The Anti-Evolutionists Are Crippled By Questions That Undermine Their Entire Case

Thanks to Pro. Pro states that I made an error, but I would ask that he clarify as I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to.LenskiI would suggest that Pro take a look at how long those hoaxes were taught before they were realized. In the case of Piltdown Man, it was taught for 40 years before the truth came out, that is anything but a "quick removal" [5]. Although Haeckel's fraud was discovered in 1873, his drawings and false claims still appear in textbooks 140 years after the fraud was discovered [6]. Secondly, it's not surprising that a layman on a web site would not handle a situation well, however we do have a right to expect that information that is being taught to our kids has been researched, and verified as accurate, before it appears in the textbooks and classrooms. That is the difference between Schlaffley's error, and the scientific hoaxes. Kids and the public were not taught blatantly false material, and taxpayer dollars did not go to putting Schlaffley's opinions in the classroom. The public has a right to expect more from the scientific community than we do from some guy on a web site. Pro seems to be bothered by the "ignorance" from Lenski's critic, but he seems unconcerned about the blatant lies and fraud perpetrated by those on his side of the fence. What's worse, blatant fraud or ignorance??In my forum comments about Lenski's experiment, I was talking about the "genetic potentiality" for an attribute, not just potential in the normal use of the word. If an attribute of an organism is controlled by its genome, then there must be a genetic reason behind the existence of that attribute. In other words, the organism must have the "genetic potential" to display the attribute. Lenski himself admits that is true, saying that, "Proteins do not appear out of the blue" [7]. In Lenski's experiment, it appears that a mutation restructured the sequences of amino acids or proteins into a combination that allowed for another mutation which gave the microbes a new attribute, the ability to use a new food source, thus showing an example of potentiating mutations.[8] I find it perfectly plausible that a mutation of the existing genome can produce the potentiality for a new attribute, thus there is no reason for me to doubt that Lenski acheived exactly what his reports claimed. His findings are also consistent with my claim that the genetic potentiality for the attribute existed within the genome of that organism. Pro accuses me of "hand-waiving", and applies an analogy of humans drinking poison. However, I'm not using any kind of excuse to cover anything up, I'm using good sound well-known scientifically supported reasoning to agree that Lenski's findings are perfectly reasonable. I disagree with Pro that Lenski's experiment is proof of common descent. It is proof of an organism's ability to adapt to its environment, if the genetic potentiality exists for a beneficial attribute. This is not evidence to support the claim that a microbe can evolve into a more complex type of organism. If Pro has any further questions about this I will be happy to address them. Pro claims there is a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 gives the creation account, in a broad sense, speaking of the universe and the earth, in general terms. Genesis 2 is a more specific re-telling, focusing specifically on the Garden of Eden. There is no contradiction.[9]God said, "Let there be light". That means that there was some light source that existed prior to creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Plants needed only to survive overnight, as they were created on the 3rd day, and the sun on the 4th [10]. If Pro is claiming this as a scientific contradiction, then I ask that he provide the scientific evidence that proves that there was no temporary light source, as the Bible says. Doubt or disbelief does not equate to a contradiction of scientific evidence.Pro presents a wiki page and claims that evidence for common descent is unbelievably strong. I agree with the "unbelievable" part, as I have yet to see evidence that supports the claim that all life descended from a microbe. I do not have room to debate all the claims made on a wiki page, so if Pro would like to make a specific argument from a credible scientific source, I would be happy to address it.My objections to CD do not come from an "ancient holy book", though I certainly believe that book. My objections are scientifically based. In fact I rarely bring up the Bible, except to say that observable science supports the Biblical claim that kinds bring forth after their kind. That too is a valid scientific objection because that is indeed what we observe in the real world every single day. It is usually my opponents who bring up the Bible, as in this debate I was asked a question which required Biblical justification. BiasPro's subjective use of the word "supernatural"[11], and it's obvious reference to God, is unfortunate in light of the fact that he ignores the supernatural elements of his own position. When you understand that science seeks to understand the natural world and how it works, you understand that science can only explain that which lends itself to an explanation through natural processes. If one understands that much then one should also be able to see that science has limitations when looking to origins of the universe, and the origins of biological life. Those origins are not something that we see in our natural world, thus are by definition, supernatural occurrences. Supernatural occurrences do not lend themselves to a valid scientific method. They cannot be experimented with, repeated, or falsified. Our origins cannot be adequately explained, and scientifically validated, through natural processes, given our current knowledge. Therefore, our origins are currently outside the realm of science, by any rational definition of the word, and the issue of origins remains a purely philosophical battle, with one side (evolutionists) slowly failing in its attempt to misappropriate science as a weapon. Simply having a "scientific theory" does not give you a scientifically valid answer for how we got here. A theory in science is essentially a collection of various peices of evidence, combined to tell a story about some aspect of our universe. That story can be wrong even though it has the right evidence. How one interprets the evidence is where bias enters the equation. Contrary to Pro's opinion, I do understand what science is, and I understand his position against theological thinking in science. I agree that understanding how our natural world works requires focusing on purely natural processes. Where I disagree is passing off unsupported claims as actual science, ignoring conflicting and absent evidence that is critical to the "theory", while portraying all dissenters as ignorant buffoons even if they are legitimate scientists. Pro lists his source as proof that scientific consesus can be overturned with solid evidence, but all his source shows is examples of people who provided "evidence" that is pro-evolution. What they provided deals with HOW evolution occurred, not IF it occurred. Anyone who questions whether an unneccessary degree of bias exists in fields related to CD doesn't have a good knowledge of the issue. Why hasn't evolution been exposed yet? I believe I have already answered this question. Evolution HAS been exposed, and that information exists but it is not advertised and marketed by the pro-evolutionary crowd. The information is slowly getting out, but if you wait for it to be proclaimed on talkorigins, or the NCSE sites, you'll be waiting awhile. There are scientists who do not support CD and it only takes one to be right, so to claim that because it isn't accepted by the entire scientific community is nothing more than an appeal to majority. If Pro was willing to examine both sides, he would realize that there is more than what he'll find on his skeptic sites.Back to you.