Unfactual Evidence for Evolution in my Textbook

[Jose Fly]

when thousands of scientists in different disciplines are saying the same or similar things, they may be on to something.

Would that include say....hundreds of thousands of scientists from varying disciplines saying the same thing (through the scientific organizations they belong to) about the status of evolution versus creationism? Or are statements only compelling to you when you think they are in your favor?

That's one of the things that's so interesting about these discussions. You're basically arguing that because some scientists have said something about evolution, it is therefore true and is damaging to the science of evolutionary biology. But by the exact same measure, creationism is utterly destroyed and rendered completely irrelevant. Do you understand the point? If you think statements from scientists are soooooo compelling, why then aren't statements from scientists saying evolutionary biology is solid, established science and creationism is scientifically irrelevant compelling to you?

Are you guilty of the fallacy of the double standard?

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.

And now the boring part....you incessantly repeating yourself like a human parrot.

Jose...The NAS does not provide a single example of common ancestry beliefs helping science.

Yes they did. You just going into deny, deny, deny mode doesn't change that.

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.

Sheesh....now the National Academy of Sciences is a "religious organization"? And you wonder why no one takes you seriously? It's a mystery I tell ya....

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

Physician, heal thyself.

Both evolutionists and creationists in the lab can find 'specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences' using homology.

Um....sorry, you tried this one already and it's still laughably stupid. If creationists could come up with their own model, then why don't they? They have enough time and money to build theme parks, write books, make movies, travel the country speaking at churches, etc., yet when it comes to doing actual productive science, suddenly it just doesn't get done (or even started).

Now I'm sure you have some sort of excuse or rationale for why that is, because you're a creationist apologist. But in the real world it's obvious what's going on.

It has nothing to do with common ancestry beliefs.

Tell me 6days, what does the acronym "SIFTER" stand for?

 

[6days]

Would that include say....hundreds of thousands of scientists from varying disciplines saying the same thing (through the scientific organizations they belong to) about the status of evolution versus creationism? Or are statements only compelling to you when you think they are in your favor?

Sure. But it seems you are trying to create yourself another strawman. We were not talking about compelling arguments. What I said was "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."

If creationists could come up with their own model, then why don't they?

We were not discussing the two opposing belief systems, or different models. What I said was "Both evolutionists and creationists in the lab can find 'specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences' using homology."

 

[Jose Fly]

Yet another post where all you do is repeat yourself. You truly are a human parrot....and a rather boring one at that.

I'd say "Thanks for your time", but that would be insincere.

 

[6days]

Yet another post where all you do is repeat yourself. You truly are a human parrot....and a rather boring one at that.

You are repeating yourself, Jose. :beanboy:

 

[Crucible]

But if the larger point is made up of untrue smaller points, how valid is it for real? By the way, the professor also proclaimed the human appendix as a useless organ.

Scientists have long figured out that the appendix helps secure good bacteria in the body so that, in the event of eating something foul or catching a virus, the body can recover better.

This is something much more needed in a state of survival rather than standardized living, which is why removing the appendix is not a problem.

 

[6days]

Scientists have long figured out that the appendix helps secure good bacteria in the body so that, in the event of eating something foul or catching a virus, the body can recover better.

The point though is that evolutionists declared it "useless"... a "biological remnant" based on a false belief system. The "useless" appendix was used as a selling tool for that false belief. Fortunately science often helps confirm the truth of God's Word... We are "wonderfully made", but live in a fallen world.

 

[patrick jane]

You are repeating yourself, Jose. :beanboy:

Jose can't keep up or stay on subject

 

[Crucible]

The point though is that evolutionists declared it "useless"... a "biological remnant" based on a false belief system. The "useless" appendix was used as a selling tool for that false belief. Fortunately science often helps confirm the truth of God's Word... We are "wonderfully made", but live in a fallen world.

I doubt it's an official founding in biology, though of course many evolutionists like to call the appendix useless- a useless organ promotes evolution.

Depending on the doctor, a person who must have their appendix removed is told after to refrain from rare meats and otherwise cook food thoroughly. There is support for the function of the appendix which many believe.

It may explain why God had us eat primarily vegetation before the Deluge, to refrain from unclean animals thereafter, and so on.

 

[6days]

- a useless organ promotes evolution

If...IF there is such a thing as a useless organ, it would show we live in a fallen world, as scripture tells us.*

It may explain why God had us eat primarily vegetation before the Deluge, to refrain from unclean animals thereafter, and so on.

The perfectly operating appendix in Adam had nothing to *do with why both animals and humans being given a vegetaianbre diet.

 

[Crucible]

If...IF there is such a thing as a useless organ, it would show we live in a fallen world, as scripture tells us.*
The perfectly operating appendix in Adam had nothing to *do with why both animals and humans being given a vegetaianbre diet.

God wouldn't call for man to be vegetarian, and then to eat meat, and then accept eating unclean meat- unless it had something to do with biology. The ethical argument is basically void of reason.

 

[6days]

God wouldn't call for man to be vegetarian, and then to eat meat, and then accept eating unclean meat- unless it had something to do with biology.

Nothing to do with biology...everything to do with sin and death corrupting the very good creation. And notice what scripture plainly says both man and animals had for a diet before sin and death entered the world. Gen. 1:30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in whichthere is*life,*I have given*every green herb for food”; and it was so.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I wish I had more time to reply - been very busy with family, homework, and studying.

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.

The problem with the terms "specialized" and "reduced" is that they are highly subjective terms. Take the whale pelvis for example. If the original form is a large bone that anchors the leg bones and muscles, would you say the whale pelvis is a reduced version of this? I would say the whale pelvis has an entirely different specialty purpose. While it does act as an anchor for propulsive muscles, it's function as an anchor to the muscles that move the penis is quite a different function from the quadruped variety. In this respect it is specialized, not merely reduced. In this respect, it is better off considered a homologous structure.

Similarly, the pelvic bones of some snakes (another supposed vestigial structure) are used for clasping during mating. Is this a reduced function? Is reduced supposed to mean "not as essential as the original function"? By any definition, this isn't a reduced function, it is a specialized function.

One evolution textbook calls the incus and malleus bones of our inner ear vestigial because they are derived from skull joints in our ancestors. This textbook author doesn't say they have a reduced function, he says "in some cases vestigial structures are fully functional, but perform a totally different function from what they did in the ancestral condition."

My point again, is that such definitions of vestigial make the word indistinguishable from homologous.

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

Yes, we observe micro-evolution. We do not observe macro-evolution. Nobody is arguing against micro-evolution.

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"?

Macro-evolution is assumed. Micro-evolution is what is observed. It is assumed that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. I'm not saying that's a bad hypothesis. It is a very good hypothesis when you are operating within a framework where supernatural intervention not considered.

Really? What textbook says that?

My textbook says homologous structures "cannot be understood in any meaningfully scientific way except as a result of evolution." That doesn't put it the same way I had in mind. I was probably remembering my professor's statements on the topic. He indicated that it would be strange for a creator to make creatures with such similar parts.

 

[Jose Fly]

I wish I had more time to reply - been very busy with family, homework, and studying.

No problem.

The problem with the terms "specialized" and "reduced" is that they are highly subjective terms.

Not really, when considered in light of all the data. Keep in mind that what you're getting via this course is a very broad, general overview. If you want to really get into the details and get a more comprehensive understanding of all the data that goes into these conclusions, you'd either have to take higher-level courses in evolutionary biology or start regularly reading some scientific journals.

Take the whale pelvis for example. If the original form is a large bone that anchors the leg bones and muscles, would you say the whale pelvis is a reduced version of this? I would say the whale pelvis has an entirely different specialty purpose. While it does act as an anchor for propulsive muscles, it's function as an anchor to the muscles that move the penis is quite a different function from the quadruped variety. In this respect it is specialized, not merely reduced. In this respect, it is better off considered a homologous structure.

First, vestigial structures are a type of homologous structure. Also, to repeat....you're only getting a small picture of all the data that went into the conclusion. For example, we have very nice fossil specimens that show the reduction of the pelvis over time. We also note that the specimens start to turn up in more aquatic environments as they become more "whale like". Additionally we have good genetic data that provides not only additional evidence of the loss of hind limbs in whales, but shows how it occurred (genetically).

Put that all together (and I'm only giving a very general picture) and a clear picture emerges....whales are the evolutionary descendants of terrestrial mammals. Part of that evolutionary process included the reduction in form and function of the pelvis, making it a vestigial structure.

Similarly, the pelvic bones of some snakes (another supposed vestigial structure) are used for clasping during mating. Is this a reduced function? Is reduced supposed to mean "not as essential as the original function"? By any definition, this isn't a reduced function, it is a specialized function.

Its original function was to support hind limbs and provide for locomotion. That function has been lost, the structure has been reduced (again we have both genetics and fossils to support this), and a different function has emerged. That's the definition of vestigial.

One evolution textbook calls the incus and malleus bones of our inner ear vestigial because they are derived from skull joints in our ancestors. This textbook author doesn't say they have a reduced function, he says "in some cases vestigial structures are fully functional, but perform a totally different function from what they did in the ancestral condition."

And that's true. The evolution of the mammalian inner ear from ancient synapsids is extremely well documented in the fossil record.

My point again, is that such definitions of vestigial make the word indistinguishable from homologous.

Not at all. Vestigial structures are homologous, but not all homologous structures are vestigial.

Yes, we observe micro-evolution. We do not observe macro-evolution.

Yes we do. "Microevolution" is evolution below the species level (e.g., evolution of resistance in bacteria) and "macroevolution" is evolution above that level, i.e., the evolution of new species. Macroevolution...the evolution of new species...has been observed and documented multiple times both in the wild and in lab experiments.

Macro-evolution is assumed.

First, see above.

But I have to ask....do you really think it is merely assumed? You honestly think scientists have never collected any relevant data, conducted analyses, or conducted any tests at all? You honestly think they were like "We never did any actual science...we just assumed it was true"? Really?

It is a very good hypothesis when you are operating within a framework where supernatural intervention not considered.

But that's true of all science. Not one field of science incorporates "supernatural intervention" into its framework. So why does that only seem to bug you when it comes to evolutionary biology, and not say....chemistry or physics?

My textbook says homologous structures "cannot be understood in any meaningfully scientific way except as a result of evolution." That doesn't put it the same way I had in mind.

No it doesn't, and I appreciate you recognizing that. :up:

I was probably remembering my professor's statements on the topic. He indicated that it would be strange for a creator to make creatures with such similar parts.

IMO, unless he was specifically responding to a student's question, that's not appropriate. From what I can tell, you're in a science class not a theology class, which means those sorts of comments are out of line.

 

[6days]

*Vestigial structures are homologous, but not all homologous structures are vestigial.

It all comes down to beliefs... evolutionists arranging bones and drawing trees. *Darwins tree has been chopped down and shredded so many times, yet evolutionists still keep trying to put the pieces together.*

*
...the evolution of new species...has been observed and documented multiple times both in the wild and in lab experiments

As you know... rapid adaptation is the creationist model. Evolutionists are constantly being shocked and surprised at how rapidly organisms can adapt or speciate. God has programmed organisms with genomes and mechanisms allowing them to survive rapid changing environments.*

*
**You honestly think they were like "We never did any actual science...we just assumed it was true"? Really?

Yes... When it comes to common ancestry beliefs... its all based on beliefs about the past. Evolutionists and creationists examine the same fossils, the same DNA code, the same homologous stuctures etc.*

*
*Not one field of science incorporates "supernatural intervention" into its framework.

Modern science was founded by scientists who believe the Bible... God supernaturally created and now that creation is sustained making science possible. Atheists have their own set of supernatural beliefs, but like to give it other names. Atheists start with the conclusion, and are unwilling to follow evidence that leads to a supernatural creation.*

My textbook says homologous structures "cannot be understood in any meaningfully scientific way except as a result of evolution."

I hope you can see how silly that is? *Because common ancestry is non falsifiable, everything is shoehorned to fit their beliefs. A similar structure is called analagous or homologous totally dependent on beliefs... not science.*

I was probably remembering my professor's statements on the topic. He indicated that it would be strange for a creator to make creatures with such similar parts.

Your prof really sounds like a goofball. What inventor...manufacturer...creator doesn't use successful designs and patterns in different models? The same DNA code and the same genes and homologous structures are all evidence of our Creator.*

 

[Jose Fly]

You honestly think they were like "We never did any actual science...we just assumed it was true"?

Yes.

Congratulations 6days...you have removed yourself from the category of people who are qualified to comment on anything to do with science.

 

[Crucible]

Nobody ever hypothesized an alternate notion of creation with an existing idea that God created it all.

Atheists try to ninja around that pure, simple fact, calling on how 'science works'- well, sorry hombre, but that's how people work-at way, and if people work that way, bias is going to bleed through your science.

 

[6days]

Congratulations 6days....

Thanks Jose.
And... it would be nice if you quoted correctly. THX