07-23-07, 09:09 AM #1
Denial of evolution
Why not take one of the threads where people repeatedly claim such things as:
1) scientists know that evolution is wrong, but are hiding that fact in order to retain their power
2) Darwin recanted on his deathbed
3) that DNA only mutates in specific pre-defined locations like factory options for cars
4) speciation has never been seen
5) ok, speciation has been seen, but the creation of new Genuses has not
...and everything else which is summarily smacked down by everyone who passed high school biology, and make it a sticky?
Create the permanent "So You Want to Disprove Evolution by Natural Selection" thread, which we can simply point such individuals to as soon as the same questions come up.
Does anyone have a thread they'd nominate as the best for this purpose?
07-23-07, 10:11 AM #2
07-23-07, 10:28 AM #3
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB would be effectively the same.
07-23-07, 01:45 PM #4
It sounds like a good idea. The topic comes up with enough regularity. If the question is on going perhaps the topic should be aswell. It give the possibility of new information to be added at any time.
07-23-07, 02:02 PM #5
07-23-07, 02:10 PM #6
Hmm perhaps the sciwiki may be a better option.
Why not start an FAQ and see how that progresses?
I am perfectly willing to help out, but I want contributions from the frequent posters in evolution threads.
This thread is a good option to start with; it is now a sticky with a new title/
07-23-07, 02:30 PM #7
I would very much like to stop dignifying this woo-woo by giving it a name with a cachet of authenticity: Creationism. Please call it what it is: evolution denialism. This is a science website; we are under no obligation to use the apologist terminology that has been adopted by the popular press in order to placate the religious fundamentalists among their readers. We're not attempting to attract religious fundamentalists to SciForums.
No one has dignified Holocaust denialism, they just call it what it is.
07-23-07, 02:36 PM #8
It's a fair subject. But it might be too sensitive an issue for these forums. The Truth is always delegated to the facts. I would say to those that appreciate the facts against evolution not to feel oppressed. We must as members appreciate that the moderators and their moderating on these forums is for the purpose of maintaing order. We all should be just a dedicated to that peacefull process.
It doesn't mean you're barred from your opinioin but one would be foolish that to appreciate that expressing ones opinion might create negative reactions from others. Being that catalyst we're responisble in part for the reaction our opinions provoke.
Last edited by Saquist; 07-24-07 at 01:52 PM.
07-24-07, 12:35 PM #9
07-24-07, 12:44 PM #10
Creationism is NOT nonreligious !
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.
Creationism doesn NOT fit 'the facts of science', and certainly not better then the Evolution Model!
07-25-07, 11:54 AM #11
Well, I'm short on work at the moment, so let's give this a try!
A Sciforums-specific F.A.Q. on evolution and its viability as a method for the creation of variation in modern life on Earth.
1) Life is very complex! There no way that it could form by accident. (otherwise known as the "airplane formed by a tornado in a junkyard" arguement)
Chemestry is not random. Biology is not random.
While evolution via natural selection currently suggests that random mutation in the genome are the source of variation, the driving forces behind selection are decidedly NOT random.
2) Proteins need DNA to form, DNA needs Proteins to form.
This is not the genetic material you are looking for....
3) Abiogenesis is untestable
Not quite. The claim here is misleading, suggesting that we need to be able to have 100% certainty in every idea for it to be useful science.
4) Mutations are extremely rare - only certain areas of the genome can mutate.
Mutations are not extremely rare, and they happen all over. Certain areas of the genome are more effectively checked for mutations (and then fixed) than others, but no section of the genome if "protected".
5 a) Microevolution has not been seen. Variation in populations is only the selection from a set of existing traits already in the population.
Speciation HAS been seen, frequently.
This is repeatedly shown to be inaccurate in lab experiments, the most obvious of which is bacterial cultures created from a single parent cell. Variation in that population is from a single starting chromosome.
5 b) macroevolution has never been seen / variations can only occur within set limits.
As to observing macroevolution on the human time scale- nor would we expect to, given the time frames involved. This does nothing to promote or discredit either side of the argument. Would you expect to see a new moon pop into existence from accumulated space debris within your lifetime?
variations in "kind":
5 c) Speciation does not mean that macroevolution is possible. They are different.
They are? Why? One is change in a population due to the collective change in allele frequency over time. Once that accumulation is large enough, why can it not be macroevolution? Genera/Phyla, etc are all human constructions anyway, to describe the animals that exist; why would they care if they cross our imaginary boundaries?
6) Irriducable Complexity - if you remove one part of a complex system, it stops working. How can such a system evolve bit by bit?
You are assuming that the structure in question always did what is does now. A television doesn't work as a television when it's not plugged in, but it still makes for a great doorstop, mirror, cloths hanger, bookshelf, fish tank, and more!
7) The eye, flagella, wings, etc are too complex/not useful in the supposed "stages" of their own evolution.
This is simply an incorrect claim, based on the same idea as seen in #6 - a "partially formed" eye still works great - just not as great as other eye designs. Ask anyone wearing glasses whether their not 100% perfect eyes are still useful.
8) Belief in evolution destroys any basis for a moral foundation in life.
I am personally insulted by the idea that my moral beliefs are so fragile that I need the threat of punishment from an omniscient being in order to be civil with other people.
9) Mitochondrial DNA proves that there was an 'Eve'
mDNA does show that all currently living humans had a common female ancestor that lived roughly 200,000 years ago. This is no way suggests that this female ancestor was the first human, however. The last common male ancestor lived roughly 116,000 years ago.
10) If evolution occurred, where are all the middle-of-the-road animals? The croco-pigeons?
Animals change over time, and diverge from each other. Even though they may be related, that does mean that all individual versions of the transition will continue to sire offfspring identical to themselves.
Did your father produce a clone of himself that is alive today? What will happen to him, as a transition version between your grandparents and yourself after he dies? Yeah, it's just like that.
11) No completely new features have been seen evolving.
Of course not. The likelihood of a wing spontaneously forming is pretty much 0. The chances of an existing structure changing over generations due to new uses for that structure is much more likely.
12) There is a limited/non-existant fossil record for human evolution. OR the homonid fossil record is crap.
There is still a fair amount that we do not know about human ancestry. But there is a lot that we do know. The fossil record for humans is fairly well put together at this point, with many transitional fossils of man-like apes that no longer live today.
13) If humans came from apes, why are apes still around?
Because we didn't come from apes - both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
If you and your cousins both came from the same grandparent, then why isn't that grandparent still around?
14) the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
No it doesn't. the 2nd law says that the total entropy of a closed system will not decrease. The earth is not a closed system.
15) Information Theory says that information in genes will only decrease over time, via the second law of thermodynamics.
You have completely confused similar terms used in different ways in different fields. Hot dogs are not made of dog, despite the similarity in names.
16) Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
This is not a true event.
I'll add more from the creation side if I have some time after I get some actual work done.
Last edited by river-wind; 07-26-07 at 10:54 AM.
07-25-07, 11:58 AM #12
It would be nice is someone linked to their earlier posts on sciforums as well
river-wind has provided a good list of the FAQ as a basis
07-25-07, 12:04 PM #13
07-25-07, 02:46 PM #14
07-25-07, 02:51 PM #15
07-25-07, 02:52 PM #16
07-25-07, 03:00 PM #17
07-25-07, 03:07 PM #18
deleted by moderator
Mod note: Please do not troll in this forum.
Last edited by S.A.M.; 07-25-07 at 03:32 PM.
07-29-07, 01:41 PM #19
Life is very complex! There's no way that it could form by accident. (otherwise known as the "airplane formed by a tornado in a junkyard" argument)Abiogenesis is untestable.
I agree that abiogenesis as a distinct theory is difficult to disprove. It awaits the corroboration of finding evidence of non-DNA based life having arisen on earth and either hiding in some deeply buried cracks or being out-competed to extinction. Or of finding that same evidence on another planet. As such it's a work in progress and has not achieved the status of evolution itself, relativity, heliocentrism or gravity.
Still, disprovability is only one element of the scientific method. Another is that extraordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation. Which assertion is more extraordinary: abiogenesis, or the existence of creatures external to a universe that reveals itself to be more orderly with every generation of scientist, which violate all the rules of that universe? The theory of abiogenesis can safely be used as a working hypothesis while we await the exploration of our solar system and then the next one. The "theory" of supernatural creation requires extraordinary substantiation before we have any obligation to treat it with respect.Macroevolution has never been seen / variations can only occur within set limits.Irreducible Complexity - if you remove one part of a complex system, it stops working. How can such a system evolve bit by bit?The eye, flagella, wings, etc are too complex/not useful in the supposed "stages" of their own evolution.Belief in evolution destroys any basis for a moral foundation in life.
Evolution gave us the resource to ascend beyond this. It gave us a uniquely large forebrain with so many synapses that it can successfully compete with the more primitive synapses in our generic vertebrate midbrain. Our cognitive ability is so great that it can literally override instinctive behavior with learned and reasoned behavior. This is why we were able to test the idea that building a permanent settlement where several once-rival packs could live together, practicing agriculture, division of labor and economy of scale, would make all packs more prosperous than wandering through the forest at the mercy of nature's bounty. This is why we were able to test the idea that combining several settlements into a single city, even though it meant having to live in harmony and cooperation with complete strangers, would increase our health, safety and comfort even further.
This overriding of natural instinct is morality! And we only have it because of evolution.Mitochondrial DNA proves that there was an 'Eve'If evolution occurred, where are all the middle-of-the-road animals? The croco-pigeons?There is a limited/non-existant fossil record for human evolution. OR the hominoid fossil record is crap.If humans came from apes, why are apes still around?
The mutations that are the engine of evolution only hit one individual at a time. His offspring will carry those genes and the offspring of his siblings will not. So two bloodlines are established which may recombine with interbreeding or may separate because of environmental factors or because of that pesky million-year-law-of-averages coincidence. Chimpanzees are a successful species in their ecological niche so there was no reason they would die off just because we came along and found a niche of our own.Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
08-27-07, 01:01 AM #20
Regardless of your opinion on the origins of life, exposure to common falacies in a forum where they can readily be debunked is a good thing.
If a thread has a unscientific bent, move it to pseudoscience or whatever. Dpn't ban them or move them to the sticky ghetto.
I never read stickys. They're too long and boring. I enjoy posting and exchanging ideas. I can't do that in a thread that's seventeen plus pages long for fear everyone will say, "Didn't you read the rest of the thread?" Once a thread hits ten pages or so, I ignore it. Unless I've been in it all along.
By Kailaurius in forum Science & SocietyLast Post: 07-09-12, 05:49 PMReplies: 6
By JesusFreak in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 01-26-09, 10:21 AMReplies: 294
By TimeTraveler in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 12-16-07, 11:41 PMReplies: 1
By spuriousmonkey in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 10-26-06, 12:24 AMReplies: 2