Creationism vs. Evolution

[ruiner]

Also no one has given me an adiquate responce to my initial question: Can any one give me a documented example of a mutation giving rise to new genetic information which was seen as being benificial to an organism?

The concept of genetic information is ambiguous and therefore useless. But beneficial mutation can be shown:

-SARS mutating to be more virulent. Beneficial because it increases its chance of reproduction.
-Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or extreme temperatures. Same reason.

These are easily observed cases because virus and bacteria RNA and DNA is frequently studied and tested. Another organism well tested and documented for beneficial mutations are flies.

In the case of higher lifeforms, mammals for example, labs cannot run experiments on them like they can with viruses, bacteria and flies. This means noone is set up to "watch" changes in mammal DNA. Consequently any beneficial mutations occuring are missed.

This is common sense really. Any beneficial mutations that alter a mammals body plan slightly will occur in nature and generally noone is looking. Even if someone did notice a slight change in form in one individual, it certainly is not easy to take the mammal and find out what genetic change occured. Unfortunately hand-held DNA readers do not exist. We are not technologically advanced enough yet to spot the kinds of beneficial mutations you are after on the fly. Any documented beneficial mutations in higher animals will have been found by chance.

[LogicaLunatic]

Fogus,

I don't have faith in anything. I also don't believe in anything. I come to conclusions about things and make predictions about things but in my book that is considered thinking, not believing.

In many cases, when a person uses the word, "believe" it can be replaced with, "think" and still have the exact same meaning...

"I believe I will make it home from work without getting in an accident."
EQUALS
"I think I will make it home from work without getting in an accident."

Both are making a statement about the near future based upon previous experience. Neither claims 100% belief like the following sentence...

"I have faith that I will make it home from work without getting in an accident."

So how can I say that I don't believe in anything? Simple, I don't believe, I think.

Now, some people equate faith with hope...

"I have faith that my son will recover from his car accident."

This is not the same as...

"I hope that my son will recover from his car accident."

Yes, the person with faith also hopes but by using the word, "faith" they're also saying that they have full belief that he will recover.

I HOPE for things all the time. But I don't have faith.

LL

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by ruiner, Also no one has given me an adiquate responce to my initial question: Can any one give me a documented example of a mutation giving rise to new genetic information which was seen as being benificial to an organism? The concept of genetic information is ambiguous and therefore useless. But beneficial mutation can be shown: -SARS mutating to be more virulent. Beneficial because it increases its chance of reproduction. -Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or extreme temperatures. Same reason. These are easily observed cases because virus and bacteria RNA and DNA is frequently studied and tested. Another organism well tested and documented for beneficial mutations are flies. In the case of higher lifeforms, mammals for example, labs cannot run experiments on them like they can with viruses, bacteria and flies. This means noone is set up to "watch" changes in mammal DNA. Consequently any beneficial mutations occuring are missed. This is common sense really. Any beneficial mutations that alter a mammals body plan slightly will occur in nature and generally noone is looking. Even if someone did notice a slight change in form in one individual, it certainly is not easy to take the mammal and find out what genetic change occured. Unfortunately hand-held DNA readers do not exist. We are not technologically advanced enough yet to spot the kinds of beneficial mutations you are after on the fly. Any documented beneficial mutations in higher animals will have been found by chance.

There are interesting examples of speciation and differences among birds that we can see benificial mutations. There are a number of kingfishers and closely related birds that develop different diets and slightly different bills, coloration and habits adapted to different food sources. These groups of kingfishers no longer cross bred and represent different subspecies and species in the same region. This type of diversification and speciation happens a lot in tropical regions where food sources are abundant. You will find one related group of species ad subspecies with a great variety adapting to different food sources and ecosystems.You see evolution in progress. At the subspecies and variety level they could still cross bred, but do not do so naturally because of the beginning of specialization and adaptation to different food sources and econiches. These closely related birds and other animals may be seen together in the same region, but because they have adapted to different life styles like a diet of different size of fish, they will not cross bred and successful contribute to the advantage of adaptation to the different environment.

Unfortunately rainforests are being destroyed and this immense diversity of life is vanishing. The rain forests are the Garden of Eden of great diversity and speciation for the future and we are destroying it. There have been catalogued as many as several hundred closely related animals in the process of forming or have formed different species.

[Sonart]

Can any one give me a documented example of a mutation giving rise to new genetic information which was seen as being benificial to an organism?

Lucy -------------------------------------------> Elvis

[kingjust]

Originally posted by jpapadpapa, Because, as I said, there is not sufficient proof. Again, an assumption. As for the first part, I find it offensive. As for the second, the fossil record does not prove evolution. Can you give me an example of a fossil of a "missing link?" With the thousands of fossils that have been found and the millions of changes that would need to occur within species to evolve, we should have thousands of fossils that clearly show evolution. Are there any?

Good day to all,

I've been reading almost all of your posts here, and post really caught my eye. I believe in evolution to the extent of our own science, but I do not believe in one almighty creator. Funny enough I do believe in a higher being, not spiritually, but more of a sense in intellect. Everyone keeps arguing about this happend in the past, that happend in the past. But our own growing intelligence only started annotating history, accuratly without poetry or fillers like I believe the bible has (fillers). But enough of my personal rantings, jpapadpapa, here is a link that might intrigue you.

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-m...umans-1one.html
http://www.humboldt.edu/~mrc1/main.shtml

Now granted, i'm not stating that they have the order of the evidence completely correct because there are probably more evidence that hasn't been unearthed yet. But it's almost like a simple puzzle of putting the pieces in order.

This is physical evidence that cannot be refuted, in my opinion though. But if you were to put the evidence side by side, you would physically see evolution happening right before your eyes. You will understand after reading the pages and viewing the images.

I apologize also that my grammar isn't the best, I never really liked my english classes, but, that is why I read your posts so that I can better myself, all these smart people here!!

[Devout_Muslim]

Hi everyone, this is my first post.
I accept a basic form of evolution, for as it says in the Qur'an : Allah created man in 4 stages.
I knwo this is a little irrelevant, but It shits me how people say: God and Allah, Allah is arabic for God, so either say Allah or God, thanks :confused:

[Devout_Muslim]

God isnt a physical "thing" so how can you expect physical proof of God? look outdie your house, you'll probably see grass, trees, some animals, and bushes etc.
A simple explosion couldent have created this to perfection. The way nature works is so perfect, the ecosystems and such. there must be God, for only a superior "being" like Allah could have given us free will, a conscience and had made this world perfect. :p

[Pooeypants]

I would like to meet the creator of Allah, I mean, he is a perfect being and obviously had to be created.

[rez]

Evolution like so many other words has more then one meaning.

strict biological definition: change in allele frequencies over time
by this definition, evolution is a indisputable fact.

now evolution ofcourse has many different aspects to it....Many people associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life came from one common ancestor. This is just a fraction of the theory in which there are several different theories as well.

No shit evolution is a theory we all know this, but what you are insinuating is completely wrong.

theory: (in scientific sense) is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Wheres the lack of certainty in this definition? THe difference between laws and theories is that only laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory imples self-consistency agreement with observations, and usefulness.

Now creationism........does creationists make a specific claim about what we would expect to find in creationism? NOT even themselves call their little story a "Theory"


Has anything in the real world ever been prooved? Can you define the universe you operate in? The more evidence with have on something the more certainity we have.

Does evolution have evidence? does Creationism?

evolution has genetics, anatomy, ecology, psychology, and paleontology where as creationism has the BIBLE.

Adress the evidence...show us that your evidence is better or fits another theory.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim God isnt a physical "thing" so how can you expect physical proof of God? look outdie your house, you'll probably see grass, trees, some animals, and bushes etc. A simple explosion couldent have created this to perfection. The way nature works is so perfect, the ecosystems and such. there must be God, for only a superior "being" like Allah could have given us free will, a conscience and had made this world perfect. :p

First off if you can accept evolution which operates by the interaction of random chance with the evironment which is also the result of random events then why can't you accept that everything came from a not so simple explosion? Second, "free will" is an oxymoron. It is a jibberish term, just as god is.

Starboy

[SlySpy]

Quote by: hello_caleb "THEORY of Evolution"

"THEORY of Gravity"

[Starboy]

Quote by: SlySpy Quote by: hello_caleb "THEORY of Evolution" "THEORY of Gravity"

People that oppose evolution on religious grounds should realize that they have already lost the argument because evolution is a scientific explanation not a religious one. And the fact that the explanations of their religion conflict with evolution does not cast doubt on evolution but on their religion. Also if evolution is wrong that will not make their religious explanation right. All it will leave is two wrong explanations. The best thing for such religious zealots to do is to live in the supernatural on the sabbath and the real world for the rest of the week.

Starboy

[Devout_Muslim]

Quote by: Starboy People that oppose evolution on religious grounds should realize that they have already lost the argument because evolution is a scientific explanation not a religious one. Starboy

Since when does any religion not involve science?
If you get a jar, fill it with air, and leave it there for a million, billion, trillions of years, forever even, nothing will happen, so how does this all work out?
Some particles exploded and mysteriously we all evolved from rocks?
An explosion cannot create anything, just destroy things.
Where did these particles come from?
Thin air?
Poopypants you said that you would like to know who created Allah, The Qur'an says he created himself, I don't know about that though.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim Since when does any religion not involve science?

Since religion required faith.

If you get a jar, fill it with air, and leave it there for a million, billion, trillions of years, forever even, nothing will happen, so how does this all work out?

What are you talking about? I am not aware of any jars that can go for more than a few years unchanged let along millions, billions or trillions of years. You should learn some science.

Some particles exploded and mysteriously we all evolved from rocks?

It didn't start out as particles, it started out as energy. Why don't you learn something about science.

An explosion cannot create anything, just destroy things. Where did these particles come from? Thin air?

It started out as energy. And yes, the current theories do not explain where this energy came from, only that there was an initial amount of energy located in a very small volume of space. A very small volume. Why don't you go learn something about science.

Starboy

[Sonart]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim If you get a jar, fill it with air, and leave it there for a million, billion, trillions of years, forever even, nothing will happen, so how does this all work out?

Really? How do you know?

Some particles exploded and mysteriously we all evolved from rocks? An explosion cannot create anything, just destroy things. Where did these particles come from? Thin air?

Well, DM, if you actually check on the physics and biology that have been theorized, you might find it makes as much sense as... what? Magic?

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: Devout_Muslim Some particles exploded and mysteriously we all evolved from rocks? An explosion cannot create anything, just destroy things.

An explosion from a missile or a bomb, perhaps. However, we are not talking about your typical explosion. The Big Bang is more accurately characterized as a rapid expansion. The universe was, essentially, a compressed ball of energy, and thus extremely hot. The rapid expansion and intense heat early on generally leads to the impression of a huge explosion, or a "big bang". What exactly caused the expansion is unknown. It represents one of the long standing problems that physicists are, at present, unable to explain due to a limited understanding of the mechanics of gravity. Gravity is important because the Big Bang is theorized to have begun as a gravitational singularity, where the curvature of space/time is effectively infinite as well as the density of the universe.

What is not being called into question is that some sort of explosion has occurred. Observations like Hubble's law, and the cosmic background radiation detected by NASA COBE satellites and further analyzed by the more recent Wilkinson probe, provide sufficent evidence that it has.

Quote by: Devout_Muslim Where did these particles come from? Thin air?

Light elements formed first from protons and neutrons colliding and dissevering, until the universe cooled enough to permit the formation of heavier elements. This event is known as the Big Bang nucleosynthesis. For a more in-depth look at this event, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

[Deus]

I just realized, and I'm sorry for the delay, I just read this post, this site http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-327.htm that one of the creationists posted. I laughed a good 1/4 of the way through it, especially the way they portray evolutionists. Subtle things such as mentioning Darwin with Marx, Stalin, and Hitler...come now, is this really necessary? Much of his information is unfounded and I don't think the author has read anything regarding the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. It's just an intellectual form of an insult. Asking to prove evolution is just as difficult (less, obviously) as proving creation. Though there is far more evidence on the evolutionary side, humans are notoriously stubborn creatures, and this battle with rage for centuries more. "Lumbering, clumsy logic..." "Lumbering and clumsy" logic is by far better than the absence of logic entirely.

Einstein's Gulf was a horrible representation to use in this particular case. "...non-living chemicals sprang to life which eventually evolved abstract thought..." We are living creatures capable of abstract thought, due to non-living chemicals. Pull any part of the human body into it's seperate elements, no part is living. It is when these are combined into a specific order that it becomes "living". Our abstract thought processes are due to chemical and electrical firings within the brain. Serotonin, a "hard object" becoming an abstract idea. Unless I misunderstand, Einstein's Gulf is being grossly misinterpretted in this case.

This is my first post in this forum, and I'd like to make clear I do not discredit God. I am Agnostic, the furthest thing from being Atheist. The universe, space itself, the energy involved in the Big Bang; it all had to have come from somewhere, and without a scientific explanation, I turn to a God as I know many of you on this forum have.

[Warren]

There is simply no way to make predictions from coincidence/chance. Random accident is untestable. Science can only test regularity, law, order, design, etc. Accident followed by coincidental correspondence is not science, but speculation. It can never be confirmed nor denied in any specific instance.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Deus This is my first post in this forum, and I'd like to make clear I do not discredit God. I am Agnostic, the furthest thing from being Atheist. The universe, space itself, the energy involved in the Big Bang; it all had to have come from somewhere, and without a scientific explanation, I turn to a God as I know many of you on this forum have.

Welcome Deus. What do you think atheists are? What to you think an agnositic is? The two words are about two different things. A-theism is without a belief in god(s) where a-gnostic is without knowing (god). It is possible to be an agnostic theist - a person that doesn't know but believes or an agnostic atheist - a person that doesn't know and lacks belief. It would seem to me that a person that is honest with themselves and admits that they do not know something and that none of the evidence is sufficient to know would hold the position of lacking belief in something. Of course many people for some reason think that atheist means anti-theist but that is only because it is possible to lack a belief in god and also think that there is no god. I place god in the weird critter category such as unicorns, dragons, trolls, leprechuans, jin and so on. I lack a belief in all of these things because I am not aware of any evidence for them that is compelling enough to think they are real. Also your argument for turning to god because you don't know is simply an argument from ignorance. Such arguments can be used to support just about anything. Why is it that people can't just say "I don't know" and instead must make stuff up just to make themselves feel good? Where is the honesty in that? If you are ignorant pretending that you know something that you don't is how you stay ignorant. The first step to knowledge is to admit you don't know and then make your most honest effort to find out. Anything else is just foolery. It may only be self foolery but it is foolery all the same.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren There is simply no way to make predictions from coincidence/chance. Random accident is untestable. Science can only test regularity, law, order, design, etc. Accident followed by coincidental correspondence is not science, but speculation. It can never be confirmed nor denied in any specific instance.

Look up The Central Limit Theorem.

Starboy