Re: found a picture of evolution in process ...

On May 26, 4:51 pm, ultra...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 26, 12:17 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



How so? Most scientists are on the evolution side.

http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/palmer.html

I don't have time to investigate and comment on everything on this Web
page but on first read it looks like it suffers from the same
complaints it makes about certain evolution-supporting materials
("cherry-picked", no less).

I can comment quickly on the following two "science arguments" on the
site:

"4. The sun: The sun is losing mass every day. Assuming it didn't just
speed up its use of mass quite a lot very recently, the earth could
not be even close to as old as evolutionists say it is, because earth
would have been inside the sun."

As I have a Ph.D. in physics, I can tell you uncategorically that this
is simply not true. If you do the math, you will see. The amount of
mass the sun loses everyday is negligible compared to its total mass
and is completely compatible with an age of approximately 5 billion
years for the sun without ever reaching the orbit of Earth.

Additionally, astronomers have found galaxies billions of light-years
from us. It would correspondingly take the same billions of years for
the light therefrom to reach us! Add to that the very convincing
evidence of uranium-decay dating of earth's oldest rocks (similar to
carbon dating) giving an age for the earth of something like 4.6
billion years, ... well, you get the idea.

"5. Earth's magnetic field: The earth's magnetic field is
deteriorating. As with the sun example, the earth could not be
billions of years old because the magnetic field would be much too
strong only millions of years ago for anything to live."

Again, this is nonsense. An assumption is made -- completely
unjustified no less -- that the rate of decrease was uniform
throughout the entire history of the earth. The volcanic record
clearly shows that the earth's magnetic field has actually oscillated
9 times in the last 4 million years. [Ref.: you guessed it -- the
Asimov book] When lava cools, its crystals form in alignment with the
magentic field, and in these rocks you see clear evidence of the
oscillations. So "Science argument No. 5" is false.

These two total falsehoods don't help the credibility of anything else
on this Web page. These two points, at least, depend on ignorance of
the reader as to what is well known (at least to scientists and those
who have read the Asimov book!), namely how nuclear reactions power
the sun and the volcanic record of the oscillations of the earth's
magnetic field. This appears to be one of the favorite methods of
people who write these type of Web sites and such.

This site also talks about evolution of the eye, claiming "how can it
work if even one of its parts is missing?" (approx. quote). I've
already provided a link for the answer in my previous post, and I can
say quickly right here that you don't need a lens -- a pinhole will
do, but a lens is better, as a lens will admit more light than a
pinhole, but the pinhole will still create an image, though darker, of
course. So the lens could have evolved later. It's still remarkable,
though. *** But just because we don't fully understand something now,
doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. *** This is another favorite
method of the anti-evolutionists: to amplify, all out of proportion,
gaps or problems with scientific theories to discredit them.

Also on this site are the logic rules of St. Thomas Aquinas which fall
apart in light of knowledge he had no way of knowing. With these rules
he attempts to use logic to prove the existence of "God". (I
paraphrase the arugments here -- please see the site for the actual
arguments.)

1. He makes the "unpuhsed pusher" argument.

Well, that's kind of vague, and in quantum mechanics we find the idea
of motion is not quite the same it is in classical mechanics.

2. He argues that nothing can create itself.

In quantum mechanics, it turns out that there are virtual particles
continually being created and destroyed even in pure vacuum as
permitted by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Failure to include
the effects of this in quantum field theory calculations produces
predictions that contradict experiment. I quote from

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html

"What is the Casimir Effect?

The Casimir effect is a small attractive force which acts between two
close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum
vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field.

The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in
1948. According to the quantum theory, the vacuum contains virtual
particles which are in a continuous state of fluctuation (see physics
FAQ article on virtual particles). Casimir realised that between two
plates, only those virtual photons whose wavelengths fit a whole
number of times into the gap should be counted when calculating the
vacuum energy. The energy density decreases as the plates are moved
closer which implies there is a small force drawing them together.

The attractive Casimir force between two plates of area A separated by
a distance L can be calculated to be,

pi h c
F = -------- A
480 L4

where h is Planck's constant and c is the speed of light.

The tiny force was measured in 1996 by Steven Lamoreaux. His results
were in agreement with the theory to within the experimental
uncertainty of 5%."

Remember: Those who are not shocked when they first come across
quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. (Niels Bohr on
Quantum Physics)

3. He (Aquinis) argues about God being the ultimate standard of
perfection by which to compare to judge beauty. I hardly find this
compelling.

4. Intelligent design (again!): Well, it's not quite the same as the
current version, but even taken at face value it is hardly a
compelling case against evolution.

And even if Aquinis's logic somehow proves the existence of "God",
that's still a far cry from proving that this "God" is the God of the
Bible, and even a farther cry from disproving evolution.
And there's plenty of evidence against intelligent design, for
example, as many men who are old enough can attest, the enlarging
prostate gland! Add to that the many children born with horrible birth
defects. Also, for the evolution of the eye, from the site I already
gave a link for -- here it is again:

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html>

"Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in
evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one,
from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of
the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to
proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists
say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an
"intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other
omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something
of a botched design."

I think I read that the duck's eye doesn't suffer from this "defect".
Why should a duck have better eyes, at least in this respect, if
intelligent design holds?

Anyway, time to go ... for now.

AEF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Irreducible Complexity
    ... creationist argument which is that some organ, like the eye or wing, ... systems could not evolve. ... and so on) before the evolution of the human eye is complete. ... the irreducibly complex systems we find in Biology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Epigenetic factors in evolution
    ... question is whether it has any importance in evolution. ... Although these genes are expressed in other ... The investigator tells you the regulatory ... mutations have not occurred in cavefish eye genes, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Epigenetic factors in evolution
    ... genes doubtless control synthesis of the ... The evolution of the body size in Manduca sexta. ... mutations have not occurred in cavefish eye genes, ... alteration in the behavior of the cranial neural crest ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Twenty Questions for Evolutionists
    ... Ecologists cant tell you much about interactions among species. ... Or chimps and humans. ... much of the variation is genetic, and evolution normally acts on this ... transitions an eye would need to develop through. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Epigenetic factors in evolution
    ... The question is whether it has any importance in evolution. ... genes doubtless control synthesis of the ... mutations have not occurred in cavefish eye genes, ... alteration in the behavior of the cranial neural crest ...
    (talk.origins)