What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]I would argue, however, that this definition isn't consistent with the evolutionary model in that the end result is always what you began with.

That's what evolutionary theory says too. You start with cells, you end up with cells. The difference is that creationists think dogs and cats were independently created without having a common ances ...[text shortened]... ihuahuas are Chihuahuas, but they are also dogs, mammals, vertebrates, and cellular organisms.[/b]

According to that arguement, if all species share a common ancestor and the end result is always the same as what you began with, all species would be the same and would be able to produce the same as themselves. Where does the evolving happen? The genetic makeup of each species is different. That is why men and apes cannot reproduce together as well as cats and dogs. If men came from apes, the end result is not the same as what you began with. Therefore, you have two different kinds or species. The definition I gave for 'kinds' differs from the evolutionary model not only on the basis of origins but also on the future of each kind. With the evolutionary model one species may change into another where as with the creation model each species will always maintain the genetic make that was available to it. The creation model says that the ancestor for Chihuahas and German Shepards was a dog and had in its gene pool the genes for both breeds. Both are dogs and it is possible to cross these two breeds. The conclusion would be that they are the same kind and their offspring will always be the same kind. The evolutionary model says that these two breeds came from something other than a dog and may eventually have a genetic drift so that one may still be a dog and the other something completely different, i.e. a new species.

Originally posted by Lhinsdale
With the evolutionary model one species may change into another ....

This is the whole crux of the argument I think. It's that "transitional phase". Kelly et al, want us to show them a transition such as this, but what they don't seem to realise is that the differentiation of two groups of organisms into different species happens gradually, over many generations. You can look at any group of organisms which has been split into two populations and confidently say "look, transitory organisms", but a creationist will refuse to see it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This is the whole crux of the argument I think. It's that "transitional phase". Kelly et al, want us to show them a transition such as this, but what they don't seem to realise is that the differentiation of two groups of organisms into different species happens gradually, over many generations. You can look at any group of organisms which has been s ...[text shortened]... and confidently say "look, transitory organisms", but a creationist will refuse to see it.

It's not just creationists though. There are evolutionists who dispute on the where a split has taken place. This complicates the issue for those of us trying to seek the truth.

Originally posted by Lhinsdale
It's not just creationists though. There are evolutionists who dispute on the where a split has taken place. This complicates the issue for those of us trying to seek the truth.

There may be biologists who debate when or where a particular speciation event took place but the general principle of speciation is well accepted.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
There may be biologists who debate when or where a particular speciation event took place but the general principle of speciation is well accepted.

Right, but when the leaders in the fields can't agree on supporting evidence it increases the difficulty for us to defend the evolutionary model. Also, several paleontologists argue about their finds and where they fit in the evolutionary time scale. Not to mention the misleading finds to promote fame. We also have to admit that there have been a few hoaxes to promote the evolutionary model.

Originally posted by Lhinsdale
Right, but when the leaders in the fields can't agree on supporting evidence it increases the difficulty for us to defend the evolutionary model. Also, several paleontologists argue about their finds and where they fit in the evolutionary time scale. Not to mention the misleading finds to promote fame. We also have to admit that there have been a few hoaxes to promote the evolutionary model.

Remeber the shroud of Christ anyone? (shroud of turin?)

Originally posted by Lhinsdale
Right, but when the leaders in the fields can't agree on supporting evidence it increases the difficulty for us to defend the evolutionary model. Also, several paleontologists argue about their finds and where they fit in the evolutionary time scale. Not to mention the misleading finds to promote fame. We also have to admit that there have been a few hoaxes to promote the evolutionary model.

You talk as though there is major dissention in the ranks. There isn't. There may be discussion in the details, but that's healthy - it stops it becoming docterine. There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution - look back through this thread - and alot of things (like mitochondria and chloroplast physiology) that don't make sense except in the light of evolution.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Remeber the shroud of Christ anyone? (shroud of turin?)

What is your point? Gnostic traditions hold little to no value anyway and certainly have little to do with evolution.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You talk as though there is major dissention in the ranks. There isn't. There may be discussion in the details, but that's healthy - it stops it becoming docterine. There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution - look back through this thread - and alot of things (like mitochondria and chloroplast physiology) that don't make sense except in the light of evolution.

Actually there is some major 'dissention in the ranks' (for example the continued controversy between Skull 1470 and the famous Lucy), but I think you missed my point. I never said there wasn't evidence to support evolution but merely that it can be difficult to sift through for the lay person. Also, I have looked through the thread and I seriously doubt that this discussion would be the end all about which model is correct.

Originally posted by Lhinsdale
Actually there is some major 'dissention in the ranks' (for example the continued controversy between Skull 1470 and the famous Lucy), but I think you missed my point. I never said there wasn't evidence to support evolution but merely that it can be difficult to sift through for the lay person. Also, I have looked through the thread and I seriously doubt that this discussion would be the end all about which model is correct.

What are you gibbering about?

Originally posted by Lhinsdale
What is your point? Gnostic traditions hold little to no value anyway and certainly have little to do with evolution.

You insinuated that evolutionary theory is dodgy because some people fake things. My point is that religion must be equally dodgy since people fake that too. The difference is that we use science, not religion, to discredit the fakes.

Originally posted by Lhinsdale
Actually there is some major 'dissention in the ranks' (for example the continued controversy between Skull 1470 and the famous Lucy), but I think you missed my point. I never said there wasn't evidence to support evolution but merely that it can be difficult to sift through for the lay person. Also, I have looked through the thread and I seriously doubt that this discussion would be the end all about which model is correct.

The Lucy / 1470 thing is a detail. Coupled with the large brain capacity, and the screw up in the dating, it led to creationists jumping on it. 1470 has been classified as Homo habtilis.

I appreciate it is hard for lay people to sift through the evidence, especially when we have the god squad trying to make it even more obfuscatory.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You insinuated that evolutionary theory is dodgy because some people fake things. My point is that religion must be equally dodgy since people fake that too. The difference is that we use science, not religion, to discredit the fakes.

Again, you missed my point so I'll try one more time and then drop it. I wasn't insinuating that the evolutionary model was 'dodgy' due to fakes. I was saying that when there are fakes that are picked up and ran with and are later proven to be fake, it can be confusing for the lay person who is depending on the experts to tell them what is right. I am not discrediting the evolutionary model with these statements. Simply pointing out one possible point of confusion.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The Lucy / 1470 thing is a detail. Coupled with the large brain capacity, and the screw up in the dating, it led to creationists jumping on it. 1470 has been classified as Homo habtilis.

I appreciate it is hard for lay people to sift through the evidence, especially when we have the god squad trying to make it even more obfuscatory.

Well, it depends on who you ask about the classification on 1470. There are evolutionists and creationists on both sides of this one. Although the majority tends to lean toward your conclusion.

Originally posted by Lhinsdale
Again, you missed my point so I'll try one more time and then drop it. I wasn't insinuating that the evolutionary model was 'dodgy' due to fakes. I was saying that when there are fakes that are picked up and ran with and are later proven to be fake, it can be confusing for the lay person who is depending on the experts to tell them what is right. I am not ...[text shortened]... olutionary model with these statements. Simply pointing out one possible point of confusion.

Fair enough. I think you are right. It's a shame really that so many try to "demolish" evolutionary theory by producing fakes. You'd think they'd know better.