I recently took part in a scientific debate at a local college where, as usual, the casual conversation turned to over-zealous debate directed towards stem cell research. And then evolution Vs creation.
I am not one to argue that creation isn't true, because who am I to control what people believe. The only thing I can do is present facts and address floored counter arguments, that are always omitting a vital factor, or based on anti-truth.
The first argument the pro-creationist in this debate used was "There are gaps in the fossil record therefore there is no proof for evolution". Firstly of course there are gaps, it is obvious that we do not posses every fossil on earth. But more importantly we do have intermediary species as examples in fossil records. Take for example the abundant examples of the creatures thought to be ancestors of the whale, with there ever obvious hind limbs at a almost totally fin-like stage of mutation, whereas there front legs are as any land mammals (especially similar to the joints of a cow or sheep). Additionally we can see there nostrils that are usually positioned at the front of a mammals snout, but it has shifted via mutation to a position we would expect to find a blow hole in. And these aren't the only example. There are hundreds. Take also the famous rapter/bird fossil: http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-enotes-hoax/ The link I have used is not coincidental, It leads me onto my second point...
Creationist often say they conduct there own "creationism research". This immediately lacks objective intentions, as they are researching souly to prove evolution wrong. Thus making this "research" consist of only "research" into evolution and counter-statement's against it, with no evidence at all. A common counter-statement used in child-like arrogance and with the mentality that if I cant have cake no one can: is that evolution isn't a science at all. "What?" I hear Darwin say as he turns in his grave. This argument is based on the falsely assumed factor that evolution can not be empirically tested or seen (invented as this is true for creation). I have already shown the example of the intermediary fossils, but what about mutation it's self.
Pseudo-genes.
Or fossil genes if you like. By looking at the genome for any eukaryote we can see old, decaying genes that are no longer used or coded for. Genes with similar functions in other ancestor species, that were used before in the species but the function is no longer needed. Along with many other factors that I will add to this blog soon, this certainly proves micro-evolution to be true. But what about macro-evolution, the theory that huge changes occur in the genome, meaning that say the human species could have once been chimps or at least a common ancestor with them. As hard as it is to believe for real scientist this is what all the facts point to. The fossil of "ape-man" discovered, then "man-apes" to Neanderthals, are all a big pointer towards macro-evolution. Additionally the more scientific detail I will go into with my next post will display the mechanisms for mutation, and I will combine this with natural selection to show with more evidence that macro-evolution is very likely.
Finally I will finish with the quite offensive argument that evolutionists are atheists. And that all evolutionist are out to prove creationist wrong. This is ironic because I am sure this is exactly the motive of the "creationism researchers". Scientist try to understand the world using testable theory's and facts, there is no conspiracy that all scientists are "out to get" creationist, and many scientists are religious and believe in God. We scientists just want the truth. We don't want to argue. I will end with a quote from a letter signed by 188 pastors from various religious denominations and churches, since agreed with by over 10,000 religious preachers from across the world and USA. "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human achievement rest. To reject this truth or to treat is as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and to transmit such ignorance to our children."
In the words of Sean Carroll:
Amen.
I am not one to argue that creation isn't true, because who am I to control what people believe. The only thing I can do is present facts and address floored counter arguments, that are always omitting a vital factor, or based on anti-truth.
The first argument the pro-creationist in this debate used was "There are gaps in the fossil record therefore there is no proof for evolution". Firstly of course there are gaps, it is obvious that we do not posses every fossil on earth. But more importantly we do have intermediary species as examples in fossil records. Take for example the abundant examples of the creatures thought to be ancestors of the whale, with there ever obvious hind limbs at a almost totally fin-like stage of mutation, whereas there front legs are as any land mammals (especially similar to the joints of a cow or sheep). Additionally we can see there nostrils that are usually positioned at the front of a mammals snout, but it has shifted via mutation to a position we would expect to find a blow hole in. And these aren't the only example. There are hundreds. Take also the famous rapter/bird fossil: http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-enotes-hoax/ The link I have used is not coincidental, It leads me onto my second point...
Creationist often say they conduct there own "creationism research". This immediately lacks objective intentions, as they are researching souly to prove evolution wrong. Thus making this "research" consist of only "research" into evolution and counter-statement's against it, with no evidence at all. A common counter-statement used in child-like arrogance and with the mentality that if I cant have cake no one can: is that evolution isn't a science at all. "What?" I hear Darwin say as he turns in his grave. This argument is based on the falsely assumed factor that evolution can not be empirically tested or seen (invented as this is true for creation). I have already shown the example of the intermediary fossils, but what about mutation it's self.
Pseudo-genes.
Or fossil genes if you like. By looking at the genome for any eukaryote we can see old, decaying genes that are no longer used or coded for. Genes with similar functions in other ancestor species, that were used before in the species but the function is no longer needed. Along with many other factors that I will add to this blog soon, this certainly proves micro-evolution to be true. But what about macro-evolution, the theory that huge changes occur in the genome, meaning that say the human species could have once been chimps or at least a common ancestor with them. As hard as it is to believe for real scientist this is what all the facts point to. The fossil of "ape-man" discovered, then "man-apes" to Neanderthals, are all a big pointer towards macro-evolution. Additionally the more scientific detail I will go into with my next post will display the mechanisms for mutation, and I will combine this with natural selection to show with more evidence that macro-evolution is very likely.
Finally I will finish with the quite offensive argument that evolutionists are atheists. And that all evolutionist are out to prove creationist wrong. This is ironic because I am sure this is exactly the motive of the "creationism researchers". Scientist try to understand the world using testable theory's and facts, there is no conspiracy that all scientists are "out to get" creationist, and many scientists are religious and believe in God. We scientists just want the truth. We don't want to argue. I will end with a quote from a letter signed by 188 pastors from various religious denominations and churches, since agreed with by over 10,000 religious preachers from across the world and USA. "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human achievement rest. To reject this truth or to treat is as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and to transmit such ignorance to our children."
In the words of Sean Carroll:
Amen.
