Someone gave me a pamphlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2013, 11:08 AM
Someone gave me a pamphlet
All right, I was in school today, and someone gave me a pamphlet called "Answers to Evolution-16 Reasons to Doubt Darwinism

It hasn't converted me, and it never will, and I've come up with good arguments to go against some of these (although others require some thought) but I just want to know what your take on this is.( And also help come up with arguments for the once that require some more thought) Here's what it says

Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution a fact?--No, the theory of Darwinian Evolution says that complex creatures evolve from simple creatures naturally over time. This theory is not a fact; it has not been proven and cannot be replicated in a laboratory. A scientific theory is an attempt to make accurate statements about factual evidence in the natural world. There are several theories that attempt to explain how complex animals came to exist.

The key to good scientific reasoning begins with gathering as much reliable evidence as possible and looking at it carefully. Then, scientists construct alternative theories and compare them in light of how well they explain the evidence. As a result of this, Darwin's theory has undergone many changes over the years to conform to the evidence. However, many unresolved scientific issues remain.

Is there any proof that evolution happened?--That depends on what you mean by "evolution." The term "evolution" basically means "change," and is too broad to be very useful in a discussion. Here are four ways the world evolution is used

Micro-evolution--Small changes in a population over time, such as the color of moths or the size of a bird's beak

Macro-evolution--The random development of new structures like wings, new organs like lungs, and new body plans

Universal common descent--Organisms descending from a common ancestor

Natural selection--Survival of species, "survival of the fittest"

Darwin's followers say that life forms become more and more complex through a gradual process. However, some scientists have given up on that notion of gradual change. They insist that there simply is not enough time since the beginning of the universe for all the required changes to have taken place gradually. Darwin's theory of evolution does not account for the beginning of life on Earth.

What is the Big Bang Theory?--The Big Bang theory says that the entire universe began as a super-hot, super massive "explosive point," and that the universe continues to expand.

The first chapter of Genesis says that God created the universe out of nothing. The Big Bang theory also says the universe was created out of nothing.

If the universe was created the way the Big Bang theory says it was, we should see starts and galaxies moving away from each other (and away from us). We should also be able to detect cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang's fiery explosion. Both of these phenomena have, in fact, been observed as the theory predicts.

Is the Big Bang Theory good news or bad news for the theory of evolution?--The Big Bang theory is bad news for the theory of evolution. Why? Darwin's theory requires extremely large amounts of time to produce the necessary changes in living forms. However, the Big Bang theory states that there was a beginning, a point in time when the universe was created, and that point was not long ago--not long enough for any organism to evolve. According to most mathematical calculations, a universe even 100 billion years old is not old enough for the development of a single cell.

The Big Bang theory appears to be consistent with the biblical account of creation in Genesis, which says that God created the world out of nothing.

Some scientists dislike the Big Bang idea precisely because it sounds too much like biblical Creation.

In the 1920s, Albert Einstein said that the universe was infinitely large and infinitely old--with no beginning. Later, Einstein said this was "the greatest mistake of my life." He finally accepted the necessity of a beginning.

Can molecules of non-living matter be transformed by a natural process into the organic building blocks of life (proteins)? --It is virtually impossible to produce important life molecules, such as proteins, from simple molecules. Proteins in all living things are assembled from the same basic "alphabet" of 20 amino acids. Each different type of protein is formed from a unique arrangement of these chemical "letters." To form a protein that actually works, the amino acids must be arranged in precise sequences, like letters in a sentence. This precise sequence creates a certain protein that has a specific function in the cell. The odds that all of these factors will occur on their own is statistically impossible.

Does the Miller-Urey experiment prove that organic life can be built by a natural process?--No, the conclusions drawn from the Miller-Urey experiment are no longer considered relevant by the scientific community.

Trying to simulate the conditions on ancient earth, chemist Stanley Miller put methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen into a closed chamber and fitted the chamber with electrodes to simulate lightning. After boiling the fluids and sparking the resulting gases for about a week, Miller was pleased to discover several amino acids. The results took the world by storm. Electricity going through the primordial soup had apparently created building blocks of life. There were, however, two main problems with the experiment.

First, scientists agree that the atmosphere of early Earth was not at all like what the Miller-Urey experiment used. In fact, if Miller's experiment were performed with a realistic atmosphere, no amino acids would form.

Second, connecting amino acids to form a useful protein is a lot harder than just making an amino acid. Hooking amino acids together requires removing a molecule of water for each amino acid added to the chain, but amino acids are highly water-soluble. This means that although water is a necessary part of the Miller-Urey theory, the presence of water also keeps amino acids from forming proteins.

Do all scientists accept Darwin's theory of evolution at the cell level?--No, most scientists still accept some version of the theory of evolution, but a growing number of scientists have become dissatisfied as they learn more facts about the complexity of life.

In the 1800s, when Darwin lived, most scientists thought the cell was a simple thing--A little lump of carbon compounds. They also thought that the creation of life was a fairly simple process.

New biochemical techniques and improved microscopics have revealed the complexity of those "simple lumps" called cells. We now know that cells contain thousands of different types of organic molecules. Because the design and function of the cell is extremely complicated, the creation and function of life forms are not simple.

Do the changes in Galapagos , or changes caused through selective breeding, prove that evolution takes place?--We need to ask, "What kind of evolution are we talking about?" The changes in finch beaks is a great example of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. It is true that the effects of the drought changed the average beak size of some Galapagos finches. This is an example of minor variations being selected from the gene pool already present in the finches' DNA.

After a severe drought in the Galapagos Islands in 1977, the plants produced many fewer seeds than usual. During the drought, the big-beaked birds were more likely to survive because they were able to eat the large, hard seeds as well as any small seeds. The smaller-beaked finches were less likely to survive because they could not eat the larger seeds. But that is not the same as saying that the finches evolved bigger beaks. Big beaks and small beaks were present in the population before the drought. Big beaks and small beaks were present in the finch population after the drought. Furthermore, following a period of intense rain in the Galapagos, the average finch-beak size returned to it's pre-drought size, and the so-called "evolutionary change" was reversed.

Selective breeding, or purposeful domestication, has been used to produce changes within species for thousands of years. By repeating this process over generations, one can modify the characteristics of the whole breed. These changes would be an excellent example of micro-evolution if it weren't for one thing: Intentional, deliberate, selective breeding is not a "natural force." Animal breeders are intelligent, purposeful agents, not natural "environmental factors."

Does the fossil record support Darwin's theory?--No, Darwin predicted that if his theory were correct, there should be evidence that simple life forms gradually developed into more and more complex creatures.

Paleontologists generally state that the fossil record does not support Darwin's theory in two major ways

1) Animal types tend to appear suddenly in the fossil record (not gradually, as Darwin predicted). Therefore, each animal type is "missing" the "link" to its former ancestor.

2) Animals tend to remain relatively unchanged throughout their time on earth (not slowly developing into new forms as Darwin predicted).

What is the "Cambrian Explosion" and does it prove Darwin's theory?--Scientists sometimes call this event the Biological Big Bang, because the fossils of at least 19--and perhaps as many as 50--radically new and complex animal groups, with radically different body types, appear suddenly on earth at one time. Scientists call this remarkable event the "Cambrian Explosion" because this dramatic appearance of major animal forms occurs in the fossil record from the Cambrian period.

The Cambrian Explosion does not support Darwin's theory. In fact, Darwin predicted that we would find evidence that life began simply and progressed into big differences. Instead, fossils from the Cambrian layer show multiple animal types with huge differences appearing at once.

Was there a gradual transition of an ape to man or the Eohippus (primordial horse) to the modern horse?--Despite the illustrations in textbooks showing gradualism in the evolution of the horse, or evolution of ape to man, virtually every "missing link" or "find" has turned out to be ape-like and non-human, not a transitional kind of ape-man. A few "finds" were deliberate hoaxes.

Richard Leaky, world's foremost paleoanthropologist and son of Louis and Mary Leaky, said, "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. ...if further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving."

What is punctuated equilibrium, and does it solve the problem of "missing links"?--Punctuated equilibrium is a more recent evolutionary theory proposed by Eldredge and Gould. This theory suggests that evolution occurs during short periods of sudden, drastic change with long periods of little or no change. Sudden major change means that fewer transitional forms would have existed. Since there were fewer transitional forms, they would be less likely to preserve in the fossil record. Instead, the fossil record would only preserve the new forms of life, which remained stable over long periods of time.

Critics say punctuated equilibrium does not solve the problem of "missing links" and is basically an admission that there is no fossil evidence support Darwin's theory of Universal Common Descent--the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor. Even Stephen J. Gould (Paleontology, Harvard), wrote that "...all paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

By embracing the theory of punctuated equilibrium, scientists have moved one step closer to the biblical perspective of creation. Fossil evidence shows the sudden appearance of all major categories of organisms.

Does the presence of "vestigial organs," such as the appendix, prove that human beings evolved from other creatures?--No, recent studies suggest that the appendix, which was once considered vestigial and is still considered evidence of evolution in most science textbooks, actually has an important functional role in the immune system. Furthermore, the tailbone or coccyx is also functional, serving as a point of attachment for muscles of the pelvic floor.

In the past, some scientists have called the pituitary gland, the tear glands, the tear ducts, the spleen, and the pancreas "vestigial." In time, science has discovered that there are important functions for all of these organs or glands that at one point were considered vestigial. If science labels an organ vestigial, it does not necessarily mean that it is.

Do the similarities in the skeletons of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals prove that these species came from a common ancestor?--No, there are two ways to look at these similarities, which are often referred to as homology.

1) Similarities exist because all organisms have the same ancestor and their differences are related to slight modification over time

2) Similarities are related to an intelligent designer (God) who created different organisms with similar skeletons.

The problem with homology due to common ancestry is that the entire process has to occur naturally. One scientist compared this "descent with modification" to a succession of Corvettes lined up side by side. This scientist intended to illustrate that, like the fossil record, one can see the common similarities and the slight modification of each model every year. However, this illustration accidentally showed that the appearance of slight modifications over time was actually due to the intentional actions of the automobile designer.

Is it true that scientists can construct an evolutionary "family tree" based on DNA evidence?--no, not consistently. For example, one study tried to figure out the "family tree" of the rabbit. One group of scientists studied 88 proteins sequences trying to figure out the "family tree" of the rabbit. They said that the evidence showed that rabbits belonged with primates instead of rodents. Even more perplexing, another study found that a DNA analysis of the same protein analyzed by two different laboratories produced two different "family trees"! Improved understanding of DNA was thought to put evolution on firmer ground, but that simply has not been the case, Instead, biochemistry has raised challenging new questions.

All this time, one can not totally determine the relationship between different species by examining DNA. For example, scientists discovered that two almost identical species of fruit fly have only 25% of their DNA in common.

Do the similarities between embryos prove that certain species share a common ancestor?--No, similar appearance does not necessarily prove common ancestry, Earnest Haeckel, one of Darwin's most loyal supporters, said that an embryo's process of development from egg to newborn was proof of Darwin's theory. He proposed his famous law of bio-genesis which states that the embryo's step-by-step process of development in the womb goes through the evolutionary history of the species. He produced a series of woodcut drawings showing how every similar the embryos of different species look as they develop.

Actually, embryologists have known since at least 1894 that Haeckel's evidence was faked, but their public challenges were lost beneath the overwhelming popularity of Haeckel's inaccurate drawings. An international team of scientists compared Haeckel's drawings to photographs of actual embryos at various developmental stages, and proved decisively that Haeckel's comparisons left out the earliest stages of embryo development, where vertebrae embryo's differ. The stage Haeckel labeled the "first" was a later stage of development for some of the embryos.

Some argue that pictures showing human embryos with gill slits proves that we go through an ancestral fish stage before we finally develop into humans. These pictures show a series of folds, made up of ridges and clefts. These folds develop into other structures as the embryo develops, but they are never even close to being gills. They merely appear as a series of parallel lines. These arguments do not prove that species share a common ancestor.

I've got 2 tulpas, Taunav and Eris. If you don't know what a tulpa is, read this.
http://community.tulpa.info/thread-kiahd...-to-tulpas
If Taunav has anything to say, he'll be speaking in []
If Eris has anything to say, she'll be speaking in {}
If you think I'm insane, I don't care
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 11:15 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
...did... did you type all this out?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kingschosen's post
10-04-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
(10-04-2013 11:15 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  ...did... did you type all this out?

That's what I wondered, too.

This is why someone needs counter pamphlets, then we can all exchange pamphlets with each other. It'd be like a new pog trend or something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 11:19 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
I have trained my arm not to respond to the offered gesture. I get looks. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
10-04-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
Gawdam! Is this guy really not a christian? And, though I don't feel obligated in any way to do so, should I feel bad for not having read beyond the 1st couple lines?
I mean, that IS alot of effort on a single post!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 12:49 PM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
Well I'll be the first to respond to the content. Smile

Best idea for you would be to look at each question individually. Or maybe post each question, individually over time. But if you are looking for broadstroke answers to your question, I recommend "the greatest show on earth" by Dawkins and the videos by Aron Ra about the foundational falsehoods of creationism.

And yet another interesting topic I am not interested in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
It took a few days. Thank The Flying Spaghetti Monster for the ability to save drafts. Anyways, yeah, I came up with counter-arguements for some, but I'm gonna need help for others.

I've got 2 tulpas, Taunav and Eris. If you don't know what a tulpa is, read this.
http://community.tulpa.info/thread-kiahd...-to-tulpas
If Taunav has anything to say, he'll be speaking in []
If Eris has anything to say, she'll be speaking in {}
If you think I'm insane, I don't care
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes My proboscis sucks's post
10-04-2013, 01:11 PM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
Yes, and some of the "pamphlet" is factually incorrect IMO.

For example, "If the universe was created the way the Big Bang theory says it was, we should see starts and galaxies moving away from each other (and away from us). We should also be able to detect cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang's fiery explosion. Both of these phenomena have, in fact, been observed as the theory predicts."

There is movement. What is interesting, though, is that IF the universe is all spinning in one direction, like clockwise, those evolved galaxies and etc. thrown off from the pack of matter should be moving in a likewise direction. They don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 01:15 PM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
(10-04-2013 01:11 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Yes, and some of the "pamphlet" is factually incorrect IMO.

For example, "If the universe was created the way the Big Bang theory says it was, we should see starts and galaxies moving away from each other (and away from us). We should also be able to detect cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang's fiery explosion. Both of these phenomena have, in fact, been observed as the theory predicts."

There is movement. What is interesting, though, is that IF the universe is all spinning in one direction, like clockwise, those evolved galaxies and etc. thrown off from the pack of matter should be moving in a likewise direction. They don't.

Which confirms theory, because the universe is not, in fact, spinning. Spinning galaxies and such are the result of slight differences in density as matter collapses.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
10-04-2013, 05:05 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2013 05:13 PM by Elesjei.)
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
I'll respond to the pamphlet. I'm not very educated but I can still see lots of holes.

Quote:Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution a fact?--No, the theory of Darwinian Evolution says that complex creatures evolve from simple creatures naturally over time. This theory is not a fact; it has not been proven and cannot be replicated in a laboratory. A scientific theory is an attempt to make accurate statements about factual evidence in the natural world. There are several theories that attempt to explain how complex animals came to exist.

Evolution is an observed fact that has been replicated in laboratories. Animals have been seen to change over generations in response to a changed environment. When a scientist breeds bacteria in a lab to see the change in resistance over generations, that is evolution in action. Humans proved evolution when breeding corn, bananas, and domesticated animals millenia ago.

Quote:Is there any proof that evolution happened?--That depends on what you mean by "evolution." The term "evolution" basically means "change," and is too broad to be very useful in a discussion. Here are four ways the world evolution is used

Micro-evolution...Macro-evolution...Universal common descent...Natural selection

Darwin's followers say that life forms become more and more complex through a gradual process. However, some scientists have given up on that notion of gradual change. They insist that there simply is not enough time since the beginning of the universe for all the required changes to have taken place gradually. Darwin's theory of evolution does not account for the beginning of life on Earth.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over generations. If you move a continental plate an inch a year, you can create the Himalayas over millions of years. Organs don't appear suddenly, but over many generations, perhaps starting out as a random mutation and eventually coming to play a significant role in the animal's existence.

Common ancestors are merely a feature of evolution.

Natural selection isn't evolution, it is what primarily drives evolution.

Life does not necessarily trend toward complexity. It goes whatever way natural selection drives it. A fish with fins outswims a fish without, but a fish with a laser on its head may be too cumbersome, and fail to reproduce.

Lastly, evolution is about changes in organisms over generations, not the creation of it - that is abiogenesis.

Quote:What is the Big Bang Theory?--The Big Bang theory says that the entire universe began as a super-hot, super massive "explosive point," and that the universe continues to expand.

The first chapter of Genesis says that God created the universe out of nothing. The Big Bang theory also says the universe was created out of nothing.

No, Genesis said God created it. The universe consists of everything that exists. If God created it, there wasn't "nothing".

And the big bang theory doesn't say the universe came from nothing. It doesn't describe the origin of the universe, but the early development of it. The theory still requires the big bang to have originated from something.

Quote:Is the Big Bang Theory good news or bad news for the theory of evolution?--The Big Bang theory is bad news for the theory of evolution. Why? Darwin's theory requires extremely large amounts of time to produce the necessary changes in living forms. However, the Big Bang theory states that there was a beginning, a point in time when the universe was created, and that point was not long ago--not long enough for any organism to evolve. According to most mathematical calculations, a universe even 100 billion years old is not old enough for the development of a single cell.

100% bullshit. First we don't know how to make life, then we are able to calculate how long it would take to create it? -_-

Quote:The Big Bang theory appears to be consistent with the biblical account of creation in Genesis, which says that God created the world out of nothing.

Some scientists dislike the Big Bang idea precisely because it sounds too much like biblical Creation.

In the 1920s, Albert Einstein said that the universe was infinitely large and infinitely old--with no beginning. Later, Einstein said this was "the greatest mistake of my life." He finally accepted the necessity of a beginning.

Again, not from nothing. If god exists, something exists.

Secondly, it isn't consistent at all. Genesis has a screwed-up timeline that conflicts with all evidence. The earth was created before the sun, according to Genesis.

Thirdly, Einstein didn't say that. His "greatest mistake" was contributing to the creation of the atomic bomb.

Quote:Can molecules of non-living matter be transformed by a natural process into the organic building blocks of life (proteins)? --It is virtually impossible to produce important life molecules, such as proteins, from simple molecules. Proteins in all living things are assembled from the same basic "alphabet" of 20 amino acids. Each different type of protein is formed from a unique arrangement of these chemical "letters." To form a protein that actually works, the amino acids must be arranged in precise sequences, like letters in a sentence. This precise sequence creates a certain protein that has a specific function in the cell. The odds that all of these factors will occur on their own is statistically impossible.

100% bs trying to compare protein formation to completing Shakespeare with an army of monkeys with typewriters.

Quote:Does the Miller-Urey experiment prove that organic life can be built by a natural process?--No, the conclusions drawn from the Miller-Urey experiment are no longer considered relevant by the scientific community.

Yes, the experiment was flawed, in that it inadequately recreated the atmosphere and conditions of early earth. His experiment shows how easily amino acids can be formed. More modern experiments have resulted in the creation of more complex and more diverse molecules.

Quote:Do all scientists accept Darwin's theory of evolution at the cell level?--No, most scientists still accept some version of the theory of evolution, but a growing number of scientists have become dissatisfied as they learn more facts about the complexity of life.

No, scientists who reject evolution are falling in number. Science has become more able to show us how life evolved, and with that our reliance upon magical explanations have been falling away.

Quote:Selective breeding, or purposeful domestication, has been used to produce changes within species for thousands of years. By repeating this process over generations, one can modify the characteristics of the whole breed. These changes would be an excellent example of micro-evolution if it weren't for one thing: Intentional, deliberate, selective breeding is not a "natural force." Animal breeders are intelligent, purposeful agents, not natural "environmental factors."

Selective breeding is just evolution NOT by natural selection. Natural selection works in exactly the same way, except that instead of having evolution guided for a purpose, evolution is driven by the ability of animals to reproduce.

Quote:Does the fossil record support Darwin's theory?...

Paleontologists generally state that the fossil record does not support Darwin's theory in two major ways

1) Animal types tend to appear suddenly in the fossil record (not gradually, as Darwin predicted). Therefore, each animal type is "missing" the "link" to its former ancestor.

2) Animals tend to remain relatively unchanged throughout their time on earth (not slowly developing into new forms as Darwin predicted).

Firstly, it is the exact opposite of what the pamphlet says. Fossils show life changing slowly over time. It doesn't go "no dinosaurs" and then "dinosaurs". It goes from fish to walking fish to marine amphibian to terrestrial amphibian to terrestrial proto-lizard, etc, with tons of fossils showing specimens between each stage.

Secondly, shut up about missing links. Links between what? Early mammals and humans? You can't expect to have a fossil for every generation of every species. If we have a long line of 1000 specimens ranging from a mouse-like mammal to monkey to ape to ape-man to human, and you say "where is the missing link?", you are a grade-A moron. You are looking at them.

Thirdly, animals have been shown to have changed wildly. "Remain unchanged"? Seriously? You see no difference between a fish and a raptor, or a raptor and a chicken?

Quote:What is the "Cambrian Explosion" and does it prove Darwin's theory?--Scientists sometimes call this event the Biological Big Bang, because the fossils of at least 19--and perhaps as many as 50--radically new and complex animal groups, with radically different body types, appear suddenly on earth at one time. Scientists call this remarkable event the "Cambrian Explosion" because this dramatic appearance of major animal forms occurs in the fossil record from the Cambrian period.

So, because there was a time of high biodiversity, evolution is a lie? WTF? If you have conditions that favour biodiversity, you have more species evolving in different ways at the same time. If you have 1 bird species, you will probably have only a few species evolving from it. If you have 500 bird species, you will have thousands.

Might as well say "existence of ecological diversity in Amazon debunks evolution." -facepalm-

Quote:Was there a gradual transition of an ape to man or the Eohippus (primordial horse) to the modern horse?--Despite the illustrations in textbooks showing gradualism in the evolution of the horse, or evolution of ape to man, virtually every "missing link" or "find" has turned out to be ape-like and non-human, not a transitional kind of ape-man. A few "finds" were deliberate hoaxes.

Um, humans evolved from ape-men. Of course all fossils of ancestors are going to be ape-like! Try and find an ape-man that is not ape-like.

Quote:What is punctuated equilibrium, and does it solve the problem of "missing links"?--Punctuated equilibrium is a more recent evolutionary theory proposed by Eldredge and Gould. This theory suggests that evolution occurs during short periods of sudden, drastic change with long periods of little or no change. Sudden major change means that fewer transitional forms would have existed. Since there were fewer transitional forms, they would be less likely to preserve in the fossil record. Instead, the fossil record would only preserve the new forms of life, which remained stable over long periods of time.

...

By embracing the theory of punctuated equilibrium, scientists have moved one step closer to the biblical perspective of creation. Fossil evidence shows the sudden appearance of all major categories of organisms.

Again with the "we don't have fossils of every generation of every species therefor evolution is a lie!"

Also, no, scientists haven't moved closer to believing in a man who was poofed into existence and had a woman created from his rib who ate a fruit after being manipulated by a talking snake which resulted in them being expelled from paradise.

Quote:Does the presence of "vestigial organs," such as the appendix, prove that human beings evolved from other creatures?--No, recent studies suggest that the appendix, which was once considered vestigial and is still considered evidence of evolution in most science textbooks, actually has an important functional role in the immune system. Furthermore, the tailbone or coccyx is also functional, serving as a point of attachment for muscles of the pelvic floor.

So, because a feature still serves a role, it can not be used as evidence for common descent? We can trace the development of the human skeleton back through generations, but because we still use our bones, it doesn't prove a thing?

Quote:...The problem with homology due to common ancestry is that the entire process has to occur naturally. One scientist compared this "descent with modification" to a succession of Corvettes lined up side by side. This scientist intended to illustrate that, like the fossil record, one can see the common similarities and the slight modification of each model every year. However, this illustration accidentally showed that the appearance of slight modifications over time was actually due to the intentional actions of the automobile designer.

Because God can do anything, you will dismiss every bit of evidence because it could be God's work?

If Zeus can throw thunderbolts, I should not mistake lightning as a natural phenomenon?

Quote:Is it true that scientists can construct an evolutionary "family tree" based on DNA evidence?--no, not consistently. For example, one study tried to figure out the "family tree" of the rabbit. One group of scientists studied 88 proteins sequences trying to figure out the "family tree" of the rabbit. They said that the evidence showed that rabbits belonged with primates instead of rodents...

All this time, one can not totally determine the relationship between different species by examining DNA. For example, scientists discovered that two almost identical species of fruit fly have only 25% of their DNA in common.

Yes, consistently. Stop trying to be misleading. How about a decoded genome comparison?

Can't find a source on the Fruit fly thing. I only get redirected to the "Biotic Message" book on creationist and anti-evolution sites, and I'm not buying the book.

Quote:Do the similarities between embryos prove that certain species share a common ancestor?--No, similar appearance does not necessarily prove common ancestry, Earnest Haeckel, one of Darwin's most loyal supporters, said that an embryo's process of development from egg to newborn was proof of Darwin's theory. He proposed his famous law of bio-genesis which states that the embryo's step-by-step process of development in the womb goes through the evolutionary history of the species. He produced a series of woodcut drawings showing how every similar the embryos of different species look as they develop.

No scientist worth his salt has taken the embryo thing seriously for the past several decades. It is a well-known hoax, and the embryo-re-enacting-evolution theory is nonsense. It's like using the debunking of bigfoot as evidence against Stephen Hawking - completely irrelevant.

There is so much of this lately - creationist nonsense disguising itself as educated scientific criticism. They want their shit to be easier to swallow, so they pretend that they are standing on equal ground, make up lies and misrepresent data, all to manipulate children to join their cult. Maybe the people who give out these kind of pamphlets don't know any better, but the guys who write them always seem to. Like Kent Hovind, they lie and they know it. They just don't care because they see reason and truth as a threat to their beliefs and can't stand the thought of people disagreeing.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Elesjei's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: