The Shell Game of Evolution Scientists play a game in which they use facts from phenomena for which there is clear empirical evidence to support related ideas for which there is little to no empirical evidence. This is especially true when it comes to the theory of evolution, which holds that undirected, chemical biological processes generated the very first life forms, and then caused these life forms to undergo transformations to generate the diversity of life that we see throughout earth’s history. This idea of biological evolution is the prevailing view among the scientific community to explain life’s origin and history. However, it is a mistake to think of evolution as having a single mode of expression or as playing out in a singular fashion. In the most generic sense, the term simply conveys the notion of change with respect to (or that happens over) time. But when it comes to biological systems, there are at least five different categories of change that fall under evolution’s umbrella. They include: Microevolution Speciation Microbial evolution Macroevolution Chemical evolution There is overwhelming evidence for the first three types of evolution…but not so much for the last two. Microevolution refers to variation that takes place within a species in response to changes within the environment or in competitive and/or predator pressures—or due to random processes that scientists refer to as “genetic drift.” Microevolution does not create a new species, but simply allows a species to adapt to changes in its environment or experiences. Speciation is a process in which long-term microevolution occurs over a significant period of time due to population isolation—where parts of the population become isolated from each other, and as a consequence, the two populations begin to assume different characteristics and/or different features. But there is nothing radical that happens here in terms of evolutionary mechanisms being able to create anything genuinely new. Instead, it is a single species branching into two closely related sister species that are very much the same in many respects, though they differ enough to be considered different species. Microbial evolution happens among viruses, bacteria and single-celled organisms (eukaryotes) like amoebas and paramecia, for example. The malaria parasite would be another example of this type of organism. It is very clear from the scientific evidence that microorganisms can evolve. But again, there is nothing radical that is happening. These are still organisms that are viruses, bacteria, and single-celled eukaryotes that do not really change their characteristics all that much. They still would be considered, in a sense, the same species, but they are able to undergo evolutionary change just because of the sheer population size. The population sizes are so large that even random events are able to stumble on beneficial mutations or advantages, allowing these organisms to evolve. However, scientists go too when they point to these occurrences as evidence that evolution has genuine creative power or potential. The idea that nature created complex living entities from simple molecules all on its own (i.e., abiogenesis, chemical evolution, or the origin of life) through a process in which a complex chemical mixture underwent a series of transformations to generate the very first cells or life forms, ascribes to the evolutionary process something that cannot be observed anywhere in the environment. Likewise, macroevolution is the unverifiable idea that evolution can transform one major biological group into another. Common examples include dinosaurs evolving into birds, wolf-like creatures evolving into whales, or ape-like creatures evolving into human beings. It says that the diversity of life throughout the history of life on earth can be explained though unguided, undirected evolutionary mechanisms. Again, there is overwhelming evidence for microevolution, speciation, and microbial evolution. But when it comes to the ideas of chemical evolution (the origin of life) and macroevolution, one sees very significant scientific challenges, and this is where the shell game of evolution comes into play. Because there is overwhelming evidence for microevolution, speciation and microbial evolution, scientists will point to these categories and say, “Look, evolution is a fact!” and then try to extrapolate the weight of evidence found here, and apply it to concepts like chemical evolution and macroevolution. For example, they will argue that because microevolution is a fact, we can be confident that an ape-like creature over the span of seven million years evolved through a series of transitional forms to produce the very first human beings. In other words, they will use evidence from microevolution to validate a concept that falls under the umbrella of macroevolution, and many people allow themselves to be sucked into this shell game of evolution. Nonetheless, evidence for microevolution is evidence for just that—microevolution. Microevolution does not prove macroevolution. To justify human evolution, there are certain scientific criteria that must be met independently of the evidence of microevolution, speciation and microbial evolution. These issues will be looked at in greater detail elsewhere.
Science disputes these theories. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.life.illinois.edu/bio100/lectures/s10lects/26s10-evidence.html https://www.nature.com/scitable/kno...ion-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/
On the larger scale question, as someone raised a fundamentalist Christian...even if you comprehensively prove (which I believe is far from the case, btw) that a "god" is responsible for creating everything alive, how does that say anything about if that god hates gay sex or eating pigs or any of the other myriad things that make up all of the thousands of religions that people have created over time that depend on a "god", most of which are mutually exclusive? Pretty much everyone going down this "intelligent design" path is doing so to push their personal religion, when in reality even if you accepted it's dubious or downright false tenants as true it does nothing to support any one of thousands of religions with a "god" creator over any other.
I am going to put you on ignore ph1l, not because I have a problem with opposing viewpoints, but because you simply copy and paste them indiscriminately. I already know they exist. No doubt, I will be critiquing many of them in the future. But when you merely paste them in bulk with no in-depth thoughts or comments, you just add clutter to the thread in the form of text that I'm never going to read, and which the obsessive compulsive side of my personality finds to be annoying to my sense of organization. If you had something substantive to say, for example, as Ayn Rand did in Post #9, then the part of my brain that likes to see things neatly arranged would not be so bothered—but you don't, and though I've tried to indulge this, my eyes cannot tolerate it any more. So, I'm electing to "disappear" it by putting you on ignore, and you can continue to copy and paste to your heart's desire without affecting the aesthetics of the thread for me. Enjoy
I would have thought you would welcome opposing research attributed to sources other than the opinions of anonymous Internet posters. And I was taught Christians should be tolerant -- good Christians that is. Perhaps that's another myth or maybe ...
"Unfortunately, virtually all of the science books produced by today’s main textbook publishers—not to mention the general public and even many scientists—are not aware of decades of research in evolutionary science, molecular biology and genome sequencing which contradict Darwin’s explanations for how novel organisms have originated in the long history of life on earth." I am personally well acquainted with three creation scientists. Two of them have PhDs in their area of scientific expertise. Also, two of them have made known that there is much suppression in the academic world of any science that supports creation science or that contradicts the theory of evolution. One is a professor in a public university science department. He will not share with his colleagues that he believes that science supports a young earth creation and that science does not support evolution. He knows he will lose his job if he openly shares those evidences. Ben Stein starred a film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film documents some incidences of suppression of scientists who believe Intelligent Design to be accurate scientifically. The film exposes only a small portion of the large scale deception that has gone on for a while now. Here is an excerpt from a review of the film written by Mark Looy for Answers in Genesis: "As a demonstration of how the evolution police can mete out injustice, the film’s first “persecutee” is an evolutionist himself: Richard Sternberg. He does not doubt evolution, yet Sternberg’s very act of allowing a peer-reviewed research paper that presented evidence for intelligent design to be published in a science journal (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington) led to his forced resignation and a career “ruined.” Sternberg, with two PhDs, was the target of the anti-creationist group National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution (where Sternberg was a researcher), as these groups orchestrated an effort to have him expelled from his position."https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/expelled-review/ Some quotes for all you evolutionists to consider: Karl Popper, a well respected evolutionist argued that "evolutionary theory contains no testable laws and is therefore a metaphysical research program." https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/691119 pg. 1 Michael Ruse is an evolutionist that wrote a book called The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Below are two quotes from him taken from this site: https://creation.com/michael-ruse-evolution-is-a-religion "Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. “… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000." style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); background-color: transparent; margin-bottom: 4px; border-bottom: none; cursor: pointer;">1 Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion." The following quotes are from some reviews of Michael Ruse's book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, taken at this site: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674022553&content=reviews “Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State University, is one of the most stimulating writers on the never-ending cultural debate over evolution. Here, this self-professed ‘ardent Darwinian’ arrives at a surprisingly sympathetic view of the anti-Darwin crowd. They may be wrong, but they’re not quite as crazy as we smugly imagine.”—Jim Holt, New York Magazine “In view of all that has been written, one might wonder what more there is to be said. Michael Ruse’s The Evolution–Creation Struggle represents a genuinely fresh perspective. Ruse, an eminent and well-respected historian and philosopher of biology, has over the course of several decades established himself as a vocal advocate for evolution… The task of Ruse’s book is to figure out why the evolution/creation debate is so hotly disputed in the American context, why so many otherwise intelligent people are in such complete disagreement about the scientific status of evolution and creation science. Ruse’s answer, in short, is that the debate reflects two fundamentally different reactions to a crisis of faith that started at least 150 years before the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. After reviewing the history of evolutionary theory against the backdrop of this larger crisis, Ruse draws several lessons he suggests may provide a way beyond the impasse that currently exists between advocates on the two sides… It is certainly true that greater insight into the reasons why some Christians feel threatened by evolutionary theory is a necessary step to any reconciliation between these two opposing camps, and Ruse’s treatment is particularly useful in clarifying why the issues have become so heated in the American context. For science educators, Ruse’s analysis is insightful and entertaining. It is one of a very few books that is accessible to an introductory student while nevertheless providing a sophisticated perspective of value to scholars in this area.”—David Rudge, Science Education The bold lettering and underlining is mine. I think it's funny that we supposedly aren't as crazy as you all thought we were. Also, it was nice of David Rudge to say that it's intelligent people who are are in disagreement on both sides of the issue. The point is, I think a lot of folks would be surprised at the amount of science they haven't been told about that contradicts evolution and lends support to creation.
There might be a God. There may not be a God. My opinion, there is a 'god' but it's nothing like Christians or other religions portray. The 'god' I have in my imagination is not one who wants constant prayers sent his way or wants humans to sing his praises every Sunday starting at 10:00 am. Having a discussion with a Christian would be similar to attempting to convince the CCP to be a democratic political party, both being steadfast in their opinion, won't waver, and in actual fact will attempt to slyly get you to join them. I was once a Christian for many many years, I know how they think, group think for the most part. Christian gathered looking for God.
Is there any genuine evidence for macroevolution? Many evolutionary biologists argue that there is overwhelming evidence for macroevolution, with this evidence coming primarily in the form of the fossil record. This is of course a very bold statement. But just because a statement is made does not necessarily make it true. So then, can biological evolution really account for the history of life on earth and the diversity of life we see today? Well, when we look objectively at the fossil record, we see that it does not look like one would expect it to look if macroevolution were a reality. If this were the case and macroevolution did indeed account for the history of life on earth, the record should evidence the unfolding of a gradual evolutionary history with innumerable numbers of transitional forms documenting the transformation of one major group into another—and we would see this again, and again, and again. Yet, what we actually see is a near absence of transitional intermediate forms. In fact, Charles Darwin recognized this when he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. He even devoted a number of chapters to problems with his theory, one of which was… “By this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” In fact, this problem which Darwin recognized in his day still persists even now. Stephen Jay Gould, the late evolutionary biologist and scientist from Harvard University stated that “all paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” So, the fact of the matter is that the fossil record does not support the evolutionary paradigm (i.e., macroevolution). It does not look like one would expect it to look if biological evolution actually took place. Yet, this does not stop evolutionary biologist from still making the claim that “there is overwhelming evidence for macroevolution.” They instead argue that it simply reflects the incompleteness of the fossil record, and attempt to point to examples of transitional forms that they argue do indeed document macroevolutionary changes. Two examples that are prominently discussed which are even in some biology textbooks are the so-called fishapods (tetrapods) and the origin of whales. The term “fishapod” refers to transitional forms that presumably document the first appearance of animal life on land, where lobe-finned fishes undergo a series of transitional forms ultimately producing the very first land vertebrates. These would be amphibian-type creatures. Presumably the first amphibians on land (Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) were organisms that looked similar to very large salamanders. However, one would expect fishapods that truly document the evolutionary transformation from fish to amphibian to evidence gradual changes occurring over a vast period of time due to transitioning from organisms living in an aquatic environment to organisms that could survive on land. In such a case, the amount of change that would have to happen anatomically and physiologically would be enormous and would therefore be expected to take place over a very prolonged time period. But instead, the time from the very first appearance of the lobe-finned fish believed to have given rise to the tetrapods and the emergence of the very first tetrapod on land is on the order of a mere ten million years. In terms of evolution, this is a very rapid transition going from water to land, which makes this explanation for how creatures first transitioned from water to land suspect. Moreover, all of the fishapods appear at the same time in the fossil record. In other words, they coexist and overlap. They do not appear in the sequential manner one would expect if one were viewing a clear documentation of evolutionary transformations. Also, the sequence of events in the fishapod fossil record is out of order. For example, Panderichthys is considered to be one of the very first fishapods, very closely related to lobe-finned fish. But when scientists examine the forelimbs of Panderichthys, it actually has digits instead of fins. But Tiktaalik, which is supposed to be a perfect midpoint between a lobe-finned fish and a tetrapod, does have fins on its forelimbs and does not have digits. In other words, the development is out of order. The same type of thing is observed in the case of Ventastega. It is considered to be a rather primitive fishapod, yet it appears relatively late in the sequence, once again out of order, with this more primitive creature appearing on the scene later rather than earlier in the sequence. And finally, in Poland scientists discovered 400-million-year-old footprints made in the mud by Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. (They based this determination on the pattern of the footprints and the nature of the imprints, which caused them to conclude that they were made by tetrapods.) However, according to the fossil record, tetrapods do not appear on land until 365 million years ago, and these did not evolve legs until 385 million years ago at the earliest. In other words, scientists see evidence for some kind of amphibian walking on land well before the transition from fish to amphibian takes place in the fossil record. The fact that we see all of these things out of sequence is troubling, to say the least. Seeing transitional forms after the forms they supposedly evolved into in the fossil record is known as a temporal paradox by scientists, and unfortunately, the origin of tetrapods is characterized by temporal paradox. Now, when it comes to the origin of whales, we once again see a similar type of problem. Whales supposedly evolved through a series of transitional forms beginning with some kind of wolf-like creature (Pakicetus) that then evolved through a series of transitional forms to give rise to the first true whales, all happening in the neighborhood of about fifty-five million years ago. But just like with the origin of tetrapods, this transition takes place very rapidly, in a range of ten million years or less, with transitional forms co-occurring (overlapping) in the fossil record. That is to say, they do not appear in a sequential manner. This is again troubling from an evolutionary perspective. It is a pattern that one would not expect to see if these were indeed transitional forms. It all suggests that scientist are imposing subjective interpretations on findings based on preconceived notions stemming from their looking at everything from an evolutionary vantage point and with a predisposed bias. (Based on a presentation by Dr. Fazale Rana)