[PRACTICE] Hone your skills

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-02-01 12:09am

Let's see who can write the most concise and eloquent rebuttal to the following rather generic creationist argument that somebody E-mailed me:

Nevertheless, contrary to popular myth, Darwinian evolution is still far from proven. In a masterful book called Darwin on Trial (1991) Phillip E. Johnson has presented the modern evidence against evolution. First, despite tremendous effort, evolutionists have failed completely to explain how life could have arisen by accident from inert matter. Concerning this problme, even natural selection is a useless tool, since it could not have existed before reproductive life existed.

Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection. Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.

Nor have any clear intermediates been found between fish and amphibians, bewtween amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mamals, between reptiles and birds, between the first mamal and bird and their alleged descendants, and between early and later plants--despite the fact that just the number of intermediates between teh first mammal and later mammals as various as the while and the bat alone would have to have been incredibly large (as Darwin himself admitted). Though a few paltry species have been put forward as intermediates ( a tiny fraction of that required to prove the theory), their claims are dubious at best, and in no area has a plausible pattern of evolution been clearly demonstrated.

For instance, of the four species alleged to have been human ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus appear more likely to have been apes with a few distinctive features than intermediates (a leadng biometricist claims there is no evidence that they walked upright), and Homo habilis seems to be a mythical species--leaving Homo erectus, the most likely candidate for a human ancestor, an isolated species (it would take far more than one questionable intermediate to demonstrate a pattern of evolution). Indeed, the pattern revealed by fossils by the sudden extinction of numerous species and the sudden emergence of new species--not the slow proces of evolution Darwin envisioned. For instance, the five million year fossil record of Big Horn Basin in Wyoming shows no discernable change in species.

Third, the enormous complexity of even the simplest organism renders it highly unlike that Darwin's tiny mutations could convert one species into another. For instance, how could the eye, the wing, and the human brain have evolved by natural selection? Vision, flight, and higher thought are all functions of such staggering complexity, involving the precise interaction of numerous parts. A darwinian micromutation, such as one that might create a lense or a retina would not provide any advantage to an organism's survival and reproduction--would in fact be utterly useless--unless accompanied by numerous other micromutations, each of the precise type required to create the other parts of the organ in question. Wings are even more difficult to explain using natural selection, since the evolution of forelimbs into wings would have placed the intermediates at a serious disadvantage long before htey became useful for flying. It is hard to imagine the complex avian lung, the complicated sonar system of the bat, and an almost infinite number of other intricate organic mechanism arising through the accidental accumulation of precisely the corect parts. Furthermore, most body parts are not the product of a specific gene, but of interactions among various genes, with each individual gene contributing to various different properties. Since a destructive effect on any essential body function is fatal, any mutation that had such an effect, however beneficial in some other respect, would prove fatal. Darwin's theory of evolution says that each part of the bodily system arose by chance and was preserved by change for long periods until the accidental appearance of numerous other parts of the precise kind required, finally kmade the original part useful, without any of the changes proving detrimental enough to threaten the species' survival in the meantime. A group of world-renown statistians declared evolution unlikely on that basis.

FOurth, there is no pattern of evolution at the molecular level.

Fifth, despite several millenia of intense experimentaion, plant and animal breeders have only been able to create new varieties within the species through artificial selection. They have never been able to convert one species into antoher--though human intelligence is far more powerful than mere accident or change. Sixth, it is now known that similarities in the structures of different animals cannot be pressed back to any similarity in the position of the cells of embryos and that these similar structures need not be controlled by identical genes. If the similaries of animal structures are the result of a common biological desent, why don't these similarities arise from common embryonic parts and similar genes? In other words, Darwin's embryology argument has been discredited.

Supposedly, this came from a History professor. Because as we all know, if you want a qualified opinion on Biology, you should talk to a History professor.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-02-01 12:19am

Just picking dot points to address:

- "How life could have arisen by accident from inert matter." Its been explained. And done in a lab BY ACCIDENT.

- "intermediate species" Every species is intermediate. And that takes up the next 5 or so paragraphs of his argument

- The rest is so easy to debunk with simple examples of selective breeding.

- The only thing I'm not confident hammering in myself is the evolution of complex organic structures. I know the basics of it, but I wouldn't trust myself to do a rebuttal. But then again, the burden of proof isn't on me.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-02-01 01:19am

Eh. Might as well. It's rather ignorable, but a few points do stand out. Not good points, but interesting.

[i[Nevertheless, contrary to popular myth, Darwinian evolution is still far from proven.[/i]

Naturally, the exact said can be said of the alternative 'theories' such as creationism/ID. At least Evolution is somehow falsifiable and will- if proven incorrect- be revised to better fit the new data.

In a masterful book called Darwin on Trial (1991) Phillip E. Johnson has presented the modern evidence against evolution.

Name dropping? For shame.

Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection.[/i]

Nevermind how hard it is for a fossil to form in the first place, but several intermediates have been found.

Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.

Can you even MAKE a fossil out of Bacteria and Algae?

--Large chunk of repeated nonsese...--

Indeed, the pattern revealed by fossils by the sudden extinction of numerous species and the sudden emergence of new species--not the slow proces of evolution Darwin envisioned.

Interesting that he seems to be suggesting a kill/sprout form of evolution in this sentence.

Everything else seems to just be fluff, though I thought it was interesting that point 4 was a single sentence, as opposed to the lengthy mass of text that the other points were. Sounds like he heard it somewhere, but didn't have anything to back it up with.

Vaporous · Post by **Vaporous** » 2006-02-01 01:36am

Nevertheless, contrary to popular myth, Darwinian evolution is still far from proven. In a masterful book called Darwin on Trial (1991) Phillip E. Johnson has presented the modern evidence against evolution. First, despite tremendous effort, evolutionists have failed completely to explain how life could have arisen by accident from inert matter. Concerning this problme, even natural selection is a useless tool, since it could not have existed before reproductive life existed.

First, contrary to popular myth, there isn't really a person called "an evolutionist". That's a term without real meaning. Secondly, the materials for life are fairly basic: the right compounds at the right time and temperature, and voila. I do belive it's been simulated in labs. Nice attempt at casting the "abiogenesis" pall over the debate so obliquely.

Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection. Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.

After 4 billion years of geological activity and development of land by humans, the question you should be asking is "How have we been able to find so many in such relatively good shape?" And where do you suggest we locate the intermidate between a worm and algae? Unless there's something in Anartica, it's not likely to be found at all. Then we need to do what science does: explain the unkown by the known. We see species A and E, and we have skeletons of B and D, and so we see that there is a link. We look at species 1 and 5, but can't find 2-4. Since "5 came out of rocks" is idiotic, we go with what makes sense: 2-4 existed whether we found them or not.

Nor have any clear intermediates been found between fish and amphibians, bewtween amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mamals, between reptiles and birds, between the first mamal and bird and their alleged descendants, and between early and later plants--despite the fact that just the number of intermediates between teh first mammal and later mammals as various as the while and the bat alone would have to have been incredibly large (as Darwin himself admitted). Though a few paltry species have been put forward as intermediates ( a tiny fraction of that required to prove the theory), their claims are dubious at best, and in no area has a plausible pattern of evolution been clearly demonstrated.

See the above. As for "Darwin admitted...", lets point out for future reference that Darwin missed out on the last century and a half of biological research and discovery. Genes and DNA were unknown at the time. Evolution is a bit different from what old Charles thought up in the 19th century.

For instance, of the four species alleged to have been human ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus appear more likely to have been apes with a few distinctive features than intermediates (a leadng biometricist claims there is no evidence that they walked upright), and Homo habilis seems to be a mythical species--leaving Homo erectus, the most likely candidate for a human ancestor, an isolated species (it would take far more than one questionable intermediate to demonstrate a pattern of evolution). Indeed, the pattern revealed by fossils by the sudden extinction of numerous species and the sudden emergence of new species--not the slow proces of evolution Darwin envisioned. For instance, the five million year fossil record of Big Horn Basin in Wyoming shows no discernable change in species.

That's wonderful for the leading biochemist who remains nameless so that his words can't be traced. And again, see the above. Now you're saying that since we have species 2 to put between 1 and 5, the absence of 3 and 4 somehow show there is no link. Mass extinctions like the ones you mean were brought about by dramatic shifts in climate and habitat. Things that once thrived died out if they couldn't handle the new system. Those that could hang on, did, and those with the most favorable mutations continued to grow and exist. Thats not evidence against evolution. That's sure evidence for it. There is no set rate of evolution. It depends on external and internal factors.

Third, the enormous complexity of even the simplest organism renders it highly unlike that Darwin's tiny mutations could convert one species into another. For instance, how could the eye, the wing, and the human brain have evolved by natural selection? Vision, flight, and higher thought are all functions of such staggering complexity, involving the precise interaction of numerous parts. A darwinian micromutation, such as one that might create a lense or a retina would not provide any advantage to an organism's survival and reproduction--would in fact be utterly useless--unless accompanied by numerous other micromutations, each of the precise type required to create the other parts of the organ in question. Wings are even more difficult to explain using natural selection, since the evolution of forelimbs into wings would have placed the intermediates at a serious disadvantage long before htey became useful for flying. It is hard to imagine the complex avian lung, the complicated sonar system of the bat, and an almost infinite number of other intricate organic mechanism arising through the accidental accumulation of precisely the corect parts. Furthermore, most body parts are not the product of a specific gene, but of interactions among various genes, with each individual gene contributing to various different properties. Since a destructive effect on any essential body function is fatal, any mutation that had such an effect, however beneficial in some other respect, would prove fatal. Darwin's theory of evolution says that each part of the bodily system arose by chance and was preserved by change for long periods until the accidental appearance of numerous other parts of the precise kind required, finally kmade the original part useful, without any of the changes proving detrimental enough to threaten the species' survival in the meantime. A group of world-renown statistians declared evolution unlikely on that basis.

This goes back to what we said earlier about Darwin, for one thing. For another, have you used your appendix lately? Vestigial components come and go, and are more or less usefull as a habitat demands. I notice something that looks like "all mutations are fatal" in there, which is idiotic beyond rebuttal.

Fourth, there is no pattern of evolution at the molecular level.

This one throws me off, though it reeks of misdirection.

Fifth, despite several millenia of intense experimentaion, plant and animal breeders have only been able to create new varieties within the species through artificial selection. They have never been able to convert one species into antoher--though human intelligence is far more powerful than mere accident or change.

We've been trying to create new species for millenia despite the fact that the possibility has only been around for 130 years? And we've gotten together thousands or millions of subjects, and played around with both DNA and environment? Under lab conditions with the purpose of creating new species? And we've had how many millenia, again?

Sixth, it is now known that similarities in the structures of different animals cannot be pressed back to any similarity in the position of the cells of embryos and that these similar structures need not be controlled by identical genes. If the similaries of animal structures are the result of a common biological desent, why don't these similarities arise from common embryonic parts and similar genes? In other words, Darwin's embryology argument has been discredited.

This one I can't touch. Research is needed that I'm not doing at 1:30.

And there goes my patience. Well, aside from being sucktastic...

Grand Moff Yenchin · Post by **Grand Moff Yenchin** » 2006-02-01 02:26am

Since he is appealing authority to a "History Professor", point out the typos and obvious ignorance like "darwinian micromutation" and smack the "authority".

Then tell him to go read the "Index of Creationist Claims" at Talkorigins.org

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-01 02:31am

I actually can't believe people still send this stuff to Mike. It's like they google 'creationsm' and are offended when *anti*creationist sites come up, so they assume Mike hasn't had a similar email sometime in the four years the sites been up. Duh.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-02-01 03:45am

Now, just to make it clear to myself, the guy says we have never, through manipulation or artifical selection, created new species, but how is that true? Have we not created new species of fruitfly? I remember my bio text stating that, by feeding sucessive generations on two specific types of carbohydrates, they created a barrier between the groups. They wouldn't mate anymore.

Now, since we learned that creating these sexual isolation barriers (many of them) is what separates one species from another, would that not constitute another species?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2006-02-01 06:23am

My rebuttal is senseless violence.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-02-01 07:17am

Nevertheless, contrary to popular myth, Darwinian evolution is still far from proven.

Contrary to popular myth, evolution has been observed, with the Darwinian theory the best explanation for the phenomena.

In a masterful book called Darwin on Trial (1991) Phillip E. Johnson has presented the modern evidence against evolution.

Because when you want to know about biology, you get a lawyer to write about it. Next time when you are sick why don't you get a faith healer instead of a doctor while you are at it.

First, despite tremendous effort, evolutionists have failed completely to explain how life could have arisen by accident from inert matter.

First despite being told again and again, moronic creationists still can't tell the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. And the components of life have been shown to have arisen from inert matter.

Concerning this problme, even natural selection is a useless tool, since it could not have existed before reproductive life existed.

Concerning this creationist misconception, this isn't even a problem for natural selection, since natural selection doesn't deal with life from non life.

Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection.

Cough Archaeopteryx cough.
Cought Australopithecus afarensis cough
Isn't it funny how Creationist can only argue by lying.

Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.

Lies. See above.

Nor have any clear intermediates been found between fish and amphibians,

Cough Eusthenopteron foordi cough

bewtween amphibians and reptiles,

Cough Seymouria cough

between reptiles and mamals,

Cough Cynognathus cough

between reptiles and birds,

Cough Archaeopteryx cough.

between the first mamal and bird and their alleged descendants, and between early and later plants--despite the fact that just the number of intermediates between teh first mammal and later mammals as various as the while and the bat alone would have to have been incredibly large (as Darwin himself admitted). Though a few paltry species have been put forward as intermediates ( a tiny fraction of that required to prove the theory), their claims are dubious at best, and in no area has a plausible pattern of evolution been clearly demonstrated.

Blah blah blah. Same old same old lie.

For instance, of the four species alleged to have been human ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus appear more likely to have been apes with a few distinctive features than intermediates (a leadng biometricist claims there is no evidence that they walked upright),

So who is this leading biometricist. Perhaps your biometricist should he/she exists like to explain why the angle at which the femur joins the pelvic bone in these transitional species are more similar to humans than to apes, which explains why humans can walk upright, but apes can only stand upright but must move on all fours.

and Homo habilis seems to be a mythical species--leaving Homo erectus, the most likely candidate for a human ancestor, an isolated species (it would take far more than one questionable intermediate to demonstrate a pattern of evolution).

Except we do have a pattern. You just refuse to see the evidence of the other species and pretend they can't walk upright.

Indeed, the pattern revealed by fossils by the sudden extinction of numerous species and the sudden emergence of new species--not the slow proces of evolution Darwin envisioned. For instance, the five million year fossil record of Big Horn Basin in Wyoming shows no discernable change in species.

Heard of
1) punctuated equilibrium moron

or how about 2) geographical isolation where the evolved species move back in and cause the extinction of the ancestor species.

Third, the enormous complexity of even the simplest organism renders it highly unlike that Darwin's tiny mutations could convert one species into another.

Did it ever occur to you that it takes several cumulative mutations aided by natural selection?

For instance, how could the eye, the wing, and the human brain have evolved by natural selection?

False dilemna shithead. It evolved via both natural selection and random mutations. But I see you can't be bothered actually paying attention to evolution.

Vision, flight, and higher thought are all functions of such staggering complexity, involving the precise interaction of numerous parts.

Which is why they evolved in several steps. That too hard for you to comprehend?

A darwinian micromutation, such as one that might create a lense or a retina would not provide any advantage to an organism's survival and reproduction--would in fact be utterly useless--unless accompanied by numerous other micromutations, each of the precise type required to create the other parts of the organ in question.

This argument is so old. Its nice to see the Creationist still use the same arguments again for only the upteemth time. A "micromutation" conveys an advantage. Its just not the advantage its known for. See below.

Wings are even more difficult to explain using natural selection, since the evolution of forelimbs into wings would have placed the intermediates at a serious disadvantage long before htey became useful for flying. It is hard to imagine the complex avian lung, the complicated sonar system of the bat, and an almost infinite number of other intricate organic mechanism arising through the accidental accumulation of precisely the corect parts.

Using insects as an example. "Wings" were originally solar panels. For smaller insects this provided an advantage in terms of warmth, but none in terms of of aerodynamics. Next the insect for another reason evolves to be bigger, and hence their wings grow bigger by the same proportion. Now with this larger wing, it gives them an aerodynamic advantage.

Richard Dawkins covers this in "Climbing Mount Improbable". And the reason we make these educated guesses is by using small insect models, measuring the temperature, and passing them through a wind tunnel.

Furthermore, most body parts are not the product of a specific gene, but of interactions among various genes, with each individual gene contributing to various different properties. Since a destructive effect on any essential body function is fatal, any mutation that had such an effect, however beneficial in some other respect, would prove fatal.

They are confusing the accumulation of small "micromutations" with macromutations, in short unable to tell the difference between Darwinian theory and Goldsmidts "Hopeful monster".

Darwin's theory of evolution says that each part of the bodily system arose by chance and was preserved by change for long periods until the accidental appearance of numerous other parts of the precise kind required, finally kmade the original part useful, without any of the changes proving detrimental enough to threaten the species' survival in the meantime.

Lies. Each micromutation occured by chance, was preserved by natural selection (not chance) and was already useful (hence preserved by natural selection). Eventually another different part(s) appeared which interacted with the earlier mutation to produce a new function which was advantageous, and the "old job" of the earlier mutation may become obsolete. See above for the example with insect wing evolution.

A group of world-renown statistians declared evolution unlikely on that basis.

No shit Sherlock, since that basis does not represent evolution at all. Now why can't you debate proper evolution instead of strawmen versions.

FOurth, there is no pattern of evolution at the molecular level.

What exactly does this mean. No seriously. Do they mean pattern as in the rate of change, or pattern as in there is a sequence of change which repeats itself (which doesn't happen).

Fifth, despite several millenia of intense experimentaion, plant and animal breeders have only been able to create new varieties within the species through artificial selection.

Heard of polypoidal plants and fruit fly experiments ignoramus?

They have never been able to convert one species into antoher--though human intelligence is far more powerful than mere accident or change.

Whats the betting they define "convert" as a cat turning into a dog ala Pokemon.

Sixth, it is now known that similarities in the structures of different animals cannot be pressed back to any similarity in the position of the cells of embryos and that these similar structures need not be controlled by identical genes.

Then perhaps you might like to explain the observations that in the early stages of the embryo for many different species look alike. The reason for that is these "ancestral genes" are still there and switched on during the development phase.

If the similaries of animal structures are the result of a common biological desent, why don't these similarities arise from common embryonic parts and similar genes? In other words, Darwin's embryology argument has been discredited.

Gross simplification. Some similarities say the streamline shape of marine animals evolved became of similar they lived in similar environments and not because of descent. This is called covergent evolution. Moreover I can't see why, similarities need to arise from the same genes, especially when evolution leads to changes in genes. But someone else who understands the biological aspect can explain it.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-01 07:18am

Some asstard wrote:Nevertheless, contrary to popular myth, Darwinian evolution is still far from proven. In a masterful book called Darwin on Trial (1991) Phillip E. Johnson has presented the modern evidence against evolution. First, despite tremendous effort, evolutionists have failed completely to explain how life could have arisen by accident from inert matter. Concerning this problme, even natural selection is a useless tool, since it could not have existed before reproductive life existed.

Since natural selection is the basis of evolution, I would wonder why you expect evolution to even explain the origins of life, since you seem to admit that the former has no bearing on the latter. Nevertheless, your argument against abiogenesis is flawed in that it claims victory over the modern scientific establishment if it cannot answer even one of your questions. Abiogenesis is the most complete and likely theory we posess today on explaining life's origins. Do you have anything more to contribute than a black/white fallacy? Surely you don't intend to submit, "God did it" as a theory?

Long-winded cumstain wrote:Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection. Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.

I notice you only choose animals that existed before accurate fossil evidence could ever have existed. How unexpected: a dishonest creationist. You know very well that animals without petrifying (aka "hard") parts cannot be studied in the fossil record beyond features such as stromalites. If you had done even a modicum of research, you would know that the Cambrian "explosion" is an explosion on the geologic scale, i.e. tens of millions of years, which is plenty of time for evolution to allow creatures to develop hardened exteriors. As such, it seems to the ignorant that numerous species suddenly appeared, rather than simply being preserved for the first time.

One dumb sonuvabitch wrote:Nor have any clear intermediates been found between fish and amphibians, bewtween amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mamals, between reptiles and birds, between the first mamal and bird and their alleged descendants, and between early and later plants--despite the fact that just the number of intermediates between teh first mammal and later mammals as various as the while and the bat alone would have to have been incredibly large (as Darwin himself admitted). Though a few paltry species have been put forward as intermediates ( a tiny fraction of that required to prove the theory), their claims are dubious at best, and in no area has a plausible pattern of evolution been clearly demonstrated.

I have come to the conclusion that you have lied about being a history professor. No legitimate college would admit anyone as incredibly idiotic and misguided as yourself. Are you honestly telling me you haven't heard of Devonian lungfish, or coelocanths (sp?)? Those would be the suspected intermediates between fish and amphibians that are supposedly "non-existent." Were I to trust you as an authoritative source, I would be forced to admit that the entire clade of Synapsidia does not exist, since, apparently, there are no transition forms between mammals and reptiles. You also claim that dinosaurs don't exist, since birds and reptiles have no real intermediate.

And, as is expected, your claims on early mammals have no basis in fact. The simultaneous rise and decline of cynodonts is well-documented, and while mammals became almost too small to fossilize during the rest of the Mesozoic, we do see the first marsupials during the end of the Cretaceous, and the Paleocene epoch brings an explosion in mammalian diversity.

Yet another dumbass cretinist wrote:For instance, of the four species alleged to have been human ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus appear more likely to have been apes with a few distinctive features than intermediates (a leadng biometricist claims there is no evidence that they walked upright), and Homo habilis seems to be a mythical species--leaving Homo erectus, the most likely candidate for a human ancestor, an isolated species (it would take far more than one questionable intermediate to demonstrate a pattern of evolution). Indeed, the pattern revealed by fossils by the sudden extinction of numerous species and the sudden emergence of new species--not the slow proces of evolution Darwin envisioned. For instance, the five million year fossil record of Big Horn Basin in Wyoming shows no discernable change in species.

I would be ever so pleased if you would do me the honor of not making stupid appeals to an anonymous biochemist and at least putting in the effort to copy-and-paste his arguments here. Also, you misunderstand the lineage of hominid evolution. Australopithecines gave rise to the hominids; they were not potential human ancestors. Habilis (which is considered by many to be an australopithecine) may have given rise to erectus, which in turn split off into two lineages-one leading to the Neanderthal, and one leading to modern man.
You must understand that the evolutionary theory does not posit a constant rate of species turnover; it only inferst that species change to adapt to their environments if necessary. So a species could remain unchanged for up to 7 million years (this is usually true of reptiles), and entire groups such as sharks need not change for hundreds of millions of years. This does not disprove the evolutionary theory whatsoever. In fact, your sudden extinctions and species emergences are well explained by punctuated equilibrium, a more recent development in the theory.

Shithead wrote:Third, the enormous complexity of even the simplest organism renders it highly unlike that Darwin's tiny mutations could convert one species into another. For instance, how could the eye, the wing, and the human brain have evolved by natural selection? Vision, flight, and higher thought are all functions of such staggering complexity, involving the precise interaction of numerous parts. A darwinian micromutation, such as one that might create a lense or a retina would not provide any advantage to an organism's survival and reproduction--would in fact be utterly useless--unless accompanied by numerous other micromutations, each of the precise type required to create the other parts of the organ in question. Wings are even more difficult to explain using natural selection, since the evolution of forelimbs into wings would have placed the intermediates at a serious disadvantage long before htey became useful for flying. It is hard to imagine the complex avian lung, the complicated sonar system of the bat, and an almost infinite number of other intricate organic mechanism arising through the accidental accumulation of precisely the corect parts. Furthermore, most body parts are not the product of a specific gene, but of interactions among various genes, with each individual gene contributing to various different properties. Since a destructive effect on any essential body function is fatal, any mutation that had such an effect, however beneficial in some other respect, would prove fatal. Darwin's theory of evolution says that each part of the bodily system arose by chance and was preserved by change for long periods until the accidental appearance of numerous other parts of the precise kind required, finally kmade the original part useful, without any of the changes proving detrimental enough to threaten the species' survival in the meantime. A group of world-renown statistians declared evolution unlikely on that basis.

Provide specific examples of why the avian lung and brain could not have arisen by evolutionary change. The eye is easily explained in Darwin's book, as well as http://www.talkorigins.org.

Assbag wrote:FOurth, there is no pattern of evolution at the molecular level.

Bullshit. If evolution can't occur at a molecular level, why do we see it occuring in bacteria, fruit-flies and in the fossil record?

asshole who wastes people's time wrote:Fifth, despite several millenia of intense experimentaion, plant and animal breeders have only been able to create new varieties within the species through artificial selection. They have never been able to convert one species into antoher--though human intelligence is far more powerful than mere accident or change.

Evolution does not occur within such short timescales with such large creatures. Further, we have created new species of fly and we have created new bacteria which feed on synthetic materials. Try again.

Fucking Wanker wrote:Sixth, it is now known that similarities in the structures of different animals cannot be pressed back to any similarity in the position of the cells of embryos and that these similar structures need not be controlled by identical genes. If the similaries of animal structures are the result of a common biological desent, why don't these similarities arise from common embryonic parts and similar genes? In other words, Darwin's embryology argument has been discredited.

What planet are you on? All vertebrate embryoes look the same within the first 3 weeks. The least related species diverges first from the embryological developmental path that the others take (for example, fish straighten their spinal columns early in development). It mirrors evolution more or less perfectly.

Well, that was relatively easy, if lengthy.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2006-02-01 08:07am

mr friendly guy wrote:
In a masterful book called Darwin on Trial (1991) Phillip E. Johnson has presented the modern evidence against evolution.
Because when you want to know about biology, you get a lawyer to write about it. Next time when you are sick why don't you get a faith healer instead of a doctor while you are at it.

You know someone like that just might actually do that.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2006-02-01 08:30am

mr friendly guy's actual rebuttal is likely the most abbreviated rebuttal to the actual arguments, but this fool's arguments aren't even his own; he's a History professor quoting a law clerk, neither of which is qualified to comment on biological sciences and, apparently, your erstwhile history critic is unfamiliar with the various devastating critiques of Phillip E. Johnson's work over at Talk.Origins website and over at the NCSE, either of which make addressing his actual 'points' unnecessary.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-02-01 10:18am

Nevertheless, contrary to popular myth, Darwinian evolution is still far from proven. In a masterful book called Darwin on Trial (1991) Phillip E. Johnson has presented the modern evidence against evolution. First, despite tremendous effort, evolutionists have failed completely to explain how life could have arisen by accident from inert matter. Concerning this problme, even natural selection is a useless tool, since it could not have existed before reproductive life existed.

Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection. Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.

Nor have any clear intermediates been found between fish and amphibians, bewtween amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mamals, between reptiles and birds, between the first mamal and bird and their alleged descendants, and between early and later plants--despite the fact that just the number of intermediates between teh first mammal and later mammals as various as the while and the bat alone would have to have been incredibly large (as Darwin himself admitted). Though a few paltry species have been put forward as intermediates ( a tiny fraction of that required to prove the theory), their claims are dubious at best, and in no area has a plausible pattern of evolution been clearly demonstrated.

For instance, of the four species alleged to have been human ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus appear more likely to have been apes with a few distinctive features than intermediates (a leadng biometricist claims there is no evidence that they walked upright), and Homo habilis seems to be a mythical species--leaving Homo erectus, the most likely candidate for a human ancestor, an isolated species (it would take far more than one questionable intermediate to demonstrate a pattern of evolution). Indeed, the pattern revealed by fossils by the sudden extinction of numerous species and the sudden emergence of new species--not the slow proces of evolution Darwin envisioned. For instance, the five million year fossil record of Big Horn Basin in Wyoming shows no discernable change in species.

Third, the enormous complexity of even the simplest organism renders it highly unlike that Darwin's tiny mutations could convert one species into another. For instance, how could the eye, the wing, and the human brain have evolved by natural selection? Vision, flight, and higher thought are all functions of such staggering complexity, involving the precise interaction of numerous parts. A darwinian micromutation, such as one that might create a lense or a retina would not provide any advantage to an organism's survival and reproduction--would in fact be utterly useless--unless accompanied by numerous other micromutations, each of the precise type required to create the other parts of the organ in question. Wings are even more difficult to explain using natural selection, since the evolution of forelimbs into wings would have placed the intermediates at a serious disadvantage long before htey became useful for flying. It is hard to imagine the complex avian lung, the complicated sonar system of the bat, and an almost infinite number of other intricate organic mechanism arising through the accidental accumulation of precisely the corect parts. Furthermore, most body parts are not the product of a specific gene, but of interactions among various genes, with each individual gene contributing to various different properties. Since a destructive effect on any essential body function is fatal, any mutation that had such an effect, however beneficial in some other respect, would prove fatal. Darwin's theory of evolution says that each part of the bodily system arose by chance and was preserved by change for long periods until the accidental appearance of numerous other parts of the precise kind required, finally kmade the original part useful, without any of the changes proving detrimental enough to threaten the species' survival in the meantime. A group of world-renown statistians declared evolution unlikely on that basis.

FOurth, there is no pattern of evolution at the molecular level.

Fifth, despite several millenia of intense experimentaion, plant and animal breeders have only been able to create new varieties within the species through artificial selection. They have never been able to convert one species into antoher--though human intelligence is far more powerful than mere accident or change. Sixth, it is now known that similarities in the structures of different animals cannot be pressed back to any similarity in the position of the cells of embryos and that these similar structures need not be controlled by identical genes. If the similaries of animal structures are the result of a common biological desent, why don't these similarities arise from common embryonic parts and similar genes? In other words, Darwin's embryology argument has been discredited.

Dear sir: have you taken your concerns to the professors at your university's biology department? I'm quite sure these stunning developments and arguments will be the groundbreaking foundation of an entirely new field of biology.

Sincerely, Surlethe.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2006-02-01 11:12am

I guess I'll take a crack at this.

Nevertheless, contrary to popular myth, Darwinian evolution is still far from proven. In a masterful book called Darwin on Trial (1991) Phillip E. Johnson has presented the modern evidence against evolution. First, despite tremendous effort, evolutionists have failed completely to explain how life could have arisen by accident from inert matter. Concerning this problme, even natural selection is a useless tool, since it could not have existed before reproductive life existed.

Strawman. The Theory of Evolution doesn't give a rat's ass about how life came about, simply how life changes in response to stimuli. More importantly, scientists have created organic matter in experiments.

Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection. Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.

Yes, because soft tissue that existed billions of years ago must survive the elements, being crushed under tons of water/rock, and seismic activity indefinitely.

Nor have any clear intermediates been found between fish and amphibians, bewtween amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mamals, between reptiles and birds, between the first mamal and bird and their alleged descendants, and between early and later plants--despite the fact that just the number of intermediates between teh first mammal and later mammals as various as the while and the bat alone would have to have been incredibly large (as Darwin himself admitted). Though a few paltry species have been put forward as intermediates ( a tiny fraction of that required to prove the theory), their claims are dubious at best, and in no area has a plausible pattern of evolution been clearly demonstrated.

It's called using your brain. Lungfish, despite being fish, are capable of traveling by land from mudhole to mudhole. It's not hard to extrapolate that as the distances traveled increased, their fins became more leglike and their rudimentary lungs more developed. Well, maybe it is.

Regardless, who decided that the intermediate species we know of are insufficient to prove the theory? You?

For instance, of the four species alleged to have been human ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus appear more likely to have been apes with a few distinctive features than intermediates (a leadng biometricist claims there is no evidence that they walked upright), and Homo habilis seems to be a mythical species--leaving Homo erectus, the most likely candidate for a human ancestor, an isolated species (it would take far more than one questionable intermediate to demonstrate a pattern of evolution). Indeed, the pattern revealed by fossils by the sudden extinction of numerous species and the sudden emergence of new species--not the slow proces of evolution Darwin envisioned. For instance, the five million year fossil record of Big Horn Basin in Wyoming shows no discernable change in species.

I like how you claim that a "leading biometricist" disputes A. afarensis and A. africanus but don't give any names. And are you seriously claiming that all four species couldn't have been ancestral species? I guess the concept of succession eludes you. As in, one species from the Australopithecus genus evolving into another, and from there into the Homo genus.

Third, the enormous complexity of even the simplest organism renders it highly unlike that Darwin's tiny mutations could convert one species into another. For instance, how could the eye, the wing, and the human brain have evolved by natural selection? Vision, flight, and higher thought are all functions of such staggering complexity, involving the precise interaction of numerous parts. A darwinian micromutation, such as one that might create a lense or a retina would not provide any advantage to an organism's survival and reproduction--would in fact be utterly useless--unless accompanied by numerous other micromutations, each of the precise type required to create the other parts of the organ in question. Wings are even more difficult to explain using natural selection, since the evolution of forelimbs into wings would have placed the intermediates at a serious disadvantage long before htey became useful for flying. It is hard to imagine the complex avian lung, the complicated sonar system of the bat, and an almost infinite number of other intricate organic mechanism arising through the accidental accumulation of precisely the corect parts. Furthermore, most body parts are not the product of a specific gene, but of interactions among various genes, with each individual gene contributing to various different properties. Since a destructive effect on any essential body function is fatal, any mutation that had such an effect, however beneficial in some other respect, would prove fatal. Darwin's theory of evolution says that each part of the bodily system arose by chance and was preserved by change for long periods until the accidental appearance of numerous other parts of the precise kind required, finally kmade the original part useful, without any of the changes proving detrimental enough to threaten the species' survival in the meantime. A group of world-renown statistians declared evolution unlikely on that basis.

Again, you provide no names. But I'll indulge you on the eye example. Photosensitive cells to detect light. Eventually, the area these cells are located in becomes a pit, to detect direction. The pit eventually closes to improve sense of direction, and to provide limited focus ability. From there it's a simple matter of adding a lens to improve the focus.

No one ever says that modern organs evolved as is—no, I take that back, maybe you do. Organs are refined over time to improve their function, and it's a simply matter of determining how they were refined.

FOurth, there is no pattern of evolution at the molecular level.

Red herring. What does the molecular have to do with the evolution of lifeforms?

Fifth, despite several millenia of intense experimentaion, plant and animal breeders have only been able to create new varieties within the species through artificial selection. They have never been able to convert one species into antoher--though human intelligence is far more powerful than mere accident or change. Sixth, it is now known that similarities in the structures of different animals cannot be pressed back to any similarity in the position of the cells of embryos and that these similar structures need not be controlled by identical genes. If the similaries of animal structures are the result of a common biological desent, why don't these similarities arise from common embryonic parts and similar genes? In other words, Darwin's embryology argument has been discredited.

Evolution requires time and stimuli. More importantly, your examples were not conducted with the intent of creating new species, but for refining the traits of existing species.

So, how'd I do?

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-02-01 12:33pm

wolveraptor wrote:As such, it seems to the ignorant that numerous species suddenly appeared, rather than simply being preserved for the first time.

Slow down, the Cambrian explosion DID involve a great number of species suddenly appearing. You don't expect that a lot of different species evolved hard parts for the first time in the world all at the same time, do you?

The explanation is of course that the ability to make hard parts greatly increased the range of possibilities for what life could do and be. So, the first species to develop this trick quickly split into many other species, each with its own niche; some of which didn't even exist before.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-01 01:50pm

Well yes, the evolution of an exterior shell would probalby be the development of a new species evolved from it's parent. However, I sought to discredit the notion that most of the animals in the Cambrian explosion didn't have predecessors. We may not be able to see them directly, but it is probable that they existed.

I also forgot to mention that life may have begun to utilize oxygen, a highly reactive gas, for the first time, leading to a sudden burst of activity levels and reproduction rates.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-02-01 02:09pm

The notion was not put forward that they didn't have predecessors; rather, it was suggested that evolution was incapable of explaining the sudden change. It is, but not for the reason you gave.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-01 02:17pm

drachefly wrote:The notion was not put forward that they didn't have predecessors;

What are you talking about? He does in the second paragraph.[quote="the "proffessor""]Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection. Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.[/quote]He calls them "intermediates."

drachefly wrote:rather, it was suggested that evolution was incapable of explaining the sudden change.

That was suggested precisely because they thought there were no ancestors to early Cambrain animals.

drachefly wrote:It is, but not for the reason you gave.

I merely disproved the premise upon which they made the argument.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-02-01 02:28pm

I meant, he didn't say there were no predecessors within the evolutionary explanation. He RELIED on the fact there should be predecessors within the evolutionary explanation.

He then said that in the absence of sighted predecessors, evolution is disproved.

So, when you say that 'evolution predicts that these creatures had predecessors' you're not counterarguing his point.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-02-01 03:01pm

Well . . .lesee. First this tard is confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Since evolution doesn't bother explaining where life comes from, it merely explains how a species changes over time. Since this twat clearly can't distinguish the two terms and is starting from a flawed premise, I don't see much of a reason to bother addressing his other points. which are your standard creationist gibberish regarding irreducibly complex systems et al. and have already been thoroughly debunked by other people better suited for it than myself.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-02-01 03:12pm

E-mail user wrote:*el snippo*

Dear Mr. History Professor person!
Congratulations on disproving the theory of evolution and evolution itself! This is definitely a first, and I trust these extraordinary findings will shortly be published for peer-review? Biologists will be stunned to realise that they were bested in their own field by a historian. But make sure you also address the public with these findings, so that in the extreme unlikelyhood that someone would find a hole in your reasoning (god forbid that a tiny Argument from Incredulity or Strawman snuck in there somewhere), you can always ask the courts and public opinion on who is really right; you or the evilutionists that can't even explain how evolution worked before evolution even existed.

Damn you Surlethe, you stole my idea

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2006-02-01 03:56pm

First, despite tremendous effort, evolutionists have failed completely to explain how life could have arisen by accident from inert matter. Concerning this problme, even natural selection is a useless tool, since it could not have existed before reproductive life existed.

"Completely explain" does not equal "no idea whatsoever." For instance, this nifty article explains how boron-containing rocks can convert prebiotic formaldahyde into stable ribose, the important sugar component in nucleic acids. In addition to experiments showing how amino acids can arise and the natural tendency of lipids to form membranes, we can have the most basic ingredients for a cell. Just because we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle yet doesn't mean we can't make out the picture.

Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection.

Every fossil is an intermediate form. We've found more than enough fossils showing how animals change over geologic time to show that evolution has occurred.

Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.

It's difficult for large, hard things like trees and enormous dinosaur bones to fossilize, much less tiny, soft things like bacterial cell walls and algae strands. That's not to say there's no fossils, just very few. Further, we have contemporary animals that are good analogues to theoretical transitional forms. Namely, multi-cellular colonial organisms and sponges. These are organisms which can exist as single-celled organisms, but often live as members of a colony, with some cells specializing as feeding cells, epidermal cells, etc. We know how it could have happened, and all other evidence points to something like that occuring. We aren't sure of the particulars, but we're sure of the generals.

Nor have any clear intermediates been found between fish and amphibians,

Yes there are! http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.htmlAcanthostega[/quote] is clearly a fish-like amphibian.

bewtween amphibians and reptiles,

Yes there are! There's even a class of amphibians called "Reptiliomorpha" which share a lot of traits with reptiles.

between reptiles and mamals,

Yes there are! They're called "cynodonts."

between reptiles and birds,

Never heard of Archaeopteryx, I see...

between the first mamal and bird and their alleged descendants,

There are tons of intermediates between the first mammalish reptiles and current mammals. Not as many as we'd like, but definitely an overwhelming amount. Same with birds.

and between early and later plants

Plenty of those, too. We have enough to reconstruct which classes of plants appeared at what times, with mosses first showing up, then ferns, then gymnosperms, then angiosperms.

--despite the fact that just the number of intermediates between teh first mammal and later mammals as various as the while and the bat alone would have to have been incredibly large (as Darwin himself admitted).

And it is. Once more, not as much as we would like, but it's an enormous number nonetheless.

Though a few paltry species have been put forward as intermediates ( a tiny fraction of that required to prove the theory), their claims are dubious at best, and in no area has a plausible pattern of evolution been clearly demonstrated.

For instance, of the four species alleged to have been human ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus appear more likely to have been apes with a few distinctive features than intermediates (a leadng biometricist claims there is no evidence that they walked upright),

Does this biometricist have a name? How many others agree with him?

Plus, walking upright is a huge step forward, no pun intended. It requires the limbs to be substantially different and it jury-rigs the spine into doing work it normally doesn't do.

and Homo habilis seems to be a mythical species

So physical evidence is mythical?

--leaving Homo erectus, the most likely candidate for a human ancestor, an isolated species (it would take far more than one questionable intermediate to demonstrate a pattern of evolution).

Good thinking we have [url=http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigi ... _tree.html] a lot more than one[/quote], huh?

Indeed, the pattern revealed by fossils by the sudden extinction of numerous species and the sudden emergence of new species--not the slow proces of evolution Darwin envisioned. For instance, the five million year fossil record of Big Horn Basin in Wyoming shows no discernable change in species.

Bullshit! We see species changing there (for instance, the T. Rex's found have been shown to have femurs that lengthened over a period of 5 million years).

Third, the enormous complexity of even the simplest organism renders it highly unlike that Darwin's tiny mutations could convert one species into another.

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Because your philosophy sucks." - Lore Sjosberg

Just because you're incapable of understanding how it happens doesn't mean it can't happen.

For instance, how could the eye, the wing, and the human brain have evolved by natural selection?

By selecting for the things that make their bearers have more children.

Vision, flight, and higher thought are all functions of such staggering complexity, involving the precise interaction of numerous parts. A darwinian micromutation, such as one that might create a lense or a retina would not provide any advantage to an organism's survival and reproduction--would in fact be utterly useless--unless accompanied by numerous other micromutations, each of the precise type required to create the other parts of the organ in question. Wings are even more difficult to explain using natural selection, since the evolution of forelimbs into wings would have placed the intermediates at a serious disadvantage long before htey became useful for flying. It is hard to imagine the complex avian lung, the complicated sonar system of the bat, and an almost infinite number of other intricate organic mechanism arising through the accidental accumulation of precisely the corect parts. Furthermore, most body parts are not the product of a specific gene, but of interactions among various genes, with each individual gene contributing to various different properties. Since a destructive effect on any essential body function is fatal, any mutation that had such an effect, however beneficial in some other respect, would prove fatal. Darwin's theory of evolution says that each part of the bodily system arose by chance and was preserved by change for long periods until the accidental appearance of numerous other parts of the precise kind required, finally kmade the original part useful, without any of the changes proving detrimental enough to threaten the species' survival in the meantime. A group of world-renown statistians declared evolution unlikely on that basis.

Wow. That was long and yet completely non-enlightening. [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/]Talk Origins[/quote] can tell you how each of those things can evolve through small mutations over time. Have fun.

FOurth, there is no pattern of evolution at the molecular level.

Yeah there is. It's called DNA.

Fifth, despite several millenia of intense experimentaion, plant and animal breeders have only been able to create new varieties within the species through artificial selection.

Because artifical selection doesn't create enough pressure to create new species.

They have never been able to convert one species into antoher--though human intelligence is far more powerful than mere accident or change.

First: human intelligence isn't more powerful than accident or change. We're smart enough to build cars but not to avoid hitting each other on accident and killing ourselves. Oops.

Second: We are creating creatures that are basically species unto themselves. Chihuahuas are theoretically capable of breeding with Great Danes, but that doesn't happen in practice.

Sixth, it is now known that similarities in the structures of different animals cannot be pressed back to any similarity in the position of the cells of embryos and that these similar structures need not be controlled by identical genes. If the similaries of animal structures are the result of a common biological desent, why don't these similarities arise from common embryonic parts and similar genes? In other words, Darwin's embryology argument has been discredited.

If you mean limbs in, say, fruit flies versus humans, than, yeah, I wouldn't expect the genes controlling them to be the same. However, I'd like some proof for these claims, as I've not seen anything saying that before.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-01 06:48pm

drachefly wrote:I meant, he didn't say there were no predecessors within the evolutionary explanation. He RELIED on the fact there should be predecessors within the evolutionary explanation.

He then said that in the absence of sighted predecessors, evolution is disproved.

So, when you say that 'evolution predicts that these creatures had predecessors' you're not counterarguing his point.

You're right. I should have mentioned that we do have fossil imprints of Edicarian fauna and other pre-Cambrian animals that could easily be predecessors. My argument rested on the assumption that the above was already known.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-02-02 09:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:Let's see who can write the most concise and eloquent rebuttal to the following rather generic creationist argument that somebody E-mailed me:

-Chop-

If God is all-powerful, why am I not convinced?

(okay, I'm going to read it now)

Base Delta Zero · Post by **Base Delta Zero** » 2006-02-06 08:36am

Nevertheless, contrary to popular myth, Darwinian evolution is still far from proven. In a masterful book called Darwin on Trial (1991) Phillip E. Johnson has presented the modern evidence against evolution. First, despite tremendous effort, evolutionists have failed completely to explain how life could have arisen by accident from inert matter.

Contrary to popular myth, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution proper, and scientists have proven that self replicating molecules can be induced to grow in the laboratory, a kind of precursor to complex proteins that make up life.

Concerning this problme, even natural selection is a useless tool, since it could not have existed before reproductive life existed.

All life is 'reproductive', it's part of the very definition of the term. Nevertheless, the poster is right that natural selection fails to explain this, because it's entirely irrelevant. Evolution is not the Theory of Everything.

Second, despite 130 years of prodigious effort, Dawinists have failed to find the fossils of the vast numbers of intermediate species required by the theory of natural selection. Not a single intermediate has been discovered between the bacteria and algae of four billion years ago and the complex insects, worms, and clams of the "Cambrian explosion," which seemingly emerged out of nowhere six hundred million years ago--though if Darwin's theory were valid, there must have been an enormous number of intermediates.

Actually, an 'enormous number' of intermediates have been found. Evolution should not be confused with metamorphosis. You will never find some kind of quasi-magical transformation from a reptile to a bird or an ape to a human, that's the kind of thing reserved for fantasy (both the kind written as fantasy and the delusional kind you subscribe to).

Nor have any clear intermediates been found between fish and amphibians, bewtween amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mamals, between reptiles and birds, between the first mamal and bird and their alleged descendants, and between early and later plants--despite the fact that just the number of intermediates between teh first mammal and later mammals as various as the while and the bat alone would have to have been incredibly large (as Darwin himself admitted). Though a few paltry species have been put forward as intermediates ( a tiny fraction of that required to prove the theory), their claims are dubious at best, and in no area has a plausible pattern of evolution been clearly demonstrated.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
A species does not transform overnight. Evolution is gradual change from generation to generation, over the course of millions of years. Every species-indeed, every individual - is a transitional form between whatever came before it and its progeny.

For instance, of the four species alleged to have been human ancestors, Australopithecus afarensis and Australopithecus africanus appear more likely to have been apes with a few distinctive features than intermediates

That's exactly the point, they were ape like with distinctive humanoid features, like for instance walking upright. THERE ARE NO INTERMEDIATES

(a leadng biometricist claims there is no evidence that they walked upright),

Contrary, of course, to the thousands of scientists who say the leg bones show clear signs of walking upright. Oh, and next time you start name dropping, it helps to drop a name.

and Homo habilis seems to be a mythical species--

Care to provide evidence for your claims? Oh, of course not.

leaving Homo erectus, the most likely candidate for a human ancestor, an isolated species (it would take far more than one questionable intermediate to demonstrate a pattern of evolution).

The non-existance of the previous point invalidates this one.

Indeed, the pattern revealed by fossils by the sudden extinction of numerous species and the sudden emergence of new species--not the slow proces of evolution Darwin envisioned. For instance, the five million year fossil record of Big Horn Basin in Wyoming shows no discernable change in species.

I'm sure the fact that fossils are extremely rare has nothing to do with this, as does that fact that an animal becoming fossilized is extremely unlikely. Finally, there is no discernable change in species, key word being discernable. Changes are extremely incremental, as I've said earlier.

Third, the enormous complexity of even the simplest organism renders it highly unlike that Darwin's tiny mutations could convert one species into another. For instance, how could the eye, the wing, and the human brain have evolved by natural selection? Vision, flight, and higher thought are all functions of such staggering complexity, involving the precise interaction of numerous parts.

Actually, the enormous complexity of these organs is clear evidence against design. Compare a computer microchip (a designed product) to the brain. It has a regular, simplistic design, wheras the brain is erractic and unnecesarily complex. Additionaly, the human eye, for instance, is 'miswired' so that information actually comes in inverted and must be fixed by the brain. A well designed (i.e by an advanced race (or God)) photoreceptor could perform the same function better and with more durability.
As for the usefulness of a partial eye, imagine that some random sea critter developed light sensitive cells-

((The rest coming later))

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[PRACTICE] Hone your skills

[PRACTICE] Hone your skills

Re: [PRACTICE] Hone your skills

Re: [PRACTICE] Hone your skills

Re: [PRACTICE] Hone your skills

Re: [PRACTICE] Hone your skills

Re: [PRACTICE] Hone your skills

Re: [PRACTICE] Hone your skills

Re: [PRACTICE] Hone your skills