Search This Blog

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Fallacies of Evolution - overview

Evolution-believers have no way of explaining the ex nihilo appearance of the Universe. They have no explanation for the formation of life from non-life. When you boil down what is said, it comes to nothing more than "it just happened by miraculous chance!" Ah, the wonders of science!

Young Earth Creationists believe the Bible account that gives God credit for the creation of the Universe and all life on Earth. Since we are able to observe the incredible "fine-tuning" of the Universe and the Earth to allow for life and since we are able to observe design in all living things, the Biblical account is far more logical than that of naturalistic evolution proponents.

The only reason that evolutionists prefer their far-fetched imaginings is that they cannot abide the idea of a Creator God. They are intent upon throwing the idea of God out the window without even a bit of consideration as to whether perhaps God indeed did create everything. They don't want to know. They are prisoners of a very narrow worldview that does not allow for the supernatural.

These are statements I have made and gone over many times in this blog. No evolutionist has yet given me one good reason to doubt these statements. Now let us go one step further and look at evolution itself, beginning with today's overview post.

Evolution - Change by means of natural selection

The basic premise of evolution is that after life somehow came from non-life, the first very primitive form of life began to form into more complex creatures until the vast array of life we see today came forth. One would think that if any form of life had managed to exist and reproduce, it would produce more of itself and continue to do so world without end. But evolution calls for change. Evolution must produce all myriad forms of life, so this primitive creature must change and branch out. How? Via favorable mutations selected by natural selection.

First, there must be mutations so that something other than the standard creature is produced. These mutations must be favorable so that the organism will survive. They must be able to be passed on to succeeding generations and they must be so favorable that they will live on in their descendants as conditions change going forward.




The American Heritage Science Dictionary
natural selection
The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring. As a result of natural selection, the proportion of organisms in a species with characteristics that are adaptive to a given environment increases with each generation. Therefore, natural selection modifies the originally random variation of genetic traits in a species so that alleles that are beneficial for survival predominate, while alleles that are not beneficial decrease. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection forms the basis of the process of evolution.


The above definition is correct to an extent, but with naturally one has see that it was written from an evolutionist viewpoint and about creatures we can observe today. The first creature wouldn't have been sophisticated enough to have alleles, for instance, since the highly complex genetic code itself needed to evolve over time, according to the evolutionists. So let us boil it down even further:

Natural selection is an observed process of nature in which, because of environment and other factors, some creatures are more likely to survive and reproduce than are others and it is the survivor/reproducers who are more likely to pass their genes to their offspring and on down to future generations.

mu·ta·tion (myōō-tā'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.
  1. The act or process of being altered or changed.
  2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
  3. Genetics
    1. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
    2. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
    3. A mutant.
Again, AHSD gives us a definition that is applicable to today in terms of how DNA works in modern organisms. One can only speculate by what means the first imagined sub-creatures could reproduce and mutate, since this cannot be observed in the fossil record or in living creatures today. All life uses the DNA code, period.

Evolution comes in two flavors!

There is microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, if you like the term, is what is observed and happens all around us on this planet. It leads to speciation within groups of creatures and also what evolutionists term "adaptive radiation" in which different branches of the same kind of animal become isolated and changed to the point they cannot even interbreed or have great difficulty doing so. We'll get back to this later.

Macroevolution is what evolutionists claim as the mechanism by which all life flowed from the first primitive simple creature. Untold billions and billions of mutations worked on by natural selection would eventually form new creatures, then more new creatures, and so on until we have what we see in nature today. This is, of course, a ridiculous idea in the extreme!

The flavors are "real" and "imaginary"

Microevolution is real. The appearance of Poodles and Newfoundlands and Dachshunds from the earlier types of dog is microevolution. So is the changing of the styles of beaks on Galapagos Island finches. One is managed by man, the other occurs due to changes in environment but they both happen the same way....loss of information!

Yes, dog breeders selected dogs for certain traits that they wanted in their breed and would only breed those animals. Other animals were not bred. Therefore, the gene pool of Poodles began to filter out traits not wanted by Poodle breeders. Some genetic information was intentionally avoided until, within the breed of Poodle dogs, it cannot any longer be found. There is less genetic information found within a Poodle than there would be in a Poodle-Newfoundland mix because both breeds deliberately selected for certain traits and selected other traits out. But in the mixing of the two breeds there are possibilities for characteristics not found in Poodles or not found in Newfoundlands that may show up and be passed forward by the Newfoodle offspring.

Whew! In any event, this kind of thing happened to Darwin's Finches. He saw beaks of differing shapes and sizes depending upon the environment and deduced that environmental concerns had selected the best beak for the job and the creature had been changed. Had he remained there for the remainder of his life, he may have seen that since the Finches are not terribly isolated, as climatic conditions would vary, so would the beaks, as the genetic information for different beaks remained within the gene pool.

Yes, all creatures have rich genetic codes that have information that can produce large and small, black and white, all sorts of different choices for the creatures. What we call speciation is the gene pool growing smaller or losing information so that only certain features can still be selected. A Poodle has less information within the genetic code than did his ancestor of 500 years ago. Information has been lost, and this has been observed and documented thoroughly. This is real.

Imaginary is another term for Macroevolution. In Macroevolution, a mutation has to occur that is not only so favorable to the creature that it makes the creature more likely to survive, it has to be a mutation that is passed along within the genetic code. There are many problems with this idea but here are three of the most insurmountable.

1) Mutations are almost always fatal or at least a hindrance to the creature

2) Mutations are not usually embedded within the genetic code in such a way that they can be passed on.

3) This requires an addition to the information carried within the genes. That has never been observed to happen.

You see, a mutation is a mistake. It usually involves loss of information (or at least the garbling of the information) within the gene. Yet, in order for mutations to add new and previously unheld characteristics to the creature, a mutation has to be an addition to the information held within that creature. Genetic information is not random, it is structured.

Information is orderly

You don't hurl a bomb at a DC-10 to make a 747, you have to design and build it. This is why macroevolution is the imaginary evolution. It depends upon the mistakes of mutation to create new structured information to input into the genetic structure. No one has ever observed this to happen! It is illogical that it could ever happen. Yet, for evolution to have produced life today it would have had to happen so many billions upon billions of times without any guiding force or mechanism behind it down through millions and millions of years.

Evolutionist will say that natural selection is the force, the engine, but they are wrong. Natural selection isn't a force, or a designer. It is merely an observation of the process by which creatures have been designed to be able to adapt to changing environments and continue to reproduce. God, who designed the genetic code, designed it to be so information-rich that fish could live in cold salt water and very warm inland freshwater lakes. So that Bears could be Polar or Sun Bears.

Lets make it simple: (Macro) Evolution requires information gain within the genetic code. Information gain does not happen, nor is it logical that it would happen. Therefore, evolution as macroevolution is not observed because it will never be observed because it just isn't going to happen, nor has it ever happened. Don't let the operation of natural selection within a kind of animal mislead you into following the error of the Darwin way!


17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure which "fallacies of evolution" you think you've identified. Macroevolution has of course been observed aplenty in the fossil record.

On the whole, you must really have very little beef with the actual theory of evolution if you think that its main fallacies are

(1) a mischaracterization of an unrelated subject (the ex nihilo appearance of the Universe),

(2) abiogenesis still being investigated,

and you seem to be lacking some information about the theory of evolution if you think that the three items you identified further along in your post are "insurmountable".

"The only reason that evolutionists prefer their far-fetched imaginings is that they cannot abide the idea of a Creator God."

Aside from the fact that the theory of evolution is supported by scientific observation and is subject to testable predictions (which are routinely confirmed), the fact that not just atheists accept the theory, but plenty of Christians (perhaps not the kind you like, depending on what definition you're going by today) and other theists. So the whole "you just don't like God" notion is a complete non-starter.

Not wanting to consider whether God created everything isn't it either. It's entirely possible that God did create everything, but (a) we can never know, and (b) if he did create everything, the question science asks is how it happened - regardless of whether God did it or not.

"No evolutionist has yet given me one good reason to doubt these statements."

Could that be because you routinely ignore the responses? Why do you consistently run away from the debate and keep harping on the same fallacies?

For example: who says matter came from non-matter?

"1) Mutations are almost always fatal or at least a hindrance to the creature"

That's right, and the negative ones (i.e. the ones that affect survival and/or reproduction negatively) tend not to reproduce. This is not an obstacle for the theory (and very far from insurmountable), as it leads to the entirely unremarkable observation that harmful mutations are not passed on, while neutral and beneficial ones are. Even if there is only a small proportion of neutral and beneficial mutations, they are naturally filtered and amplified (depending on how useful they are) by the process of natural selection.

Is that so hard to understand?

"2) Mutations are not usually embedded within the genetic code in such a way that they can be passed on."

Could you expand on this? Even if they are not "usually" embedded like this, all that needs to be true is that it does happen.

"3) This requires an addition to the information carried within the genes. That has never been observed to happen."

Three different responses come to mind:

1. As was pointed out to you not terribly long ago, we've linked to such an example on your blog. (Did you ignore that along with the testable predictions for the theory of evolution that I linked to and spelled out for you?)

2. Would you mind reading up on genetic mutation? Try a mainstream source.

3. Do a poodle, a wolf and a St. Bernard carry more genetic information than three poodles?

--creeper

Taxandrian said...

I really wonder why creationists are so obsessed with evolution if they are right. I mean, one is hard pressed to find one webpage on sites like answersingenesis.org and icr.org which doesn't in some way attack or ridicule evolution.
Why is that, Radar? You tell me. If creationism is right, the absolute truth, why not simply present the evidence undoubtedly readily available? Why not use a positive approach, instead of always the negative one. It seems that creationists really NEED evolution for their case.
And also, in case you didn't realise: even if evolution were somehow proven wrong, that doesn't necessarily prove creationism right. So please stop the mist-spraying and FUD-tactics and come up with the positive evidence.

Anyway, some thoughts:

Evolution-believers have no way of explaining the ex nihilo appearance of the Universe.

As creeper already pointed out: evolution does not deal with the origin of life. That's the field of abiogenesis. If you want to learn more about abiogenesis I suggest you read up on the work of Dr. Stanley Miller or Dr. Aleksandr Oparin.

When you boil down what is said, it comes to nothing more than "it just happened by miraculous chance!" Ah, the wonders of science!

Science isn't based on miracles happening. That's the exclusive ballpark of creationism

Lets make it simple: (Macro) Evolution requires information gain within the genetic code. Information gain does not happen, nor is it logical that it would happen. Therefore, evolution as macroevolution is not observed because it will never be observed because it just isn't going to happen, nor has it ever happened.

Gene duplications via transposon, retrotransposon, non-homologous recombination, chromosomal duplication, and polyploidy all add "information" to the genome.
(Klug, W. and M. Cummings, 2005. Essentials of Genetics. Fifth Ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall)

And on a side note: in your article there are straw man arguments, arguments from personal incredulity and arguments non sequitur, yet you call your article 'The fallacies of evolution'. Did you feel like being ironic?

Anonymous said...

"When you boil down what is said, it comes to nothing more than "it just happened by miraculous chance!" Ah, the wonders of science!"

Radar, it boils down to natural processes. Wonders of science indeed, as this has been a successful way to explore our world scientifically; as it was practiced even by the various non-atheist scientists you are fond of listing.

What you and other YECs are fond of referring to as "luck" or "chance" is simply a synonym for "absence of conscious outside control". Exclaiming that it is due to "luck" or "chance" (an argument from incredulity fallacy, as it happens) may serve to make something sound ridiculous to the uninformed and on a very superficial level, but it has no substance.

You might as well pretend that the only explanation that science has for, say, a thunderstorm is "luck"; claiming that would be just as silly and wrong; perhaps even you can recognize in such an example that of course science does have explanations for the natural processes behind the weather.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Evolutionists don't want a discussion, they want to shut up the opposition. Could it be because they don't feel confident in an actual debate?" (Radar in a previous post)

So, uh, Radar, don't you feel like joining in the debate? Plenty of questions on the floor. (Aside from the open questions here, there's a bunch in the Ice Man post as well; if it's inconvenient for you to click your way over there, I'll gladly put them up again.)

No need to run away just because we showed up, is there?

-- creeper

radar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
radar said...

Lets make it simple: (Macro) Evolution requires information gain within the genetic code. Information gain does not happen, nor is it logical that it would happen. Therefore, evolution as macroevolution is not observed because it will never be observed because it just isn't going to happen, nor has it ever happened.

Gene duplications via transposon, retrotransposon, non-homologous recombination, chromosomal duplication, and polyploidy all add "information" to the genome.
(Klug, W. and M. Cummings, 2005. Essentials of Genetics. Fifth Ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall)

~

Why do you call that "adding" information? If I shuffle a deck of cards, I am not adding cards to the deck. Change is not necessarily addition.

radar said...

Macroevolution is not seen in the fossil record. This is an old argument. Virtually any fossil ever found is found to be a fully developed animal and multiple specimens in various forms are found. Evolutionists used to decry the lack of transitional forms but that has gone out of vogue. They now claim that some of the fossils we have dug up are transitional forms, although you cannot make a conclusive case for even one of them.

For evolution to be true there would have to be transitional forms all over the place. But, beyond that, since the fossil record is a record of catastrophism, it supports a YEC point of view much better anyway.

radar said...

"For example: who says matter came from non-matter?"

Okay, if it isn't matter, it is non-matter. You have a third choice in mind?


"Aside from the fact that the theory of evolution is supported by scientific observation and is subject to testable predictions (which are routinely confirmed)"

How can you say that? You cannot go back to observe it happening in the past and you certainly can't show it happening today.

And, yes, abiogenesis is crucial, whether you wish to face up to it or not. In order for life to have developed randomly into a living things today, it had to have a start. If God created, there is no need for evolution as an explanation for anything. If not, then evolution must explain the beginning. My explanation for life has a beginning. Where is yours?


"Why is that, Radar? You tell me. If creationism is right, the absolute truth, why not simply present the evidence undoubtedly readily available? Why not use a positive approach, instead of always the negative one. It seems that creationists really NEED evolution for their case.
And also, in case you didn't realise: even if evolution were somehow proven wrong, that doesn't necessarily prove creationism right. So please stop the mist-spraying and FUD-tactics and come up with the positive evidence."

Some people read selectively, since I both posit against evolution and for creation. I have given (positive) explanations concerning the flood, the fossil record, the ark, rapid speciation after the flood, evidences for the Biblical account in Genesis in the writings of early man, records and art and observations of dinosaurs in centuries past...just a few examples.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Radar just deleted a comment by him and my response to it.

Care to comment, Radar?


-- creeper

radar said...

I deleted a comment by me because I hit the button before it was finished, and then resent. It was only my comment, and I went ahead and reposted it correctly right away. Where do you see that I deleted anything of yours?

Anonymous said...

Radar,

My mistake. I thought the deleted comment here was the one you put up in the other post (re. the 11%).

My apologies for any inconvenience caused.

-- creeper

Taxandrian said...

Why do you call that "adding" information? If I shuffle a deck of cards, I am not adding cards to the deck. Change is not necessarily addition.

I gave you a source to consult. Did you actually read the book or did you just look up the terms on google and decided you already knew what the source said?
Just out of curiosity: could you give me some evidence or a scientific source which proves that macroevolution requires information to be added to the genetic code? Thank you.

They now claim that some of the fossils we have dug up are transitional forms, although you cannot make a conclusive case for even one of them.

Just some fun link for you to check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

But, beyond that, since the fossil record is a record of catastrophism, it supports a YEC point of view much better anyway.

Yet, whether you like it or not, these fossils ARE there. So, if evolution is wrong, creationism will have to have an explanation for these fossils, and place the information they provide in a scientifically correct framework. So, Radar, here's your chance to give some positive evidence for creationism. Show me a fossil, let's say from a dinosaur, because evolution and creationism's opinions on dinosaurs are quite different, and show me the dating method used on it that determines its age. Also, show me the evidence that the dating methods used to determine its age are more reliable than the dating methods used by 'evolutionists'. Should be a piece of cake, if creationism is right.

My explanation for life has a beginning. Where is yours?

I gave you the names of two scientists who have done a great deal of work in the field of abiogenesis. Did you consult their work, or did you regard it to be of no importance or even wrong before even looking at it?

Some people read selectively, since I both posit against evolution and for creation.

You didn't answer my question: if creationism is right and evolution is wrong, why even post against evolution? You shouldn't need to, it would be a waste of time if there was plenty of evidence for creationism. So again: why the FUD-attacks on evolution?

radar said...

"Why do you call that "adding" information? If I shuffle a deck of cards, I am not adding cards to the deck. Change is not necessarily addition."

I gave you a source to consult. Did you actually read the book or did you just look up the terms on google and decided you already knew what the source said?
Just out of curiosity: could you give me some evidence or a scientific source which proves that macroevolution requires information to be added to the genetic code? Thank you.


I did reference this online, although I sure didn't go out and buy the book! These are discussions concerning transpostions, duplications, rearrangements, retentions, losses...all rearrangements of the existing DNA code, but no new information being added. Just as I had said.

By the way, a positive creationist post sounds great, I will do one not later than Friday! Maybe even a preliminary tonight.

Taxandrian said...

...all rearrangements of the existing DNA code, but no new information being added. Just as I had said.

OK, so could you pretty please point me to the scientific evidence that proves that information to be added to the genetic code is an absolute necessity for macroevolution to occur? Again, thanks in advance.

By the way, a positive creationist post sounds great, I will do one not later than Friday! Maybe even a preliminary tonight.

That's nice to hear, and I'm looking forward to it. But, uhm, Radar...you did it again: you didn't explain to me why you so often feel the need to attack, ridicule and demonize the Evolution Theory and those who accept it. I'm really curious about this and maybe your answer may help me understand why, for instance, sites like Answers in Genesis feel the need to do the same thing. Thanks in advance.

Mazement said...

These are discussions concerning transpostions, duplications, rearrangements, retentions, losses... all rearrangements of the existing DNA code, but no new information being added. Just as I had said.

Why can't we add information through a combination of duplication and mutation?

Here's a simple example. Suppose there's a gene that creates a protein X that performs two different vital functions, A and B. Eventually it'll mutate to the point where it's as good as it can get...there might be mutations to make "A" more effective, but they'll stop "B" from working and we need both of them.

Now, suppose that gene gets duplicated. We'll call the new gene Y and it starts out as identical to X. At some point, X might get the mutation that makes "A" more effective. "B" doesn't stop working, because Y is still taking care of that function. In fact, Y might get a mutation that makes "B" work better but stops "A" from working.

So before we had a gene that performed two functions poorly, but now we have two genes that perform both functions well. If that's actually possible, then doesn't that count as a creation of information?

Now, how can we tell if that's actually happened? The nice thing is that it's possible to investigate it!

If our genes had been intelligently created, then we'd expect the creator to be able to look at all the possible DNA sequences and use the best ones. Genes with different functions would have completely different DNA.

But if modern genes evolved from older genes, then they'd tend to be arranged in "families". Two genes with different functions might have DNA that was surprisingly similar, or we might see genes that were similar to fragments of two unrelated genes stuck together.

I'm not sure what the current state of research is, though. This might be a good project for creationist scientists.

Anonymous said...

"For example: who says matter came from non-matter?"

Okay, if it isn't matter, it is non-matter. You have a third choice in mind?


Not a third choice. What I was getting at was why you ask how matter originated from non-matter if you don't even know that matter originated from non-matter.


"Aside from the fact that the theory of evolution is supported by scientific observation and is subject to testable predictions (which are routinely confirmed)"

How can you say that? You cannot go back to observe it happening in the past and you certainly can't show it happening today.


I covered this in extensive detail in a recent comment on one of your posts. Do you not read the comments on your blog? Again, I recommend co.mments.com to you and any readers on this blog; it is a very handy way to keep of any online discussions you participate in.

I'll dig it up anyway and repost it.

"And, yes, abiogenesis is crucial, whether you wish to face up to it or not."

Abiogenesis is not crucial for the theory of evolution to be true, since the theory of evolution is completely compatible with God having created life to begin with.

It's entirely possible for God to have created life and set the process of evolution in motion. If you believe that God created nature (and perhaps you don't...), why do you consider nature to be anti-God?

"In order for life to have developed randomly into a living things today, it had to have a start."

Yes, it had to have a start, but it is irrelevant whether that start occurred due to natural processes or due to God creating it. Hence, even if you believe that God created life, that is not an argument against the theory of evolution.

"If God created, there is no need for evolution as an explanation for anything."

If God created, that still is not an explanation of the processes by which life evolved. The theory of evolution offers such an explanation.

"If not, then evolution must explain the beginning. My explanation for life has a beginning. Where is yours?"

Your explanation for life does not provide a scientific explanation of how it happened, hence you have a religious explanation, but not a scientific one. In that regard, mainstream science is at least approaching a scientific explanation of this process, while creation scientists are incapable of even approaching such an explanation.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

""Aside from the fact that the theory of evolution is supported by scientific observation and is subject to testable predictions (which are routinely confirmed)"

How can you say that? You cannot go back to observe it happening in the past and you certainly can't show it happening today."


Okay, here is my previous comment on this subject:

(From "Creation versus Evolution - Basics revisited)

Operational Science - "operational science is the nuts-and-bolts of science. The scientific method is a staple of operational science, in which:

*a problem or question is addressed with a hypothesis
*a test is devised that tests the hypothesis
*if successful, the test is repeated several times and ways to see if the results are consistent
*if still successful, now we have a valid theory
*if the theory withstands further testing and is accepted by the scientific community as consistently true, it becomes a law."


Two points about your operational science vs. historical science bit (which I note has made the rounds in creationist circles with the same gaping flaws as your argument) and especially about your erroneous claim that the theory of evolution is not subject to testing or observation:

a. It is correct that, with any historical science, we cannot go back in time and find out 100% exactly what happened exactly when. We are indeed unable to observe directly with our own eyes events that lie in the past – but that does not mean that what you refer to as historical science in this context is not subject to the scientific method in an attempt to get as close to an objective truth as possible.

We cannot perform experiments in the sense of devising an experiment, physically going into a lab and performing the experiment. We can, however, use the scientific method and construct (and test) falsifiable hypotheses as follows:

* a hypothesis is stated
* a test is devised that tests the hypothesis: in this case, not a lab experiment, but a testable prediction – a prediction of what will and will not be found, because the “lab” of the archaeologist is our whole world, and the “experiments” are digs
* if successful, the test is repeated several times and ways to see if the results are consistent
* if still successful, now we have a valid theory

For example, archaeologists in different parts of the world find fossils in different layers, allowing them to construct a rough timeline of what kind of fossils are found in which layers. Using radiometric dating, they can say that one layer in one location is the same age as another layer in another location. These are observations.

This allows them to form a picture of what kind of creatures lived at the same time, as well as before and after each other. From this they can form a hypothesis, say, that a certain creature evolves over time.

From this, they can then construct a testable prediction, for example that if there were creatures that looked like X in one layer and there are creatures that looked like Z in another layer, that it is likely that we would find a transitional species Y in a layer that is dated by independent means to a time between the other two layers. (Note that such a prediction would confirm their hypothesis and falsify YEC, since especially the flood model offers no plausible explanation for the available data.)

Now, instead of heading into a lab and throwing some chemicals into a petridish (though more about that later), the scientists’ “test” is the next dig. They consistently find fossils that match the current understanding of the phylogenetic tree and the overall timeline. As they flesh out this model, there are occasional minor adjustments, but never anything that calls the entire model into question.

The current scientifically accepted timeline was constructed in exactly this way, with many successive “tests” and predictions. (Tiktaalik is a good example of this.) Every time a new dig is started, scientists can predict with great certainty what kinds of fossils in general they will and will not find in each layer. That is not to say they won’t find new information (which is why they’re digging, after all), but it will not be information that fundamentally contradicts the current modern synthesis.

Such predictions, by the way, universally elude creation science. Creation science has not come up with any consistent (and consistently confirmed) theory that explains why fossils are layered in predictable ways and in line with the phylogenetic tree. (Come to think of it, that was yet another question you were running away from a lot last year.)

Tiktaalik, for example, was found when scientists were looking to fill in a part of the phylogenetic tree for which they did not yet have a fossil. They used a combination of dating methods and previous fossil finds of creatures both preceding and succeeding Tiktaalik to predict where such a fossil would be likely to be found – and found it.

Such a (successful) prediction is one of many confirmations of the theory of evolution. Now, according to creation science, such a prediction should be impossible. And yet it was made and confirmed. You draw your own conclusions. If you have a logical explanation, by all means present it; if your only response is that “it’s just a matter of opinion”, then you’re conceding the logical argument.


b. While creation science may be a purely historical (and speculative) science, the theory of evolution also covers genetics, biology etc. so actually there is no shortage of “going into a lab and doing an experiment” work as well. When hypothesizing, for example, that certain taxonomic groups split from each other at some point in the past, this can be observed not just in the fossil record, but also in a comparison of their DNA. (Yet another confirmation of the theory of evolution for which creation science offers no explanation.) See www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html”>this article for an example.

Creation science offers no research in this regard (again, because it is incapable of offering testable predictions). It only says that DNA is amazingly complex and must therefore be designed, and that’s where the matter rests.


”It is important to emphasize that, in operational science, experimentation can yield results that can serve to more or less "prove" or "disprove" a hypothesis.”

Again, while hypotheses and theories may be “disproven”, they are never “proven”, merely confirmed. “Proofs” happen in mathematics.


”Sadly, the world doesn't understand this and many people believe that evolution, which is not even a testable theory, is a proven fact.”

Not only is the theory of evolution a testable theory, it is a tested theory. You’ve been arguing on this subject for years – would it kill you to read a mainstream text on the subject so you can argue your case more effectively?


”So please understand that in the realm of historical science, particularly in the world of creation science versus evolution science, it is all about the interpretation of evidence, period. One must simply decide for oneself which model fits the evidence best in one's own opinion.”

... bearing in mind that the theory of evolution makes testable falsifiable predictions (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ ) that are routinely confirmed, while creation science is incapable of offering such a thing. I guess it’s up to your opinion which of these two you would consider the more sound science.

Or could you name any falsifiable predictions that creation science could offer, Radar?