|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2002 : 20:37:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...i.e. you can't have more genetic information accruing because that would violate the second law of thermodynamics
Interesting, the Xian 2nd Thermo Law would also mean that it is impossible for babies to grow into adults
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
 |
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 03:23:23 [Permalink]
|
Go on then Xev, rebut away!
I think AIG's "information gain" objection is two-fold:
1) It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics (nonsense - will they *ever* understand this basic law of physics?)
2) They need it to deny that their definition of evolution is possible. Although they will allow speciation to try to make sense of their ludicrous Noah-Flood scenario, they have to deny that simple organisms can evolve into more complex ones, as this would allow abiogenesis to lead inevitably through an evolutionary process to us.
Speciation, in their view, is not evolution because they claim that no *new* genetic information is added in that process, just that inactive genes are switched on, or pre-existing genetic material shuffled. This is crucial, as it allows them to claim that the "goo-to-you" scenario (as they rather cheesily put it) is not possible.
What is interesting to me about AIG is that they show the classic signs of retreat in the face of science that many religious dogmas have shown throughout history (at least in the West). Where once they would have claimed that no speciation was necessary or possible, they now have to use genuine scientftic research to justify a patently impossible Noah-Flood scenario. So they re-draw the line, this time the only bulwark available to them being that an increase in genetic complexity is not possible (or at least, has not been demonstrated).
It's certainly the case that even if sceptics manage to remove this particular plank from their argument that they will find some other specious justification, but that shouldn't stop us. Keep 'em on the run, I say.
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
andysnape
New Member
United Kingdom
39 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 04:09:30 [Permalink]
|
Referring to the article, has anyone heard the story of the Peppered Moth. We were taught it in school over here in Blightey. It is relevant to the notion that no-one has ever observed transformations in species relative to evolution. Basically, the peppered moth used to have a lightish colour that allowed it to camoulage against trees as protection from hungry birds. There was always a small population of black peppered moths but they tended to get eaten. When the industrial revolution arrived, millions of trees were covered in soot from the factories, covering them black. That reversed the effectiveness of the moths and soon, the black variety was dominant.
I think I have got my facts straight so apologies if I have got anything wrong. One could also sight the case of DDT, both being observed cases of evolution.
quote:
Scientific America has an interesting article on its webpage about creationism and 15 answers to creationists most common arguments.
The Article does not contain much news, but summarizes the situation well. I espescially liked the explanation at the end, why "Creation science" is a contradiction in terms.
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 05:38:37 [Permalink]
|
Hi andysnape from the UK. Just the person who may know the answer to this one.
It is my understanding that the construction of the London subway system last century gave rise to a new species of mosquito. The story goes something like this...
A certain species of mosquito found in the city of London followed the commuters underground of the newly constructed subway. Over a period of time, the mosquito became acclimated to life underground with an abundant food source and ideal breeding grounds in stagnant water puddles. Within so many mosquito generations, this mosquito became sexually isolated from its above-ground kin. Hence, a new mosquito species within a period of a few decades that flies in the face of creationists who claim that no new species are being created. Know what I'm talking about?
(:raig |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 05:56:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A certain species of mosquito found in the city of London followed the commuters underground of the newly constructed subway. Over a period of time, the mosquito became acclimated to life underground with an abundant food source and ideal breeding grounds in stagnant water puddles. Within so many mosquito generations, this mosquito became sexually isolated from its above-ground kin. Hence, a new mosquito species within a period of a few decades that flies in the face of creationists who claim that no new species are being created. Know what I'm talking about?
AIG have this one on their web-site, and what you might find interesting (and amusing) is that they claim this was both "shocking" to evolutionsts (because it happened so quickly) and that it's proof that rapid speciation could have happened after the flood. Another example (if it's true) of their hi-jacking science for specious ends.
This link (in PDF format) appears to contain information on this, but i haven't had time to read it:
http://www.bio.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/biol258-001/reznickghalambor.Genetica.pdf
(later, having read link)
Actually, all it says is this:
"Adaptation to the London Underground by
Culex mosquitos involves a shift in preferred host, loss of a requirement for a blood meal to produce eggs, change in mating behavior, and a change in reproductive phenology (Byrne and Nichols 1999)."
With a reference to a paper on the subject:
Byrne, K., and R. A. Nichols. 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82:7-15.
A very interesting paper, though, if a bit technical for me.
(edited to add link)
(edited to update)
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily."
Edited by - NottyImp on 07/01/2002 06:01:31
Edited by - NottyImp on 07/01/2002 12:29:52 |
|
|
|
Hobbes
New Member
USA
34 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 02:54:40 [Permalink]
|
I've got a question for anyone that knows, and I'm afraid it might be a bit off-topic. How do creationists account for radioactive material dating techniques? I'm rather new at this, and I can't get to the talkorigins site from this computer (i'm at work). Surely they have to have some explanation for species dated at older than six or seven thousand years, or it would blow their "science" apart.
Why the f--k didn't you tell us there was someone in the bathroom? Slip your mind? Did you forget there was someone in there with a god damned hand cannon? -Vince, Pulp Fiction |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 03:55:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've got a question for anyone that knows, and I'm afraid it might be a bit off-topic. How do creationists account for radioactive material dating techniques? I'm rather new at this, and I can't get to the talkorigins site from this computer (i'm at work). Surely they have to have some explanation for species dated at older than six or seven thousand years, or it would blow their "science" apart.
They don't. They say that radiometric dating does not work. They either delibertly misunderstand how it works or simply claim that it can be giving the right dates because it gives dates older then six-thosand years. They often try show examples of how radiometric dating gives 'wrong' anwers as 'proof' for they claims. I would like to give a more logical represantaion of their claims, but I have never seen any. Basically everyone who works with, understands or accepts radiometric dating has either been fooled by or is part of a giant anti-christian conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 04:01:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've got a question for anyone that knows, and I'm afraid it might be a bit off-topic. How do creationists account for radioactive material dating techniques?
They usually dismiss it at some sort of circular reasoning: "We can tell the age of the fossils since we know the age of the layer of rock where they were found."
Ian Andreas Miller. DIES GAUDII. |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2002 : 11:19:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They say that radiometric dating does not work. They either delibertly misunderstand how it works or simply claim that it can be giving the right dates because it gives dates older then six-thosand years.
This goes to the heart of the matter. Calls for these people to be rational or logical in the face of evidence have no chance. They take the bible literally and that's that. The ICR "scientists" sign a statement of faith that includes these words:
quote:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
Radio metric dating must be wrong. Given enough time, they will prove that it is not an accurate dating method. Of course, that goes for all evidence for evolution. The mind set is that evolution just can't happen. The Bible tells them so.
Micro evolution, as has been pointed out, is not an issue for them. They simply rationalized that one away in the face of such overwhelming evidence that even they must acknowledge it. But, they say that micro evolution is not really evolution at all.
On another front, some new earther's have bolted for a more scientifically friendly version of creationism that supports an old earth. They did this in the face of overwhelming geological and cosmological evidence. They came up with the Intelligent Design theory to justify their move away from new earth creationism. ID is based on "irreducible complexity." A concept warm and fuzzy enough for even the new earther's to embrace. They continue to deny evidence for macro evolution. But those people are not AIG or the ICR. This is clearly a move away from the six day, six thousand year model. Oddly, new earther's consider these heretics allies in their fight to have some form of creationism taught in science classrooms. It thrills the ICR that Ohio, for example, might force the teaching of ID even though the ID model has strayed from the biblical model. I think this demonstrates a lack of integrity (as if we needed more examples of that) on the part of the new earther's...
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
