Evolutionists: What do you think?

Question

about this article

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

Answer 1

Evolutionists will hate it because it shows that evolution is a philosphical idea not supported by the evidence.

True science refutes the evolutionary hogwash we are bombarded with.

Evolution is easily refuted.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/

It is a common ploy of evolutionists to claim that they are 'scientific' and anyone who disagrees with evolution is 'religious'. This is completely false. Evolution is really the religion of atheism, and evolutionists dismiss any anit-evolution sentiment a priori. That is not a scientific approach.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see Dawkins actually debate the evidence with a creationist instead of making ad hominem vitriolic, religious (atheistic) -inspired attacks!

Answer 2

It's the same argument they've always made about "irreducible complexity." Now, instead of looking at a marvelous organ like the eye and saying it could not be the product of the "blind watchmaker" of natural selection, they are looking at the genetic level at DNA and basically saying that this massive amount of encoded information must be God's way of writing our programming, because it is so huge and complicated that evolution (or, as they love to accuse, mere "accident") could never come up with it. They've taken a few quotes from people prominent in fields of computers or biotech and run with the quotes, giving them the spin of this argument.

They'll have to forgive us evolutionists if we do not see this challenge as a "crisis"! The same answers we used to provide about the processes that slowly, incrementally shaped phenotype are enough to answer how "programming" (an imperfect word that seems to imply a programmer) arose in genotype.

Not only that, but the paragraph on DNA as the language of information and the comparison to Homer's Iliad actually seems to stumble across Richard Dawkins' revolutionary idea that the purpose of bodies is to be the vehicles of their genes!

Admittedly, we don't have every piece of this puzzle yet. An experiment that would prove that this was possible by chance would take a lab the size of a world and billions of years of time.

Answer 3

So many problems. First thing, the term Evolutionist is a derogatory term used by Creationist and Christians to bash those folks that agree with evolution fact and theory.

Second, this article was published in June 2005, in the two years sense, those arguments put forth by those folks writing that article, have been well put to rest. Once again the people of religion have no business attempting to be biologist. You don't see scientist telling Christians how to be good Christians, or bad, for that matter.

I am a biologist, evolution is fact to me. That it is plain and simple.

Answer 4

First: Any article that uses the words "evolutionist" or "Darwinian" when referring to a person is automatically putting itself several hundred logic points in the hole.

It is an ad hominem argument, a form of logical fallacy in which one attacks the proponent of an argument, rather than the argument itself. The fact that the labels are also inaccurate merely adds to the lack of credibility.

As the 'arguments' themselves:

The fact that DNA replicates relatively error free is not necessarily indicative of intelligent design. The structure and method of replication of the molecule provides this feature by its very nature. How often can you zip and unzip your zipper without error? If you press your finger into soft clay, how many perfect replications of your fingerprints can you make? There's nothing magical about this ability, or anything that requires intelligence to drive it.

As for the 'quality' of the information in bacteria. The article is incorrect. Many bacteria and viruses only use RNA, which is less efficient than DNA, and more prone to coding errors. In fact, it provides a good transitional form for the formation of DNA as the primary genetic inheritance molecule.

So, basically, the article is logically flawed, and factually incorrect.

Other than that, I suppose it's OK.

Answer 5

Biased like you wouldn't believe.

Would you believe it if a tobacco executive told you cigarettes were healthy? Of course not!!

So don't get your science from those out to "prove" something.

Always get all your information about anything from an unbiased, unpaid source.

****dude Gilberto: Open your mind for a second. No one says you have to stop believing in creation. God is all powerful, right? We did not come from a rock. No one EVER claimed that. How does one organism multiply? Mitosis. Why are there fossils on mountains? Plate tectonics and crustal upheaval and mountain building. I believe in the creator God, but I also believe in evolution. You can do both. You just can't put so much stock in a book written by men.

Answer 6

The article is biased in the extreme. For example the suggestion that a high percentage of scientists are now questioning evolution is patently false. The truth is that virtually all scientists accept evolution, and new evidence is being found for evolution almost every day as connections and relationships between species are identified.

It is the cornerstone for understanding the amazing variety of species, and it can be easily demonstrated to be the most logical explanation for how species diversified.

Answer 7

Cool

Answer 8

It's a creationist website. They have their own agenda. And it's not science.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istxUVBZD2s

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKdfeP1sGIg

Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_o1GxgNMQ

Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc

Part 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzDYVFa1TR0

Part 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg

Part 11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttnU8Tbwtd0

Answer 9

I think evolutionists are the weirdest people on the earth!!

Why?

please tell me how i came from a rock..

evolution said there was not a giant flood across the world please tell me why we found fish fossils on tops of mountains??

i mean tell me how if we came from ONE organism how did it multiply??

Answer 10

They are revolutionists!