Quantcast
46% of Americans believe in Creationism

Forums - General Discussion - 46% of Americans believe in Creationism

OooSnap said:
Final-Fan said:

No, we cannot reasonably reproduce the evolution from non-flying animals to flying ones in laboratory setttings. 
Yes, scientists haveprduced observational evidence of fossils of creatures sequentially evolving to be more capable of flying. 

Evolutionary science doesn't have lower standards, it's just that you are so opposed to what that science is reporting that you view it with not only much more skepticism and attention to potential weak points but also with great eagerness to accept whatever criticism is offered even if the criticism is weak. 

The reason Dawkins said that we haven't observed it while it's happening is that an individual doesn't evolve.  Over time, the individuals in the species evolve to become physically different than what they used to be.  But this happens from generation to generation so you can't "see" them changing.  The difference in a single generation of individuals would probably be impossible to detect compared to the normal deviation of individuals within a species.  For instance, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that humans are evolving to be taller.  Well, there is still a great deal of variation within humanity as far as how tall people are, so if one generation was on average 1/5th of an inch taller than the older one, that wouldn't really be apparent. 

It's not that we don't see evolution because of how long it takes.  We don't see it because you literally can't see that evolution is happening.  You can only see that it has happened. 

I know scientists can't reproduce macroevolution. That's why it isn't hard science because of lack of observational data.
There are no transitional fossils according to scientists:
Yep, still a fruitfly, albeit a weaker kind.
Evolution - the story that you evolved from goo and evolved to you by the way of the zoo, doesn't hold up under the scientific method.Hit me up when real, hard scientific evidence is produced. I'm willing to look at it with an open mind.

1.  We can argue about the validity of the fossil record, but first:  ASIDE from the question of the validity/completeness/whatever of the fossil record, will you admit that fossils count as "observational evidence" since we are observing (the remains of) creatures that have lived and can make inferences about them based on where they were found in the various strata? 

2.  That statement is obviously wrong.  As for what you meant to say, that there are SOME scientists that claim there aren't any T-fossils (for short), I can tell that in many of those quotes that assertion is complete insanity—there is no possible interpretation a sane person could make that the quoted person believes T-fossils don't exist.  In many others, I can see that they are merely saying that due to the AGE of the certain fossils in question it is unsurprising that we have very incomplete records.  (And also, for many early animals, their bodies were very hard to fossilize well in the first place compared to later animals.)  Due to your incredible quote dumping I certainly don't have the time or inclination to do your job for you and sift through the obvious garbage to see if any of these people were actually claiming T-fossils don't exist. 

3.  If scientists make fruit flies evolve in response to artificial laboratory environments, it's not surprising that they would tend to revert to their normal state when removed from that environment, because their "normal state" is what they've evolved into to be well adapted to the environment they're being returned to.  As for a lot of the mutations being detrimental, that's a stupid objection.  Nature breaks a LOT of eggs to make its omelets. 

4.  You're very fond of that catchphrase, judging by how many times you've repeated it, but it doesn't constitute any kind of evidence or argument, and I think you're the only one in this thread who is susceptible to its emotional appeal.  You are simply turning a blind eye to the stupendous amount of evidence in the scientific body.  For one thing, there are entire branches of biological science that would just not even work if the basic idea of evolution was wrong; the fact that science is able to proceed down those roads is proof that scientists have got at least the broad concept close to right, even if they aren't 100% sure of the exact processes. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
OooSnap said:
Another thing that totally destroys the evolution story (to me at least) are "living fossils" and amber fossils.
How convenient a lot of these organisms didn't evolve over 100+ million years. "They don't need to evolve" = a cheap cop-out that only dogmatic evolutionists would buy.

Why is it a cheap cop-out that some animals evolve dramatically and some don't? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

What percentage of the 46% that believe in Creationism are Illiterate and uneducated and rely on the book/word of the God for the truth?



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
What percentage of the 46% that believe in Creationism are Illiterate and uneducated and rely on the book/word of the God for the truth?


An honest answer would actually show that most of them are literate and have some form of education (because our literacy rate is pretty high, though should be higher).



OooSnap said:
allenmaher said:

 

For the record macro evolution is BS.  All evolution consists of changes in heritable traits (genetic information) within a population of individuals.  These genetic changes will over time alter populations such that they become incompatible (infertile) with other populations.  Phenotypic changes, the way things look, does not always change. Appearances and body forms that have survival advantage tend to be around an exceptionally long time.  Other phenotypes, such as those that will help you get a mate are also strongly selected for.  The rate of change in a population is governed by several things, the manner of reproduction (asexual, sexual, male/female preferences, and so on), the lifespan of individuals in the population, and exposure to mutagens along with the species genetic repair mechanisms.  A fossil or a species is simply a snapshot of a population in time, they are constantly evolving.

While mutation is random, selection is not.  Sharks are incredibly adept animals and have many features that have endured for a long time for example, this does not mean that they do not evolve, they do change (developing a very interesting adaptation to the increasing salinity of the oceans for example).  Your other examples are all, well, just silly straw man arguments that don't hold up on close examination. Any resemblance of a 50 million year old fossil to a modern species is likely partial skeletal similarity (there are not a lot of complete 50 million year old skeletons) and artist renderings using modern examples to flesh out the massive amount of information we don't know about those species.  There are 1240 or so bat species today for example, which points to the exact opposite of your claim, they have evolved and radiated into a magnificent array of populations that have common ancestry and some similar inherited traits.

I am sure you  will take issue with me not addressing every single one of your straw men, but believe it or not time is limited.  If you spent some time checking your arguments, I think you would find them all to be fallacious since they are based largely on the eronious arguments of macro evolution.  The encyclopedia of life ( http://eol.org/) is a great starting place where you can see a tremendous number of different species and thier common ancestors, plus lots of fun nifty stuff about them.  EOL tends to deal with current species but there are great credible paelentology sites out there too.


I agree Macroevolution is BS. But other evolution proponents on this forum say otherwise.

Phenotypic changes? You mean phenotype? The way things looks does not always change? What?

So get me this straight. You actually believe that organisms supposedly 100+ million years old, and some that are  supposedly 400+ million years old, can remain the same physically, but humans supposedly evolved from an ape ancestor in just 7 million years? Really? If you want to believe that story.

There are many amber fossils, supposedly millions and millions of years old, and they look exactly identical like their modern counterparts. Somehow they just said no to evolution.

Evolutionists are shocked to see it. It was not expected. It goes against their evolution story pressupposition. Hence the following quote:

“Many leading evolutionary theorists ... have been persuaded by punctuated equilibrium that the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., 1993. Punctuated equilibrium comes of age, Nature, 366:223–224.

To say "well, some organisms just don't evolve even after 400+ million years" is a cheap cop-out. Seriously, it makes me laugh to think people think of evolution as scientific.

Prove that bats evolved. The following scientistswill take issue with your claim:

“Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications.”
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 392

 

it is eminently clear that you don't really understand what you are quoting. A phenotype, or phenotypic trait can be preserved because it is evolutionarily successful, having claws for example.  At a genetic level all species are evolving an all species today that resemble ancient species do so because they have inherited traits, not because they are the same species and have not evolved.  i called macro evolution BS because the genotypic changes do not always have large phenotypic changes.  Large phenotypic changes can occur without a change in speciation.  I have never claimed that species don't evolve, they are all constatnly evolving.  Similar inherited traits due to ancestry do not equate to the same species remaining unchanged for long periods of time.

The punctuated equilibrium hypothesis is largely discredited since it conflicts with a considerable amount of evidence.  While shifts in morphology can occur in relatively short evolutionary time (still millions of years) this does not mean that the underlying mechanism of change is any different.  Changes in hox genes create very noticable differences but it is still just one genetic mutation. The gentic difference between hair, scales and feathers, very different ectodermic manifestations are really just a few base pair mutations.  Small genetic changes can have large manifestations or subtle phenotypicly invisible ones.

Humans are apes, we have a few traits that are different than the other apes, but really not that many.  The genetic differences between us and the other chimps is less than the natural genetic variation within many spcies. We even give ourselves our own genus, Homo, even though if we were to follow our own nomenclature rules the genus of humans should be Pan.  The three extant species of chimps are us Pan sapien, the regular chimp Pan troglodytes, and the bonobo Pan paniscus.  They share common traits because they have common ancestry,  all three species have evolved genetically since the last common ancestor.

A collegue and occasional drinking buddy of mine is an evolutionary biologist, he works on the area of post sexual selection (mainly at a molecular level), and while there is debate and research in the filed of evolution about things like the relative importance of selecetion methods, all of those debating understand that evolution is a fact.  In his words "I don't believe in evolution, it is a fact, there is no need for belief."  Debate in science is normal, but the evidence (facts) are agreed upon because they are verifyable.  That evolution occured is considered as much a fact as gravity.  Evolution is  better understood than gravity.  we know the mechanisms and we have ample evidence.

In science the term theory is not used casually. A well reasoned and supported conjecture is called a hypothesis, when something in science is called a theory, it is because there are mountains of supporting evidence and it represents our best understanding of how things work based on many well tested hyponthesis. 

Rather than cherry picking quotes from papers that you clearly don't understand, why not read the papers?  Have you read them or do you just grab the quotes out of context from some creationist disinformation site?

 



Around the Network
OooSnap said:

"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . . "Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)

"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)

Did you read it carefully? It reads macroevolution can't be observed and it can't be extrapoloated from processes observed  at the population level.

None of your links show any photos that gives credence that it is an intermediate form nor is there anything about consensus of scientists that endorse their claim. Moreover there is no scientific evidence in any of your links that support its claims. Claiming something is an transitional form is much easier than providing scientific evidence that it is. Paleontology is a very subjective science

As you know if you have read the quotes, scientists admit the fossil record doesn't give credence to the evolution story.  You can read the quotes here http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/gaps/

I never argued for Punctuated Equilibrium. It was a theory postulated to explain away the absence of clear cut transitional forms that would give credence to the evolution story. Gould was open about the absence of transitional forms "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould; Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin)."

If you don't think those are transitional fossils then you don't understand what transitional fossils are.

With that said, you didn't post anything new. You simply repeated your argument I previously addressed if you would read carefully. 

"genesispark.com" - LOL

"The purpose of Genesis Park is to showcase the evidence that dinosaurs and man were created together and have co-existed throughout history."

LMFAO, despite going against every piece of evidence ever discovered.

Okay we're done here. Are you going to post from Creation.com next? Hilarious stuff. You have rendered yourself completely partisan on the matter and have firmly established that you don a tinfoil cap.

Enjoy your ignorance.



dsgrue3 said:
OooSnap said:

"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . . "Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)

"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)

Did you read it carefully? It reads macroevolution can't be observed and it can't be extrapoloated from processes observed  at the population level.

None of your links show any photos that gives credence that it is an intermediate form nor is there anything about consensus of scientists that endorse their claim. Moreover there is no scientific evidence in any of your links that support its claims. Claiming something is an transitional form is much easier than providing scientific evidence that it is. Paleontology is a very subjective science

As you know if you have read the quotes, scientists admit the fossil record doesn't give credence to the evolution story.  You can read the quotes here http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/gaps/

I never argued for Punctuated Equilibrium. It was a theory postulated to explain away the absence of clear cut transitional forms that would give credence to the evolution story. Gould was open about the absence of transitional forms "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould; Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin)."

If you don't think those are transitional fossils then you don't understand what transitional fossils are.

With that said, you didn't post anything new. You simply repeated your argument I previously addressed if you would read carefully. 

"genesispark.com" - LOL

"The purpose of Genesis Park is to showcase the evidence that dinosaurs and man were created together and have co-existed throughout history."

LMFAO, despite going against every piece of evidence ever discovered.

Okay we're done here. Are you going to post from Creation.com next? Hilarious stuff. You have rendered yourself completely partisan on the matter and have firmly established that you don a tinfoil cap.

Enjoy your ignorance.

This is more for Oosnap as I know you'll agree:

This is why creationists aren't considered scientists and why creationist science is a complete contradiction. Scientists have a hypothesis, do experiments and based on data they reach conclusions. They then refine their hypothesis with their data until they have enough evidence to form a theory. They then refine the theory by gathering more data and adding to the pool of knowledge in a large community of scientific collaborators. The original hypothesis can and likely will change significantly based on the evidence, until it becomes a theory.

Creationsist come up with a conclusion, then go searching for anything they can find to support their view, ignoring everything opposed as is apparent in the bolded quote above. It's the very opposite of science.



Final-Fan said:
OooSnap said:
Another thing that totally destroys the evolution story (to me at least) are "living fossils" and amber fossils.
How convenient a lot of these organisms didn't evolve over 100+ million years. "They don't need to evolve" = a cheap cop-out that only dogmatic evolutionists would buy.

Why is it a cheap cop-out that some animals evolve dramatically and some don't? 

I've been hesitant to jump in here, but if the explanation is that some animals evolve and some don't (and I'm sure it's more complicated), the problem would be that the explanation is post-hoc, meaning that it's added after the fact to address deviations from the theory, and adds little to no theoretical value to the explanation. The key point being that you would need a mechanism to explain and predict the deviations that are observed. Just to be clear, I have no clue if biology has provided an explanation or not.....it's not my area of expertise and my knowledge comes from a handful of casual readers on the subject.



OooSnap said:

 

So get me this straight. You actually believe that organisms supposedly 100+ million years old, and some that are  supposedly 400+ million years old, can remain the same physically, but humans supposedly evolved from an ape ancestor in just 7 million years? Really? If you want to believe that story.

There are many amber fossils, supposedly millions and millions of years old, and they look exactly identical like their modern counterparts. Somehow they just said no to evolution.


Absolutely ! If a creature/species is "perfect", there is no reason for it to change. If you apply pressure and extreme conditions, precisely what happened to our ancestors (they were almost wiped out) you can get drastic results in a relatively short amount of time.



OooSnap said:

Of course, evolution is anything what evolutinionists want it to be as long it keeps their fairytale going.

Answer this question. Did evolutionists expect "living fossils" and amber fossils to have evolve, Yes or no? Did supposed millions of years of stasis contradict the evolutionists' predictions, yes or no?

If you answered No, then you need to take it up with the evolutionists I quoted.

 

If the conditions in which the species lived didn´t change over the years and it is already highly specialised...No, it wont change ! Mutations are the basis of Evolution, random errors in the DNA that may cause nothing at all....or something big.

When an single individual in a see of other individuals gains a special positive characteristic through a mutation, it is more likely that this single individual will survive and reproduce more often than the other animals without the new characteristic, the children of the mutant will give the special characteristic to their own children (which themself will have an advantage over the other animals)

...when a mutation has a negative effect, the opposite happens: The individual is less likely to survive/ give it´s DNA to the next generation

 

If a species is already highly specialised to certain condiditions and it´s ecological niche isn´t changed over the course of 500 million years it  won´t evolve

 

No, this is no condradiction, living fossils are evidence in favour of the evolution theorie (survival of those who fit the best)