Evolution war still rages 200 years after Darwin's birth

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Usually fossils form over long periods of time after being buried.

Speculation, and hardly ever borne out in an observable manner because decomposing organisms usually take care of all remnants of biostructures eventually, including bones.

The way Ken Ham describes it isn't even close to what actually happens.

Again speculation. Neither you nor I have actually watched a fossilization take place.

A lot of fossils came out of the La Brea Tar Pits because the tar was able to bury the bones of the animals so they didn't decompose.

That is a special circumstance!

Ancient sea bottoms or ancient lake beds contain fossils that settled in the silt at the bottom and were preserved.

Objection 1: Carbon isotope 14 deterioration is not constant: it is influenced by pressure, exposure to the atmosphere, temperature, etc., so we can't say with authority what for sure is "ancient" and what isn't. Objection 2: The "ancient sea bottom" argument is a perfect demonstration of what is actually Noahic flood geology.

Other fossils occurred after landslides or other disasters buried them. Some "fossils" are actually whole animals trapped in amber such as ancient insects.

Again this is perfect evidence of the Noahic flood. Less-epic burials, such as those caused by bad floods, tsunamis, etc. today, generally still result in eventual consumption by decomposing biota.

There probably are fossils forming today but it would be hard to know exactly where they are, because they're not where we can see them, since they're... buried!

If so it would have to be on an extremely limited scale as few environments, including those deep underground, are sterile. What the fossil record suggests is that an enormous amount of life became extinct extremely quickly under conditions of extreme weight, pressure, and heat, and in the absence of normal saprophytic organisms. Literally the earth's crust would have to have been turned inside out for this to take place. If the earth is billions of years old this would have to take place gradually enough so that the dead animals would have stood zero chance against the processes of decay.

Back to the dead cat thing. Replace "dead cat" with another family member and you see how sinister that really is. "Imagine you came home and found your mommy had died" "Dead mommy fossilizing, do not touch".

You don't like the dead cat argument because it looks hokey and you find it heartless for little kids. That is not a scientific objection.

[Rubystars]

Serb Avenger, I'll be glad to get into the nitty gritty details with you if you really want to, but I don't think you're going to change your mind regardless of what evidence I show you. I've probably seen most of the arguments that you got off of the YEC Web sites. For whatever reason YECs decide that their version is the truth and they go out in search of evidence to try to prop that up. Real science doesn't assume to know the answers beforehand and seeks to draw conclusions based on all the evidence that's gathered.

Flood geology just doesn't work for a number of reasons. One of them is that it doesn't account for different fossils in geological strata, and the different characteristics of different rock layers.

Another is that mixing the salt and fresh water in one big global flood would kill all the fresh water fish and wildlife and the raging seas would put a lot of marine life in danger as well.

All that extra water would have had to come from somewhere and go somewhere.

[Masha]

There is no controversy about this within the scientific community. Absolutely none. The only controversy about it is in the minds of the non-scientific public.

Rubystars, my step-father is a very respected theoretical physicist (one of his books is widely used as a textbook). He thinks that the Darwinian theory of evolution is total crap. Random mutations and probability theory are incompatibe! Coordinated mutations would be an impossibility in a materialist universe. You should talk to him. He makes fun of a one-legged fish.  Many, many scientists agree with him, especially biologists. He thinks that any thinking person would just find too many holes in the Darwinian theory of evolution with its random mutations. By the way, he doesn't believe in God, but he does think that the Universe is somehow permeated by "information" and that our genes are tiny computers that calculate various design possibilities for new life forms. In other words, he believes in some kind of "intellegence" and teleology of life. I suppose it's a form of a belief in an intelligent design, it's just that he "suspends" the question of a designer. He won't speculate about something that he can't know´. But that there is intelligence in the universe, he doesn't doubt. He says it's there for everyone with a brain to see (especially for a scientist!).

[Rubystars]

There is no controversy about this within the scientific community. Absolutely none. The only controversy about it is in the minds of the non-scientific public.

Rubystars, my step-father is a very respected theoretical physicist (one of his books is widely used as a textbook). He thinks that the Darwinian theory of evolution is total crap. Random mutations and probability theory are incompatibe! Coordinated mutations would be an impossibility in a materialist universe. You should talk to him. He makes fun of a one-legged fish.  Many, many scientists agree with him, especially biologists. He thinks that any thinking person would just find too many holes in the Darwinian theory of evolution with its random mutations. By the way, he doesn't believe in G-d, but he does think that the Universe is somehow permeated by "information" and that our genes are tiny computers that calculate various design possibilities for new life forms. In other words, he believes in some kind of "intellegence" and teleology of life. I suppose it's a form of a belief in an intelligent design, it's just that he "suspends" the question of a designer. He won't speculate about something that he can't know´. But that there is intelligence in the universe, he doesn't doubt. He says it's there for everyone with a brain to see (especially for a scientist!).

I think there must be a big misunderstanding that he has somewhere because evolution is the opposite of random. Natural selection is by its very nature a selective process even if it does so passively in the sense of not being aware of doing the selecting. I've also never heard of a one-legged fish and I don't think there are any fossils of one-legged fish. There are transitional fish-amphibians though. Unlike your step-father, I do believe in God, so I think that God helped to direct evolution toward the path that He wanted.

[Masha]

I think there must be a big misunderstanding that he has somewhere because evolution is the opposite of random. Natural selection is by its very nature a selective process even if it does so passively in the sense of not being aware of doing the selecting. I've also never heard of a one-legged fish and I don't think there are any fossils of one-legged fish. There are transitional fish-amphibians though. Unlike your step-father, I do believe in G-d, so I think that G-d helped to direct evolution toward the path that He wanted.

Before there is natural selection, there should be a random mutation. That's the Darwinian idea. Because he didn't believe in a purpose-driven world. On top of it, one mutation is not enough. Some features are changed through coordinated mutations. For example, for an eye or a long neck in a giraffe to evolve, a lot of things need to happen at the same time. In real life they have only so far observed mutations that are harmful to survival, genetic mistakes. An accidentally favorable mutation must be a rare thing indeed. Many random mutations at a time (to change or evolve a feature) are a statistical impossibility. It contradicts theory of probability. If a person is suspected of killing someone because he has a motive, an opportunity, he told everybody that he's going to do it, a bloody knife and clothes are found in his house, the fibers from his clothes are everywhere in the victim's house, his bloody fingerprints and all over the crime scene, his hair and DNA was found on the victim - did he kill the victim? Any sane jury will say yes. But imagine him arguing that the fingerprints are not actually fingerprints, but random, naturally created patterns of dust? Who will believe him? This is what evolutionists are arguing. That millions of useful mutations happened all by themselves over short spans of time. That just stretches credulity too thin. If something looks designed, it is because it was designed.

[Rubystars]

Before there is natural selection, there should be a random mutation. That's the Darwinian idea. Because he didn't believe in a purpose-driven world. On top of it, one mutation is not enough. Some features are changed through coordinated mutations. For example, for an eye or a long neck in a giraffe to evolve, a lot of things need to happen at the same time.

First of all evolution happens in a population, not in individuals. So in the entire population, the probability of a favorable mutation arising is a lot more than in one individual. Furthermore, what might be favorable in one environment might be detrimental in another. If you plop a fennec fox down in the arctic, it could be seen as having several harmful mutations. If you plop an arctic fox down in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, the arctic fox would be seen as having several harmful mutations. In the right environment, however, those very same traits are beneficial. Populations respond to changes in the environment as some survive better than others. A giraffe might have had a mutation that made its neck just a few inches longer than others around it. It wouldn't be a huge thing, but it might help it reach more leaves. Over time the neck got very long and other adaptations went along with it because those who had them survived better than those who didn't.

There was a great article on the evolution of the eye that I'll get for you if I can find it. It basically starts with a light sensitive nerve though.

In real life they have only so far observed mutations that are harmful to survival, genetic mistakes. An accidentally favorable mutation must be a rare thing indeed. Many random mutations at a time (to change or evolve a feature) are a statistical impossibility. It contradicts theory of probability. If a person is suspected of killing someone because he has a motive, an opportunity, he told everybody that he's going to do it, a bloody knife and clothes are found in his house, the fibers from his clothes are everywhere in the victim's house, his bloody fingerprints and all over the crime scene, his hair and DNA was found on the victim - did he kill the victim? Any sane jury will say yes. But imagine him arguing that the fingerprints are not actually fingerprints, but random, naturally created patterns of dust? Who will believe him? This is what evolutionists are arguing. That millions of useful mutations happened all by themselves over short spans of time. That just stretches credulity too thin. If something looks designed, it is because it was designed.

I think your arguments are similar to CB200:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

[Rubystars]

Answer to: "The eye is too complex to have evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Answer to: "New structures or organs would not develop incrementally because they would not function until fully developed. For example, what use is half an eye? "

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html

Answer to: "Why are beneficial traits not evolved more often? If wings were beneficial for protobirds, for example, why have they not evolved on gazelles and apes?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928.html

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Serb Avenger, I'll be glad to get into the nitty gritty details with you if you really want to, but I don't think you're going to change your mind regardless of what evidence I show you. I've probably seen most of the arguments that you got off of the YEC Web sites. For whatever reason YECs decide that their version is the truth and they go out in search of evidence to try to prop that up. Real science doesn't assume to know the answers beforehand and seeks to draw conclusions based on all the evidence that's gathered.

Flood geology just doesn't work for a number of reasons. One of them is that it doesn't account for different fossils in geological strata, and the different characteristics of different rock layers.

Another is that mixing the salt and fresh water in one big global flood would kill all the fresh water fish and wildlife and the raging seas would put a lot of marine life in danger as well.

All that extra water would have had to come from somewhere and go somewhere.

Ruby, I could say the same thing of you. You have concluded on your own that your own theory is inherently more rational, and have discarded the other side's opinions.

The main reason why Darwinian evolution rose to the forefront is that the world in general was taken in by the Rationalist movement in the 1800s, including the religious world (as seen by the growth of the liberal church, starting in Germany and moving globally). The intelligentsia of the whole western world concluded that theistic-based lenses were not based on empirical evidence and that a naturalistic philosophy made more sense. Prior to this, YEC was a very accepted explanation of origins by scientists and they believed all the evidence supported this view.

If the fundamental paradigm shift from literal theism to agnosticism/skepticism was never made, Darwinism would be dead in the water. The only question NOW is why otherwise religious conservatives like you would hold to it.

[Cato]

A billion black Africans can't be wrong in denying that they are related to Apes.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

First of all evolution happens in a population, not in individuals. So in the entire population, the probability of a favorable mutation arising is a lot more than in one individual. Furthermore, what might be favorable in one environment might be detrimental in another. If you plop a fennec fox down in the arctic, it could be seen as having several harmful mutations. If you plop an arctic fox down in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, the arctic fox would be seen as having several harmful mutations. In the right environment, however, those very same traits are beneficial. Populations respond to changes in the environment as some survive better than others. A giraffe might have had a mutation that made its neck just a few inches longer than others around it. It wouldn't be a huge thing, but it might help it reach more leaves. Over time the neck got very long and other adaptations went along with it because those who had them survived better than those who didn't.

Very wishful thinking to say the least. 98.5% of mutations are either harmful (like Tay-Sach's, Huntington's, BRCA 1 and 2, or thanatophoric dysplasia) or provide no benefit whatsoever and are meaningless for survival. Most of what evolutionists called "mutations" are actually natural selection--a culling of the gene pool so that certain traits stand out, similar to when breeds of dog, cat, or horse are made. The organisms subject to this, such as the different species of island finches that have "evolved" different beaks to fit the local nut-bearing trees the best, have actually lost genetic diversity, not gained it.

Even those few mutations that do appear useful at first often are a double-edged sword. A hemocytic mutation that protects against malaria is pretty common in Africa. Too bad it also codes for deadly sickle-cell anemia. It is therefore unlikely that the anti-malarial mutation seen in Africa is about to take the whole world by storm and be the catalyst in a new breed of super-healthy humans.

There was a great article on the evolution of the eye that I'll get for you if I can find it. It basically starts with a light sensitive nerve though.

Yes, they are called ocelli. Organisms such as caterpillars and spiders have these very sensitive, simple "eyes", which can tell light from dark, and that is about it. They don't need anything more advanced than that, but why haven't their eyes progressed throughout hundreds of millions of years? Why are there no mutations in caterpillars or spiders producing even simple compound eyes (like flies have)?

That millions of useful mutations happened all by themselves over short spans of time. That just stretches credulity too thin. If something looks designed, it is because it was designed.

You have a very good point, Masha. Modern evolutionary theory believes in punctuated equilibrium (that there has not been a steady process of change over billions of years, but rather broad phases of relative stasis, and sudden periods of great mutation in a brief amount of time). This is ridiculous and biologically incompatible with sustained life. We have a term for when millions of mutations happen in organisms very suddenly. Most people understand it very well. It's called cancer.

[muman613]

I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?

[Rubystars]

I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?

I don't see how most of those traits would have been beneficial. One thing to keep in mind is that if it doesn't help reproductive success, a trait isn't likely to spread through a population. Another thing to keep in mind is that evolution builds by making modifications to what's already there. Therefore pigs wouldn't really be able to have wings in addition to their four limbs because the raw materials for them aren't there.

[Rubystars]

Ruby, I could say the same thing of you. You have concluded on your own that your own theory is inherently more rational, and have discarded the other side's opinions.

Science isn't based on opinions. I grew up thinking of evolution as "evilution" and that it was a lie. Only the strength of the evidence convinced me.

The main reason why Darwinian evolution rose to the forefront is that the world in general was taken in by the Rationalist movement in the 1800s, including the religious world (as seen by the growth of the liberal church, starting in Germany and moving globally). The intelligentsia of the whole western world concluded that theistic-based lenses were not based on empirical evidence and that a naturalistic philosophy made more sense. Prior to this, YEC was a very accepted explanation of origins by scientists and they believed all the evidence supported this view.

So let me ask you a question. Are you against methodological naturalism in science? The accepted view among the public used to be that evil spirits caused disease. Uneducated people around the world still hold this view.

Without the scientific method, people would still think this way. "Spirits did it" or "God did it" just is not something that has a place in studying the natural world. Miracles do occcur, but they have no place as an explanation in a scientific context.

If the fundamental paradigm shift from literal theism to agnosticism/skepticism was never made, Darwinism would be dead in the water. The only question NOW is why otherwise religious conservatives like you would hold to it.

I "hold to it" because it has practical scientific applications and the weight of the evidence. It also makes testable predictions.

[Rubystars]

A billion black Africans can't be wrong in denying that they are related to Apes.

 

[cjd]

I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?

Well one thing for sure we do have talking apes..... I guess the horses and pigs were more careful with what they mingled with. Some people are born with an extra finger or toe and even a tail from time to time Possibly there is something in the genetic code that will only let things get out of proportion to a certain extent.

[4International]

I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?

Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.

[Rubystars]

Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.

It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.

Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit than cost though in our case. Other animals  survive better without such a costly organ.

[muman613]

Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.

It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.

Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals  survive better without such a costly organ.

And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?

[Rubystars]

And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?

Giraffes are related to a type of antelope called an Okapi. The longer neck probably helped the original antelope-like creature to reach higher leaves than before on bushes and short trees even if it wasn't as long as a giraffe's neck today.

This article also indicates that because of their camel-like gait, that okapis and giraffes also use their necks to balance:
http://animals.jrank.org/pages/3317/Okapi-Giraffe-Giraffidae-PHYSICAL-CHARACTERISTICS.html

[Christian Zionist]

We fought this evolution battle during early days of the forum...


http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php/topic,1064.0.html


http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php/topic,1075.0.html


http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php/topic,2070.0.html

[Rubystars]

Looks like those threads were fun CZ

[4International]

Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.

It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.

Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals  survive better without such a costly organ.

And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?

Very good observation. And the transitional mutations from short neck to long neck which were not beneficial and became extinct must have fossilized over millions of years, which begs the question: where are all of the fossils of each of the Millions of successive mutations all over the globe in the transitional creatures which were not beneficial and became extinct? Has there been one fossil discovered anywhere in the world which clearly shows the intermediate transitional mutation which was not beneficial and died out? If there is, I would like to see a photo of it.

[Rubystars]

By its very nature the fossil record is incomplete. Not every creature to ever live, not even every species, was preserved. We do have enough transitionals between major groups to draw conclusions from.

There are different species of giraffe family animals in the fossil record though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climacoceras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeotragus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honanotherium

"Honanotherium schlosseri was a giraffid ancestral to the modern giraffe (genus Giraffa) from the late Miocene of Hunan Province, China. It would have resembled a modern giraffe, but, somewhat shorter"


More ancient giraffe species could be found eventually, but again we're not going to find every species that ever lived.

[syyuge]

There are creatures and fishes in deep underwater caves who had no use for their eyes and thus they have lost their eyes permanently and genetically being a redundant mechanism in the long run.

Evolution has to be a genetically tactical capability provided by the Hashem like many and all other capabilities provided by him.

Evolution on a very small scale may be comparable to the changing colors of the Chameleon for survival of the self in alignment with the environment and against the enemies. Obviously this does not provides the immortality to the Chameleon and it also gets fossilized a day along with its near relatives, and some of those fossils may never be found. 

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Science isn't based on opinions.

Assuming-facts-in-dispute is circular logic.

I grew up thinking of evolution as "evilution" and that it was a lie. Only the strength of the evidence convinced me.

Experiential evidence/testimony is never to be taken as valid by itself. Thousands of brainwashed Westerners have converted to Islam based on "the evidence" that the Koran is an inspired book.

So let me ask you a question. Are you against methodological naturalism in science?

Again, this is circular reasoning. Evolution is the only face of methodological naturalism because you say it is.

The accepted view among the public used to be that evil spirits caused disease. Uneducated people around the world still hold this view.

a: This is a classic strawman. By characterizing the opposing side of being of the ilk that does not believe in pathogens, which we can observe empirically, you can dismiss them as ignorant without actually refuting their POV.

b: Yes, I believe that some disease is caused by evil spirits, in certain circumstances, and/or even by G-d himself, at times.

Without the scientific method, people would still think this way. "Spirits did it" or "G-d did it" just is not something that has a place in studying the natural world.

More of this mischaracterizing of evolution opponents. Show me one creation biologist who has an animistic worldview.

Miracles do occcur, but they have no place as an explanation in a scientific context.

Evolution, the way that you believe that it took place, would truly have to be the ultimate "miracle".

I "hold to it" because it has practical scientific applications and the weight of the evidence. It also makes testable predictions.

"Testable predictions"? You mean because organisms with an astronomical reproductive rate like bacteria and insects show gene culling (natural selection) within an observable timeframe when unnaturally tested by chemical poisons? What "testable predictions" in Darwinian evolutionism have been borne out in macrobiotic organisms?