tgamble

Have you tried asking on talkorigins newsgroup?

The Lone Ranger

Funniest thing I've read all week!

Albion

No, I'm just trying to get this particular bunch of creationists to face the reality of what they're saying. They don't seem too keen just at the moment.

primemover

I am neither a strict creationist (had to happen the way talked about in Genesis)nor a evolutionist. However, I was wondering if you could answer a few question about evolution. If the the theory of evolution is a scientific one, then why isn't the strongest evidence for it based on experimental evidence? Instead, it seems to be based on a tautology (survival of the fitest) and speculation not supported by the fossil record.

According to evolution, organisms change due to freak mutations that somehow make it more fit for survival. Ok that sounds nice, but do these changes happen over night or a long period? Fossil records would indicate that they happen very quickly. (Unlike what Darwin believed.)

For example, a wing has many parts to it that do not work without other parts. Therefore, it may need a hundred different mutations to occur all at once to magically produce a wing, from something that was previously an arm. This idea does not sit well with many evoultionist. And makes far less intutive sense then traditional evoutionism.

I mean the math just is not there. If it takes lets say four specific mutations in gene sequencing to produce a wing (likely very small number)what are the odds of that happening just right. Probably a billion to one.

If you are a traditional evoultionist, and you think that organisms change slowly over time, then you have two other problems to think about. 1)lack of evidence in the fossil record. 2)how do the transitional forms live, despite only having part of the modified form? I mean 1/2 a wing might not really be much of an advantage.

I think that evoultion is as good an explanation as any, but there seems to be a number of flaws that biologist are unwilling to look at b/c of fear of having the whole theory thrown out.

MrKrinkles

Primemover,

I guess that means that you can't answer my questions, right?

Try again.

Brooks

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by primemover:
If the the theory of evolution is a scientific one, then why isn't the strongest evidence for it based on experimental evidence?

It is.

Instead, it seems to be based on a tautology (survival of the fitest) and speculation not supported by the fossil record.

No it's not.

According to evolution, organisms change due to freak mutations that somehow make it more fit for survival.

Nope. Change the word "Organisms" to "Populations" the word "Freak" to "Random" and remove the word "Somehow" and you're almost there.

Ok that sounds nice, but do these changes happen over night or a long period?

The changes happen to the next generation.

Fossil records would indicate that they happen very quickly.

Only 1 individual in every couple of thousand generations is likely to fossilize and in some species the chances of fossilization is almost nil so in each fossil we find we tend to see the result of several thousand generations worth of mutations. Seeing as how much Dogs have evolved in the past few thousand generations with strong selection pressures it does not come as much of a surprise that some transitions appear rather fragmentary. Of course we do have one or two example of complete transitions to work with in organisms that do fossilize frequently and also evolve slowly.

(Unlike what Darwin believed.)

Who cares what Darwin believed? We go by 150+ years of scientific knowledge that he did not have.

For example, a wing has many parts to it that do not work without other parts.

Which wing? How many different types of wing are there in Nature.

Therefore, it may need a hundred different mutations to occur all at once to magically produce a wing, from something that was previously an arm.

Have you actually looked at a vertebrate wing? There is nothing there that is not also in a vertebrate arm, the only difference is in the size and shape of the components, just as there are no extra bones in a Great Dane compared to a Peke, the only difference is in size and shape.

This idea does not sit well with many evoultionist. And makes far less intutive sense then traditional evoutionism.

Eh?

I mean the math just is not there.

Eh?

If it takes lets say four specific mutations in gene sequencing to produce a wing (likely very small number)what are the odds of that happening just right. Probably a billion to one.

So what? 1000 generations * 1 Million population gives us a wing? Big deal.

If you are a traditional evoultionist, and you think that organisms change slowly over time,

This would not be a traditional anything as it is a strawman.

then you have two other problems to think about. 1)lack of evidence in the fossil record.

There is no lack beyond what is expected due to differential fossilization probabilities. After all evolution only requires one complete sequence and we have several examples of this.

2)how do the transitional forms live, despite only having part of the modified form? I mean 1/2 a wing might not really be much of an advantage.

Ask a flying squirrel.

I think that evoultion is as good an explanation as any,

Nope it is the ONLY explanation that stands up to scrutiny.

but there seems to be a number of flaws that biologist are unwilling to look at b/c of fear of having the whole theory thrown out.

What flaws?

Amen-Moses

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

primemover

The funny thing is that anything I came up with you would argue with and discount. Even if there was just as much evidence pointing towards my theory. Why not that questioning attitude towards evoultion?

My theory would revolve around a puncuated equalibrium , that had God as designer.

I know that you would say that God and science need to be intirely separate. That's fine. It just does not make a lot of sense without Him.

What is your theory? I mean you must have a better developed theory then evolution.

DMB

primemover: why don't you read some simple books about evolution so that you understand what you are trying to criticise?

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by primemover:
The funny thing is that anything I came up with you would argue with and discount.

The really funny part is that that is how science works.

Even if there was just as much evidence pointing towards my theory.

What theory?

Why not that questioning attitude towards evoultion?

Eh? The theory of evolution is a product of that questioning attitude!

My theory would revolve around a puncuated equalibrium , that had God as designer.

What exactly gives that sentence the lofty title of "theory"?

It just does not make a lot of sense without Him.

How exactly?

What is your theory? I mean you must have a better developed theory then evolution.

Evolutionary theory is the best developed scientific theory that has ever existed, it is better developed even than the theory of aerodynamics, maybe you doubt that aircraft can fly?

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

I particularly like Gould's description in his penultimate work:

"Evolution follows the syncopated drumbeats of complex and contingent histories, shaped by the vagaries and uniqueness of time, place, and environment."

I mean, what could be clearer than that?

Amen-Moses