Evolution Theory - Creationism.

[ZenitYerkes]

Made with love for Sonoran Na'vi and Woodsprite I let it up to you boys.

And just for making the OP more interesting, I am pro-Evolution Theory. Why? Nature is ruled by change and adaptation to the surrounding circumstances: tiny changes produced throughout several millenia will end up with different species from the same original one. As an example you've got the evolution of man, from the first hominids to Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens. Little changes, adaptation: now we're here. We even keep evolving: people in the past were tinier than us (less than 160 cm / 5' 3'').

And fossils are there for a reason, they just don't appear from beneath the land randomly.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Thanks for making a new thread (that way the "What are your beliefs?" thread can remain on topic)...

I am reposting my reply in this thread to help get the conversation started here and out of the old thread:


I would've had this up yesterday; but, after a long day, I came home and went to sleep right away...

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

This has been constantly debated over: Isn't "macro" the same thing, with micro changes over millions of years through mutation?

Technically, no. Macroevolution deals with biological supplementary information relay. In order for a new family to arise from another (like reptile to bird), new genetic information must be added. As no one has demonstrated any feasible example of how this could occur, it remains a mystery.

"But wait! Haven't scientists proven this can occur? Take the mouse brain, for example. In one experiment it was increased in size with new tissue and more cranium space. New information was added." Incorrect (as this is usually the example given). No new information was added to the mouse's brain. More brain tissue was simply replicated and made larger, but the mouse remained just as dumb as it was before. It had no new abilities; there was no new genetic information.

Sum-up: Macro has to add new information. There has never been any evidence for this process, and there hasn't ever been any substantial proof offered for its occurrence.

What is your definition of "new information" and "information"?

...Yes, I figured someone would bring that up. Gravity can be observed, tested, and demonstrated, while the process of macroevolution is outside the realm of such verifications we can make using the scientific method.

Physical processes leave behind physical evidence of their occurance. Evolution at the macroevolution level is testible in that the predictions made at this level can be tested every time new evidence is found (an example would be a fossil). While the process of evolution at or above the speciation level may be largely unobservable (due to the time it would take to observe), evidence for the process can still be provided via inference.

There's Ardi, like I mentioned.

Could you recommend a source on Ardi?

There are various observations concerning background radiation that was thought for a while to be "evidence" for the big bang (when it was later discovered it came from many different directions, and thus discarded). I could go on.

I am not sure what the big bang has to do with the theory of evolution. I guess I am confused as what you meant by stating: "Evolutionism is a constantly changing theory, with all sorts of different discoveries that cancel out other theories surrounding it."

It's a theory. To be defined as such you must be able to conduct falsification tests, which evolutionism has. Once these tests are passed, the hypothesis becomes "theory", though there are many tests it hasn't passed, like showing any logical hypothesis on how transitions between two and three-celled intermediates (which we have no evidence for) can evolve into multi-cellular organisms, for one.

When you say "tests it hasn't passed," are you referring to tests which have not currently been conducted or tests that have been conducted which evolution did not pass? I ask because it would seem a bit misleading to say something "hasn't passed" a test that has yet to be conducted.

[Woodsprite]

@ZenitYerkes: First and foremost I must say thank you... for making it more difficult for me to escape this debate! I've tried over many forums to not post the same stuff I've written over and over and over and over and over and over again. Back on AF there's a simililar discussion going, though I excluded creation since I wanted to focus on evolution and evolution only...

However, now that the die is cast, I'm assuming I'll have to step up to the plate once again as I've always done, as the lone defender of young-earth creationism (which about 99.9% of all AF and ToS members disagree with). I would seriously LOVE IT if you took "Creationism" out of the title and just left it with "Evolution Theory", but if it's meant to be, it's meant to be.

ON WITH THE SHOW!

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I would've had this up yesterday; but, after a long day, I came home and went to sleep right away...

Thank you for going to sleep. I find breaks from posting about complicated discussions rather comforting.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

What is your definition of "new information" and "information"?

By my definition, new information is information that never previously existed within the organism. For example, reptiles do not possess the gene to produce feathers. New genetic information would have to be added to the animal for such to occur; this has not been shown in science.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Physical processes leave behind physical evidence of their occurance. Evolution at the macroevolution level is testible in that the predictions made at this level can be tested every time new evidence is found (an example would be a fossil).

No prediction can ever be considered an accurate representation of an event without a physical demonstration, especially in such a physical occurrence as evolution. You can make as many predictions as you'd like, and even "test" them through computer graphics and mathematics, but as long as the biological example itself remains untested, it is pure hypothesis; nothing more.

Again, "Long ago, and far away, genetic information could be added via mutations to the organism. Though we can't test it today, we can assume it happen from postulating it." That's all it is. Predictions in themselves cannot be tested physically, and the entire process of evolution is physical.

Using bones in the ground to assume "this came from that" is not an accurate test. You can put bones side by side and claim one came from the other, but that's pretty much all you can do with them. You find a fossil. All you know about it is: it died. You don't even know where it died, just where it ended up being buried. They don't come stamped with a date "x-million y/o". Now, there are various methods of dating, but that's for explanation in another post.

I can lay some silverware side by side:



This ^ proves silverware evolved.

Um... no it doesn't?

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

While the process of evolution at or above the speciation level may be largely unobservable (due to the time it would take to observe), evidence for the process can still be provided via inference.

That's not evidence, that's an assumption. You can assume all you want, like with the silverware above, but that doesn't make it an accurate conclusion. Science deals with things we can observe, test, and demonstrate. When you state something like "We cannot observe such processes because it takes far too long", right there you've left science. You've left the realm of the natural and stated "long ago and far away" this bone could do something we can't observe today.

That's a nice story, but it can only be considered part of the scientific realm if it can be physically tested. If it cannot, you throw the theory away. That's how it works, and that's how it has always worked... except with evolution. The only reason why it still exists within the scientific community is because no replacement theory has been put up.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Could you recommend a source on Ardi?

A good source that you'd find reputable to your satisfaction would be here. The newest studies say that we never evolved from apes, but rather humans and apes both evolved seperately from a common ancestor.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I am not sure what the big bang has to do with the theory of evolution. I guess I am confused as what you meant by stating: "Evolutionism is a constantly changing theory, with all sorts of different discoveries that cancel out other theories surrounding it."

I support the notion that the big bang is part of the overall process of evolution, since it deals with the beginning of the universe, and because no other theory in science proposes such a theory. It isn't necessarily a part of Darwinian evolution (since Darwin never ventured that far), but it remains part of the overall process by which everything came into being. You go back far enough, and that's where you'll end up.

Some would argue that the big bang theory, for example, wouldn't fall under evolutionism because it has nothing to do with living things. Astronomy is reserved for such a subject. But the word "evolution" in its purest form is simply "change over time". In other words, evolutionism spans across three basic subjects to become cohesive: astronomy, chemistry, and biology. Further spanned, it could be divided into six different categories: cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, and then the two separate biological terms, macroevolution and microevolution.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

When you say "tests it hasn't passed," are you referring to tests which have not currently been conducted or tests that have been conducted which evolution did not pass? I ask because it would seem a bit misleading to say something "hasn't passed" a test that has yet to be conducted.

I'm referring to tests it's been subjected to already, and how scientists have ignored some of them, like polystrate fossils, or giant objects found within diatomaceous earth. There are many others.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Thank you for going to sleep. I find breaks from posting about complicated discussions rather comforting.

lol, I know what you mean

By my definition, new information is information that never previously existed within the organism. For example, reptiles do not possess the gene to produce feathers. New genetic information would have to be added to the animal for such to occur; this has not been shown in science.

I still need the term "information" defined in order to comment further. In other words, what do you mean by "information"? The reason I ask is because the concept of information may change from one topic to the next. I am interested in what type of information you believe genetic information is.

No prediction can ever be considered an accurate representation of an event without a physical demonstration, especially in such a physical occurrence as evolution. You can make as many predictions as you'd like, and even "test" them through computer graphics and mathematics, but as long as the biological example itself remains untested, it is pure hypothesis; nothing more.

Again, "Long ago, and far away, genetic information could be added via mutations to the organism. Though we can't test it today, we can assume it happen from postulating it." That's all it is. Predictions in themselves cannot be tested physically, and the entire process of evolution is physical.

I would disagree. We can physcially test the predictions made by macroevolution. An example would be testing the predictions made at the macroevolution level through techniques meant to analize genetics.

Using bones in the ground to assume "this came from that" is not an accurate test. You can put bones side by side and claim one came from the other, but that's pretty much all you can do with them. You find a fossil. All you know about it is: it died. You don't even know where it died, just where it ended up being buried. They don't come stamped with a date "x-million y/o". Now, there are various methods of dating, but that's for explanation in another post.

Can you demonstrate, or cite something that demonstrates, that the study of the fossil record is not an accurate test? Plus, I think it is a little more in depth than putting "bones side by side" and claiming one came from the other. Fossils allow for the study of what species lived during what period of time. I would be inclined to believe this includes the study of changes in bone structure among other things.

I can lay some silverware side by side:



This ^ proves silverware evolved.

Um... no it doesn't?

I do not care for this analogy as it is a false analogy. Inheritance is central to the theory of evolution. Silverware cannot inherit traits from other silverware.

That's not evidence, that's an assumption. You can assume all you want, like with the silverware above, but that doesn't make it an accurate conclusion. Science deals with things we can observe, test, and demonstrate. When you state something like "We cannot observe such processes because it takes far too long", right there you've left science. You've left the realm of the natural and stated "long ago and far away" this bone could do something we can't observe today.

My mistake. I should have stated "directly observed" as that was my train of thought.

A good source that you'd find reputable to your satisfaction would be here. The newest studies say that we never evolved from apes, but rather humans and apes both evolved seperately from a common ancestor.

Thank you. I should find time to look over it here soon.

I support the notion that the big bang is part of the overall process of evolution, since it deals with the beginning of the universe, and because no other theory in science proposes such a theory. It isn't necessarily a part of Darwinian evolution (since Darwin never ventured that far), but it remains part of the overall process by which everything came into being. You go back far enough, and that's where you'll end up.

Some would argue that the big bang theory, for example, wouldn't fall under evolutionism because it has nothing to do with living things. Astronomy is reserved for such a subject. But the word "evolution" in its purest form is simply "change over time". In other words, evolutionism spans across three basic subjects to become cohesive: astronomy, chemistry, and biology. Further spanned, it could be divided into six different categories: cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, and then the two separate biological terms, macroevolution and microevolution.

Evolution defined as "change over time" is not necessarily the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with explaining the observed diversity of living organisms. There are other branches of science that deal with the big bang. I am interested in discussing the theory of evolution, not evolution as defined as "change over time."

I'm referring to tests it's been subjected to already, and how scientists have ignored some of them, like polystrate fossils, or giant objects found within diatomaceous earth. There are many others.

Can you cite sources on how scientists have ignored these tests?

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I still need the term "information" defined in order to comment further. In other words, what do you mean by "information"? The reason I ask is because the concept of information may change from one topic to the next. I am interested in what type of information you believe genetic information is.

I'm referring to genetic information unique to a specific family and/or genus (what I would call a "kind"), or "genetic traits" if you will. Mammals, for example, do not have gills because their genetic code does not possess this trait. And such traits have never been observed through inheritance. It's postulation, but not science.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I would disagree. We can physcially test the predictions made by macroevolution. An example would be testing the predictions made at the macroevolution level through techniques meant to analize genetics.

What are these techniques that test macroevolution at the biological level?

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Can you demonstrate, or cite something that demonstrates, that the study of the fossil record is not an accurate test?

I contend there is no "fossil record". There are fossils, but no record. The acclaimed "record" comes from dating methods that rely soley on the geologic time scale, which bases itself on very poor assumptions. The scale is made up of layers with assigned ages, and every dating method used revolves around staying true to it. A discrediting factor would be polystrate fossils.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Plus, I think it is a little more in depth than putting "bones side by side" and claiming one came from the other. Fossils allow for the study of what species lived during what period of time. I would be inclined to believe this includes the study of changes in bone structure among other things.

Bone structure can be dictated. Enough study can get you to where cows came from whales... which is another set of fossils that's been poorly examined (and been discredited a number of times; I can give further explanation if you'd like ).

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I do not care for this analogy as it is a false analogy. Inheritance is central to the theory of evolution. Silverware cannot inherit traits from other silverware.

First of all, didn't mean to offend, if I did.

My point was, what if silverware was a living organism? And if it was living, what evidence would be put forth for its evolution? The only evidence that can possibly be given is its body structure, or "the bones" of the silverware. Through careful dating that bases itself on the geologic column rather than actual dating, it would then be assumed that the dinner fork ultimately came from the knife.

A crude example, I understand. But that's exactly what's being done with the real deal.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Evolution defined as "change over time" is not necessarily the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with explaining the observed diversity of living organisms. There are other branches of science that deal with the big bang. I am interested in discussing the theory of evolution, not evolution as defined as "change over time."

That's Darwinian evolution, as you just described. I'm talking about origins. If you venture before the first replicating cells, you find the prebiotic chemical mixture. You venture before that and you have a rocky, molten mass. You venture before that and you have chemical reactions within stars, later to explode into asteroids and planet formations. You venture before that and you've got the big bang. So ultimately, especially according to textbooks that make absolutely no distinction between biological and cosmic evolution as seperate theories, the big bang is part of evolution.

Not Darwinian evolution, I agree. But nevertheless, the process of evolution as a whole. However, I don't care whether or not we discuss the big bang.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Can you cite sources on how scientists have ignored these tests?

What I mean is, they've never addressed these issues.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

I'm referring to genetic information unique to a specific family and/or genus (what I would call a "kind"), or "genetic traits" if you will. Mammals, for example, do not have gills because their genetic code does not possess this trait. And such traits have never been observed through inheritance. It's postulation, but not science.

What kind of information do you think genetic information is? In order to discuss whether there can be new information, it is important to distinguish what is meant by information. For example, are we talking about information as a decrease of uncertainty or are we maybe talking about information as it would be described in algorithmic information theory?

What are these techniques that test macroevolution at the biological level?

DNA sequencing is one.

I contend there is no "fossil record". There are fossils, but no record. The acclaimed "record" comes from dating methods that rely soley on the geologic time scale, which bases itself on very poor assumptions. The scale is made up of layers with assigned ages, and every dating method used revolves around staying true to it. A discrediting factor would be polystrate fossils.

What are the poor assumptions of these dating methods and why are they poor? Also, can it be demonstrated that polystrate fossils discredit dating methods without being the result of rapid sedimentation or some sort of salt withdrawal?

Bone structure can be dictated. Enough study can get you to where cows came from whales... which is another set of fossils that's been poorly examined (and been discredited a number of times; I can give further explanation if you'd like ).

I would appreciate a further explanation with sources on how the fossils in question have been poorly examined and discredited.

First of all, didn't mean to offend, if I did.

Don't worry, you didn't offend me...

My point was, what if silverware was a living organism? And if it was living, what evidence would be put forth for its evolution? The only evidence that can possibly be given is its body structure, or "the bones" of the silverware. Through careful dating that bases itself on the geologic column rather than actual dating, it would then be assumed that the dinner fork ultimately came from the knife.

A crude example, I understand. But that's exactly what's being done with the real deal.

Are you assuming that the fossil record is the only source which is used to determine if one fossilized organism evolved from another? To my knowledge, the evidence found in the fossil record is converged with other sources of evidence to support evolution.

That's Darwinian evolution, as you just described. I'm talking about origins. If you venture before the first replicating cells, you find the prebiotic chemical mixture. You venture before that and you have a rocky, molten mass. You venture before that and you have chemical reactions within stars, later to explode into asteroids and planet formations. You venture before that and you've got the big bang. So ultimately, especially according to textbooks that make absolutely no distinction between biological and cosmic evolution as seperate theories, the big bang is part of evolution.

Not Darwinian evolution, I agree. But nevertheless, the process of evolution as a whole. However, I don't care whether or not we discuss the big bang.

The theory of evolution does not contain abiogenesis or other scientific theories. The theory of evolution assumes that living organisms exist. This other definition of evolution that you mention is not a scientific theory and should not be confused with the theory of evolution.

What I mean is, they've never addressed these issues.

Can it be shown that these issues need to be addressed? Or are there other explanations for these issues (such as rapid sedimentation for polystrate fossils)?

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

What kind of information do you think genetic information is? In order to discuss whether there can be new information, it is important to distinguish what is meant by information. For example, are we talking about information as a decrease of uncertainty or are we maybe talking about information as it would be described in algorithmic information theory?

Neither. You're misunderstanding me; you think information exists as a relative state of molecules that can be manipulated and changed over time to form a different sort of sequence, enabling the organism to accomplish new tasks it couldn't previously do. That, in my mind, is what you're thinking.

But this is what I define it as: genetic information is a series of traits that are inherent to a particular family or genus (kind) of an animal that cannot change into something different over any period of time. This has never been observed, and there haven't ever been any tests to prove it can literally happen, especially through mutation, which I'd be glad to explain.

And if you're going to bring up bacteria being resistant to pesticides (the only example ever brought up in this sort of debate as far as I'm aware), I'd also be glad to explain that.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

DNA sequencing is one.

DNA sequencing is a examination of genomes concerning the order of any nucleotide base; it is not a direct test or method that reenacts evolution in any way. However, I'm glad you brought this up.

Dr. Barney Maddox (I can tell you're rolling your eyes now if you've known to see his name before...) was part of the Human Genome Project, which, as you know, was primarily about DNA sequencing. According to him,

Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.

Later, scientists (in general) found in a 2002 study, that humans are less than 95% related, making that gap at least 80 million nucleotides instead of 48 million.

I've quoted this countless times, and every time I always get something like, "He's a urologist" or "He isn't qualified to make such a statement" or "He's pulling this out of thin air". I always ask in return, "Why do you say that?" The answer's usually, "You won't find such a statement in any reputable science journal." True... You also won't find Robert Gentry's discovery of radio polonium halos in any science journal found today, though he was a writer for many science journals Science and Nature... before his funding was cut after he made his discovery...

Yes, he's a urologist, but it doesn't make much difference since he was part of the project. Maddox does have a M.D. from University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, and received an undergraduate degree in biology. By some he's considered a "leading genetic genome researcher". He studied the subject, he was on the project, and he's got the necessary credentials.

I seem to be trying to put forth every possible rebuttal before you ever say anything (), but I've just come across so many "He's no scientist" statements that frankly, I'm a bit sick of it (because he is a scientist); sick about the fact that nothing anyone ever rebuts me with (when I quote him) is a legitimate answer to his statement, instead an an ad-hominem attack against him.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

What are the poor assumptions of these dating methods and why are they poor?

I'd have to give a walkthrough on the process of various methods. Are you willing to read a whole lot?

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Also, can it be demonstrated that polystrate fossils discredit dating methods without being the result of rapid sedimentation or some sort of salt withdrawal?

The geologic time scale is the dictating outline by which dating methods are conducted. If the layers that contain various fossils are in question (with trees and animals running vertically through them), the dating system as a whole is also in question. Rapid sedimentation is precisely the reason why no one can ever automatically assume rock layers are different ages. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example; not of polystrate fossils, but for rapid sediment depositing.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

I would appreciate a further explanation with sources on how the fossils in question have been poorly examined and discredited.

Of the whales? or all other examples I can give? Because I have a long list of examples.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Are you assuming that the fossil record is the only source which is used to determine if one fossilized organism evolved from another?

No, I was talking about how fossils are used as supportive evidence. And it isn't a record... we'll get into dating methods.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

To my knowledge, the evidence found in the fossil record is converged with other sources of evidence to support evolution.

Yes, I know that.

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

The theory of evolution does not contain abiogenesis or other scientific theories. The theory of evolution assumes that living organisms exist. This other definition of evolution that you mention is not a scientific theory and should not be confused with the theory of evolution.

Good, then we're in agreement about whether or not it's science. But why is it still taught alongside evolution as science in the science textbooks?

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Can it be shown that these issues need to be addressed? Or are there other explanations for these issues (such as rapid sedimentation for polystrate fossils)?

An explanation of an issue is, by definition, an answer to it. So if there are any explanations to claims against evolution that cannot be rebutted, then it's an example of a failed argument on the opposing side (my side). For example, I contend that the very method of carbon dating is actually hard evidence in support of a young earth, but I digress.

The issues must be addressed or else the theory is in crisis, where no one learns the opposing side of (or evidence against) certain aspects of the theory. Education involves reading into both sides of an argument, not just being content with one. That's how I became a creationist in the first place (but let's not get into creation).

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Neither. You're misunderstanding me; you think information exists as a relative state of molecules that can be manipulated and changed over time to form a different sort of sequence, enabling the organism to accomplish new tasks it couldn't previously do. That, in my mind, is what you're thinking.

But this is what I define it as: genetic information is a series of traits that are inherent to a particular family or genus (kind) of an animal that cannot change into something different over any period of time. This has never been observed, and there haven't ever been any tests to prove it can literally happen, especially through mutation, which I'd be glad to explain.

And if you're going to bring up bacteria being resistant to pesticides (the only example ever brought up in this sort of debate as far as I'm aware), I'd also be glad to explain that.

I still need to know what you mean by information. What you have given me is an example of a type of information, but you have yet to tell me what type of information we are dealing with. If we take the question-phrase "What direction are you heading: north, west, east, or south?" we can come to different understandings of what information this phrase contains based on the type of information we are talking about. One (me, in this case) cannot analyze whether something has new information if they do not know what type of information they are dealing with (and this is why I insist on knowing the type of information you are referring to).

DNA sequencing is a examination of genomes concerning the order of any nucleotide base; it is not a direct test or method that reenacts evolution in any way. However, I'm glad you brought this up.

It is a test of the predictions made by evolution. I don't know what you mean by "direct test" and reenacting a theory is not required (is it necessary to reenact a theory?).

Dr. Barney Maddox (I can tell you're rolling your eyes now if you've known to see his name before...) was part of the Human Genome Project, which, as you know, was primarily about DNA sequencing. According to him,
Quote:
Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.
Later, scientists (in general) found in a 2002 study, that humans are less than 95% related, making that gap at least 80 million nucleotides instead of 48 million.

I've quoted this countless times, and every time I always get something like, "He's a urologist" or "He isn't qualified to make such a statement" or "He's pulling this out of thin air". I always ask in return, "Why do you say that?" The answer's usually, "You won't find such a statement in any reputable science journal." True... You also won't find Robert Gentry's discovery of radio polonium halos in any science journal found today, though he was a writer for many science journals Science and Nature... before his funding was cut after he made his discovery...

Yes, he's a urologist, but it doesn't make much difference since he was part of the project. Maddox does have a M.D. from University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, and received an undergraduate degree in biology. By some he's considered a "leading genetic genome researcher". He studied the subject, he was on the project, and he's got the necessary credentials.

I seem to be trying to put forth every possible rebuttal before you ever say anything (), but I've just come across so many "He's no scientist" statements that frankly, I'm a bit sick of it (because he is a scientist); sick about the fact that nothing anyone ever rebuts me with (when I quote him) is a legitimate answer to his statement, instead an an ad-hominem attack against him.

I'll need to read up on Dr. Maddox before I can comment further. But I am not fond of ad hominems (unless they are valid, which they can be in certain cases), so I probably wont mention anything of that nature. I am more interested in his comments and any responses made to those comments... Also, what 2002 study are you speaking of?

I'd have to give a walkthrough on the process of various methods. Are you willing to read a whole lot?

lol, I am pretty good at reading vast amounts. Also, I am a little more familiar with dating methods than I am with evolutionary biology in general... All I ask for is citing sources where needed (feel free to ask the same of me).

The geologic time scale is the dictating outline by which dating methods are conducted. If the layers that contain various fossils are in question (with trees and animals running vertically through them), the dating system as a whole is also in question. Rapid sedimentation is precisely the reason why no one can ever automatically assume rock layers are different ages. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example; not of polystrate fossils, but for rapid sediment depositing.

Rapid sedimentation, to my knowledge, is more likely in certain terrians (such as valleys and river areas) and during certain events (floods) than others. The real question is the age of the layers found around the fossilized trees and animals.

Of the whales? or all other examples I can give? Because I have a long list of examples.

I would like a list with sources explaining why they are poorly examined and/or discredited.

No, I was talking about how fossils are used as supportive evidence.

Your silverware example drew the conclusion of evolution base only on this evidence, which isn't parallel to what happens in evolutionary theory (where evolution is not concluded based only on one body of evidence).

Good, then we're in agreement about whether or not it's science. But why is it still taught alongside evolution as science in the science textbooks?

I haven't seen this to be the case in any text book I have read. Could you give me an example?

An explanation of an issue is, by definition, an answer to it.

Alternate explanations are commonly overlooked in many situations.

The issues must be addressed or else the theory is in crisis, where no one learns the opposing side of (or evidence against) certain aspects of the theory. Education involves reading into both sides of an argument, not just being content with one. That's how I became a creationist in the first place (but let's not get into creation).

I believe the first step regarding a proposed issue is to explain why it must be addressed. One of the first questions I would ask is why is the issue a concern - what makes it a concern?

And I agree, creationism is a whole other topic for discussion (even if there is a lot in common between the discussion of evolution and creationism). Besides, any rebuttle of creationism I could come up with is not support for evolution. I tend to see people argue against creationism when an argument is brought up against evolution. I don't really understand the reasoning behind it.


EDIT: I may not respond right away today as I have a few projects and assignments to finish up for this semester; though, I may prove myself a liar as our discussion may cause me to later procrastinate on my educational obligations...

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Sorry for the double post, but I had an opportunity to look into quote from Dr. Maddox. My reply is below:

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Dr. Barney Maddox (I can tell you're rolling your eyes now if you've known to see his name before...) was part of the Human Genome Project, which, as you know, was primarily about DNA sequencing. According to him,

Did Dr. Maddox cite any study that showed or explained that a change of only three nucleotides is fatal to an animal?

Furthermore, is he referring to the change of a set of three nucleotides that make up a codon or any three nucleotides? Is he also possibly referring to germline mutations and/or somatic mutations?

What about single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that make up about 90% of all human genetic variation? (SNP Fact Sheet) These represent changes in nucleotides.

Plus, if the coding of a codon is redundant, but not ambiguous, a change in a nucleotide within a codon may not result in a change of the amino acid that the codon creates.

EDIT: I was also thinking, going by the logic of Dr. Maddox's quote, there would be a problem of my sister and me being related. This is because a pair of siblings share roughly 99.85% of their DNA. Out of 3 billion nucleotides apiece, this would result in a gap of around 4.5 million nucleotides. If a change of only three nucleotides is fatal, how could we explain this gap?