The evolution game is up!!!

[Johnny]

Enzyme A relies on enzyme B for proper functioning, but enzyme B relies on enzyme C to function.

Is this system irreducibly complex? Why or why not?

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually I have tried numerous ways to convince dogmatic evolutionists that "random mutations plus natural selection" is a woefully inadequate mechanism to support the idea that all life descended from a single hypothetical protocell.

Maybe you should try evidence, instead of an unorthodox interpretation of scripture. But then, you don't have any evidence.

I have become convinced this is hopeless in the short run,

I know a guy who has pretty much given up convincing people that the Holocaust never happened. For the same reason.

so have instead concentrated on trying to convince wavering Christians that they do not have to water down scripture to agree with evolution

That's true, but not in the way you want it to be true. Genesis is consistent with some forms of creationism, but it is completely incompatible with YE creationism. And it is perfectly consistent with evolution. No orthodox Christian has to abandon science for his faith.

because evolution is on its way out.

Every generation, creationists assure us that evolution is dying. And each generation, there are fewer creationists. And each generation, more predictions of evolutionary theory are confirmed. There's a correlation there. (Correlation doesn't mean that there isn't a causation)

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2113

Ideas die hard in science, especially if an acceptable scientific idea is not available to replace it.

Tough game, but that's how it works. Until someone comes up with a credible theory that explains the evidence better than evolutionary theory, it's going to remain.

A famous scientist once continued to believe in a theory of combustion which required "negative mass" to fit the results of experiments. He went to his grave still believing in it.

Agassiz died a creationist. But a few odd dissenters aren't the issue. Comparing the "scientists who doubt evolution" list with Project Steve, we come up with about 0.3% of all doctorates in Biology who doubt that it's true.

I think you may be familiar with the case. But in that case a better scientific theory was available. In this case no other "natural" theory is available and scientists hate to give up and accept the God alternative.

Since science can't deal with the supernatural, you're dead in the water if you want to sell your religion as a theory.

Which is why it will take far longer and require many more scientists to die off before the idea finally gets dropped.

The problem for creationism is that the scientists dying off are the creationists. Polls consistently show that the younger and better educated you are, the more likely you are to accept evolutionary theory. Creationism dies hard, but each generation, it dies a little.

Time is your enemy, bob.

 

[Husband&Father]

If there's a thread on evolution how long do I have to wait for someone to post something incredibly stupid and meaningless? I don't think anyone ever claimed that fish evolved from bath water.

Sorry,
you only claimed that fish evolved from something less than a fish but more than bath water.
You can not evade the question of origins by calling a post (that was meant to be stupid) stupid.

Look, in your theory the fish came from something that came from something that came from something......(2 billion random mutation regressions later)...that came from bath water.

Ya know what...come-to-think-about-it, it is a stupid theory.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Sorry,
you only claimed that fish evolved from something less than a fish but more than bath water.
You can not evade the question of origins by calling a post (that was meant to be stupid) stupid.

Look, in your theory the fish came from something that came from something that came from something......(2 billion random mutation regressions later)...that came from bath water.

Ya know what...come-to-think-about-it, it is a stupid theory.

Oh- you meant it to be stupid! That's so much better, right? Nope- no bathwater in the theory of evolution. You got a hygeine fixation or something?

 

[aikido7]

FUNDAMENTALISM, SCIENCE AND CONSISTENCY

FUNDAMENTALISM, SCIENCE AND CONSISTENCY

Why don't fundamentalist evangelicals reject ALL science?

It is definitely unfair at the least--and literally dishonest--to refuse to deal with the theory of evolution and then, for example, take an antibiotic when you get a virus.
Granted--creation is in the Bible and evolution isn’t. But aren't there still are a lot of things in the Bible that clearly don’t apply today, like killing your wife is she’s not a virgin or eating lobster or shrimp in defiance of Leviticus.

Isn't the distrust of science fairly selective, then?

Anyway, this distrust or rejection of science it clearly doesn’t extend to the point to where you are willing to die from a sort throat. Does it?

I am posting this on other threads with "evolution" and/or "creationism" in their titles.

 

[bob b]

Why don't fundamentalist evangelicals reject ALL science?

Actually we don't reject anything that is truly scientific. What we reject are the subjective arguments and scenarios of that psuedoscience which goes by the name of evolution.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Actually we don't reject anything that is truly scientific. What we reject are the subjective arguments and scenarios of that psuedoscience which goes by the name of evolution.

No- you reject sound science and justify it by claiming, without any evidence beyond the argumenty form incredulity, that anything that disagrees with the bible is psuedoscience.

 

[bob b]

No- you reject sound science and justify it by claiming, without any evidence beyond the argumenty form incredulity, that anything that disagrees with the bible is psuedoscience.

I rejected evolution on technical grounds way before I gradually came to believe that the Bible was correct regarding origins.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I rejected evolution on technical grounds way before I gradually came to believe that the Bible was correct regarding origins.

So you keep saying. Yet you continue to dismiss the ever-growing tide of evidence out of hand, because you already know the "truth". Hardly a scientifc attitude. I've read through the cell lines thread and all it is a bunch of incredulity arguments. There is a mountain of data and you pull out a few anomalies and proclaim the whole thing a lie. You have an agenda, and it has been amply demonstrated what that is- to preserve the literal interpretation of Genesis no matter the cost. What evidence would convince you of the truth of the theory of evolution?

 

[bob b]

So you keep saying. Yet you continue to dismiss the ever-growing tide of evidence out of hand, because you already know the "truth".

Show me where I have ever rejected "evidence".

I think you may be unable to differentiate between what is evidence and what are inferences made by people who are trying to explain the evidence using a failing paradigm: "random mutations plus natural selection".

I simply point out their nonsense, which probably is why you mistakingly believe I have rejected "evidence".

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Show me where I have ever rejected "evidence".

I think you may be unable to differentiate between what is evidence and what are inferences made by people who are trying to explain the evidence using a failing paradigm: "random mutations plus natural selection".

I simply point out their nonsense, which probably is why you mistakingly believe I have rejected "evidence".

OK- start with some real evidence of this "failing paradigm" that doesn't boil down to another argument from ignorance. The theory of evolution may be in flux, but it is far from failing.

 

[bob b]

OK- start with some real evidence of this "failing paradigm" that doesn't boil down to another argument from ignorance. The theory of evolution may be in flux, but it is far from failing.

You are attempting to weasel out of your claim that I reject evidence.

Put up or shut up. Tell me what evidence I am rejecting?

Or admit you spoke in error.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You are attempting to weasel out of your claim that I reject evidence.

Put up or shut up. Tell me what evidence I am rejecting?

Or admit you spoke in error.

All of the evidence. Are you saying you accept any of the evidence that has lead the rest of the world to accept evolution as true, or are you suddenly admitting that your disbelief has nothing to with facts at all? We've discussed the evidence for transitional fossils, the DNA similarities between species, the fossil record- you find reasons to conveniently reject all of it. Now you're trying to claim that your great love of scientific truth, not your alleigence to the Bible, prompts this? Expect anyone here to buy that?

 

[bob b]

All of the evidence. Are you saying you accept any of the evidence that has lead the rest of the world to accept evolution as true, or are you suddenly admitting that your disbelief has nothing to with facts at all? We've discussed the evidence for transitional fossils, the DNA similarities between species, the fossil record- you find reasons to conveniently reject all of it. Now you're trying to claim that your great love of scientific truth, not your alleigence to the Bible, prompts this? Expect anyone here to buy that?

They should, it's the truth. As I said I rejected evolution for technical reasons related to DNA long before I began to suspect that the simple story in Genesis was the truth. I had to eat a lot of crow to accept that, but I always have gone with the evidence throughout my career despite the number of people in the opposition, and this stubbornness on my part served me well, because I eventually prevailed.

I see no difference here. Go with the evidence despite the odds against you. It will never let you down. You will be on the winning side in the end.

------
I see you are not able to come up with a single piece of evidence that I have rejected. Talk is cheap and you seem to major in cheap charges that you can not back up.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

I see you are not able to come up with a single piece of evidence that I have rejected. Talk is cheap and you seem to major in cheap charges that you can not back up.

Can you read? No, seriously...can you read?

We've discussed the evidence for transitional fossils, the DNA similarities between species, the fossil record- you find reasons to conveniently reject all of it.

 

[bob b]

Can you read? No, seriously...can you read?

Can you? Do you understand the difference between evidence and inferences people make from the evidence?

I don't reject the evidence here, I embrace it. But I go deeper and use ALL the evidence, not just the parts which seem to support the desired inference.

The transitional situation evidence falsifieds the concept of transitional creatures gradually evolving from ancestral forms. The fossil record also falsifies the conventional gradual evolution into transitional creatures. Ditto for the DNA evidence. You have been deceived by your lack of knowledge regarding the complete set of evidence as well as being ignorant of the recent experiments in biology that show that environmental cues can trigger large changes almost overnight because the DNA coding to support those large changes is already present in the genomes, something that directly falsifies NeoDarwinism, which says that evolution does not plan ahead and create coding that will only be used at a latter time.

So I have rejected no evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Bob is back in "LALALALALALALA, I can't hear you!" mode.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Can you? Do you understand the difference between evidence and inferences people make from the evidence?

I don't reject the evidence here, I embrace it. But I go deeper and use ALL the evidence, not just the parts which seem to support the desired inference.

The transitional situation evidence falsifieds the concept of transitional creatures gradually evolving from ancestral forms. The fossil record also falsifies the conventional gradual evolution into transitional creatures. Ditto for the DNA evidence. You have been deceived by your lack of knowledge regarding the complete set of evidence as well as being ignorant of the recent experiments in biology that show that environmental cues can trigger large changes almost overnight because the DNA coding to support those large changes is already present in the genomes, something that directly falsifies NeoDarwinism, which says that evolution does not plan ahead and create coding that will only be used at a latter time.

So I have rejected no evidence.

Ah- so if you don't like it, it's not evidence. Convenient little "trick". You just love to accuse others of ignorance, don't you? Anytime sometime someone's evaluation of the facts differs from yours it due to ignorance. It's because we are not looking at these very same facts already completely convinced that our core religious convictions trump any available evidence to the contrary. I am aware of all of these issues you keep harping on about- but no one who isn't already convinced of its falsehood is abandoning the ToE. This isn't because they have strong belief that it's true- any one of them would salivate at the thought of starting a revolution with their name in the headlines and the chance to overturn the most controversial scientific theory EVER- but because they understand the theory and do not believe that there any unsolved problems in ToE that can't be clarified with more data. ToE functions because it explains so much- not just superficialities, but mind-blowingly complex systems. I know enough to understand how robust the ToE truly is, and how far reaching its influence. It is the story of life on this planet. I didn't arrive at the conclusion through default or indoctrination. All through my life I have been enthralled by the world of biology and I have eagerly devoured so many books on the subject that if I were half as smart as wish I were I would be an expert on par with the best. Even so, I am an amateur, yes- but an enthusiastic one. I might not have as much technical experience as some but I'm not an idiot. I wasn't brainwashed into accepting some evil theory I don't understand- I have examined evolution through genetics, zoology, microbiology, and even, God help me, botany. I have seen a lot of evidence for ToE- and until I am given real, convincing evidence that it is false I will accept it as true.

 

[bob b]

Ah- so if you don't like it, it's not evidence. Convenient little "trick". You just love to accuse others of ignorance, don't you? Anytime sometime someone's evaluation of the facts differs from yours it due to ignorance. It's because we are not looking at these very same facts already completely convinced that our core religious convictions trump any available evidence to the contrary. I am aware of all of these issues you keep harping on about- but no one who isn't already convinced of its falsehood is abandoning the ToE.

perfectly understandable since there is no scientific alternative.

This isn't because they have strong belief that it's true- any one of them would salivate at the thought of starting a revolution with their name in the headlines and the chance to overturn the most controversial scientific theory EVER- but because they understand the theory and do not believe that there any unsolved problems in ToE that can't be clarified with more data.

The major reason they can't abandon it is because there is no acceptable alternative scientific theory.

ToE functions because it explains so much- not just superficialities, but mind-blowingly complex systems.

It doesn't explain how complex systems can form step-by-step over vast periods of time. This is because by its very nature it cannot predict what the next step might be. It simply assumes the idea is true because it is so "neat".

I know enough to understand how robust the ToE truly is, and how far reaching its influence. It is the story of life on this planet. I didn't arrive at the conclusion through default or indoctrination. All through my life I have been enthralled by the world of biology and I have eagerly devoured so many books on the subject that if I were half as smart as wish I were I would be an expert on par with the best. Even so, I am an amateur, yes- but an enthusiastic one. I might not have as much technical experience as some but I'm not an idiot. I wasn't brainwashed into accepting some evil theory I don't understand- I have examined evolution through genetics, zoology, microbiology, and even, God help me, botany. I have seen a lot of evidence for ToE- and until I am given real, convincing evidence that it is false I will accept it as true.

All theories can be explained to many people's satisfaction if one accepts stories that sound plausible. Before the discovery of DNA the idea seemed quite plausible. Using the ToE as a paradigm people have come up with literally thousands of plausible sounding stories from many different fields. To break through this mountain of plausible sounding stories one cannot argue them one at a time. New stories will be invented faster than old ones fade away (and many old ones have faded away).

What will be the breakthrough in my opinion will be when it can be predicted what DNA sequences will yield functional proteins (ones that will fold up and hence be functional). At that point it will be possible to determine whether there really are feasible pathways from one protein to another without hiting "blockages" where no small change is able to yield a functional protein.

That day is not eminent due to the enormous difficulty, even with supercomputers, of determining a functional protein given only its linear sequence. But it will eventually become possible. Then the feasibility of "evolving" by small steps will become more of a science and less of a speculation.

 

[SUTG]

[Evolution] doesn't explain how complex systems can form step-by-step over vast periods of time.

Sure it does. Do you know what evolution is?!? That is exactly what it explains.

This is because by its very nature it cannot predict what the next step might be.

So what?

It simply assumes the idea is true because it is so "neat".

No, we conclude that the idea is true because there is so much "evidence".