Creationism vs. Evolution

[rez]

Quote by: Apeman81 “Besides, the theory of evolution explains how and why the observed mechanisms of evolution work the way they do. Evolution has been observed.” Observed? When? The Piltdown Man? The Nebraska man? Perhaps you refer to the Java or the Orce man. For I have not heard of a scientist be present for the birth of a new species from an existent one. Mayhap you have a story to which I have not been privy. Let’s accept for the moment that adaptation occurs. As such, the formation of a simians footpad to closely resemble its hand would be the result of its arboreal lifestyle. Assuming this developed over time (is there a skeletal trail to support this?) and was not the original design, this would represent adaptation, not evolution. The resultant monkey is no more or less a monkey than his predecessor. What creature has been observed to evolve into a new species of animal?

Thats very good, you can conclude that no animal has evolved into a new species of animal in the entire existence of man kind.

Now I want you to do me a favor, stop leting your beliefs warp your mind and just critically think for one second. Here it goes...its in the form of a question....

How long has humans been around compared to all other forms of life? Basically, how old is the earth and compare that number to the existence of human beings.

[Apeman81]

"You basically left out all of gallos supporting material and made up your own."

What supporting material? Other than snotty assertions that I did not understand science nor faith, he offers no supporting material.

Do you mean his assertions that the Big Bang theory is supported by "observed facts and was used to predict other facts that were then observed."? Come now, what "observations" do we have of an event claimed to have happened billions of years ago? Predicted observations? We have looked at this for what, 30 years, 40 years? Were it 100 years, our "observations" and "predicitons" would be dwarved by the ability of a housefly to observe and predict the lifespan of an elephant.

[rez]

Quote by: gallo There is no such thing as "definitive proof" of a scientific theory.

This is called a topic sentence. Now if were to just say that, you would say "back that up with supporting material".....

A theory is an explanation of the observations that has been tested.

AIDS for example changes around when a doctor gives the patient a cocktail of different medicines. This is why AIDS has not been cured yet, because it evolves into different forms that the medicine is not designed to treat. Its weird, even most creationists agree that animals adapt to their environment.

There are lots of scientific theories that you probably think are facts - like the heliocentric theory, the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity.

Im not too sure about this but I think that long ago it was thought that the earth was the center of the universe. It was thought that because of this, all things would attract to the earth - hence gravity. Now, scientists have tested this to be wrong and developed a new theory of gravity. (Gallo, correct me if I am wrong)

I have to go, this tutoring session will have to end quick...we will critically think some more

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Why is it that you fear even the mention of the possibility that life is not simply the result of random accidents?

Who claims that life is the result of random accident? Creationists use that nonsense as a point to argue against. It is an absurd argument and obviously not the only alternative to creationist dogma. Very little is random in the universe.

The principle "proofs" of the big bang theory are the red shift observed by Hubble. He observed that the amount of the red shift was proportional to the distance of the galaxy, implying that all galxies were expanding at at constant rate from a central point. The second major "proof" of the big bang is the background microwave radiation believed left by the event observed by Penzias and Wilson in 1964, for which they were later awarded a Nobel Prize. There are a number of other supporting theoretical and empirical supports for the big bang theory. If you want to learn more, look it up.

Of course like all science, as more observations are made and more research done, the theory like all theories will develop and change. Only religious dogma is certain and rigid.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Who claims that life is the result of random accident? Creationists use that nonsense as a point to argue against. It is an absurd argument and obviously not the only alternative to creationist dogma. Very little is random in the universe. The principle "proofs" of the big bang theory are the red shift observed by Hubble. He observed that the amount of the red shift was proportional to the distance of the galaxy, implying that all galxies were expanding at at constant rate from a central point. The second major "proof" of the big bang is the background microwave radiation believed left by the event observed by Penzias and Wilson in 1964, for which they were later awarded a Nobel Prize. There are a number of other supporting theoretical and empirical supports for the big bang theory. If you want to learn more, look it up. Of course like all science, as more observations are made and more research done, the theory like all theories will develop and change. Only religious dogma is certain and rigid.

So in short, you don't know. You believe without proof. You search for the proof it would take for you to be sure, an dit eludes you.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 So in short, you don't know. You believe without proof. You search for the proof it would take for you to be sure, an dit eludes you.

So in short you demand a certainty which is only possible in religious faith. Of course, unlike science, faith demands no evidence and can never be proved. You are playing a con game and badly.

I became an atheist forty years ago because I was tired of the nonsense being shoved at me by preachers completely without any proof, and here I have a theist, who is clueless of what science is about, saying that I believe without proof. You are amusing, sir. Surreal perhaps, but amusing nonetheless.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Apeman81 You believe without proof.

But he has evidence. You have zilch.

Notice how he's introduced red shift, evolutionary evidences, etc.

What do you have to show for your side of the argument?

[gallo]

Quote by: RickSp You are amusing, sir. Surreal perhaps, but amusing nonetheless.

Boy, yeah. More than just amusing. He is militant about remaining ignorant.

Notice this gem, for example.

Quote by: Apeman81 Let’s accept for the moment that adaptation occurs ... Assuming this developed over time ... and was not the original design, this would represent adaptation, not evolution.

Neat, isn't it? So when evolution causes a problem for creationists, the creationist just tries to define evolution out of existence. "It's not evolution," they say, "it's adaptation." Indeed it is. Adaptation by natural selection, Darwin's major theory of evolution.

Years ago it was rare if you ever met a creationists who would admit that any living organism could ever change from the form created by the magical guy in the sky. As the years have passed, we began to run into creationists who actually became aware that populations of living organisms change in response to their environment. Apeman81 is at this middle stage of awareness. In recent years the loudest voices of creationism have admitted that not only adaptation occurs, but that in fact speciation happens too. And they have admitted that the most likely mechanisms are mutation and natural selection. It seems that creationists became aware that even by conservative estimates there are more than 5 million species of animal, more if you count the extinct ones that exist in the fossil record. This presented a problem - they just couldn't figure out how to cram all of those animals onto the ark. So they admitted evolution, sometimes within some specific genus but more usually up to the taxonomic level family. They just call it variation in kind. Thus, the 36 species of cat all came from a single pair. The 28 species of dog came from a single pair. And of course, no creationist doubts that brown bears and polar bears share a common ancestor.

Quote by: Apeman81 What creature has been observed to evolve into a new species of animal?

An example of the artificial creation of new species is quite evident in dogs. Creationists love to claim that they are the same species, but that is not the case. We just happen to know the history and know in the past that non-interfertile breeds once had common ancestors. Take chihuahuas and Great Danes - even if you tried to interbreed these dogs artificially, the embryos are not viable.

Herring gulls have also speciated in an interesting way. The herring gull of northern Europe and Great Britain ranges to the west, to Iceland, Greenland, and to North America. In fact, you can follow the contiguous and continuously interbreeding population all the way across North America, into Siberia, and all the way across the northern part of Asia and back to northern Europe. But then you encounter a problem when you notice that the population is now known as the lesser black-backed gull, and that it shares its range in northern Europe with the herring gull. But the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull do not interbreed. How about that? A single population in which the two extremes, separated by great distance, have become separate species.

The hawthorn maggot fly, the apple maggot fly, the cherry maggot fly, and the pear maggot fly do not interbreed. Each species infests only a single, specific fruit tree. And yet, before 1850 only the hawthorn maggot fly existed (apples, cherries, and pears were introduced to the U.S. and thus had not native pests). And yet, after 1850, first the apple maggot fly and then the others appeared. There really isn't any doubt as to where the three new species came from. They adapted to new food sources and those food sources had the effect of reproductively isolating each new species in turn.

Since Apeman81 is so interested, I'm sure that he will read the following:

[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]Observed Instances of Speciation[/quote]

Some More Observed Speciation Events

[Kite]

There is no doubt now that evolution happens. Viruses and bacteria are evolving to be resistant to anti-biotics all the time. The avian flu is a virus that evolved so that it could be passed from a bird to a human. You can't dispute the fact that these things happen. So what is the issue here? You can't say that things dont evolve without being outright wrong, and all this 'its not evolution its adaption' banter is a load of trash. Adaption begets evolution. The point creationists should be trying to prove is that we didnt evolve from monkeys, but were our own species to begin with, because trying to say that evolution flat out doesnt exist will only get you scoffed at.

[whydoumockme]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig ...That is, neither beneficial nor deleterious. To counter the claim that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed, let's go back to the mid-1970s at the University of Rochester where Professor Barry Hall is conducting an experiment with special strains of E. coli[2]. A typical nutrient of bacteria is lactose, so Hall decided to remove the lacZ gene, responsible for the metabolization of the milk sugar substance. Hall placed one strain in an environment rich in lactose with little nutrient to...

Ok i have a question.......what are you saying by this?.....that the only way for these cells or bacteria to muatate was take out this gene?.....was the only way that they were able to mutate?......someone explain.......if this is true then who the hell took out the monkeys special gene for us to mutate?

[northtexan]

Quote by: whydoumockme Ok i have a question.......what are you saying by this?.....that the only way for these cells or bacteria to muatate was take out this gene?.....was the only way that they were able to mutate?......someone explain.......if this is true then who the hell took out the monkeys special gene for us to mutate?

No, taking out the gene was done to see whether the bacteria would evolve some other way to digest lactose. Creationists faced with some evidences of evolved abilities, claimed that those abilities were always there and just came to the fore. By taking out the gene, that ability was guaranteed to not be there. Those bacteria that survived, as most did not, were those that did happen to mutate in such a way that they could digest lactose. When examined, they were found to have developed a variety of modes that were not present in the original bacteria.

Mutations occur naturally, the result of imperfect replication, of exposure to environmental conditions that change the genes, and so on. That is not the issue. The issu in the experiment was to create an environment in which failure to mutate was fatal. That eliminated the great majority of bacteria that either didn't mutate or mutated in ways that didn't make them able to digest lactose.

[Jack]

if this is true then who the hell took out the monkeys special gene for us to mutate?

We are not mutated monkees. We did not descend from apes. All monkees, great apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Monkees branched off from apes, as we branched off from both.

[Walmas]

true

[larsiepan]

i believe that science can explain almost everything that goes on in our world, but where it began i believe came from god. science can not explain explosion before explosion before explosion and so on...

[Spence]

the thing that gets me is that in biologly class i could chart what traits and predict the evolutiuon of a organism would carry and it all made perfect sense (granted i had a good teacher)

but in sunday school im supposed to belive that we all from the will of an all powerful all knowing enity that coonot prove it's own excistance for that would undermine our faith in it. and when i ask how all i get is "have faith and stop asking questions"

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: larsiepan i believe that science can explain almost everything that goes on in our world, but where it began i believe came from god. science can not explain explosion before explosion before explosion and so on...

Same reason I believe in Valkyries, incidentally. Science hasn't explained the northern lights yet. Oh wait...

Quote by: Spence but in sunday school im supposed to belive that we all from the will of an all powerful all knowing enity that coonot prove it's own excistance for that would undermine our faith in it. and when i ask how all i get is "have faith and stop asking questions"

Yeah typical response. You can use the same explanation to defend any religion.

[Nathan Struth]

Evolution is based upon opinion and the human mind, I think that evolution is in a state of both existence and non-existence

[Kite]

What exactly do you mean? That is a fairly vauge description.

[Technosoul]

I am not sure if how the universe began (if it did?) has anything to do with creature or plant evolution. To address the creation of the universe with a theory of the Big Bang would seem odd if we think the earth (planets and moons) evolved from a star. But that would be a possible idea to explore - do you think that stars evolve into planets? How do rocks evolve and from what other substance?

Or is evolution designed simply to explain changes that might occur in life forms?

If a human scientist were to genetically atler the the genes of a life form to cause future alternaitons of that being, would that be viewed as evolution. What came first - male or female? Did females evolve into males or visa versa?

What came first - flower or bee? Could the bee survive without flowers and could flowers survive without bees - how could nature know to evolve bees and flowers into being at the same time so that they can be dependant upon each other in order to continue their reproductions?

More importantly - how come I cannot evolve wings so I can save money in not buying airplane tickets?

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul I am not sure if how the universe began (if it did?) has anything to do with creature or plant evolution.

It doesn't. The theory of evolution deals with living organisms.

Quote by: Technosoul To address the creation of the universe with a theory of the Big Bang would seem odd if we think the earth (planets and moons) evolved from a star.

But nobody believes that the earth evolved from a star.

Quote by: Technosoul But that would be a possible idea to explore - do you think that stars evolve into planets?

No.

Quote by: Technosoul How do rocks evolve and from what other substance?

Rocks don't evolve. They are formed by minerals in various ways.

Quote by: Technosoul Or is evolution designed simply to explain changes that might occur in life forms?

Evolution isn't designed. Evolution is a theory of science that explains the mechanisms that cause observed changes in living organisms. All scientific theories are explanations that have been tested because they can be used to make predictions, and those predictions can be verified - or the theory is junked.

Quote by: Technosoul If a human scientist were to genetically atler the the genes of a life form to cause future alternaitons of that being, would that be viewed as evolution.

No. That is called genetic modification of crops. It's done all the time.

Quote by: Technosoul What came first - male or female? Did females evolve into males or visa versa?

Did you actually think before you asked that?

Quote by: Technosoul What came first - flower or bee? Could the bee survive without flowers and could flowers survive without bees - how could nature know to evolve bees and flowers into being at the same time so that they can be dependant upon each other in order to continue their reproductions?

No. Bees couldn't survive without flowers. But nature is not a sentient being that "knows" things. Simply, an organism took advantage of an available food source and over time it came to depend on that food source.

Quote by: Technosoul More importantly - how come I cannot evolve wings so I can save money in not buying airplane tickets?

So, you want to give up your hands and arms so that you can have wings? By the way, populations evolve over time. Individuals don't evolve. So if you sprouted wings, it wouldn't be evolutions.