Errors in Science!

"The idea that man evolved from an ape type creature makes me wonder why all of those apelike cratures did'nt evolve into man and extiguish apes... Not only that but if something evolves from one kind into another what is the purpose surved by continueing the kind from which the new kind was evolved from?"

Gold Dragon has answered you, I know, but if I may be allowed a follow up.

Species are generally adapted for some niche. That niche may be broad or narrow. But often, a population will split to exploit a new niche. In that case, the older species is still well adapted for the life it has been living while the new species is well adapted for a slightly different set of circumstances.

Again, a very simplified explanation, but hopefully one that helps.

A generalization can also be observed. According to theory, mammals and birds evolved from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians and amphibians from lobe-finned fish. You can easily observe that each of these groups still have living examles, so it is not part of the theory that the old goes away when the new evolves. Second, you should be able to see that each of these groups exploit different niches in the world's ecosystem, so that might make the first paragraph make a little more sense. Finally, and more subtlely, you may notice that even the oldest of these, the fish, have continued to adapt to life in the water, exploiting different niches and changing with time. So even the ancestor species can continue to adapt and survive going down a different path than the other descendents.

 

Hi UTEOTW. I'm curious, what type of research are you involved in?

 

Hi!

I do clean coal research. Take coal, burn it with about 1/3 of the air needed to completely combust it. This way you take part of the energy of the coal and use it to turn the rest of the coal into a gaseous fuel (gasification) similar to a weak natural gas. Clean the pollutants out. And then burn the gas in a gas turbine similar to the way natural gas is used. You, hopefully, end up with a system that is cleaner, more efficient and cheaper than normal coal combustion. It is also carbon sequestation ready because of the high presures.

I am a chemical engineer by training. But you might notice that I am interested in a wide variety of things. Maybe not proficient, but interested.

 

Very cool. With the coal demands of China and India and hopefully an improvement on emmissions laws in those countries as they grapple with some of the worst pollution in the world, there is definitely a market for this.

 

You can thank Dr. Atanasoff who as a faculty member at Iowa State University for the computer.

 

I guess this doesn't directly address this point, but I believe one of my most "spiritual" experiences in my studies of the sciences was my fourth year embryology course where I was able to see how many things could go wrong during those few months and how miraculous each healthy baby is. It gave whole new meaning to these verses.

While ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny is now rejected, a relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny is not.

 

If that were the case, protons, neutrons and electrons and most molecules are also not observed. X-rays, CTs and MRIs are also the energy of something being detected by an instrument and using that to indirectly form an image.

Fortunately, science includes indirect observation as data. </font>[/QUOTE]You make my point very well. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok. If your point was that quarks are just as observable as protons, neutrons, electrons, X-Rays, CTs and MRIs ... then that is great.

 

Sorry to jump in this thread so late! I hope you don't mind, OldRegular, but I had some questions.

Those are some interesting claims and I'd like to see your sources for them, if you don't mind. Are you denying the presence of (what appear to be) vestegial structures during ontogeny?

Also, I think it's rather silly to keep mention the Piltdown man as if it were evidence against evolution theory. If a Creationist was revealed to be a fraud would it be evidence against creationism?

 

An error that was corrected by other scientists challenging its claims. This is science at work.

It is unfortunate that some textbook writers still mention this theory without including the fact that it is now rejected. I would guess those textbooks get a lot more wrong than simply the current status of recapitulation theory.

 

Well, have fun with that. I just hope you keep in mind what others have already said in this thread: science isn't supposed to be perfect. It's an ongoing process.

 

You can thank Dr. Atanasoff who as a faculty member at Iowa State University for the computer. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually I think the ancient Chinese had a computer, or was it a calculator, it just wasn't as fast. </font>[/QUOTE]If calulators and computers came from abacuses, why do we still have abacuses?

 

No I don't know what you are talking about. I don't believe you do either. That is unless you are arguing that Hoyle is infallible, which makes him a god doesn't it!

We have two possibilities, either an eternal God or eternal matter. You can believe whichever you choose. You might even be able to delude yourself into believe both.

Scripture teaches that eternal God created all that exists.

The naturalists believed that matter is eternal and something happened. One current theory is the so-called Big Bang. Of course older theories are totally different.

In any event the naturalist theory cannot be reconciled with Scripture no matter how hard one might try. </font>[/QUOTE]I know you don't know what you are talking about!

Hoyle is one of the leading scientists. If a person believes in eternal mass he cannot believe in the Big Bang. The Big Bang refutes the idea of eternal mass.

I believe in an eternal God who created the universe out of nothing. The Big Bang is merely science's inexact description of what God did. When God spoke the universe into existence, there was a Big Bang! One ordered and governed by Him! It was not purposeless or accidental. The Big Bang that God caused was designed by Him!

When Hoyle admits that the Big Bang implies a universe out of nothing he agrees with Genesis 1:1. But Hoyle, a scientific naturalist, could'nt handle the implications of the Big Bang and proposed the Steady State Theory instead. That the universe always existed. But of course he has since been proven wrong.

It is obvious that you do not understand the implications of the Big Bang, because if you did, you would know that it comports with Scripture in opposition to scientific naturalists who believe that matter is all that there is and that it has always existed. Because to allow for the Big Bang is to open the door for God!

 

No I don't know what you are talking about. I don't believe you do either. That is unless you are arguing that Hoyle is infallible, which makes him a god doesn't it!

We have two possibilities, either an eternal God or eternal matter. You can believe whichever you choose. You might even be able to delude yourself into believe both.

Scripture teaches that eternal God created all that exists.

The naturalists believed that matter is eternal and something happened. One current theory is the so-called Big Bang. Of course older theories are totally different.

In any event the naturalist theory cannot be reconciled with Scripture no matter how hard one might try. </font>[/QUOTE]I know you don't know what you are talking about!

Hoyle is one of the leading scientists. If a person believes in eternal mass he cannot believe in the Big Bang. The Big Bang refutes the idea of eternal mass.

I believe in an eternal God who created the universe out of nothing. The Big Bang is merely science's inexact description of what God did. When God spoke the universe into existence, there was a Big Bang! One ordered and governed by Him! It was not purposeless or accidental. The Big Bang that God caused was designed by Him!

When Hoyle admits that the Big Bang implies a universe out of nothing he agrees with Genesis 1:1. But Hoyle, a scientific naturalist, could'nt handle the implications of the Big Bang and proposed the Steady State Theory instead. That the universe always existed. But of course he has since been proven wrong.

It is obvious that you do not understand the implications of the Big Bang, because if you did, you would know that it comports with Scripture in opposition to scientific naturalists who believe that matter is all that there is and that it has always existed. Because to allow for the Big Bang is to open the door for God! </font>[/QUOTE] Great post Paul33.

 

"One of the biggest errors of science?? is that ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY. What this means is that the embryonic development of every animal or plant individually passes through the same stages through which the ancestral forms of the organism passed. But perhaps it was just another hoax by the evolutionists, you know, like the Piltdown man."

How can you count as an "Error in Science" somehting that is not even accepted by science?

There was once a time when this was erroneously thought to be true. But science, working as it normally does, overturned this idea as more information was collected and better theories applied. Science is self correcting and tends to remove such problems.

But there is an important and related concept here. Ontogeny IS an important area of sceince. Let's explain.

One is so called evo/devo or evolution and development. While it is not true that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny it is true that development steps can shed light on how things likely evolved. Feathers are a good example.

A more important aspect has to do with how various species go through very similar stages of development. Let's give two exmples.

First, let's take something that is usually thrown out about now when trying to describe this as an error. Let's look at pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches. Often YEers count this as an error and throw out Haeckel and mention something about an erroneous assertion about humans going through a development stage with gills like a fish. But this is actually a good example of shared development indicating common ancestry. In fish, the pharyngeal pouches do become the gills and the arches become the jaws in jawed fish. Now in mammals, these same structures become parts that evolved from the gills and jaws of fish. Namely parts such as the eustachian tube, middle ear, tonsils, parathyroid, and thymus. Cases such as this are a small part of the evidence for common descent. There is not another compelling theory on why early devolopment should be so closely shared with the same structures giving rise to different tissues in different species in a way that matches how the structures are thought to have evolved.

The second example has to do with vestigal development structures. For example, whales and snakes both go through a developmental stage in which they form cute little legs with cute little toes that are later reabsorbed before birth. Occasionally, animals will be born with atavistic versions of the legs with the developmental process to remove them does not function so well. Whales, for example, have been observed with legs with all the long bones present and formed. Again, there is not a compelling competitive theory on why these vestigal developmental stages and occasional atavisms should be present.