Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: Yusuf Natural Selection is based on the observation that there is variation among individuals in a population.

Partly. That is a much simplified statement. There is really much more to it than that.

Quote by: Yusuf Natural selection states that those individuals which posses some advantage in the environment (such as being a faster runner) are more likely to leave more offspring, thereby increasing the probability of passing the advantage on to future generations.

It's known as differential reproductive success. It's the statistical tendency for organisms with characteristics that are beneficial in a particular environment to survive to reproduce more frequently, and therefore leave more offspring. As a result, the genetic makeup of the population may change over time. Or, as is the case with already well adapted organisms, they the population will tend to stay the same.

Quote by: Yusuf Natural Selection is what "retains" the occasional positive mutation and causes the population to "advance" is some way.

No. There is no concept of "advance" in natural selection or evolution. Evolution isn't defined as an advance or progress. Such statements are always wrong. Evolution is change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. "Advance" is a subjective term that actually has no meaning in evolutionary theory.

Quote by: Yusuf Creationists note that this mechanism can only "select" among already existing traits - it cannot create something new.

Why does one have to be a creationist to be aware that natural selection can only act on existing genetic diversity? Why do creationists think that it is such an earth shaking concept? As you discussed above, mutation is one of the sources of the genetic diversity upon which natural selection acts. In addition, there are other mechanisms of evolution.

Quote by: Yusuf This is not general evolution, it is Variation. Animals, such as birds, living in different places may have different beaks or feathers, but they cannot evolve into a new species.

I'm sorry, but what is "general evolution," and specifically what is it that you are claiming isn't "general evolution." You're just trying the bait and switch. It seems that creationists have realized that evolution actually does happen (when I was young creationists denied that any evolution was possible) and so are trying to deny it by calling it "variation," whatever that means.

As for your birds, are you talking about a single population that has split into two or more sub-populations? Are you claiming that the changes in the genetic makeup of those populations that causes changes in the feathers and the beaks isn't evolution? Nonsense. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. Your birds are a classic example of evolution.

And of course, any fool knows that a population of birds can evolve into new species. Would you like to hear of a couple of examples. Since you mentioned birds, I'll discuss those. Herring gulls. Herring gulls are found, literally, around the world. The herring gulls of Europe interbreed with those from Iceland and Greenland, and those with herring gulls in North America, and those with birds in Siberia, and those with others across northern Asia and back to northern Europe. But the western most population is known as the lesser black-backed gull and they don't interbreed with European herring gulls, even though they share the same range. They are separate species. In fact, the lesser black-backed gull has expanded its range and it is now also found in North America, still not interbreeding with herring gulls.

And then there is the warbler that lives in the mountains around the central Tibetan plateau. At one location the population from one direction meets the population from the other. They are separate species where they overlap because they do not interbreed. They even have different songs.

Quote by: Yusuf Sadly, this is being taught as Evolution to children in schools.

What is? Do you even know what evolution is?

[weasel]

if you had taken any time whatsoever to explore the links I provided rickSP, you would know that the theory of evolution is pathetic. pure and simple. I do believe in micro evolution: the small adaptions species make in accordance to their environment. Macro evolution ("evolving from one specie into another"), however, is completely absurd. Look here's a bacteria! Let's wait two million years and we'll have a pet cat! It's ridiculous.

Believing in macro evolution is like saying that if you take apart an alarm clock, so that all it's pieces are laid out and you put them inside a shoe box, if you shake that box up and down for a couple of minutes, when you open up the lid, there will be a fully assembled alarm clock again.

suppose you were taking a walk in the woods and you came across a gold watch. you knew the watch had to come from somewhere; someone had to have made it. The pieces didn't slowly assemble over time from the raw materials on the ground. Someone had to taken the time necessary to make sure that all the cogs and wheels clicked and worked together. Logically, there had to have been a watchmaker.

Now apply that to the real universe. How can you look at a sunrise and not see the hand of a creator? How can you learn about the impossible intricacy of the human brain (which through modern technology we are just starting to understand) and not see a divine author? There are too many incedents that evolution cannot explain and account for.

[Jack]

How can you look at a sunrise and not see the hand of a creator?

By appreciating the hand of nature.

You really need to read back through this thread. The watch metaphor has been discussed many times, and debunked a number of times as well.

You see what you expect to see. Where you see god, I see nature. Where you credit the supernatural, I rely on science to understand the natural. Where you require absolute answers, I'm willing to live with a few unanswered fully.

[RickSp]

Quote by: weasel if you had taken any time whatsoever to explore the links I provided rickSP, you would know that the theory of evolution is pathetic. pure and simple. I do believe in micro evolution: the small adaptions species make in accordance to their environment. Macro evolution ("evolving from one specie into another"), however, is completely absurd. Look here's a bacteria! Let's wait two million years and we'll have a pet cat! It's ridiculous.

Weasel, this is a boring waste of time. You can demonstrate your ignorance of science all you want, but I fail to see the value of that to the rest of us. Rather than continue spouting nonsense about what you clearly have no understanding, why not enlighten us on your particular mythology? Are you a young earth creationist for example? Explain how the world is really only 6,000 years old for example. That should be amusing.

[weasel]

very well rickSP; you asked for it and here it is (I trust you will actually read these articles before jumping to conclusions): evidence supporting the "young earth" theory.


http://www.creationmoments.com/artic...e.php?a=22&c=4

http://www.creationmoments.com/artic...e.php?a=10&c=4

http://www.creationmoments.com/artic...e.php?a=56&c=4

http://www.creationmoments.com/artic...e.php?a=60&c=4

http://www.creationmoments.com/artic...le.php?a=3&c=4

http://www.creationmoments.com/artic...e.php?a=82&c=4

http://www.creationmoments.com/artic...e.php?a=61&c=4

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: weasel if you had taken any time whatsoever to explore the links I provided rickSP, you would know that the theory of evolution is pathetic. pure and simple. I do believe in micro evolution: the small adaptions species make in accordance to their environment. Macro evolution ("evolving from one specie into another"), however, is completely absurd. Look here's a bacteria! Let's wait two million years and we'll have a pet cat! It's ridiculous.

That is preposterous and isn't what is proposed.

Quote by: weasel Believing in macro evolution is like saying that if you take apart an alarm clock, so that all it's pieces are laid out and you put them inside a shoe box, if you shake that box up and down for a couple of minutes, when you open up the lid, there will be a fully assembled alarm clock again.

Absolute nonsense, a clock is not self replicating and does not function as a population with hereditary material. This analogy is so absurd you may as well talk about the colour of paint on your wall.

Quote by: weasel suppose you were taking a walk in the woods and you came across a gold watch. you knew the watch had to come from somewhere; someone had to have made it. The pieces didn't slowly assemble over time from the raw materials on the ground. Someone had to taken the time necessary to make sure that all the cogs and wheels clicked and worked together. Logically, there had to have been a watchmaker.

Yeah, your point is? Does a gold watch function like a living organism?

Quote by: weasel Now apply that to the real universe. How can you look at a sunrise and not see the hand of a creator? How can you learn about the impossible intricacy of the human brain (which through modern technology we are just starting to understand) and not see a divine author? There are too many incedents that evolution cannot explain and account for.

I look at this universe and I see it functioning without any divine intervention. I see it running on a set of rules that has allowed the formation of life as we know, for the elements that we are made of and processes that drive us. I look at this universe and I do not see your God and nor do I see the need for one.
So out goes your subjective evidence for a creator.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: weasel very well rickSP; you asked for it and here it is (I trust you will actually read these articles before jumping to conclusions): evidence supporting the "young earth" theory.

Well, here's the real scientific proof of where we came from...



Unfortunately, the vast and overwhelming prepondorance of scientific evidence seems to rule this out, just as the vast and overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence rules our your "young earth" baloney... err... theory.

Anyone can slap up websites, weasel... unfortunately, it's the lack of compelling evidence in them that speaks the loudest.


.

[weasel]

if you read (not skimmed) any of links I provided sonart, you would be enititled to an opinion. since you were obviously too lazy to read evidence supporting an alternate perspective, I must hold your "objectivity" in question.

is it wrong to present overwhelming evidence that fully supports one's opinion? I think not. next time do the homework so you can pass the test.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: weasel if you read (not skimmed) any of links I provided sonart, you would be enititled to an opinion. since you were obviously too lazy to read evidence supporting an alternate perspective, I must hold your "objectivity" in question. is it wrong to present overwhelming evidence that fully supports one's opinion? I think not. next time do the homework so you can pass the test.

Overwhelming? Your ideas are supported by dogma and rhetoric.
How about you bring a specific point and we'll start debating on it? The subject is pretty big so you have a large choice to select from.

[RickSp]

I read three sites and skimmed the others. What a bad joke. One fallacy after another. If you are interested in learning something, which I suspect is not the case, you might want to take a look at How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?

I do find it interesting that you are lazy enough not summarize your Young Earth fantasies but ask us to plow through the verbiage. Makes me wonder why if you are too lazy to even attempt make the argument, why should we bother? You obviously have read nothing about evolution, beyond creationists attacks, or if you have have you understanding nothing of the theory.

And oh, by the way, the Young Earthers not only have conflicts with the theory of evolution but with geology, genetics, physics and astronomy among other fields. You basically reject all of modern science or simply twist everything to fit your dogma.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: weasel if you read (not skimmed) any of links I provided sonart, you would be enititled to an opinion.

Have YOU read them, weasel???

Let's look at your first link... The Age of the Earth

Let's see... Section 1:. says.... what? Only 8 people on Noah's Ark, where'd the black Africans come from, new analysis of Biblical geneologies came up with 4004 BC, blah, blah...yeah, so?

Section 2: multiple geological layers .. blah blah ...how could local flooding occur unless the land was shifting?... Lyell publishes Principles of Geology. Interesting if you completely ignore the proven facts regarding continental drift and plate tectonics.

Section 3: blah, blah, Niagara Falls... Lyell suggests more evidence of a very old earth.... but Niagara Falls is probably not older than 6,000 years. (Yawn) Yeah, so? Are you suggesting the Niagara Falls has existed eterally, through all the continental shifts since Pangea?

Section 4: The Big Bang, blah, blah, but by golly comets, being made of ice, can't be more than few thousand years old. blah blah. No direct evidence the Oort cloud exists. blah, blah. Meanwhile, let's ignore the fact that we can observe objects billions of light years old and the 'convenient discovery' of Dark Matter is now a proven fact.

Section 5: Shrinking sun... blah, blah... paper by Eddy and Boornazian... sun can therefore not be any older than 5,000 yrs. Wait, ignore that...subsequent research has proven them wrong. Oh well.

Section 6: Hmmm, there should be more dust on the moon. New technologies for measuring dustfall should be ignored because they conveniently account for errors in earlier estimates... an obvious anti-creationist plot. :rolleyes:

Section 7: The hot core of an old earth should have cooled by now... radiation can't account for it. Why not?

Section 8: Based on salt levels, the Dead Sea is only about 6,000 years old, beginning with the Great Flood. Again, so? How does this prove nothing existed there before the flood, which research increasingly attributes to the end of the last Ice Age... melt water.

Section 9: The earth's current population, based on growth. can only be 5,000 years old, blah, blah... unless, of course, you understand the concept of exponential growth and the hyperbolic curve.... to say nothing of archeological findings.



Section 10: Since radiometric dating is so unreliable, obviously the only reason science uses it is because it gives them artificially old ages scientists desire... because... um.... they hate creation theory so much. Yeah, that's it.

Section 11: Amazingly, at least two species thought to be long extinct, have be found alive! Uuuh... okay.... so? Sharks, alligators and cockroaches also existed tens of millions of years ago. How does this undermine the fossil record?

-------------------------------------------------


Gosh, this has been loads of fun. :rolleyes: Shall I take the next week off and rebut ALL your links???

.

[Star2589]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig I'm curious about where the pool is divided on this sensitive issue, so I decided to add a little air to the fire and see where it goes. My position, as an acolyte of the science of biology, is that the best explanation for the origin of species lies within the vast pools of evidence that have been accumulated over hundreds of years in support of evolution. On the other hand, Biblical Creationism is but a fiction conceived in the minds of the disillusioned. Proponents of Creationism carefully beguile their victims with equivocal language, pseudoscientific sophism, and occassionally outright lies, in order to "prove" a "theory" which makes no testable predictions and lacks any sufficent mechanism by which it operates. For example, we'll use the claim that mutations are harmful or that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed. While it is true that most virulent human diseases are caused by genetic defects (downs syndrome, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, and progeria, to name a few), most mutations are actually neutral[1]. 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 survive on, and the other strain was placed in an environment with no lactose. The former recovered its ability to metabolize lactose over the course of a few days, with two mutations to preexisting genes along a different operon in the genome from the original. The first mutation produced a beta-galactosidase enzyme (34% homologous to its predecessor), tasked with breaking down lactose via a process of hydrolysis into the two monosaccharides glucose and galactose. This new enzyme was dubbed the ebg, or evolved b-galactosidase enzyme. The second mutation altered the control region, or repressor protein (25% homologous), so that the enzyme may be expressed in the presence of glucose. The second strain displayed no such progress. In Chapter 5 of the book Finding Darwin's God (HarperCollins, 1999), Professor of Biology Kenneth Miller at Brown University adds, "That would have been impressive enough, but Hall's clever germs didn't stop there. When he selected them further to grow on another sugar (lactulose), he obtained a second series of mutants with a new enzyme that accidentally (in a sense) produced allolactose, the very same chemical signal that is normally used to switch on all of the lac genes. This important development meant that now the cells could switch on synthesis of a cell membrane protein, the lac permease, that speeds the entry of lactose into the cell." Some would consider Hall's experiments early evidence in support of the adaptive mutagensis hypothesis. It states that not all mutations are random and a cell can yield a necessary mutation on its own, almost as if it chose to[3]. I'm not certain I'm ready to accept that just yet, however considering this is only my opinion I could be wrong. It is important to remind ourselves that evolution is not guided by conscious design, it operates without regard to the longevity of the organism it affects. The results of Hall's work are not surprising at all, even when one considers the neutrality of most mutations. John Cairns, et al. (1988) demonstrated with E. coli that stress on an organism, created by a significant threat of survival, increases the rate of mutation. However, this should and does not make "good" or "bad" mutations any more or less likely to occur, you are merely increasing the frequency of mutations period. The disposition of mutations remain proportionate to the mutation rate. We are now faced with the issue of whether this method of metabolization fits the criteria of something that is irreducibly complex. For those who are unfamiliar with this concept, a biological system that requires multiple parts to emerge nearly concurrently in order to properly function is irreducibly complex. Professor Michael Behe of Lehigh University, an established proponent of Intelligent Design, is credited with inventing this idea. He claims, "An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."[4] Unfortunately for Professor Behe, the challenge was not as great as he imagined and the amount of literature responding to that claim is practically insurmountable[5]. This particular example is not exempt from that challenge, both mutations were absolutely necessary or else the system would simply not function. Behe criticized the multipart system in response to Miller in an essay written for the Discovery Institute[6]. He quoted Hall as saying, "All of the other functions for lactose metabolism, including lactose permease and the pathways for metabolism of glucose and galactose, the products of lactose hydrolysis, remain intact, thus re-acquisition of lactose utilization requires only the evolution of a new B-galactosidase function."[7] Behe continued: "Thus, contrary to Miller's own criterion for 'a true acid test,' a multipart system was not 'wiped out' -- only one component of a multipart system was deleted." The misunderstanding here is clear, and partly semantical. Behe is not convinced an irreducibly complex biochemical system can evolve, and so he misses the point made by Miller. In fact, Miller had also said that all Hall had done was remove one gene, but it wiped out a multipart system in the sense that lactose can not hydrolyze in the absence of this enzyme. Behe also found it disappointing that the new ebg arised from a different, relatively unrelated operon, however he is again missing the point that that is part of the process of evolution. If you would like a more in-depth analysis of Behe's criticism, you may read Miller's own rebuttal on the web at http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html. It is easier for me to simply supply you with the link rather than extend the post to an intolerable length by simply rehashing what has already been said by Professor Miller. It is in conclusion that I ask you treat this issue fairly and maturely. All too often, this controversial topic ends up spiraling off the deep end into petty disputes and elementary insults. It is often the result when two seemingly intelligent people having a nice debate realize they can not coax the other with simple reason. So rather than do the reasonable thing and agree to disagree, they turn to the next best thing: the most unreasonable and childish move they can conceive of. Furthermore, it is imperative we remain on topic. Continuing this line of discussion, and then suddenly asking how the Big Bang started is not the proper way to handle a debate concerning a topic of biology. If you wish to argue Young Earth Creationism, it is your prerogative to start a new thread for that express purpose. This thread is for debating the merits of evolution, and I will not respond to nongermane assertions. This does not mean the line of discussion is limited to Hall's experiments alone, otherwise the thread would have been named to something more specific. I am open to discussion on other fronts of the evolution debate as well, and I have faith that we will have no trouble keeping posts relevant to the topic. If I sound condescending, my apologies, that was not my intent. I look forward to the replies. Footnotes 1 Drake, J.W. et al (1998) Rates of Spontaneous Mutation. Genetics 148:1667-1686. [Link] 2 Further reading: Hall, B.G. (1982) Evolution on a Petri Dish. The evolved b-galactosidase system as a model for studying acquisitive evolution in the laboratory. Evolutionary Biology 15:85-150. Hall, B.G. (1983) Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms, in Evolution of Genes and Proteins. Evolution of genes and proteins, eds. M. Nei, and R. K. Koehn. (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc). 3 Colby, C., Williams, S.M. (1995) The Effect of Adaptive Mutagenesis on Genetic Variation at a Linked, Neutral Locus. Genetics 140:1129-1136. [Link] (Adobe® Acrobat® required to view reprint in PDF format) 4 Behe, M.J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press, p.39. 5 See also: Robinson, K. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? Talk.Origins. [Link] 6 Behe, M.J. (2000) "A True Acid Test": Response To Ken Miller. Discovery Institute. [Link] 7 Hall, B.G. (1999) Experimental evolution of ebg enzyme provides clues about the evolution of catalysis and to evolutionary potential. FEMS Microbiology Letters 174:1-8.

I see no problem with relying on faith where science has not or cannot provide answers. the problem is when people choose faith over science.

[Hostile55]

Lets face it, this argument is never gonna end. We can't all just agree to disagree and neither camp is ever gonna be persuaded that they are wrong and the other is right. What I have noticed though is that it is a very unbalanced debate. The evoutionists are trying to back up their claims with evidence while the creationists are constantly attacking that evidence, but very rarely is a creationist asked to back up their version of events, and creationists seem to think that theirs is the default explantion and all they have to do is refute evolution to prove it. I want proof that the genisis story is correct.

[gallo]

Quote by: Hostile55 Lets face it, this argument is never gonna end. We can't all just agree to disagree and neither camp is ever gonna be persuaded that they are wrong and the other is right. What I have noticed though is that it is a very unbalanced debate. The evoutionists are trying to back up their claims with evidence while the creationists are constantly attacking that evidence, but very rarely is a creationist asked to back up their version of events, and creationists seem to think that theirs is the default explantion and all they have to do is refute evolution to prove it. I want proof that the genisis story is correct.

Actually, creationists are frequently asked to offer evidence to support their assertions. Either they continue with unsupported assertions against science, or the discussion ends because there is no evidence that supports creationism.

[Zeebadee]

I haven't read back through all 50-odd pages of discussion on this thread, but it seems to me that as often as not it's the anti-creationists that want to bring God or some other supernatural power into the discussion. There seems to be only two ways that the universe came into existence, either through some natural event like the big bang, or through some process of being built. Religion, like evolution, really doesn't have to be any part of the discussion at this point. If you ask about who or what created the universe, I don't know. By the same token, if I ask you who or what caused the big bang, you'll have to answer the same.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: weasel if you read (not skimmed) any of links I provided sonart, you would be enititled to an opinion. since you were obviously too lazy to read evidence supporting an alternate perspective, I must hold your "objectivity" in question. is it wrong to present overwhelming evidence that fully supports one's opinion? I think not. next time do the homework so you can pass the test.

Trollus flatulance abundous

I feel the same as pooeypants. You pilled a lot of manure in one post. Break it down into smaller piles so it doesn't smell so bad and it will be responded to. I reviewed the material and found nothing new from the worn retread YEC fundi arguments that do not make the criterial for a high school science fair.

[Chilly]

That's because a belief in God is based on FAITH. You can't measure it, it's like an emotion. Some people look for "signs" that God exists and find things they believe to be these signs, other don't.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter at all, does it? We can't change HOW we got here. But we seem hell bent on destroying our future just the same.

I'm writing this from the point of view that in ID the designer is God. Technically the designer could be a martian, or some really old guy living in a cave in China somewhere.

For me, I'd rather speculate on how the first life came to be. Whether it was a one-celled amoeba or a whole cow, what sparked that life? Why haven't we ever been able to do it again?

[Zhavric]

In a decision about the natural world why choose superstition over science? In what other aspect of our lives would we do this?

Does anyone out there believe that weather patterns are just a "theory" and that we should all be taught that Zeus controls storms and lightning? No? Then why on Earth would you believe an equally invalid assertion regarding how we got here?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: northtexan Well, you could take your head out of the sand an note the wealth of data on the "genesis" of humankind, whether fossil evidence that shows transitions, or genetic evidence that shows relationships.

In order to uphold your very own position, just kindly provide the simple data on the following, please :
- Mankind Genesis
:-)

[Zeebadee]

The very title of this thread, " Creationism vs. Evolution" is a non sequitor. You might as well start a thread entitled "Apples vs Oranges". Creationism is concerned with how life, and the universe originated. Evolution is a description of how existing life has adapted to the changing physical conditions it is subject to.

Creationism, or Intelligent Design doesn't necessarily need to involve any religious beliefs, no supernatural events, or even any life-after-death scenarios. Is there really some reason that ID and evolution can't both be correct?