Unfactual Evidence for Evolution in my Textbook

[Jose Fly]

So you don't have anything new, which means any sort of "debate" on the subject would be you repeating old ineffective creationist arguments.

Thanks for your honesty.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I wonder what would happen if you wrote the more accurate definition, complete with a citation?

I don't think I'll take the chance. He seems very particular about wording.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Truth doesn't need new arguments. Evolutionists continue needing to re-explain things as science proves their arguments to be false... as with the appendix... as with junk DNA...as with psuedogenes....as with vertebrate eye design ETC.

The vertebrate eye design was another lecture topic brought up by my professor as proof of evolution.

I've heard that argument before, so I was aware there was evidence to the contrary (same with the whale pelvis).

My concern is that the other students are probably accepting everything he is saying with blind faith - even the information that is blatantly false - and they will grow up convinced the whole evolutionary paradigm is unquestionably true.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think I'll take the chance. He seems very particular about wording.

Yeah, it basically comes down to whether it's worth the risk for you.

The vertebrate eye design was another lecture topic brought up by my professor as proof of evolution.

That seems odd, since the "proof of evolution" is that we see it happen.

I've heard that argument before, so I was aware there was evidence to the contrary (same with the whale pelvis).

Well, there are contrary arguments on just about any subject you care to mention....the holocaust, shape of the earth, UFO's, bigfoot, etc. The mere existence of contrary arguments does not warrant a change in how a subject is taught.

My concern is that the other students are probably accepting everything he is saying with blind faith - even the information that is blatantly false

So far you've only offered the textbook's error concerning the meaning of "vestigial", which is more accurately described as both a minor and common error. So I'm not sure what you think is "blatantly false".

and they will grow up convinced the whole evolutionary paradigm is unquestionably true.

This is always an interesting subject for me. In general, it's the duty of science teachers to teach the curriculum, and the curriculum reflects the current state of the science, and the current state of the science is the general consensus of the relevant scientific community.

Given that framework, and the fact that the consensus among the world's life scientists is (and has been for over a century) that evolutionary theory is generally accurate and well supported, it would seem to make sense that teachers and professors reflect that in how they teach the subject. And I know this can be difficult for creationists to accept, but the mere existence of a handful of religiously-motivated denialists does not warrant a change to that. If creationists really want to change how biology is taught, then they need to get to work convincing the relevant scientific community (rather than lobbying school boards, building theme parks, speaking to church groups, and making DVD's).

So with all that said, I'm wondering what you would change and what justification you have for changing it.

 

[6days]

The vertebrate eye design was another lecture topic brought up by my professor as proof of evolution.

I've heard that argument before, so I was aware there was evidence to the contrary

Question for you.... if an evolutionist uses poor design as evidence against a Creator; then, shouldn't good design be used as evidence FOR our Creator?

Researchers are now admitting that the inverted retina is a superior design. Some have even called it "optimal". *One researcher has said that people who argue our eyes have a poor design do so because they lack knowledge.
*(Your prof seems behind the times)

My concern is that the other students are probably accepting everything he is saying with blind faith - even the information that is blatantly false - and they will grow up convinced the whole evolutionary paradigm is unquestionably true.

"Blind faith" is a good description...but that faith is understandable. In our society people are indoctrinated in evolutionism starting with kids cartoons. The school system is opposed to intellectual freedom and often won't allow open discussion about Darwinism. At the college level if one dares question the paradigm, they are ridiculed. It is truely amazing that inspite of that indoctrination, there are now thousands of scientists in virtually every field of science, all around the world, saying evidence supports an Intelligent Creator.


Hey... wow... speaking of indoctrination-- this news story just came out as I was about to post. The headline reads "
Humans and Neanderthals had sex. But was it for love?"
Incredible how evolutionists try to deny the humanity of Neandertals. Science continues to show Neandertals as intelligent humans, but evolutionists sometimes are slow at following the evidence.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I have some thoughts. I'll reply when I have a chance.

 

[Hawkins]

All the time. You should start with the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

There's nothing new there. Evolutionist arguments are the same all the times. Biology has nothing to do with evolution in terms of science. Biology results can be obtained time after time repeatedly and predictably, completely unlike evolution claims.

It's thus nothing new for your kind to try to mix biology with evolution as your game of deception.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's nothing new there.

Really? Let's look at the first article in the latest issue....

Reinforcement and a cline in mating behaviour evolve in response to secondary contact and hybridization in shield-back katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae)

Did you bother to read the article? And if you did and concluded that it didn't offer anything new, can you point me to where that information was say....50 years ago?

Evolutionist arguments are the same all the times.

You're actually arguing that evolutionary biology has not advanced.....ever? It's the same today as it was 150+ years ago when Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species?

Biology has nothing to do with evolution in terms of science.

That may be your opinion, but the people who actually work in biology disagree. For example, The National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, lists HERE a series of technical reports and research conferences that they describe as being based on evolution.

While that may not be compelling to religious fundamentalists like you, in general I'd say the statement from the NAS, complete with actual concrete examples, are more persuasive than the empty say-so of an anonymous person on a religious internet forum.

 

[6days]

Reinforcement and a cline in mating behaviour evolve in response to secondary contact and hybridization in shield-back katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae)

Is this response something that was programmed into the DNA? In any case, it has nothing to do with common ancestry beliefs . Don't be so easily fooled when someone uses the word "evolved". Your thought processes may have evolved over the past ten years, but it does not mean you evolved from a bug, a bird or a bacteria.

You're actually arguing that evolutionary biology has not advanced.....ever? It's the same today as it was 150+ years ago when Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species?

Science has proven almost everything Darwin said was false. I suppose that is an advancement.

Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Dep't of Systems Biology at Harvard said " In fact, over the past 100 years, almost all biology, has proceeded independent of evolution,except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology have not taken evolution into account at all"

HERE[/URL] a series of technical reports and research conferences that they describe as being based on evolution.

You seem to get giddy when someone mentions the word 'evolution'. You seem not to understand the difference between empirical science and your beliefs about the past. Creationists and evolutionists perform science using the same methodology...although, their beliefs about the past are different. Improvements in medicine and new technologies are developed independent of the persons beliefs about our history.
One effect we do see from evolutionists beliefs about the past is that it has hindered science. Faulty conclusions were made based on a false belief system.

 

[Jose Fly]

Is this response something that was programmed into the DNA?

No mention of it.

In any case, it has nothing to do with common ancestry beliefs .

Pay closer attention....Hawkins' post said nothing about "common ancestry beliefs"; he specifically asked about "evolutionists presenting anything new".

Don't be so easily fooled when someone uses the word "evolved". Your thought processes may have evolved over the past ten years, but it does not mean you evolved from a bug, a bird or a bacteria.

Thanks for that incredibly stupid comment.

Science has proven almost everything Darwin said was false. I suppose that is an advancement.
You seem to get giddy when someone mentions the word 'evolution'. You seem not to understand the difference between empirical science and your beliefs about the past. Creationists and evolutionists perform science using the same methodology...although, their beliefs about the past are different. Improvements in medicine and new technologies are developed independent of the persons beliefs about our history.
One effect we do see from evolutionists beliefs about the past is that it has hindered science. Faulty conclusions were made based on a false belief system.

Thanks, human parrot.

 

[6days]

No mention of it.

Of course not. Evolutionists are generally unwilling to follow evidence that leads to the Creator.

Pay closer attention....Hawkins' post said nothing about "common ancestry beliefs"; he specifically asked about "evolutionists presenting anything new".

Presenting 'IDA' as a common ancestor was new.
It depends how you define things, I suppose.

Thanks for that incredibly stupid comment.

Says the one who does not understand the difference between his religion and science.

Thanks, human parrot.

You are welcome, Jose Fly, who was designed in the image of our Creator.
I know "evolution" is important to you, but it is not science.
Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Dep't of Systems Biology at Harvard said " In fact, over the past 100 years, almost all biology, has proceeded independent of evolution,except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology have not taken evolution into account at all"

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course not. Evolutionists are generally unwilling to follow evidence that leads to the Creator.

Impossible to say, since you haven't presented any evidence showing that a god "programmed" anything into DNA.

Says the one who does not understand the difference between his religion and science.

Yeah....me and every scientific organization in the world. :duh:

Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Dep't of Systems Biology at Harvard said " In fact, over the past 100 years, almost all biology, has proceeded independent of evolution,except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology have not taken evolution into account at all"

Beyond you once again dishonestly quote mining, you apparently once again think a single quote is superior to the actual examples of evolution being key to the material linked to at the NAS site.

Of course that rule only applies to quotes that you think are in your favor (or ones that you dishonestly manipulate). Should anyone provide quotes from scientists saying your young-earth creationism is nonsense, suddenly quotes don't mean so much, do they?

 

[6days]

...you haven't presented any evidence showing that a god "programmed" anything into DNA.

Strawman Fallacy:**A*common form of*argument*giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent

*I didn't say there was evidence a god programmed DNA. What I said was "Evolutionists are generally unwilling to follow evidence that leads to the Creator." Once you agree that there is evidence for a creator...we can then try determine who that Creator is.

Codes require creators. Bill Gates said "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."*

Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Dep't of Systems Biology at Harvard said " In fact, over the past 100 years, almost all biology, has proceeded independent of evolution,except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology have not taken evolution into account at all"

Beyond you once again*dishonestly quote mining,

*
Jose... don't just gullibly believe things from sites like Pandas Thumb which promote your belief system...not science. I suggest you ctitically read the link you provide. Kirschner believes in common ancestry but admits the belief does not contribute to science.*

...you apparently once again think a single quote is superior to the*actual examples*of evolution being key to the material linked to at the NAS site.

Two falsies in your one little sentence.
1. It isn't just one scientist who admits common ancestry beliefs don't contribute to science. *Want more?*
"One of the greatest deceptions perpetrated by atheists and humanists is that the theory of evolution is somehow “science.” The reality is that “evolution” has nothing to do with science, but is merely a tenet of certain false religions opposed to God"
Michael G*Houts holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering fromMIT*(Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Dr. Houts has received numerous awards, including aNASA*Certificate of Appreciation for Exceptional Leadership. His professional activities include serving as Chairman of the Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion.
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2299
2. You gave no examples of common ancestry beliefs contributing to science. (I can give you examples of that belief system hindering science though)

 

[Aaron the Tall]

This is always an interesting subject for me. In general, it's the duty of science teachers to teach the curriculum, and the curriculum reflects the current state of the science, and the current state of the science is the general consensus of the relevant scientific community.

Given that framework, and the fact that the consensus among the world's life scientists is (and has been for over a century) that evolutionary theory is generally accurate and well supported, it would seem to make sense that teachers and professors reflect that in how they teach the subject. And I know this can be difficult for creationists to accept, but the mere existence of a handful of religiously-motivated denialists does not warrant a change to that. If creationists really want to change how biology is taught, then they need to get to work convincing the relevant scientific community (rather than lobbying school boards, building theme parks, speaking to church groups, and making DVD's).

So with all that said, I'm wondering what you would change and what justification you have for changing it.

Here are some issues I find with how it is taught:

I'll start with the idea of vestigiality, since that is what this thread started with. If a vestigial organ can be defined as a "specialized" version of an ancestral organ, or a version with "reduced functionality", I think you've defined the word out of relevance.

If a vestigial organ is a similar looking organ with a unique specialized function, then just call it a homologous organ. And in my opinion, pointing out homologies is not a proof of evolution. Homologies are only evidence of what evolution has done IF evolution is already assumed to be true. Homologies don't prove common ancestry (although I know why they are viewed that way).

Another issue I have with how evolution is taught is that the points of evolution are often presented against the background of strawman creationists beliefs. Jerry Coyne did this a lot in his book Why Evolution is True. He would present a creationist belief that no present day creationist believes - and that would be his starting point for showing how absurd the creationist belief is and how only evolution could explain the data.

The textbooks do the same thing - especially when presenting homologous organs. They say something like "why would a creator make all these animals with parts that appear so similar - only evolution can properly explain it."

You seem to have the same approach with your line

"proof of evolution" is that we see it happen

Yes we see changes and adaptations - but that is only a knock against creationism if you are combatting a strawman version of creationism where creatures never change. (It's too bad the creationists of Darwin's day had that idea, because it gave his theory extra traction).

Lastly, another thing I don't like about how evolution is taught is how ideas like natural selection are wrongly spoken about as having creative power. A textbook might do a good job explaining how natural selection works, but a bit later, the text will use wording that doesn't hold true to the theory. For example, my book has the quote "sexual selection alters traits that play a key role in reproduction." Natural selection is often imbued with creative powers it doesn't possess. The selection process doesn't alter traits. Only mutations could do that. Similarly, you will hear teachers say something like "this species moved to a colder climate and so they evolved a gene to deal with the cold better." The selective pressure is often presented as the cause of the evolution.

Those are a few thoughts for now.

 

[Jose Fly]

*I didn't say there was evidence a god programmed DNA.

Good, then we can drop it.

Codes require creators. Bill Gates said "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."

You've been around and around with multiple people on this....don't you have anything new?

Jose... don't just gullibly believe things from sites like Pandas Thumb which promote your belief system...not science. I suggest you ctitically read the link you provide.

If you have evidence that they misrepresented the situation, then present it.

Kirschner believes in common ancestry but admits the belief does not contribute to science.

As the full quote shows, he was calling for evolution to play a greater role in the biological sciences. You quote mined him. But then, you've been busted quote mining so many times before, what's one more?

It isn't just one scientist who admits common ancestry beliefs don't contribute to science.

Again, for some bizarre reason you think quotes (many dishonestly presented) are superior to actual concrete examples (e.g., those at the NAS site). By the same "logic", a quote from a scientist saying the earth doesn't move is superior to actual data showing the earth moves.

*Want more?*

Next time I want a nuclear engineer's opinion on biology I'll ask....right after I ask a biologist how to build a nuclear power plant.

 

[Jose Fly]

If a vestigial organ can be defined as a "specialized" version of an ancestral organ, or a version with "reduced functionality", I think you've defined the word out of relevance.

I don't see how. There's a real difference between a vestigial structure and something that's merely "specialized". Vestigial basically means that the structure used to look and function one way, but over time both its original form and function have been reduced.

If a vestigial organ is a similar looking organ with a unique specialized function

But that's not what it is. See above.

And in my opinion, pointing out homologies is not a proof of evolution.

Again, "proof of evolution" is that we see it happen.

Homologies are only evidence of what evolution has done IF evolution is already assumed to be true.

That would be a valid point if evolution were merely assumed. I mean seriously....do you really think over the last 150 years all the world's life scientists have just "assumed" evolution? No one actually looked, did any studies, or conducted any tests? They just said "I dunno....we've always just assumed that evolution happens"?

Another issue I have with how evolution is taught is that the points of evolution are often presented against the background of strawman creationists beliefs. Jerry Coyne did this a lot in his book Why Evolution is True. He would present a creationist belief that no present day creationist believes - and that would be his starting point for showing how absurd the creationist belief is and how only evolution could explain the data.

That's probably because Coyne's book was specifically written to address creationist arguments. But if you look at the actual science of evolutionary biology (e.g., the articles in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology), none of them mention creationism at all.

The textbooks do the same thing - especially when presenting homologous organs. They say something like "why would a creator make all these animals with parts that appear so similar - only evolution can properly explain it."

Really? What textbook says that?

Yes we see changes and adaptations - but that is only a knock against creationism if you are combatting a strawman version of creationism where creatures never change. (It's too bad the creationists of Darwin's day had that idea, because it gave his theory extra traction).

The fact that we see populations evolve new traits, genetic sequences, is just that....a fact. Whether or not it's a "knock against creationism" is only relevant to creationists. To scientists it's simply about observing a process and studying how that process takes place.

Lastly, another thing I don't like about how evolution is taught is how ideas like natural selection are wrongly spoken about as having creative power. A textbook might do a good job explaining how natural selection works, but a bit later, the text will use wording that doesn't hold true to the theory. For example, my book has the quote "sexual selection alters traits that play a key role in reproduction." Natural selection is often imbued with creative powers it doesn't possess. The selection process doesn't alter traits. Only mutations could do that.

It depends on the scale. Natural selection does not alter the traits of an individual, but it does alter the traits of a population. To use your example, if a an individual has a mutation that gives brighter plumage, that individual new trait was not generated by natural selection. But if the brighter plumage confers a reproductive advantage and eventually becomes fixed in the population, that outcome is generated by natural selection.

Similarly, you will hear teachers say something like "this species moved to a colder climate and so they evolved a gene to deal with the cold better." The selective pressure is often presented as the cause of the evolution.

Well yeah....it's one of the ways new traits become fixed in populations.

 

[6days]

You've been around and around with multiple people on this....don't you have anything new?

Truth does not need to keep changing the stories... evolutionists do. Science keeps proving evutionist 'just so' stories to be false, so they keep inventing new stories.

If you have evidence that they misrepresented the situation, then present it.

Kirschner, an evolutionist said "In fact, over the past 100 years, almost all biology, has proceeded independent of evolution,except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology have not taken evolution into account at all"*

Jose... we know you want your beliefs to be relevant , but common ancestry beliefs have never contributed a single thing to science.

Kirschner believes in common ancestry but admits the belief does not contribute to science.

As the full quote shows, he was calling for evolution to play a greater role in the biological sciences.

The full quote? You are so gullible Jose.
You are confusing a quote from a scientist and a comment from a newspaper.
Again what Kirschner said was "In fact, over the past 100 years, almost all biology, has proceeded independent of evolution,except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology have not taken evolution into account at all"*

It isn't just one scientist who admits common ancestry beliefs don't contribute to science.

Again, for some bizarre reason you think quotes (many dishonestly presented) are superior to actual concrete examples (e.g., those at the NAS site).

Fallacy of moving the goalposts. You suggested it was only one scientist who said common ancestry beliefs don't contribute to science. You were wrong.

The belief in common ancestry has hindered science and never contributed to any new technogy, nor any medical advancement.

By the same "logic", a quote from a scientist saying the earth doesn't move is superior to actual data showing the earth moves.

Nope.... its more like scientists in the past who said the earth does move, against popular opinion, religious objections and so called evidence of the day.

Next time I want a nuclear engineer's opinion on biology I'll ask....right after I ask a biologist how to build a nuclear power plant

Hmmm Are you trying to move the goalposts? Yes! You moved from the word "scientist" ( scientist saying evolutionism is useless) to the word "biologist."
Perhaps you missed it but Dr. Marc Kirschner is a biologist and founding chair of the Dep't of Systems Biology at Harvard.
He is an evolutionist, saying common ancestry beliefs don't contribute to science.

Dr. Jonathon Wells, who your atheist site argues against, is a molecular biologist.
He is an intelligent design advocate, saying common ancestry beliefs don't contribute to science.

DR. David Menton is a biologist and anatomist as well as a former university professor. He is a Biblical creationist, who says common ancestry beliefs don't contribute to science.

"One of the greatest deceptions perpetrated by atheists and humanists is that the theory of evolution is somehow “science.” The reality is that “evolution” has nothing to do with science, but is merely a tenet of certain false religions opposed to God"
Michael G Houts holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering*

 

[6days]

I didn't say there was evidence a god programmed DNA.

Good, then we can drop it.

You are quote mining Jose.
What I did say, is that there is evidence of a creator.
Here is the full quote "I didn't say there was evidence a god programmed DNA. What I said was "Evolutionists are generally unwilling to follow evidence that leads to the Creator." Once you agree that there is evidence for a creator...we can then try determine who that Creator is.

Codes require creators. Bill Gates said "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."

 

[Jose Fly]

6days,

Perhaps you can explain why quotes from anyone, and you incessantly repeating yourself are superior to the actual concrete examples posted by the National Academy of Sciences (linked to in my post #28) and the examples I've posted before (e.g., THIS ONE)?

 

[6days]

6days,
Perhaps you can explain why quotes from anyone....

Yes... I can explain.
You had suggested a quote from one scientist is meaningless. We agree. However, when thousands of scientists in different disciplines are saying the same or similar things, they may be on to something.
And....it shows your comment about one scientist was incorrect.

and you incessantly repeating yourself are superior to the actual concrete examples posted by the National Academy of Sciences

The belief in common ancestry has consistently hindered science. That belief system has never resulted in a single new technology...common ancestry beliefs never improve agricultural techniques...common ancestry beliefs have never resulted in any advancements in medicine.

Jose...The NAS does not provide a single example of common ancestry beliefs helping science. You are familiar though how that belief system has harmed science though. BTW... The NAS is essentially a religious organization with 70% of its members being atheist, who push indoctrination of their beliefs in the schools. Many of their arguments are dishonest.

and the examples I've posted before (e.g., THIS ONE)?

Repeating the same false arguments does not suddenly make them correct.

Both evolutionists and creationists in the lab can find 'specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences' using homology. It has nothing to do with common ancestry beliefs. Some believe homology is a result of a common creator, others believe common ancestry. However, the common ancestry belief is the one with a history of false conclusions that hinder science.

SIFTER explained by an evolutionist, but seemingly supporting the common Designer argument " Procaryotes and eucaryotes are composed of similar chemical constituents. With a few exceptions, the genetic code is the same in both, as is the way in which the genetic information in DNA is expressed. The principles underlying metabolic processes and most of the more important metabolic pathways are identical. Thus, beneath the profound structural and functional differences between procaryotes and eucaryotes, there is an even more fundamental unity: a molecular unity that is basic to life processes." (From Microbiology P-87 3 authors Prescott, Harley and Klein)