Evolution

[arkansasbob]

i don't have time to list it all, but i will try to find you a link.

actually, i don't have time to find a link, either. here is a short list:

- johnny mentioned the farse that is the peppered moth, but that is really only a micro-evolution exmaple anyway.

- the supposed missing link fossil that was presumed to be an ape man - entire skeleton reconstructed from a single jaw bone -- turned out to be a pig.

- brontosaurus -- supposedly meant to be a missing link in the dinosaur kingdom -- an intentional fabrication.

there are many more, but i can't think of them all right now.

[Guisslapp]

^Sorry, I just don't see how any of that, even if true, discredits macroevolution. What about the genetics and vestigial organs/members?

[Bigdog13]

^Sorry, I just don't see how any of that, even if true, discredits macroevolution. What about the genetics and vestigial organs/members?

The same scientists that advocate evolution also believe in global warming. :icon_wink:

[Bigdog13]

Not evidence against evolution but definetly proof that scientists DO NOT overwhelmingly support this theory. What do you know that they don't Guss?


http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/DarwinAd.pdf

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

[Bigdog13]

Dr. Henry F. Schaefer, III | return to main Schaefer page |
Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia.

Is Evolution a Good Theory?

Subject: Published as an Invited Essay by the Atlanta Constitution
Saturday September 28 ( http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/cobb/0902/28columntwo.html)
As a theorist who uses quantum mechanics to solve problems ranging from biochemistry to astrophysics, the subject of this essay is of great interest to me. It is a question that is discussed in depth in my University of Georgia freshman seminar entitled "Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?" This autumn eighteen gifted UGA students and I are spending six weeks examining Stephen Hawking's best-selling book "A Brief History of Time. " Therein Hawking states "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements. And it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." I consider Hawking's statement to be an excellent definition of a good theory. How does evolution stack up to the two demands of a good theory? By the term "evolution," I mean the claim that random mutations and natural selection can fully account for the complexity of life, and particularly macroscopic living things.
I think that the standard evolutionary model does a good job of categorizing and systematizing the fossil record . It serves as an effective umbrella or big tent under which to collect a large number of observations. If evolution has a weakness in this regard, it is that the tent is too big. Thus the 20th century witnessed a series of hoaxes, beginning in 1908 with Piltdown Man and continuing to recent fabricated fossil "discoveries" in China, that have been embraced as missing links by distinguished paleontologists. Nevertheless, I give evolution a B grade with respect to Hawking's first category. The second requirement for a good theory is far more problematical for the standard evolutionary model, sometimes called the modern synthesis. Over the past 150 years evolutionary theorists have made countless predictions about fossil specimens to be observed in the future. Unfortunately for these seers, many new fossils have been discovered, and the interesting ones almost always seem to be contrary to the "best" predictions. This is sometimes true even when the predictions are rather vague, as seen by the continuing controversies associated with the purported relationships between dinosaurs and birds.
Is the expectation that a good theory be predictive unrealistic? Let us consider two theories to which evolution is often favorably compared. The theory of gravity precisely predicted the appearances of Halley's comet in 1910 and 1986. On the latter occasion I was on sabbatical from Berkeley at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. The newspaper (informed by classical mechanics and the law of gravity) told me exactly when I had to wake up in the middle of the night to enjoy the wonder of Halley's Comet. And in fact, the theory of gravity never fails for the macrosopic objects to which it is applicable. A second successful theory, the atomic theory,is grounded in Schroedinger's Equation and the Dirac Equation. Atomic theory is able to make many predictions of the spectra of the hydrogen molecule and the helium atom to more significant figures that may be currently measured in the laboratory. We are utterly confident that these predictions will be confirmed by future experiments. By any reasonable standard the theory of gravity and the atomic theory are good theories, well deserving of A grades. In comparison with these quantitative theories of the physical sciences, when it comes to Hawking's second requirement for a good theory, the standard evolutionary model fails, and should be given a D grade at best. Might I be more detailed in stating my reservations concerning the standard evolutionary model? Sure. Let me preface these brief remarks by noting that I think the scientific evidence that God created the universe 13-15 billion years ago is good. My first concern is that, with the collapse of the Miller-Urey model, there is no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin of life, i.e., the appearance of the first self-replicating biochemical system. The staggeringly high information content of the simplest living thing is not readily explained by evolutionists. Second, the time frame for speciation events seems all wrong to me. The major feature of the fossil record is stasis, long periods in which new species do not appear. When new develpoments occur, they come rapidly, not gradually. My third area of reservation is that I find no satisfactory mechanism for macroevolutionary changes. Analogies between a few inches of change in the beaks of a Galapagos finch species and a purported transition from dinosaur to bird (or vice versa) appear to me inappropriate.

[Bigdog13]

http://www.emjc3.com/EvolutionAndBiblicalAuthority.pdf

[saltydawg]

^Ask any of those 100 scientists if they have an eternal soul, and I bet they answer is yes.

What about you, Bigdog, do you have a eternal soul? Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and that He rose from the dead?

[Guisslapp]

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Whatever brings in the grant money...

[arkansasbob]

^Sorry, I just don't see how any of that, even if true, discredits macroevolution. What about the genetics and vestigial organs/members?

it's absolutely true, and the fact that you did not know that tells me that you really haven't looked into it much. i never said that any of it discredits evolution. i said that many hypotheses and discoveries that supposedly strongly support evolution have been discredited. some of it is so hard to verify, that it will probably never be discredited, whether it's right or wrong. for example, the legged manatee on the website you linked to. it shows in the picture which parts of the skeleton were actually found, and which parts were extrapolated. none of the bones in the feet where actually found. how do we know they weren't fins? i don't know what else was taken for granted on that particular one, but that one stands out as a pretty big maybe to me.

i could go on and on, but the point is that scientists are looking awefully hard for intermediates, with the presupposition that they exist. thus everything they find that's new or different they try to squeaze into that mold. that is not the scientific meathod.

[arkansasbob]

^Ask any of those 100 scientists if they have an eternal soul, and I bet they answer is yes.

What about you, Bigdog, do you have a eternal soul? Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and that He rose from the dead?

yes, salty, they believe they have an eternal soul. if you start with the presupposition that the supernatural does not exist, then evolution is the only possible explanation for the variety of life on earth. you make my point for me that the evolutionary debate is a philosophical one, and not a scientific one.

[Guisslapp]

it's absolutely true, and the fact that you did not know that tells me that you really haven't looked into it much. i never said that any of it discredits evolution. i said that many hypotheses and discoveries that supposedly strongly support evolution have been discredited. some of it is so hard to verify, that it will probably never be discredited, whether it's right or wrong. for example, the legged manatee on the website you linked to. it shows in the picture which parts of the skeleton were actually found, and which parts were extrapolated. none of the bones in the feet where actually found. how do we know they weren't fins? i don't know what else was taken for granted on that particular one, but that one stands out as a pretty big maybe to me.

i could go on and on, but the point is that scientists are looking awefully hard for intermediates, with the presupposition that they exist. thus everything they find that's new or different they try to squeaze into that mold. that is not the scientific meathod.

Did you know that dolphins grow rear appendages when they are fetuses but then they are "absorbed" by the body?

[saltydawg]

yes, salty, they believe they have an eternal soul. if you start with the presupposition that the supernatural does not exist, then evolution is the only possible explanation for the variety of life on earth. you make my point for me that the evolutionary debate is a philosophical one, and not a scientific one.

Belief in the supernatural doesn't prreclude one from being scientific. Evolution can co-exist with a belief in a supernatural force. Rather, it is the belief in a specific supernatural God that has arranged everything here on Earth according to the Bible that prevents one from accepting evolution.

Evolution is science. Creationism is religion.

The basic premise of evolution is that as animals evolve, they retain some aspect of their past. From a single cell animal, to multi-cell animals, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to dinosaurs, to birds, to mammals, the evidence is that traits from the past are carried forward into future animals. Take a close look at Homo Sapian, and you will find an animal that is related to the first single-cell creature, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles and to the first mammals.

It is well established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that whales were once land walking creatures that returned to the sea.

[arkansasbob]

Did you know that dolphins grow rear appendages when they are fetuses but then they are "absorbed" by the body?

and human fetuses appear to have gills. do you really think that a stage in an animal's early development is indicative of anscestry? that's a pretty doggone weak argument, with no scientific basis. i'd go so far as to call it an appeal to the emotions, if i didn't know you better. :icon_wink:

[arkansasbob]

Belief in the supernatural doesn't prreclude one from being scientific. Evolution can co-exist with a belief in a supernatural force. Rather, it is the belief in a specific supernatural God that has arranged everything here on Earth according to the Bible that prevents one from accepting evolution.

Evolution is science. Creationism is religion.

The basic premise of evolution is that as animals evolve, they retain some aspect of their past. From a single cell animal, to multi-cell animals, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to dinosaurs, to birds, to mammals, the evidence is that traits from the past are carried forward into future animals. Take a close look at Homo Sapian, and you will find an animal that is related to the first single-cell creature, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles and to the first mammals.

It is well established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that whales were once land walking creatures that returned to the sea.

i learned a while back that it's useless debating science with mr. scientific american.

[Bigdog13]

^Ask any of those 100 scientists if they have an eternal soul, and I bet they answer is yes.

What about you, Bigdog, do you have a eternal soul? Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and that He rose from the dead?

Yes. Do you believe you can't be a Christian and a scientist?