Creation vs Evolution, the science of origin

Printable View

June 4th, 2007, 06:07 PM
anthson

Creation vs Evolution, the science of origin

Quote:

Originally posted by Snrrub
I have read them all, and while I'm not an expert in every scientific field in question, nor am I an expert in Biblical interpretation (read: Biblical rationalization), I can say that many of them seem to be very valid.

Yet I've plainly displayed for you how you lack even basic knowledge of the very scriptures you criticize. I even pointed out for you how some of your attacks were just flat wrong (no response from you. Still waiting).

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
Anthson, this statement right here is why I seldom get into debates with Christians. The idea that a crocodile went from a herbivore to a carnivore in a couple of thousand years is so opposed to any scientific works I have studied that we might as well come from different planets.

You know, I will admit right here of something I am unsure of. I have to study it before I can give a conclusion, but every reference to eating meat pre-flood that I've studied talks about mammal flesh. It's possible scripture may detail (or allow for the possibility) that marine life ate fish. I don't think that would be the case, but again, it's worth going over Genesis again. However, you haven't provided any specifics as to why it's supposedly impossible for a meat-eater to eat veggies. Keep in mind organisms were biologically different in some ways due to pre-flood atmospheric conditions, though they were roughly the same creatures (save for size. They were a whole LOT bigger and lived longer). If you want to discuss the science, I'm game.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
You say that you studied and rejected other beliefs systems. I wonder, considering your age, how you could have rejected geology, the biological sciences, chemistry and physics in fewer years than it took me to just get a very basic understanding of biochemistry and genetics in my science degree.

I never said I had science degrees. What you're insinuating here is that I can't possibly understand science unless I study it all. You see this argument all the time in creation-evolution debates. The evolution science end simply stands up and declares the creation end is too dumb to understand the intricacies of science and evolution. I had 11 years of biology and science in high school where I learned the basics. If that's not enough for you, then you can just leave it at that. You can declare everything I say should be discounted because I have no college science education. If you want to continue talking about the subject, let's leave my lack of a diploma out of it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
(much as you accuse snrubb of doing)?

If Snrubb had 11 years of correct Bible study and could display the ability to even briefly check out his anti-Bible Web site's claims by reading a few lines of scripture, then I wouldn't accuse him of being intellectually dishonest. However, he didn't, so he has been. I think I've shown that beyond a doubt.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
... because when our most fundamental understandings are so different it does become impossible to understand when you are coming from

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

To be honest, science has nothing to do with evolution. Science is what we can see, test, observe, and record results about. Alternatively, I defy you to name me one scientific advancement we've had due to the theory of evolution. Give me one longer-lasting deodorant or one energy-efficient moped we've been able to give humanity because we understand great grandpa was soup. I'm not saying you're dumb to believe in evolution. It's a world view and it explains how we got here and where we're going. That's fine. Just don't call it science. It isn't.

Quote:

Originally posted by Snrrub
Do we 'fully', completely, 100%, with total certainty know exactly and precisely what light is? No. But one can say that about anything.

Flawed comparison. Here's a better one: we know very little about light compared to what we know about other things in the universe. I think it's a fair point when you're arguing that light on Earth can't exist without the sun and therefore the Bible is scientifically dumb because of that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Snrrub
What is this evidence? Even if there is some, the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence says that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old.

Why should I give you any of the evidence I know of (believe me, I have a lot)? You've just stated here that you're going to believe in evolution because the majority of scientists do. First, that's a flawed statement. Who are these scientists, who decides who gets to be a scientist, when were they all polled, and what exactly did they say? Second, I can dig you up plenty of beliefs all throughout history that were held by the majority and were dead wrong. Are you so arrogant that you think the majority, today, are the pinnacle of understanding, when all those before you have thought the same? You don't strike me as an arrogant person (I should give you lessons), but that statement smacks of elitism and I'm telling you, it's the same damn thing people of every generation have ever thought. "Yeah, those guys before were wrong, but us? We're it. We finally get it."
June 4th, 2007, 07:13 PM
Snrrub

Re: Creation vs Evolution, the science of origin

I do not have time to respond to each of these points tonight, but I'll attempt to do so tomorrow. I will say a few things briefly here, however.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
you lack even basic knowledge of the very scriptures you criticize.

As I stated, I haven't taken Bible study (and again I'll point out, I believe 'bible study' to be the process by which some abstract meaning is extracted from the bible to make it sound less absurd in face of growing contradictory scientific facts). And maybe you're right, maybe the bible is like Shakespear, you can't just read what it says on the surface but need to look at subcontext, or something. However, when the bible says something like how light was created before the stars, that reads to me something like the following.

"In the beginning, there were no cars or any vehicles of any kind. I ate a salad, and then I drove to work. At work, I built the very first car ever to exist." To me, something like that doesn't make sense. But maybe we just don't fully understand what a car is, am I right?

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson

To be honest, science has nothing to do with evolution

Except for that evolution is a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. In other words, you're wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson

Alternatively, I defy you to name me one scientific advancement we've had due to the theory of evolution.

There haven't been many practical applications of quantum chromodynamics, either. You're point is what? If you want to debate the merits of the theory of evolution, debate the scientific foundation. The theory is a combination of the process of evolution (which is fact), and natural selection. By analyzing historical data, and the properties of evolution and natural selection, scientists have put together a theoretical scenario of how tiny organisms could have evolved into complex organisms. By studying genomes, genetists have observed genetic properties in organisms that are in agreement with the theory of evolution. By the way, unlike popular catch-phrases would indicate, the theory of evolution doesn't say that monkeys evolved into humans. What it does say is that humans, apes, monkeys, and other primates probably descended from common ancestry.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson

Just don't call it science. It isn't.

Yes. It. Is. See above.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson

we know very little about light compared to what we know about other things in the universe.

We actually know a great deal more about light than other phenomena. Light is an electromagnetic wave, and electromagnetics is one of the most completely understood fields of science.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson

Why should I give you any of the evidence I know of (believe me, I have a lot)?

First, because that's what happens in a discussion. Second, personally I don't care because it's totally absurd.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
You've just stated here that you're going to believe in evolution because the majority of scientists do

I said nothing of the kind (actually, your position is the one that you just accused me of taking. I'll get to that below). I said that I believe evolution because of the majority of scientific evidence supports it, not he majority of scientists. As I've already said, evolution is a scientific theory based on scientific observations. The evidence supports the theory.

It's you, anthson, that's believing something because other people believe it. Mommy and daddy probably enrolled you in bible study, where the teacher brainwashed you into believing in the bible, etc.

As Bill Maher said to Joe Scarborough, "if you were born in Pakistan, you wouldn‘t be believing in Jesus Christ right now. You would be believing in Muhammad. So it‘s completely and terribly arbitrary, isn‘t it?"
June 4th, 2007, 07:57 PM
Jyn

First off, the acceptance of evolution and the application of evolution to research has lead to very many major breakthroughs in biology. Modern biology works on the premise that evolution is real. I don't have to give you any examples, though, for the same reason you don't think you need to give examples of evidence that the world is just a few thousand years old.

Now... as to why organisms such as crocodiles can't just switch from eating plants to animals relatively instantly in terms of existence. You do realize that creatures such as crocodiles and sharks have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years, right? Even a few thousand years back, when the world
was created (according to some), crocodiles looked exactly as they do today. Structurally, they are identical. Modern crocodiles cannot survive without meat. Prehistoric crocodiles could not survive without meat. I am not going to take the time to explain why this is true to you, since you would discount it anyway.

Evolution can and has been studied in microbes. Let me refresh some of that basic biological knowledge you learned in high school, Anthson. You see, all life consists of individual cells. There are several organisms who are simply a single cell. Then we have a few single cellular organisms who come together to form a colony. The next step is a multicellular organism. The more cells you have gathering to form this multicellular organism (generally, but not always), the larger the organism is. See how logical this is? I hope you're able to follow so far. (If you try to claim that cells don't exist or some such nonsense, I am going to go ahead and brand you as intellectually derelict.)

Given that enough nutrients are present, single cellular organisms and other microscopic critters multiply at an extremely rapid rate (relative to, say, macroscopic organisms). As a result, a given colony of microbes can create a larger total number of generations of its species over the course of a single human life than the total number of generations of humans that have ever lived. The effects of evolution -have- been observed in these microbes.

Now, let's go back to the fact that very many cells just like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph are what make you up. This process still goes on in them. What is true on the microscopic level is still true of the macroscopic. Look it up. I'm sure your high school text books will help you. I did my best to dumb this all down to your level, Anthson. I probably wouldn't be bothering with this post if it wasn't for the arrogance you have presented yourself with throughout these forums. I've figured that I'd respond in kind.

Do we finally "get it"? Is evolution finally one of the answers we've been searching for? As it stands today, probably not. There is still more to be discovered, and evolution will need to be tweaked here and there. It is the concept that is more important, and the concept is on the right track.

As you've already acknowledged that this tends to happen in another post, we've come to the part of the argument that you simply cannot understand (or maybe that was way back at the beginning).

Let me explain the difference between the systems of science and faith to you.
Have people been wrong about major things in the past? Of course, but we get closer and closer to the truth as we go on, and we correct ourselves along the way. Eventually someone got it right when they used observational evidence to determine that the Earth is round. Scientific processes and understanding are always moving forward. People who put their faith in documents that are thousands of years old are stuck in those times. If you take the bible for truth, then you believe the same superstitions found in the book that people believed when it was written. It allows for no real change. Eventually (if not already), interpretations of its text will run out. Tell me. How does it feel to be primitive?

Bible study? You basically read a book known as the bible, and then decided that it sounded like a nice thing to believe in. Evolution, despite your claims, is not a belief system. That would require faith. There is no faith in science. It is one of the most recent results of hundreds of thousands of years of humans learning about the life around them.

In another thread, Anthson, you accused your opposition of being lazy. I cannot remember if this referred to atheists in general or a more specific group. I'm too lazy to go look for it. Anyway, I would like to put forth the notion that it is actually the "faithful" who are lazy. The ideas that are put forth as being scientific are the results of work that has stretched across human existence. You read your bible and choose to believe it because all of the hard work has been done for you. All of the hard questions can only be answered by a being who is conveniently omnipotent, omniscient, etc., etc.
June 4th, 2007, 08:58 PM
anthson

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
First off, the acceptance of evolution and the application of evolution to research has lead to very many major breakthroughs in biology.

I'm sorry. I don't see any. Name me some we would not have arrived at if we did knot "know" our ancestors were soup.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Now... as to why organisms such as crocodiles can't just switch from eating plants to animals relatively instantly in terms of existence. You do realize that creatures such as crocodiles and sharks have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years, right?

How is it you're so sure of this? Sharks don't even fossilize whole. All we find are their jaws.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Evolution can and has been studied in microbes.

Turn a microbe into a tomato for me. Please. Don't call it evolution if you start out with a microbe and end up with ... A MICROBE. I understand you're observing micro evolution. I will not argue this thing, which you call evolution, happens. It does not, however, prove the Earth is millions of years old, nor does it say everything came from soup. There are several other kinds of evolution far beyond what we can observe. You seem to think that because one kind happens, the others also must happen.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Let me refresh some of that basic biological knowledge you learned in high school, Anthson.

No refresher needed. Like I said, I studied this for 11 years. I'm aware of the process that supposedly gave us the species we have today. Just because you can think up a chain from simple to complex does not mean each step along the chain came from the one before it. The major point is, you have steps along this chain where the final product is the only viable living organism. For example, the Bombardier Beetle. Get used to going over this one if you're going to debate creationists. Evolutionists love to tell how the giraffe neck evolved through natural selection so it could reach higher branches, yet they completely omit the complex blood pressure system that keeps the giraffe's brain alive all the way up there. There are so many examples of where the final product is the only viable living organism. Every step upward to it would not have survived to pass on its genetic information.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
(If you try to claim that cells don't exist or some such nonsense, I am going to go ahead and brand you as intellectually derelict.)

Uh ... yeah. There are people that don't think cells exist?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
If you take the bible for truth, then you believe the same superstitions found in the book that people believed when it was written.

You're starting with the assumption that you know the Bible is wholly untrue. However, we're not discussing the Bible. We're discussing the origin of life and the age of the Earth. The Bible really should have nothing to do with this conversation.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
You basically read a book known as the bible, and then decided that it sounded like a nice thing to believe in.

You know nothing about me or how I came to my conclusions. What on Earth makes you think you're an expert when it comes to my life and my choices? Your arrogance here is just boiling.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Evolution, despite your claims, is not a belief system. That would require faith. There is no faith in science.

Sir, evolution (other than micro-evolution, which I talked about earlier) is not science. I think I've already demonstrated science is what we can see, observe, test, and record results on. Evolution is a convenient GUESS that allows people to comfortably believe there's no creator.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
In another thread, Anthson, you accused your opposition of being lazy. I cannot remember if this referred to atheists in general or a more specific group. I'm too lazy to go look for it. Anyway, I would like to put forth the notion that it is actually the "faithful" who are lazy.

Thank you for that brilliantly stunning revelation. Is there anything else you'd like to state for the record? Your favorite color, perhaps?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
You read your bible and choose to believe it because all of the hard work has been done for you. All of the hard questions can only be answered by a being who is conveniently omnipotent, omniscient, etc., etc.

So you're basically admitting it's really hard to come up with a framework for how the world exists without God, but that what we have is the best we can do and we should go with it? Also, how do you know why I believe my Bible? Again, are you some sort of expert mind reader stalker that's been pilfering my feelings and studying my life choices for 24 years? Tell me, if you see me, and you make all sorts of wild assumptions about me because you strongly disagree with my world view ... what's to stop you from doing the same thing with something else? Something like science?

Quote:

Originally posted by Snrrub It's you, anthson, that's believing something because other people believe it. Mommy and daddy probably enrolled you in bible study, where the teacher brainwashed you into believing in the bible, etc.

Sheesh. You can cut the elitism in this topic with a KNIFE. Again, who made you the tell-all expert on my life? How do you even come CLOSE to divining that I believe something because other people believe it? Do you know the history of my parents? My youth? Do you know where I went to school or whether or not I had sex before marriage? Tell me which drugs I did in high school. I'd like a count of how many Christian friends I had.

You know nothing and your assumptions only prove to everyone how easily you jump to wild, baseless conclusions.
June 4th, 2007, 09:22 PM
Malacasta

Claim CB325:
A giraffe's heart must be quite large (it is over 24 lbs) to pump blood to the giraffe's head. A series of special one-way valves in the neck regulates blood flow, and there is a special net of elastic blood vessels at the base of the brain. Without these valves and elastic blood vessels, the blood pressure in the giraffe's head would be immense when it bends over, enough to cause brain damage. All of these features -- large heart, valves in the jugular vein, and wondernet of vessels -- must be in place simultaneously or the giraffe would die. They could not have evolved gradually.
Source:
Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (2nd ed.). Dallas, TX: Haughton, pp. 69-72.
Setterfield, Barry, 1998. Birds, beetles, and life. http://www.setterfield.org/essays/giraffe.html
Response:

1. Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.

References:

1. Darwin, Charles, 1868. Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, vol. 2, chpt. 20. London: John Murray. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...riation20.html

Further Reading:
Gould, Stephen J., 1998. The tallest tale. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Three Rivers Press, 301-318.

***
Richard Dawkins writes the following in his book, The Blind Watchmaker (Norton, New York, 1987, pp. 86-87):

Anti-evolution propaganda is full of alleged examples of complex systems that 'could not possibly' have passed through a gradual series of intermediates. This is often just another case of the rather pathetic 'Argument from Personal Incredulity' that we met in Chapter 2. Immediately after the section on the eye, for example, The Neck of the Giraffe goes on to discuss the bombardier beetle, which

"squirts a lethal mixture of hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide into the face of its enemy. These two chemicals, when mixed together, literally explode. So in order to store them inside its body, the Bombardier Beetle has evolved a chemical inhibitor to make them harmless. At the moment the beetle squirts the liquid out of its tail, an anti-inhibitor is added to make the mixture explosive once again. The chain of events that could have led to the evolution of such a complex, coordinated and subtle process is beyond biological explanation on a simple step-by-step basis. The slightest alteration in the chemical balance would result immediately in a race of exploded beetles."

A biochemist colleague has kindly provided me with a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, and enough hydroquinone for 50 bombardier beetles. I am now about to mix the two together. According to the above, they will explode in my face. Here goes...

Well, I'm still here. I poured the hydrogen peroxide into the hydroquinone, and absolutely nothing happened. It didn't even get warm. Of course I knew it wouldn't: I'm not that foolhardy! The statement that 'these two chemicals, when mixed together, literally explode', is, quite simply, false, although it is regularly repeated throughout creationist literature. If you are curious about the bombardier beetle, by the way, what actually happens is as follows. It is true that it squirts a scaldingly hot mixture of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone at enemies. But hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone don't react violently together unless a catalyst is added. This is what the bombardier beetle does. As for the evolutionary precursors of the system, both hydrogen peroxide and various kinds of quinones are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombardier beetle's ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around. That's often how evolution works.

***

This isn't my work, and can be found easily online.
June 4th, 2007, 09:52 PM
Rosuav

Re: Re: Creation vs Evolution, the science of origin

Quote:

Originally posted by Snrrub
Except for that evolution is a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. In other words, you're wrong.

Theories about the structure of the solar system (though it wasn't called "solar system" then) were scientific and based on scientific observation too, and yet there were theories that required the earth at the center and the planets moving in epicycles. These theories were disproved. That's science - not that we get it right first time, but that people are willing to challenge other people's views. And the form of that challenge has to be, in the literal sense, scientific: it has to involve observation in the here-and-now. You test a hypothesis by devising an experiment where, should your theory be true, THIS will happen, and should it be false, THAT will. That's science. There is actually no way to be scientific about the past - only about the evidence that now resides in the present.

The theory of evolution is based on a bit of scientific evidence and a bit of scientific conjecture. There's no way to test it directly, but only ways of looking at the evidence we see today.
June 4th, 2007, 09:55 PM
Snrrub

Frankly, a discussion of this nature will not only never converge to any kind of consensus, but will not even progress the slightest amount to that end. People of faith do not place a high degree of value on evidence or reason. If someone takes that as an insult that's too bad, but it's true. Faith is belief that's not based on proof.

If people want to debate evolution or the creation of the earth on purely scientific grounds, that's fine, but the necessary foundation of scientific knowledge to follow the scientific arguments is rather great. Personally, I don't want to give a week long lecture on underlying scientific principles before the debate can even begin. This is the same reason I have never started a thread on global warming. People who lack scientific knowledge will simply not understand the arguments until they are educated.

A debate on the merits of the creationist belief, or any other belief without proof is difficult, because they lack any merits to debate. Either one believes, or they do not. Evidence or reason cannot be used to endorse a viewpoint of this nature, because as soon as any evidence or reason exists, it collapses to a scientific debate, and not a spiritual one.

This will probably be my last post on the matter because I just don't think anything I can say will have even the slightest influence on anything.
June 4th, 2007, 09:59 PM
Rosuav

Both creation and evolution are theories, and one cannot PROVE either. We are on the same ground. By the nature of the human mind, we start with a theory and then look for evidence to support it.
June 5th, 2007, 12:16 AM
Jyn

You do an excellent job of filtering what you actually read and comprehend in other people's posts.

There is no point in pointing you towards the plethora of evidence that sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. You would not be able to make the logical connections necessary to arrive at an intelligent conclusion, and so you would dismiss the evidence out of hand. You also conveniently left out mentioning the crocodile, of which there is complete fossil evidence.

Turn a microbe into a tomato? Given enough time, the proper building blocks, and a proper procedure, it would be possible. That's something we're on our way to working out, but it may not happen for another 100-200 years.

You know there is a fossil record for the giraffe and its related predecessors? There is even a relative of these short-necked giraffes alive today. Also, is it really that hard for you to realize that, in any species between the giraffe and its ancestors, the "complex" blood pressure system would have adapted simultaneously? It would have started out relatively simple and then became more complex as the neck became longer.

Umm, yes. Because evolution happens in the cell/s of microbes, it happens over time in the cells that make up your body as well. What don't you understand here? Your body is nothing special in whatever sense you must think it is. It is like every other piece of organic matter on the planet. It follows all of the same rules. The only thing that really is special about it is the way it is put together. Please don't take this to mean special in any sort of sacred/spiritual/whatever way.

Your entire idea on creation stems from the bible. It is entirely appropriate to bring it up.

I am not an atheist. I don't care if there is a God or not. For all I know, humanity will eventually be able to prove whether or not God exists. Evolution is not guess that lets people live without there being a God. For all you or anyone else knows, evolution is a method by which God, if it exists, operates. As a result, you'd be stubbornly opposing something that would allow you to understand your God better. Stop treating evolution like it's a religion. I'm also not saying that it's hard to come up with a framework for existence without God. I'm simply saying that it's hard. Period. That is what we are working to find out.

You keep talking about your 11 years of biology classes. Grade school through high school? Dude, you are the one who knows nothing. Try taking a genetics class some time. Something advanced. Anything that would give you an ounce of credibility.

I could be going on about my 13 years of being a Catholic school student and having scripture pounded into me year after year. The thing is, it's as irrelevant to this conversation as your "11 years".

Is there anything else I'd like to "state for the record"? Yes. I find it amusing that you attempt to call me out on something that was a response to a comment made by you in the same spirit.

The bit about the sarcasm and elitism was also amusing, considering I had explained in my last post that this was purposefully done. Anyone else would have realized this without the need for you to point it out.

What do I know about you? It doesn't matter. If any of it was true, you probably wouldn't realize it anyway. What I do know is that you've either convinced yourself, or allowed yourself to be convinced, that a book roughly 2000 years old is a written message from God. Believing in creation simply because this book told you to without any factual evidence to back it up makes no sense. You'll notice that the farther back in time you go, the more superstitious people are. The more superstitious people are, the more active the God/s is/are in the world.

As I've said before, there is no faith in science. At the present, there is also no science in faith. Looking back on all of these threads on religion/faith/science/etc. lately, it just seems to be one of the topics everyone will just have to agree to disagree on.
June 5th, 2007, 12:28 AM
Malacasta

Talkorigins is a very useful website for those of you who wish to combat creation arguments. Every single "gotcha" I've ever seen on the threshold boards is refuted in lay terms there. For example, Rosuav's latest post is answered thusly:
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
June 5th, 2007, 01:54 AM
Savaric

Snrrub is quite the poster.
June 5th, 2007, 02:35 AM
Gaviani

The various fallacies Malacasta (accurately) describes can also be read about in the other Logical Fallacies and You thread, conveniently started by Tharzon.
June 5th, 2007, 02:42 PM
anthson

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
There is no point in pointing you towards the plethora of evidence that sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. You would not be able to make the logical connections necessary to arrive at an intelligent conclusion, and so you would dismiss the evidence out of hand. You also conveniently left out mentioning the crocodile, of which there is complete fossil evidence.

Once again, I ask you, how do you know anything about sharks from "millions of years ago" other than their jaw structure. You continually, repeatedly state you have some phantom point to make that I am too unintelligent to understand. All you're doing is harassing for the sake of being a prick. Trust me, I know from experience, It's much better to be a prick with substance than with petty little jabs.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Turn a microbe into a tomato? Given enough time, the proper building blocks, and a proper procedure, it would be possible. That's something we're on our way to working out, but it may not happen for another 100-200 years.

And when it does, it'll prove it takes a team of intelligent folks to make a tomato from a microbe. I'm not sure how that one got past you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Also, is it really that hard for you to realize that, in any species between the giraffe and its ancestors, the "complex" blood pressure system would have adapted simultaneously? It would have started out relatively simple and then became more complex as the neck became longer.

You're playing make-believe, here. You really don't know anything you're saying, you're just imagining how it happened. That's FINE, just don't call it the absolute unending truth and science. What are your reasons for the blood pressure system having evolved along with the neck? What process of natural selection causes that to happen, exactly?

And another thing, as I'm sure you learned in biology class, natural selection is a loss of genetic information. Not a gain. You lose genes when the short-necked critters die because they can't reach the leaves. You see this in dogs all the time. Through selective breeding, we've managed to get a chihuahua. In this example we're substituting a natural condition that selects for a human-preferred condition that selects. Either way, traits are being excluded from a gene pool and it works the same way. Eventually you end up with a shit-nosed rat dog. But you KNOW this is a loss of genetic information. You can never breed that dog back to Great Dane size without adding new genetic info. So tell me how this process, which has obvious limits we can test and observe, creates new genetic information? You can't, because it doesn't. You have to resort to mutations, and that's a different subject altogether.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Umm, yes. Because evolution happens in the cell/s of microbes, it happens over time in the cells that make up your body as well.

Again, how do you know this? Did you see it happen? How can you be sure the evolution you're observing doesn't have a limit to how far it can go?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Your entire idea on creation stems from the bible. It is entirely appropriate to bring it up.

Bring it up somewhere else. I never brought it up, so what's your deal?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
I'm also not saying that it's hard to come up with a framework for existence without God. I'm simply saying that it's hard. Period. That is what we are working to find out.

I thought you said it was easy when you add God and that's why creationists are lazy? If I misunderstood, please explain the real reason why creationists are lazy.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Dude, you are the one who knows nothing. Try taking a genetics class some time. Something advanced. Anything that would give you an ounce of credibility.

Again, if you want to attack the person, see ad hominem. You've already made your case for how few college classes I've taken. Why must you persist with this line of attack?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
What do I know about you? It doesn't matter. If any of it was true, you probably wouldn't realize it anyway.

Dude, you SERIOUSLY need to cut your shit. I've kept my temper and not resorted to creating new curse words or employing old ones in different contexts (see my previous achievement when I successfully turned "buttfuck" into a noun). You're not a mind reader and you know nothing about me or my life. Making broad, sweeping conclusions in an attempt to discredit and insult me personally is only going to piss me off. If that's all you came here to do, then maybe you should read up on trolling. Either way, discuss the substance or just leave.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
As I've said before, there is no faith in science. At the present, there is also no science in faith. Looking back on all of these threads on religion/faith/science/etc. lately, it just seems to be one of the topics everyone will just have to agree to disagree on.

I don't have to agree to do anything. I'm making valid points and I expect you to either concede or keep addressing them from a scientific standpoint. You seem to more often be opting for the in-between where you just stay here, stereotype my history, and insult my intelligence.
June 5th, 2007, 02:59 PM
anthson

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact.

What IS disputable is how far it can go, Malacasta. That's perfectly logical and scientific to dispute seeing as no one has ever observed it going beyond a certain point. Even some staunch, millions-of-years evolutionists will agree there is a line. I have read several of them claim the common house fly has evolved as far as it can go. I'm sure others might disagree, but a lot of scientific minds agree there is a line somewhere. I'm disputing the line. I'm challenging your logic that because we've seen evolution go five miles, that it's capable of going five billion more. Just because you see a guy driving south on I 35 for five miles doesn't automatically prove the dude's a Canadian heading for Mexico. Does my illustration help you see where I stand? By and large, I don't dispute your scientific findings. It's the conclusions I take issue with.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Can you explain one helpful mutation you've observed? I don't know of any, but I admit I don't travel around the world studying mutants. I'd like to know what you know, though. So far, all the mutations I've seen involve a harmful scrambling of genetic information -- not any helpful additions of new info. Still, if you're willing to point something out, I am more than willing to read up on it.

I'd also like to know what you think about my response to Vaer on natural selection and the loss of genetic information over time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either.

From now on, when someone asks me for proof of my faith, should I quote you on this one? Seems easier than going through all this typing I've endured. However, I don't wager anyone will take me seriously, least of which yourself.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence.

And that's exactly what I'm disputing. I, personally, think scientists have way overjumped the gun in coming to a conclusion. I have illustrated in detail some of the reasons why. What I detest is when people act like the evolutionary origin of life is as well documented and solidified as gravity (and, in Vaer's case, if only I had more scientific diplomas, I could see that).

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

I know what most common folks know, and probably a little bit more. I'm addressing that. If I'm leaving any evidence out, present it. We'll talk about it. I'd be happy to go over anything you want to bring up. I'm all ears (or ... eyes. whatever).
June 5th, 2007, 03:06 PM
Darion

I ignore most chatter about religion because I myself am impartial to the fact, provided that no one decides to give me an earful of anything against my own desire to receive said earful. That said, I skim this thread now and again and have duly noted what a cesspool it has become. Generalizations over.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaer
Your entire idea on creation stems from the bible. It is entirely appropriate to bring it up.

Originally posted by anthson
Bring it up somewhere else. I never brought it up, so what's your deal?

I take serious issue with the above because you have, in fact, brought it up. Anthson, since it's so trendy on the forums these past days, here is a wet slap of Intro Logic 101 for you: context of discovery and context of justification. Logic typically does not deal with context of discovery and is concerned only with context of justification. Here is an example:

A scientist has a dream. In this dream, he deduces some formula. He wakes up, says, "Wow, that was a great idea!" and proceeds to back up the formula with the scientific method. Logic does not care that he originally dreamt the formula.

You are drawing your belief structure from the Bible and/or other assorted religious texts. Your context of justification is along the lines of:

Quote:

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

As well as such things as:

Quote:

Turn a microbe into a tomato for me.

In other words: not science. You have made mention of your lack of experience in the particular field you are debating (which is not wrong in and of itself), however you have also brought in your context of discovery (scripture), which is not relevant to a logical argument, as context of justification (science). It does not work. You are not making valid points as you say you are. Vaer is correct to call your reliance on non-science into question, though perhaps he's being a little snippety about it.

You really need to start calming down before you come here and drop bombs on people. I'm asking nicely despite the fact that the way you treat people most of the time makes me highly aggravated. I would like you to take that into consideration and reciprocate.

EDIT: I also deleted two posts that were straight flames/off topic arguments waiting to happen. I really shouldn't have to do this. If you don't think you can stay even remotely civil, then don't post here until you're certain you can.

EDIT EDIT: That last sentence was not directed at any one person in particular.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: And this goes for EVERYBODY. Jeez, read the forum guidelines.
June 5th, 2007, 03:26 PM
anthson

Quote:

Originally posted by Darion
You are drawing your belief structure from the Bible and/or other assorted religious texts.

No, I'm not. I draw my belief structure from what I know about science. I was a creationist well before I was a Christian. It took me some time, once I figured out the world was created, to figure out who the creator was. Still, everyone wants to think I just bone the Bible. If science doesn't match the Bible, it can't be reasoned as the word of God. That's my view.

In the interest of keeping things on-topic, I'm going to continue the rest of this post in private message. The above, however, seemed it needed stating. Hopefully now some of you will not feel a need to stereotype me over why I believe what I do.
June 5th, 2007, 04:20 PM
asgoth

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
(snip..)

Can you explain one helpful mutation you've observed? I don't know of any, but I admit I don't travel around the world studying mutants. I'd like to know what you know, though. So far, all the mutations I've seen involve a harmful scrambling of genetic information -- not any helpful additions of new info. Still, if you're willing to point something out, I am more than willing to read up on it.

I'd also like to know what you think about my response to Vaer on natural selection and the loss of genetic information over time.
(snip..)

While it can be argued if it is "helpful" or not, there is proof of a helpful evolution. Simply take the growing strings of bacteria which have developed immunities to specific antibiotica. This is a clear example where the evolution theory may be proven. Similar immunities are evolving in insects, which grow to become resistant to specific chemicals used to keep them from humanities precious crops.

On the other hand, have you seen any single proof of a changed "design" to appear ? There is plenty of proof that different "designs" did exist in the past, while the current "designs" as far as animals / plants are concerned ?

I am mentioning this to show that
a) not everything in evolution is done through mutation.
b) there are proven examples on how species evolve to adapt to changes in their habitats.
and c) that the cycles in which evolution operates are past the scope of any human to observe.

This does not, however, eliminate the examples which do show the mechanisms on a smaller scale.

For creationism, no such example exists, and i have severe doubts as to if we will ever be able to find any proof of this, as we would need to find a design which
a) has no known history.
b) could not possibly have evolved from an existing design.

To answer the question about loss of genetic data, the answer is surprisingly simple.

First of all, the statement is correct. Evolution (when running without mutation) will eventually loose genetic information. The amount of genetic information list is, however, significantly lower than in any human driven program. This is due to the gene pool involved in the evolution, as well as the consierably longer times until the changes will evolve.

Human breeding programs usually try to show a change / success within 10 to 50 years, while evolution can easily take centuries for a change.

This aside, mutations do come into play as they will add information to the gene pool, even if the actual mutation itself has no direct effect on a species.
June 5th, 2007, 04:21 PM
Snrrub

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
No, I'm not. I draw my belief structure from what I know about science.

I can see why there's a problem.

Anthson, it's obvious that you know essentially nothing about genetics, and you don't care to know. When a scientifically knowledgeable person, such as Vaer or myself or Malacasta, try to explain the scientific principles to you, you either reject them out of hand or say "prove it". Do you know how many pages this thread would be if we had to write down the proof to every scientific principle regarding genetics and natural selection? That is centuries of research. Probably thousands of research papers have been published that prove these principles; if you wanted to investigate the science, you could go read some of them. But I don't think you will because you don't care to know about those principles. You're asking us to prove it here on this forum, because you know that is an impossible task.

Most people in the world, and Anthson, I think you're one of these people, have very little scientific understanding of the universe and are happy with it. Scientists and engineers provide you with countless wonderful devices that, as far as you are concerned, work completely by magic. These include cell phones, microwave ovens, MRI machines, the drugs that cure diseases, and so on. These things improve quality of life for society, and society anticipates the next great magical technology that will make things easier for them. But as soon as scientific conclusions are reached that don't fit into your cozy lifestyle, by for example, challenging your belief system, those scientists must all be wrong, right? The same scientists that have researched everything else that you don't understand must be wrong in that paricular case because you want them to be wrong. Then people call those scientists capitalists, or communists, or fascists, or athiests, and say that they must have some hidden and evil agenda. Society declared those things when the scientific research was offered that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, let alone the universe. Society declared those things when scientists offered research that suggests smoking is bad for one's health. Society (some part of it, anyways) now declares those things when scientists offer evidence supporting evolution or global warming. So please, go on fighting the facts that don't fit into your lifestyle and go on fighting the facts that conflict with your view of the way things ought to be. But don't claim for even one second that your position has anything to do with science.

Edit: This really wasn't designed to be a flame post. But the validity of the science related to this issue has been challenged, so it's important to say why I don't think the validity of the science actually has anything to do with this topic.
June 5th, 2007, 05:02 PM
xaxer

Theory

what if Gods day is a billion or even 5 billion of our years?
he "thought" into exsistence the Universe( big bang?)

and even evolution has a missing link does it not?
what about God being that missing link?

I feel the science and mathamatics of the universe
and the belief that a supreme being of some kind
is behind it,can work together.

But the passed on tales of the Bible, til it was finally written down
is humanly flawed but not intentionally.

and the Human mind's Scientific attempt to understand
the creation of the universe is beyond us right now
as much as time or intersteller space travel
we don't (yet) have the ablitiy to do it

Simplistic yes
but helps me to see how both can work in tangent with each other.

For I certainly am not a Theologist nor Scientist by any means.
June 5th, 2007, 05:34 PM
asgoth

Quote:

Originally posted by xaxer
Theory

what if Gods day is a billion or even 5 billion of our years?
he "thought" into exsistence the Universe( big bang?)

and even evolution has a missing link does it not?
what about God being that missing link?

(snip..)

An interesting idea. And quite possible too. I would be the last to deny that it can be that way.

But as a matter of fact, there is no indication that it is the case. And as long as there is no such indication - something which shows that this is indeed what happened, i see no reason to assume it is.

A.
June 5th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Malacasta

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
I'd also like to know what you think about my response to Vaer on natural selection and the loss of genetic information over time.

From talkorigins (I suggest you look at it before you post another question, Anthson, just to make sure I can't do another copy and paste ;) )

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
Response:

1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
* RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
* Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
June 5th, 2007, 08:04 PM
Malacasta

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
Can you explain one helpful mutation you've observed? I don't know of any, but I admit I don't travel around the world studying mutants. I'd like to know what you know, though. So far, all the mutations I've seen involve a harmful scrambling of genetic information -- not any helpful additions of new info. Still, if you're willing to point something out, I am more than willing to read up on it.

Asgoth already posted an answer to this, but I'll just back him up with some references (again, this is from talkorigins - check it out!).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
* Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
* Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
* A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
* Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).
June 5th, 2007, 08:29 PM
Malacasta

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
What IS disputable is how far it can go, Malacasta. That's perfectly logical and scientific to dispute seeing as no one has ever observed it going beyond a certain point. Even some staunch, millions-of-years evolutionists will agree there is a line. I have read several of them claim the common house fly has evolved as far as it can go. I'm sure others might disagree, but a lot of scientific minds agree there is a line somewhere. I'm disputing the line. I'm challenging your logic that because we've seen evolution go five miles, that it's capable of going five billion more. Just because you see a guy driving south on I 35 for five miles doesn't automatically prove the dude's a Canadian heading for Mexico. Does my illustration help you see where I stand? By and large, I don't dispute your scientific findings. It's the conclusions I take issue with.

Anthson, I confess I really don't know what you're asking me.

"What IS disputable is how far it can go" - I'm ignorant of this debate, who is disputing it and how are they disputing it?
"No one has ever observed it going beyond a certain point" - What does this mean? That humans haven't got wings to fly yet? That they're not green with purple spots? What is this certain point that evolution hasn't got beyond and why does it matter?
"The common house fly has evolved as far as it can go" - I'd like to see these arguments. What do you mean by evolving as far as it can go? Are you saying that house fly DNA will never mutate again?
"Just because we've seen evolution go five miles, that it's capable of going five billion more" - If DNA suddenly stopped mutating, that would be fascinating. I'm sure genetic scientists would look into why it happened. It hasn't happened yet though and there's no particular reason to suppose it will.
"I don't dispute your scientific findings. It's the conclusions I take issue with." - I don't understand you at all here and I don't know what to say. Which scientific findings don't you dispute?
June 5th, 2007, 10:18 PM
Rosuav

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
... The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

That's the definition of natural selection. However, natural selection (that is, pure and simple, no external input - deliberate breeding by an outside master is not natural selection) has a fairly short-term view. A mutation will be abolished if it kills the organism (or prevents it from breeding), and a mutation that tends to make life harder for its organism will tend to be unfavoured. However, in humans, a LOT of unfavourable variations (I believe they're all derived from mutations, but I'll say variations for safety) are surviving. Nobody's going around saying "This guy shouldn't be allowed to have children" or the more extreme "This guy has a genetic problem, kill him now". There's a Godwinning in the wings here, but suffice it to say that we, as a culture, are deliberately preventing natural selection from destroying the weak. People are of greater value than peas, so people survive but peas get deliberately bred and refined.
June 5th, 2007, 10:36 PM
anthson

Quote:

Originally posted by asgoth
While it can be argued if it is "helpful" or not, there is proof of a helpful evolution. Simply take the growing strings of bacteria which have developed immunities to specific antibiotica. This is a clear example where the evolution theory may be proven. Similar immunities are evolving in insects, which grow to become resistant to specific chemicals used to keep them from humanities precious crops.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, here, but I need to state for the record again I do believe in micro-evolution. The difference in opinion is how far the line goes. I'm sure roaches can evolve beyond certain poisons. I don't see them ever turning into a cucumber or a sperm whale, though. That would require new genetic information and, to be honest, I can't see where the roach would get that info from. There's just no scientific explanation for how it would come about.

Quote:

Originally posted by asgoth
On the other hand, have you seen any single proof of a changed "design" to appear ? There is plenty of proof that different "designs" did exist in the past, while the current "designs" as far as animals / plants are concerned ?

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

Quote:

Originally posted by asgoth
the cycles in which evolution operates are past the scope of any human to observe.

The cycle in which evolution supposedly operates. Again, no one's observed this (you said so, yourself), so we're just guessing. In some cases, we're imagining. Scientists like to dig around in the dirt and date layers and rocks, and not that anything's wrong with digging, but I don't see how it's illogical to come to a different conclusion given the same data. To be quite frank, if you find something in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids that were different than it was. All you know is it died.[/B][/QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally posted by asgoth
For creationism, no such example exists, and i have severe doubts as to if we will ever be able to find any proof of this

As I said before, there are plenty of creatures that have biology where the finished product is the only viable, living organism. Any steps upward on the ladder of evolution toward that organism would've yielded organisms that could not survive. The Bombardier Beetle was one example. Another is the transition from typical primate feet to human feet. There simply isn't a reason for natural selection to move from one to the other, and even if it did, you'd have a foot for millions of years that was neither good for walking, nor climbing. The finished product in either case is the only viable biology.

Quote:

Originally posted by asgoth
This aside, mutations do come into play as they will add information to the gene pool, even if the actual mutation itself has no direct effect on a species.

Again, I'm no mutant studies professor, but I have looked and I can't find any evidence of a mutation that does more than scramble currently-available genetic code. I cannot find one documented instance of a helpful mutation that adds new genetic information (or even just a helpful mutation, for that matter). Not that if I found it, the evidence would disprove anything of significance, but it would be nice to know for sure if science is guessing on the matter or really has studied something observable.
June 5th, 2007, 10:47 PM
Malacasta

Rosuav, I think the point you raise is an interesting one and it's something I've always wanted to investigate a little more. At least one political tendency I know of argues that there is no longer a selecting pressure on humans. I think the question is very complicated and very political - the situation in the West is quite different to that in China or Africa for example.

I don't see that the issue has a lot of relevance to this thread though since we're talking about origins.
June 6th, 2007, 12:16 AM
Kravenar

While I read much of this thread I'll have to confess to being too lazy to read ALL the juicy bits, but thought I'd throw my own two cents in anyhow.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, here, but I need to state for the record again I do believe in micro-evolution. The difference in opinion is how far the line goes. I'm sure roaches can evolve beyond certain poisons. I don't see them ever turning into a cucumber or a sperm whale, though. That would require new genetic information and, to be honest, I can't see where the roach would get that info from. There's just no scientific explanation for how it would come about.

The theory of evolution supports such complex changes being decided from very early stages, ie. back in the single cell or small colony stages. To try to use such an argument of cucumbers turning into whales only displays either a) arrogance or b) ignorance.
(BTW... feed cucumber to whale it will become whale soon enough- or at least part of it will)

While we're at it...

Lets ASSUME that Creation is true....
If I remember Sunday School correctly.... didn't God create Adam and Eve.. I don't recall there being anyone else... and aren't we all decended from them?

If this is the case how do you account for vast difference in appearance and genetic attributes of the various races?
Each race has various strengths and weaknesses, often highlighted at things such as Olympics..... small statured asians excel in gymnastics, african americans at sprinting (damned fast twitch muscle fibres), african races do well at long distance and marathon etc etc. You know the trends... they are hard to miss.

My point being that if evolution of "complex" species did not occur these differences would not be apparent - unless of course you are suggesting that this is not evolution. Perhaps God did only create two "humans" and the rest are just intelligent animals that were created along with the dogs and the fishes - so which races are you gonna slag off as animals and who is pure?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
June 6th, 2007, 02:32 AM
Malacasta

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
The Bombardier Beetle was one example.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

Claim CB310:
The bombardier beetle cannot be explained by evolution. It must have been designed.
Source:
AIG, 1990. The amazing bombardier beetle. Creation Ex Nihilo 12(1): 29.
Gish, Duane T., 1977. Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards. El Cajon, CA: Master Book, pp. 51-55.
Response:

1. This is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:
1. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.

2. Bombardier beetles illustrate other aspects of life that look undesigned:
* With design, we expect similar forms to be created for similar functions and different forms for different functions (Morris 1974, 70). However, what we see is different forms for similar functions. Many ground beetles have very similar habits and habitats as centipedes, but their forms differ greatly. Different groups of bombardier beetles use very different mechanisms for the same function of aiming their spray (Eisner 1958; Eisner and Aneshansley 1982).
* Some forms have no function. Some bombardier beetles have vestigial flight wings (Erwin 1970, 46,55,91,114-115,119).
* If bombardier beetles have a purpose, then death is an integral part of it, since the beetles are predators (some, as larvae, are parasitoids, gradually eating pupae of other beetles [Erwin 1967]), and their spray is a defense against other predators. Many creationists claim that death was not part of God's design.

Links:
Isaak, Mark, 1997. Bombardier beetles and the argument of design. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
June 6th, 2007, 03:17 AM
Malacasta

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
Another is the transition from typical primate feet to human feet. There simply isn't a reason for natural selection to move from one to the other, and even if it did, you'd have a foot for millions of years that was neither good for walking, nor climbing. The finished product in either case is the only viable biology.

Sorry, are you saying here that there are no circumstances under which it might be better for an animal to be able to walk than climb?
In any case, there are transitional feet in the fossil record. Check them out!

Here's a starting point for you:
Harcourt-Smith, W. E. H. & Aiello, L. C. (2004)
Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion.
Journal of Anatomy 204 (5), 403-416.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1571304
June 6th, 2007, 04:19 AM
asgoth

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, here, but I need to state for the record again I do believe in micro-evolution. The difference in opinion is how far the line goes. I'm sure roaches can evolve beyond certain poisons. I don't see them ever turning into a cucumber or a sperm whale, though. That would require new genetic information and, to be honest, I can't see where the roach would get that info from. There's just no scientific explanation for how it would come about.

You are right. A Roach will not "evolve" into a whale. Not every being can evolve into every other being, that never was how evolution works. You are looking at already evolved species, at that point.

The fact that you can find thousands of examples for species that cannot be imagined to have evolved from certain other species does nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution. It never claims that anything can evolve into anything, and it does not claim that a whale has evolved from a roach. So, that point is void, in my eyes.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
The cycle in which evolution supposedly operates. Again, no one's observed this (you said so, yourself), so we're just guessing. In some cases, we're imagining. Scientists like to dig around in the dirt and date layers and rocks, and not that anything's wrong with digging, but I don't see how it's illogical to come to a different conclusion given the same data. To be quite frank, if you find something in the dirt, you can't prove it had any kids that were different than it was. All you know is it died.

First off, if you like to include semantic details in the discussion, i should also put the word "supposedly" and "assumed" and so forth for every reference of creationism. I think we are both mature enough to leave that out.

Now, to answer your critizism. Yes, we do not know if any direct offspring came from any single find... But : If you find a series of species which differ only marginally in their basic genetic and physiological setup (and yes, that can be deduced from the fossiles which are found), the string of finds does give credit to the theory that this species evolved along a certain path.

Such "strings" of fossile finds exist, and are being used as evidence towards evolution. They also pretty much invalidate intelligent design, as it is not intelligent to minutely modify a given species to show historical signs of evolving.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
As I said before, there are plenty of creatures that have biology where the finished product is the only viable, living organism. Any steps upward on the ladder of evolution toward that organism would've yielded organisms that could not survive.

Yes, you have said that before, but all your examples have been insufficient to prove this fact.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
The Bombardier Beetle was one example.

I refer to Malacastas post above.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
Another is the transition from typical primate feet to human feet. There simply isn't a reason for natural selection to move from one to the other, and even if it did, you'd have a foot for millions of years that was neither good for walking, nor climbing. The finished product in either case is the only viable biology.

That is wrong, actually.

a) Looking at the human foot today and the primate foot today is invalid. They evolved from a common ancestor, there never was an evolution going from one to the other.

b) looking at them, and tracing the possible steps backwards show that there indeed is a previous foot, which has a balance between its usefulness for walking and climbing, but could do with improvements on both sides.

c) these improvements is exactly what led to human feet and primate feet.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson

Quote:

Originally posted by asgoth
On the other hand, have you seen any single proof of a changed "design" to appear ? There is plenty of proof that different "designs" did exist in the past, while the current "designs" as far as animals / plants are concerned ?

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

Plain and simple.. Looking back, there is proof that there were dinosaurs. There were ferns which nowadays no longer exist. (what i called historic designs). Now, in order to prove intelligent design, it would be necessary to find one "design" (creature, plant, insect, ect.) which adheres to the following 3 rules.
1) It is new (no other like it may have existed in the near past)
2) It could not have evolved (no species may exist in the near past from which this new "design" may have evolved following the laws of evolution.)
3) It must have a significant advantage over existing comparable species (else it would be design, but hardly intelligent)

Is there any single piece of evidence for this ?

A.
June 6th, 2007, 08:46 AM
Rosuav

Anthson, there ARE and have been helpful mutations. I don't have the actual evidence to hand and cannot tell you which of these are fact and which are fiction, but there certainly are a number of plausible and likely ones. Only one I can call to mind at present: Winged insects on a windswept island - loss of wings results in them becoming crawlers not fliers (or they start crawling first, and loss of wings doesn't hurt them and saves some material).

As to the different races of humans - there are numerous traits in which one person could have in them the information for two extremes and everything in between, and their children could have significant variation. Recessive and dominant genes can allow for a lot of variation, even though the parents may not exhibit such a lot of difference between themselves.
June 11th, 2007, 08:00 AM
Dalaena

Re: Creation vs Evolution, the science of origin

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
Yet I've plainly displayed for you how you lack even basic knowledge of the very scriptures you criticize. I even pointed out for you how some of your attacks were just flat wrong (no response from you. Still waiting).

I never said I had science degrees. What you're insinuating here is that I can't possibly understand science unless I study it all. You see this argument all the time in creation-evolution debates.

If Snrubb had 11 years of correct Bible study and could display the ability to even briefly check out his anti-Bible Web site's claims by reading a few lines of scripture, then I wouldn't accuse him of being intellectually dishonest.

I find these two statements together quite disturbing. How much knowledge of the Bible must someone have to be able to discuss it knowledgeably? It stands to reason that someone who has done extensive studies of the Bible would not have time to learn the intricate parts of science that are involved in evolution and vice versa. Thus, wouldn't it stand to reason that most people would be more versed in one than the other? If everyone must be equally versed in both to have a discussion, then this discussion can never occur except for in a very select few, and we must go to our respective corners and not converse.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
To be honest, science has nothing to do with evolution. Science is what we can see, test, observe, and record results about. Alternatively, I defy you to name me one scientific advancement we've had due to the theory of evolution. Give me one longer-lasting deodorant or one energy-efficient moped we've been able to give humanity because we understand great grandpa was soup. I'm not saying you're dumb to believe in evolution. It's a world view and it explains how we got here and where we're going. That's fine. Just don't call it science. It isn't.

Keeping my above statement in mind, I am going to have to say that this statement does show a lack of knowledge about the theory of evolution as well as science in general. Having studied that knowledge extensively, I'm happy to share it. Evolution is a simplified term that encompasses theories in genetics, ecology, microbial biology, and a number of other branches of biology that I won't even begin to name. It cannot be simplified down to simply "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection". There are a ridiculous number of "tests" and "results" that have been researched, documented, proven and disproven. Whole sections of the theory of evolution have been discarded while others have been created. Pedomorphism, an evolutionary phenomenon that is key to the evolution of our backbone, has been illustrated in the modern day Mickey Mouse as well as in the evolution of dogs. Evolution encompasses behavior, genetic diversity, population immigration and emmigration, genetic bottle necks, isolationism, extinction, and so many other scientific studies that we could fill up all our threads with just this. It is not a "world view", and honestly, has so very little in common with Creationism that I can't even fathom why the two are linked by so many Christian sects.

If you want to look for useful things that have come out of evolution, you could easily look at many of our produces in the supermarket and clothing stores: corn, cotton, soybeans, just to name a few. Many of these are bioengineered products where specific traits have been selected by scientists to create crops that are more resistant to pests, produce more produce per plant, make for easier shipping, etc. Evolution can EASILY be seen and documented in action. How long have humans been breeding for specific traits? We breed plants for specific traits (Mendel's peas, anyone?), we breed livestock for specific traits, and we even breed bees for specific traits. There are dogs that have lineages that can be traced back 600 years. That is evolution in action with humans being the selecting factor in specific traits. It is survival of the fittest in the HUMAN world. So, seriously, there are COUNTLESS things in out lives right now that are a direct result of our inherent understanding of evolution.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
Flawed comparison. Here's a better one: we know very little about light compared to what we know about other things in the universe. I think it's a fair point when you're arguing that light on Earth can't exist without the sun and therefore the Bible is scientifically dumb because of that.

Again, this is an oversimplification of a situation where a lack of understanding of science is evident. Again, I would be happy to share from the extensive amount of reading and research that I know about. We actually know a great deal about light. Saying that we know "very little compared to other things in the universe" is a generic statement that can be easily supported because it's so generic. We know less about the existence of God as a physical being than we know about light, for example. We know less about unicorns and their habitats than we know about light, for example. Plus, what we "know" is every subjective. The point, however, is that we actually know a great deal about light, how it behaves, and its major components. We actually know so much about light that we use light particles to open up a whole new branch of physics that scientists only became aware of in the last 70 years. In fact, the behavior of light is how this entire branch of physics came to be. We exhausted what we knew about light, so we had to poke at it so much that we found situations where it DIDN'T behave as we expected. Thus, quantum physics was born.

Quote:

Originally posted by anthson
Why should I give you any of the evidence I know of (believe me, I have a lot)? You've just stated here that you're going to believe in evolution because the majority of scientists do. First, that's a flawed statement. Who are these scientists, who decides who gets to be a scientist, when were they all polled, and what exactly did they say? Second, I can dig you up plenty of beliefs all throughout history that were held by the majority and were dead wrong. Are you so arrogant that you think the majority, today, are the pinnacle of understanding, when all those before you have thought the same? You don't strike me as an arrogant person (I should give you lessons), but that statement smacks of elitism and I'm telling you, it's the same damn thing people of every generation have ever thought. "Yeah, those guys before were wrong, but us? We're it. We finally get it."

You cannot say that the theory of evolution is "believed" by all scientists because the theory of evolution, as I've stated above, is so complex and diverse that scientists usually concentrate on ONE little part of it. For example, a huge group of scientists spent time studying just the possibility of how the backbone came to be through pedomorphism. One scientist spent most of his life studying pea plants to prove ONE little part of the theory of evolution, and he became the Father of Genetics. Another famous scientist spent his life breeding flies to study further on the pea plant guy. (And if you've ever had to do the fly experiment in a genetics lab, you know how PAINFUL it is to tag the flies with little dots to tell them apart.) Another group of scientists have spent their lives studying how eukaryotes (more complex cells with mitochondria) came to be from prokaryotes (simple cells without mitochondria - and this is a WAY oversimplication of the explanation between the two). You'd be lucky to get 10 scientists to agree on all parts of the theory of evolution. You'd be lucky if you can get 1 scientist who can list every aspect of the theory of evolution, and if you can get him/her to do that, it'd take him/her most of his/her scientific life.

The problem here is that you cannot simply equate Evolution with Creationism. Evolution is not a "belief system" just as Creationism is not a science. Discussing the two together is a futile attempt in making two completely different subjects one. It would be like me taking a filet mignon and a piece of paper and trying to discuss them as food. Technically, I COULD eat a piece of paper, but it's not really meant to be eaten, especially as a meal.

Evolution does not threaten the most important beliefs of Christianity which, in my opinion, are 1) the existence of God, 2) that Jesus Christ died for one's sins, and 3) try to be a good human being. The rest of it is all fluff and filler written between 2000 and 600 years ago. The fact that some Christian sects insist on this division between science and theology will only mean that highly educated people and scientists get driven further and further away from this particular religion.
June 20th, 2007, 08:35 AM
Fynn

Though a cynical response to a thread I've only half read. What's the point of arguing. Church dogma has always been anti-science. Remember when the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it and anyone who said differently was at least excommunicated, and probably killed too?

So let those who want to believe in creation as the bible believe it. Let those who want to believe in some form of evolution guided by a higher intelligence believe that. And let those who believe its a series of freak accidents guided by natural selection believe that. Some of the theories have evidence to support it, while others don't. Myself, I'll go with the evidence, the argument that "The evidence is not good enough, so I'll believe this theory with no evidence whatsoever" doesn't fly for me. But if that's your cup of tea, drink away.
June 21st, 2007, 12:00 PM
Savaric

Quote:

Originally posted by Fynn
Though a cynical response to a thread I've only half read. What's the point of arguing. Church dogma has always been anti-science. Remember when the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it and anyone who said differently was at least excommunicated, and probably killed too?

My argument summed up in a nutshell.
June 21st, 2007, 12:24 PM
ejda

Quote:

Originally posted by Fynn
And let those who believe its a series of freak accidents guided by natural selection believe that.

Actually, I don't think evolution is a series of "freak" accidents. Evolution is a random process but the overall behavior of the evolution is not all that random. It's like throwing an unbiased coin 1,000,000 times. Sure, each throw is totally random but the overall result is not all that random. Because you expect to find about 501,000 ~ 499,000 heads or tails
June 21st, 2007, 06:25 PM
Leshrak

A big thanks to Carrah and Gaviani for this:

http://i18.tinypic.com/66c4msp.jpg
June 21st, 2007, 08:29 PM
Savaric

Ahh the beauty of simplicity. :star
August 4th, 2007, 02:42 PM
kestra

I heard a good point regarding Noah's Ark, and the story of how 2 of every animal were brought on board.
How many species existed at this time? Was it just all the animals in his neighborhood? (exaggerating, but you get the point)

Given the complexity of bio diversity, and how flora and fauna rely on each other in a myriad of ways, I find this story to be quite a stretch.
I'm on the side of evolution, however there are many gaps in its reasoning. One thing I don't understand is the idea that ancient man once had a tail, but it eventually fell off, so to speak as it was no longer necessary.

Huh? How would having a tail not kick ass?
August 5th, 2007, 11:23 AM
khaltek

Growing a tail when you don't need it is inefficient, it costs energy, energy we derive from food, food was not always in great supply all those years ago. Anyone without a tail when it wasn't needed had an obvious advantage over those with one when it wasn't needed.

For a bipedal plains-walker a tail would also get in the way when running after prey or running from predators.

Also, the apes never had tails, who told you this??
August 5th, 2007, 09:23 PM
Aristotle

There is absolutely no need to resurrect this thread, and debating whether or not Noah really and truly had 2 of every plant and animal strikes me as exceptionally silly.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.