It really is a shame that UC Berkeley is so strapped for cash that its Law professors have to do double duty in the Biology department.
Or as if an animal with wings is better adapted to the environment than one without. (did we clear this one up in eighth or ninth grade? I forget)
You have all adressed this piece of silliness quite well. It just amazes me that creationists still spew out falsehoods like this (which I would consider close to slander if I was still working in that field).
And since when did scientists claim they were done gathering evidence, Royal Sampler? Last time I checked, there were still functioning paleontolgy departments at most universities. No, not all of the transitional forms have been uncovered in all of the millions of evolutionary lines, but what we have is pretty compelling if you actually look at it (have you?)
Yes. It is. But only because it postulates as axiomatic the existence of a creator. If God exists, it’s more likely that He made all species (either through guided evoloution or by fiat) than that they evolved by chance. But to get there you’ve got to show that God exists, and that’s clearly less credible than evolution.
And, indeed, they often are redefined, since microevolution includes all processes up to, and including speciation. Macroevolution is defined as evolution above the species level.
Thanks, DF. I missed a disclaimer that the “definitions” I put in parens were the most common ones used by creationists, not the ones used most commonly by scientists.
Creationists do not look for answers in the evidence, but rather for evidence to fit their answers.
Over on the Pizza Parlor, I asked the creationists the following question, which I originally saw posted to the Internet Infidels board.
I got the de facto “head creationist” over there to admit that even proving the existence of a designer - an altogether unlikely occurence - would in no way imply that the Hebrew Creation Myth was an accurate account of that design process.
I’m with Ben in wondering why creationists don’t stop attacking evolution and start providing some theories and evidence of their own.
The answer to the question is in the first two sentences of this post.
Hey, I can do this, too!! I have researched Professor Johnson on the Web, and I have discovered that I hold precisely the same academic credentials that I have!! Accordingly, I will now state definitively the “law” on thermodynamics!
The “laws” of thermodynamics are bunk. Perpetual motion machines and devices that convert cold matter through fusion into gold and other precious substances were invented in the mid-50s, but have been monopolized by the federal government since then, and all word of their existence suppressed.
Actually I think they’re getting ready to move back another step. I’ve seen several things recently where some have said 'oh, yeah, sure, you’ve seen speciation, but show me where you’ve ever seen a new genus created ’ !
I kid you not. They took the old ‘microevolution = up to speciation’ saw and reinterpreted to mean up to and including speciation, thereby claiming (again!) that they never change their “facts” and “theory”. Only evilutionists do that sort of thing, y’know.
Does anyone besides me remember when they didn’t admit “microevolution” at all and actually used to insist that major population allelle shifts (e.g., peppered moths) don’t actually occur, they’re just ‘scientific propaganda’ (or some such balderdash)? Or am I hallucinating? Or do I just have some really, really old books? Dang, I’ve got to get my books unpacked.
OK, that’ll teach me to write a post and then get distracted and wander off and then come back and hit submit, won’t it? Darwin’s Finch - I swear the creationists say (or have said in the past) that microevolution does NOT allow for speciation. Micro=up to species; Macro=species & beyond. It goes along with the standard ‘you can’t show me where a new species has evolved’ schtick.
I am sure a professor of biology would talk rubbish about law as well.
Look, lets face a few facts here.
A lot of smart people who have studied this for YEARS… evolution is not easy to understand ( ok in general it is ) in certain areas though you need really complex maths and stuff.
I am sure the ‘idea’ of law is easy to understand but some points are very complex.
I mean, if you want to know about a medical problem you ask the doctor don’t you ? you don’t ask the lawyer.
redtail, you are correct that you hear creationists say that. As andros mentioned, they are fond of redefining terms to fit their “argument”. The problem is, until someone who actually comprehends evolution comes along to correct them, their altered deifinitions become mainstream among other creationists. When an evolutionists does come along, they then make the claims that evolutionists are the ones redefining terms to suit their arguments!
Well, yeah! Why else would we do it? (OK, I don’t do much here, cuz y’all have me way outclassed, but I do my best IRL. They’re no better in the flesh, trust me.)
I mean, it’s better than…than…
than getting your head bashed repeatedly into a brick wall with embedded glass shards!
Waitwaitwait, you’re trying to tell me that it’s impossible for dark and light-coloured moths to have a common ancestor?, for the dark-coloured moths to be simply a mutatedform of the light ones?
Why is that impossible?
Where have you been all this time, while the pet lovers of the world have been selecting spontaneous mutations that cause colour changes in Budgies, Gerbils, Hamsters, Cats, Dogs, Rabbits, Chickens, Guinea Pigs ??? - colour changes in new generations of all of these animals happened right in front of people’s eyes!!
Every now and again, an animal won’t be the same colour as it’s parents (No doubt Ben could explain the mechanics of this better than I, but no matter), now if this happens to be a rabbit born with a black coat instead of brown, the poor little bunny gets eaten by a fox, because he can’t hide so well in light-coloured dry grass, so his normal-coloured brothers get to live and pass on their characteristics.
But what if his birth just happens to coincide with a nearby forest fire? - he can hide against the charred earth much better than his brothers, so it’s them that get eaten and he is the luck one that gets to breed, so, for as long as the prevailing conditions allow, the black rabbit population grows.
Really RS, it’s the height of absurdity to insist (in the face of such overwhelming observed evidence) that such a small change as colour of a moth can’t happen because of a random genetic change.
This has such an obvious rebuttal I’m surprised nobody has mentioned it yet.
Sure, evolution relies upon chance. But it is not purely chance, and it has something that does allow for the appearance of direction. This is the accummulation of changes. You make it sound like poof humans are roaming the Earth. Yes, under that scenario it does seem to make sense there was a creator rather than random chance. But science doesn’t back up the poof assertion. Science shows us that humans are the current stage of a long string of accummulation of genetic change. A small tweak here, a slight alteration there, a blip here - next thing you know, you’ve gone from a tiny one-celled amoeba to a 30 billion celled organism.
A common demonstration I’ve seen to represent this fact. Take five coins. How many throws will it take you to get all five heads? Sure, the probability is pretty low if you require all heads in one throw. But that’s the point - evolution says you can take as many throws as you need, and after each throw, you get to keep all the heads and just rethrow the tails. Under those rules, you should be able to get all five coins as heads in 5 throws. Try it yourself.
Let’s try something different, Royal Sampler. Can you explain the logical fallacies in Darwin’s argument for Natural Selection as the main driving force of evolution? Note that “we can’t see it happening” is not a logical fallacy (nor is it even accurate, but that’s beside the point). Note that arguing whether evolution even occurs is not a fallacy, either - Darwin didn’t “invent” evolution, he just came up with a theory as to how it occurs.
This is your chance to show that a) you’ve actually read and understood what he was saying, and b) that you can think for yourself, as opposed to basing your arguments solely on neat little soundbites (by someone who clearly does not comprehend Darwin’s argument himself).
Oh, goodie! Somebody else I can ask… I’ve asked three people already, and haven’t yet received an answer.
Basically, all I want to know is why the Theory of Evolution is “false” because “something cannot come from nothing”, yet when I ask “Where Did God Come From?” I’m basically told “God is eternal and everlasting” and/or that God Trancends Our Perception Of The Universe So Threfore Asking Where He Came From Has No Meaning.
In other words, it’s impossible for lifeless chemicals, over the course of tens of thousands of millions of years, to form life, but it’s perfectly plausible and reasonable to assume that some unseen Omnipotent being who Himself wasn’t “created”, He Just Is And Always Has Been, whipped up the Heavens And The Earth out of nothing at all in a matter of days?
