Keith Devens .com

LOL. Creationists will grasp at any straw to try to deny evolution. What's the second quote really trying to say - that dinosaurs died last week?

Since you're new here, you may be interested to read an extensive discussion we've had here in the past.

The second quote says exactly what it says... "It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years." Did you read the article (and see the pictures), or are you just commenting solely on my excerpts again?

So how long CAN elastic tissue last? There are NO circumstances where it could last millions of years? It's a far far greater stretch to believe many of the claims in the bible.

Well, this isn't about the Bible. But I think this is a perfect example of what I mean when I say I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. You're perfectly willing to believe that soft tissue can last for 65 million years, that life magically came from non-living matter, and so on, but you reject the Bible because, why, God can't do miracles?

I know you didn't bother to read the discussion I pointed you towards, so I'll take the time to reiterate my main point: you have a religious faith in evolution as your theory of origins. That's why you're so willing to believe all the miraculous things that would have had to have happened for your "origin myth" to be true, but reject the Bible based on, I presume, the miracles it records. So, miracles without a miracle worker, perfect sense! Miracles with a miracle worker? Well, that's a much greater stretch!

Anyway, I liked this bit of the Answers in Genesis article:

When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific).

So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we “know” that this specimen is “70 million years old”.) See how it works?

I'm not perfectly willing to believe that soft tissue can survive for 65 million years. But I'm not going to discredit evolution because of that. Hell, I think evolution is the most rational of theories, so it must be possible for soft tissue to last that long. Maybe some super long-lasting method of preservation will be discovered. Otherwise, perhaps the theory of evolution needs a bit of retooling (highly highly doubtful).

I don't believe that life "magically" comes from non-living matter. People use the term "magic" for things they don't understand. I do think (not believe) that's it's entirely possible that life can come from non-living matter (we convert non-living matter to living matter all the time when we eat, drink, and breathe).

I don't have a "religious" faith in evolution. You have one against it. If a better theory comes along, I'd certainly entertain it (unlike you and creationists). That theory has a great deal of EVIDENCE to support it, unlike the miracles in the bible. And those facts fly in the face of what your bible claims. That's why you and creationists attack evolution - I have no such agenda with the theory of evolution - it just makes a whole lot more sense to me than the laughable claims of creationists. Religious types really need to stop being so dogmatic against science, then perhaps more people will see some of religion's benefits.

Isn't it a bit simplistic to imply that these are equivalent?

1) "religious faith in evolution as [our] theory of origins"
2) religious faith in God's Creation as our theory of origins

The theory of evolution, at least, is a falsifiable theory. Meaning what? Meaning that it actually makes predictions which we can verify, in order to test its validity.

For example, if the current theory of evolution is true, then the rate of genetic mutation in primates should be fast enough to account for apes evolving into humans over the past several million years. We can check to see whether it is.

The theory of God's Creation, however, is not falsifiable. Maybe God created everything 6000 years ago, and maybe He made all the Carbon-14 levels just right, so that we would think life is millions of years old. What predictions could we possibly make from that, to test against our observations?

Now, as far as I know, there has been no fundamental prediction of evolution theory which has ever been contradicted by observation or experiment. This is considerable evidence that evolution theory could be correct. Why? The reasoning is simple:

1) Evolution theory is falsifiable
2) Therefore, if evolution theory is somehow wrong, there should be an experiment indicating that one of its predictions is wrong.
3) There are plenty of people out there who would love to show evolution theory is wrong--including some scientists.
4) Therefore, given enough time, these people will discover the experiment which dispels evolution theory. Unless, of course, the theory of evolution is not so wrong after all.

So, the longer evolution theory goes untoppled, the more confident we can be that it is a sound theory. There is no similar statement that can be made for the theory of Creation. The amount of "faith" Creationists require is the same as it always was, and the same as it always will be. But evolutionists need less and less "faith" each day, to justify their beliefs.

At any rate, I do not see how the theory of evolution predicts that 65 million year old tissue should always fail to be "preserved." And as I recall, we thawed out some frozen beasties about a decade or two ago, and they were still pretty "fresh" even after thousands of years.

I read the articles about the plant with the "error-correcting" genetic code.

Why can't such a plant have been naturally selected? The "Answers in Genesis" article incorrectly states that this is a catch-22 for evolution. They say,

"How do you select for the ability to fix a mutation that you don’t have?"

Yet even this article acknowledges that radiation and other forms of "stress" accelerate the rate of mutation in genes.

So what would happen if a bunch of typcial plants were growing in soil with an unusually high natural uranium content? Over several generations, most of the plants would have their genes overwhelmed by an overload of mutations. Eventually the genetic code of every individual would be so garbled, that there wouldn't be enough individuals for a "viable" one to be found. (I.e., survival of the species requires a high ratio of number of individuals compared to number of mutations.)

However, our cute little Arabidopsis thaliana would not be affected by the acclerated rate of mutation induced by the radiation. Each time a mutation occurred in a thaliana individual, that mutation would automatically be fixed.

After a while, all that would be left, growing in that uranium soil, would be Arabidopsis thaliana. Because everything else turned into something out of a freak show and died.

I would not expect ideas like this to be explored by the "Answers in Genesis" people. Their article seems primarily intended to serve the proclaimed mission of the website, "UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE" (caps part of the quote).

The "Answers in Genesis" has this Infuriating Arrogance to offer, about the creationist/evolutionist debate:

A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation),

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

Such arrogance...

Hi Peter. Thanks for your C programming tip on the other thread. Unlike some people who comment here, you seem like an honest and sincere person... it's a breath of fresh air really. So, seriously, thanks!

Isn't it a bit simplistic to imply that these are equivalent?

1) "religious faith in evolution as [our] theory of origins"
2) religious faith in God's Creation as our theory of origins

Well, let me clarify. The word "evolution" is very unfortunately used with a few different meanings. I distinguish at least three. "Creative evolution", as defined in the linked comment, is the only type of evolution I don't believe in. The other two meanings of evolution I affirm. Though, as I argue elsewhere in that same thread I think selective evolution, or "natural selection", is defined tautologically. Natural selection says that the fittest organisms survive, but how do you know which are fittest? Well, they're the ones that survive. In short, everything is an instance of natural selection, so it's not really a scientific hypothesis, but I still think it's a useful way to talk about how traits are selected in successive generations through environmental pressures.

But, going back to your question (with the clarification now made about the different types of evolution), I think those are equivalent. As a non-believer in (creative) evolution, it seems fanciful to me to assert that living cells spontaneously formed, with DNA, the ability to digest and reproduce and so on from some "primordial ooze", and that those living cells formed over millions of years into all the complexity of life that we see today. Furthermore, since the preceding is a question of history, it's simply not open to scientific inquiry, which involves repeated experiments, observations, and so on. The theory of evolution as a theory of origins is simply an extrapolation back from our current data based on the assumption of a naturalistic origin of life. As such, I view it as a primarily religious viewpoint. By the way, I was very surprised and gratified to discover that some ancient Greeks had held a very similar religious belief, that man had evolved from simpler life. Darwin's belief was in no way new.

The theory of God's Creation, however, is not falsifiable. Maybe God created everything 6000 years ago, and maybe He made all the Carbon-14 levels just right, so that we would think life is millions of years old.

Actually, carbon-14's half life is less than 6000 years and carbon-14 testing isn't used to establish the long age of the earth. Furthermore, radioactive dating in general has exactly the assumptions in it that you highlight. That is, it starts by assuming how much parent and daughter element was originally in what you're looking at, and extrapolates forward based on currently observed half-life's to determine how old the thing must be. A famous physics professor (he was interviewed for Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe" Nova special... I was surprised to see him on TV Though he's actually famous, of course, for his work on string theory...) I asked at Harvard actually used the term "hand waving" to describe this issue regarding radioactive dating. Carbon-14 dating, specifically, is special however, in that living things maintain a certain proportion of carbon-14 in them until they die, at which point it starts decaying. So for living matter, carbon-14 dating is good.

Anyway, I started responding to more of your comments, but I find I'm repeating myself. So, just to summarize, I have no problem saying "I believe in evolution" when taking that to mean either natural selection (selective evolution) or mutative evolution. But I don't believe in creative evolution: that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter, and that through chance mutations we get increases in genetic information that can account for the complexity of life around us.

But evolutionists need less and less "faith" each day, to justify their beliefs.

Actually, I think evolutionists require more and more faith as time goes by. For instance, Darwin thought the fossil record would justify his beliefs that more complex life evolved from simpler life by showing a gradual transition from simpler organisms to more complex ones. It turns out the fossil record didn't justify those beliefs. I love pointing out that Gould's "punctuated equillibrium" is basically a way of explaining why the fossil record doesn't provide evidence for evolution. Basically, it says that it happened in "spurts" so fast that we missed it and it isn't recorded in the fossil record.

In addition, we're constantly discovering more and more how wonderously complex life is, and it seems more and more implausible that it all could have arisen "by accident". For instance, Darwin knew little about the cell, DNA, etc., but the more we learn the more complex we find it all is.

Anyway, sorry I've been wordy. I guess I'm just happy to be responding to someone who seems sincere. Though I don't feel like I've completely responded to your comments. After reading this comment, please respond with anything you feel I should address. I'm going to respond to your two other comments in another comment.

The "Answers in Genesis" has this Infuriating Arrogance to offer, about the creationist/evolutionist debate:

I thought that article was very good. It's making a basic point: that creationists and evolutionists deal with the same data, the same facts, but our interpretations of those data differ. Our interpretations of the facts differ because our underlying presuppositions are different. Creation and (creative) evolution are mutually exclusive viewpoints, and I think they're correct to point out that neither party to the debate is neutral. Then they go on to cite the Bible in support of this view about neutrality, which, as Christians, makes sense for them to do. So, I'm not really sure why you view what they're saying to be very arrogant. The whole article seemed to me to have a very reasonable tone.

I read the articles about the plant with the "error-correcting" genetic code... Why can't such a plant have been naturally selected? ... I would not expect ideas like this to be explored by the "Answers in Genesis" people.

I think they do deal with this question:

Cells have several mechanisms and methods for DNA repair—fixing various types of damage to DNA before it causes irreparable damage. While DNA repair mechanisms could be considered irreducibly complex, it can still be argued that natural selection would favor an organism with better DNA repair. This means that, however unlikely, evolutionists can still argue that natural selection could provide for DNA repair to evolve. Cells with mutations that improved DNA repair would be favored.

They then go on to write:

The mutation repair mechanism found in Arabidopsis is different. How do you select for the ability to fix a mutation that you don’t have? This may be the ultimate biological catch 22. A mutation repair mechanism can only provide a selective advantage to those individuals that have the mutations and get them fixed. It does nothing for any that lack the mutations and therefore would potentially be lost through mutation...

I take it that they're making a logical point, something along the lines of, once you've mutated out both good copies of a gene, how do you then evolve a mechanism to put back those genes that you don't have anymore and can't look back to for comparison? In addition, they're arguing that the repair mechanism must have been there from the start, and if it wasn't there's no way it could have evolved since by the time the organism needs it it doesn't have any copies of the genes left to put back, and by that time it's too late.

I'm not convinced that this is definitively a catch-22 for evolution -- it may be, but I need to think about it more. But I think you miss something when you write:

So what would happen if a bunch of typcial plants were growing in soil with an unusually high natural uranium content? Over several generations, most of the plants would have their genes overwhelmed by an overload of mutations. Eventually the genetic code of every individual would be so garbled, that there wouldn't be enough individuals for a "viable" one to be found. (I.e., survival of the species requires a high ratio of number of individuals compared to number of mutations.)

However, our cute little Arabidopsis thaliana would not be affected by the acclerated rate of mutation induced by the radiation. Each time a mutation occurred in a thaliana individual, that mutation would automatically be fixed.

After a while, all that would be left, growing in that uranium soil, would be Arabidopsis thaliana. Because everything else turned into something out of a freak show and died.

You seem to be assuming their very point, that the mutation would already be there from the start in order to repair the stress mutatations.

Dinosaur fossils were planted by the devil to test our faith. Now that soft tissue has been found, we can interpret that as a sign that the devil is weakening and resorting to desperate measures. Rejoice!

Lame.

Yeah, immature and unproductive. Sorry.

The "startling finding" that T. Rex was alive only a few thousand years ago is so laughable that I can't even address the subject.

However, the "startling plant discovery" is plausible. However, I would say that it could only be stretched to be used as an argument against natural selection, not evolution.

The exact mechanisms by which God evolves (or stabilizes) His creatures are still largely unknown, in my opinion. To me, saying that natural selection drives evolution is like saying light bulbs are powered by light switches.

But why all the fuss on "answersingenesis.org" to try to prove Christian mythology as factual? I don't see Hindus trying to find scientific evidence that the sun originally rose from the center of the earth. Or are they? Only Google will tell....

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3096160

Interesting debate.

I keep hearing about all of the scientific evidence for evolution, but every time I ask for a scientific example, I get a theory. Please help.