Creationism vs. Evolution

[rez]

Hey gallo,

In your opinion, what do you think the most important "quality" of the universe is in order to sustain "life"?


For example. If gravity was not a quality of the universe then planets would not form and quite frankly the earth wouldnt be able to hold in oxygen via an Ozone layer......

I am kinda perplexed as to why the universe has certain qualities. For instance, why does the universe have gravity and elements? Why does matter have gravity?

[Kite]

Because thats the way things work. There is no 'why'.

[rez]

sorry but,

why not?

I mean, if theres a universe then it has to have gravity. Because a Universe wouldnt be a Universe without gravity.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Kite Because thats the way things work. There is no 'why'.

There are whys, and to those whys there are answers, but we don't know them yet. That unknowing is major reason why people like religion. It shows them answers right away, truthful or not.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 There are whys, and to those whys there are answers, but we don't know them yet. That unknowing is major reason why people like religion. It shows them answers right away, truthful or not.

I thought I would add another tidbit on the controversy from a chruch father St. Augustine, Fundie Christians who cling to YEC creationism often claim that their view has always been the main traditional Christian view, but this in reality is not so.

I appologize in advance if I have posted this before.

[cite=St Augustine] Notes from the founding church fathers and others concerning the interpretation of Genesis and the history



Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

- St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)[/cite]

[gallo]

Quote by: rez Hey gallo, In your opinion, what do you think the most important "quality" of the universe is in order to sustain "life"? For example. If gravity was not a quality of the universe then planets would not form and quite frankly the earth wouldnt be able to hold in oxygen via an Ozone layer...... I am kinda perplexed as to why the universe has certain qualities. For instance, why does the universe have gravity and elements? Why does matter have gravity?

The universe doesn't sustain life. We actually know of only one small, insignificant place in the universe that has life, but there may be others. What is required is water - not ice and not vapor - but liquid water. That implies a temperature within a certain range.

Science can't answer some metaphysical question about why things are as they are. Science just investigates what is.

[Abdullah]

I didnt bother reading all of those pages but heres why i think evolution dosent work-

Darwin said it himself that-"Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."

"First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement"-Biologist B. G. Ranganathan

"Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent"-pathologist David A. Demick

So I dont see how mutations would help

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Abdullah, that's like me not reading your post, then me posting why I think your position is wrong. And I suggest breaking these quotes down into what you actually know you can deal with, not what some pathologist said. That's the whole point of understanding it for yourself, something creationists have trouble grasping.

[Abdullah]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Abdullah, that's like me not reading your post, then me posting why I think your position is wrong. And I suggest breaking these quotes down into what you actually know you can deal with, not what some pathologist said. That's the whole point of understanding it for yourself, something creationists have trouble grasping.

Its a 101 pages! I just thought you wouldnt mind me throwing out what I think.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Abdullah Its a 101 pages! I just thought you wouldnt mind me throwing out what I think.

That's not what you think, that's what someone else thinks; for all I know, you have no idea what they are talking about. And I don't want to take that chance, I hate debating people who don't know what they are talking about.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Abdullah Darwin said it himself that-"Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."

This is completely inline with evolution

Quote by: Abdullah "First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement"-Biologist B. G. Ranganathan

It's correct but still doesn't completely conflict with evolution.

Quote by: Abdullah "Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent"-pathologist David A. Demick So I dont see how mutations would help

This quote shows much misleading. A mutation by definition is change in genetic code. Now the code exists and has survived so long for a reason, because it is suited to the environment. Without a change in the environment, a change in the code can only mean a bad thing.
Beneficial mutations have occurred and has been observed, the most famous being the sickle cell anaemia. If you're a carrier then you're given increased immunity to malaria, meaning you survive better in malaria infested countries. Such is the case in northern Africa where HSc gene is far more common percentage than places without malaria. Clearly, the environmental pressure is at play.

[Abdullah]

Quote by: Pooeypants This is completely inline with evolution It's correct but still doesn't completely conflict with evolution. This quote shows much misleading. A mutation by definition is change in genetic code. Now the code exists and has survived so long for a reason, because it is suited to the environment. Without a change in the environment, a change in the code can only mean a bad thing. Beneficial mutations have occurred and has been observed, the most famous being the sickle cell anaemia. If you're a carrier then you're given increased immunity to malaria, meaning you survive better in malaria infested countries. Such is the case in northern Africa where HSc gene is far more common percentage than places without malaria. Clearly, the environmental pressure is at play.

Yeah OK, using that logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature."

You obviously dont know that Sickle Cell Anemia causes the oxygen-carrying capacities to be weakened due to the unsual shape.

Mutations are "mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." -Pierre-Paul Grassse of the French Academy of Sciences.

A good example is E.Coli, a bacterium whose mutants have been studied very carefully, countless mutations over this long period(since the Permian) have not led to any structural changes.

The mechanisms of Darwinism are flawed

[Abdullah]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Quote by: Abdullah Its a 101 pages! I just thought you wouldnt mind me throwing out what I think. That's not what you think, that's what someone else thinks; for all I know, you have no idea what they are talking about. And I don't want to take that chance, I hate debating people who don't know what they are talking about.

Oh belive me i know what I`m talking about, I know the mechanisms of Darwinism and how they are flawed because of no evidence of those mechanisms actually happening in nature.They`re just assumptions and haven`t created a single spiecies and the fossil record proves it:

"The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years]."-Grasse

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Abdullah Yeah OK, using that logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature."

Why not? If it were the case that all people with cars died in accidents, or at least most then we'd be left with mainly paralysed people to mate and pass on their mutate genes.
This is mendelian genetics, it's as basic as it gets. Evolution doesn't care whether a gene is considered useful or not, that is subjective. The selection pressures change with the environment, it is not set in stone.

Quote by: Abdullah You obviously dont know that Sickle Cell Anemia causes the oxygen-carrying capacities to be weakened due to the unsual shape. Mutations are "mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." -Pierre-Paul Grassse of the French Academy of Sciences.

Obviously, I do. I said carrier, which are those with hetereozygous mutated Haemoglobin gene. These people are weakly phenotypic of the sickle cell condition, not enough to cause major health hazard but their increased malaria resistance gives them to the edge over normal Hb carriers.
Before you make a bigger fool of yourself, read here.

Quote by: Abdullah A good example is E.Coli, a bacterium whose mutants have been studied very carefully, countless mutations over this long period(since the Permian) have not led to any structural changes.

Tell me, is E.coli a successful organism? Is it struggling to survive in our day to day world?

Quote by: Abdullah The mechanisms of Darwinism are flawed

Only to those who haven't actually studied the science.

[Abdullah]

Tell me, is E.coli a successful organism? Is it struggling to survive in our day to day world?

Yes it is succesful but what is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not produce evolutionary change?

3 facts about mutations

l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations.

"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy"-Grasse

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."-Grasse

Obviously, I do. I said carrier, which are those with hetereozygous mutated Haemoglobin gene. These people are weakly phenotypic of the sickle cell condition, not enough to cause major health hazard but their increased malaria resistance gives them to the edge over normal Hb carriers. Before you make a bigger fool of yourself, read here.

FYI People can die because of this disease, evolutionist would say anything to prove there point even if its illogical.

Some info on the SSA disease-info
info
more info

Why not? If it were the case that all people with cars died in accidents, or at least most then we'd be left with mainly paralysed people to mate and pass on their mutate genes. This is mendelian genetics, it's as basic as it gets. Evolution doesn't care whether a gene is considered useful or not, that is subjective. The selection pressures change with the environment, it is not set in stone

o plz....

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Abdullah Yes it is succesful but what is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not produce evolutionary change? "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."-Grasse

I'm sorry, who are you quoting?
You claimed that E. coli hadn't changed since several hundred millions of years ago, do you have the data to prove this? Do you have DNA from that era to compare? How did E. coli adapt to its new challenges? How did it become so good at living in our gut when you claim that the organism is hundreds of millions of years old but we humans are barely several hundred thousands?
Evolutionary change is happening all the time, just because we don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Our lifetime is relatively short but even today we see evolution happening. The emergence of antibiotic resistance is one of them. It is very prominent and no laughing matter. You may deny it, but for the medical world it is a serious threat.

Quote by: Abdullah FYI People can die because of this disease, evolutionist would say anything to prove there point even if its illogical. Some info on the SSA disease-info info more info

Time to get out the beating stick. I know what SSA causes, notice that I was talking about the carriers, the hetereozygous. The homozygous of the mutant gene do indeed suffer greatly and will die but the carriers do have increased malaria resistance compared to normal Haemoglobin humans.
It's a statistical fact that the prevalence of SSC gene is greater in malaria inflicted areas than anywhere else. How do you go about explaining this?
By the way, do you know how many different mutations we've record thus far that causes SSA? I'll leave that be as your homework.

Quote by: Abdullah o plz....

If you have nothing to contribute then don't post

[Abdullah]

The emergence of antibiotic resistance is one of them

Another myth that has been carried on by evolutionist, read:

"Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... The organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics"-biophysicist Lee Spetner

Its most certainly not evolution:

"The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species"-biophysicist Lee Spetner

As you can see the genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria, most certainly not a mechanism of evolution.

Time to get out the beating stick. I know what SSA causes, notice that I was talking about the carriers, the hetereozygous. The homozygous of the mutant gene do indeed suffer greatly and will die but the carriers do have increased malaria resistance compared to normal Haemoglobin humans. It's a statistical fact that the prevalence of SSC gene is greater in malaria inflicted areas than anywhere else. How do you go about explaining this? By the way, do you know how many different mutations we've record thus far that causes SSA? I'll leave that be as your homework.

lol, show me the mutations that cause SSA and your logic is already flawed about SSA as I adressed it in my previous post.

You claimed that E. coli hadn't changed since several hundred millions of years ago, do you have the data to prove this? Do you have DNA from that era to compare? How did E. coli adapt to its new challenges? How did it become so good at living in our gut when you claim that the organism is hundreds of millions of years old but we humans are barely several hundred thousands?

My source of E.Coli:

Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms,

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Abdullah Another myth that has been carried on by evolutionist, read: "Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... The organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics"-biophysicist Lee Spetner Its most certainly not evolution: "The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species"-biophysicist Lee Spetner As you can see the genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria, most certainly not a mechanism of evolution.

I'm sorry, since when was a biophysicists deemed a world authority of evolutionary biology?
Evolution can take many forms, one of its definition is the change of allele frequency within a population. See, even if it were just the horizontal transfer of genes it is still part of evolution.
Furthermore, I don't see how antibiotic resistance to a new antibiotic can be explained purely from conjugation. There are new mutants appearing ALL the time, whether they thrive depends on the environment.
The University of Berkeley treats evolving resistance to antibiotics to be a real and serious issue.
Maybe some day you'll realise when yourself or someone you know is unfortunately enough to be infected with MRSA.

Quote by: Abdullah lol, show me the mutations that cause SSA and your logic is already flawed about SSA as I adressed it in my previous post.

No, my logic is fully justified, your's however only adds up to, "I know I am right so I won't accept what you have to say". I asked the question first, how many known different variations of the haemoglobin gene are there?

Quote by: Abdullah My source of E.Coli: Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms,

Quote the passage from which you got your data.

[underbear1]

Some viruses may be more stable than others or minor mutations suceed equally.
HIV is very mutation prone, and of the millions of copies being produced the sucessful ones which adapt to be resistant to the drugs being used, are the ones that continue to replicate.

[gallo]

Quote by: Abdullah Oh belive me i know what I`m talking about, I know the mechanisms of Darwinism and how they are flawed because of no evidence of those mechanisms actually happening in nature.They`re just assumptions and haven`t created a single spiecies and the fossil record proves it:

Actually, Abdullah is totally ignorant. The minute that someone starts expounding on the evils and shortcomings of Darwinism, you can bet that he hasn't a clue. Modern evolutionary biology is no more "Darwinism" in biology than M theory is "Newtonism" in physics. Even more evident of the lack of actual understanding on the part of Abdullah is his constant argument by out of context quote, mostly obscure at that, in which he regurgitates what he has been told to say. It really doesn't demonstrate any understanding at all. An example being his quotes about the rarity of mutation and how most are harmful. It shows a willingness to pull quotes out of context, whether by intent or ignorance, I don't know. Yes. Mutations are rare. Given the huge size of the genome of any species, mutations are rare. In humans, every individual has between 10 and 100 mutations that his parents didn't have. Quite rare, given the size of the genome. But most aren't harmful. That is either stupidity or a lie. Most mutations have no effect at all. Many are harmful, and a few are beneficial. But of course, whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on the environment.

What Harun...uh..I mean Abdullah tries to hide is that fact that any mutation that is not immediately harmful provides genetic variability. In a stable environment, this may not be beneficial to an already well adapted species. Nevertheless, constant mutations (along with other mechanisms) tend introduce variability into the genome of a species that may or may not be eliminated by other mechanisms of evolution. What matters is that if the environment changes, the organism has the genetic variability to adapt to that change (and thus reduce the genetic variability, create a bottleneck, and make the species more fragile).

Harun...uh...Abdullah seems to think that evolution is somehow a goal - somehow organisms are trying to change in order to achieve perfection. That's like you trying to be taller than your parents. It just doesn't work that way. And that is why Abdullah doesn't actually have the slightest understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

I suspect that Abdullah is pulling his material from the work of Harun Yaha, a Turkish young earth fundamentalist Muslim. Very slick presentation, with appropriate claims of approbation by Allah. Fundamentalist Muslims are easily sucked in to the lie.