Evolution: Fact Or Fiction

Whats your religion?

Atheist	39.4%	[ 1145 ]
Protestant	16.9%	[ 491 ]
Catholic	14.0%	[ 408 ]
Hindu	1.3%	[ 38 ]
Muslim	1.8%	[ 53 ]
Jew	2.3%	[ 67 ]
Buddhist	5.1%	[ 149 ]
Greek Orthodox	0.7%	[ 21 ]
Pagan	14.2%	[ 413 ]
Egyptian	4.2%	[ 122 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2907 ]

[Sinner]

Yuki no Yoru

Evolution is false because it is in fact impossible for some animals to have evolved because of the way they are designed, for example the Bombardier Beetle. There are other animals too that couldn't have been evolved either because of their design but this is the only one where I remember the name.

You know, that very same Wikipedia article says this:

Quote:

However, some researchers have shown that their chemical weapon involves minor alterations of other, less noxious beetles. This lends weight to the idea that this beetle has diverged from other species as a product of evolution by natural selection.

In one demonstration, biologist Richard Dawkins mixed together hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide in an artificial environment. No reaction occurred - a catalyst was required. Dawkins' point was that as the beetle's defensive mechanism evolved, the intermediate stages would not explode - the chemicals would not react without a catalyst, and the concentrations of catalyst in its body could increase with evolution over time.

For a more far more detailed and insightful look into the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Care citing evidence against evolution that isn't bullshit?

[Yuki no Yoru]

Sinner

Yuki no Yoru

Evolution is false because it is in fact impossible for some animals to have evolved because of the way they are designed, for example the Bombardier Beetle. There are other animals too that couldn't have been evolved either because of their design but this is the only one where I remember the name.

You know, that very same Wikipedia article says this:

Quote:

However, some researchers have shown that their chemical weapon involves minor alterations of other, less noxious beetles. This lends weight to the idea that this beetle has diverged from other species as a product of evolution by natural selection.

In one demonstration, biologist Richard Dawkins mixed together hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide in an artificial environment. No reaction occurred - a catalyst was required. Dawkins' point was that as the beetle's defensive mechanism evolved, the intermediate stages would not explode - the chemicals would not react without a catalyst, and the concentrations of catalyst in its body could increase with evolution over time.

For a more far more detailed and insightful look into the evolution of the Bombardier Beetle, here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Care citing evidence against evolution that isn't bullshit?

Its not false. Just not enough research has been done. Like I said there were other examples I just don't remember the species names. If I find the others I will post them.
Edit: The link you provided me about the defense mechanism. God would have created it after sin because before sin all creatures ate plants and no meat.

[Sinner]

Yuki no Yoru

Its not false. Just not enough research has been done. Like I said there were other examples I just don't remember the species names. If I find the others I will post them.

No, that's the opposite of the problem. Research has been done. That's how we know it's false. The problem is that Creationists keep pretending that the information isn't there. We have come up with an explanation about how the bombardier beetle could have evolved, therefore your argument is bullshit.

Go ahead and find as many as you want. I can wait.

Quote:

Edit: The link you provided me about the defense mechanism. God would have created it after sin because before sin all creatures ate plants and no meat.

That's completely, 100% untrue. I will bet you one hundred billion dollars that you can't back up a word of that.

[Yuki no Yoru]

Sinner

Yuki no Yoru

Its not false. Just not enough research has been done. Like I said there were other examples I just don't remember the species names. If I find the others I will post them.

No, that's the opposite of the problem. Research has been done. That's how we know it's false. The problem is that Creationists keep pretending that the information isn't there. We have come up with an explanation about how the bombardier beetle could have evolved, therefore your argument is bullshit.

Go ahead and find as many as you want. I can wait.

I get what you are saying but I said earlier is that of course God would have had to created it later. All animals ate plants (and Adam and Eve), once sin came they were allowed to eat meat, so it would make sense for God to put in that system AFTER SIN.

[Sinner]

Yuki no Yoru

I get what you are saying but I said earlier is that of course God would have had to created it later. All animals ate plants (and Adam and Eve), once sin came they were allowed to eat meat, so it would make sense for God to put in that system AFTER SIN.

Three big problems with that theory:

1. It's not true.

2. It has nothing to do with evolution.

3. It's definitely not true.

[Yuki no Yoru]

I personally like the Cilia one best.

[Yuki no Yoru]

Sinner

Yuki no Yoru

I get what you are saying but I said earlier is that of course God would have had to created it later. All animals ate plants (and Adam and Eve), once sin came they were allowed to eat meat, so it would make sense for God to put in that system AFTER SIN.

Three big problems with that theory:

1. It's not true.

2. It has nothing to do with evolution.

3. It's definitely not true.

Unless you have proof against it I refuse to believe and yes it does because the system wouldn't have needed to be put in until later. God can do anything you know.

[Sinner]

Quote:

I personally like the Cilia one best.

While it'd be easy enough to go through that site and just link to appropriate rebuttals (blood clotting, eyes and, as you mentioned, cilium just about cover it), there's one major logical fallacy that effectively wipes out the entire page.

Irreducible complexity is not evidence against evolution.

[Sinner]

Yuki no Yoru

Unless you have proof against it I refuse to believe

No, no, you're reversing the way things work.

See, you made the claim that before sin, animals didn't eat meat. Now, until you can provide some evidence to support this assumption, there is no reason to believe that it is true.

Just saying "God did this, God did that!" doesn't mean anything unless you can prove it.

Yuki no Yoru

yes it does because the system wouldn't have needed to be put in until later. God can do anything you know.

...which doesn't disprove evolutionary theory.

Oh, and it appears my links aren't working either. Anyone got any ideas on that?

[Taiga Ameca]

Sinner

Oh, and it appears my links aren't working either. Anyone got any ideas on that?

Quote them. Works most of the time.

[Yuki no Yoru]

Sinner

While it'd be easy enough to go through that site and just link to appropriate rebuttals (blood clotting, eyes and, as you mentioned, cilium just about cover it), there's one major logical fallacy that effective wipes out the entire page.

Irreducible complexity is not evidence against evolution.

Either way though, there are no fossils that prove what the last link has said, many of those are rare ones with genetic mutations. If they did evolve, how come we can't find as many fossils for those ones as the "regular" ones?

I have to go but I hope my case was stated clearly.

[Sinner]

Yuki no Yoru

Either way though, there are no fossils that prove what the last link has said,

I'm not sure what you mean. It's an issue of logic, not the fossil record. The entire assumption behind your argument is that irreducible complexity would disprove evolution, and no fossils are needed to argue for/against that.

Quote:

If they did evolve, how come we can't find as many fossils for those ones as the "regular" ones?

That doesn't make any sense. Either your phrasing is unclear, or you have some sort of misunderstanding as to how mutation works with evolution.

EDIT: By the way, thanks Taiga for the advice on links. As it turns out, simply using quote tags in a post seems to be enough to make links work for that post, oddly enough.

[RavingPsyco]

i think my post on page 88 will help you sinner,i basicly explain what you did but you can use that against her too wink

[Deep Vermillion]

Yuki no Yoru

God would have created it after sin because before sin all creatures ate plants and no meat.

What on earth makes you think that?

[Vryko Lakas]

Yuki no Yoru

Evolution is false because it is in fact impossible for some animals to have evolved because of the way they are designed, for example the Bombardier Beetle.

The beetle isn't "designed." It is, in fact, a product of evolution. See the links Sinner posted for explanations on how it may have evolved the way it did.

Quote:

There are other animals too that couldn't have been evolved either because of their design but this is the only one where I remember the name.

The reason you remember it so well is probably due to the fact that Creationists have been trying to use that particular kind of beetle for decades and decades, and every time they try to claim it as evidence against evolution they fail. It's a testament to Creationist willful ignorance that the argument is still going, because they sure haven't come up with any new angles of attack, new research, new philosophical insights, or new observations to help their case. Every piece of the Creationist argument going on today is the same as it was basically a hundred years ago, and it hasn't gotten any stronger or any closer to reality. If there was real merit to the claims of Creationists, they would have prevailed a long time ago. You would do well to abandon a ship that has already sunk.

Yuki no Yoru

Its not false. Just not enough research has been done.

If not enough research has been done, how are you able to declare that your position is right? The simple fact is that Creationists do NO research of any value, the little that they actually get around to studying is almost invariably too flawed to mean anything, and they never even try to publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals or other scientific forums because they are well aware that they don't have any case. If they had REAL evidence, they would present it to the worldwide scientific community. Unless they simply LIKE not being able to back up their claims.
What usually happens is that instead of submitting their work for scientific scrutiny, they write a book and publish it because this will not only allow them to get their word out without having to bother checking to see if it's right/wrong, it will also get them money from book sales, create a demand for speaking engagements, and generally make them popular. If they aren't in it for the fame and money and support of a sectarian audience, then they sure look like that's the reason.
Time and time again they have been challenged to formally present their findings, methodology, and studies to real scientists. When they don't refuse (a minority of the time in itself), what happens is that a fundamental flaw or two in their "work" is found which invalidates their conclusions. Despite this, they keep going on with their books, lectures, websites, etc. Either they are too ignorant to know they're wrong, or they don't particularly care if they're wrong or right. I happen to know several cases of the latter and a lot more of the former within the Creationist movement. I find the whole thing to be dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.

Quote:

Edit: The link you provided me about the defense mechanism. God would have created it after sin because before sin all creatures ate plants and no meat.

False. Meat eaters have been a fact of life since before there was anything more than singular cells.

Yuki no Yoru

I personally like the Cilia one best.

Ah, Michael Behe. He believes in Evolution! Just not for certain things. He also believes in an Old Earth!
So what's his gripe with Evolution? He thinks he's found little machines inside cells, and since human-made machines have a designer, these cellular machines need to have a designer. That right there is a fallacy of analogy.
He also thinks the definition of "science" needs to be changed to allow room for the supernatural. Nevermind that science is ONLY a system that examines ONLY the natural world. He is on court record as saying that under his system, ASTROLOGY WOULD BE A SCIENCE! He should have checked his horroscope before agreeing to testify in court.
So what is wrong with his "irreducible complexity" idea specifically? He defines it as something that could not have evolved. If that's the case, we don't have a single example of irrecucible complexity (IC) anywhere in natural the world, because we do not know of a single biological thing that could not have evolved.
So Behe thinks he's listed off a few examples of things that could not have evolved? When confronted about this in court, he repeated his claim that the immune system didn't evolve, and that no research had ever indicated it could have evolved. What happened next? The council for the plaintiff plopped OVER FIFTY ARTICLES, RESEARCH PAPERS, AND STUDIES ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM! He said he hadn't read them, but dismissed them all out of hand.
Similar work has been done showing how things like the bacterial flagellum have evolved, specifically from a Type III Secretory System (the thing that bubonic plague uses to poison other cells). Looks like that's not irreducibly complex either.
Blood clotting? Not IC! There are animals who don't have the same system of blood clotting mechanisms, but have many of its basic parts. We've known this since 1969! The "cascade" Behe describes as an essential and "irreducibly complex" feature of blood clotting simply does not exist in dolphins and whales, yet their blood clots. See? We removed bits of a supposedly IC system, and the system still works as intended.
Even the analogy of the mousetrap Behe uses to describe "irreducible complexity" isn't true, because you CAN remove and modify bits of a mousetrap and still have it catch mice or serve other purposes. Just like a modified Type III Excretory System can become a flagellum, so can a series of other things become a mousetrap.
Detecting a pattern? I sure am. Behe's both an idiot and a liar. I've been following this specific "argument" for years now. I'm constantly surprised by the depths of ignorance and dishonesty the Intelligent Designists are willing to sink to in order to try and undermine an observed, documented fact of life. Their claims of ability to detect design are false. Their arguments are essentially the same that Creationists have been using for decades without success.
The only thing different about Intelligent Design is that it was set up to try and bring the warring factions of Creationism under a single roof to unite them against the common enemy of Evolution. In other words, Intelligent Design is a front, a facade, a flimsy disguise. That's dishonesty. They said they didn't have religious motivations, yet their language and intentions made it clear that they did. Check out the Wedge Strategy of the Discovery Institute. Saying you want to overthrow the current order and set up a Theistic replacement is admitting that your motivations are religious, yet they tried to have Intelligent Design taught in schools as a secular, legitimately scientific and unreligious exercise. That's outright lying. And all this for the sake of Christianity? We can do without being promoted dishonestly by liars.