Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Onlooker]

Gday,



Wrong.
The first life was NOT a cell.

See - there's the problem - you don't actually know anything about evolution (or abiogenesis.)

Perhaps if you actually studied the subject a little, you wouldn't keep making howling mistakes like that one.

We see this every day here - the people who argue against evolution NEVER UNDERSTAND it.


Iasion

enlighten us, was it.....a mineral. Was it ......an amino acid. Was it the rna virus, dna or rna plasmid that gained sustenance from the soup? Was it.....?

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, no one questions the obvious, the not so obvious is the first, the alpha, the beginning cell. Its part of the evolutionist belief system, we evolved (notice all the science facts btw) and we came from a cell (inferred, obviously) but we all believe it was ......um.......its another branch of science, so talk about it somewhere else you creationist. Its not a problem with me if all evolutionist dont want to discuss how we started, but why do these discussion groups always blanket statement creationist instead of intelligent design?

Well, it's an interesting subject, and one we could talk about in a separate thread. However, I wouldn't want to confuse people between what is well-settled science--evolution--and what is still an open problem--abiogenesis. I still don't understand what you mean by "evolutionist." Do you mean, "person who accepts science"?

I think it would be easier for a "creationist" on an evolution blog to be referred to as ID, once you bring in the "creation" event, you are opening the door for abiogenesis, cosmogenesis etc.. If that part of your belief system isnt suppose to be discussed , then limit our belief system by the term Intelligent Design or Purposeful Design. I think that would keep us on the evolution focus.

I'm sorry, you lost me again.

agreed on all parts. An evolutionist standpoint is defined in the above, "it doesnt matter how it started" and then evolution kicked in. A creationist standpoint is defined as "it was a purposeful and creative event that the DNA kicked in at the right time and then DNA machinery continues over billions of years.

Actually, there is no single creationist standpoint. Lacking the scientific method, creationists cannot agree on anything, not the age of the earth, what parts of ToE are correct, whether new species evolve, what a "kind" is, anything. Many creationists believe a whole detailed explanation for the diversity of life on earth that is wrong from start to finish.

yeah, MU experiment was novel, dont know what the end result would be. Again, abiogenesis has as much mystical answers as any religion could put forth. DNA machinery is rock solid as the answer to life on this planet, a well design, intelligent engine that moves forward that was pretty well described in the Hebrew 32 verses in genesis.

You're starting to gibberish again. My point is merely that I'm sure you can figure out how any specific hypothesis as to the origin of life could be tested and could be falsified. So far, none of these hypotheses has been strongly evidenced enough to prevail, but if history is any indicator, we can be confident that one day one will.

 

[AfterGlow]

Skwim.. straining the point is pointless. I have stated that well credentialed scientists do not accept TOE. Are you going to go on for pages and pages illustrating an inability to acknowledge this, regardless of what percentage we adhere to.
Genetic Entropy

If the author of this book is one of the credentialed scientists you speak of, then I'm afraid you've been swindled, he doesn't appear to understand the basics of natural selection.

There are at least 100 new deleterious mutations in each individual with each generation. They are generally too slight individually to be selected out and in aggregate, cannot be selected out because there are too many of them. Genes cannot be selected, only individuals and all individuals are defective to greater or lesser extents. The overall fitness of the human race is decreasing by about 1 - 2% per generation. He concludes that we are headed for extinction as a race and that the human genome cannot be a thousand generations old yet or we would already be extinct.

If this review accurately reflects the content of the book (which, by the way, has a UFO on the front cover???) it demonstrates the author's lack of understanding. Yes, people are born with many deletarious mutations, and like he says most are insignificant. But the first obvious mistake is his use of the term "fitness", the fitness of an individual isn't determined by how many mutations they have, it is determined by how long they survive and how many offspring they produce. It doesn't matter if a person is riddled with bad point mutations, if they survive and reproduce, they are fit in evolutionary terms.
Secondly, mutations don't simply accumulate over generations like he's proposing, within a population there will be enough differing alleles to diluate out most deletarious mutations. For a mutation to become fixed into the population, the individual must have enough children to significantly alter the genetic dynamics of that population, overwhelming the influence of competing alleles. And if he has the fitness to produce that many offspring, it means his mutation is not a hindrance to his survivial in his current habitat. And that is key, the fitness of a certain individual is determined not on his genetic structure alone, but in the ways in which that genotype allows him to interact with his environment.

You don't need to believe in evolution, but if you want to understand it you can't rely on those pushing a Christian agenda, you need to read books by those who work in the field, and that doesn't necessarily mean Richard Dawkins. Just go to the library or pick up a cheap copy online of Evolution: An Introduction by Sterns and Hoekstra.
Amazon.com: Evolution: An Introduction (9780198549680): Stephen C. Stearns, Rolf F. Hoekstra: Books

 

[newhope101]

If the author of this book is one of the credentialed scientists you speak of, then I'm afraid you've been swindled, he doesn't appear to understand the basics of natural selection.


If this review accurately reflects the content of the book (which, by the way, has a UFO on the front cover???) it demonstrates the author's lack of understanding. Yes, people are born with many deletarious mutations, and like he says most are insignificant. But the first obvious mistake is his use of the term "fitness", the fitness of an individual isn't determined by how many mutations they have, it is determined by how long they survive and how many offspring they produce. It doesn't matter if a person is riddled with bad point mutations, if they survive and reproduce, they are fit in evolutionary terms.
Secondly, mutations don't simply accumulate over generations like he's proposing, within a population there will be enough differing alleles to diluate out most deletarious mutations. For a mutation to become fixed into the population, the individual must have enough children to significantly alter the genetic dynamics of that population, overwhelming the influence of competing alleles. And if he has the fitness to produce that many offspring, it means his mutation is not a hindrance to his survivial in his current habitat. And that is key, the fitness of a certain individual is determined not on his genetic structure alone, but in the ways in which that genotype allows him to interact with his environment.

You don't need to believe in evolution, but if you want to understand it you can't rely on those pushing a Christian agenda, you need to read books by those who work in the field, and that doesn't necessarily mean Richard Dawkins. Just go to the library or pick up a cheap copy online of Evolution: An Introduction by Sterns and Hoekstra.
Amazon.com: Evolution: An Introduction (9780198549680): Stephen C. Stearns, Rolf F. Hoekstra: Books

Perhaps it is more the case that Sanford was not taken in by the outlandish assumptions purported within TOE. Or rather you choose what research you wish to accept or not.
John C. Sanford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless, no matter how you wiggle and squirm, there is a small proportion of credentialed researchers that do not adhere to TOE.


Get used to it ...or continue to be a religious bigot.

 

[Skwim]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."[39]

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100-87=13%...that do not !!!!!

Skwim.. straining the point is pointless. I have stated that well credentialed scientists do not accept TOE. Are you going to go on for pages and pages illustrating an inability to acknowledge this, regardless of what percentage we adhere to.

Camanin... the agreement that everything evolves is about the only thing agreed to in evolutionary sciences.

The days of calling creationists uneducated and ignorant are long gone, except for religious bigots that adhere to their faith regardless of evidence to the contrary. Religious bigots are the only ones having problems in acknowledging there are a small proportion of credentialed scientists that do not adhere to TOE.

Genetic Entropy

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/young_earth_creation_scientific_evidence.pdf

I apologize for not bringing this to your attention before; guess I assumed you were aware of it but simply thought to ignore it. Anyway, here, from Pew's own web site, is their findings.

source
​

Note that the question asked is "[Do you believe] Humans and other living things have Evolved over time, which was answered in the affirmative by 97% of the scientists, that is, 97% of scientists believe in evolution.
In the Pew report this is broken down into two categories: Evolution 1) Due to natural processes, and 2) Guided by a supreme being.

Where your 87% comes into play is the manner in which evolution occurs. This percentage accounts for only those scientists who believe Humans and other living things have Evolved over time Due to natural processes---no supreme being acting as guide.
Then there's the additional 8% that also believe in evolution, but believe it's guided by a supreme being. This in no way implies they didn't evolve--"existed in their present form since the beginning of time" the creationists contention, which is accounted for by the 2% as listed. ( I surmise that the 87% figure plus the 8% figure don't add up to 97% because of rounding down.)

Now why others, other than pro-creationists, have chosen to ignore the 8% of scientists who believe humans and other living things evolved through the guidance of a supreme being is a bit puzzling, although Pew's description of their findings is kind of confusing. But regardless, as Pew's own figures tell us, the 8% does count among the 97% of scientists who believe in evolution. Only 2% - 3% of scientists believe otherwise.

Verstehen Sie?

 

[AfterGlow]

Perhaps it is more the case that Sanford was not taken in by the outlandish assumptions purported within TOE. Or rather you choose what research you wish to accept or not.
John C. Sanford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless, no matter how you wiggle and squirm, there is a small proportion of credentialed researchers that do not adhere to TOE.


Get used to it ...or continue to be a religious bigot.

Please, I am no bigot. I'm simply trying to help you. If you want to understand evolution, you need to read about evolution, not someone who doesn't believe in evolution touting a Christian agenda. If you don't want to understand evolution, that is fine, it is no skin off my nose. It all depends on whether you would like people to take you seriously or not in these sort of debates.

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps it is more the case that Sanford was not taken in by the outlandish assumptions purported within TOE. Or rather you choose what research you wish to accept or not.
John C. Sanford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless, no matter how you wiggle and squirm, there is a small proportion of credentialed researchers that do not adhere to TOE.


Get used to it ...or continue to be a religious bigot.

What there is not is any substantial number of Biologists who do not.

 

[lunamoth]

Perhaps it is more the case that Sanford was not taken in by the outlandish assumptions purported within TOE. Or rather you choose what research you wish to accept or not.
John C. Sanford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless, no matter how you wiggle and squirm, there is a small proportion of credentialed researchers that do not adhere to TOE.


Get used to it ...or continue to be a religious bigot.

Apparently Sanford believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and our genes are devolving. I wonder how he explains the fossil record - is time actually running backwards and the fossils are what we are devolving into?

 

[Noaidi]

What there is not is any substantial number of Biologists who do not.

Yes. And given we are discussing a biological topic, this is crucial.

Edit: actually, this issue reminded me of book which I have just dug out: "In Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose To Believe In Creation" http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Days-Sc...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299536981&sr=1-1

Out of 50 scientists qualified to PhD level, 11 are biologists. I picked one that is involved in the same discipline that I was, ecology. Dr Henry Zuill of Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska posits that parasites and predators developed as they and ecosystems became degenerate - wait for it - after The Fall of Man! Predation and parasitism didn't evolve as adaptive traits but are, instead, the doings of Satan's temptation!

So, to Newhope, yes some biologists do not accept ToE, but is their alternative credible and testable? Should we take them seriously?

 

[Jose Fly]

what is your "point" of the origin of life. Mine involves a Creator. Sure, you may not contemplate that point, but its valid since I brought it up. Your belief system is in question when it comes to the unanswerable aspects of our world. What do you believe on how the first cell was created/formed?

I don't have any firm beliefs on the subject, but right now I favor the view that it occurred via increasingly complex organic chemistry.

They are actively testing their hypothesis.

Ah, so it can be tested.

But they dont know the exact temp/pressure/O2 levels/N2 levels/CO2 levels/NH4 levels, so therefore it is not testable (at least the exact conditions during the first living cell)

Why do you think they have to know those conditions exactly? Are you familiar with organic chemistry? You do realize that reactions typically take place over a range of conditions, right?

What Im trying to get the discussion to agree with is that both sides have non provable points. They can never state exactly how the first cell was created. Neither can we.

So what you're saying is, since scientists cannot give a total, complete account of the origin of life to a 100% degree of certainty, then it's no different than some story made up by anyone?

Do you hold everything to that standard of perfection?

 

[Jose Fly]

So NewHope is exactly what she seemed....the absolute worst stereotype of the internet creationist. Does little more than preach, copy and paste, and make grand accusations, but refuses to answer direct questions or even address basic responses.

The fact that she must engage in such dishonest behaviors while advocating her position speaks volumes about the nature of her position.

 

[painted wolf]

I love the "agree with me or you're a religious bigot" argument.

Add that to the growing use of Fundy-font(tm) and things get really fun.

wa:do

 

[Big_TJ]

No, it's a conclusion. Scientists figured out how species arise. They figured out that arise from existing species via the evolutionary process. They deducted that the existing species on earth each arose from a previously existing species. They observed, via fossil records, how complexity increases as time goes forward. So they deduced, or inferred, that the oldest species would be the most simple.

Another way to say this is: Think about regression analysis and the regression line; it is all about using existing data to make prediction.

Hope i didnt complicate this

 

[newhope101]

I love the "agree with me or you're a religious bigot" argument.

Add that to the growing use of Fundy-font(tm) and things get really fun.

wa:do

Good.... because you cannot even agree with statistics. You are a bigot if you so hate that you are prepared to appear to be illiterate and unable to understand your own stats.

Look at you all wriggling and squirming and unable to listen to statistics.

The sad fact for you is that in 2009 only 87% of scientists adhered to TOE, and 13% did not. I would also assert that a great many scientists would not be happy to go on record as being a decanter, regardless of the confidentiality promised.

It does not matter that there are refutes to Sandfords research. Your own evolutionary scientists refute each other, although they are evolutionists. How much more likely will they be determined to offer refutes to work they is totally against their belief system. Sandford’s work is support for creation just as much as any of your assumptive probability modelling can be put forward as any evidence for TOE.

It is a sad day for RF when it defenders of the TOE faith are unable to acknowledge statistics from a non creationist source.

I may also add that the percentage of TOE decanters has gown steadily over the past 12 years.

13% of credentialed scientists do not agree with TOE. Hence scepticism re TOE is not only the realm of the uneducated and ignorant. Rather, it is many of the evolutionists here on RF that continue to show themselves to be ignorant, arrogant and unable to accept reality. Perhaps this information feels too threatening for you to acknowledge. Is it just so fear inspiring to learn that indeed 13% of your researcher do not accept TOE, that you think if you ignore it for long enough this fact will go away? It won’t!

You can ignore that data as much as you like and it will never go away.

13% of scientists think TOE is crap!!!!!!!! HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[barek333]

Good.... because you cannot even agree with statistics. You are a bigot if you so hate that you are prepared to appear to be illiterate and unable to understand your own stats.

Look at you all wriggling and squirming and unable to listen to statistics.

The sad fact for you is that in 2009 only 87% of scientists adhered to TOE, and 13% did not. I would also assert that a great many scientists would not be happy to go on record as being a decanter, regardless of the confidentiality promised.

It does not matter that there are refutes to Sandfords research. Your own evolutionary scientists refute each other, although they are evolutionists. How much more likely will they be determined to offer refutes to work they is totally against their belief system. Sandford’s work is support for creation just as much as any of your assumptive probability modelling can be put forward as any evidence for TOE.

It is a sad day for RF when it defenders of the TOE faith are unable to acknowledge statistics from a non creationist source.

I may also add that the percentage of TOE decanters has gown steadily over the past 12 years.

13% of credentialed scientists do not agree with TOE. Hence scepticism re TOE is not only the realm of the uneducated and ignorant. Rather, it is many of the evolutionists here on RF that continue to show themselves to be ignorant, arrogant and unable to accept reality. Perhaps this information feels too threatening for you to acknowledge. Is it just so fear inspiring to learn that indeed 13% of your researcher do not accept TOE, that you think if you ignore it for long enough this fact will go away? It won’t!

You can ignore that data as much as you like and it will never go away.

13% of scientists think TOE is crap!!!!!!!! HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point of science is to question the theory constantly, I for one would be concerned if 100% people said it were to be true.

Also I just watched a clip on youtube where they have shown a poll that said that only 50ish percent of graduate students answered correctly this question: How long does it take Earth to orbit the Sun. And also more then 50% thought that Lasers are made from soundwaves.

Also to note is that you just preach preach preach..and when someone asks you a normal question you dont answer. Only time you do is when you think you are sure you can come up with an appropriate response..instead of admitting you are wrong or that you dont know.

Oh...and how desperate can you be when you are happy that your opponent has an 87% approval, while you have 2-3%

 

[Skwim]

The sad fact for you is that in 2009 only 87% of scientists adhered to TOE, and 13% did not. I would also assert that a great many scientists would not be happy to go on record as being a decanter, regardless of the confidentiality promised.



13% of credentialed scientists do not agree with TOE. Hence scepticism re TOE is not only the realm of the uneducated and ignorant. Rather, it is many of the evolutionists here on RF that continue to show themselves to be ignorant, arrogant and unable to accept reality. Perhaps this information feels too threatening for you to acknowledge. Is it just so fear inspiring to learn that indeed 13% of your researcher do not accept TOE, that you think if you ignore it for long enough this fact will go away? It won’t!

13% of scientists think TOE is crap!!!!!!!! HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You evidently passed by my reply to your claim here or are simply ignoring it in favor of passing along more bogus percentages. In any case, I invite you and anyone else taken in by your 87% and 13% figure to go HERE

 

[newhope101]

Your old stats mean nothing. This is 2011.

So 13% of scientists do not agree with TOE.

That means more than 1 scientist in 8 disagreed with TOE in 2009.

YIPEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the losers of this point wiggle and squirm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[McBell]

That's pretty much what NewHope was on about, and as I told her, I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that evolutionary scientists have yet to figure out the entire history of every trait and organism that's ever existed on earth.

Why do people keep harping on that?

It is their last glimmer of hope.
I mean, we are talking about a group of people who honestly think that if evolution is proven false, then by default creationism HAS to be true.

So they have placed all their eggs in the "prove evolution false" basket.

 

[newhope101]

It is their last glimmer of hope.
I mean, we are talking about a group of people who honestly think that if evolution is proven false, then by default creationism HAS to be true.

So they have placed all their eggs in the "prove evolution false" basket.

Dearry, the point being that you can longer say that every scientist agrees with TOE and those that do not are uneducated idiots. This is a line you lot like to shove up creationists.

New Gallup poll: America still creationist (surprise!) « Why Evolution Is True

13% do not agree with TOE. Meaning more than 1 out of every 8 and the number has grown since the '80's.

I have made my point, and I'll shove it up you when ever necessary.

 

[McBell]

Dearry, the point being that you can longer say that every scientist agrees with TOE and those that do not are uneducated idiots. This is a line you lot like to shove up creationists.

New Gallup poll: America still creationist (surprise!) « Why Evolution Is True

13% do not agree with TOE. Meaning more than 1 out of every 8 and the number has grown since the '80's.

I have made my point, and I'll shove it up you when ever necessary.

I have never once made the claim that "EVERY" scientist agrees with anything.
So perhaps you should put that strawman away before you further embarrass yourself?

What point have you made?
I mean honestly?

For those who actually read and understand your links your point must be that you are so desperate that you are willing to tell bold faced lies.

Of course, that is assuming that you are not so stupid as to actually believe the bull **** you post.

Are you praying on those who are just as ignorant or more ignorant than you?
And you do so in the name of your god?

Any god that supports your lies, dishonestly and blatant slander is not a deity I would wish on my worst enemy.

You have done more to turn people away from your god and religion in general, than all the scientists who agree with evolution combined.

And they weren't even trying...