-Um. You talk really big, but I’ve seen lots of support for evolution, and nothing that comes even close to refuting it.



Well. I’ve never been accused of “talking big” before!    The sentence above just shows how narrow your scope of education has been. There is quite a large body of material that makes evolution seem unlikely.



It’s interesting that you brought up Occam’s Razor. I’d never heard of it, but reading the Wikipedia definition, it seemed to me that it would lead one to support Creation rather than evolution. Creation is just so much simpler, and needs so much less explaining!



For anyone who’s interested, if you’ll take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection and just hop down to the diagram on the right side of the page, you’ll notice that what happens is that a certain type of the organism (the lighter-colored ones) dies out, leaving only the darker ones. That’s what happened with the peppered moths. This leaves the organism with less genetic information, a more limited DNA code, if you will.



Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, requires that a great deal of new genetic information be added with successive mutations. In order to move from fish to philosopher, we have to add an awful lot—legs, arms, a neck, hair, …you get the drift….and presumably some increase in brain capacity.



Scientists are careful to downplay that fact, and pretend that any change in an organism is evidence of goo-to-you evolution. Things do evolve, most definitely, but the changes produce a less complex organism than the original, rather than more complex! (If you’re aware of any instances where something evolved upward Confanity, please share them.)




-I can simulate the structure of an atom from such indirect evidence without needing to become very small and walk around on the surface of a proton. And similarly, I can simulate Antarctica



Much data has been collected and verified on the atom by many different scientists, (though whether it is all complete and correct can’t really be proven conclusively.) People have actually been to Antarctica.  In contrast, no one was there billions of years ago to tell us what it was like, nor is there any data that was collected at that time. You avoided the issue here. I maintain that one cannot accurately simulate what one has not seen, has no eyewitness description of, and on which no data exists. It is a fantasy.



You ask how Creationists “explain” the tailbone, the appendix, etc. Tell me, how do evolutionists “explain” that man walks on two legs, doesn’t have wings, and has a far weaker sense of smell and sight than many other creatures? It seems that we, being supposedly the topmost rung on the ladder of evolution, would have certainly evolved in a more efficient way. Why can’t I run like a panther or smell like a hound or see like an eagle? Why are our young so very helpless at birth?  It seems that fact alone would have wiped us out eons ago.




-I do not consider poorly written, sensationalist, unscientific columns, depending on the gross ignorance I mentioned above for their impact, and “published” by a clearly unobjective Christian group, as authoritative.



Just as I do not consider hypothetical, creative articles, depending on minimal evidence and on the lemming-like ignorance of the masses, combined with the religious biases of the creators, published by a clearly unobjective “scientific” group, to be authoritative.



We’re right back to that worldview thing. You have chosen your “facts,” and I have chosen mine. Now we will have to research (a very important homeschool skill ) rather than simply to regurgitate “facts” (the most highly rewarded public school skill) in order to choose which to believe. It’s a matter of thinking—evaluating the facts that are available in light of the truth that each of us has chosen.



I noticed a book yesterday called Refuting Evolution, by Jonathan Sarfati. It was in my public library right beside Darwin’s Origin of Species. Perhaps you’ll find something in there that “casts a reasonable doubt on evolution.” There was also another one called Creation: Facts of Life by Gary Parker, a biologist. Maybe those would be a place for you to start your research.



I checked out a nice little book on evolution–I thought Darwin looked a bit over my head—but I haven’t learned much from it yet. I’m looking for evidence that makes evolution a reasonable probability. Now I think I’ll go check out those pages that heir by adoption posted.


Oh, by the way, if you think schools in this country are not controlled by the government, you live in a dream world.  Or perhaps they’re controlled more by the NEA…  But certainly not by the people they serve!

Advertisements

About dayuntoday

I'm a wonderer. I spend a lot of time mulling, pondering, and cogitating. This is just a place to park some of those thoughts.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to

  1. homefire says:

    Just popping in to see if Confanity’s been here.  I’m really enjoying my book on evolution, though it hasn’t said much about evolution yet.  There are some beautiful pictures and blurbs about fascinating animals, and I just read a great description of Mendel’s groundbreaking experiments in heredity and hybridization.
    I’ve also been enjoying the articles that heir by adoption posted in my comments the other day.  They are really interesting.

  2. Confanity says:

    “I’ve never been accused of “talking big” before!”-I must admit, I was both amused and bemused to being ‘challenged’. ^_^”There is quite a large body of material that makes evolution seem unlikely.”-I admit that my education is “deficient” in that I don’t read drek such as the unscientific, unsupported and unreviewed article that came up earlier. I suspect that I’m a bit more thoroughly grounded in actual biological science, though. Tell you what: I’ll go a step farther and ask my sister, who’s taken evolutionary biology courses at the collegiate level, if there’s even so much as a blip on the radar that could possibly challenge evolution on an actual scientific level, instead of just in the minds of laymen with muddled definitions.”Creation is just so much simpler, and needs so much less explaining!”-This is only because all the hard parts are reduced to leaps of faith. Since you seem so confident, though, explain why the defense against malaria can cause sickle-cell anemia. Evolution explains it cleanly as a matter of statistics: more people are saved by malaria resistance than are killed by the anemia; thus, the gene is propagated.”This leaves the organism with less genetic information, a more limited DNA code, if you will.”-You are conveniently ignoring all the cases in which selection pressures have produced divergent drift, which creates *less-limited* possibilities. If one refrains from cherry-picking, you’ll find that evolution is simply a description of the way successive generations of organisms change. To respond more specifically to your confusion on the issue, my understanding is that 1. mutation and 2. mixing of DNA through sex (as opposed to parthenogenetic reproduction) are what increase genetic “options.”In brief: a mutation occurs or genes from different strains are mixed, adding options to the next generation. Those individuals with better combinations of genes will, *statistically speaking* (but NOT in each individual case) reproduce more successfully than their peers. Over time, this creates a gradual change. The processes by which DNA is reproduced and transmitted allow for such things as changes in the number and composition of individual genes.Also, please allow me to repeat myself: DON’T DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT NATURAL SELECTION AND EVOLUTION “MEAN” BASED ON LOOKING AT PICTURES. READ AN ACTUAL DEFINITION. If you lack entirely in dictionaries or textbooks sufficient for the task, please let me know and I can provide references.”Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, requires that a great deal of new genetic information be added”-It requires nothing of the sort. Darwin’s theory was that “natural selection” is the mechanism by which evolution operates; evolution itself was established before him, simply with incorrect ideas about how it worked (cf Lamarck). He wasn’t even aware of the existence of DNA.”In order to move from fish to philosopher, we have to add an awful lot—legs, arms, a neck, hair,”-And this is certainly possible through millions of years of gradual change. Legs and neck are clearly developments of fins (allowing for us to run rather than drag ourselves across the ground) and fish-necks (our necks having greater mobility, thus allowing increased utility of our eyes. Note that carnivore necks tend to be more mobile than herbivore necks, since the latter don’t have their range of vision limited by binocular eyes).”Why can’t I run like a panther or smell like a hound or see like an eagle?”-Because panthers have different skeletal structures and foot structures that preclude complex tool use; because humans track prey by sight or by laying traps rather than by smell; because eyesight is less important to a human’s survival than to an eagle’s. Nature’s efficiency also explains why we don’t waste resources growing rabbit ears, dolphin fins, fish gills, and every other thing humans don’t have.”You ask how Creationists “explain” the tailbone, the appendix, etc.”-I’m still waiting for an answer, for that matter. Go ahead.”Tell me, how do evolutionists “explain” that man walks on two legs, doesn’t have wings, and has a far weaker sense of smell and sight than many other creatures?”-Because bipedalism leaves our hands free for tool use and standing allows vision across greater distances. Because we developed from a flightless ancestor and our bones are strong rather than light and our ancestors developed hair rather than feathers. Because we don’t need to invest as many of our resources into smell and sight as other creatures do in order to achieve satisfactory results. Remember that for natural selection to support a feature, the feature must simply be in some way advantageous to successful reproduction; there’s no requirement for it to be the absolute best option.In FACT… now that you mention it… doesn’t your argument support evolution and weigh against “intelligent design”? Why didn’t our supposed designer give us super vision, super hearing and super smell? Why did your designer leave you vulnerable to heart disease, mental disorders like depression, random accidents, and a hundred varieties of cancer? Brandishing Occam’s Razor, explain that. Evolution’s answer is the simple “because evolution is random.””Scientists are careful to downplay that fact, and pretend that any change in an organism is evidence of goo-to-you evolution.”-Since scientists aren’t operating with your own misunderstanding of what evolution actually is and means, then I imagine they feel no need to “downplay” the consequences of that failure. I presume “goo” is a typo?”(If you’re aware of any instances where something evolved upward Confanity, please share them.)”-How about everything that exists? More specifically, how about the fact that microbes have evolved to *gain* resistance to antibiotics since we started using them? For your enjoyment, here’s a cartoon on the subject: Nu. Just out of idle curiosity, how does creationism explain the increased resistance? Do you feel that God wants people to die of infection?”In contrast, no one was there billions of years ago to tell us what it was like, nor is there any data that was collected at that time.”-When I talk of fossil records and chemical analysis and astronomical observation, does this go completely unregistered? You can’t demonstrate that I have no supporting data by ignoring my data!At any rate, the basic fact remains unchanged: if you mix simple molecules and subject them to conditions, such as heat and electricity, that can be found on the surface of the Earth, then some of the reactions will produce organic molecules. You could do it yourself with a basically-equipped chem lab. And once you have organic molecules, it’s clear that life can arise without being shaped directly into cows and fish and eggplant by the Hand of God. Is it really that horrible to say that maybe God just set off the Big Bang and let the rest happen on its own?”a clearly unobjective “scientific” group, to be authoritative”-You seem unaware that the basis of all science is reproducibility of results. Nothing is accepted unless it can be independently verified. If something appears in a peer-reviewed journal like Nature, you can bet it’s a lot closer to the facts of the matter than something based on hope and ignorance (referring again to the nature photography issue).”You have chosen your “facts,” and I have chosen mine.”-I think that the difference in credibility between the two bodies of “facts” can be clearly demonstrated. To wit: my facts are all things that you could yourself go and observe, including the variation in bird species that first inspired Darwin. Your “fact” set seems to include the assertion that Satan is causing untold thousands of scientists to participate in a grand conspiracy… simply to tempt us away from your favored iterpretation of a text that you can’t even read the original version of? I hope you can understand why this would seem absurd, especially since I don’t subscribe to your misinterpretation of ha-Satan itself.”Maybe those would be a place for you to start your research.”-I’ll see what I can find online, but it would help if your suggested reading materials included something that I could actually gain access to, without great expense, while living in Japan. Please understand that English-language books are a bit rare on this side of the pond.Hm. While we’re at it, I believe Darwin’s writings should be accessible to you, at least with a little work. At least, you seem to be following some of my own convoluted style. Go ahead and check out the Origins of the Species, keeping in mind that the book’s a bit dated by now. For a more comprehensive list, suitable to most if not all your needs, check here.”I’m looking for evidence that makes evolution a reasonable probability.”-Perhaps it will be clearer now that your definitions have been straightened out somewhat?”if you think schools in this country are not controlled by the government,”-It was hard for me not to wax sarcastic on this one. Suffice to say that as a public school teacher, I am aware of the chain of command. But when did I ever indicate that I thought such a thing? I too have issues with how the public school system works, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s hopelessly flawed, and a school system controlled by the government is definitely preferable to one controlled by democratic voice alone… unless you’d prefer to return to segregation?”Just popping in to see if Confanity’s been here.”-Was writing some things for myself to recuperate. Clearly, I am returned. 8^)

  3. dotmarie says:

    >Is it really that horrible to say that maybe God just set off the Big Bang and let the rest happen on its own?
    uhhh what’s the point of saying that? IF God “set off the Big Bang” then He STILL created everything that went into it. And He very possibly CONTROLLED all the “evolution.” This is just trying to mesh creation and evolution if God set off the Big Bang (assuming there was such a thing).
    So if you believe that God exists, why can’t you believe that His Word is true?

  4. homefire says:

    Response to Confanity:
     
    This is only because all the hard parts are reduced to leaps of faith.
     
    Exactly as they are in evolution, only evolutionists won’t admit it!  In fact, since fossil records simply do not show the transitional forms that they expected, many leading evolutionists have rejected the idea of gradual evolution.  Instead, they have come up with a new idea called “hopeful monsters,” which says that there were sudden leaps from one life form to the next.  They hypothesize HUGE mutations, which would explain why fossils always seem to appear fully formed, rather than in transitional stages.  This seems to me to require exactly as much faith as creation, since there is no evidence that points to it!
     
    Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, requires that a great deal of new genetic information be addedand you said:  -It requires nothing of the sort. Darwin’s theory was that “natural selection” is the mechanism by which evolution operates
     
    Ah, so Darwin believed that in the beginning was man, and all men thereafter evolved from the first?  In the beginning were cows and all the different varieties of cows evolved from them?  That would be what natural selection does—gives us variations within a species.  Natural selection has never been shown to do ANYTHING else! 
     
    And that IS precisely what creation says:  Beginning with two people, and their incredibly intricate DNA, we now have millions of very diverse humans spread all over the earth!
     
    Why didn’t our supposed designer give us super vision, super hearing and super smell? Why did your designer leave you vulnerable to heart disease, mental disorders like depression, random accidents, and a hundred varieties of cancer?
     
    Actually, he probably did give us much sharper senses to begin with.  Of course, over time, those things have deteriorated, as things in this world tend to do.  All things will, in process of time, develop more and more problems.  Because of the entrance of sin into the world, we now have all kinds of problems like those you mentioned, all caused by mutations and loss of genetic information. 
     
    the basis of all science is reproducibility of results. Nothing is accepted unless it can be independently verified.
     
    Isn’t it curious how quickly scientists embraced Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, etc? 
     
    No, no, scientists don’t accept anything that’s not verified.  Right.
     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s