Science Disproves Evolution

How do you creationists explain the fossil records? Evolution is a fact carved in stone. Sorry and all that but facts are facts - you don't have to like them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The question wasn't whether red-eyed flies were a new species. The question is whether a mutation could be advantageous in terms of natural selection. If, for instance, female flies preferred red eyes, then this would generate a survival advantage. Seemingly minor variations of this sort do alter the survival potential of animals and plants.

A species is a scientific definition, it just means an animal that cannot (or does not in nature) mate with another kind of creature to form viable offspring. This phenomenon has been reproduced in fruit flies (although, I believe) separate from the red eyed ones). What this would mean in nature is that the two populations of flies would be reproductively isolated and futher separate through natural genetic drift.

OK, that looks like about .001% of all evolutionary biologists. Science is built on doubt and skepticism, but also on consensus. There is no scientific consensus on creationism. In fact, apart from trying to debunk evolution, they don't offer any evidence of their own that supports creationism. Life on Earth looks just as it should if it evolved on it's own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spidergoat,

Exactly. After all his hand waving.

It boils down to: We have nothing to add but god did it.

Each discovery puts the creationist in a smaller box. All they can do is move the goal posts around to confuse their followers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh sorry, asleep at the wheel... again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

KRR

 

I studied evolutionary biology, genetics and environmental biology at Essex University. Sure we studied fruitflies because they have a fast generational turnover so its EASY to study genetic changes from one generation to the next. If God was in my lab, I must have missed him. Darn.

 

I don't mind skepticism at all, but in their case, it's just so disingenuous. They accuse scientists of being closed minded but where is the evidence of that? Before we can even have an honest discussion about facts, let's talk about the history on their side of being not only wrong but willfully ignorant. I mean, the creation museum suggests that hominids and dinosaurs lived at the same time. They are asking us not to recognize what our own eyes see. Jesus was always saying, "Let those who have eyes see". It wasn't, "Let those who can ignore their eyes continue to see things as we would like them to be". Jesus was a great example of someone who was willing to accept new information. His spirit was essentially rebellious because he saw the truth himself and trusted in that. Where is that spirit now? If the Bible is the word of God, how much more so is the very geology of the Earth?...the eons of stories about the struggles of early life, written in stone rather than paper. Would they have us ignore the amazing story of our own evolution? Not shat out like a vending machine item, humans took part in their own creation. It doesn't make sense to separate the act of creation from the act of living, they are the same thing. It's disrespectful of our ancestors not to acknowledge this journey, far more miraculous than the exodus from Egypt by the Jews. It took millions of years and involved untold millions of sentient creatures.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Let's face it TOE can hardly be called hard science actually it's more of psuedo-science but it's been put in the garb of great significance because it's so flashy as it involves all the organisms of earth and millions of years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You can “face it”, if you wish. The rest of us prefer to live in the real world and exercise some mental ability.

 

This is a very good line. I intend no offence, but is it your own? If it is from someone else I should like to read it in context. If it is yours I fully intende to plagiarise it. I have used the same theme in several confrontations with creationists, but never seen it expressed so pithily.

 

That's nonsense.

Yes, my own words.

 

I understand your argument. Thanking you for clarifying it. I don't think it is relevant, though. There is no logical reason that experience of the part can be extended automatically to the whole. To do so is to make an assumption. In this case I think it is an invalid assumption, but my opinion is hardly important. What is important is that you would have to justify this assumption before it could be considered valid.

As I understand it cyclic universes get around this apparent problem. There are other plausible explanations. Your statement again becomes a viewpoint, not a statement of fact.

A butterfly does not exist as a butterfly before it exists as a butterfly, but it still has a prior existence.

This doesn't really count because of the points I made earlier.

 

I've seen these arguments before. At first hearing, they irritated me quite a bit and continue to do so. As has been said before, this is creationist hogslop that has found its way into a scientific board. I think the guy who compiled this stuff was even the very man I saw speak.

 

Can you reference the scientific reports which support this proposal?
Any scientific evidence at all which supported this would be damaging to the theory of Evolution.
Proof of it would break the theory into pieces. It wouldn't be random mutation.
Speciation on Islands is a central support for the theory, and is the main reason why I believe it myself,
so if there is some evidence that separated species have a tendency to revert to their original type I would like to hear it.

 

Maybe, but only if there are no reproductive barriers. Some birds looks for specific signals when mating. The thing is, Darwin's finches are a snapshot in time. They diverged relatively recently. Given more time, they would be as different as penguins and crows.

 

No he cannot, for the simple reason it is incorrect. Darwin's finches originally came from South America, but have split into new species. They cannot 'revert'.

 

One way street baby, one way street.

(I presume that is literally true, but am not certain. Any cases of species merging? )

 

There a bunch of hybrids, some of which can be fertile.

Hybrids May Thrive Where Parents Fear to Tread

 

Wolves and coyotes in NA seem to have merged in the northeast US, and the new animal seems to breed true.

That is not a case of "reverting" to an "aboriginal wild stock", of course.

No it doesn't.

For one thing, there is no such alternative.

If the theory of evolution were to be somehow invalidated, the mountain of evidence and argument and validated prediction and careful research that has fully supported it for more than a century would then be unexplained - no creation theory that explains all that stuff has ever been formulated.

Meanwhile, this repetitive bs is as others have observed getting kind of old. Aren't OP's like this one supposed to be cesspooled as soon as discovered? He's quoting Behe, maybe pseudoscience?

 

That would be true of most creationist threads, which just pick holes in the theory, and regurgitate the same old tired and false arguments.
But Pahu is aware of some science which goes to the heart of the theory.
He has scientific evidence that subspecies which have been formed due to separation, eg Finches on the Galapagos, will naturally revert to the original species once they cease to be separated.
He hasn't told us the details yet, but I'm sure he will do so soon.