Creation vs Evolution

[honey_bee]

why does it always have to be Creation vs Evolution?
Could be both.....

[gallo]

Quote by: ReluctantLunacy [Snip]

Quote by: rez [Snip]

Quote by: ZNFYRH [snip]

There are lots of threads about agnosticism, atheism, deism, and theism on this board. In fact, there are several in this very forum. Why drag that irrelevant discussion into this thread because you have issues with each other? Why not take those discussions to an appropriate thread, or start another if there are no topics that suffice. I fail to see how "Creation vs Evolution" is an appropriate title for discussions of "Atheism vs Agnosticism."

I realize that on an open board that when someone jumps the tracks with an off topic aside, just like railroad cars, others follow. I tend to do the same myself. But in this case, the debate seems to be ongoing from several other threads. If you didn't settle the question there, why bring it here?

Thanks.

[Jack]

I fully agree with Gallo. This thread isn't about those who follow either concept but about the concepts themselves. Let's keep this discussion on topic by limiting comments to evolution versus creationism. Other discussions should be taken to other threads or another thread should be started for that purpose.

[gallo]

Quote by: pikatore And don't forget another genetic mechanism which allows for huge variations: hybridisation, where two differening alleles may combine thier effect. The most obvious form of this would be mating a pink and white rose, to give a pink rose.

I'm sure you meant to say "mating a red and [a] white rose, to give a pink rose." While the term "hybrid" is appropriate and even quite common among rose breeders, it is a quite limited meaning.

More often, the term [i]hybrid[/b] refers to a cross between subspecies or related species. Often, hybrid offspring are infertile, sometimes not. For example:

mules and hinnys (jack x mare and stallion x jenny respectively) are inter-sterile, with only extremely rare examples of reproduction when bred back to one of the parent species, specifically, a molly (female mule) to a stallion. However, impregnation is rare.

lion and tiger offspring (ligers and tigons) are inter-sterile but can be bred back to either parent species.

brown bears and polar bears produce completely fertile offspring, with other hybrids as well as with either parent species.

Most of our cereal grains are the result of hybridization. Different strains of domestic crops are propagated today by the intentional hybridization. Corn, wheat, rye, barley, oats, rice etc. are all hybrid crops.

But back to your main point. What you are calling hybridization is known in evolutionary biology as gene flow (previously mentioned). Gene flow is genetic exchange between populations of similar species or subspecies by immigration/emigration.

[gallo]

Quote by: honey_bee why does it always have to be Creation vs Evolution? Could be both.....

The short answer is no, it can't. Unless, of course, you are a deist. In that case, some deity began the process and has had no further involvement. If you mean that some deity took an active role and destroyed and punished those who were displeasing in the past but has now disappeared, not a chance.

Generally, the "creation" view is held by "creationists." That usually refers to those who think that their holy writ is literally true in every detail. They believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old. They believe that there was a global flood about 4500 years ago and that 8 people built an ark, loaded 2 each of more than 5 million different kinds of animals, and then tended them for about a year in small pens.

[ZNFYRH]

gallo

Post #117 completely jumped the track. Didn't realize which thread I was in when I replied.

I still don't understand what the real issue is, here.

Evolution, even in humans, has been observed and documented. It is a very real thing.

Creation, if we're talking about the spontaneous creation of life on this planet, has not. Unless for Creation we're talking about Creation of the universe, in which case it has no bearing being compared to Evolution.

Really then, what's this topic supposed to be about?

[Jack]

what's this topic supposed to be about?

From the "expanded" OP:

Now put humans on Earth and if I maintain my view that I am nothing more than atoms and there is no God, I should fit in quite nicely. All should go on the same way as if there were no humans. We all have our habitats, no pollution, things die with no resistence to death. Again, a change in the enviroment is of natural causes. But none of this is true. Humans do not fit in to Nature like a missing piece to a puzzle should fit in to complete the picture. The puzzlepiece called Humans comes into Nature abnormally. Notice what we do to Earth. We modify of colonize Nature to suit our wants and needs. Look around you: your house, your car, the cut fingernails are all forms of out power over Nature. Whereas Nature only wishes to kill our thinking. When we say, "Let's do things Naturally," we mean to conform to the usual or ordinary course of things. But our minds, that thing composed of atoms, which is supposed to come about just like the rest of Nature, constantly change Nature from what it should be. For instance, if I have a flu, Nature, the 'whole show' would rather my immune system to fight it off. Reason or my mind, would rather take a vaccine or medicine. Is not the medicine Nature modified? Or say I have cancer. Nature wants it to spread. Reason wants radiation. Is that not Nature modified? At every turn, my mind is AGAINST Nature while Nature is largely powerless to resist my actions and only seeks to kill my Reason.