Forums → WEPR → Evolution

From thepyro222 post in the locked thread "Evolution, my ancestors were not mutant fish monkies

The problem is that the big bang is answering the wrong question... it answers 'how.' It doesn't answer 'why.'
It is evident that the Universe is expanding, There is a beginning of this universe, but the big bang fails to answer why.

(Including this since I'm not sure if my last post in the locked thread got through)
Dawkins answers this pretty well. We can answer why through the how just as we can answer why the sky appears blue. But the why here is asking for purpose. What is the purpose of the sky appearing blue, this is a silly question.

here's a link for some scientific evidence on creation If you're really looking for answers or a rebuttal, read that, if you don't, then you're just on here to troll, and you're not worth my time.

Now for your evidence. Starting off before I even read this I'm going to make a prediction. My prediction is that it won't offer any evidence but instead try to offer points that will attempt to disprove the scientific theories then assert creation as the explanation. I will also predict that it will likely do this using a number of fallacies at least including the use of the quote mine fallacy and will use flat out lies. Now let's see if this is the case.

First off let's get to know why the author is. a one Dr.Duane Gish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Duane_Gish

For once we are actually dealing with someone who is in biology, this is actually rather unusual for this sort of claim of creation as usually when you encounter someone with a PHd claiming creation their field of expertize has nothing to do with biology or chemistry. However as pointed out in the links above Dr.Gish often uses underhanded tactics in debate "Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly." As pointed out in rationalwiki he also ignores the evidence, makes misrepresentations, using old claims discarded claims as if they are still valid, and spreads inaccuracy of science or as the site puts it "Just not understanding basic science".

Given his field he really should know better than to make the claims he is making. As such I would conclude this person is simply dishonest. But moving on.

This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto.

Creationism states that the various forms of life and the universe were created by a god out of nothing, usually in the way described in Genesis.
When we consider this concept of god comes from these religious beliefs I find this a rather funny statement, made even funnier when you consider what else is on the very site.

So who is the Institute for Creation Research?
"After more than four decades of ministry, the Institute for Creation Research remains a leader in scientific research within the context of biblical creation. Founded by Dr. Henry Morris in 1970, ICR exists to conduct scientific research within the realms of origins and earth history, and then to educate the public both formally and informally through graduate and professional training programs, through conferences and seminars around the country, and through books, magazines, and media presentations."

So this site is teaching in the context of Biblical creation but has an article stating that creation can be taught "without any mention of religious doctrine". When you do this the name of it changes to intelligent design which is really nothing more than "creationism in a lab coat"

So far I haven't gotten past the second paragraph of the Introduction and already we are dealing with a dishonest author and a point that is contradictory to what the rest of the site states.

Dr.Gish's quote "Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms." Which is a flat out lie, as evidenced by the statements made on the rest of the site such as in their description of who they are.

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time.

First off kind is often very poorly defined, This is to allow for the creationist to be able to move the goalpost as to what they are talking about. As for the gaps we have a pretty good picture of transitions in both the fossil record and in our own genetics. So right off the bat the creation model is not fitting the observations.

The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds.

Since this points out that complexity can't emerge through evolutionary processes, I have to ask what limits it? However we do see the addition of new genes in organisms through the process of evolution. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm This would indicate an increase of complexity through the process of evolution.

Microevolution is still evolution as it still fits the definition of changes in allelle frequency in a species from one generation to the next. Unless Dr.Gish is talking about horizontal gene transfer "where genes are transferred from one organism to another by means other than genes received from an ancestor" -wiki, in which case he is being dishonest misrepresenting the term. The other problem here is that horizontal gene transfer only happens with microscopic organisms. So such a definition wouldn't fit with macroscopic organisms which we still see microevolution occurring.
Microevolution; development of genetic changes below the speciation threshold.
What this is stating is that creation disagrees with macroevolution which is evolution as or above the level of the speciation threshold. But we have observed instance of this happening 29+ Cases for Macroevolution. However what this ignores is all macroevolution is, is microevolution just an a larger scale.

I would like to point out this video at this point. Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not like that!)

The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:

Now on to this list.

Creation
1. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.
2. Life was suddenly created.
3. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.
4. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.
5. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.
6. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).
7. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

Evolution
1. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
2. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
3. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
4. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
5. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
6. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
7. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.

Okay now for a break down.

1. The formation or creation (if you prefer) of the universe is not part of biological evolution.

In the expanded part they try to argue thermodynamics.
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states."
This is actually a common misconception (that is still often promoted in text books). Entropy as disorder is not the case, it's more energy desperation. This means that entropy can result in both disorder and ordered states. So the universe having ordered states in it is not going against the second law of thermodynamics and thus would allow for local systems that are open (which the second law applies to closed systems) to be ordered, allowing for the systems we see today emerge.

This point is also specifically covered in rationalwikis WRONG WRONG WRONG pointing out how Dr.Gish "Just not understanding basic science"

"or it would have run down long ago."
Actually no, we have a starting point with plenty enough energy going around to allow it to continue til today and beyond. This assertion is just a flat out lie. It is thought that eventually the universe will wined down and experience a heat death, we are simply not at that point yet.

"The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1"

This has a citation mark on it and they are citing themselves.

This point really doesn't offer evidence for creation but just tries to discredit established scientific theory and insert creation in it's place. (Hey what did I predict!)

2. This is also not part of evolution but is covered by abiogenesis.

"

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3

"

First off this is coming from something written in 1965. Way to keep up with current information.
Anyway, gaps are to be expected given the way fossils form. In fact given how many we have founds is amazing. To put it to an analogy we went looking for a needle in a haystack and found a near complete sewing kit.
Another way to think of it is to think of it like a series of snapshots of a person growing up. We might have a snapshot of the person as an infant, then one a few years later as a toddler, then as a preteen, teen, adult and finally as a senior citizen. Just because we are missing snapshots between these stages of life does not mean they didn't take place.
With evolution it get's even better as we don't even need these "snapshots" to tell we have an interconnection with the rest of life on the planet. we can tell this through the existence of the same mutations as a result of retroviruses found in the same location in different species.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed."

Already went over the second law in point one but I do want to point out how they use another flat out lie in the bolded text.

"The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable."

Dr.Gish is citing himself. I can only guess he is talking about the Miller Urey experiment. While it's true about the conditions corrections to the conditions of the experiment as it match the model of the early Earth environment were made in a repeat experiment and produced even better and more diverse results. As for it not producing life I think this is to be expected as this showed that the building blocks of life could form. Basically this shows that what is needed for life can arise on it's own. This is like saying we can get the components for life to emerge but we can't get life to emerge.

"The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate."

Again it attempts to discredit what science is stating and assert creation rather than provide evidence for creation.

Also about these first two points I would like to note how the creation side is claiming that these things just popped intro existence, a point creationists often like to incorrectly rail against science by saying that it claims "something from nothing" It would seem something from nothing is no better than out of the hand of a god, as god is working with nothing and makes something according to these points.

3. We finally touch on what evolution actually deals with. I got to love the use of "then mammals, then primates, including man" as if primates are something other than mammals, but anyway.... The creation side definitely runs into problems here. If we did have all the life that ever existed on this planet all at once we wold have huge bids for the same niche. Further more we never find any evidence of things like mammals existing at certain points in time. So the creation side not only again fails to fit observations but creates further issues with it's model.

"None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates."

Okay for the single celled organisms to invertebrates I'm not sure what they are going on about. As soon as we get an organism that is more then a single cell we have invertebrates.

As for the rest of this tripe,yes we do have such examples in the fossil record.

invertebrate-vertebrate
1. Pikaia gracilens
2. Conodont
3. Haikouichthys
4. Arandaspis prionotolepis (it's a fish)

fish-amphibian
5. Osteolepis
6. Eusthenopteron
7. Panderichthys
8. Tiktaalik
9. Ventastega
10. Elginerpeton
11. Acanthostega
12. Ichthyostega
13. Hynerpeton
14. Tulerpeton (a reptiliomorpha, reptilian like amphibian. Considered one of the first true tetrapods)
15. Pederpes
16. Eryops (semi-aquatic amphibian)

amphibian-reptile
17. Proterogyrinus
18. Limnoscelis
19. Tseajaia
20. Solenodonsaurus
21. Hylonomus (early reptile)
22. Paleothyris

reptile to modern birds has a missing step with dinosaurs, which we can follow.

dinosaur evolution
23. Chasmatosaurus
24. Dromomeron
25. Marasuchus
26. Eoraptor

dinosaur-bird
34. Pedopenna
35. Anchiornis
36. Archaeopteryx
37. Confuciusornis
38. Eoalulavis
39. Sinornis
40. Vorona
41. Ichthyornis

As for reptile to mammals...

reptile-mammal
27. Protoclepsydrops (Begins the change from reptiles to mammals.)
28. Clepsydrops
29. Dimetrodon
30. Procynosuchus
31. Thrinaxodon (mammal like reptile)
32. Morganucodon (early mammals)
33. Yanoconodon

As for the lower mammal to primate evolution I don't have a list preconstructed, but wiki has a short example of these connections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate#Evolutionary_history

"While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links."

Not sure what else I can say but, yes they do.

"The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data."

This is yet again another flat out lie. The only people I know of treating this as questionable are the creationists.

"Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms."

I would also like to again point out that non of this is needed to determine the evolution and transition of species.

"A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances."

Okay so this does confirm that we are talking about species when they say "kind". Well we do see new "kinds" emerging. Some pretty good examples of this are in ring species.

"Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes)."

Yes it would require the addition of new traits, as I already pointed out we have seen this occur in Italian wall lizards. We also find new traits emerge in organisms such as the nylonase.

4. Yes mutations and natural selection have helped bring about new species

"The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years."

the probability is 1 in 1. Also the numbers usually used it determine this are usually just pulled out of their ***. Further more the mechanisms of how these traits arise makes gives it even better chances. Probability

"Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment."

Wrong, most mutations are neutral and have no effect one way or the other. Those that are harmful get weeded out by the mechanism of natural selection leaving us with advanced from the positive ones. For a biochemist this is just sad to use such a statement and since this is suppose to be coming from a biochemist I would call this just a flat out lie.
It should also be noted that mutation is not the only mechanism nor is it the most important.

"Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms."

"It's not the fittest, nor the most intelligent, but the ones that adapt the best that will live and evolve" -Charles Darwin

I'm thinking one of these two people doesn't know what natural selection is stating. Want to take a guess who?

Anyway it's not circular this is a complete mus-characterization of the mechanism. We start with a group with two variations, nature selects for one of the two as one offers an advantage for survival the other does not. As a result more of the one with the variation offering the advantage is likely to survive long enough to reproduce. The end result we get more of one variation than the other in the group. This is not requiring itself to prove itself.

It is testable, all one needs to do to test it is observe a group as it goes from one generation to the next.

Yet again it does not provide evidence for creation but merely attacks the mechanisms of evolution.

5. Again our observations of genetics and of the fossil record have to be ignored to believe separate ancestry.

"Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general, monkeys, apes, and men."

I'm just going to call bull**** here. We have such a complete record that at time we aren't even sure if we are dealing with a new species or just a slight variation between the two. The evidence (both in fossil records and genetics) is pretty strong.

In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.

This is based on very outdated information. Most of Zuckerman's colleagues actually disagreed with him. Also his entire statement was based on a cast of one-half of one fossil pelvis. He never looked at any of the original fossils.
There are plenty of transition forms that we have found (The 9th falsehood of Creationism: "No transitional species have ever been found.")

"The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these &quotrimitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human."

This is again another flat out lie. Not that they were once thought to be our descendants but aren't any more but that they are classified as the same species as us. We have mapped their genome and found they were very different from his genetically.

"Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright."

Complete misrepresentation, this is the quote being referred to.
"it is clear that the actual overall mode of locomotion of the orang-utan today is not the model for these creatures"

"The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus)."

Yet another flat out lie. Nebraska Man didn't fool anyone. Piltdown man was suspect from the start and thoughts that it was a fraud only grew as time went on as it didn't fit with other finds. Neither had "near-universal acceptance" and were through out thanks to the scientific method.

Yet again it offers no evidence for creation and just attacks science.

6. The geological layers we see would have to have formed through gradual processes. Even if we had a huge catastrophe, such an even would only be found in a single layer.

There really isn't much here to comment on beyond what I have already said. It just keeps saying how the earth has been through catastrophes, at times trying to elude the Noah's flood.

"Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers"

It should be noted that the rapid processes that result in the formation of polystrate fossils are often followed by very slow periods accumulation of sediment.

Anyway all of the points made here are dealing with very localized phenomena and specific conditions. Which would still not fit the observations on a global scale. Not really sure how this is evidence for creation either.

7. Actually there are two camps in creation, one that does accept an old Earth and one working from a young Earth model. So claiming an old Earth is not exclusive to Evolution.

"Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time."

Seeing as I'm getting tired here I'm going to hand the radiomateric dating arguments over to Talkorgins.

Radiometric dating falsely assumes that initial conditions are known, that none of the daughter components are in the mineral initially.

Radiometric dating falsely assumes that the rocks being dated are closed systems. It inappropriately assumes that no parent or daughter isotopes were added or removed via other processes through the history of the sample.

and at the root of this argument.
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.

"Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape."

This is actually rather funny given how he was just railing against the use of decay rates, then using one as an example for a young earth. Also there is yet another flat out lie here the mechanisms for the escape of helium from our atmosphere does account for this.

Not sure if this will copy correctly.

"The escape of 2 to 4 x 106 ions/cm2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 ±1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux." -Banks and Holzer

Any rate here we have pictures from NASA showing this in action.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast08dec98_1/

"Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten."

The citation appears to be their own from a long time ago.

"Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years."

Anyway this one yet again appear to be pulled from there own anus.

Finally they have tried to present some sort of evidence for a young Earth, let's have a look at the evidence as self contained.

one estimates the Earth at 10,000 years, the second has ti at several millions years, a third has it at no more than 20,000 years. Their evidence even if accepted as fully valid does not agree with each other. The independent radiometric dating methods used do however agree with each other.

evolution is a bunch of junk.
No way we humans, as advanced as we are, could have accidently evolved.

And yet here we are, standing tall, give it another couple of hundred thousand years and who knows what our descendants will be like? Or millions of years down the line, assuming the homo lineage still goes on, will they look back at us now and laugh at our 'rimitive nature'? Advancement and complexity are, for the most part, concepts that are decided by humans as we are now.

I'd also like to point out that Evolution is by far more plausible and backed by evidence than creationism will ever be.

No way we humans, as advanced as we are, could have accidently evolved.

Define "advanced as we are." If you mean our bodies, there are creatures with far more imposing abilities. We have just created tools which allow us to surpass those animals. Human vs Lion? Lion food. Human vs shark? Shark food. Human vs velociraptor? Raptor food.

Let's also not forget that there is absolutely no evidence for creationism, that unbacked religious claims have time and time again throughout history been proven to be false, and that we have so much evidence for evolution that there are more scientists sharing a single name which accept it as true than there are creationist scientists.

evolution is a bunch of junk.

Please go through the links on the first page or on my profile and point out how it's a bunch of junk.

No way we humans, as advanced as we are, could have accidently evolved.

Correct, we didn't evolve by accident. Evolution wasn't functioning based on an accidents. It functions on natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow and mutation.

the development of sentience can't

Yes it can. It's called the brain.

Adam and Eve may have existed, not as the first Homo sapiens, but as the first sentient ones.

Sentience isn't a "you have it or you don't," thing. Animals such as Dolphins, certain apes, whales, and other "smart" animals make us re-evaluate our outlook on intelligence. Apes for example have been taught sign language (being as how they don't have the vocal cords to make our sounds) and have actually "invented" their own signs for things, and taught that sign language to their offspring. Dolphins are perhaps the smartest animal aside from humans.

the development of sentience can't.

Why can't it? Also think what you mean here is sapience. Science fiction has confused the two terms. sentience is the ability to feel, to have subjective perceptual experiences. Many animals on Earth are sentient. Sapience is to act with appropriate judgement as part of intelligence, or as the word it's derived from wisdom.

Adam and Eve may have existed, not as the first Homo sapiens, but as the first sentient ones.

You might want to do a bit more reading into the field of neuroscience. You might also want to look into how the human brain evolved. You might then see how ridiculous this sounds.

There, you can see that God exists and that he made the world.

So the 'greeting' video on that site says mathematics assume god?
The fact that the number three, as a concept, comes from a material neural signal(*) in our brain that allows us to recognize three random items/symbols doesn't tell me that there is a deity, even less that said deity created the world.

Oh and btw, who says that everything is material? Actually in an atom matter only makes a ridiculously small amount; what you see around you is mostly void, light and energy (roughly).

(*) electric signal due to potential difference between two neurons, created by the changing of ion concentration within a neuron

There, you can see that God exists and that he made the world.

R u serious? I mean really Macfan. I thought you had hit your low with the music video singing about God. Now you're going to go with Eric Hovind?

3 is a number that we named for an amount of something. That's why you can't "touch it" because it's a name which arbitrarily represents various things. 3 apples, 3 planes, 3 death stars, 3 afajghjksafds's. Whatever you want to call it. 6 is just twice as much as 3, and the same thing goes. A concept which is based on MATERIAL things which was NAMED by us.

Personally, I believe the fossil record offers solid proof of evolution, but while the existence of the cosmos, life, and biological diversity CAN be scientifically explained, the development of sentience can't.

...And why not?

Adam and Eve may have existed, not as the first Homo sapiens, but as the first sentient ones

What do you base that off of? The Bible pretty much states Yawheh made them out of dirt.

And seeing as all of humanity is sentient, they were probably African. Take that, bigots.

Yes. An African is responsible for all sin and hell, take that bigots!