
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Well, the site does draw a useful distinction between scientific problems with evolutionary theory as it's presently set up and creationist problems. It's clear that they're expecting further scientific work to answer the former, which is very much at odds with the latter. Sometihn tells me that this distinction willb e lost on creationists, though. Honestly, I think your best bet is to make yourself as knowledgeable as you can about the basics of evolution and the basic creationist objections, and try and answer them youself. Creationists won't even read sites like that one except to mine quotes from it. That site also doesn't go into another creationist favourite, which has to do with radiometric dating and the fossil record, although it points you to other sites that do.

08-18-2002, 10:26 PM	#7
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	The How-stuff-works article is rather weak on the question of abiogenesis. It seems to accept the idea that the ToE stands or falls on abiogensis, or at leasst, it does not strongly reject that argument. Further, the notion that evolutionary processes could not obtain prior to the formation of a cell is incorrect, as natural selection can clearly operate at a molecular level. The article seems unaware of the RNA and pre-RNA hypothesis. I only read the one section.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.