Gregg

Sometimes I think that creationists are incapable of understanding that animals live very different lives than people do. Or even that many people live very different lives than people in the industrialized West.

Because animals don't have graveyards with markers, because their unburied corpses lie where they fall and quickly disappear, people (particularly creationists) don't realize just how frequently they die.

Animals can't call 9-11 when they break a leg. They can't drive themselves to the emergency room. They can't turn on a tap to get water. They can't go to the supermarket or McDonalds for a bite to eat. They can't get free immunization shots. They don't have guns to defend themselves from predators. They don't have centralized heating and cooling. They don't have freezers or microwave ovens. They can't rent an apartment or buy a house. Most of them can't pick up and move to another area, where resources and opportunities are more abundant, in just a matter of days. They don't have relief organizations to fly in shipments of grain.

This doesn't mean animals are completely helpless or that many of them aren't quite adaptable and capable of surviving some pretty "extreme" environmental fluctuations. But it does mean that when the environment changes even slightly, competitive pressures cause many, many individual animals to die. The natural balance is such that under "normal" circumstances, there are as many animals in a given area as the resources available in that area can support. When there is a reduction in the available resources, even a slight reduction, death is the result.

Creationists tend to see environmental pressures from their own perspective and not from the perspective of animals. They do not understand that something that is merely an inconvenience to them can be life or death in the wild.

Gregg

P.S. And I haven't even mentioned how many animals will abandon, kill, or even cannibalize their young if they aren't able to feed them.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Gregg ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Continuously, over very nearly the entire four million years.

You think our apelike ancestors practised family planning?

Whenever they weren't being eaten by leopards or whatever, starvation would become THE primary control over population. Even the population of predators would scale itself to the size of the hominid population (the food supply).

Until recently, families of a dozen kids or more were common. In a stable population, MOST of the offspring MUST DIE. That represents an extreme selection pressure acting on every single generation.

The result is inevitable: selection of those best suited to survive.
These extreme selection pressures, responsible for the death of MOST of every generation, are sufficient to drive evolution even without "disasters".

Evolskeptic

Dr. Rick: “Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origins. Evolution does not explain nor attempt to explain abiogenesis.”

Evolskeptic: Try telling that to the folks over at Talkorigins.com!

Dr. Rick: “Furthermore, many theists, including very recently those controlling the Vatican, have acknowledged evolution as fundamentally correct even though they still consider their god the ultimate creator of all things.”

Evolskeptic: I studied evolution at Hunter College and Columbia University in NYC. Do you happen to know where the Pope studied evolution?

Dr. Rick: “One can be a theist and accept the fact of evolution.”

Evolskeptic: Perhaps, but one cannot be a Bible-believing Christian and also believe that man was created by a mindless, mechanical, natural process in the image of some miserable chimpanzee’s ancestor. No way, Jose.

Dr. Rick: “Creationism requires faith because there is no scientific evidence to support creationism.”

Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski: “Organisms display the hallmarks of intelligently engineered high-tech systems: information storage and transfer; functioning codes; sorting and delivery systems; self-regulation and feed-back loops; signal transduction circuitry; and everywhere, complex arrangements of mutually interdependent and well-fitted parts that work in concert to perform a function.” – “Signs of Intelligence,” Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001, p. 11.

Evolskeptic: ID theorists examine those super-sophisticated, “high-tech systems” (i.e., the eukaryote cell) and note the startling number of similarities that exist between them and things which have been observed to have been intelligently designed, i.e., industrial plants. When those observations are then brought to the attention of the methodological naturalists who dominate the scientific community, the ID theorists are immediately accused of engaging in unscientific, “irrationality.” They are publicly ridiculed for refusing to accept the “fact” that trillions and trillions of unobserved, fortuitous accidents were responsible for all those high-tech systems, not some mysterious IDer.

Tell me then, whose faith presuppositions are interfering with their ability to understand the empirical evidence, the ID theorists’ or the atheistic/deistic evolutionists’?

Dr. Rick: “Look at your own arguments; you're not providing evidence in favor of creation but instead are just attacking evolution and building a strawman argument with abiogenesis.”

Evolskeptic: Sometimes before you can convince anyone who the guilty party is other suspects must be logically eliminated.

When the best natural explanation for our existence cannot survive close scrutiny, the best supernatural one (Christianity) deserves a closer look.

Dr. Rick: “You have provided no evidence here to support creation, and you won't, because there is none.”

Evolskeptic: You’ll forgive me if I haven’t offered the entire case for ID already. First things first, and the first thing is to exonerate an innocent party (macroevolution) of false charges (i.e, creating the biosphere).

Wyz_sub10: “So I guess you won't accept flames, but will send them out?”

Evolskeptic: Pointing out the fact that there are extremely hateful people here posting evil sentiments does not constitute sending out a “flame.” Granted, it may not be PC to be so blunt about it, but it hardly compares to the outright hateful comments that have been directed my way (comments which no one but RufusAtticus seems to have a problem with).

Daggah: “So, Evolskeptic, because Paul was a dumbass, wisdom becomes folly?”

Evolskeptic: Apparently Daggah missed my above note about my policy toward flamers.

Pz: “Two or three times a century means it happens every 30-50 generations. Droughts and plagues also happen reasonably often. If you want to call events that are frequent enough to happen multiple times in a single area within the adult lifespan of a scientist "severe", then go ahead -- it just means that these "severe" events are so common that they can easily play a profound role in sculpting species.”

Evolskeptic: How much “sculpting” can the same type of recurring severe and unusual pressure do? If the Black plague wasn’t severe and unusual enough to utterly transform human kind (completely eliminate all but those with immunity), how great a selective pressure would be needed?

Seriously, how often could these types of events have happened?

Pz: “Look in the fossil record. That's where the pattern of prolonged change is preserved.”

Evolskeptic: As Gould & Elldridge pointed out years ago, the only thing the fossil record demonstrates with any certainty is stasis and sudden appearance. In truth, the fosil record is equally powerful evidence for ID, since IDers also create progressively, usually borrowing heavily from past efforts (cf. Windows 95 & 98; the latest James Bond movie; etc.).

Pz: “’Just so stories’ are plausible explanations invented in the complete absence of supporting evidence.”

Evolskeptic: I know. When I was a kid, I used to tell my teachers those kinds of stories when I failed to complete my homework assignments on time.

Evolskeptic (Previously): Sorry, but I don’t have time to accept homework assignments or follow links. If anyone thinks they have documented info relevant to this topic, please fell free to cut and paste it directly onto the thread, together with your comments.

Pz: “Oh, dear. In other words, you are completely refractory to learning anything new. Why should anyone bother to do your homework for you?”

Evolskeptic: Links and references are poor substitutions for logical, convincing arguments. If all we’re going to do here is duel with links and references, then there is no point in discussing anything.

Pz: “If you are not willing to even try to learn, then you are hopeless.”

Evolskeptic: I feel the same way about most of you.

Pz: “If you don't already know this stuff, then how dare you argue that it is wrong? That is simply dishonest.”

Evolskeptic: And that was simply an idiotic an insulting comment. How did you get to be a moderator, making knucklehead comments like that?

Pz: “Again, you seem to be completely oblivious to what the theory of evolution actually says.”

Evolskeptic: Why am I wasting time with yet another ignorant, hateful flamer? Insomnia, I suppose.

Pz: “Consider this an official warning: if you cannot control your tendency to attempt to incite flamage with your offensive commentary, I will be editing your posts. Do you understand?”

Evolskeptic: THAT TEARS IT.

Do you people think I’m going to spend hour after hour hunting and pecking away and then hope my finished work meets with the approval of some Hell-bound Darwinphile?

FAT CHANCE.

Hey, knucklehead, congratulations. You've just edited out another sour note from Infidels.org's amen choir.

PERMANENTLY.

“Do not give dogs what is sacred: do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.” – Jesus Christ, Sermon on the Mount, Gospel According to Matthew, chapter 7, verse 6.

Jack the Bodiless

Why? They already know it. Abiogenesis is of interest to them, and is covered as part of an explanation of "origins": but it does not become "evolution" until the formation of the first self-replicator.
Technically, one cannot be a Bible-believing Christian period. The Bible is riddled with contradictions. All Christians must choose which parts to accept and which parts to reject.

But why should WE care? The Bible is nothing more than the primtive myths and superstitions of a tribe of ignorant goat-herders who thought the Earth was flat. It has no place in a scientific discussion.
...Which can all be explained by what we call "evolution". Is there a point to this?
Genesis is bunk. The Christian creation account fails dismally. It is clearly false. Even most Christians have abandoned it.
Hell does not exist.
Another ignorant creationist.

Are you forgetting that threats of Hell and Biblical quotes have no power against us?

MrKrinkles

Well well well, it looks like another soldier for God is out to save the world from the evilutionists. I just want to make a couple of points. First off, biological evolution is an observed fact. Biological evolution is simply "...any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." Biological evolution is "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. It is "a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population." (These definitions come from the Talk.Origin web site) Creationists such as evoskeptic can certainly try and argue against the scientific theory of evolution, but they should never be allowed to confuse the issue and pretend that evolution itself does not occur.

Why do creationists spend all their time attacking the idea of evolution and the theory of evolution and never devote any time to explaining their own theory? A simple question with a simple answer: Creationists cannot argue for their own theory because their is no evidence for it.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/ffc/creationism_not_science.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/ffc/creationism_not_science.html</a>

Many people laugh at the creationists' efforts as pathetic, and think that responding to them only serves to legitimize their cause in the eyes of others. However, there is a good reason to take the time to point out their numerous fallacious and bogus statements:

<a href="http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whyfight.html" target="_blank">www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whyfight.html</a>

Brooks

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: MrKrinkles ]</p>

Azathoth

Actually about 10% of Europeans have a mutation of the CCR-5 receptor that makes them immune to the effects of the plague.It occurs at a much lower frequency elsewhere,which is what would be expected from a population exposed to the plague for an extended period.

Oddly enough,it also makes the person immune or highly resistant to HIV 1,as well,which is pretty useful to researchers.

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Azathoth ]</p>

MrDarwin

It appears you have already answered your own question:

So you accept speciation, which entails the fixation of genes different from those of the parent population (otherwise we could never recognize two populations as being different species).

And don't discount the founder effect. Especially on islands there are numerous examples, for example with the Hawaiian silverswords, of evolutionary radiations of species from a single founder, with each new species having unique combinations of genes. Whether or not the parent population is eliminated is irrelevant. In plants, in particular, it is a very common pattern to find genera with a few widespread and variable species, and numerous smaller, more isolated, more genetically homogeneous species that are clearly derived from the one or more of the widespread species.

Why? We already know that evolution works. We already know that organisms vary, that natural selection exists, and that organisms invariable come from other organisms. If you can show some example to the contrary, please let me know. If you want to discuss where life came from in the first place, that's a very different question. But whether life on earth came into existence spontaneously, or came to the earth through space, or was planted by some alien civilization or by one or more deities, it makes no difference to the fact that once you have reproducing organisms, evolution is going to occur.

On the contrary; while it's probably safe to say that many scientists are deists if they have any religious beliefs at all, there are many who believe in evolution who also believe in a personal God (ever heard of the Catholic church?).

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

MrDarwin

On the contrary, the vast majority of species on this earth are small and isolated. Please read up on biology a bit, especially tropical ecology.

Do you believe that the pattern of morphological radiation demonstrated by the <a href="http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/silversword.htm" target="_blank">Hawaiian Silversword Alliance</a>--the origin of 3 morphologically distinct genera and about 30 species from a single species of tarweed, looking completely different, that arrived in the Hawaiian islands from California just a few thousand years ago--only be explained by "random drift"?

Baloo

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: Baloo ]</p>

pz

I presume you mean <a href="http://talkorigins.org/" target="_blank">TalkOrigins.org</a>. Check out the FAQ titled <a href="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html" target="_blank">"What is Evolution?"</a>, which defines evolution. Abiogenesis isn't in there. As one of the folks who participates in the talk.origins newsgroup and helps out a little bit with the website, I can assure you that we are quite clear on where abiogenesis fits into the evolutionary story. So? Organisms also exhibit characteristics that are not necessarily present in high-tech engineered systems, such as the ability to self-replicate, excessive complexity, relics of prior iterations, and incredible amounts of wasteful junk. You have not shown that you are able to closely scrutinize the best natural explanation, so this complaint is invalid. Calling people hateful and evil is not conducive to a productive discussion. You've been told to stop multiple times; I'm telling you again. Uh, when was the last time you saw someone die of the Black Death? The pressure of the plague was sufficient to transform both the human and viral populations. You and I are both descended from people who survived the plague long enough to bear children, who in turn survived the plague. You seem to think death is an "extreme pressure". Look around you. Every organism on the planet will die. Death is intrinsic to life -- we all have rather short lifespans from a geological perspective. This is a misrepresentation of Gould and Eldredge. There are known instances of recorded gradual change, and their description of "sudden" change means change on the order of a few hundred to a few thousand generations. It cannot accommodate either ex nihilo creation or the "just so" stories of the IDists. There is a difference. We have not been erecting straw men and lying about the position of our critics, as you have. If you want to claim that we are wrong, you have to be willing to demonstrate that you actually understand what we believe. You have not done that.
That was an accurate and honest comment. You have announced that we are all wrong, and clearly feel that you are here on a mission to purge our 'evil'. You have said that evolution is false, and that it doesn't stand up under close scrutiny. That implies that you have scrutinized it carefully, and that you have thoroughly evaluated the case for evolution. However, all we've seen from you so far is misrepresentations and error. It is quite clear that you have no detailed knowledge of evolutionary biology. You have announced that you are unwilling to even try to learn some of the actual evidence and theory. Therefore, it is dishonest of you to claim that you know it is wrong.
Nice rant. "Hellbound Darwinphile" sounds like it would be a great screen name.

Assuming that you actually do not leave this board, please check your personal messages and acknowledge that you've read them with a reply to me. You can see them by clicking on the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=my_profile" target="_blank">"my profile"</a> link here or in the top right corner of your window.