Evolution Pros and Cons

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I'm willing to give Questor the benefit of the doubt for now, he hasn't shown any signs of being a religious nut case. Maybe he really wants to know what is going on, it behooves us to at least give him a chance.

MooMan, where have you been for the last year or more?

We have given Questor dozens of chances.

It always ends the same. He spreads Creationist BS as if it were some newly discovered truth and demands we refute it. We refute it. He starts a new thread and we go through the same harangue all over again.

We cannot give him the "benefit of the doubt" because there IS NO DOUBT what his motives are, and have been since the dark and miserable day that he crawled in from the LaBrea Tar Pit.

[Nothing personal, Questor]

[Essay]

Originally Posted by questor

...observe the different skin colors in Homo Sapiens.to see these results. These of course are macro variations and we do not know the biochemical reactions in genes that ocurred to cause these differences. Some think...

Some research....

Why does nobody call Questor on this claim? I think we have a good understanding of the biochemical details of how skin color changes over the different latitudes, over the millennia.

[googled: folate melanin pigmentation]

Originally Posted by wiki

Human skin color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
see the sections: "Health related effects"
& "Genetics of skin color variation"

"...Europeans may have been dark as recently as 13,000 years ago."

Well, I thought it was 20 kya, but... you get the idea.

...or....

Originally Posted by Smithsonian Institution

Differences between Races
Nutrient photolysis of folate, mentioned above, is thought to have played an important role in natural selection and the evolution of darker skin colors. Folic acid is required for normal DNA biosynthesis, and folate (a conjugated form of folic acid) is required for bone marrow maturation and red blood cell development. Research has also shown a causal relationship between neural tube defects and folate lysis. In addition, tests on lab mice and rats have shown that folate deficiency can cause male infertility (by arresting spermatogenesis). Putting all of these clues together, it's reasonable to hypothesize that Homo ergaster individuals that had greater protection against UV radiation were likely to produce more offspring than those with lower concentrations of melanin, eventually leading to darker skin colors associated with tropical environments.

As populations spread from Africa, it seems likely that dark skin color was less well suited to environments with lower UV radiation levels in the temperate zone. While dangerous in excess, UV radiation is essential for the synthesis of previtamin D3, which is needed for calcium absorption and normal skeletal development. In tropical areas, there is no problem receiving enough UV light for D3 synthesis. In higher latitudes, though, where exposure to UV light is significantly less, a high concentration of melanin may hinder the passage of enough radiation to synthesize the necessary amount of the vitamin precursor. Medical records show that people with darker skin living in the higher latitudes are at greater risk for vitamin D3 deficiency (which can trigger the onset of various bone density diseases that can result in immobilization, deformities, and death). For this reason, it is believed that as populations moved north, natural selection favored lighter shades of skin. The point is that by understanding the biological benefits of traits, it is possible to understand the evolution of them.

....Happy Holidays
~

[Zythryn]

Nobody bothered calling Questor on that because it is the same thing he always does.
Builds a fallacious premise and then makes fun of it (Man coming from Chimps, Evolution on demand, Gays are treated with preferential treatment; that last one is not from this thread but is in my mind one of Q's all time funniest attempts at this tactic).
When cornered to give supporting evidence or documentation he either disappears, or does a google search and posts the results without checking that the results actually support his claim (and in some cases actually refute in).
Then after that doesn't work, he finds a new thread (or makes one) and does the same thing.
Now, I hope I am wrong and that he will discuss this to conclusion and admit where his premise has no foundations, if it is shown that they indeed have no foundation. But alas, I will be quite surprised if he doesn't follow the same pattern

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Essay

Some research....

Why does nobody call Questor on this claim? I think we have a good understanding of the biochemical details of how skin color changes over the different latitudes, over the millennia.

[googled: folate melanin pigmentation]


Well, I thought it was 20 kya, but... you get the idea.

...or....


....Happy Holidays
~

I think you just did Essay! I'd like to see reasonable discussion of this subject. Questor seems to think we will have a problem answering his questions. i don't think there will be a problem answering any question anyone can come up with concerning evolution. As long as questor and his allies stay with in the rules in this thread lets do so but if anyone steps out side the rules then they should feel the full brunt of the moderators. Far too often these discussion are side tracked by ambush posters trying to seem intelligent and then running away when they realize just how uninformed they are. Lets try to carry this thread out to it's completion, lets be completely fair, who ever looses has to admit to loosing, no hit and run tactics, and the looser agrees to cease and desist from bringing it up in other threads. How about it, a duel to the put up or shut up end?

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Nobody bothered calling Questor on that because it is the same thing he always....

Aha, I see....

Well let's see....
I did visit the site and picked a section to examine:

Originally Posted by refuter's dogmatic delusion

Darwinism Refuted.com
"This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific..."

===

Hahahahaha: It's too bad they can't connect those "scientific findings" into a coherent picture.
At least that's the impression left with me after choosing that section on Thermodynamics.

With enough discussion about several facets of entropy to be overwhelmingly confusing (to anyone not already familiar with the many more facets of entropy that exist), they seem to draw logical conclusions.

The thing that gets me laughing, is that they draw all their conclusions about the origin of life.

Darwin's theory deals with the "Origin of Species."
These are two very different theories, and yet these refuters seem to think that discounting one discounts the other.

As can be seen below, they go to a lot of rhetorical effort to address the origin of life (on pages 01-03), and then conclude (on page 04) that the same thing applies to evolution. Huh?

Jeremy Rifkin [notable environmental radical] is their best example of an "evolutionist?"
I think his "magical power" view more closely matches the advocates of this refuter's website.

Originally Posted by index

darwinismrefuted: "Evolution and Thermodynamics-" 01. The Misconception About Open Systems; 02. Ilya Prigogine and the Myth of the "Self-Organization of Matter;" 03. The Difference Between Organized and Ordered Systems; 04. Self-Organization: A Materialist Dogma.

Originally Posted by main page

Darwinism Refuted.com
"The second law of thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of both science and logic."

"Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in their imagination. For instance, Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":

The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth. 368- -[368: Jeremy Rifkin, Antropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 55.]

These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis."

Thanks for that helpful explanation of entropy, Jeremy (and for inventing a new word!).
These refuter folks clearly got a lot out of it.
===

Originally Posted by page 01

Darwinism Refuted.com
"In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. 369- -[369: John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 27 July, 1980, p.40.]"

"As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth."

"The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own."

...they're talking about the origin of life here, aren't they?
===

Originally Posted by page 02

Darwinism Refuted.com
"The law of entropy, as we know, definitively states that when any organized, and complex structure is left to natural conditions, then loss of organization, complexity and information will result. In opposition to this, the theory of evolution claims that unordered, scattered, and unconscious atoms and molecules came together and gave rise to living things with their organized systems."

Gee, I remember hearing that "the theory of evolution claims" something else. Are they confusing evolution with the origin of life?
===

Originally Posted by page 03

Darwinism Refuted.com
"If we look carefully at Prigogine and other evolutionists' claims...."
"In short, no chemical or physical effect can explain the origin of life, and the concept of "the self-organization of matter" will remain a fantasy."

Yep, this is all about how to "explain the origin of life."
===

Originally Posted by page 04

Darwinism Refuted.com
"So why do evolutionists continue to believe in scenarios such as the "self-organization of matter," which have no scientific foundation? Why are they so determined to reject the intelligence and planning that can so clearly be seen in living systems?

The answer to these questions lies hidden in the materialist philosophy that the theory of evolution is fundamentally constructed on. Materialist philosophy believes that only matter exists, for which reason living things need to be accounted for in a manner based on matter."

"A professor of chemistry from New York University and DNA expert, Robert Shapiro, explains this belief of evolutionists about the "self-organization of matter" and the materialist dogma lying at its heart as follows:

Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin. 383- -[383: Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, 1986, p. 207.]

The truths that we have been examining in this section clearly demonstrate the impossibility of evolution in the face of the second law of thermodynamics."

Oh, but now we're drawing conclusions about "the impossibility of evolution."
When did we switch tracks?
The "truths that we have been examining in this section" had to do with entropy and the origins of life, not evolution.

Questor, regardless of their mangled distortion of thermodynamics, do you see a problem with the logic of this thermodynamics page on the "refuters" website?

Thanks,
~

[Moontanman]

Questor, don't run away, I want to help you understand what evolution is and how it works. It's doubtful you could go anywhere and have more resources to help you understand. If you have problems with what has been posted so far lets hear them.You wanted a pros and cons thread so here it is. Put your concerns out there, we'll do our best to answer them. If you have reason to disagree lets hear your reasons. This subject has been used as a hit and run type thing by far too many people. It's wrong to use those tactics on this forum or in any real discussion of any subject. I'd like to clear this up once and for all, at least for the people here right now. At some point this thread will be useful as a place to direct such questions in the future. I'd like to see this done as a point by point discussion not a broad "evolution is BS or ID is BS" So many times we get broad arguments but every time the discussion gets done to a point by point one side cuts and runs. If an argument has merit this forum will show it. No one here wants to win just to win, it's important to be correct, winning the argument with out being correct is not part of the agenda of evolution, lets see if the detractors can live up to the same standard.

[pamela]

I would like to thank you, Moontanman, for your kind words to Questor. I think it extremely important to be kind and unbiased to people, when persuading them to see the proof behind science.We are all in a learning stage throughout our lives. Too many times have I been in the situation of trying to explain and support evolution on deaf ears; having an understanding heart and patience, allows the walls of unbelief to come crashing down.
I have seen many people now accepting evolution and while still keeping their core religious beliefs, have incorporated science into their views. Respect and kindness is the impetus for change

[questor]

I want to present some paragraphs for discussion from the website I linked:
Darwinism Refuted.com
Those of you who may have some expert knowledge of the subject are encouraged to speak to these critiques of Darwin's theory. Here is a an example:
[quote] In order for the fossil record to shed any light on the subject, we shall have to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossil discoveries.

According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties on Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.40

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.[>quote]

[questor]

Why don't those who don't wish to discuss this subject ply their talents elsewhere?
Instead of just criticizing a quote from the link, why not offer a scientific rebuttal? All I'm seeing here is the usual knee-jerk support for an unproved theory with no attempt to uncover the science in it. If the theory is correct so be it, if it incorrect or needs tweaking, so be it. I'm not pushing either way, I'm just discussing an opposing view. It seems that some here do not understand the difference in variance(skin color) and what it would take to change one species to another. I'm surprised at the virulence of the ad hominem attacks. This same type of attack would undoubtedly get me banned from the site. Anyone who does not wish to participate in the discussion doesn't have to. Instead of attacking me, why not offer a scientific rebuttal to the information presented?

[questor]

Here are some comments from scientists interested in evolution with the link at the end.
Comments and Quotations on Evolution
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Patterson, Colin, letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89) (emphasis supplied). Dr. Colin Patterson was, during his lifetime, the Senior Palaeontologist of the British Musem of Natural History, London, England.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ could not have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications my theory absolutely would break down. Charles Darwin. Origin of Species, p.189 1st ed.

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed … Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, p. 179 1st ed.

If numerous species belonging to the same genera of families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. Charles Darwin Origin of Species, p. 302 (1st ed.).

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants. Instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationish argument that each species was created by God. Mark Czarnecki, McLean’s January 19, 1981 p. 56

"When evolution is said to be a fact, not a theory, what is actually meant? That now-living things have descended from ancestors, with modification, over time? Or that the modifications came by chance, not by design? Or, in addition, that all living things ultimately had the same ancestor? Or, still further, that the `first living thing' had as its ancestor a nonliving thing? Context indicates that when evolution is asserted to be a fact, not a theory, the view actually being pushed includes that of common origin, ultimate inorganic ancestry, and modification through nonpurposive mechanisms: a set of beliefs that goes far beyond the mountain of fact that is actually there, which consists largely of fossils that demonstrate some sort of relationship and some sort of change over time." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago IL, 1994, p.65).

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240
link:http:http://www.creationdesign

I know that anything that speaks of creation to some of you cannot be mentally tolerated or considered. However, the quotes here are from scientists including Darwin himself. The truth will be served and if you have some recent evidence obviating some of the views. please post it.