PZ Myers has posted about a new book called The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism by Andrea Skybreak. The basic idea is to use creationism as a tool for explain real science. My current winter-break reading list has gotten a little long as it is, but I will try to pick it up some time in the future.
Technorati tags: evolution, creationism
17 comments:
The title of the book is backwards. Does the Author know that?
How so? Is Creationism falsifiable? How could you falsify it?
Don't feed the troll B.D.!
It's okay. Trolls actively avoid answering that fundamental question.
Then again, they tend to ramble on about irrelevancies to avoid answering such fundamental questions. Sorry if that happens.
Is evolution falsifiable? How could you falsify it?
Well anonymous, if evolution did not occur through natural selection, we would not expect to see such tremendous diversity within species. We would expect there to be only one kind of butterfly, one kind of dog, one race of humans, one kind of shark and so on and so on. You get the idea.
If there was no such thing as evolution, you would not expect that there would be mammals that live their lives entirely in the water when most mammals live entirely on the land. You would not expect that there would be some birds that are flightless when most birds can fly.
If there was no such thing as evolution, you would not expect to see flightless birds on an isolated island in the Indian Ocean. According to the theory of evolution, the ancestors of the dodos of Mauritius could fly, but for some reason or other, possibly being blown off course by a storm, they landed on the island, found a plentiful local food supply, lack of natural predators, and agreeable climate, and therefore had everything they needed. Flight no longer was necessary so in time they lost the power of flight.
A creationist on the other hand has a more difficult time trying to explain the dodo. If God made the dodo a flightless bird, then how could they have gotten to Mauritius? If they lived there pre-flood, then they all should have been exterminated. If they lived some place before the flood and were on the ark, how would they have ended up on an isolated island in the Indian Ocean? How would flightless penguins end up in Antarctica for that matter?
Excuse me.
I think micro evolution does occur. But there are many different forms of evolution. I don't think we came from soup or came from "the big bang."
So I guess I would restate my question.
Earth Created?
First living form?
(penguins can swim just so you know.)
Excuse me.
I think micro evolution does occur. But there are many different forms of evolution. I don't think we came from soup or came from "the big bang."
So I guess I would restate my question.
Earth Created?
First living form?
(penguins can swim just so you know.)
Now you're expanding into areas evolution doesn't cover: Cosmology and abiogenesis. Evolution only comes in once you've got replicating structures (life).
Also: What's the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? The latter is never defined consistently. If it's evolution into new species, we've made it happen. Either way, it's a false dichotomy: It's difference of degree, not type. The only way you can believe in microevolution without macroevolution is if you've got evidence of some magic stop sign that prevents changes from adding up beyond some arbitrary point.
As for the Big Bang: It's falsifiable: One example of a test it passed: The Big Bang predicted that we'd find a consistent background level of microwave radiation. We found it.
Abiogenesis is still being worked on, but we've managed to form some vital ingredients in experiments without biological processes doing it for us: Electricity + a handful of chemicals we think were on Earth at the time + time = more amino acids than we hoped for.
Of course, one famous example of something that would falsify evolution would be finding a rabbit or other modern life form in Precambrian rock.
You could also falsify evolution by accurately programming an evolutionary algorithm that fails repeatedly. Unfortunately for the IDers, evolutionary algorithms are pretty good at what they do.
An example of Micro Evolution would be there are different kinds of dogs.
An example of Macro Evolution would be there was a mouse, and had a few mutations and over "millions" of years, it was a bat......
Big bang.... So there was all the matter in a very small place then BOOM! The earth and everything in perfect orbit and perfect distance for life....... People actually believe this?
The thing about amino acids. I'm sure you are talking about the Stanley Miller Experiment. What the text book "I used in college" failed to mention, is he didn't use real sun light and Oxygen wasn't present. Doesnt take much of a smart person to know, that if Oxygen is never present, we wouldn't be here. Putting these two things into the pictures, makes his experiment meaningless because it wasn't a real atmosphere.
Hope that helps. There are gaps in Evolution. Everyone knows this. But even bigger gaps on "how the world became what it is today."
That is my two cents and is also why it is difficult for me to take in what my Bio book teaches. (Which you would think would be credible because you pay thousands to learn what is inside it.)
The theory of "The inheritance of acquired characters" by a guy named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is maybe the lamest thing I have ever heard. Not only is his theory lame, but it was in my Bio book. I could make up something better than that if I had the free time.
He thought:
Giraffes had short necks. They couldn't reach the leaves on the trees, so they stretched out their necks for "millions of years" and then you have a giraffe that has a long neck.
Basically I could lay by the beach and get a tan, and my kids would be born tan.....
This is why I have a hard time seeing the truth in these concepts. If this guy can make the books, anybody who comes up with something can.
Big bang.... So there was all the matter in a very small place then BOOM! The earth and everything in perfect orbit and perfect distance for life....... People actually believe this?
It's easy when you stop performing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Out of the illions of rocks that formed around stars, some of them didn't spiral in or get thrown out into deep space. Out of those illions of remaining planets, one was suitable for life. It could have easily been some other planet.
The thing about amino acids. I'm sure you are talking about the Stanley Miller Experiment. What the text book "I used in college" failed to mention, is he didn't use real sun light and Oxygen wasn't present. Doesnt take much of a smart person to know, that if Oxygen is never present, we wouldn't be here. Putting these two things into the pictures, makes his experiment meaningless because it wasn't a real atmosphere.
1. What's different about the light they used?
2. You've never heard of anaerobic bacteria? Oxygen is poisonous to them. Life isn't magically defined by particular materials.
3. What makes you think pre-life Earth had oxygen in its atmosphere?
4. You do realize that even if the test conditions don't match early Earth, it's evidence in favor of abiogenesis being possible elsewhere, right?
Hope that helps. There are gaps in Evolution. Everyone knows this. But even bigger gaps on "how the world became what it is today."
Duh. There are gaps in every theory. You can't just fill them in with "God" unless you've got justification. The gaps, however, have been steadily shrinking.
The theory of "The inheritance of acquired characters" by a guy named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is maybe the lamest thing I have ever heard. Not only is his theory lame, but it was in my Bio book. I could make up something better than that if I had the free time.
He thought:
Giraffes had short necks. They couldn't reach the leaves on the trees, so they stretched out their necks for "millions of years" and then you have a giraffe that has a long neck.
Basically I could lay by the beach and get a tan, and my kids would be born tan.....
This is why I have a hard time seeing the truth in these concepts. If this guy can make the books, anybody who comes up with something can.
Lamarck is bunk. What's the difference between him and real scientists? Scientists conduct experiments, and ideally, engineers eventually use the results to make useful technology. Evolutionary algorithms are quite successful little things. From Software used one (or at least something close), and thanks to them, I had an AI partner to help take down Revolution while I kept Silver Fox busy.
Wrote Anonymous: "Basically I could lay by the beach and get a tan, and my kids would be born tan"
Uhhh, did you ever happen to notice that people who live in the tropics tend to have darker skin than those who live in colder climates?
Yes, penguins can swam. That is quite a large leap of microevolution there anonymous. You also totally dodged the issue of some mammals that live their lives entirely in the water whereas most live on the land.
Didn't use real sun light.... Used a lamp. Big bang... again... are you serous?
If Big bang wasn't made up by a 1st grader... Who created the matter? How did it get all in one spot. What was in that spot before.. Randomly the universe blew up in to the solar system???
Also, isn't it interesting...
Universe.......
uni = one. verse = sentence
Greek translation = single sentence..
hmm...
anyways, that was just a interesting fact.
I would have to disagree with the gaps are getting smaller.. Their are things that are made up as fact. Example... This one dude, (don't know his name) changed the drawings of a dog in embryonic stage to make it look like a human... He admits it. IT IS STILL IN MY BIO BOOK AS FACT. He said he lied... Nice...
Geological column... That is no fact. There was a flood. EVERY culture that has documents records flood, and some just deny it..
Carbon Dating, most the time uses the Geological column to "guess" what rock it was in, to date the "fossil" or whatever. (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html) Go there. They say...
(who knows if they know anything, but there are a lot of peeps...... :) who would take anything on the net as fact...)
"We can't date things that are too old. After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report.
We can't date oil paints, because their oil is "old" carbon from petroleum.
We can't date fossils, for three reasons. First, they are almost always too old. Second, they rarely contain any of the original carbon. And third, it is common to soak new-found fossils in a preservative, such as shellac. It is also standard to coat fossils during their extraction and transport. Acetone is sometimes used while extracting fossils, because it dissolves dirt. In short, unless you have evidence to the contrary, you should assume that most of the carbon in a fossil is from contamination, and is not originally part of the fossil."
Well, IF you can't date old things, and you can't date fossils... Why do they claim to date things are fall in those categories....
Sorry you see Lamarck was bunk.... Maybe you should read up on him more.
Hey tommy, you might want to read more too... In some cold places the sun has more UV ray in some hot places... does that mean they would be born with black faces? (or whatever they don't cover up with winter clothes?)
If you would stop and think about how bogus this is.
Early man was very strong because he had to do so much labor, and kill animals with a spear and stuff. They would be strong. That was a long time ago. Why wasn't I born with LARGE MUSCLES? Instead I was born with fat and barley any muscles.
I don't think it is a large step in micro evolution either. I would think if you believe in something you would know it quite well... I don't know evolution like I wish, but know it enough to see the lies and no truth..
I can see you both don't agree. That is fine. Keep doing to research and someday, I hope you see it like me. Good information though. But, as a wise man once said, You can't tell a blind man he is blind...
Sorry. But I will be leaving this post. This has been fun.
Good riddance knucklehead. Go find something useful to do with your time.
Didn't use real sun light.... Used a lamp. Big bang... again... are you serous?
...So, what's your point?
If Big bang wasn't made up by a 1st grader... Who created the matter? How did it get all in one spot. What was in that spot before.. Randomly the universe blew up in to the solar system???
1. The matter wasn't created. As far as we can tell, it's impossible to create matter. You can prove otherwise by building a perpetual motion machine.
2. What's with this randomness fetish all the IDiots have? I don't see any reason to think the Big Bang was "random". I don't even recall anyone other than Creationists calling the Big Bang "random."
I would have to disagree with the gaps are getting smaller.. Their are things that are made up as fact. Example... This one dude, (don't know his name) changed the drawings of a dog in embryonic stage to make it look like a human... He admits it. IT IS STILL IN MY BIO BOOK AS FACT. He said he lied... Nice...
There is such a thing as context. Try looking it up, sometime.
Geological column... That is no fact. There was a flood. EVERY culture that has documents records flood, and some just deny it..
That's a rather bold claim. Evidence? And, of course, even if you could document a flood myth for every culture, that wouldn't prove a worldwide flood: Floods are nasty natural events that can be exaggerated. Try physical evidence, not 99th-hand stories.
"We can't date things that are too old. After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report.
We can't date oil paints, because their oil is "old" carbon from petroleum.
We can't date fossils, for three reasons. First, they are almost always too old. Second, they rarely contain any of the original carbon. And third, it is common to soak new-found fossils in a preservative, such as shellac. It is also standard to coat fossils during their extraction and transport. Acetone is sometimes used while extracting fossils, because it dissolves dirt. In short, unless you have evidence to the contrary, you should assume that most of the carbon in a fossil is from contamination, and is not originally part of the fossil."
Well, IF you can't date old things, and you can't date fossils... Why do they claim to date things are fall in those categories....
Someone here has never heard of Potassium-Argon dating, or Ar40/Ar39 dating. Heck, they've got dating techniques that handle even older stuff than either of those two can. Carbon-14 isn't the only radioactive isotope in existence, you know.
Early man was very strong because he had to do so much labor, and kill animals with a spear and stuff. They would be strong. That was a long time ago. Why wasn't I born with LARGE MUSCLES? Instead I was born with fat and barley any muscles.
1. Thanks to the nature of our civilization, skinny weaklings like us can survive without too much trouble. Big muscles don't get the preferential treatment when brute strength is no longer necessary to solve problems.
2. You do realize that muscle strength isn't determined solely by genetics? Ever heard of a gym?
I can see you both don't agree. That is fine. Keep doing to research and someday, I hope you see it like me. Good information though. But, as a wise man once said, You can't tell a blind man he is blind...
Nice. Typical unimaginative woo. Of course, you only have to ignore pretty much everything to avoid seeing evolution in action.
Thank you for staying 50 years behind the "debate."
Tommy and Bronze Dog:
Thanks for managing this thread while I was busy. I wonder who that guy was. When you see someone hiding behind an anonymous moniker, the tendency is to assume it's a random nobody, but I always get a sinking worry that it's the pastor of a large church somewhere.
I get a mild feeling of dread when an anonymous shows up.
Chances are:
A) Spam, in which case, I have to go through deletion (I'm not fond of verification words, so I keep that speedbump out of my readers' way.)
B) Some doggerel-spouting troll who will never, ever return.
C) You probably know who. (Speaking of which...)
My pleasure Chris. I don't mind Christians coming to my blog to share their views. In fact, I encourage it. But I hate it when you get trolls that hide behind their anonymity and they rarely even address the substance of your post.
Post a Comment