No creationist can answer these questions adequately.

Credit for these lucid refutations of creationism (ID) goes to Phil Porvaznik. Face it, ID is as much a pseudoscience as phrenology. Without even considering manifold evidences in the geosciences, evolution is proven vis-a'-vis the biosciences on many levels.

The biological evidence for evolution fits into several categories: the unique universal phylogenetic tree of life, transitional forms and the fossil record, past history of vestiges / atavisms, evidence from embryology, from biogeography and global distribution of species, from anatomical and molecular paralogy / analogy, the molecular sequence evidence (cytochrome-c and pseudogenes), etc. Here are a few dozen questions taken from a summary, that six-day creationists, or any creationist who opposes macroevolution and "common descent" would find difficult to answer. Again, to answer "God did it" (although ultimately, theistic evolutionists agree) would not be a scientific explanation.


unique universal phylogenetic tree of life
Why do independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms match each other with an extremely high degree of statistical significance? Why does independent morphological and molecular measurements determine the standard phylogenetic tree to better than 41 decimal places? Why do all the separate lines of evidence converge on the same one historical phylogenetic tree if all species are not united in an objective genealogy?


mod edit of lengthy cut and paste

[edit on 14-9-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Why do people keep missing the point that Genesis describes the RE-CREATION of the world AFTER the war between Lucifer and the third of the angels. God doesn't mention how long the world existed during the angels reign of this world. Old earth theory doesn't counter the Bible but as usual the Bible pointed to something mankind took thousands of years to understand.

Can you please cite the scientific publications from peer-reviewed journals that make these statements? Without references to backup your ideas it is just that: your ideas.

1. We still don´t really know what transposons functions are. In some cases we have an idea, but not all. In the contrary to what you state it is believed that transposons play a valuable role in evolution. For example, you wouldn't be able to drinke white wine or champagne without the Ty3/Gypsy retrotransposons


2. Pseudogenes can serve as a very valuable 'reservoir' of genetic material, so that the organism can create new genes that result in new proteins which be of advantage for the plant. An example of these are the NBS-LRR disease resistance genes in plants.


If you want to talk about science, please do so in a correct way, and give scientific references. If not your whole story is just your opinion....




[edit on 13-9-2005 by space_friend12]

[edit on 13-9-2005 by space_friend12]

Never encountered that "re-creation"scenario. While there certainly appears to be two (2) versions of the story (Gen. 1:1 & 2:4), there is no mention of the battle you cite. Doesn't it start something like, "In the beginning...?"

Besides, how would that answer the topic question? Looks like another smokescreen, more Creationist Confusion.

And so the purpose, in terms of creationism, for Ty3/Gypsy retrotransposons is for the creation of light-colored alcoholic beverages? How so and for what reason?

Never touch the stuff myself...


Why have a reservoir, other than for adaptation? Isn't that a key evolutionary concept? Of course, those "new genes" are passed on in the next generation. Then other adaptations and mutations are likewise transmitted. And unless environmental conditions kill the organism, the changes accumulate, ultimately providing speciation or even phylogenation.


Not opinion at all, I provided the link to whence credit is due. Many references are provided. After all, is this forum merely a scientific tome?

Why don't you provide answers to the questions? Instead of a pompous diatribe on proper attribution, answer any question posed in terms of creationism.

You are only confirming the methodology of creationists in diverging from the issue. You chose only two (2) points without providing answers in terms of creationism. Are you merely reaffirming Creationist Confusion?

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Aeon10101110]

Excuse me for upsetting you I have a MSc degree in plantbreeding and crop protection, an MSc in Bioinformatics and a PhD in molecular genetics. I´m a scientist

The link that you provided leads to a nice page, but the material that you quoted about molecular evidence does NOT contain ANY scientific reference.

I´m a scientist, I have published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I know how to backup statements, and you have certainly not done that.

Goodluck with your ideas

[edit on 13-9-2005 by space_friend12]

And if you want to know what I think about the evolution - ID debate.

Why do so many people need to see black or white?

Why can't black and white exist both?

I support the idea that we are spiritual beings that create our existence and environment with our thoughts, and one of the many tools that we use in our creation is evolution.

So there you have it: both evolution and creation Anyway that's my point of view. I have to add to that that my definition of creation is most likely completey distinct from yours....my definition of creation lies more in the realms of quantum physics, wave functions......while the more conventional definition of creation is related to religion, isn't it?

I´m not diverging from your topic here, just giving a different point of view on it

[edit on 13-9-2005 by space_friend12]

[edit on 13-9-2005 by space_friend12]

Not much of a scientist it appears, why would you require an *lol* to punctuate that point?

I am a scientist too (MS - Geoscience) and must maintain a State license to practice. I am widely published with hundreds of peer-reviewed reports for the public and private sectors.

Additionally, I hold a patent for a new geophysical methodology. The development and peer-review process has been ongoing since 2001.

If you had qualifications like mine, you'd be taunting, "nanny-nanny..."

Those are not very convincing arguments related to my statements. If you are a scientist, debate about science instead of personal attacks.

So, I repeat:



If you would like to make a point you will need to quote material that is credible. The page that you link to does not contain any scientific reference about the 'molecular evidence' material that you posted.

Thank you.

By the way, I added a *lol* because I'm a happy scientist, not a grumpy one

[edit on 13-9-2005 by space_friend12]

My mood has no bearing whatsoever. Ordinarily, I'm quite happy, especially because I practice under licensure vis-a'-vis my own corporation (another accolade of course), at home. But when does the pi$$ing contest end?

I do agree that there could well be an "intelligent design" resulting from quantum-scale interactions or even space-time dimensionality(ies). Indeed, I've read many theoretical physicists and the results from particle accelerators, et al., whose results could imply a grand design. Perhaps such an implicate order exists, though appears to be beyond current scientific methodology.

But as Einstein said, "I want to know the mind of God, the rest is just commentary."

When I said that I am not a grumpy scientist I was not talking about you

I was getting annoyed and am certain that it showed.

At any rate, what of the implicate order on the Plank-scale?

quote: Originally posted by space_friend12
The link that you provided leads to a nice page, but the material that you quoted about molecular evidence does NOT contain ANY scientific reference. endquote

Perhaps a cursory review of it resulted in your appraisal of the "nice page." Because there are many resources linked to it, the time it would take to explore it and surmise that it does "NOT contain ANY scientific reference," belies your lack of exploration.

To assist, please take a look at one of the links, here.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Aeon10101110]

Aeon, why did they go from land to sea? Isn't it suppose to be sea to land? Well, maybe if the place they lived on began to sink, but how would an animal know that they would need to change? How did a dinosaur(not a reptile, many things point to dinosaurs being warm blooded, therefor not a reptile) become a bird? Why did it grow feathers when before it had none? Why did the first fish become a lung fish, then amphibian, and so forth?

I think that's why Creation/ID has such a strong hold on so many, it explains why, not just the what/how. Even if it is wrong people like knowing why. "The reason the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is because it revolves around us." It was wrong, but it gave them a why, not just a what/how.

Consider this scenario:

If you took a number of monkeys and spliced our genes with theirs to make them intelligent so they could learn a language similar to ours and...

...then you put them on an island and taught them a language and even provided "scrolls" of sorts that taught them the basics in life and gave them direction...

...and maybe even use the latest tech. to appear as "Gods" before them...

...and then watched them.

From our point of view, they would have been created, howeveer from their point-of-view, they would have two scenarios;

1) From the "scrolls" or myths, they believe they were "created"
2) From their study of genetics etc, they believe they evolved

Although I'm not a scientist, isn't this what's being argued here?

Do we really know where "we" come from?

Cheers

JS

The link that you give leads to an unpublished review by Douglas Theobald. I looked up his peer-reviewed publications in the Medline database:


As you can see, Douglas Theobold has not published any reviews on the subject that you are referring to. In fact, Theobald has never published any review related to his work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. And that is not surprising as Theobald is still a very young scientist. Usually scientists start to write reviews when they have more experience. Theobald seems to be very enthusiastic about the evolution-ID debate for personal reasons, and that's most likely why he posted his personal views on a web site.

It might be interesting his review about evolution, but it has not been peer-reviewed, it has not been published in scientific journals. It is relatively easy to write an unbalanced review about a subject of personal interest, using only those references that support your theories, and not taking into account evidence that supports the contrary.

Untill Theobald gets his review published I just see it as a nice entertainment to read

Please don't understand me wrong, I am not saying here that I agree or disagree with your original statement in this thread. All I want to do is to show that when we gather information to form our ideas and beliefs it is very important to understand the validity and credibility of the information.

Anyone can write reviews about evolution and post it on a web site, but if these reviews have not been peer-reviewed by scientists in the field of evoluton, if these reviews have not been accepted for publication in a scientific journal, we have to be very careful with the interpretation

And I am not saying here that if something has not been approved by the scientific community it cannot be true. All I say is that we have to be careful when information is presented as scientific while it is not.


[edit on 14-9-2005 by space_friend12]

[edit on 14-9-2005 by space_friend12]

I understand very well your point, friend. But please note that I was pointing out only one (1) example of a plethora of references. That was in response to your apparent cursory review of the page I referenced. Indeed, my reference cites many sources, as well as presenting a very lucid argument. I felt as though you dismissed the material quite off-handedly. To reiterate: the time it would take to explore it [the page of resources] and surmise that it does "NOT contain ANY scientific reference," belies your lack of exploration.


Peer review coupled with proper attribution is a bedrock foundation of scientific writing, as I'm sure you know. These are two (2) tools I've found invaluable in my career. But on occasion with staffing shortages, many reports and data submittals I've done were accomplished by way of rechecking the material myself. Rarely was there a problem, though the reviewing agency was keen to point out errors and omissions. And though to my chagrine, but a few of many hundreds of submissions were challenged. So it is not unlikely that the "maverick" researcher who you impune is very well within the bounds of scientific truth.

I agree that the peer-review process is invaluable to any scientist. During the development of my geophysical methodology, my designs and experimental results were submitted to dozens of scientists and engineers. As a result, I could streamline my procedures and testing to make the device more viable. Not only that, I have more confidence in its operational faculties and am certain of future experiments to enhance the method's capabilities.

But the foregoing is a miserable digression from the subject. Seemingly I am falling prey to a diversionary debating technique. Unfortunately, this is an illustration of the limited utility of debate as a scientific tool.

There were two (2) points regarding the actual topic that you contended. Thereafter, I provided something on the order of rebuttals. But the conversation rapidly degenerated for whatever reason. Is it possible to actually discuss the subject material?

The why is of course survival, even as it is today. Mutations were selected to survive by environmental pressures as conditions changed. And sometimes the environment changes were rapid, as at the ends of the Permian ("The Great Dying") and the Cretaceous Periods. Survivors also then developed adaptations due to passing on genes resulting in phenotypes that were advantageous.



But an answer that "God did it" is tantamount to simply saying "because I said so" without a logical explanation. Thus it does not actually answer why. Perhaps the acceptance of wrong conclusions results from the attempt to assign purpose that fits with established doctrine. Also, the creationist answer is highly simplistic and so is more readily accessible. I do get your point, but I think that search for meaning is too often confused with finding out why.

Certainly a very good analogy and many similar scenarios could be put forward. Consider any pets that you may have...



In general, yes, it is an argument on origins. But specifically, the manifold questions from the web site that I referenced originally are such that creationism cannot provide adequate explanations. The questions are quite valid and the site itself is very well-done, providing many references.

"We," as life on Earth, probably came from this planet. But there is a contention that rudimentary living material, originating on Mars, might have seeded life on Earth. Here is one of literally millions of links regarding that topic.