Ask yourself a question. Does evolution fall into the former, or the latter description?
What I’ve noticed over the years is that you have evolutionists, and you have creationists. Both look at the same evidence and come to differing conclusions. Both think the other side is blind to their ‘truth’.
Now, either one side is right, and the other wrong, or both sides are wrong. Since both models cannot be witnessed because the subject of origins is a subject of history, not actual science (correct me if I’m wrong, but science is the art of testing theories via the scientific method, theories of origins do not fall into that category), neither side will know which is true until they’re dead whether or not they were right.
Now I don’t assume that people who believe in evolution do so because they are ignorant and closed-minded. It’s a good theory, as far as theories go. From my perspective, the physical evidence doesn’t support the theory, so I don’t believe in it. Most every bit of physical evidence I see does jibe with the Biblical creation model, so I go with that one.
But I will ask the question again, how does one ‘side’ theorizing an explanation for something like pseudogenes trump the other ‘side’ for failing to make up a similar theory?
Either way, you’re MAKING UP something that 'sounds good’according to what you already accept. It is not FACT. It is not even EVIDENCE. It is one theory pretending to support another theory.
You should make up your mind on what the facts are, not how good the theories that support your theories sound.
Will you discount all of archaeology? That’s the study of what’s happened in the past. There’s no reason that science can’t study what happened in the past when those events left their mark on the world.
I don’t want to hijack Ben’s thread any further than we already have. Would you please start another thread explaining what evidence you’ve seen, and how it supports the biblical model better than the evolutionary model?
The purpose of science is to create theories that both explain the physical evidence as well as possible and (this is the important part; please do address this in your new thread) make predictions about things that have not been observed yet. Neo-Darwinianism does this, and creation science does not.
**
Yes, creating new theories that are consistent with existing theories to get a coherent picture of how the world works is the goal here.
It’s a fact that organisms display traits that are puzzling from the standpoint of an intelligent designer practicing special creation. It’s a fact that the Neo-Darwinian model can account for these features without too much trouble, and has even predicted some of them.
I agree completely. Look at an organism like a manufacturing plant that produces more manufacturing plants, carbon copies of itself and occasionally making mistakes because it’s beens pecifically designed to be flexible. If I produce a plant that burns coal and steel, and produces more coal and steel burning plants that’s great. Now if I want to make a plant that runs on geothermal and burns magnesium I’ve got two choices. I can start from scratch, or I can arrange to have it built inside an existing plant but tweak the programming of the machinery inside so the offspring isn’t quite the same as the parent. That requires much less time and energy. Hell I’ve done the same thing with miniatures molds. It’s hard work sculpting a model from scratch and I have neither he skill nor the patience. But it’s easier to glue bits to existing miniatures or shave them off. You can then make a mold from the modified minaiature that looks perfect. More modifications can then be made to that, etc. etc. Essentially all subsequent miniatures are descendents of the original, but with modifications.
But this assumes firstly that the designers’ timescales are equivalent to ours. There’s no reason to assume it is so why should they be impatient to get a new animal off the reproduction line? Secondly it assumes that the creator finds it easy to construct an organism from raw firmament or whatever it is good creators use these days. If you wanted to build a computer as a hobby would you start from scratch, actually run out the truth tables for the chip, get the chip made with materials you mined and refined yourself, construct your own motherboard, forge the metal parts, write your own operating system using non-binary code etc. etc.? After all if you did this it would be a whole new organism. But you wouldn’t. I can’t imagine even the most ardent hobbyist doing this from scratch or even anywhere near scratch. As soon as you use an intel chip, or a Microsoft operating system the machine is going to have the appearance of being descended from earlier organisms that had slightly modified versions of windows, or a pentium ii chip. I just don’t see any reason why Gods should be restricted to doing things from scratch when the only obvious reasons I can see for doing so is to provide evidence of their existsence or to waste resources.
In 1994 I could have said that the designers at Microsoft hadn’t bothered to come up with a completely redesigned from the ground floor disc operating system, in, what, 10 years? (I don’t actually have a clue when the original version of DOS was produced.) Doesn’t conflict with the designers at Microsoft being intelligent. It just means they had a working system and stuck with it, making whatever modifications were necessary to do the work required. I suspect that if you looked closely you could see signs of Windows95 having descended from DOS, and I know you can see signs of 98 and ME being descended from 95.
And this despite the fact that PCs were being used for everything from running analytical software, film special effects, playing games, CAD, office work etc. No competant engineer would start out to build a medical computer by modifying the blueprints of an office machine, would they? Well they would, could, can and did. The reason being that it was and is far easier to write software that modifies an office machine than it is to build a machine from the ground up, complete with a completely new code. Maybe it doesn’t work quite as well as a machine purpose built for CAT scan diagnostics, but it works well enough.
By comparing aircraft and suspension bridges you’re making the same error that a lot of creationists do when ask why there are still monkeys. Man didn’t descend from monkeys and airplanes didn’t descend from bridges, but they sure had a common ancestor. In the case of bridges and aircraft the ancestor may have been the first lever, or the use of metal struts and rivets that are found in both bridges and zeppelins, but you can bet that at some stage one idea gave rise to both constructions with slight modification.
Can’t tell ya. Sorry. But it does make sense, at least to me.
While theories of origin cannot be tested in a laboratory, (although a number of events related to speciation are tested in labs for bacteria and viri), they can be tested “via the scientific method.” As ultrafilter noted, the scientific method requires explanation and prediction. The general explanations of Darwin have held up remarkably well as new information has been found, despite the fact that he knew nothing of Mendelian genetics. At the same time, numerous predictions have been made, using Darwin’s theory, that have been proven out when “missing” forms have been discovered.
This link provides an essay which describes 29 separate predictions that have been based on the principles of Darwin’s theory that have been found to be true: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
That is an application of the scientific method. No Creationist has replicated that scientific method of predictive analysis. It also includes, for several of the predictions, falsifiable analysis (another aspect of the scientific method that several Creationist proponents falsely claim evolutionary science cannot do).
Gaspode, I’m afraid what you’re writing rather reminds me of the Late Ptolemaic Model of the Solar System. Stick enough epicycles on the thing, and it can more or less account for any number of facts, after the fact as it were. I’m curious. Is this just a personal conviction of yours, or do you regard this as a testable scientific explanation? Is it falsifiable? Does it have any predictive power? Do you think scientists in general should adopt it in place of modern evolutionary theory?
MEBuckner
I can easily see why it may appear that way. The thing is that there was no reason for supposing the Ptolemaic model wrong until facts were found that it couldn’t explain. If it could fit all the observed facts then it would be a scientifically valid theory. Maybe Occams razor might cause you to reject it, but Occams razor isn’t logical in and of itself. Lets face it, the modern synthesis only exists because new controllers, drivers etc. were accounted for in the theory after they were observed to exist and new ones are in the process of being added right now. I’ll wager any amount you like that the synthesis accepted in 10 years won’t be the same as the synthesis now. There have been an awful lot of ‘epicycles’ added to the various evolutionary theories to force them to fit the data. There is nothing logically invalid about modifying a theory to fit the observed data. That’s what science is all about isn’t it?
No of course it doesn’t have any predictive power because my faith in it hinges on it meeting the observed facts after the facts are observed. I would reject the belief if it conflicted with the facts as observed, just as I reject modern synthetic theory because it conflicts the facts as observed. I suppose at a stretch that you could say that it has the same predictive power as evolutionary theory because it works via virtually the same mechanisms and as such will result in almost exactly the same outcome. The only difference is I get the loophole of being able to say that any discrepancies can be explained away by intelligent interference. Darwinism can’t do that nor should it endeavour to because it isn’t meant to be a belief system. Darwinian evolution does not meet all the observed facts so I’ll stick with this belief until such time as I find an evolutionary synthesis does meet all the observed conditions.
No, scientists shouldn’t adopt it in place of modern evolutionary theory. It’s a belief system, not a scientific theory. For crying out loud it requires the existence of a supernatural entity. That’s hardly scientific. Saying it should be adopted in preference to a scientific theory is like saying scientists should adopt Capitalism or Vegetarianism in place of evolutionary theory. You can use evolution and observed genetic data to attempt to explain the validity of Capitalism or Vegetarianism (and people have done so) but you can’t really use Capitalism or Vegetarianism to explain the reason why organisms develop in a certain way. None of that means that Capitalism or Vegetarianism as a belief system is wrong or illogical, simply that they aren’t scientific.
For the benefit of those who might be puzzled by my lack of patience in dealing with Gaspode, let me explain that in the past I have found that Gaspode generally argues semantics into the ground, and appears to have little interest in real debate:
“I’m not going to try to annoy him DITWD. As much fun as it might be and as much as he may deserve it for the deliberate dissemination of erroneous information on this board it would be somewhat like mocking a cripple. The man is a psuedoscientist with an obviously limited knowledge of the facts to hand.”
**
Gaspode, how can I reply to your hypothesis if you refuse to explain it clearly? Moreover, by being vague, you lead people to make natural mistakes in describing your beliefs, and when they do so, you can accuse them of being disingenuous.
I’m sorry, but if you’re not going to explain your beliefs- beliefs which you yourself state are not scientific- then there’s no point in replying to your vague answers except to explain how thoroughly you’ve failed to understand the questions.
**
This kind of semantic bickering is, of course, typical of Gaspode. My argument was that Gaspode left out the question because he didn’t want people to see how badly his answer failed to address it (admittedly, it now appears that the real problem is that I didn’t understand what Gaspode was saying, because of his vagueness and his failure to understand the questions.) How does Gaspode respond? He states that technically speaking, you can’t leave out the question unless you include other parts of the post.
**
No problem with a fossil record showing millions of years of evolution- it’s just 5500 years old?
**
More semantic hairsplitting from Gaspode…
**
Gaspode, you clearly don’t understand the question. Read the FAQ.
**
Actually, I did give examples.
**
Now who’s being disingenuous? I said that in all those cases the prism bent light.
**
Don’t put words in my mouth, Gaspode. I never said any such thing. What I said was:
“The questions as written were on a graduate level, and, as I explained, I already explained on a layman’s level as well.”
Contrary to your statement, I actually stated that the terms were on a graduate level- not a layman’s level. I also stated that I had already explained the terms on a layman’s level.
**
But who knows what “evolutionist” means, coming from Gaspode? See the above links for his torturous arguments over the precise definition of “evolution.”
**
At this point, who knows what Gaspode believes? He makes vague hints about what he believes, and then when you make a misstep, he starts screaming at you that you’re using strawmen.
Look at it this way, Gaspode:
Do you believe in special creation of separate kinds?
Yes? Then you think all the evolutionist scientists in the world are wrong.
No? Then please quit hijacking my thread.
**
Like I said before, Gaspode, we’ve already gone over this. Perhaps you should read the thread?
**
An utter strawman, of course. Gaspode, I already asked you to read the FAQ, and I already said that I had explained the science on a layman’s level, but apparently you’d rather make false accusations.
**
I never claimed that laymen would know the terms right off the bat. What I claimed is that I explained them on a layman’s level. Please quit putting words in my mouth, Gaspode.
**
I must say, this approach is rather typical of the difference between creation “science” and real science.
So suppose you find a short stretch of the genome with the following attributes:
it has a poly-A tail
it’s found far from other, similar genes in the genome
it has no introns
it contains stop codons which prevent it from being expressed
etc., etc.
An evolutionist molecular geneticist looks at this and asks, “How did this come to be? Why does it look like that?” And after some thought and experiment, we find that it came from a mRNA transcript which was reverse-transcribed into the genome.
Gaspode’s approach? He doesn’t explain it. He just explains it away. It’s junk! God did it! Gaspode actually seems a little indignant at the thought that anyone would look any deeper than that.
**
Hmmmm… maybe you should… read the FAQ?
**
**
I never said you were.
**
Perhaps all the crucial parts which you refuse to explain?
**
First you state that you’re an evolutionist and you’ve never claimed that all the evolutionist scientists are wrong, and now you imply that you believe in creation science? Which do you believe- mainstream science or creation science? Somehow I don’t see how you can believe in any form of creation science, since you stated in another post:
**
**
I never demanded any such thing.
**
Gaspode, do you forget that you’re the one who kept talking about YECism?
I’ll say it one last time. This thread is for people who believe in the separate creation of individual kinds to explain the 11 pieces of evidence from a scientific creationist framework. If you don’t believe in the separate creation of individual kinds, or if you find yourself unwilling or unable to give a clear presentation of a creationist framework from which your answers proceed, or if your beliefs are not scientific in nature, then please quit hijacking my thread.
Please, guys. If you want to talk about flaws in evolution, then start a new thread. This thread is solely for creationists to present scientific hypotheses regarding various pieces of evidence from molecular genetics.
Excuse me Freakboy, but do you have a degree in biology? If not, then why do you feel the need to attack science you know next to nothing about? Have you even ever read a biology textbook? I´m amazed by this attitude. “I may not have a clue when it comes to evolution, but that dosen´t mean my opinion shouldn´t count”. At least that´s how your posts strike me. Read through a couple of the links already posted here and then get back to us. It would be great if you could address Ben´s points while you’re at it.
When MeBuckner referred to “adding epicycles,” he meant that people were simply making up explanations which were not based on facts. Are you claiming that this is what people have done to the Theory of Evolution? If so, please tell us who did this and when.
Ben,
You requested that I answer some qusions for you. I assume you did this to fight your own ignorance. It becomes clear that you did this only to pick a fight. You demand I explain my beliefs to you. This is unnecesssary because only my beleifs concerning the questions are at issue. I have demonstrated quite clearly that objects known to have been intelligently designed show signs of having been derived from each other, yet you insist that evidence of derivation is inconsistent with intelligent design. You have attempted strawman after strawman in you last post, including the assertion that I attempted to explain away the factors in a question I never even attempted to answer. You have attempted an ad hominem by posting links to previous threads that have at best limited relevance to this one. You have attempted to justify a strawman by claiming ignorance of my beliefs yet never asked me to clarify my beliefs, You are using my disinclination to wade through reams of quite frankly boring stuff on your FAQ page as evidence that I am incapable of answering questions. You claim you have given examples when the entire question was posted for all to see, sans examples. You have claimed that you never said that all prisms have the same function despite quite clearly posting "Same structure, same function’ in direct refernce to prisms. You have tried the same loaded question that requires the choice between evolution and creation be black and white no less than three times in your last post alone. You have stated that I repeatedly bring up YEC despite mentioning it only tice in the same paragraph explicitely staing that you not use it again. Quite frankly Ben the questions I have attempted to answer have been answered to the satisfaction of anyone interested oin the answers. You clearly are not interested in answers, instead simply wanting to propagate a strawman post. I’m not inclined to continue this discussion with Ben for reasons that should be clear to everyone participating. this isn’t a fight against ignorance, it’s a platform for Ben to voice his prejudices.
All else aside Ben in my last post I quite clearly stated that “I’m going to enforce the same rules on you Ben. Attack creationism without supporting evolution or use diversionary tactics such as YEC one more time and I’m going to take it as an implicit admission of abject defeat.” You have once more introduced YEC with absolutley no relevance to the debate at hand. A clear diversionary tactic and as such you have admitted abject defeat. I win this one by forfeit Ben. Thanks for playing.
I don’t have the time to go into great detail now, but if you’re genuinely interested in some of the more recent conflicts that evolutionists are attemtping to resolve I’ll point you towards the following (Largely clipped from previous threads).
Ayala FJ.
Neutralism and selectionism: the molecular clock
Gene. 261(1):27-33, 2000 Dec 30.
Abstract
The neutrality theory predicts that the rate of molecular evolution will be constant over time, and thus that there is a molecular clock for timing evolutionary events. It has been observed that the variance of the rate of evolution is generally larger than expected according to the neutrality theory. Several modifications of the theory have been proposed to account for the ‘overdispersion’ of the molecular clock…… An extensive investigation of two proteins, …manifests that none of these modifications can simultaneously account for the disparate patterns observed in both proteins. GPDH evolves very slowly in Drosophila species, but several times faster in mammals, other animals, plants, and fungi. SOD evolves very fast in Drosophila species and also in mammals, but much more slowly in other animals and still slower when plants and fungi are compared to one another, or to animals
True H.L.; Lindquist S.L.
A yeast prion provides a mechanism for genetic variation and phenotypic diversity
Nature
Volume 407, Issue 6803
28 September 2000
Pages 477-483
Abstract A major enigma in evolutionary biology is that new forms or functions often require the concerted effects of several independent genetic changes. It is unclear how such changes might accumulate when they are likely to be deleterious individually and be lost by selective pressure.
Evolution: The evolvability enigma
J. F. Y. Brookfield
Current Biology, Volume 11, Issue 3, 6 February 2001, Pages R106-R108 A report that a switch of a yeast protein to a `prion’ state triggers diverse phenotypic changes has prompted re-examination of the processes of evolution.
R.L. Carroll, Towards a new evolutionary synthesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15 (2000), pp. 27¯32.
Abstract
New concepts and information from molecular developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. **These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis. **
Wallace, A. 2000. The Concept of developmental reprogramming and the quest for an inclusive theory of evolutionary mechanics Evolution and Development 2:1 49-57
Which discusses "the limitations of the present-day Neo-Darwinian theory’. Amongst the limitataions discussed are the fact that ‘Darwin’s proposal that selection is the main cause of evolutionary change… may well be wrong for certain suites of characters’.
Egbert Giles, L. 1999. The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism. Tree 14:12
The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show or to provide distinct signs that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation.
I can also highly recommend the book Dear Mr. Darwin by G. Dover. It goes into great detail about the flaws in using natural selection acting on genes to explain what is essentially a prolonged change in a one direction. Unfortunatly my copy isn’t with me at the moment so I can’t quote any of it, but it does a very good job debunking quite a bit of Dawkins work. And before anyone asks, no Dover isn’t a creationist. He’s a molecular biologist who simply rejects natural selection and Darwinism in favour of molecular driven, as opposed to selection driven, theories.
Hall, B.K. 2000 Evo-devo or devo-evo. Does it matter. Evolution and Development 2:4, 177-178
Devo-evo sees the current theory of evolution (the neo-Darwinian synthesis) as incomplete and sek to modify it or even replace it. Some proponenets of Evo-devo see the modern synthesis as incomplete. …a complete synthesis of evolution and development remains for the future.
Erwin, D.H. 2000 Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution and Development 2:2 76-84
These discontinuities impose a heirarchical structure to evolution and discredit any smooth extrapolation from allelic substitution to large scale evolutionary patterns. Recent developments in comparative developmental biology suggest a need to reconsider the possibility that some macro-evolutionary discontinuities may be associated with orginiation of evolutionary innovation.
IIRC people were not “simply making up explanations which were not based on facts”. The only facts in evidence were, for example, that the orbit of mercury relative to the Sun didn’t fit an Earth centric system with strictly circular orbits. To account for this another epicycle was added that did fit the facts. The explanations were based very strongly on facts and as soon as another orbit was found a new epicycle was added to account for it. Science can never be certain if an explanation is based on all the facts, only if an explanation fits the known facts. The evolutionary synthesis has a long history of people making up explanations to fit the facts, that’s why it’s called a synthesis. Whether such explanations are based on and consistent with all facts may only be known in the fullness of time. We have considerable evidence even now that the explanation doesn’t fit all the facts and as a result many people are proposing an overhaul of the theory, in effect adding new epicycles to fit the new facts. There’s no real difference.
There is a significant difference between debating the mechanisms of evolution (which it is pretty clear is what all of the papers you mentioned are doing) and debating evolution itself. Most evolutionists are fully aware that strict Darwinism is not the end-all, be-all of evolutionary mechanics (just as one might argue strict Biblical literalism isn’t the end-all, be-all of Christian theology…). The facts all support evolution.
Take this, for instance:
How does this indicate facts do not support evolution? Carroll is simply stating a commonly-held belief that macro-evolution is most likely not a simple extension of Darwinian natural selection; the mechanism of natural selection is insufficient to explain large-scale changes above the species level. This in no way contradicts the known facts.
And as for this:
No, it’s called a synthesis because it incorporates findings from a variety of fields. Remember the Carroll paper?
Except that I’m not debating evolution. I’ve stated several times in this thread that I support evolution. I am debating evolutionary theory, and for the purposes of this discussion the evolutionary theory = the the modern synthesis. If there is another evolutionary theory in use in this debate I apologise for any confusion caused.
1)The facts also all support intelligent design. It is more than possible for the facts to support multiple theories. What Ben appears to be asserting is that the facts conflict with intelligent design, yet I see no evidence of that.
2)The facts may support evolution but they clearly conflict with the currently popular evolutionary theory, which is what I have an issue with. It’s quite clear from a statement like “Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by the evolutionary synthesis.” that the expected values if the theory were correct are in direct conflict with the observed values. ergo evolutionary theory is in conflict with the facts.The mechanisms proposed by the curent theories conflict with the observed facts as pointed out by Carroll. The facts show a certain rate of change and the theory says we should be seeing a different rate of change. Conflict between observed fact and theoretical prediction. Similarly True & Lindquist state that changes in form require several virtually simultaneous genetic changes, and that shouldn’t occur according to evolutionary theory. Yet we know for a fact such changes can and do occur. The theory conflicts with the facts.
Where have I ever said that the facts don’t support evolution? What I said was that current evolutionary theory conflicts with the facts. The mecahnism is a vital part of the theory, not something separate from it. Again I apologise if there has been some other evolutionary theory invoked in this thread that isn’t the modern synthesis. Take it as read from now on that when I say evolutionary theory I mean modern synthetic.
OK, colour me confused. The mechanism is part of the theory isn’t it? If we remove the mechanism and replace it with a purely Lamarckian mechanism we no longer have the modern synthetic theory. The theory as a whole doesn’t explain the observed facts, yet it doesn’t contradict the facts? It seems to me if the facts aren’t in agreement with the theory then they must be in contradiction to it. In this case the facts can’t simply be neutral because they are the very facts by which theory can be falsified. It’s not just a a case of the theory failing to explain the facts, the predicted values which would exist if the theory were correct are in direct conflict with the observed values. It’s exactly the same as the fact that the observed values for the geological column don’t match the predicted values derived from a literal interpretation of genesis. A fundie can’t then say the mechanism (God acting in accordance with Genesis) is insufficient to explain the observed changes, but that the Bible still in no way contradicts the known facts. Similarly we can’t say the mechanism (natural selection and random mutaion etc) is insufficient to explain the observed changes but the theory in no way contradicts the known facts. By not matching the predicted results the facts automatically contradict the theory. I know I’m misreading you here but I’m not sure what you meant to say.
What Carroll states doesn’t conflict with the facts because it is fact. Evolutionary synthesis can’t account for those facts. I said that current evolutionary theory conflicts with the facts, as noted by Carroll. If a theory doesn’t fit the facts aren’t I justified in opting for another theory that doesn’t conflict with any facts, or indeed simply claiming ignorance while still rejecting the theory? I repeat, the mechanism behind the modern synthesis is a vital part of the theory, not separate from it. If the proposed mechanism doesn’t explain the observed changes what is invalid about postulating a mechanism that does account for the observed changes, in this case intelligent manipulation?
And the reason why scientists decided to incorporate all those findings was because the original theory as provided by Darwin didn’t fit the facts provided by those fields just as the current synthesis doesn’t fit the facts from several fields. But it’s a minor quiblle, I’ll let you have it.
Who says so? I know of nothing in Darwinian thought, Neo-Darwinism, or any later amending theories that claims that all changes must occur serially.
Not in my reading. What I have seen is a number of people making corollary theories, based on the neo-Darwinian theory, about specific applications and their hypotheses have occasionally been found to be wrong. There is nothing in the overall theory that requires a specific rate of change, so noting a variance from a specific application hardly threatens the theory which did not specify it.
Intelligent design still fails because it is a deus ex machina statement that cannot be proven and because it is not (in any example I have seen), the only, or even best explanation–Michael Behe notwithstanding.
Most of Gaspode’s post isn’t worth replying to, but I’ll hit a few high points:
**
Nonsense. It’s utterly dishonest of you to imply that I specifically approached you about answering the questions. As I’ve already explained, I asked people with a particular set of beliefs to offer a scientific explanation of the evidence. You’ve indicated quite clearly- even protested at length- that you’re not the kind of person I was referring to in my challenge.
**
It’s not an ad hominem at all. They are entirely relevant to the current debate, because they explain why I have so little patience with you. That’s why I said I was providing the links “For the benefit of those who might be puzzled by my lack of patience in dealing with Gaspode”.
**
Really?
“Do you mean that God let one species hang around for a while and then made it vanish to be replaced with a new species? Do you mean that God made all the species appear on subsequent days, but developed the blueprints for those animals in stages, using old blueprints as plans for new ones? Do you mean that one species evolved into another, but God tinkered with their DNA in detectable ways? Until you present a cogent summary of your hypothesis and then explain its ramifications for each of the 11 kinds of evidence I asked about, it’s not worth answering your replies, because they’re too vague for us to know what you mean by them.”
"Gaspode, how can I reply to your hypothesis if you refuse to explain it clearly? "
“First you state that you’re an evolutionist and you’ve never claimed that all the evolutionist scientists are wrong, and now you imply that you believe in creation science? Which do you believe- mainstream science or creation science?”
**
Ah, but Gaspode specifically asked me to explain my terms:
“Try giving it to me in English or graduate level sciencese and I’ll give it a shot though.”
"7)What’s an intron?
8)What’s an exon? Anything to do with a mutinatuonal oil company?
9)And is a psuedoexon pretending to be a multinational oil complany?"
He even complained at length that I had failed to put things into layman’s terms, even though I had.
But when he finds that I actually did explain everything in layman’s terms, he then protests that my explanations are too boring to read!
**
Cite, please? It seems like your “arguments” are turning into little more than putting words in my mouth.
**
Twice?
“Even for the average fundamentalist Christian I can’t see this being a big problem.”
“Why would this in any way conflict with even fundamentalist christian beliefs?”
And most importantly:
“Unfortunately there are limits to how much detail of my religious beliefs I am able to discuss, but it should be sufficient to say that it really doesn’t matter whether God(s) let one species hang around for a while and then made it vanish to be replaced with a new species, made all the species appear on subsequent days, but developed the blueprints for those animals in stages, using old blueprints as plans for new ones or let one species evolved into another,but tinkered with their DNA in detectable ways? Any of those hypotheses will provide an answer to your questions that fit the facts as presented.”
(emphasis mine.)
So you see, the only I reason I discussed YEC’s at all is because Gaspode explicitly stated that his explanations would work equally well for YEC’s.
And, of course, we have two or three references in the paragraph to which Gaspode is referring.
**
What part of “don’t hijack my thread” don’t you understand? There are already a number of other threads that have been specifically set up to discuss this kind of thing, and I’ve already asked that this kind of discussion be taken there.
Folks, I’m asking you again: if you want to reply to Gaspode’s posts about evolution, then please cut-and-paste them to Mangetout’s thread on evidence against evolution. Please, I’m very serious about this. As you know, creationists will nearly always try to dodge demands that they provide creationist explanations for scientific data by making diversionary attacks on evolution, and I want very much to keep this thread focussed on the eleven questions.
As for my own dispute with Gaspode, his posts have become so self-evidently dishonest that there’s not much point in replying to them. If I feel the need to do so again, I’ll take it to the Pit in order to keep this thread clear.
Darwinism can’t do that nor should it endeavour to because it isn’t meant to be a belief system. Darwinian evolution does not meet all the observed facts so I’ll stick with this belief until such time as I find an evolutionary synthesis does meet all the observed conditions.