# Evolutionists, Darwinians, and other misguided folk... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2001, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240 "2001-09-07T15:39:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Royal\_Sampler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/82dd89/32.png) [@Royal\_Sampler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Royal_Sampler)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/1 "2001-09-07T15:39:34Z")
Some points on creation I have taken from Phillip Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. > [@](#): > > A materialistic theory of evolution must inherently invoke two kinds of processes. At bottom the theory must be based on chance, because that is what is left when we have ruled out everything involving intelligence or purpose. Theories which invoke only chance are not credible, however. One thing that everyone acknowledges is that living organisms are enormously complex-far more so than, say, a computer or an airplane. That such complex entities came into existence simply by chance is clearly less credible than that they were designed and constructed by a creator. and… > [@](#): > > If we assume that random genetic mutations provided the new genetic information needed, say, to give a small mammal a start towards wings, and if we assume that each tiny step in the process of wing-building gave the animal an increased chance of survival, then natural selection ensured that the favored creatures would thrive and reproduce. It follows as a matter of logic that wings can and will appear as if by the plan of a designer. Of course, if wings or other improvements do not appear, the theory explains their absence just as well. The needed mutations didn’t arrive, or “developmental constraints” closed off certain possibilities, or natural selection favored something else. There is no requirement that any of this speculation be confirmed by either experimental or fossil evidence. To Darwinists just being able to imagine the process is sufficient to confirm that something like that must have happened. finally… > [@](#): > > The creative power of the “blind watchmaker” is supported only by very slight evidence, such as the famous example of a moth population in which the percentage of dark moths increased during a period when the birds were better able to see light moths against the smoke-darkened background trees. This may be taken to show that natural selection can do something, but not that it can create anything that was not already in existence. Enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/2 "2001-09-07T15:45:53Z")
Ok, so which particular flavour of creationism are we discussing here? Young or old earth? permitted Microevolution or not? ---
**Author:** ![tiny\_ham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@tiny\_ham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiny_ham)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/3 "2001-09-07T15:47:13Z")
My GOD are we done with this subject YET? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/4 "2001-09-07T15:47:32Z")
Well, I’m convinced. There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His messenger. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/5 "2001-09-07T15:48:16Z")
I also probably ought to say that discrediting evolution (even if that were really possible) doesn’t automatically prove any other view, such as creation, without evidence (not from a scientific POV anyway) ---
**Author:** ![Schadenfreude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@Schadenfreude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schadenfreude)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/6 "2001-09-07T15:49:49Z")
Hmmmm. Nope, nothing new or particularly thought provoking here. Just more “evolution couldn’t _possibly_ work, cause it’s just too complicated.” Yawn. Hopefully, this will be short. FWIW, I believe that the world was organized and life was created by God, and that evolution is His way of getting stuff done. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/7 "2001-09-07T15:50:59Z")
When one has a question about the law, one calls a lawyer. When one has a question about biology, one calls a… ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/8 "2001-09-07T15:53:10Z")
Oh! Oh! Mister Manny, I know! I know! A _creationist_! Right? I get a gold star, right? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/9 "2001-09-07T15:55:07Z")
. . . and having had [one head](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=85325) removed, the [Phaedra](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=84717) quickly grows another. How many posts before he says we’re afraid to debate him? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? [Hey, look what I found!!](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html) ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/10 "2001-09-07T16:04:59Z")
First, simply reuttering _Darwin on Trial_ or another book will not get you that far around here. We jump through these hoops every week around here. Do you maybe have a new take on things? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Royal Sampler \* > A materialistic theory of evolution must inherently invoke two kinds of processes. At bottom the theory must be based on chance, because that is what is left when we have ruled out everything involving intelligence or purpose. Theories which invoke only chance are not credible, however. One thing that everyone acknowledges is that living organisms are enormously complex-far more so than, say, a computer or an airplane. That such complex entities came into existence simply by chance is clearly less credible than that they were designed and constructed by a creator. Well, they did. We are here. Evolution is a theory entirely built on observations. It fits the observations. We won the lottery, now we have to figure out how it happened. To blame it all on a Creator who has never been observed is cheating. That is not how we do science. It is to acknowledge winning the lottery while denying ever buying a ticket. > [@](#): > > If we assume that random genetic mutations provided the new genetic information needed, say, to give a small mammal a start towards wings, and if we assume that each tiny step in the process of wing-building gave the animal an increased chance of survival, then natural selection ensured that the favored creatures would thrive and reproduce. It follows as a matter of logic that wings can and will appear as if by the plan of a designer. Of course, if wings or other improvements do not appear, the theory explains their absence just as well. The needed mutations didn’t arrive, or “developmental constraints” closed off certain possibilities, or natural selection favored something else. There is no requirement that any of this speculation be confirmed by either experimental or fossil evidence. To Darwinists just being able to imagine the process is sufficient to confirm that something like that must have happened. An organism has many responses to environmental change. Evolution takes no sides as to which specific adaptation will occur. It just states that it will probably occur or the population will move or die. In the case of wings, look at the flying squirrel. It doesn’t look that different from a regular squirrel, yet it can hurl itself to a nearby tree using sail-like flaps of skin. If perhaps the environment changed that trees got farther apart, increased ability to sail to the next tree would be selected for. One of the possible outcomes to this is the evolution of better flaps of skin, perhaps followed by wings. Again, this is an “imagined” scenario, but scenarios like this **are** supported by the fossil and genetic evidence. In fact, I am going to ask you for a cite where we _can’t_ explain one of these scenarios based on either genetic or fossil evidence. Your “imagined” scenarios are my hypotheses supported by evidence. My field, the genetic developmental program of the eye, shows that all eyed organisms probably shared an optic primordium. In the case of the eye, the fossil evidence supports this as well. Again, invoking an unobserved Creator is cheating. There is no evidence that a Creator plopped wings on mice to make bats, so why should we even resort to this? Because evolution defies “common sense”? Because you personally haven’t seen monkeys giving birth to humans? > [@](#): > > The creative power of the “blind watchmaker” is supported only by very slight evidence, such as the famous example of a moth population in which the percentage of dark moths increased during a period when the birds were better able to see light moths against the smoke-darkened background trees. This may be taken to show that natural selection can do something, but not that it can create anything that was not already in existence. The peppered moth is just one of hundreds of examples of population shifts that have been observed. Natural selection never claims to invent things _de novo_. That is left to “creation scientists” and their Creator. Evolution is all about descent with modification. Things can change so much, though, that we don’t recognize their common ancestry. But, by and large through nature, themes are conserved. Most human protein families exist in yeast. Mice and humans are something like 95% genetically similar, and chimps and humans are something like over 99% similar. I am sure that **Ben** , if not tired of the debate, will be along shortly to challenge you with a series of questions which includes being able to explain protein homology from a creationist world view. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/11 "2001-09-07T16:14:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Theories which invoke only chance are not credible, however. That is correct: Lottery commissions never have to pay winners as winners in lotteries cannot exist. Oops! > [@](#): > > One thing that everyone acknowledges is that living organisms are enormously complex-far more so than, say, a computer or an airplane. As I understand it, a team of scientists created a simulated worm with computer algorithms representing genetic instructions. Last I checked it takes far more than a team of scientists to build an airplane. And it takes far more than a single law professor discussing why bumblebees cannot fly. > [@](#): > > There is no requirement that any of this speculation be confirmed by either experimental or fossil evidence. True. The theory of relativity does not require that we test it for it to be a functional theory. However, if we wish that theory to describe our universe, then indeed it does need evidence found in this universe. I wasn’t aware that fossil records didn’t show evolution. I understood that there were gaps in any particular species’ evolution; this doesn’t constitute a lack of evidence. This constitutes a need for more digging so that the theory doesn’t need to fill the gaps. > [@](#): > > This may be taken to show that natural selection can do something, but not that it can create anything that was not already in existence. Is that so? Then why did the previous quote accept that evolution describes the creation of new species? (checks that there is no poster named Philip Johnson) **Philip Johnson** , you are an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/12 "2001-09-07T16:16:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Royal Sampler \* > Some points on creation I have taken from Phillip Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. > > > [@](#): > > > > … That such complex entities came into existence simply by chance is clearly less credible than that they were designed and constructed by a creator. Argument by assertion. No further discussion necessary. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If we assume that random genetic mutations provided the new genetic information needed, say, to give a small mammal a start towards wings, and if we assume that each tiny step in the process of wing-building gave the animal an increased chance of survival, then natural selection ensured that the favored creatures would thrive and reproduce. It follows as a matter of logic that wings can and will appear as if by the plan of a designer. Of course, if wings or other improvements do not appear, the theory explains their absence just as well. The needed mutations didn’t arrive, or “developmental constraints” closed off certain possibilities, or natural selection favored something else. There is no requirement that any of this speculation be confirmed by either experimental or fossil evidence. To Darwinists just being able to imagine the process is sufficient to confirm that something like that must have happened. All true except the last sentence. As is so often true with creationists, Johnson is projecting his own attitude on evolutionary biologists. Biologists imagine processes and _go looking for evidence for or against those processes happening_. For example, once one has imagined a sequence for eye or wing evolution, one looks for fossils and living organisms that possess the hypothesized intermediate stages. And … one finds them! > [@](#): > > The creative power of the “blind watchmaker” is supported only by very slight evidence, such as the famous example of a moth population in which the percentage of dark moths increased during a period when the birds were better able to see light moths against the smoke-darkened background trees. This may be taken to show that natural selection can do something, but not that it can create anything that was not already in existence. [/quote] Everyone who is knowledgable does not present the peppered moth as an example of “creating somehting that was not already in existence”. Johnson ignores the many examples of mutation and selection creating new functionality, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or [A True Acid Test](http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html) (which appears to be down right now). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/13 "2001-09-07T16:31:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > \*\* . . . and having had [one head](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=85325) removed, the [Phaedra](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=84717) quickly grows another. > > How many posts before he says we’re afraid to debate him? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? \*\* RickJay’s Ninth Law states: **Law 9: Evolution Threads** There will always be a new evolution/creation thread started by a newbie active somewhere on the board. **First Corollary** If the OP supports creationism, the newbie will probably never be seen again. **Second Corollary** 1. In any evolution thread wherein the OP is posted by a newbie creationist, the newbie will eventually be so crushed under the weight of evidence and logic that s/he will either claim the board is afraid to debate his straw man arguments, vanish, or will completely melt down. 2. The approximate number of posts needed for this to occur approximates the function P=Opl/20\*(15+Jp)/0.5(Cp+Pwc-MHP) where Opl = Original Post Length in lines Jp = Joke posts Cp = Collounsbury posts Pwc = Posts with objectively verifiable cites or footnotes MHP = Posts dealing with Moon Hoax theories 3. In any evolution thread started by a newbie supporter of evolution, the thread will collapse out of sheer disinterest within 25 posts. ---
**Author:** ![Royal\_Sampler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/82dd89/32.png) [@Royal\_Sampler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Royal_Sampler)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/14 "2001-09-07T16:32:09Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by erislover \* \*\* I wasn’t aware that fossil records didn’t show evolution. I understood that there were gaps in any particular species’ evolution; this doesn’t constitute a lack of evidence. > [@](#): > > This may be taken to show that nat\*\* Err, yeah it does. Saying that humans evolved from ape like creatures and saying that bats evolved from mice like rodents means there SHOULD be clear fossil records that can be pieced together in a logical, evolutionary sequence. Evolutionists consistently drill in to the rest of us that “look, evolution can take MILLIONS of years!! MILLIONS!!”. That means we should be able to construct a completely logical and sequential evolutionary ‘timetable’ showing exactly when, where, and speculate on why those changes took place. But yet we simply can not turn around and find the path that leads back to where the chimps and we humans apparently shared ancestors. Why not? If evolution occurs over millions of years, the amount of evidence should staggering. Yet we can’t find the fossils that show it. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/15 "2001-09-07T17:05:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Yet we can’t find the fossils that show it. Why not? I’ve eaten breakfast nearly every day of my life. Not much to show for it now. Millions of people have died since Christ–can you find me all their corpses? And all the dogs? And horses? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/16 "2001-09-07T17:11:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Royal Sampler \* > \*\*If evolution occurs over millions of years, the amount of evidence should staggering. Yet we can’t find the fossils that show it. Why not? \*\* Well, the first reason off the top of my head is that fossilization itself is a pretty unusual event. Not every dead creature becomes a fossil. So, there is inference that goes on, but if you see fossils of two species, one predating the other, that are similar but with one or two differences, then it’s not unreasonable to assume there is some relationship between them. It’s like if you were to compare my DNA with someone and see there was a 25% match, and say she was my grandmother, because you know that grandparents and grandchildren share 25% of their genes. Even though you wouldn’t have access to him or her, you could assume that someone exists who is this woman’s child, sharing 50% of her genes, and my parent, who shares 50 of his or her genes with me. The existance of a parent is inferred. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/17 "2001-09-07T17:18:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Yet we can’t find the fossils that show it. Why not? Well, aside from the fact that we do have quite a few transitional forms (which Creationists always deny are “sufficiently” transitional), there is the small matter of what it takes to leave _any_ fossil behind. An animal (or plant) must _at the time of death_ be almost immediately buried in a material that will prevent any scavenger animals from destroying the skeleton, eliminate aerobic microbes that cause decay, provide a chemical composition that will allow leeching _into_ the skeleton so that the bones (and, rarely, hide) can actually become fossils. There is a rare chance that an animal that dies in a desert may leave a body that is dehydrated before rotting, but it still requires that the body never be destroyed by scavengers and it still must be buried at some point to allow the mineral leeching and fossilization. Equally rare might be an animal or an animal that dies in a swamp sinking _past_ the (bacteria-infested) muck to a level where it will be preserved. The covering soil in each of these cases still needs to be the correct type to contain preservative minerals. This means that the only animals that are fossilized are going to be animals that are buried by landslides or, occasionally, swept into an alluvial deposit by a flash flood. Got any idea what the odds are on the number of animals that die under the exactly correct circumstnces each year? My surprise is that we have any fossils at all. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/18 "2001-09-07T17:20:41Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by JonF_: > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Royal Sampler \* > > Some points on creation I have taken from Phillip Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > … That such complex entities came into existence simply by chance is clearly less credible than that they were designed and constructed by a creator. > > Argument by assertion. No further discussion necessary. I think we need a new logical fallacy expressly for evolution debates, called **ex post facto argument against probability**. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/19 "2001-09-07T17:22:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Royal Sampler \* > \*\*That means we should be able to construct a completely logical and sequential evolutionary ‘timetable’ showing exactly when, where, and speculate on why those changes took place. But yet we simply can not turn around and find the path that leads back to where the chimps and we humans apparently shared ancestors. Why not? If evolution occurs over millions of years, the amount of evidence should staggering. Yet we can’t find the fossils that show it. Why not? \*\* Part of the problem here is that evolution looks more like a bush than a tree. In the past, the picture of human evolution looked pretty minimal. As time has gone on, more fossils have been found and many more branchs have been added. Now, if you want to get into the old “lumpers” vs. “splitters” argument that is one thing, but ignoring the evidence of evolution isn’t doing anything. As has been mentioned, the formation of fossils is rare, but there are species where the evolutionary path is quite clear. Horses, for example can be seen going from 5 toed animals in the distant past to the 1 toed animals they are today. If course modern evolution can be seen in drug resistant diseases. That is actually a good question. How do creationists explain the emergance of drug resistant strains of, lets say, TB? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2001, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240/20 "2001-09-07T17:33:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Royal Sampler \* > Err, yeah it does. Saying that humans evolved from ape like creatures and saying that bats evolved from mice like rodents means there SHOULD be clear fossil records that can be pieced together in a logical, evolutionary sequence. Evolutionists consistently drill in to the rest of us that “look, evolution can take MILLIONS of years!! MILLIONS!!”. And we have _copious_ fossil evidence, not _complete_ fossil evidence. Really, the distinction is not so petty as you want it to seem. We see microevolution occur, no contest. We have a theory of macroevolution. We have some very good evidence of macroevolution. Complete evidence of macroevolution can never be found. A more complete set of fossil records is being found. Yes, _millions_ of years of evolution. What, you expect us to literally unearth that amount of evidence in 150 years? AND study it? :rolleyes: [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolutionists-darwinians-and-other-misguided-folk/80240.md?page=2)