Creationism vs. Evolution

[Abdullah]

Quote by: gallo 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.

rotfl, yes I am using Harun Yahyas work and his book "Darwinsim Refuted", and just to point this out you guys should know by know that Evolution is a lie which all of you have gotten sucked into.

You all should stop clinging to this materialistic dogma and learn of the truth.

[Jack]

You all should stop clinging to this materialistic dogma and learn of the truth.

I prefer "truth", if you must resort to that terminology, that can be examined scientifically and does not offer itself as the divine and absolute truth over that "truth" which must be accepted with blind faith.

[gallo]

Quote by: Abdullah rotfl, yes I am using Harun Yahyas work and his book "Darwinsim Refuted",

You think it's funny that you get sucked into that stuff, without actually understanding what you are arguing? But of course, somehow you think that your religion requires that you be a scientific illiterate. Isn't that sad, since it was actually the Muslims who preserved the knowledge of the ancient world through the dark ages?

Quote by: Abdullah ...and just to point this out you guys should know by know that Evolution is a lie which all of you have gotten sucked into.

Actually, evolution is an observation that has been verified many times over. The problem is that you, even though you claim to know what you are talking about, don't. That is evident by the fact that you argue by out of context quote without ever actually citing the source of the quote. Usually you give only a name. Some of the names with which I am familiar have been quite old. For example, your quote from J. Huxley was probably about 80 years old.

You also said the following:

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

As Pooeypants pointed out, that statement isn't in conflict with evolutionary theory. However, your quote is bogus. Darwin most certainly did say things like that, but your quote is an invention.

For example, in a letter to Charles Lyell about Hugh Falconer (1862) (from Life and Letters, V. II) Darwin said:

I do not quite see the force of his argument, and he apparently overlooks that I say over and over again that Natural Selection can do nothing without variability, and that variability is subject to the most complex fixed laws...

In a letter to Hugh Falconer (1862) (from More Life and Letters, V. I) Darwin said:

I could show you many passages, written as strongly as I could in the "Origin," declaring that Natural Selection can do nothing without previous variability; and I have tried to put equally strongly that variability is governed by many laws, mostly quite unknown.

And A.R. Wallace quotes Darwin in a letter to Darwin himself (1866) (More Life and Letters, V. I)

For example, at the commencement of Chapter IV. you ask if it is "improbable that useful variations should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations"; and a little further on you say, "unless profitable variations do occur, Natural Selection can do nothing."

However, if you read Chapter 4 of Origin (1st edition) you will find that Wallace was paraphrasing. What Darwin said was this:

What applies to one animal will apply throughout all time to all animals--that is, if they vary--for otherwise natural selection can do nothing.

But you weren't paraphrasing. You actually think that you were giving us a quote from Darwin. I challenge you to tell us specifically where Darwin said what you claim he said.

What is really pathetic is that you are arguing against the sufficiency of genetic mutation to provide genetic variability, and you quote Darwin, who had no concept of genetics.

Quote by: Abdullah You all should stop clinging to this materialistic dogma and learn of the truth.

Yet another religious zealot who doesn't know the difference between materialism and methodological naturalism. Evolution isn't materialistic. It isn't even naturalistic. How pathetic that you think that I and others here are the ones clinging to dogma. I make no claims of "truth." In fact, the only one I see doing that is you. How dogmatic.

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: Abdullah . Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

Mutant mosquitos can survive insecticides. http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/513083.html
Howzat!!!

Luke

[Abdullah]

Quote by: luke virtual kh Mutant mosquitos can survive insecticides. http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/513083.html Howzat!!! Luke

"The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."-evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala

Its called "genetic information deficit"

You think it's funny that you get sucked into that stuff, without actually understanding what you are arguing? But of course, somehow you think that your religion requires that you be a scientific illiterate. Isn't that sad, since it was actually the Muslims who preserved the knowledge of the ancient world through the dark ages?

You dont know how stupid you sound, take a look in the Science and Islam topic and then call me a "scientific illiterate".

Actually, evolution is an observation that has been verified many times over. The problem is that you, even though you claim to know what you are talking about, don't. That is evident by the fact that you argue by out of context quote without ever actually citing the source of the quote. Usually you give only a name. Some of the names with which I am familiar have been quite old. For example, your quote from J. Huxley was probably about 80 years old.

lol show me evolution happening.

Yet another religious zealot who doesn't know the difference between materialism and methodological naturalism. Evolution isn't materialistic. It isn't even naturalistic. How pathetic that you think that I and others here are the ones clinging to dogma. I make no claims of "truth." In fact, the only one I see doing that is you. How dogmatic.

Another one who dosent know the difference between science and materialism, even evolutionist point out that Darwinism is a Materialistic Dogma:

"Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature."-paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould

your HW should be to find out the difference between science and materialism

[someguymp3]

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." 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

but it's NOT mutations, it's variations.

Variations exsist - look at humans. Tall, small, quick, slow, intelligent, less-so.

Now, if you have a group of giraffes that have a certain amount of food, one which is insufficient, those with longer necks have a greater amount of food available to them (since they can reach higher) so therefore they have a better chance of reproducing and consequently passing on these beneficial genes. Therefore, this characteristic is more common in the next generation and those with still longer necks are once more at an advantage and so the cycle continues.

We use this knowledge in farming, for instance to breed cows that produce a good quality of milk with those who produce a good quantity of milk. It works.

Recently, in the UK, very close to an airport two types of the same insect lived on the hedges. One was green, the other dark and the green heavily outnumbered the dark. The airport produced a large amount of pollution and fairly quickly the hedges turned black through all the waste that landed on them. In a matter of months, the dark insects started to outnumber the green ones. What was happening was that birds could spot green insects a lot better than the more camoflauged dark ones. When the area was cleaned up and the hedges were returned to their green state, the situation was reversed.

And that's evolution as taught to 12 year olds. Please know what you're talking about before you start syaing that the entire scientific world has got it wrong

[Abdullah]

Quote by: someguymp3 but it's NOT mutations, it's variations. Variations exsist - look at humans. Tall, small, quick, slow, intelligent, less-so. Now, if you have a group of giraffes that have a certain amount of food, one which is insufficient, those with longer necks have a greater amount of food available to them (since they can reach higher) so therefore they have a better chance of reproducing and consequently passing on these beneficial genes. Therefore, this characteristic is more common in the next generation and those with still longer necks are once more at an advantage and so the cycle continues. We use this knowledge in farming, for instance to breed cows that produce a good quality of milk with those who produce a good quantity of milk. It works. Recently, in the UK, very close to an airport two types of the same insect lived on the hedges. One was green, the other dark and the green heavily outnumbered the dark. The airport produced a large amount of pollution and fairly quickly the hedges turned black through all the waste that landed on them. In a matter of months, the dark insects started to outnumber the green ones. What was happening was that birds could spot green insects a lot better than the more camoflauged dark ones. When the area was cleaned up and the hedges were returned to their green state, the situation was reversed. And that's evolution as taught to 12 year olds. Please know what you're talking about before you start syaing that the entire scientific world has got it wrong

really? I thought it was natural selection and mutations (random changes), not variations.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Abdullah really? I thought it was natural selection and mutations (random changes), not variations.

Variations are caused by mutations. How else do variations come about?

[gallo]

Quote by: Pooeypants Variations are caused by mutations. How else do variations come about?

Exactly. There are several kinds of changes in a genome that are lumped as "mutations." Any change in the genome that wasn't there before produces genetic variability or genetic diversity. This is what makes a species adaptable in a changing environment.

Although it is constantly stated that mutations are rare, most people have a wrong idea of what that means. Even if we ignore the billions of cell divisions that produced the somatic cells in your body (and have not evolutionary importance), each individual inherits between 10 and 100 mutations from his/her parents.

Creationists love to claim that "most" mutations are harmful and therefore no evolution can ever take place. Of course, this is not correct. Most mutations have no effect whatsoever. Many are harmful, and a few are beneficial.

Evolution takes place because certain mechanisms tend to increase the genetic diversity in a population, while other mechanisms tend to reduce it.

[Kite]

Quote by: Abdullah lol show me evolution happening.

Bird Flu. A virus that was confined to infecting only avian species has mutated to a strain that can be passed from bird to human. There is a chance that this strain could further mutate to allow human to human transmission. I think you will find it hard to deny evolution when you are dying from it.

[aarondlawso]

I think that evolution is definately real.
There is overwhelming evidence that evolution is real. Anyone who has HIV wither knows that evolution is real, or is completely stupid.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...e/IA2HIV.shtml
You might say that god created the world, but he must have been pretty darn smart and as far as we can tell no one is smarter than humans (it is possible that pigs/dolphins are smarter than we are, but are lacking something we have to put ideas together as we do)

But then, there is another question:
As humans, we search for truth, but do we strive to believe this truth?
correct me if I understood you wrong, gallo, but I think that earlier you said that you don't put any faith in scientific theories, but think that they are the best way to find conclusions from the data observed. But science is where we search for truth (making creationism hilariously out of the picture of what we could rationally believe in an instant) and doesn't it make sense to believe what has come from science? Take this for an example:

You're a baby, you have a totally clean brain (except for your instincts) and your father says "pick up the baby" and someone picks you up. You would deduce from that (I don't know much about being a baby since it's been a while but this is what I'm guessing) that since someone lifting you right after someone said "pick up", you would add the words "pick up" on your list of words, with a small connection with being lifted off the ground. Unless you are a psychotic baby and think that your father was speaking martian language and actually said "screw the baby" and the person who picked you up understood it as lifting you off the ground, or something.

As babies, we are instinctively using the scientific method to find answers to questions. And with more evidence that "pick up" means being lifted off the ground, you believe it. And then when you get older, your parents tell you that there is a god, maybe you get baptized or something, and come to a place where people worship something that didn't originate from the scientific method. You think "what the hell? oh well I guess my parents told me and I trust them because they have treated me well so long." so you believe there is a god. But there is no need to brainwash kids with things of that nature, obscure the scientific lens that connects their eyes, ears, and brain.

From all this evidence, collected long term, Darwin suggested a theory of evolution. Other people said whoa whoa whoa my parents told me that god existed and god will smile upon me if I present this idea. Whenever people supporting evolution say something that supports their theory, the creationists say, "oh uhh god made it that way." well you know what? you can keep on spitting out that crap until it gets so ridiculous that darwinists say "hey look! look over there! that proves my theory, according to your absurd offense." and they go "oh uh that wasn't there a minute ago..."

Your can create any god you want, and it brings comfort because makes you think that something wiser will take care of your problems, has a plan for a good life for you, and will consider your interests fairly (if that is what your god is made to do).

I predict that the debate will never end, people supporting evolution saying evidence that gets it's strength from the fact that it was acquired by the scientific method (the method that is by definition real), but is weak because it can't be tweaked to make it extremely obvious. The creationists use ideas they made up with no evidence. The strength in this is that it can be tweaked however they want it to, because it's made up. The weakness of it is that it is not supported by things that are real.

So it comes down to the method of acquiring (I guess facts isn't the right word here...) acquiring evidence by the way implanted in us by our ancestors, the animals we evolved from, or "evidence" told to us by our parents that was passed down.
So it comes down to instinct vs. tradition. Tradition gives us strength, forgiveness, and happiness. Instinct gives us (this time it is the right word) facts, or things that are real. Some people may say from reading this, and it is true, that oh yeah of course the scientific methos is definately best because it gives us facts, but that is not necessarily true. Should we have a society based on facts that give us true knowledge but not a certain inner strength required for happiness/harmony, or should we have a society based on something that does not give us knowledge, but it does give us inner strength? The only problem with having a mixture of both is that the creationism view is very strong at obscuring the scientific lens, whereas the scientific lens burns creationism like a magnifying glass burns an ant. So what is the answer? Tell me what you think, I would like to know.

Creationism can be used as a psychological comfortor, fine. That's fair. But please, don't argue with the scientists... they are looking at something completely different in nature. You know by observing that creationism can't be real. You also know by comfort in faith that it has to be. One can in fact believe in both if they put them in different places in their head. But don't try to invade that place in your head set aside for observations with something that makes you psychologically comforted...that isn't, whats the word, REAL!

-aaron

[gallo]

Quote by: Pooeypants Variations are caused by mutations. How else do variations come about?

The preferred terminology is genetic variability or genitic diversity. It comes about by at least three different mechanisms; mutations (there are many kinds of genetic changes that are called mutations), gene flow, and recombination. All three of the above have been observed to increase the genetic diversity in a population. So this leads one to wonder exactly what is the point that Abdullah is trying to make?

[gallo]

Quote by: Abdullah lol show me evolution happening.

Sure. In 1850 there were no natural pests that infested apples in the Ohio valley. In 1860 there were apple maggot flies. Apples were introduced from Europe. The maggot flies were native to America. A new food source became available and the maggot flies speciated from the hawthorn maggot flies. In a similar manner, cherry maggot flies and pear maggot flies also speciated. Since none of these different kinds of maggot flies interbreeds, they have become different species. That is evolution.

The herring gull of northern Europe ranges to the west, to north Atlantic islands - Shetlands, Iceland and southern Greenland. These birds are indistinguishable from the herring gulls of the east coast of North America - in fact, they interbreed. This same population crosses North America to Alaska and continues into Siberia, and across northern Asia and back to northern Europe. But the extreme western end of this single population is known as the lesser black-backed gull. Herring gulls and lesser black-backed gulls do not interbreed. They are the extremes of a population that circles the globe where the extremes are separate species.

[strawberijam518]

whoever it was who posted the long thread outlining the first verses of Genesis...

you said everything came in the wrong order (i.e., earth before sun, etc.), but in Genesis it clearly says that "the earth was void, and without form" = non-existent. and even if it did come before the sun, and it wasn't gravitationally held by the sun, consider this: an all-powerful God was speaking the world into being...you don't think He could've held the world up for a while, until He turned the sun on?

And as far as animals coming millions of years before humans, where's your proof? Please give me an example or something...

more to come

[rez]

Quote by: strawberijam518 whoever it was who posted the long thread outlining the first verses of Genesis... you said everything came in the wrong order (i.e., earth before sun, etc.), but in Genesis it clearly says that "the earth was void, and without form" = non-existent. and even if it did come before the sun, and it wasn't gravitationally held by the sun, consider this: an all-powerful God was speaking the world into being...you don't think He could've held the world up for a while, until He turned the sun on? And as far as animals coming millions of years before humans, where's your proof? Please give me an example or something... more to come

very compelling argument. I sure hope Intelligent Design is taught in science class, because all I have to do is vomit this BS up and i'll get an easy A, consequently curving my grade to a decent B+.

[RickSp]

Quote by: strawberijam518 And as far as animals coming millions of years before humans, where's your proof? Please give me an example or something...

Are you one of those who thinks the earth is only 10,000 years old and all radiometric dating is faulty? There is lots of evidence of the origins of man, but if you are a "young earther" then discussion just isn't worth the time. You'll see everything through your Biblical prism and squeeze the facts to fit. Makes as much sense to discuss astrology.

[oranged]

No religion forced on people! Ever! I think it's fine if they want to teach kids about various religious cultures. That's when they teach about creationism, they don't ever try to convince people that it's true.

[gallo]

How is it that both Abdullah and Strawberijam518 know the "truth" but they both seem to know a differend "truth?" Doesn't it seem a bit strange that religious truth is geographic in nature?

[ilkpzza]

What is up dudes?! I have been gone for quite a while but am back for the time being. I have read over much of what has been said but find that the most recent creationist arguements are under par at best. People saying that no usefull evo. has ever been observed is kidding themselves. Microevolution is a widely accepted and solidly proven science. Such as the bird flu strain that mutated the ability to transfer from bird to man. Or the whole domesticated dog thing. The fact of the matter is that macroevoltuion has never been proven. There is a LOT of supporting evidence but modern science has not been around even close to long enough to observe and prove such occurances as a new spiecie emerging. We discover new animals all the time but these in no way were observed transformations.
I would rather like to touch on where life began. A populary accepted idea is that some time after the creation of the earth huge lightening storms tore through the atmosphere creating amino acids which we all know are the basic building blocks of life. I am not disputing that this could have occured but what i would like to ask is where the life began? As far as i can see most evolutionists believe in a theory that was disproven hundreds of years ago. I am talking about spontanious generation. You have all undoubtably heard of it you put old socks in a stack of hay and BOOM you got mice. Leaves from a tree fall to the water and you got fish. Lightening from the sky cooks the atmosphere and WOW you got one-celled lifeforms. I just don't see it I try and corporations such as nova do do quite a good job but they always gloss over this point. An answer would be nice.

[gallo]

Quote by: ilkpzza [snip of initial meaningless tripe] People saying that no usefull evo. has ever been observed is kidding themselves. Microevolution is a widely accepted and solidly proven science.

Here we go again with a scientific illiterate talking about "proven science." When are you guys going to get it into your head that science doesn't prove anything - it explains. It explains observations of nature. One of those observations is what you call micro-evolution. Let me say that again in other words so that I am sure that you understand. Micro-evolution is an observation. It is a fact. To speak of proof is nonsense.

Quote by: ilkpzza Such as the bird flu strain that mutated the ability to transfer from bird to man.

And you know it was a mutation how? Flu is generally like that. Many strains of bird flu can be passed to pigs and humans. It happened in 1916 (H1N1) and eventually produced the pandemic of 1918 that killed 50 million people. It happened in 1957 (H2N2) and killed about 70,000 in the U.S. And it happened again in 1968 (H3N2) and killed about 35,000 people in the U.S. And yet again in 1976. But the problem isn't that a human can catch the flu from a bird or a pig (that caught it from a bird). The problem is if the person has another, run of the mill, highly infective human flu. In the above cases it is believed that each exchanged genetic material with an infective strain of human flu in a single victim. That exchange made them able to be passed from human to human. So far, the current avian flu (H5N1) can only be contracted by close association with infected birds. Hopefully we will have a vaccine by the time it makes the jump to humans.

Quote by: ilkpzza Or the whole domesticated dog thing.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. If we were not aware that the various breeds of domestic animals (horses, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, etc.) were the result of artificial selection, then we might classify many of them as separate species, if not separate genera. For example, Great Danes and Chihuahuas cannot interbreed even by artificial means. No matter what the cross, the embryos are not viable.

Quote by: ilkpzza The fact of the matter is that macroevoltuion has never been proven.

Indeed. But like micro-evolution, it has been observed many, many times.

Quote by: ilkpzza There is a LOT of supporting evidence but modern science has not been around even close to long enough to observe and prove such occurances as a new spiecie emerging. We discover new animals all the time but these in no way were observed transformations.

Actually, you don't know what you are talking about. Speciation has been observed on many occasions. Some of them took place in a lab. Some of them in nature. One easy place to look is the case of introduced plants. Apples, pears, and cherries for example. There were no natural pests in North America when they were introduced. But in the latter half of the 1800s apple maggot flies, pear maggot flies and cherry maggot flies arose. Now maybe your god poofed them into existence from nothing, but I don't see that as explanatory. What is more likely is a series of speciation events in which the hawthorn maggot fly adapted to take advantage of the availability of additional food sources. The larvae and the flies are indistinguishable (at least for humans) but they do not interbreed.

Do you need more examples?

Quote by: ilkpzza I would rather like to touch on where life began. A populary accepted idea is that some time after the creation of the earth huge lightening storms tore through the atmosphere creating amino acids which we all know are the basic building blocks of life. I am not disputing that this could have occured but what i would like to ask is where the life began?

I'm not sure what you are asking since no body claims that the production of amino acids by lightning is the source of life. In fact, I have no idea what a "populary" accepted idea is. I'm at a loss.

Quote by: ilkpzza As far as i can see most evolutionists believe in a theory that was disproven hundreds of years ago.

Actually not. It seems that you haven't bothered to learn the basics of that which you claim to oppose. The source of life is not a matter of evolutionary theory. Evolution deals with changes in living organisms - even you can probably figure out that life must exist before evolution can take place.

Quote by: ilkpzza I am talking about spontanious generation. You have all undoubtably heard of it you put old socks in a stack of hay and BOOM you got mice. Leaves from a tree fall to the water and you got fish.

Your ideas about science are quite medieval, aren't they. Perhaps you didn't notice that spontaneous generation involved the generation of vermin from previously living material. I just don't understand how that is meaningful in this discussion. Of course we all know that if you don't clean behind your refrigerator from time to time that cockroaches will spontaneously generate back there.

Quote by: ilkpzza Lightening from the sky cooks the atmosphere and WOW you got one-celled lifeforms.

Why is it that only creationists make such stupid statements?

Quote by: ilkpzza I just don't see it I try and corporations such as nova do do quite a good job but they always gloss over this point. An answer would be nice.

I suspect that even though NOVA tones down their stuff so that it can be understood by the average person who is interested in science, they can't tone it down to the level of a typical creationist. You seem to be a pretty good example. You don't seem to have learned anything.