Compare and contrast: Evolution and Creationism--Genetic evidence for...
17 views
Skip to first unread message
DreadGeekGrrl
Jul 22, 2008, 12:21:19 PM7/22/08
to Debate.Religion
Given 4praise's earlier statements that evolutionary biologists and
creationists reject one another's positions in a totally arbitrary
manner I thought it might be useful to compare and contrast writings
about evolutionary biology (from within the field) and creationism.
One of the statements I made in an earlier post to 4praise is that
evolutionary biologists can talk about field without making reference
to creationism while creationists cannot talk about their field
without making reference to evolution. What's more, while biologists
can talk about evidence FOR the theory of evolution, creationists
cannot and do not do the same for creationism. They can only try to
poke holes in evolutionary biology hoping that, by default,
creationism will win. So I decided to do as fair a test as I could
devise. I Googled for the exact same terms, changing ONLY the word
creationism or evolution. I will take a representative sample of text
from *each* result which appears to best demonstrate the respective
positions. My first search was "Genetic evidence for evolution" and
"Genetic evidence for creationism":
Here is a representative sample from a paper on evolution:
From the Abstract:
Rapid evolution driven by positive Darwinian selection is a recurrent
theme in male reproductive protein evolution. In contrast, positive
selection has never been demonstrated for female reproductive
proteins. Here, we perform phylogeny-based tests on three female
mammalian fertilization proteins and demonstrate positive selection
promoting their divergence. Two of these female fertilization
proteins, the zona pellucida glycoproteins ZP2 and ZP3, are part of
the mammalian egg coat. Several sites identified in ZP3 as likely to
be under positive selection are located in a region previously
demonstrated to be involved in species-specific sperm-egg interaction,
suggesting the selective pressure is related to male-female
interaction. The results provide long-sought evidence for two
evolutionary hypotheses: sperm competition and sexual conflict.
From the Discussion:
We have demonstrated that the female reproductive proteins ZP2, ZP3,
and OGP are subjected to positive Darwinian selection. These results
lend support to the models of sperm competition (1, 18, 19), sexual
conflict (2, 20, 37), and cryptic female choice (15) driving the
evolution of reproductive proteins, because these models involve male-
female interactions. It is important for functional as well as
evolutionary studies to examine the rapid evolution of both female and
male reproductive proteins. Functional studies can glean important
information not only from conserved regions of the molecules but also
from the divergent regions under positive selection, because the
latter may be functionally important for specificity. Our analysis
identified several sites in ZP3 under positive selection. These
include a region previously implicated as functionally important in
sperm-egg interaction (41–43). Additionally, a region in ZP3
immediately following the signal sequence was identified (Fig. 1
Right) for which tests of functional importance have not been reported
and which our data predict might also play a role in species
specificity. The sites we identified in ZP2 as likely to be under
positive selection are candidates to test for functional importance in
ZP2's role as receptor for acrosome-reacted sperm (21, 27).
It is likely that the evolution of additional female and male
reproductive proteins also are promoted by positive Darwinian
selection. For example, many reproductive proteins (including ZP2,
ZP3, and the sperm protamines analyzed here, but not OGP) are found in
the 10% most divergent sequences from an aligned set of 2,820 human-
rodent orthologs (ref. 51 and our unpublished analyses). These
reproductive molecules are as divergent as many genes involved in
immune response. Another ZP glycoprotein (ZP1) is also among these
rapidly evolving proteins, but insufficient phylogenetic sampling to
date precluded its analysis by using likelihood ratio tests. Future
sequencing and phylogenetic analyses of these reproductive proteins
are necessary to determine whether their rapid divergence is promoted
by positive selection or caused by lack of constraint. It also will be
important to determine in general what proportion of reproductive
proteins show signs of selectively driven rapid evolution seen herein.
Our demonstration of positive Darwinian selection in female as well as
male reproductive proteins lends support for models of sexual conflict
and sperm competition driving the divergence of reproductive proteins
(2, 20, 37). Although the nature of the selective pressure remains
unclear, our observation that selection acts to diversify a region in
ZP3 previously identified as functionally important for species
specificity suggests that the selective pressure may be related to
male-female interaction, in this case sperm-egg interaction.
The entire paper, so that you can read the whole thing (I cut out
2/3rds of the paper for the sake of length and because it gets VERY
technical), is located at: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
One will note that in neither the abstract OR the discussion is ANY
reference made to creationism. (You will not find it in the technical
text that I omitted either) You will also notice, in the conclusion,
that the authors make a positive argument FOR evolution not a negative
argument *against* creationism. This is what we would expect from a
proper scientific paper.
Here is what the search for creationism pulled up:
32. Genetic Distances
Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with
sophisticated genetic techniques.
Proteins. “Genetic distances” can be calculated by taking a specific
protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer
changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the
corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their
relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of
evolution.a
An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in
energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study
found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein.
For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been
most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms
(all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the
rattlesnake was man.b Since this study, experts have discovered
hundreds of similar contradictions.c
DNA and RNA. Comparisons can also be made between the genetic material
of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their
genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as “GenBank,” is
doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other
genes in the database show too many genes that are completely
unrelated to any others.d Therefore, an evolutionary relationship
between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at
the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple
sea life fish amphibians reptiles mammals.e Each category of
organism appears to be almost equally isolated.f
Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the
closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004),
evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99%
similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific
justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the
sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee
DNA had begun.
Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and
rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far
greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected.g Those
differences include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide
changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal
rearrangements.”h Although it’s only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates
humans from chimpanzees.
Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of
organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic
information. They conflict in major ways.i
A couple of things you will otice. Firstly, there is hardly a
sentence that doesn't talk about evolutionists or evolution. If
creationism is such a strong scientific position why is it that it
cannot stand on its own? (And in this instance, I quoted the page in
its entirety). Secondly, you will notice that not a *single* argument
in favor of creationism is made. This was from In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood which is a book put
out by the Center for Scientific Creation (which is why I favored this
over the ICR although a page came up for them which, upon reading, had
the same kinds of flaws). The letters standing on their own all
represent footnotes which I ran down and found that those quoting
evolutionary biologists or other scientists were all misquotations (in
fact, one such quotation is such a flagrant and obvious one that I
merely had to put in the name of the scientist quoted and the first
several hits were ALL about the misquotation which makes one wonder
why a purportedly scientific organization would put it in their book
and on their website).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html
One last comment before moving on. I have been FAR more generous with
creationism than with evolution. After I had found my representative
sample for creationism and genetics, I kept looking for results,
following some 25 links in the hopes of finding ONE paper that had the
kind of scientific gravitas that my representative evolutionary
biology sample did. I could not find one. EVERY web page I found was
similar in that it did not make a case FOR creationism, it made a case
AGAINST evolution. I took the *third* result from my search on
evolution (third on the first page of results) purposely eschewing
TalkOrigins pages. Where possible, I will attempt in follow-ups to do
the same.
Cheers
DGG
creationists reject one another's positions in a totally arbitrary
manner I thought it might be useful to compare and contrast writings
about evolutionary biology (from within the field) and creationism.
One of the statements I made in an earlier post to 4praise is that
evolutionary biologists can talk about field without making reference
to creationism while creationists cannot talk about their field
without making reference to evolution. What's more, while biologists
can talk about evidence FOR the theory of evolution, creationists
cannot and do not do the same for creationism. They can only try to
poke holes in evolutionary biology hoping that, by default,
creationism will win. So I decided to do as fair a test as I could
devise. I Googled for the exact same terms, changing ONLY the word
creationism or evolution. I will take a representative sample of text
from *each* result which appears to best demonstrate the respective
positions. My first search was "Genetic evidence for evolution" and
"Genetic evidence for creationism":
Here is a representative sample from a paper on evolution:
From the Abstract:
Rapid evolution driven by positive Darwinian selection is a recurrent
theme in male reproductive protein evolution. In contrast, positive
selection has never been demonstrated for female reproductive
proteins. Here, we perform phylogeny-based tests on three female
mammalian fertilization proteins and demonstrate positive selection
promoting their divergence. Two of these female fertilization
proteins, the zona pellucida glycoproteins ZP2 and ZP3, are part of
the mammalian egg coat. Several sites identified in ZP3 as likely to
be under positive selection are located in a region previously
demonstrated to be involved in species-specific sperm-egg interaction,
suggesting the selective pressure is related to male-female
interaction. The results provide long-sought evidence for two
evolutionary hypotheses: sperm competition and sexual conflict.
From the Discussion:
We have demonstrated that the female reproductive proteins ZP2, ZP3,
and OGP are subjected to positive Darwinian selection. These results
lend support to the models of sperm competition (1, 18, 19), sexual
conflict (2, 20, 37), and cryptic female choice (15) driving the
evolution of reproductive proteins, because these models involve male-
female interactions. It is important for functional as well as
evolutionary studies to examine the rapid evolution of both female and
male reproductive proteins. Functional studies can glean important
information not only from conserved regions of the molecules but also
from the divergent regions under positive selection, because the
latter may be functionally important for specificity. Our analysis
identified several sites in ZP3 under positive selection. These
include a region previously implicated as functionally important in
sperm-egg interaction (41–43). Additionally, a region in ZP3
immediately following the signal sequence was identified (Fig. 1
Right) for which tests of functional importance have not been reported
and which our data predict might also play a role in species
specificity. The sites we identified in ZP2 as likely to be under
positive selection are candidates to test for functional importance in
ZP2's role as receptor for acrosome-reacted sperm (21, 27).
It is likely that the evolution of additional female and male
reproductive proteins also are promoted by positive Darwinian
selection. For example, many reproductive proteins (including ZP2,
ZP3, and the sperm protamines analyzed here, but not OGP) are found in
the 10% most divergent sequences from an aligned set of 2,820 human-
rodent orthologs (ref. 51 and our unpublished analyses). These
reproductive molecules are as divergent as many genes involved in
immune response. Another ZP glycoprotein (ZP1) is also among these
rapidly evolving proteins, but insufficient phylogenetic sampling to
date precluded its analysis by using likelihood ratio tests. Future
sequencing and phylogenetic analyses of these reproductive proteins
are necessary to determine whether their rapid divergence is promoted
by positive selection or caused by lack of constraint. It also will be
important to determine in general what proportion of reproductive
proteins show signs of selectively driven rapid evolution seen herein.
Our demonstration of positive Darwinian selection in female as well as
male reproductive proteins lends support for models of sexual conflict
and sperm competition driving the divergence of reproductive proteins
(2, 20, 37). Although the nature of the selective pressure remains
unclear, our observation that selection acts to diversify a region in
ZP3 previously identified as functionally important for species
specificity suggests that the selective pressure may be related to
male-female interaction, in this case sperm-egg interaction.
The entire paper, so that you can read the whole thing (I cut out
2/3rds of the paper for the sake of length and because it gets VERY
technical), is located at: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
One will note that in neither the abstract OR the discussion is ANY
reference made to creationism. (You will not find it in the technical
text that I omitted either) You will also notice, in the conclusion,
that the authors make a positive argument FOR evolution not a negative
argument *against* creationism. This is what we would expect from a
proper scientific paper.
Here is what the search for creationism pulled up:
32. Genetic Distances
Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with
sophisticated genetic techniques.
Proteins. “Genetic distances” can be calculated by taking a specific
protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer
changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the
corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their
relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of
evolution.a
An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in
energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study
found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein.
For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been
most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms
(all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the
rattlesnake was man.b Since this study, experts have discovered
hundreds of similar contradictions.c
DNA and RNA. Comparisons can also be made between the genetic material
of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their
genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as “GenBank,” is
doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other
genes in the database show too many genes that are completely
unrelated to any others.d Therefore, an evolutionary relationship
between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at
the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple
sea life fish amphibians reptiles mammals.e Each category of
organism appears to be almost equally isolated.f
Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the
closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004),
evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99%
similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific
justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the
sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee
DNA had begun.
Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and
rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far
greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected.g Those
differences include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide
changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal
rearrangements.”h Although it’s only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates
humans from chimpanzees.
Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of
organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic
information. They conflict in major ways.i
A couple of things you will otice. Firstly, there is hardly a
sentence that doesn't talk about evolutionists or evolution. If
creationism is such a strong scientific position why is it that it
cannot stand on its own? (And in this instance, I quoted the page in
its entirety). Secondly, you will notice that not a *single* argument
in favor of creationism is made. This was from In the Beginning:
Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood which is a book put
out by the Center for Scientific Creation (which is why I favored this
over the ICR although a page came up for them which, upon reading, had
the same kinds of flaws). The letters standing on their own all
represent footnotes which I ran down and found that those quoting
evolutionary biologists or other scientists were all misquotations (in
fact, one such quotation is such a flagrant and obvious one that I
merely had to put in the name of the scientist quoted and the first
several hits were ALL about the misquotation which makes one wonder
why a purportedly scientific organization would put it in their book
and on their website).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html
One last comment before moving on. I have been FAR more generous with
creationism than with evolution. After I had found my representative
sample for creationism and genetics, I kept looking for results,
following some 25 links in the hopes of finding ONE paper that had the
kind of scientific gravitas that my representative evolutionary
biology sample did. I could not find one. EVERY web page I found was
similar in that it did not make a case FOR creationism, it made a case
AGAINST evolution. I took the *third* result from my search on
evolution (third on the first page of results) purposely eschewing
TalkOrigins pages. Where possible, I will attempt in follow-ups to do
the same.
Cheers
DGG
Dag Yo
Jul 22, 2008, 10:02:05 PM7/22/08
to Debate.Religion
You know, with only a minor bit of retooling (especially in comparison
to the work you already put into this) I think it would make a damn
fine blog post.
to the work you already put into this) I think it would make a damn
fine blog post.
DreadGeekGrrl
Jul 23, 2008, 12:00:45 PM7/23/08
to Debate.Religion
Dag:
I'm going to take your advice and do just that. :) I'll post the
link when its' done
cheers
DGG
> ...
>
> read more »
I'm going to take your advice and do just that. :) I'll post the
link when its' done
cheers
DGG
>
> read more »
4praise
Jul 25, 2008, 2:44:13 AM7/25/08
to Debate.Religion
> evolutionary biologists can talk about field without making reference
> to creationism while creationists cannot talk about their field
> without making reference to evolution
Totally false. Both sides CAN and do talk about their models without
> to creationism while creationists cannot talk about their field
> without making reference to evolution
referencing the other. But they often attack each other because this
is a highly volatile issue in our culture and there is disagreement
about what should be taught in public schools.
As long as this is a cultural/political issue, you will find people on
both sides putting the best spin on their position.
It's naive or dishonest to try and paint this as simply a scientific
issue. There is one group that is committed to ridding humanity of
the mind virus called faith and another group trying to spread that
"virus". Science is just one of the weapons being used - by both
sides. I empathize with the frustrations of pure scientists caught in
the middle.
>
> read more »
Drafterman
Jul 25, 2008, 9:50:07 AM7/25/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 25, 2:44 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > evolutionary biologists can talk about field without making reference
> > to creationism while creationists cannot talk about their field
> > without making reference to evolution
>
> Totally false. Both sides CAN and do talk about their models without
> referencing the other.
Reference? What, exactly, IS the creationist model?
> > evolutionary biologists can talk about field without making reference
> > to creationism while creationists cannot talk about their field
> > without making reference to evolution
>
> Totally false. Both sides CAN and do talk about their models without
> referencing the other.
> But they often attack each other because this
> is a highly volatile issue in our culture and there is disagreement
> about what should be taught in public schools.
attacks.
>
> As long as this is a cultural/political issue, you will find people on
> both sides putting the best spin on their position.
>
> It's naive or dishonest to try and paint this as simply a scientific
> issue.
argument is that it SHOULD only be a scientific issue. This would cut
creationism out of the picture entirely, since it isn't science.
> There is one group that is committed to ridding humanity of
> the mind virus called faith and another group trying to spread that
> "virus".
theory has nothing to do with religion or faith.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dag Yo
Jul 25, 2008, 9:56:18 AM7/25/08
to Debate.Religion
DreadGeekGrrl
Jul 25, 2008, 12:01:09 PM7/25/08
to Debate.Religion
4praise:
On Jul 24, 11:44 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > evolutionary biologists can talk about field without making reference
> > to creationism while creationists cannot talk about their field
> > without making reference to evolution
>
> Totally false. Both sides CAN and do talk about their models without
> referencing the other. But they often attack each other because this
> is a highly volatile issue in our culture and there is disagreement
> about what should be taught in public schools.
I never said that both sides don't talk about one another. What I
said is that evolutionary biologists are capable of carrying on their
work without ANY reference to creationists while creationists
inevitably reference back to evolutionary biologists. For instance,
read two books "Of Pandas and People" (Creationist) and "The
Ancestor's Tale" (Evolutionary biology). You will find exactly *one*
reference to creationism in the latter but the former is rife with
reference to evolutionary biology. Creationism exists ONLY in
reference and opposition to evolutionary biology while the latter
stands on its own as a research program. Where is the creationist
research program? Where are the papers on the creationist model of
protein folding? Where are the papers on the creationist model of
gene flows through populations? They don't exist, 4praise. I've
looked. If they are, then they are very well hidden.
>
> As long as this is a cultural/political issue, you will find people on
> both sides putting the best spin on their position.
It's a question of *science*, 4praise. The only ones who want to make
it a cultural/political issue are creationists. In fact, one of the
reasons why we biologists were getting our asses handed to us in the
80's is that we were mistakenly treating this as if creationists ALSO
were trying to fight a battle within the context of science. But
that's not the case. The Discovery Institute, the ICR, and lots of
creationists on the ground ultimately could give two shakes about the
science. They don't want evolutionary biology taught in public
schools (interestingly, you lot seem to care bugger all about what is
taught at the University level, why is that?) for reasons having
nothing to do with the science and everything to do with religion.
>
> It's naive or dishonest to try and paint this as simply a scientific
> issue.
Naive? Yes. Dishonest? No.
>There is one group that is committed to ridding humanity of
> the mind virus called faith and another group trying to spread that
> "virus".
No, 4praise. I'm a biologist. I'm trying to defend the practice of
my profession. I would do the SAME THING if I were a lawyer and you
were trying to argue that tort law was *really* the law of small fruit-
filled pastries despite what we lawyers said tort law *actually*
was.
> Science is just one of the weapons being used - by both
> sides. I empathize with the frustrations of pure scientists caught in
> the middle.
Why?
Cheers
DGG
> ...
>
> read more »
On Jul 24, 11:44 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > evolutionary biologists can talk about field without making reference
> > to creationism while creationists cannot talk about their field
> > without making reference to evolution
>
> Totally false. Both sides CAN and do talk about their models without
> referencing the other. But they often attack each other because this
> is a highly volatile issue in our culture and there is disagreement
> about what should be taught in public schools.
said is that evolutionary biologists are capable of carrying on their
work without ANY reference to creationists while creationists
inevitably reference back to evolutionary biologists. For instance,
read two books "Of Pandas and People" (Creationist) and "The
Ancestor's Tale" (Evolutionary biology). You will find exactly *one*
reference to creationism in the latter but the former is rife with
reference to evolutionary biology. Creationism exists ONLY in
reference and opposition to evolutionary biology while the latter
stands on its own as a research program. Where is the creationist
research program? Where are the papers on the creationist model of
protein folding? Where are the papers on the creationist model of
gene flows through populations? They don't exist, 4praise. I've
looked. If they are, then they are very well hidden.
>
> As long as this is a cultural/political issue, you will find people on
> both sides putting the best spin on their position.
it a cultural/political issue are creationists. In fact, one of the
reasons why we biologists were getting our asses handed to us in the
80's is that we were mistakenly treating this as if creationists ALSO
were trying to fight a battle within the context of science. But
that's not the case. The Discovery Institute, the ICR, and lots of
creationists on the ground ultimately could give two shakes about the
science. They don't want evolutionary biology taught in public
schools (interestingly, you lot seem to care bugger all about what is
taught at the University level, why is that?) for reasons having
nothing to do with the science and everything to do with religion.
>
> It's naive or dishonest to try and paint this as simply a scientific
> issue.
>There is one group that is committed to ridding humanity of
> the mind virus called faith and another group trying to spread that
> "virus".
my profession. I would do the SAME THING if I were a lawyer and you
were trying to argue that tort law was *really* the law of small fruit-
filled pastries despite what we lawyers said tort law *actually*
was.
> Science is just one of the weapons being used - by both
> sides. I empathize with the frustrations of pure scientists caught in
> the middle.
Cheers
DGG
>
> read more »
4praise
Jul 26, 2008, 1:55:53 PM7/26/08
to Debate.Religion
> Creationism exists ONLY in
> reference and opposition to evolutionary biology
Huh? "Creationism" predates evolutionary biology by thousands of
> reference and opposition to evolutionary biology
years.
>
> read more »
Drafterman
Jul 26, 2008, 3:06:43 PM7/26/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 26, 1:55 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > Creationism exists ONLY in
> > reference and opposition to evolutionary biology
>
> Huh? "Creationism" predates evolutionary biology by thousands of
> years.
Yes, but in light of evolutionary biology, creationism STILL exists
> > Creationism exists ONLY in
> > reference and opposition to evolutionary biology
>
> Huh? "Creationism" predates evolutionary biology by thousands of
> years.
simply to oppose it. It would be a similar situation if people still
held onto a geocentric view of the solar system.
>
> read more »
4praise
Jul 26, 2008, 7:51:15 PM7/26/08
to Debate.Religion
> Yes, but in light of evolutionary biology, creationism STILL exists
> simply to oppose it. It would be a similar situation if people still
> held onto a geocentric view of the solar system.
I would have to disagree. It may be splitting hairs, but I think that
> simply to oppose it. It would be a similar situation if people still
> held onto a geocentric view of the solar system.
creationism exists in spite of evolutionary biology because there are
still large numbers of people that don't think that evolution alone is
responsible for all life on earth. I think that the last poll in the
US had almost 90% of Americans saying that they believe in either
Creationism or "Theistic evolution".
>
> read more »
Drafterman
Jul 27, 2008, 12:42:42 AM7/27/08
to Debate.Religion
On Jul 26, 7:51 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > Yes, but in light of evolutionary biology, creationism STILL exists
> > simply to oppose it. It would be a similar situation if people still
> > held onto a geocentric view of the solar system.
>
> I would have to disagree.
Of course you would.
> > Yes, but in light of evolutionary biology, creationism STILL exists
> > simply to oppose it. It would be a similar situation if people still
> > held onto a geocentric view of the solar system.
>
> I would have to disagree.
>
> read more »
DreadGeekGrrl
Jul 28, 2008, 1:25:05 PM7/28/08
to Debate.Religion
4praise:
Perhaps we're talking past one another again. What I am saying is
that while Creationists (even the 2/3rds (not 90%)) of Americans who
believe in creationism of some sort will tend to say "Well, I didn't
come from a monkey" or some other such nonsense. On the other hand,
evolutionary biologists will lay out the science and why we think
about this issue the way we do. Btw. since you're invoking an
argument from popularity (and you are), something like 40% of the
American public don't know that the reason we have seasons is the
axial tilt of the population. About that same number don't know that
the Earth revolves around the sun so I'm not exactly certain that you
want to make the argument that because some large number of the
American public is scientifically illiterate that means the science
must be wrong.
Cheers
DGG
> ...
>
> read more »
Perhaps we're talking past one another again. What I am saying is
that while Creationists (even the 2/3rds (not 90%)) of Americans who
believe in creationism of some sort will tend to say "Well, I didn't
come from a monkey" or some other such nonsense. On the other hand,
evolutionary biologists will lay out the science and why we think
about this issue the way we do. Btw. since you're invoking an
argument from popularity (and you are), something like 40% of the
American public don't know that the reason we have seasons is the
axial tilt of the population. About that same number don't know that
the Earth revolves around the sun so I'm not exactly certain that you
want to make the argument that because some large number of the
American public is scientifically illiterate that means the science
must be wrong.
Cheers
DGG
>
> read more »
4praise
Jul 29, 2008, 3:06:40 AM7/29/08
to Debate.Religion
The Ad Populum fallacy is often cited in these discussions as a reason
to never mention the majority view on something. In fact the Ad
Populum fallacy simply says that just because the majority thinks it
is true does not mean that it is actually true.
I didn't make an argument that said the majority view makes theism or
creationism "true". I said that creationism is alive and well because
many people have not accepted evolution as the sole cause of life on
earth.
to never mention the majority view on something. In fact the Ad
Populum fallacy simply says that just because the majority thinks it
is true does not mean that it is actually true.
I didn't make an argument that said the majority view makes theism or
creationism "true". I said that creationism is alive and well because
many people have not accepted evolution as the sole cause of life on
earth.
Dag Yo
Jul 31, 2008, 10:59:09 PM7/31/08
to Debate.Religion
So creationism is alive and well because there are lots of
creationists. Brilliant.
> ...
>
> read more »
creationists. Brilliant.
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages