Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[Youwerecreated]

Haldane's dilemma that neither of you addressed. To be fair this is the attempt at explaining away the dilemma for evolutionist.

Shocking. "Haldane's Dilemma".

Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.

CB121: Haldane's Dilemma

Here's your revision:

http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz40-free/anz40-185.pdf

(I'll spare you a copy and paste job like you have done).

Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?

Are you reading up on the conditions needed for mutations being the mechanism for macroevolution ? or are you just ignoring it.

Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.

 

[geauxtohell]

Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?

The one that was conducted in 2003 (and not 1957) and used a supercomputer for the computations. Even Haldane acknowledged that he had probably missed something in his calculations. Haldane also never claimed his theory invalidated evolution.

Are you reading up on the conditions needed for mutations being the mechanism for macroevolution ? or are you just ignoring it.

I'll get to it eventually. It took you about three days to drop you a massive cut and paste job on us, so I'll assume you can have some patience in this matter.

Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.

I cite. I don't wholesale copy and paste other people's work on here. I don't need too. I understand evolutionary theory enough to argue it in my own words.

BTW, if you can invalidate evolution, you are wasting your time here. Go and publish. Your Nobel Prize will await you.

 

[geauxtohell]

This explanation is not the one i was looking for but this article will do. High mutation rate well lets see.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Here is the first place you guys screw up. Credentials count. At the time that Calvin Beisner published this for you to cut and paste from the "institute for Creation Research", he didn't possess a Doctoral Degree. He didn't even possess a graduate degree in the field of science.

Beisner received his Ph.D. in Scottish Studies from St. Andrews. He got his M.A. in "Society with an emphasis in Economic Ethics" (whatever that is) from International College (Whatever that is) and a B.A. in Religion from USC.

In that capacity, it is not beyond the scope of reality that Dr. Beisner has never taken a college biology course. I highly doubt he has done any post-graduate work in any scientific field.

If this matter were being debated in serious academic circles. Not only would Dr. Beisner's opinion not be valued. He wouldn't even have a seat at the table.

http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/bio.pdf

Again, this is a pointless exercise, as those of us who argue in favor of evolutionary theory don't delineate between macro and microevolution but I'll read what (then) Mr. Beisner has to say.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

Evidence "against evolution" is not evidence "in favor of creation". Creationism is not a scientific theory. Something Mr. Beisner would know if he knew anything about the scientific method. Most likely, this article was written prior to the landmark SCOTUS case against teaching creationism in school when some people would still try and argue (with a straight face) that creation was the other side of the argument against evolution.

Beisners statement is about as absurd a saying: "provides excellent evidence against the moon being made out of rock and in favor of it being made out of blue cheese."

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

<I just decided to snip out the quote mining and spurious conclusions and get to the conclusion.>

TALLYING THE SCORE
It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.

This is basically the typical creationist line: "This is all too complicated to have just happened!". That is not a terribly intellectual argument. It certainly isn't a scientific one. Beisner can conclude was he wants. In fact as he is (as his website points out):

"spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy."

I suspect he reached his conclusion before he ever penned this article. Coaching his religious bias in pseudo-academic jargon doesn't suddenly make it a logical scientific argument.

 

[Gadawg73]

There is always a community college somewhere with open enrollment that teaches Biology 101.
Out of the tens of thousands of colleges, universities and schools of higher learning there are 2 or 3 that do not teach evolution as fact.
Intelligent design was shot down as a fraud by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal jidge in the Dover case. The witnessesand school Board members there lied in open court and were almost charged with perjury.

Really,impressive post.

Tell me what is false in it and that would really be impressive.
Good luck Moe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?

The one that was conducted in 2003 (and not 1957) and used a supercomputer for the computations. Even Haldane acknowledged that he had probably missed something in his calculations. Haldane also never claimed his theory invalidated evolution.

Are you reading up on the conditions needed for mutations being the mechanism for macroevolution ? or are you just ignoring it.

I'll get to it eventually. It took you about three days to drop you a massive cut and paste job on us, so I'll assume you can have some patience in this matter.

Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.

I cite. I don't wholesale copy and paste other people's work on here. I don't need too. I understand evolutionary theory enough to argue it in my own words.

BTW, if you can invalidate evolution, you are wasting your time here. Go and publish. Your Nobel Prize will await you.

I did say Haldane was an evolutionist.

Supercomputer to me just means it is faster than the normal computer,but that being said i believe that the computer can only do what it was programmed to do. I am a firm believer that what is created is not greater than the creator.

Let me correct you on something,i believe in evolution but its only through adaptations and small changes within a species. Just don't buy Neo darwinism and macroevolution. You might be surprised by the amount people that share my views.

From all my reading on the subject, it is clear to me there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution that its now taught by some that there is no difference between micro and macro that is clearly false. Yes there is plenty of evidence for microevolution and its not even a dispute. Maybe that is the mistake you're making like so many others.

I can't believe how many evolutionists i come across that put micro and macro together not discerning the difference between the two.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This explanation is not the one i was looking for but this article will do. High mutation rate well lets see.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Here is the first place you guys screw up. Credentials count. At the time that Calvin Beisner published this for you to cut and paste from the "institute for Creation Research", he didn't possess a Doctoral Degree. He didn't even possess a graduate degree in the field of science.

Beisner received his Ph.D. in Scottish Studies from St. Andrews. He got his M.A. in "Society with an emphasis in Economic Ethics" (whatever that is) from International College (Whatever that is) and a B.A. in Religion from USC.

In that capacity, it is not beyond the scope of reality that Dr. Beisner has never taken a college biology course. I highly doubt he has done any post-graduate work in any scientific field.

If this matter were being debated in serious academic circles. Not only would Dr. Beisner's opinion not be valued. He wouldn't even have a seat at the table.

http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/bio.pdf

Again, this is a pointless exercise, as those of us who argue in favor of evolutionary theory don't delineate between macro and microevolution but I'll read what (then) Mr. Beisner has to say.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

Evidence "against evolution" is not evidence "in favor of creation". Creationism is not a scientific theory. Something Mr. Beisner would know if he knew anything about the scientific method. Most likely, this article was written prior to the landmark SCOTUS case against teaching creationism in school when some people would still try and argue (with a straight face) that creation was the other side of the argument against evolution.

Beisners statement is about as absurd a saying: "provides excellent evidence against the moon being made out of rock and in favor of it being made out of blue cheese."

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

<I just decided to snip out the quote mining and spurious conclusions and get to the conclusion.>

TALLYING THE SCORE
It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.

This is basically the typical creationist line: "This is all too complicated to have just happened!". That is not a terribly intellectual argument. It certainly isn't a scientific one. Beisner can conclude was he wants. In fact as he is (as his website points out):

"spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy."

I suspect he reached his conclusion before he ever penned this article. Coaching his religious bias in pseudo-academic jargon doesn't suddenly make it a logical scientific argument.

You see the biggest fallacy with Neo Darwinism is they assume and they have no doubt that macroevolution is the mehanism to the diversity of species. They will claim it is fact and that is what their explanations is based on. They never stop to think it through on whether its even a possibility.

They have no mechanism for the origins of life and they quicly rule out the thought of God did it, even though they can't prove how life began. They deny obvious evidence of intelligent design and say a natural process can do it even when it defies logic.

The evolutionists are seeing Gods work and giving credit to an unintelligent process. Evolutionists are observing Gods once perfect creation and saying he did a poor job if he exists. All the greatest minds in science and all the technology that is in their posssessions cannnot produce what God produced without any help.

You're dealing with an intelligence beyond our comprehension ,evolutionists are just not intelligent enough to see it. God took non-living matter and created living organisms and mans science still don't know how its possible.

 

[Gadawg73]

New Gallup poll:
40% of Americans believe the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
At least that is a start. The Creation Museum in Ky teaches hundreds of thousands of Sunday schoolkids each year that it is only 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs.
We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is always a community college somewhere with open enrollment that teaches Biology 101.
Out of the tens of thousands of colleges, universities and schools of higher learning there are 2 or 3 that do not teach evolution as fact.
Intelligent design was shot down as a fraud by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal jidge in the Dover case. The witnessesand school Board members there lied in open court and were almost charged with perjury.

Really,impressive post.

Tell me what is false in it and that would really be impressive.
Good luck Moe.

We are well beyond the 101 level.

You do not need to attend college to be educated on the theory of evolution that is your first mistake. I have been reading and learning most of what i know about the subject through scholarly writings. I have been doing so for ten years . I have come across many graduated students who believe they are gonna set the world on fire with their new found knowledge. All they have been taught is fact in their eyes they have been so indoctrinated to the theory they seem to lose reason and logic.

After all these years the evolutionists strongest evidence is bacteria having the ability to adapt . all organisms have the ability to adapt but it is limited on how much the organism can adapt. Natural selection would work against macroevolution that is why it is an impossibility. Natural selection would work against mutations as presented earlier.

 

[Youwerecreated]

New Gallup poll:
40% of Americans believe the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
At least that is a start. The Creation Museum in Ky teaches hundreds of thousands of Sunday schoolkids each year that it is only 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs.
We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots.

So how do you explain the petroglyphs of man accurately drawing dinosaurs that supposedly went extinct long before the existence of man ? how could they draw something that was never seen ? they uncovered a creature that had lines like a zebra and that was in the petroglyp drawings. Maybe dragons was the term used for dinosaurs which is also used in the bible.

There is writings from many cultures concerning dragons and even Alexander the great spoke of his encounters with the dragons. Village of idiots yes, maybe because we don't fully understand the past.

 

[Youwerecreated]

New Gallup poll:
40% of Americans believe the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
At least that is a start. The Creation Museum in Ky teaches hundreds of thousands of Sunday schoolkids each year that it is only 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs.
We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots.

And you base your view of the earth being much older off of flawed dating systems.

Presuppositions also is a reason for your view that the earth is 4 or 5 billion years old.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is my theory. Neanderthals were 100 % human.Neanderthals did not share a common ancestor with an apelike creature.Neanderthals were the product of inbreeding and eventually their communities were so small they could not survive all the bad genes that was being passed onto the offspring, and Eventually went extinct.

But that would explain their appearence being different from modern humans. The different features in the neanderthals was the reason the evolutionists believe they were a product of macroevolution and has since tried to connect them to apelike creatures or the chimp.

 

[geauxtohell]

You see the biggest fallacy with Neo Darwinism is they assume and they have no doubt that macroevolution is the mehanism to the diversity of species. They will claim it is fact and that is what their explanations is based on. They never stop to think it through on whether its even a possibility.

First off, we don't adhere to the magical term "Macroevolution" to make a semantics debate. When you consider the the concept of species is a man-made definition anyways, it's pretty retarded to get wrapped around the axle on it. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same basic mechanism and concept.

We accept mutations and novel phenotypes adding up to make new species as it is currently the best scientific explanation for speciation. We are not "wed" to the concept if a better and scientifically sound explanation comes forth.

Currently there are no other legitimate alternatives to consider. Even intelligent design bastardizes the concept of natural selection to explain their "theory", they just claim the process was guided by a supernatural power.

So we don't consider other alternatives because they currently don't exist. If you have something better, then knock yourself out.

They have no mechanism for the origins of life and they quicly rule out the thought of God did it, even though they can't prove how life began. They deny obvious evidence of intelligent design and say a natural process can do it even when it defies logic.

As you have been told countless times already, evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. That is a separate field. Are you running out of talking points?

The evolutionists are seeing Gods work and giving credit to an unintelligent process. Evolutionists are observing Gods once perfect creation and saying he did a poor job if he exists. All the greatest minds in science and all the technology that is in their posssessions cannnot produce what God produced without any help.

Which is the basic fallacy of introducing an all powerful supernatural force into a scientific theory. Before you can introduce God into scientific theory, you would have to concede the existence of God can be falsified.

Man has been struggling with the concept of the existence of God since he developed rational thought. I have my doubts that you are going to prove that God exists. As Bonhoeffer said: "Any God that allows his existence to be proven is an idol."

You are more than entitled to believe that God created everything. That is an article of faith. It is not a scientific theory. As such, it is not an alternate theory to evolution.

You're dealing with an intelligence beyond our comprehension ,evolutionists are just not intelligent enough to see it. God took non-living matter and created living organisms and mans science still don't know how its possible.

No, we are intelligent enough to understand the limitations of the scientific method and see that it is applied properly.

It's too bad that you blew off the lecture by Dr. Ken Miller. He does an excellent job of explaining this. Dr. Miller is also a Roman Catholic and believes in God.

 

[geauxtohell]

I did say Haldane was an evolutionist.

So, if Haldane himself didn't claim that his own findings invalidated evolution, why would you? Do you understand the work better than the author? I doubt it.

You are just eager to grasp at any straw to make an argument.

Supercomputer to me just means it is faster than the normal computer,but that being said i believe that the computer can only do what it was programmed to do. I am a firm believer that what is created is not greater than the creator.

Faster and more accurate.

Let me correct you on something,i believe in evolution but its only through adaptations and small changes within a species. Just don't buy Neo darwinism and macroevolution. You might be surprised by the amount people that share my views.

Most people haven't taken the time and discipline to actually study evolutionary theory and what it does and does not say. Thus, they keep repeating stupid things like "Macroevolution, blah, blah blah" and thus demonstrating that they are completely ignorant of what they are arguing about. This is why science is not a matter of democracy vote. Therefore, the opinions of the masses are irrelevant as far as the scientific community is concerned.

From all my reading on the subject, it is clear to me there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution that its now taught by some that there is no difference between micro and macro that is clearly false. Yes there is plenty of evidence for microevolution and its not even a dispute. Maybe that is the mistake you're making like so many others.

I am not making the mistakes here. You are. Again, saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is analogous to saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.

This becomes further idiotic when you realize that man has defined the concept of species (which is still a point of debate). If we wanted too, we could re-define the concept of species to call everyone with blond hair one species, black another, and etc.

Therefore, your point of contention is purely semantics and not really relevant to the larger concept of evolution.

I can't believe how many evolutionists i come across that put micro and macro together not discerning the difference between the two.

Because we understand that there really isn't a difference (because we have actually studied the theory from a neutral source - in other words NOT the "Institute for Creation Research (what a crock of shit. What research have they done in the last ten years?)).

There is no discrete biological event that is "macroevolution" that differs from "microevolution". Rather, the accumulation of multiple small mutations leads to a novel phenotype. The accumulation of novel phenotypes leads to new species.

 

[geauxtohell]

This is my theory. Neanderthals were 100 % human.Neanderthals did not share a common ancestor with an apelike creature.Neanderthals were the product of inbreeding and eventually their communities were so small they could not survive all the bad genes that was being passed onto the offspring, and Eventually went extinct.

But that would explain their appearence being different from modern humans. The different features in the neanderthals was the reason the evolutionists believe they were a product of macroevolution and has since tried to connect them to apelike creatures or the chimp.

"Theory" in the loosest form of the word..........

Thanks for not dumping any more crap from a creationist with an MA on us.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You see the biggest fallacy with Neo Darwinism is they assume and they have no doubt that macroevolution is the mehanism to the diversity of species. They will claim it is fact and that is what their explanations is based on. They never stop to think it through on whether its even a possibility.

First off, we don't adhere to the magical term "Macroevolution" to make a semantics debate. When you consider the the concept of species is a man-made definition anyways, it's pretty retarded to get wrapped around the axle on it. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same basic mechanism and concept.

We accept mutations and novel phenotypes adding up to make new species as it is currently the best scientific explanation for speciation. We are not "wed" to the concept if a better and scientifically sound explanation comes forth.

Currently there are no other legitimate alternatives to consider. Even intelligent design bastardizes the concept of natural selection to explain their "theory", they just claim the process was guided by a supernatural power.

So we don't consider other alternatives because they currently don't exist. If you have something better, then knock yourself out.

They have no mechanism for the origins of life and they quicly rule out the thought of God did it, even though they can't prove how life began. They deny obvious evidence of intelligent design and say a natural process can do it even when it defies logic.

As you have been told countless times already, evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. That is a separate field. Are you running out of talking points?

The evolutionists are seeing Gods work and giving credit to an unintelligent process. Evolutionists are observing Gods once perfect creation and saying he did a poor job if he exists. All the greatest minds in science and all the technology that is in their posssessions cannnot produce what God produced without any help.

Which is the basic fallacy of introducing an all powerful supernatural force into a scientific theory. Before you can introduce God into scientific theory, you would have to concede the existence of God can be falsified.

Man has been struggling with the concept of the existence of God since he developed rational thought. I have my doubts that you are going to prove that God exists. As Bonhoeffer said: "Any God that allows his existence to be proven is an idol."

You are more than entitled to believe that God created everything. That is an article of faith. It is not a scientific theory. As such, it is not an alternate theory to evolution.

You're dealing with an intelligence beyond our comprehension ,evolutionists are just not intelligent enough to see it. God took non-living matter and created living organisms and mans science still don't know how its possible.

No, we are intelligent enough to understand the limitations of the scientific method and see that it is applied properly.

It's too bad that you blew off the lecture by Dr. Ken Miller. He does an excellent job of explaining this. Dr. Miller is also a Roman Catholic and believes in God.

Macro and micro terms were coined by evolutionists, if they are the same why create the two different terms ? Why are evolutionists so concerned with reducing macro to micro-evolution ? Let me offer an explanation. It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.


If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation. I have had many discussions on this subject with evolutionists who were not willing to admit what you did.

You see,the only difference between creationists and evolutionists are there presuppositions and their explanations of the evidence. They are educated in the same fields ,and look at the same evidence, they just draw different conclusions of the evidence.

I understand evolutionists do not concern themselves with the origins of life as you say, But why do they no longer claim they no longer concern themselves with the origins of life ? it is simple,because they could not come up with a falsifiable answer. They even admitted ignorance after 50 years researching the origins of life. You have to admit there is no explanation for non-living matter being converted into living organisms. But really thats not true because they are trying to create life in the labs.

Bastardizes, that's kinda of a strong term to use is it not for your fellow scientists ? You do realize many early scientists subscribed to creation as the answer for all life and many still do ?

As for Mr. Miller,him being a catholic means he must subscribe to the Holy bible as the word of God. I am not impressed when i hear that admission from one who promotes a theory that is contradictory to the word of God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I did say Haldane was an evolutionist.

So, if Haldane himself didn't claim that his own findings invalidated evolution, why would you? Do you understand the work better than the author? I doubt it.

You are just eager to grasp at any straw to make an argument.

Supercomputer to me just means it is faster than the normal computer,but that being said i believe that the computer can only do what it was programmed to do. I am a firm believer that what is created is not greater than the creator.

Faster and more accurate.



Most people haven't taken the time and discipline to actually study evolutionary theory and what it does and does not say. Thus, they keep repeating stupid things like "Macroevolution, blah, blah blah" and thus demonstrating that they are completely ignorant of what they are arguing about. This is why science is not a matter of democracy vote. Therefore, the opinions of the masses are irrelevant as far as the scientific community is concerned.

From all my reading on the subject, it is clear to me there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution that its now taught by some that there is no difference between micro and macro that is clearly false. Yes there is plenty of evidence for microevolution and its not even a dispute. Maybe that is the mistake you're making like so many others.

I am not making the mistakes here. You are. Again, saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is analogous to saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.

This becomes further idiotic when you realize that man has defined the concept of species (which is still a point of debate). If we wanted too, we could re-define the concept of species to call everyone with blond hair one species, black another, and etc.

Therefore, your point of contention is purely semantics and not really relevant to the larger concept of evolution.

I can't believe how many evolutionists i come across that put micro and macro together not discerning the difference between the two.

Because we understand that there really isn't a difference (because we have actually studied the theory from a neutral source - in other words NOT the "Institute for Creation Research (what a crock of shit. What research have they done in the last ten years?)).

There is no discrete biological event that is "macroevolution" that differs from "microevolution". Rather, the accumulation of multiple small mutations leads to a novel phenotype. The accumulation of novel phenotypes leads to new species.

But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?

Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion. There are creationists at evolutionists side so they are working on the same things as the evolutionists. They just go a different direction with their explanations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is my theory. Neanderthals were 100 % human.Neanderthals did not share a common ancestor with an apelike creature.Neanderthals were the product of inbreeding and eventually their communities were so small they could not survive all the bad genes that was being passed onto the offspring, and Eventually went extinct.

But that would explain their appearence being different from modern humans. The different features in the neanderthals was the reason the evolutionists believe they were a product of macroevolution and has since tried to connect them to apelike creatures or the chimp.

"Theory" in the loosest form of the word..........

Thanks for not dumping any more crap from a creationist with an MA on us.

Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I did say Haldane was an evolutionist.

So, if Haldane himself didn't claim that his own findings invalidated evolution, why would you? Do you understand the work better than the author? I doubt it.

You are just eager to grasp at any straw to make an argument.

Supercomputer to me just means it is faster than the normal computer,but that being said i believe that the computer can only do what it was programmed to do. I am a firm believer that what is created is not greater than the creator.

Faster and more accurate.



Most people haven't taken the time and discipline to actually study evolutionary theory and what it does and does not say. Thus, they keep repeating stupid things like "Macroevolution, blah, blah blah" and thus demonstrating that they are completely ignorant of what they are arguing about. This is why science is not a matter of democracy vote. Therefore, the opinions of the masses are irrelevant as far as the scientific community is concerned.

From all my reading on the subject, it is clear to me there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution that its now taught by some that there is no difference between micro and macro that is clearly false. Yes there is plenty of evidence for microevolution and its not even a dispute. Maybe that is the mistake you're making like so many others.

I am not making the mistakes here. You are. Again, saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is analogous to saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.

This becomes further idiotic when you realize that man has defined the concept of species (which is still a point of debate). If we wanted too, we could re-define the concept of species to call everyone with blond hair one species, black another, and etc.

Therefore, your point of contention is purely semantics and not really relevant to the larger concept of evolution.

I can't believe how many evolutionists i come across that put micro and macro together not discerning the difference between the two.

Because we understand that there really isn't a difference (because we have actually studied the theory from a neutral source - in other words NOT the "Institute for Creation Research (what a crock of shit. What research have they done in the last ten years?)).

There is no discrete biological event that is "macroevolution" that differs from "microevolution". Rather, the accumulation of multiple small mutations leads to a novel phenotype. The accumulation of novel phenotypes leads to new species.

Why would Haldane make such an admission,he is an evolutionist.

If you put Haldane's dilemma with the conditions that geneticist R.H. Byles brought out, it shows the impossibilty that mutations are the source of new and beneficial information to produce Macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Theory" in the loosest form of the word..........

Thanks for not dumping any more crap from a creationist with an MA on us.

You seem to be concerned with credentials here is some interesting reading.



Do real scientists believe in Creation?



"I have seen anti-creationists claim that all true scientists support Evolution, and that those who support Creation are not really scientists and that their credentials are less than legitimate. Is this true?"
-Frank

It is true that during the 20th century, many scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton recently observed:

"An important factor in bringing about the universal dominance and acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every eminent professional scientist appointed to posts in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50 years, in the English-speaking world, has been a convinced Darwinist. …These men, as well as occupying powerful and important academic teaching positions, were also prolific and important writers whose influence has been widespread in forming the consensus." 1
These names include such men as Gavin de Beer, Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, C.H. Waddington, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Simpson.

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2


As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3

One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5
Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." 6


Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
&#9632;600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).

&#9632;150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)


&#9632;Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
&#9632;Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

&#9632;Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

&#9632;Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

&#9632;Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

&#9632;Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

&#9632;Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

&#9632;Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

&#9632;Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

&#9632;David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

&#9632;Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

&#9632;Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

&#9632;Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

&#9632;Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

&#9632;Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

&#9632;Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

&#9632;Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

&#9632;Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

&#9632;Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

&#9632;Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

&#9632;Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

&#9632;John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

&#9632;Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

&#9632;William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

&#9632;George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

&#9632;D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

&#9632;James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

&#9632;Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

&#9632;John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

&#9632;Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

&#9632;Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

&#9632;Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

&#9632;Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

&#9632;Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

&#9632;Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

&#9632;James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

&#9632;Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

&#9632;Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

&#9632;Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

&#9632;Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

&#9632;Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

&#9632;Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

&#9632;William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

&#9632;John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

&#9632;Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

&#9632;Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

&#9632;James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

&#9632;Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

&#9632;George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

&#9632;Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

&#9632;William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

&#9632;Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

&#9632;Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

&#9632;Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

&#9632;A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

&#9632;A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

&#9632;John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See our partial list of Creation-scientists with earned doctorates in science - Go…

Partial list of Creation-science organizations and addresses
&#9632;Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, California 92021, U.S.A. - The Institute for Creation Research

&#9632;Creation Research Society, P.O. Box 969, Ashland, Ohio 44805-0969, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

&#9632;Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92350, U.S.A.

&#9632;Access Research Network, P.O. Box 38069, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80937-8069, U.S.A.

&#9632;Answers in Genesis, Australia (formerly Creation Science Foundation), P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge DC, Queensland 4110, AUSTRALIA.

&#9632;Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6330, Florence, Kentucky 41022-9937, U.S.A. - Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

&#9632;Creation Science Association, P.O. Box 821, Station A, Scarborough, Ontario M1K 5C8, CANADA.

&#9632;Creation Magazine UK, Ltd., P.O. Box 770, Highworth, Wiltshire SN6 7TU, UNITED KINGDOM.

&#9632;Korea Association for Creation Research, Olympian Building, Room 811, 196-7 Jamilbou-dorg, Songpua-Ku, Seoul, SOUTH KOREA.

&#9632;Bible and Science of Japan, c/o Dr. Masami Usami, 1-4-41 Kamimito, Mito-Shi, Ibaraki-Ken 310, JAPAN.

&#9632;Christian Center for Science and Apologetics, ul. Gogolia 33-8, Simferopol, 95011, Crimea, UKRAINE - http://west.crimea.com/~creation/

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[geauxtohell]

Macro and micro terms were coined by evolutionists, if they are the same why create the two different terms ? Why are evolutionists so concerned with reducing macro to micro-evolution ? Let me offer an explanation. It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.

Who exactly coined them? Who were these "evolutionists". As they are used in biological sciences, it's understood that they are intricately connected and not abstractly different things.

As creationists have disingenuously tried to create a semantics debate to cloud the larger issue (as they do with the term "theory") the concept of "micro" and "macro" evolution are not anything that people who understand the theory split hairs about.

If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation. I have had many discussions on this subject with evolutionists who were not willing to admit what you did.

Because, as I said before, there is not scientifically valid alternative. That is aside from the fact that the evidence against it is scant and the evidence for it is massive. My point was this: the scientific approach is to consider any other valid possibility and not to adhere to something like religious doctrine. As new ideas and issues come up, the larger theory changes. Case in point: Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance (well, he did, but it was silly). Modern genetics has neatly explained at the molecular level what Darwin was able to observe with his eyes.

As it stands, the theory is always open to be altered and has been many, many times. At this point, there is no scientific theory or thought out there that would counter evolution.

You see,the only difference between creationists and evolutionists are there presuppositions and their explanations of the evidence. They are educated in the same fields ,and look at the same evidence, they just draw different conclusions of the evidence.

That's not true. There is a massive difference. Once side adheres to religion to explain the natural world and the other side adheres to the scientific method.

I understand evolutionists do not concern themselves with the origins of life as you say, But why do they no longer claim they no longer concern themselves with the origins of life ? it is simple,because they could not come up with a falsifiable answer. They even admitted ignorance after 50 years researching the origins of life. You have to admit there is no explanation for non-living matter being converted into living organisms. But really thats not true because they are trying to create life in the labs.

There are multiple good explanations. At this point, it's just which explanation is more plausible. "Evolutionists" didn't "give up" on the issue of the origin of life. Rather, it's so complex that it warrants it's own specialized field of biology.

Bastardizes, that's kinda of a strong term to use is it not for your fellow scientists ? You do realize many early scientists subscribed to creation as the answer for all life and many still do ?

The verb form of the word doesn't have the same connotation as the noun form:
Bastardize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Many"? That is being exceedingly generous. If you post the list from the Discovery Institute of scientists who believe in "Intelligent Design" (which is not the same thing as creationism) prepare to get smacked down. It's been discredited. As for "early scientists", why would I fault people for going with the faith based explanation when there was a lack of scientific evidence? That's just silly. I certainly fault any scientist who today choose to be ignorant.

As for Mr. Miller,him being a catholic means he must subscribe to the Holy bible as the word of God. I am not impressed when i hear that admission from one who promotes a theory that is contradictory to the word of God.

And I am not impressed that you can't grasp the crucial issue at stake here (though it is funny that you would lash out a Dr. Miller who obviously does).

Whether God exists or not (and thus created the world) is a question that is outside the scope of science to answer.

Therefore, you can be a scientist and believe in God and evolution and admit that you don't have to reconcile those two beliefs. At the same time, you acknowledge that it is outside the standards of your profession to introduce theology into the scientific method.

It's a simple matter of professional competence and not religious conviction.

An easier example would be of a Mormon Police Officer who acknowledges that he can't arrest people for drinking caffeine.

In fact, in every other profession but the field of science, we expect people to keep their religion out of their professional work. And yet, for some reason, you all expect scientists to be different and vilify them for trying to maintain the standards of the profession.

You say you are well read on this matter. I have my doubts. I suggest you buy a biology textbook and simply study the scientific method and how basic science works.

This is not a complicated issue. You are missing the forrest for the trees.