It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Top Ten Myths About Evolution

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
The "professor" from the link got owned by saying the hair-DNA thing, protein it is as someone said before. This only shows you can find misinformed people in both parties. Also, I recommend the thread starter to start reading molecular biology books instead of random internet links.




posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I have yet to make my mind up in regards to a creationist/non-creationist view. I have looked into the subject some, but not to the point where I can state confidently my position, I don't like to make uninformed decisions. My link was to show Agentdemon the one and only creationist that I aware of that makes the statement that human came from monkey.
Perhaps I should have made it clear that “Dr dino” is not well liked or respected amongst creationists or any other group when referencing him. My apologizes.
Peace
Mr Mx



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
What did you find most convincing about the page?

I liked Myth #3 the most, peopel far too often take for granted all the things that we accept as happening, without being able to see them. Even if we ignore history, or silly things like "I've never been to paris, therefore I don't knwo if it exists', we can look at say, a chemical reaction. We can determine, through rational analysis, what the mechanism of reaction was, without actually seeing the chemical structures move about before us. We even have this theoretical "Transition State" structures, that we 'accept' as real, while at the same time understanding that such a thing only exists for a fraction of a second, it at all.

So while no one's ever seen the laboratory process called microevolution product a fundamentally different 'kind' of organism, that alone doesn't seem to be enough to say it doesn't happen.


Find us some/any (creationist or ID theorist) sources that claim, "people evolved from monkeys."

Personally, I think that that comes down to splitting hairs anyway. the great apes, including gorilla, chimps, man, the orang-utans, evolved from monkeys, so, imo anyway, its not saying much say 'man didn't evolve from monkeys, thats ignorant, man evolved from a chimp-like ancestor'. The average person would call an ape a monkey of a sort anyway.


It shows absolutely nothing of the sort, re: misinformation spread by ID and/or creationist proponents.

I think we can see that there are a lot of creationist arguments that have been refuted but are still passed along by creationist organizations as if they were true. Guys like Kent Hovind are clearly distributing misinformation, for example.


You are correct that it proves nothing though.

The site would benefit from documenting the actual places where the claims are made, if its really trying to say anything other than 'these myths I have listed aren't true'. The Talk Origins "Index to Creationist Claims" is far better than this page, definitly.


This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents." Where? How?

Indeed, madnessinmysoul could do a little more to show that these Myths are propped up by creationist organizations, though I'd think that numbers 10, and perhaps 7 and 4, can be generally accepted as being parts of ID.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
So while no one's ever seen the laboratory process called microevolution product a fundamentally different 'kind' of organism, that alone doesn't seem to be enough to say it doesn't happen.

It's not enough to say it doesn't or can't happen, but it IS enough to say that it hasn't happened. That is no available evidence proves this happened. The idea that one organism can 'evolve' into a different kind is really only inference and speculation based on facts.


I think we can see that there are a lot of creationist arguments that have been refuted but are still passed along by creationist organizations as if they were true. Guys like Kent Hovind are clearly distributing misinformation, for example.

Okay... Yes, Kent Hovind is a moron and a charlatan. But whether or not an argument has been adequately 'refuted' is a subjective concept. Many are not inclined to agree with mainstream refutations of certain ideas, myself included; so whether or not something has been refuted and if others are deliberately spreading misinformation is debatable. These type of things need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.



though I'd think that numbers 10,

Number 10 is a bastardized, or deliberately misrepresented example of an ID argument. No serious ID proponent has ever stated "Complexity cannot arise naturally." You certainly don't need the TO website to refute that idea. Obviously complex things arise naturally. This is not debatable. The question that appears to still be open for discussion is whether or not specified complexity can arise naturally.



and perhaps 7

This one... I won't comment on until we decide on a clear definition of 'evolution.' If were talking about the TO definition, something like "Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual" then this is NOT debatable.

However, thus far we're not able to 'test' the idea that a bacteria can evolve into a nematode, or even that an endosymbiotic event can generate organelles.

This is a slippery slope argument... Some aspects of ToE are testable, others are not.


and 4, can be generally accepted as being parts of ID.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here. If IDists believed that science couldn't say anything about origins, then why would Behe, for example, accept the common origin of apes and man? Why would IDists' consider the origins of the SecIII transport system to likely lie in the flagellum? And finally, Behe made a big deal about the origins of hemoglobin in DBB. He stated that science pretty much determined the origin of hb was likely in the related myoglobin system.

Obviously IDists do feel science can comment on the origins of certain things, but the professor's response indicates that he doesn't think science can comment on origins either... so apparently Dutch needs to read his own page, as he believes in one of his own 'myths.'

In any case, it seems that both sides of the argument acknowledge that this is a weak origins resource.

BTW, Professor Dutch is a Geology professor.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Number 10 is a bastardized, or deliberately misrepresented example of an ID argument. No serious ID proponent has ever stated "Complexity cannot arise naturally." You certainly don't need the TO website to refute that idea. Obviously complex things arise naturally. This is not debatable. The question that appears to still be open for discussion is whether or not specified complexity can arise naturally.


Is the idea of 'specified complexity' really up for discussion? Or is just on the ID side of the discussion? I believe Nygdan did hit the nail on the head on that. That entire argument is complete ID hogwash, IMO. What is your basis for comparison with this notion of 'specified complexity'? How are you able to know the difference between something that has occurred naturally and something that was designed. Do you have the original blueprints to compare our molecular structure to or something?

[edit on 9-6-2006 by zenlover28]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
Is the idea of 'specified complexity' really up for discussion? Or is just on the ID side of the discussion? I believe Nygdan did hit the nail on the head on that.


Well Nygdan can be speak for himself here but I believe that he was saying that #10 was more an ID argument than a creationist one. Mattison actually went through the trouble (his previous post) to explain why #10 was 1)not an actual ID argument (as any ID theorist has ever proposed it) and 2) seriously flawed on several points. You skip that part? You disagree?



That entire argument is complete ID hogwash, IMO.


Based on? Unless you're talking about the straw man presented in the link, which is indeed hogwash.



What is your basis for comparison with this notion of 'specified complexity'? How are you able to know the difference between something that has occurred naturally and something that was designed.


How are you calling ID arguments "hogwash" when you're not familiar with the actual arguments? The Explanatory Filter "A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design" A bit outdated but a good place to start. Go here next.



Do you have the original blueprints to compare our molecular structure to or something?

[edit on 9-6-2006 by zenlover28]


huh?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
Is the idea of 'specified complexity' really up for discussion? Or is just on the ID side of the discussion?

Yep. It really is. Whether or not you believe it is a whole other ball of wax.


I believe Nygdan did hit the nail on the head on that. That entire argument is complete ID hogwash, IMO.

I'm sure. It's tough to get an objective opinion about something when your exposure is limited to ATS, and People Magazine. (Note: Comment directed to wonderwoman, not Nygdan)

And you're basing your hogwash opinion off of what... oh yeah... mainstream media opinions


What ID literature have you read?


What is your basis for comparison with this notion of 'specified complexity'? How are you able to know the difference between something that has occurred naturally and something that was designed. Do you have the original blueprints to compare our molecular structure to or something?

[edit on 9-6-2006 by zenlover28]

I have nothing to add here that Rren hasn't already covered.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
one organism can 'evolve' into a different kind is really only inference and speculation based on facts.

I use the word 'kind' there though not as a scientific term, I don't think that the term has any validity. There's nothing that seems to set up a barrier to a great deal of change, having dry scaley skin become smoother glandular skin, or having scales go through stages that can result in feathers or hair follicles, for example. Or having amphibian skin become dry reptilian skin either.


Okay... Yes, Kent Hovind is a moron and a charlatan. But whether or not an argument has been adequately 'refuted' is a subjective concept.

Agreed.

These type of things need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

Definitly. Thats where that page fails, if its intent is to allege a conspiracy. It doesn't cite any specific examples. However, the "Myths" it deals with, they're common misunderstandings that are out there, so the page is nice in so much as it addresses those issues decently.


The question that appears to still be open for discussion is whether or not specified complexity can arise naturally.

From a perhaps relatively neutral site, we have

en.wikipedia.org...
a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance

Is the NaCl specified? I think it may be from that example. As far as complex, we, today, understand the rules of ionic bonding. What if we didn't understand those rules, and had no real knowledge of chemistry, but (somehow), knew the structure?

I think that what that example addresses better than the specified complexity issue is this idea that you can calculate the "likelyness of formation' by looking at the structure and making simple caluclations, by doing so you can make anything seem incredibly unlikely, and that is what we tend to see in, say, the 'no peopel from hydorgen' arguement, it ignores the effect of natural selection, which is going to get 'beyond' non-selected' objects in terms of complexity.

Hmm, on the other hand, if we can expect natural selection to result in 'design' or 'designoid' as some people call it, and we could detect that, perhaps we could detect intelligent design (even if just in man-made objects).


However, thus far we're not able to 'test' the idea that a bacteria can evolve into a nematode

Unless we accept that change is change, and a high degree of change doesn't require special mechanisms.

Perhaps a reworking of it might be that natural selection is testable, but that high degree of change isn't testable???


If IDists believed that science couldn't say anything about origins, then why would Behe, for example, accept the common origin of apes and man?

I took origins to mean ultimate origins of the universe. In so far as the wedge document indicates, at least that 'school' of ID doesn't ultimately accept purely naturalistic explanations for nature, and might not be too favourable on the universe itself being formed from the 'big bang'. Though I am not so familiar with Behe or Dembski to know if they accept or reject it specifically.


rren
Unless you're talking about the straw man presented in the link

I can definitly see it as being somethign of a straw man, or at least inaccuarte, as something like a salt crystal isn't all that complex anyway. I get the impression that it serves better to show that facile calculations of probability aren't sufficient to demonstrate whether or not something can have occured naturally.

But, of course, this is not something that I have seen the Discovery Institute do, but it does tend to pop up in discussions with 'quasi"-ID creationists.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I dont get how a bunch of you on this message board believe we live in a Matrix, and not believe in God. That makes no sense at all. I really have no clue how people dont believe in God, look at this beautiful Universe we live in. The big bang theory even proves the point. Scientist say two atoms hit one another, and made this universe. Now picture a white sheet of computer paper as our universe, nothing at all like they state. Where in the hell did the two Atoms come from on the paper. If there was nothing around, where did they come from. God put those two atoms there. Nothing appears out of thin air. Why even post on this forum if you believe you come from monkeys, and when you die its all over. Why even waste your time, you should be living your life then to the fullest. Why are you so worried about the NWO, Aliens, Etc, are you affraid you may have judged every thing wrong?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Oh dear. I think i've upset y'all. So sorry. Have a nice day now ya hear!



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectX1986
I dont get how a bunch of you on this message board believe we live in a Matrix, and not believe in God. That makes no sense at all.

Since faith is irrationally held beleif, why expect it to make sense?


I really have no clue how people dont believe in God, look at this beautiful Universe we live in.

And the polytheists are wondering 'how can anyone possibly think that there is only one single god'.


The big bang theory even proves the point.

Nothing will prove the metaphysical or supernatural, as its 'beyond proof'.


Scientist say two atoms hit one another, and made this universe. Now picture a white sheet of computer paper as our universe, nothing at all like they state. Where in the hell did the two Atoms come from on the paper.

Heck, where'd the paper come from either.

The question of 'why is there something, instead of nothing', is a big question. But why does an answer require beleif in a single god?


Why are you so worried about the NWO, Aliens, Etc, are you affraid you may have judged every thing wrong?

Conversely, why shoudl peopel be worried about their personal salvation when there is no way for them to make a rational or intelligent desicion based upon reason about the supernatural and metaphyiscal?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I use the word 'kind' there though not as a scientific term, I don't think that the term has any validity. There's nothing that seems to set up a barrier to a great deal of change, having dry scaley skin become smoother glandular skin, or having scales go through stages that can result in feathers or hair follicles, for example. Or having amphibian skin become dry reptilian skin either.

I understand your sentiment here, and I personally am not fond of the use of the word 'kinds,' but only because it's a throwback to biblical creationism. But I do think the word has some validity. If it didn't I think phylogenetic analysis wouldn't reveal distinct clades in tree branches, rather that organisms would exist on a continuum. In such a case it seems like the 'tree of life' would be a single stalk... maybe with some branchpoints. But the fact that there are not organisms in many of the nodal points of the tree's is... discomforting to me with respect to the idea of organisms existing on some kind of continuum. That sentence sounds lousy, but I think you get my point.



From a perhaps relatively neutral site, we have

en.wikipedia.org...
a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance

Is the NaCl specified? I think it may be from that example. As far as complex, we, today, understand the rules of ionic bonding. What if we didn't understand those rules, and had no real knowledge of chemistry, but (somehow), knew the structure?

I have some problems with these definitions from a biological standpoint. A specified pattern admits short descriptions? I am not sure I know what that means. But I agree, from this definition it does sound like NaCl could be specified. Also complex patterns occur by chance all the time. Snowflakes are not specified, but can be complex. There isn't a single pattern or type of snowflake. They are complex crystal structures that take on a variety of complex shapes, however none of these shapes are specified per se, but that they are complex is undeniable. It's sort of an anomaly among crystals though, and seems to stand in opposition to the idea I stated earlier about most crystals not being complex. I hope you can see the difference I am trying to highlight.


I think that what that example addresses better than the specified complexity issue is this idea that you can calculate the "likelyness of formation' by looking at the structure and making simple caluclations, by doing so you can make anything seem incredibly unlikely, and that is what we tend to see in, say, the 'no peopel from hydorgen' arguement, it ignores the effect of natural selection, which is going to get 'beyond' non-selected' objects in terms of complexity.

I can agree with this... sort of like Hoyle's calculations re: Cytochromes, which while quite possibly 'correct' in some sense of the word... are not representative of biologically relevant situations.


Hmm, on the other hand, if we can expect natural selection to result in 'design' or 'designoid' as some people call it, and we could detect that, perhaps we could detect intelligent design (even if just in man-made objects).

Designoid... that's a new one for me. Where did you come across it? But I do think that this statement is more-or-less what WmAD is going for with the Explanatory Filter.


Unless we accept that change is change, and a high degree of change doesn't require special mechanisms.

Okay, but what's the basis for accepting that a high degree of change doesn't require special mechanisms. We can accept this, but at least to my knowledge, with respect to biological systems we don't know this. We really don't know what steps would be necessary to get from say Australopithecus anamensis to Australopithecus afarensis. Because we don't know what changes are alleged to have made this happen, is it really fair to make this assumption?


Perhaps a reworking of it might be that natural selection is testable, but that high degree of change isn't testable???

I don't know... you know, I used to think NS was absolutely testable... losing my faith a little bit. Natural selection says the fittest organisms survive, but which organisms are the most fit... those that survive of course. There is an inherent difficulty with describing NS in terms of fitness and survival.


I took origins to mean ultimate origins of the universe. In so far as the wedge document indicates, at least that 'school' of ID doesn't ultimately accept purely naturalistic explanations for nature, and might not be too favourable on the universe itself being formed from the 'big bang'. Though I am not so familiar with Behe or Dembski to know if they accept or reject it specifically.

Hmmmm... can't say about WmAD, but I know that Behe is okay with BB cosmology. You and I have discussed this topic before, and I would have to agree with you ID doesn't accept a naturalistic origin for life.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectX1986
I dont get how a bunch of you on this message board believe we live in a Matrix, and not believe in God.

Funny, I've often asked that same question. Though I think the really ironic statements come from those people who subscribe to ET creating life on the Earth, but describe ID as a farce.
Apparently I am missing something.


The big bang theory even proves the point. Scientist say two atoms hit one another, and made this universe.

Some scientists... like Hugh Ross agree with this, but most do not.

FYI, if you state the BBT claims that "two atoms hit one another, and made this universe" brace yourself, because someone around here will tear you a new one. The point prior to the BB, ie the singularity, the time before Planck Time is currently an unknown, but is definitely not that "two atoms hit one another, and made this universe, " though the original paper was entitled something about the primordial atom if I recall correctly. It's been a while since I read any BBT.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Nygdan:
I can definitly see it as being somethign of a straw man, or at least inaccuarte, as something like a salt crystal isn't all that complex anyway.


That was my point entirely. Why not "debunk" an example from ID?


Nygdan:
I get the impression that it serves better to show that facile calculations of probability aren't sufficient to demonstrate whether or not something can have occured naturally.


"Facile calculations of probability" is an interesting choice of words (ie the straw man presented as ID.
Would you further characterize Dembski's math as superficial? You know me, not to quick on the uptake sometimes, not sure if we agree or disagree here.



Nygdan:
But, of course, this is not something that I have seen the Discovery Institute do, but it does tend to pop up in discussions with 'quasi"-ID creationists.


Well I am one of those quasi-ID creationist types (I got a feeling Dembski is too, probably not Behe though) so far be it from me to cast any stones. But if the Dawkins' et al ideas are legitimate, and respected , in the scientific community why not the ID theorists'? "Overthrow of materialism" and all.... you guys whom are neutral/agnostic on these issues should have seen this coming for a long time, no? I'd be more worried about people like the Thomas Moore Law Center and school boards like Dover's than the DI though... their um, sinisterness is greatly exaggerated imho.

PS - Still haven't got that Colombus link to work! Can you believe that chit? But what an fascinating character... still can't find much of an (interesting) prophecy angle there, but riveted none-the-less.





Originally posted by ProjectX1986
I dont get how a bunch of you on this message board believe we live in a Matrix, and not believe in God.

[...snip...]

The big bang theory even proves the point. Scientist say two atoms hit one another, and made this universe.

[...snip...]
Why even post on this forum if you believe you come from monkeys, and when you die its all over.



and we were doing so well.
Ok I concede. Projectx1986 go to link provided by madnessismysoul for help. Thought we were going to win this one. Of course I still say the sticky thread here on ATS is a better resource than this 'Top 10 myths' one.

Whatya say? Draw?






Originally posted by zenlover28
Oh dear. I think i've upset y'all. So sorry. Have a nice day now ya hear!


Nobody got mad at cha. Just asked how you arrived at your conclusion of ID hogwash. No worries, have a nice day too.


[edit on 9-6-2006 by Rren]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectX1986
Scientist say two atoms hit one another, and made this universe.


Actually the big bang theory says that atoms didn't form until some 380,000 years after the big bang. Starting with the most basic atoms, hydrogen and helium.

What existed before the big bang is theorized to be an extremely dense and hot state of energy.

"I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle." -Sun Tzu

[edit on 9-6-2006 by deadboi]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Thanks for replying, has there even been a big fight on this site before. Every one has different view points, I wonder has it ever got out of hand. I actually like this site a lot, because you can talk about any topic you want, and people listen, respond, and dont really bash you.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Unfortunately yes some times it does get out of hand. I have gone to far in a debate that ended up as a fight, hence how I'm negative on my PTS points. But I've sworn not to let that happen again. ATS is to good of a forum to get into silly fights. Sorry to get off topic just wanted to address projectX's quetion.
peace
Mr Mx

[edit on 9-6-2006 by Mr Mxyztplk]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectX1986
Thanks for replying, has there even been a big fight on this site before.

Boy, (as in wow... not refering to you as 'boy') you must be new around here.

There've been some classics.


Every one has different view points, I wonder has it ever got out of hand. I actually like this site a lot, because you can talk about any topic you want, and people listen, respond, and dont really bash you.

Yes. It has. Nygdan, Byrd, and a few notable others are worth discussing things with on the ToE side. They can manage to keep the conversation intellectual and civil. On the pro-ID/creationism side, your best bet for discussion is Rren. I could include myself in this category, but I have a tendency to be uncivil, confrontational, and adversarial.

But there have been some knockdown drag-out insult ridden threads also.... some real classics.

This thread has been pretty good so far... not one insult that I can see... of course as soon as Produkt shows up, all civility will be thrown to the wind.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Nobody got mad at cha. Just asked how you arrived at your conclusion of ID hogwash. No worries, have a nice day too.


[edit on 9-6-2006 by Rren]


Rren..my point was regarding 'specified complexity' in general. It is a hogwash argument to me (whether or not you think I know anything about ID or not). It can not be proven as there is no way to prove it. ID supporters claim that this is the 'smoking gun' to debunk theory of evolution, however there is no way to prove the ID claim of 'specified complexity' being a product of design.

Want to get more in depth or stop there?



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
The simplest arguement for the creationist/non creationist claims is that evolution is a theory based on the lifetimes work of thousands of scientists and the most intelligent people on the planet. The evidence is extensive and is constantly being reinforced. Where as ID is a theory that can be explained in a couple of sentances, is upheld by religeous fanatics, and the backbone of the theory relies on what is essentially "unexplainable magic".



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join