Evolutionists never read the evidence? Why?

Question

Spoken by one of us and chosen by voters. Please help with some real evidence. Read below before answering.

Al Scuci

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Well I was an evolutionist in exactly that position. So one day I was challenged to go and read the stuff for myself. I did.

After a year or two of researching a variety of subjects such as the development of the horse [Eohippus] I came to the conclusion - you can't trust the easy to read books! The guys that wrote them tell lies sometimes! You don't believe me ... read on...

I started reading the hard stuff - like scientific Journals and was surprised to find that, so long as I had a good couple of dictionaries nearby, I could actually understand them. But what surprised me more than anything is how over the years so many books have been published stating this and that as fact when really it is hypothetical [unproven] and based upon some spurious arguments that in them selves often don't hold water. With the book on Eohippus I was told the development of the horse went from small to large. The 'scientists' writing that book neglected to tell me that they deliberately mixed up the fossil records to fit their argument as the fossils were not found to be dated conveniantly.

There were many more such things. So now I ask my self does the science hold up? What SOLID evidence is there and what guesswork is needed to make the hypothesis worth looking at further.

Often I get Carbon Dating thrown at me. Yet no consideration is given for fossils that may have been subjected to unusual background radiation [bumping up or down the apparent age] - Such radiation blips that are known to occur around volcanoes. Nor is the reality that rotting corpses do not become fossils unless under extremes of pressure and temperature [common sense if you think about it. There's always some hungry crittur will nibble on the corpse] Seen the fossilised Angler fish about to scoff the other little fish? Fossilisation is fast!

So keep ignoring the real evidence and stick to the pseudo-science of the classroom, until you qualify to do your own research THEN go for it - hard science ;] You might grow to like it -I did ;]

LOL TD's eh? nice to see the scientific method applied - not! There is nothing blinder than someone who claims to be open minded yet fails to see how they have closed their own eyes.

Answer 1

A creature that should change from small to large or large to small is not evolution but keeps in line with what God pronounced, namely that each kind would bare it's own kind. From small to large they are still horses just as there is a great variety of dogs of all different shapes and sizes. Show me fossil by fossil one kind actually changing into another kind and then we'll talk. The thing is they can't and this is their missing links. They always say the same thing, they just haven't found them yet as, maybe, not everything got fossilized. Where then can they really ever show their proof, they can't, they still have missing links. Without those missing links, all they have is opinions.

Answer 2

"I started reading the hard stuff - like scientific Journals"

-Such as?



..."many books have been published stating this and that as fact when really it is hypothetical [unproven] and based upon some spurious arguments that in them selves often don't hold water."

-Which books?



"With the book on Eohippus I was told the development of the horse went from small to large. The 'scientists' writing that book neglected to tell me that they deliberately mixed up the fossil records to fit their argument as the fossils were not found to be dated conveniantly."

-Again, which book?



"Often I get Carbon Dating thrown at me. Yet no consideration is given for fossils that may have been subjected to unusual background radiation [bumping up or down the apparent age] - Such radiation blips that are known to occur around volcanoes."

-What types of fossils and, assuming that the statements regarding volcano's are accurate, what would be the change in apparant age and what about fossils found nowhere near a volcano?

Answer 3

Radiation spikes can throw off carbon dating. Our nuclear testing will create a far younger looking layer than what's laid down on top of it.



However radiation spikes could not generate the fossil record. Continuous nuclear testing would make the Earth appear *younger* not older by spiking it with short half life compounds. Some techniques such as potassium-argon dating are unaffected by what you spike the crystallizing magma with.



You need a way to make stuff decay at greatly accelerated rates.



Also fossilization is very fast under the right circumstances. Undersea landslides and pyroclastic flows are prized fossil hunting areas because they preserve things approximately as they were.

Answer 4

You were looking for reasons for evolution to be wrong, so you jumped on everything that appeared to you to be false. Just because you don't understand science, and just because Christian lie to make things fit (i.e. I don't know so God did it.) doesn't mean that the science is not sound. Scientists are honest when they don't know something. They admit it. It would do no one any good to lie when new evidence is found all the time and they would end up looking foolish. You admit yourself that you discovered that fossils are rare because the circumstances have to be perfect to record soft tissues and the world was in constant upheaval in those times. Which is why atheist scoff at Christians who want everything recorded in fossil form to show missing links. Plenty have been found, but everything wasn't fossilized. Creationism is the pseudo-science. It has no answers whatsoever. None. At least science is trying and as far as I'm concerned is doing a very good job. Everything we learn is pointing in once direction...away from God did it.

Answer 5

I'll give you credit for actually trying to dive into the literature. I'll give you props for that.



Beyond that, the most charitable thing that can be said is that you're overgeneralizing from bad or discredited scientific findings.



The central gripe of your argument seems to be that because eohippus is discredited and carbon dating is weak you can't believe anything about the scientific method.



The scientific literature is a lot like regular literature. There's a bunch of crap out there. It's not all holy writ from on high. There's lots of gaps, lots of bogus findings, and scientists spend a lot of time separating treasure from trash. Remember that at one time alchemy and phrenology were regarded as legitimate areas of research.



If you're really and truly want to increase your understanding, and you're not out to cherrypick the literature to make yourself feel good in your own cynicism, try picking up some recent literature, learn a little bit about DNA and the more modern findings, and see what's out there.

Answer 6

That person is lying. How do I know?



Carbon dating has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or geology. It only works on rather recent organic samples. It is used in archeology, not paleontology.



It also betrays a complete ignorance of radiation. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, changes the rate of radioactive decay. Background radiation has absolutely no effect.



And of course anyone who actually read a science journal should have seen the overwhelming genetic evidence.



Any opinions on the draft of the Neandetal genome?



Edit: Yes, actually.

Answer 7

-Evidence that Supports Evolution



Homologous Structures

Vestigial Organs

Genome Synteny

Gene Order

Wobble Position Sequence

Intron Sequence

Pseudogene Sequence

Retroviruses

Transponsons

Human Chromosome #2

Beneficial Mutations

Molecular Clock

Neanderthal DNA

New Genes

Microevolution

Macroevolution (Speciation)

New Structures

Biogeography

Natural Selection

Adaptation

Genetic Drift

Gene Flow

Variation

Stratigraphy

Order Of Fossils (Plants too)

Transitional Fossils

Information Theory and over 200,000 peer-reviewed papers



Maybe you didn't look hard enough.

Answer 8

From the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology:



Evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the biological sciences. It is supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numerous fields, including genetics, biochemistry, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, immunology, geology, and paleontology.



Moreover, evolution lays the foundation for much of what we know about genetics, immunology, antibiotic resistance, human origins, and the adaptation of species to a changing environment. Removing evolution from the classroom, or misrepresenting evolution as a flawed theory, deprives students of one of the most important tenets of science and the basis of our understanding of biology and medicine.



..



Also, I've personally seen and studied evidence (including fossils) first hand in a lab during college while studying evolution in Physical Anthropology.

Answer 9

"So keep ignoring the real evidence and stick to the pseudo-science of the classroom*, until you qualify to do your own research THEN go for it - hard science."



It leaves me numb. Yes, who would want to waste their time on peer reviewed and documented research, when there are so many better sources, like creationist tracts. What an idiot.



* I suppose he also spurns lab work.

Answer 10

When you say "Evolutionist", do you really mean Evolutionary Biologist? Evolution is not an ideology like creationism.



People believe in evolution because they've read and seen the evidence.



The person you quote has no idea what he's talking about.

Answer 11

Any true scientist that has a background in biology agrees that evolution is a valid theory (theory meaning accepted without reservation).



What a laymen or theologian believe is rather irrelevant.

Answer 12

Maybe this Al should stop reading "the easy to read books" and move on to something above grade 6 level.

Answer 13

Hm. I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who claim to have conducted research and then show through feeble statements that they haven't. Lying for Jeebus is still lying.

Answer 14

I love it when someone who needs a dictionary to understand the paper thinks he can spot errors that the scientists missed.

Answer 15

* The basics of evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/



* Examples of ridiculous creationist anti-science: http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Thunderf00t&search_query=why+do+people+laugh+at+creationists



* Examples of creationist quote mining (like quoting part of a scientists' sentence to make it sound like he's saying something completely different): http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html



* Scientific American's 15 answers to creationist nonsense: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist



* The evolutionary tree: http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg



* Hominid species: http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/homs/species.html



* Transitional fossils: http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html



* A comprehensive list of evolution resources: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19713

Answer 16

Everybody knows hyractherium was a hoax because Jesus rode Jesus horses, which were triceratops.

Answer 17

This is Discovery Institute propaganda

Answer 18

Some people don't like big words. It's okay.

Answer 19

Sound science is a concept that is alien to you.

Answer 20

*eyeroll* No, I've seen most of this bunk before.

Answer 21

whose to say who is blind, though.