[sperry]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Now, to something a bit more serious...Scott, you have now accused me of "making stuff up". Please indulge me with a list of the things I have "attempted" to make up and be ready to back up your accusations. Accusing me of this is the same thing as calling me a liar. You may not agree with what I have to say, but don't go accusing me of this unless you have some proof. I gave some geologic information and a few things on genetics...where in that did I make anything up?

Actually, I was "accusing" you of attempting to make up a logical argument, rather than just stating a bunch of nonsense like everyone else in this thread. My point was that you're basing your argument on a flawed understanding of evolution.

With that in mind, I will go back over just the recent stuff that's been said... I know I probably shouldn't waste my time because I'm not going to be able to put a dent in the crazy pseudo-science you guys have rationalized up to support a bible-centric understanding of the world, but just in case someone who isn't already indoctrinated comes by and reads this, at least it's not full of just you folks going on with your half-understanding about how evolution and science work.

So with that... *deep breath*

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

You are correct...if science was performed the way it was intended to be. However, it is no longer that way now. Real science is based on things in the natural world that can be observed directly and tested in a lab environment...anything beyond that progresss into something that involves more philosophy than science.

Wrong. Science can be done with math, for example. You make correlations between the observed world and mathematical models, manipulate the models and learn/predict the world. That's how we first understood things like Black Holes, or elements on the periodic table that haven't been observed. A mathematical model can be a very effective scientific tool. And then later, as we develop more and more technology, we can sometimes directly observe predicted behavior. Astronomy, chemistry, and physics are full of this sort of research. Science does not require a direct observation in a laboratory for it to be valid, though that certainly adds to the credibility of a theory. Science requires logic, peer review, and repeatable, transparent processes to be valid.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Evolution theory has done that. The big bang cannot be observed or tested, therefore belief that it happened falls into the category of faith. Macro-evolution cannot be observed nor tested in the lab...same thing as before....not true science, but faith if you believe it happened.

Wrong... so wrong. The big bang has not been observed, but we are able to look back in time by examining the light from stars that existed shortly thereafter. Those observations are used as input into models about how the universe works and help refine the theory. Do we know the answer? Not yet, but not knowing something completely doesn't invalidate what we do know.

As far as evolution.... clearly you guys read this: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

If you read that and it makes sense to you... punch yourself in the face because it's horrible pseduo-science written by someone that has a clear pro-bible agenda and no real understanding of evolution. The difference between micro and macro evolution is simple, micro is within a species, macro is across species which takes much longer to occur, but is the exact same process in effect in both. Micro evolution simply leads to macro evolution. Try reading UC Berkley's evolution site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php, it's the second link that came up when you guys googled for "macro micro evolution", and even though it appears to be written for the junior high school level, it would be beneficial to a bunch of people in here apparently. *snicker*

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

You said that anyone is free to question a theory..true in principle, but not quite true in practice. Questioning evolution theory will likely get you fired from a teaching position, even if you are NOT a creationist. I personally do not believe in evolution, and not just because of my religious beliefs.

Ugh. So your argument that evolution is wrong and creationism is right is that there's a conspiracy perpetrated by the scientific community that is black-listing anyone that has a contrary theory to evolution? Please.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

As I mentioned before, the realworld data (evidence) that I OBSERVED (a scientific process) made me understand that evolution and a millions of years old earth couldn't work. I have no grant money riding on that asessment, so I am free to express it. I DO have plenty of "evidence" to put some serious doubts on evolution, and I have mentioned a few points on here. If you'd like to hear more, I'm happy to oblige.

I'll bite. Feel free to submit a peer-reviewed whitepaper on your theory that I and anyone else can use to reproduce the evidence that supports your conclusion. 'Cause that's the quality of the vast majority of the research that's been done that does support evolution. If you're going to refute such a well established field of research, you better bring some top-notch evidence. Yes, scientists can be bull-headed when they believe a particular theory, but they get that way because the evidence is so strong in favor of the theory... not because their jobs/funding are on the line. You want to refute string theory, well all it takes is an interesting algorithm on a napkin... but if you want to refute evolution, you're going to need something that contradicts the 100's of years of evidence, fossils, experiments, etc. If you've got that, frankly, you'll be bigger than Darwin and Jesus combined.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Well I personally don't have any issues with anyone who chooses to go along with the majority of people in the world and believe that evolution actually works, despite the fact that no actual evidence exists to support it (by the way, just because the majority of people believe in something does not make it right).

Argh! "No actual evidence"? There is a massive, massive, massive body of evidence that supports evolution. There is zero scientifically valid contrary evidence that refutes the basic tenants of evolution. If you want evidence that evolution works, look pretty much anywhere... hell, look at car design. Today's cars are faster, safer, more fuel efficient, etc, than previous generations of cars. Why? Because the traits that make cars better are kept for the next version of the car, the traits that made the cars worse are dropped. That's evolution, in action, right in front of your eyes. Granted it's not "natural evolution"... but don't say that there's no evidence that evolution as a process doesn't work... it works so well, virtually everything around you shows evidence of being improved by evolution.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

What I do have an issue with is what damage does my believing in a literal understanding of Genesis do to the rest of the planet? How does that affect you personally, or the guy down the street, or to the people in charge? It is my opinion, my beliefs and they are just as valid as anyone elses. So I'm just not getting where the whole "irresponsible" thing comes from.

I believe the "irresponsible" comment stems from you making claims about evolution without backing them up, in a manner that suggests you know what you're talking about, when you don't actually understand evolution. It's disingenuous or reckless at best. Now, you clearly believe what you're saying, and you have a right to say it. I'm not calling you a liar, nor am I suggesting that you don't have a right to be wrong. But you're going to have to put up with the rest of us calling you "irresponsible" or do a much better job of backing up what you're saying, because the rest of us would rather not mislead people who come here via google that might be on the fence about what they believe.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

The major point I have been trying to make here is that an evolutionary viewpoint is just ONE possible way to "interpret" the data, and the theory has so many holes in it that it could never be considered as anything BUT a theory...despite the continued claims that evolution is a "settled fact".

What holes? The totally wrong stuff about DNA below? The incorrect understanding about micro and macro evolution? The disregard for how the scientific method works with regards to observations?

And, for like the millionth time... a scientific theory is not "just a theory". The quality of the theory is dependent on the supporting evidence. Stop using the layman's definition of the word "theory" as an argument that evolution is not valid. If you want to refute evolution, you're going to need quantifiable, testable, reproducible evidence.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Creation is another theory (also not a proven fact) that actually fits the available data quite well, and is an option that people should consider, instead of just discarding out of hand because it has a supernatural force as it's instigator. Neither creation OR evolution can be proven...both require faith to believe the parts that no one was around to observe.

No one is throwing out creationism just because of the association to religion. It gets thrown out because it doesn't fit the data. The rationalization required to make creationism fit the observed world is borderline ridiculous. One argument I've heard: the banana is evidence of intelligent design because it's clearly designed for human consumption with a nice pealable wrapper, etc.. Which totally ignores the fact that bananas look the way they do because they were bred by men to be tasty snacks. Granted, this argument is one of the most juvenile made by the ID crowd, but the rest of them are all just about as suspect when you actually bother to look at them with a skeptical mind.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

That's ok, I don't mind about the tv thing, as long as you can admit that is where you get your information (and you have).

I don't understand the whole anti-TV thing. The science stuff that gets on TV tends to be the most widely accepted and reviewed stuff, unless you're watching some dumb paranormal pseudo-science type TV. Programs like NOVA, and most of the stuff on Discovery are going to be accurate, if only boiled down for a general audience.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Now we are getting to the real issue...those examples you mentioned are what is known as MICRO-evolution in the science world. A much better term would be pre-programed adaptation. Those very minor changes are already part of their DNA code, so it would not really qualify as evolution, in the Darwinian sense. Your moth may get larger or smaller wings or maybe even a slightly different color, but in the end, it is still a moth. This kind of adaptation is the only "evolutionary" feature that is actually observed in nature and can be verified in a lab...therefore, is real science. However, an evolutionist will always use these micro adaptations as their evidence that one kind of creature evoloves into another over time (called MACRO-evolution)...which is something that has NEVER been observed in nature. They also expect to use this "evidence" to also try to convince you about the other 4 kinds of "evolution...cosmic (origin of the universe), stellar (origin of stars), chemical (self explanitory), and organic (origin of life). none of these forms of evolution have EVER been observed in nature nor have they ever been duplicated in a lab...therefore, not real science. And to answer your other question....yes, National Geographic is lying to you, maybe not on purpose, but the information is deceptive.

It's this sort of stuff (and the DNA nonsense below) that triggers the "irresponsible" comments. Micro evolution is called "micro" simply because it's observable over the short term. Of course you can't observe macro evolution in a lab, the reason is that by definition it takes longer than is observable. Perhaps if the human race is around for the next million years, we'll observe it... but for now... you're right, we can't observe it in the lab. But that in no manner makes the theory of evolution false, or that it's not "real science" if it's not observable in the lab. The body of evidence is extensive, here's a starting point from the Berkeley website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0_0_0/lines_01. But you can spend a lifetime going over the evidence... in fact, many people have.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

As I mentioned before, mutations do not create any new genetic coding in the DNA. Fish don't sprout legs no matter what because the genetic coding for legs doesn't exist in their DNA, and a mutation would not create it from nothing. A leg on any creature would only form if the genetic "blueprint" already existed in the DNA. If the code ain't there, nothing happens. Mutations are DAMAGE to existing DNA. Look at it this way...slamming your Subaru into a wall will damage it, but it will not make it sprout wings and become an airplane eventually. Sorry for the crude example, but it fits. Mutations are not "traits", they are screw-ups. They are the result of DNA copying mistakes and environmental damage. They are not beneficial...ever. They are, in fact, easy to identify because they always do something bad to the creature that develops them.

And this... this is the most horribly incorrect understanding of evolution and DNA perhaps I've ever read.

First, mutations most exactly do create new genetic coding in the DNA. That's the definition of a genetic mutation... when the DNA code is changed. To say differently just screams of a complete lack of understanding of the DNA process and how it's related to evolution. And to say that any DNA mutation is bad... well, that's just plain stupid. Why in the world would every DNA mutation be bad? The fact is, the vast majority of DNA errors do nothing because there's a ton of DNA code in every cell that's just vestigial (which is another question for god, why bother putting so much useless data in our DNA? Where did it come from if not being left over from previous creatures?). If the mutation doesn't affect the creation of a protein, then the mutation does nothing. DNA mutates all the time. Go stand in the sun for 20 minutes, guess what, you've just had some genetic mutations in your skin cells from the radiation. But DNA is pretty robust (because all the creatures without robust DNA are all extinct by now) so you don't get skin cancer just from being in the sun for a few minutes. Additionally, the genetic mutation must occur in reproductive cells, and not just in the creature, or the trait isn't passed on to the next generation... really, environmental mutations aren't the prime reason for evolution, it's more a result of the recombination of different genetic material from two parents with different DNA (which is why most creatures use male/female reproduction... it allows for better genetic variation which results in higher changes for more successful offspring).

And that's why the car crash example is more than just "crude"... it's flat wrong. A giraffe doesn't evolve from a horse because a horse tried stretching its neck out... it has to be a genetic mutation in the genes passed on during reproduction. Similarly, crashing a car doesn't change the blueprints for building more of those cars. However, crashing a car could indeed reduce its weight, or improve its aerodynamics... so you can see that a "mutation" to the car could in fact be beneficial. A proper analogy would be the introduction of random changes to the car's blueprints, then building and testing each car with the random changes and picking the cars that are better. Which is exactly how evolutionary algorithms are being used to design new things, like race cars.

Next, fish don't just "sprout" legs and walk out of the ocean... it starts with a fish that has a mutation that allows it to survive up on the beach longer which perhaps gives it access to a wider food source. That fish and its descendants out produce their competition and crowd out the less evolved fish. Then the fish that can move around better out of water because of a mutation to its ribs, for example, then crowds out the previous fish. Then another mutation turns those ribs into legs, and gills into lungs, and next thing you know (after millions of years) that fish is a land animal.

But what's important to note is that evolution takes place over massive time spans, but also occurs in rapid spurts. It takes long time spans for the "luck" of a mutation to be advantageous, but once there is a positive mutation, it can dramatically and quickly result in the replacement of a species. If you want evidence of this, just look at humans. 70,000 years ago there were around 1 million people. That increased to around 50 million around 2500 years ago. In 1800, there were 1 billion people. Today, 7 billion. What was it that made people suddenly so much more successful? It was brain power... and more specifically the application of brain power to the creation of a society that allows us work together to farm, build cities, create science to better understand our world, etc. Additionally, before man invented society, there was more than just one "man" species. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were around at the same time and competed with each other... think black bears and grizzly bears. But the smarter early man was more successful and the neanderthals died out. There is no "missing link" between neanderthal and homo sapien because we didn't evolve from them. Similarly, there is no missing link between chimps and humans because we didn't evolve from them either... we shared a common ancestor a long time back, but that common ancestor was neither chimp nor man... it was just the creature, probably one of many other variations of similar creatures, that happened to exist back then and eventually diverged into both chimps and man.

Which is yet another point to be made that's getting missed: evolution is perpetual and dynamic. You can't just look at different species and say this is the ancestor of that. Everything that exists today, even things that have not changed dramatically over millions of years like sharks and alligators, are different from the creatures that came before. And not all creatures that look similar are related... like sharks and dolphins... they're a prime example of how adaptation to the environment drives evolution, that two vastly different creatures end up looking similar because they live in similar environments. Why would an intelligent designer create two creatures that move through the water similarly with completely different skeletons? Was god just feeling creative, or perhaps just wanted to confuse biologists? Or more likely, were the requirements of surviving in the ocean just the driving force for two completely different lines of animals to look and function similarly?

So, with that... perhaps the longest post I've ever made... I think I'm done with this thread. If folks want to spout off nonsense, feel free. I just urge anyone that can't immediately see through the crap to take the time to do their own research and make their own conclusions about what's posted... this post included.