Tats Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 We are not debating on 'Should the Bible be taught in school ?' but 'Should the theory of Evolution be taught in school ?'.Some people will contradict the theory of evolution because it is severely flawed.When I contradict the theory of Evolution, I don't use the Genesis book from Bible but scientific arguments.Many scientists contradict Evolutionism with scientific arguments (not religious arguments), they are not necessarily believers, and even if they are, only their scientific arguments should be taken into account and debated. For example, in my case, I won't argue that the theory of evolution is wrong because Darwin was an atheist. The question is not "Who are you ?" but "What is the theory of evolution ?" and "Why the theory of evolution is scientifically wrong /or true ?" (Ignoring the whole argument about the so called first organism, just showing some "scientific evidence" supporting the theory of evolution, and natural selection.) Ever heard of the Peppered Moth? This particular species used it's white color to blend in with bright trees. As the trees became much darker, the moths were easily noticeable. Only the darkest moths survived, and reproduced. Over time, most of the moths became black, allowing the species to camouflage and prosper again. The organisms with the best variations survived, allowing them to reproduce, hence changing the entire species. The peppered moth is a total non-myth which barely proves natural selection (which I agree with). BackgroundThe story concerning England’s Peppered Moths (Biston betularia) originally seemed very straightforward. The research is attributed to one H.B. Kettlewell, who is reported to have said that Darwin would be overjoyed to see the vindication of his theory. The insects used to be mostly of a light form, with occasional darker (melanic) forms. Light-coloured lichen growing on tree trunks meant that the light forms were very well camouflaged, while the dark ones would ‘stand out’ to the eyes of hungry birds.Pollution from the Industrial Revolution is said to have killed off much of the pale lichen covering the tree trunks, thus darkening them, so that now the dark forms were better camouflaged. Therefore, it made sense that hungry birds would eat more of the lighter ones, so the dark ones would become the dominant form.Kettlewell’s experimental observations were supposed to have shown that this is indeed what happened. Then, as pollution began to be cleaned up, the tree trunks became lighter again, so light moths resting on the tree trunks would now be less easily seen, thus the ratio shifted the other way.Photographs were taken of the dark and the light forms resting on the tree trunks, showing how obvious the camouflage differences were. To further ‘clinch’ the case, birds were filmed preferentially ‘picking off’ the less camouflaged forms.Selection, not evolutionAs we reported, the whole issue—ratios of dark to light moths shifting back and forth in response to their environment—is no big deal in the creation/evolution argument anyway. The famous evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews, writing in the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, pointed out that the Peppered Moths observations showed natural selection, but not evolution in action. Selection is an important part of evolutionary theory, but it is not the same thing. However, most evolutionists, including H.B. Kettlewell, write as if they were the same thing, muddying the waters for the lay public.1 Natural selection is also an important part of the Creation/Fall model, and was even discussed by the creationist Edward Blyth, 25 years before Darwin.Since there is that confusion, and since the moth story is so easy to understand and explain, it is not surprising that evolution’s apostles were motivated to ‘push’ the Peppered Moth scenario as hard as possible in educational and media circles. This made it doubly embarrassing for them when key elements of the story fell apart.The whistle blowsThe bubble started to burst as people finally faced the awkward fact that Peppered Moths do not rest on tree trunks in the daytime. Instead, they hide under leaves in treetops. As the story unravelled, it turned out that: The famous photos of light and dark moths resting on a lichen-covered tree trunk were faked by pinning and/or gluing dead moths onto logs or trunks. The filmed ‘experiments’ involved either dead moths, or laboratory moths (so stuporous they had to be warmed up first), placed on tree trunks in the daytime. We reported the reaction of evolutionist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago. He said that finding out the moth story was wrong was like when he found out at age six that it was actually his father who was bringing the Christmas presents.So what has happened since this story (which should never have been seen as proof of evolution anyway) collapsed so badly for evolutionists?The author of the main book that revealed the flaws, Michael Majerus, still defends the basic textbook story. He and other defenders admit, however, that there are serious problems with Kettlewell’s experiments, and that Kettlewell’s successors tested the bird’s feeding behaviour using dead moths. The previously mentioned Dr Jerry Coyne, apparently furious that creationists are making good use of his comments, seems to be hastily backpedaling, saying that the moths are still a good example of ‘evolution’. Others, like the University of Massachusetts’ Theodore Sargent, are less forgiving, pointing out that the situation was totally artificial. The birds would have quickly learnt of a ‘free lunch in the woods’. Judith Hooper, the author of a just-released book2 on the moth saga points out the serious clouds over some of Kettlewell’s results, which others have not been able to confirm. Noting that his field notes have conveniently disappeared, she says, ‘The unspoken possibility of fraud hangs in the air.’3 The consensus appears to be, however, that the proportion of dark to light moths did indeed rise and fall in concert with the rise of (and subsequent decline in) industrial pollution. The main argument concerns whether this was due to differential predation by birds. (Even if it was, most now agree that Kettlewell’s lichen story may have had less to do with it than simple discolouration of the trunks by soot.)Whether or not it turns out that the moth population change was due to bird predation, two issues stand out. The first is the way in which evolutionists eagerly seized upon and promoted a story reeking with incompetence,naïveté and outright fraud. How come it took 50 years to wake up to the fact that no-one had ever actually seen Peppered Moths on tree trunks? (Why should moths of any colour spend their sleep time sitting in the open, anyway?)More importantly, this saga gives us the opportunity to repeatedly point out to an indoctrinated public the difference between natural selection as an observable, logical fact, and goo-to-you evolution. The evolutionary story demands creative additions of new information. Natural selection merely filters information by culling it; it can never add anything new.4The bottom lineThree statements sum up the biological reality about this issue.Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths. During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths. Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths. In other words, the only thing that’s happened is that the relative numbers of each have gone up and down. What do I think should be the real take-home lesson of the Peppered Moth saga? The fact that this amazingly banal set of events has been hammered worldwide as ‘ultimate proof’ for a belief that microbes originally turned into moths (and moth researchers)! This is far more stupefying to contemplate than even all the faked photos and talk of fraudulent experiments. Article source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apo Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 We are not debating on 'Should the Bible be taught in school ?' but 'Should the theory of Evolution be taught in school ?'. Some people will contradict the theory of evolution because it is severely flawed. When I contradict the theory of Evolution, I don't use the Genesis book from Bible but scientific arguments. Many scientists contradict Evolutionism with scientific arguments (not religious arguments), they are not necessarily believers, and even if they are, only their scientific arguments should be taken into account and debated. For example, in my case, I won't argue that the theory of evolution is wrong because Darwin was an atheist. The question is not "Who are you ?" but "What is the theory of evolution ?" and "Why the theory of evolution is scientifically wrong /or true ?" The peppered moth is a total non-myth which barely proves natural selection (which I agree with). Article source. 1. It's evolution, not evolutionism, evolutionism isn't a type of religion or non-religion. 2. "When I contradict the theory of Evolution, I don't use the Genesis book from Bible but scientific arguments." Ok, when do these scientific arguments start? 3. "That's just Natural selection, not evolution" Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 When I contradict the theory of Evolution, I don't use the Genesis book from Bible but scientific arguments.... Article source. creation.com ? O-RLY? Have you AT LEAST tried ... for example ... ya know ... wikipedia? 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry 1.1 Genetics1.1.1 Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns 1.1.2 DNA sequencing 1.1.3 Endogenous retroviruses 1.1.4 Proteins 1.1.5 Pseudogenes 1.1.6 Other mechanisms 1.2 Specific examples1.2.1 Chromosome 2 in humans 1.2.2 Cytochrome c and b 1.2.3 Recent African origin of modern humans 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy2.1 Atavisms 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification2.4.1 Evolutionary trees 2.5 Vestigial structures 2.6 Specific examples2.6.1 Hind structures in whales 2.6.2 Insect mouthparts and appendages 2.6.3 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs 2.6.4 Pentadactyl limb 2.6.5 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes 2.6.6 Route of the vas deferens 3 Evidence from paleontology 3.1 Fossil record3.1.1 Extent of the fossil record 3.2 Limitations 3.3 Specific examples3.3.1 Evolution of the horse 3.3.2 Transition from fish to amphibians 4 Evidence from geographical distribution4.1 Continental distribution 4.2 Island biogeography4.2.1 Types of species found on islands 4.2.2 Endemism 4.2.3 Adaptive radiations 4.3 Ring species 4.4 Specific examples4.4.1 Distribution of Glossopteris 4.4.2 Distribution of marsupials 4.4.3 Migration, isolation, and distribution of the Camel 5 Evidence from observed selection 5.1 Specific examples of natural selection in the lab and in the field5.1.1 Antibiotic and pesticide resistance 5.1.2 Artificial selection 5.1.3 Experimental Evolution 5.1.4 Guppies 5.1.5 Humans 5.1.6 Human-caused selection pressures in studied organisms 5.1.7 Italian wall lizards 6 Evidence from observed speciation 6.1 Specific examples6.1.1 Blackcap 6.1.2 Drosophila melanogaster 6.1.3 Hawthorn fly 6.1.4 London Underground mosquito 6.1.5 Mollies 6.1.6 Polar bear 6.1.7 Thale cress 6.1.8 Turborotalia 6.2 Interspecies fertility or hybridization6.2.1 Mimulus peregrinus 6.2.2 Raphanobrassica 6.2.3 Senecio (Groundsel) 6.2.4 Tragopogon (Salsify) 7 Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration 7.1 Specific examples7.1.1 Avida simulation If I may quote the serpent: How you like them apples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Dusk Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 >2015 >still arguing about religeon i see no religion, all i see is educated individuals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tats Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 If you are too smart to read the article I quoted, then there is no place for debate. Poor reactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I read the article. and I understand it - the moths are proof of micro-evolution (which is also included in creationism), not macro-evolution (specification). The moths proof survival of the fittest - not specification. That's why I pointed you to thinks that actually ARE considered evidence for speficifcation. How about you disprove THOSE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalkaria Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 -snip- "which barely proves natural selection" -snip- -snip- "there is no conclusive nor scientific evidence for Evolutionism." -snip- No scientific evidence? Natural selection is the building blocks of evolution. If we have proof of natural selection, that does provide a sliver of scientific evidence for evolution. A sliver of scientific evidence is still more scientific evidence then I've seen for creationism. (Note, I'm not trying to say Evolution is correct. Or that creationism is wrong. I just look at the pure facts. If "god" spontaneously generates some good, solid evidence of creationism, I'd argue in their favor. ) Anyways, if you use a site like creation.com , nobody, agnostic or not, will take you seriously. The site will be biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merndy Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 I wanna be different. No. I think it should be, after all it is general science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 I said "no" just to be edgy :^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUD Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 People actually voted anything that isn't 'yes'? Well, shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tats Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 No scientific evidence? Natural selection is the building blocks of evolution. If we have proof of natural selection, that does provide a sliver of scientific evidence for evolution. A sliver of scientific evidence is still more scientific evidence then I've seen for creationism. (Note, I'm not trying to say Evolution is correct. Or that creationism is wrong. I just look at the pure facts. If "god" spontaneously generates some good, solid evidence of creationism, I'd argue in their favor. ) Anyways, if you use a site like creation.com , nobody, agnostic or not, will take you seriously. The site will be biased. Of course natural selection exists, every sane person agrees with it. I just said the peppered moth case barely proved it, mainly because its scientific approach was flawed. But Natural selection is certainly not a proof for molecules-to-man evolution. Natural selection is a process which is also used in a creationist model. Why on earth this site would be biased ? You just didn't read it, you prejudge and use the common stereotypes about creationists. Sometimes I agree with a person, it doesn't mean I share 100% of his/her opinions. Just read and make your mind, don't say it is biased without reading it. I found an interesting article dealing with creationist considerations on Natural selection : link. I read the article. and I understand it - the moths are proof of micro-evolution (which is also included in creationism), not macro-evolution (specification). The moths proof survival of the fittest - not specification. That's why I pointed you to thinks that actually ARE considered evidence for speficifcation. How about you disprove THOSE The article from Wikipedia is full of inacurracies. I already read it lengthwise few months ago. I don't have much time to answer all of them, but some points are obviously biased in the sense that they don't prove evolutionism. Drosophila fly : link About reproductive isolation : link It would be better to tell me what you think is the most significant proof for molecules-to-man evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 > Of course natural selection exists, every sane person agrees with itI would like to note that Darwin's theory wasn't "evolution", it was "natural selection". arguing every sane person agrees with it ... well ... then there are (or at least were, in darwins time) A LOT of insane people. > Why on earth this site would be biased ? You just didn't read it, you prejudge and use the common stereotypes about creationists.I've read it. It's biased. seriously. Darwin was correct to point out that natural selection may produce new varieties of organisms, which might then sometimes even go so far as to generate new species. However, these observations he mistakenly extrapolated to his grand theory to explain the origin of the major kinds/types of plants and animals. To promote this ‘scruffy little weed’ as answering the ‘Creation or evolution?’ question shows a very superficial understanding of what creationists actually believe, and more importantly, what the Bible actually says See that? prose. prose. prose. prose. prose. Not a single fact supporting their conclusion.(it should be noted that darwin was in fact a theist, set out to PROVE creationism, not disprove it) > Drosophila fly : linkerr ... why are your refereing to a different experiment with Drosophila flies? The article the wikipedia page is refering to is about reproductive isolation - the article you arge talking is about natural selection. As both creationism & evolution use the concept of natural selection - natural selection isn't up for debate. > About reproductive isolation : link Specification indeed doesn't prove creationism wrong: it proves you've got an argument of gabs.First creationism was from "God created all species",Darwin came along, and eventually, creationism turned into "OK, God created everything, and then there was natural selection" In most recent decenia, creationism turned into "OK, God created everything, and then there was natural selection and reproductive isolation" It's extremely hard to reprocuce (as it's very uncommon) but mutations do create new information. It has been done on multiple occasions. You know what that means? when the tests become more promineent & accepted ... creationism will become "OK, God created everything, and then there was natural selection and reproductive isolation and new information " > It would be better to tell me what you think is the most significant proof for molecules-to-man evolution.How about you start by discrediting all the information men evolved from apes. That seems to be a big thing in creationism, while evolution seems to have a lot of facts on this (like DNA and stuff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalkaria Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Of course natural selection exists, every sane person agrees with it. I just said the peppered moth case barely proved it, mainly because its scientific approach was flawed. But Natural selection is certainly not a proof for molecules-to-man evolution. Natural selection is a process which is also used in a creationist model. Why on earth this site would be biased ? You just didn't read it, you prejudge and use the common stereotypes about creationists. Sometimes I agree with a person, it doesn't mean I share 100% of his/her opinions. Just read and make your mind, don't say it is biased without reading it. It would be better to tell me what you think is the most significant proof for molecules-to-man evolution. I told you to begin with, my points have nothing to do with the generation of the first organism. I find all theories surrounding this questionable. However, if a theory utilizes things that do have scientific proof, that theory is the one I'll side with. I think that perhaps, you just prejudged me considering you believe I didn't read the article. The article focuses almost wholely on the wrong of the experiment; and almost nothing about the right things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.