Science vs. Creationism

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

To my knowledge, the only person in this thread who has quoted Darwin as a source for current evolutionary theory is PearlWatson.

I'm not gonna rifle back through this thread for the background to this....

But why is there a problem with quoting Darwin? "Darwinism" was perverted by conservative interpretations of what he wrote and poorly constructed debates between those conservatives and the reactionaries against the idea of evolution. I think his original works are still very insightful; they stand up pretty damn well.

 

[MVP]

Oh, so your quoting and using Darwin who died decades before Pratt makes more sense and is more creditable than my source? .

Show me where I quoted Darwin please.

 

[MVP]

Graduated from the University of Kansas in 1907 with a bachelor's degree. Among the most notable early contributions made by Pratt and his staff were geological studies that led to the correct interpretation of the structure of the huge Mexia field, discovered in October 1920 in East Texas.

Pratt also played a prominent role in the scientific progress of his profession. He was the first recipient of the AAPG's Sidney Powers Memorial Award, awarded in 1945.

In 1972 he received the AAPG's Human Needs Award. He also received the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers' Anthony F. Lucas Medal in 1948, and the American Petroleum Institute's Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement in 1954.

That has nothing to do with creation fantasy you trying to sell as fact here. And again, look at the dates. Dude had no clue about any recent fossil discoveries, advanced dating methods or other technological advances.

 

[PearlWatson]

Plus first land creatures ( amphibians ) appeared millions of years before archosaurs or pterosaurs.

Birds appeared milllions of years after land creatures.

Your use of that word is appropriate no matter the actual timeline.

 

[One Brow]

But why is there a problem with quoting Darwin? ... I think his original works are still very insightful; they stand up pretty damn well.

Newton's works also stand up pretty well, but if I'm discussing the current state of physics, I won't quote Newton. There is nothing wrong with quoting Darwin for historical purposes.

 

[carolinajazz]

Show me where I quoted Darwin please.

...you have supported Darwin thinking ever since we've started this thread! "Natural selection"....."Mutations"....."biological species change from one kind to another"..."evolutionary change occurs through gradual change of populations."
.......NONE of which is/has been/or ever will be.....supported by facts, observation, fossil record or common sense!

 

[MVP]

...you have supported Darwin thinking ever since we've started this thread! "Natural selection"....."Mutations"....."biological species change from one kind to another"..."evolutionary change occurs through gradual change of populations."
.......NONE of which is/has been/or ever will be.....supported by facts, observation, fossil record or common sense!

Triple false. Supported and quoted are different words. Evolution is confirmed by multiple evidence and lab experiments.
And people who believe in virgin birth, 900 year old humans and Noah's ark should never mention common sense in their posts.

 

[VINYLONE]

Came across this today:

https://www.newswise.com/articles/new-method-confirms-humans-and-neandertals-interbred

 

[carolinajazz]

Came across this today:

https://www.newswise.com/articles/new-method-confirms-humans-and-neandertals-interbred

"thanks to a genome analysis method described in the April 2014 issue of the journal GENETICS."

...and I'm sure this "analysis method" is foolproof and as reliable as gravity! Actually, the article proves or lends itself to the creation of a first human pair.....since "The technique can more confidently detect the genetic signatures of interbreeding than previous approaches..."

....if they could "interbreed" and reproduce "according to there kinds" ......what reason would there be for "evolving" further?

 

[carolinajazz]

And people who believe in virgin birth, 900 year old humans and Noah's ark should never mention common sense in their posts.

I will answer your above concerns one by one, starting with a "virgin birth".

Reproduction without a male is known as parthenogenesis [Greek, parthenos meaning “maiden” plus “genesis”]. Recently scientists have been experimenting successfully with parthenogenesis in mammals. The Economist of August 1, 1981, reports: “Embryo development in the absence of sperm is the natural means of reproduction in many lower species of animal. Parthenogenesis is being studied using laboratory mice. Several means exist for artificially activating an unfertilised mouse egg.”

Similarly, Dr.*M. B.*V. Roberts of Marlborough College, England, writes: “An unfertilized egg was removed from a female rabbit, activated by pricking, and then popped back into the uterus. Hormone treatment had been previously given to the female so that her uterine mucosa was prepared for implantation. Normal development ensued, and a visibly normal offspring was produced.”

Are we to conclude from this that God induced Mary’s pregnancy in some such way from an unfertilized egg? No. If Mary’s firstborn had received both chromosomes (X)*from her, the offspring would of necessity have been female.

Hence, something more must have been involved in the conception of Jesus. Just what this was the angel explained to Joseph: “That which has been begotten in her is by holy spirit.” (Matthew 1:20) We do not know precisely how this was done. Yet we must admit that if mere man can in a limited way manipulate the fertilization process in the laboratory, surely it is not beyond the power of the Creator and Life-Giver of the universe to do so and to transfer the life-force of his Son from the heavens to the ovum of a virgin girl.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

^Jesus ****ing Christ....



































(pun)

 

[PearlWatson]

Do a bit of research on him. He's pretty unabashedly anti-Semitic, for one. I would give him the same consideration I would toward E.O. Wilson on his thoughts on sociobiology.

EDIT: What little I read seems to purport that he argues any new genetic advantage is the result of dormant alleles and not via mutation. A really odd stance.

Seems like there is absolutely zero science actually done to back up his opinion and the scientific institutes he is associated with back away from him.

In your haste to discredit the guy you got the context all wrong, and therefore both of your bolded conclusions are wrong as well.

Here is my simplified version of what went down:

Nature published an article with false statements about Maciej Giertych.

Maciej Giertych wrote to nature refuting the false statements.

Some "evolutionary biologists" (Darwiniac prophets) from another institution scolded Nature for allowing Maciej Giertych to refute the false statements and Maciej Giertych for all his claims.

Maciej Giertych (Genetics Professor): I believe that, as a result of media bias, there seems to be total ignorance of new scientific evidence against the theory of evolution.

Darwinists from University of Edinburgh: There is no new evidence against the theory of evolution. Just check our recent text books guys! We haven't published any new evidence against evolution.

Maciej Giertych: That's what I'm saying you retards.

Maciej Giertych: Not only are you not publishing the evidence against the theory, your text books are wrong to conclude that microevolution proves macroevolution, because I am one of those "experts" in the field of microevolution (population geneticist) and so I know what I'm talking about.​

******
Here is his refutation letter published in Nature:

Maciej Giertych

In your News story “Polish scientists fight creationism” (Nature 443, 890?891; 2006 doi:10.1038/443890c), you incorrectly state that I have called for the “inclusion of creationism in Polish biology curricula”. As well as being a member of the European Parliament, I am a scientist a population geneticist with a degree from Oxford University and a PhD from the University of Toronto and I am critical of the theory of evolution as a scientist, with no religious connotation. It is the media that prefer to consider my comments as religiously inspired, rather than to report my stated position accurately.

I believe that, as a result of media bias, there seems to be total ignorance of new scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. Such evidence includes race formation (microevolution), which is not a small step in macroevolution because it is a step towards a reduction of genetic information and not towards its increase. It also includes formation of geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.

We know that information exists in biology, and is transferred over generations through the DNA/RNA/protein system. We do not know its origin, but we know it exists, can be spoiled by mutations, but never improves itself spontaneously. No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated adaptations to antibiotics or herbicides are equivalent to immunological adaptation to diseases, and not a creation of a new function.

We keep on searching for natural explanations of everything in nature. If we have no explanations we should say so, and not claim that an unproven theory is a fact.

 

[PearlWatson]

That would be a prediction of evolutionary theory: the descendant of bacteria are bacteria. It would have be a miracle, and a disproof of evolution, if they were anything else.

Bizarre statement from Darwinist who claims humans are descendant from fish.

Of course your statements about "evolution" rarely make sense.

 

[One Brow]

Here is his refutation letter published in Nature:

It also includes formation of geological strata sideways rather than vertically, archaeological and palaeontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, a major worldwide catastrophe in historical times, and so on.

There is no archaeological nor paleontological evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, nor one of a major world-wide catastrophe in historical times. Teaching that there are such things is teaching Creationism.

 

[One Brow]

Bizarre statement from Darwinist who claims humans are descendant from fish.

Why is that so bizarre? We are fish whose ancestors evolved to live on land, of course we come from fish.

 

[PearlWatson]

There is no archaeological nor paleontological evidence of a major world-wide catastrophe in historical times.

That's bizarre coming from a Darwiniac who speaks of an "extinction event."

 

[PearlWatson]

We have probably the best evidence of any other species evolution when we look at modern horse. It has evolved from small dog size ancestor and those fossils are extremely well documented.

If that drawing really depicts how a horse changed into horse over time then the loss of complexity in the forefeet doesn't help your "microevolution" shows "macroevolution" cause.

 

[MVP]

If that drawing really depicts how a horse changed into horse over time then the loss of complexity in the forefeet doesn't help your "microevolution" shows "macroevolution" cause.

Mine? Not sure what you trying to say here but evolution is full of examples where unnecessary organs, parts of body became vestigial or were gone within millions of years. See whale legs, snake legs, human tails, human body hair, etc. etc. We talked about it already so many times I am shocked you still coming back to it.

 

[PearlWatson]

Mine? Not sure what you trying to say here but evolution is full of examples where unnecessary organs, parts of body became vestigial or were gone within millions of years. See whale legs, snake legs, human tails, human body hair, etc. etc. We talked about it already so many times I am shocked you still coming back to it.

supposed "vestigial" examples of animals losing features and becoming less complex doesn't support the theory of gaining features and becoming more complex.

If you lose legs you are less complex.
If you lose a tail you are less complex.
If you lose hair you are less complex.
You are losing genetic information.

In order to go from molecule----->fish you have to gain features (gain genetic information)
In order to go from fish----->human you have to gain features

Here's an altered Ken Ham illustration.

 

[MVP]

supposed "vestigial" examples of animals losing features and becoming less complex doesn't support the theory of gaining features and becoming more complex.

They gain features which helps them. Snake losing legs has better chances of fitting in smaller caves. Whale losing legs swims better. It gives them advantage and better survival options. Who said it needs to be more complex to be advantageous?