Not all biologists, and other scientists agree that evolution is fact. Some violently oppose what they call a violation of logical and scientific reasoning.



A start



some biology for you



And there is much more.



Mike



Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Evidence please that ALL the scientist's supporting evolution are 'not impartial'.



The rest I have answered in detail on your BIBLEBANTER forum.



In a nutshell, for those not reading my comments there, I have not the ability or the time to get a degree in biology which would be the minimum required to evaluate the evidence.



Best wishes



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

They a) are not all impartial, I am concerned you put so much trust in this. b)I do understand the theory, you can also if you do the research (as you have been doing). c) how can they declare that the 'evidence' overwhelmingly supports a theory that has not be proven for over 100 years, and in fact has had more problems as scientific discovery moves forward.

It concerns me Laurie that I now wonder how much effort you are putting in to your studies. If you want to get into this properly, I will match you step by step, but now I find your initial enthusiasm is tainted by believeing the 'popular' trends. You are doing exactly what you accuse creationists of doing (and many of them do). No good just repeating what you think the experts know, give us some of these evidences, and I for one will look into them.(I doubt you will find what you think is out there)

Bring on some of these experts, or at least do the research and quote me unhappy? (LOL, that pun you will understand being a Brit).

Best regards, Julian.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Why do scientist trained to evaluate evidence impartially and who, unlike you and me actually understand the theory, declare that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory. How come they have all made this gigantic mistake?



Laurie

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me just reword number ten as it is not a true argument either: 10. Embryos have features that creation explains well.



Taken individually there may not seem much evidence, but taken as a whole with the vast amount of scientific backing, it seems that Creation is the inevitable and forgone conclusion that a rational person would have to make seeing the evidence is overwhelmingly for creation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

see number 5

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.



Macro has greater problems. In micro, the EYE is ALREADY intact and is a total operating and functional organ, replete with all the organs it is associated with in harmony with it too, and offers only a slight change in the working mechanism. Macro, assumes the creation of the eye, along with the specialized lens and muscles to adjust the lens, and the iris and the cones and rods and the vitreous fluid, and the special optic nerves, and the brain that can now flip the image right side up and etc, ad nauseum. ALL happening simutaneously. This is science grasping at straws.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.



Yes, but not how they are altered. The vast majority of mutations are not passed on, and the ones that are, are normally only passed on further down the line. The vast majority "revert to type", or become sterile.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.



Foul! The last sentence is illegal as a proof or piece of evidence as it assumes a conclusion. However, to use the same form of reasoning, Creation explains this better. An intelligence WOULD place differently adapted animals in their own environments, but the cold laws of physics may not necessarily be so accommodating.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.



This is a very dogmatic point of view. Sure, if we could see the progression (flow) that should and would exist right now, we could surmise that this was indeed a valid and viable solution to "not having to believe in a creator".



But we do not. So, what is a vestigial limb or organ? One that has no APPARENT use or functionality. Like, um, the tonsils were once considered useless and when a little irritated, doctors removed them by the scores. But ignorance of a fact, does not infer another fact. We now know that they are definitely a factor in our immune system, but many a child had their immune system crippled, before we bothered to look for a use.



We have to remember, an argument from ignorance is NO argument at all. Sorry.

With all due respect...

Mike

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY

Some of the evidence for evolution:

1. Simpler fossils in the older rocks, more complex in older, and fossils develop in time order.

2. You would expect major changes in the environment to produce large scale extinctions. Fossil record confirms.

3. All mammals, for example, have the same basic bodily structure [bones and organs] but adapted to their environmental niche. Evolution explains.

4. Vestigial limbs and organs. Evolution can explain this phenomenon beautifully.

5. Different species in similar environments would evolve to be like each other. Australian animals do this.

6. Genetics explains how characteristics are passed on.

7. Microevolution certainly occurs. Macro has the same mechanisms.

8. The same species on different islands would evolve to fit the circumstances on the particular island. Exactly what Darwin found when he studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

9. The are sequences of fossils that follow on from one another as you would expect. There are even 'links' between one species and another - but not very many see below.

10. Embryos have features that evolution explains well.



{One objection is that there are few 'link' fossils. The answer is that few animals produce fossils and, if speciation is a rapid process then there would be few such transitional animals anyway}



Problems with Creationism

1. Two accounts in Genesis.

2. Contradicts other scientific theories too. For example the moon and sun are made at the same time and before the stars.

3. Does not explain extinctions, vestigial limbs, why all mammals have same bone structure etc.





Summary

Any of the points above might be defended to some extent by Creationists BUT when you consider ALL the above together, an impartial person would have to conclude that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Which is what 99.9% of scientists HAVE concluded and most Christians too -these latter taking Genesis to contain religious not scientific truths. To suggest that all these scientists are wrong/deluded/in Satan's power {ditto the Christians}or whatever is grossly implausible.



Best wishes



Laurie