Creationism vs. Evolution

[Aeris]

Quote by: Fonceai Not every religion believes their God is omniscient. Since you question Aeris' examples of mutations, here's one. The natural melanin content in the skin. Here's another... The presences of epicanthic folds over the eyes. How about... Increased lung volume, nasal cavity volume, and diaphragm strength. Those three are all examples of advantageous environmental mutations.

Ooo, and don't forget the development of larger lungs in female homo sapiens (possibly other animals too) so proper breathing can occur even when lungs are compressed due to pregnancy.

[Jack]

wait..you never saw any of this...you're using your theory of how it happened as proof of positive mutations?? circular reasoning...

It's not circular reasoning, it's how science works.

Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. Science presupposes a regular order to nature and assumes there are underlying principles according to which natural phenomena work. It assumes that these principles or laws are relatively constant. But it does not assume that it can know a priori either what these principles are or what the actual order of any set of empirical phenomena is. A scientific theory is a unified set of principles, knowledge, and methods for explaining the behavior of some specified range of empirical phenomena. Scientific theories attempt to understand the world of observation and sense experience. They attempt to explain how the natural world works. The fact that a theory passed an empirical test does not prove the theory, however. The greater the number of severe tests a theory has passed, the greater its degree of confirmation and the more reasonable it is to accept it. However, to confirm is not the same as to prove logically or mathematically. No scientific theory can be proved with absolute certainty. Furthermore, the more tests which can be made of the theory, the greater its empirical content (Popper, 112, 267). A theory from which very few empirical predictions can be made will be difficult to test and generally will not be very useful. A useful theory is rich or fecund, i.e., many empirical predictions can be generated from it, each one serving as another test of the theory. Useful scientific theories lead to new lines of investigation and new models of understanding phenomena that heretofore have seemed unrelated (Kitcher). This feature of fecundity is probably the main difference between the theory of natural selection and the theory of special creation. The theory of special creation has not led to new discoveries, better understanding, or increased understanding of the relatedness of areas within the field of biology or between such fields as biology and psychology. As such, the theory of special creation is nearly useless. And, since the theory is put forth as dogma, it is the antithesis of a scientific theory.

Source

and by positive mutation i mean one that has helped its survival

Mutations occur. Whether or not they lend to the survival of a specie depends on the environment. Those that don't eventually disappear from the population.

[RickSp]

Quote by: -=Darkstar=- blasphemy is different than questioning but show me some more verses

Sure. Tell it to Galileo.

Leviticus 24:16
Kings 21:13, among others.

[Aeris]

Quote by: RickSp Sure. Tell it to Galileo. Leviticus 24:16 Kings 21:13, among others.

To be fair, those deal with punishment of blasphemy, not what constitutes blasphemy. I'm unfamiliar with the Bible, but do you think you could find any verses about what constitues blasphemy? I of course, will look for myself - but that's kind of like sending me to Madrid without a map and not being able to speak Spanish and expecting me to be able to find my way around.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Aeris To be fair, those deal with punishment of blasphemy, not what constitutes blasphemy. I'm unfamiliar with the Bible, but do you think you could find any verses about what constitues blasphemy? I of course, will look for myself - but that's kind of like sending me to Madrid without a map and not being able to speak Spanish and expecting me to be able to find my way around.

Blasphemy is defined by those who are in power. Galileo, perhaps the greatest scientist of his age, was punished for questioning the established order. The Bible say that God built a foundation for the Earth, so there how dare Galileo claim otherwise? He was clearly guilty of blasphemy.
Scriptural References Relevant to the Trial of Galileo

[Captain Chaos]

Darkstar...

Mutations that help HIV survive, or help MRSA resist antibiotics, have been well documented. Do you need a study that documents this, to convince you that positive mutations have occurred?

[gallo]

Quote by: -=Darkstar=- and by positive mutation i mean one that has helped its survival

Still not a very good definition. Does a positive mutatiion have to be always helpful? Helpful in every situation? Does it depend on the environment in any way? Can it be helpful in one situation and harmful in another? Or, in fact, is the nature of a non-lethal mutation, helpful or harmful, determined by the environment in which the organism exists? Can a mutation be neither helpful nor harmful but rather neutral, possibly to become one or the other in a different environment?

Quote by: -=Darkstar=- ...and im pretty sure a little research on the england moths will tell you a different story

It is apparent that you have done no research on the topic, let alone, "a little." What a profound display of ignorance to refer to "the england moths." What is that supposed to mean? Are you talking about the peppered moth, Biston betularia? I presume so. But with only "a little" research you would find that the peppered moth is an excellent example of a mutation that was both beneficial and detrimental. The f. carbonaria is the result of a single point mutation on the gene that is responsible for coloration in the peppered moth. Both the gene and the mutation have been identified, as well as at least three other point mutations to the same gene that cause other rare, semi-melanic morphs identified as f. insularia or f. medionigra. The black allele is dominate, i.e., an individual moth with just one allele will always be dark. The first record of the dark morph was in 1848. Between then and 1900, the dark morphs came to about 98% of the moth population in industrialized areas of England, while the original peppered form continued to predominate in rural areas. This distribution continued until the 1950s when efforts began to clean up the industrial pollution that covered everything with soot. In the 1950s, Bernard Kettlewell performed experiments to determine the cause for the change in allele frequency in certain populations of peppered moths. He concluded that it was due to selective predation by birds. Subsequent studies have supported his conclusions.

So there is an example of a mutation that was beneficial in a population of peppered moths. Similar mutations have been noted in other species of moth, and they have shown similar shifts in allele frequency in highly polluted areas. However, as the pollution was cleared up in England, the predominance of the f. typica has been re-established. The [f. carbonaria comprises less than 5% of the population.

Creationists, always a bit light on information, have criticized Kettlewell because he glues moths to trees. It is true that he did so; for two reasons. First, for photographs in order to illustrate the appearance of the two morphs on the two different backgrounds. These photographs were not claimed to be evidence, only illustrations. However, creationists always fail to understand this. Second, Kettlewell also glued numbers of moths of both morphs to trees in both polluted and unpolluted environments. His hypothesis was that birds would be more likely to take the light moths on dark background and the dark moths on light background first. He was correct. While his conclusion that this is the reason for the changes in allele frequency is weak, several other scientists have agreed, since there is no indication of any other cause. At any rate, the allele changes are undoubtedly caused by the differential reproductive success of a given morph in a specific environment.

[BWRoberts221]

Wait a minute, I thought the dinasaurs were just a ruse by Satan and his followers who planted fossils and buried them so people wouldn't beleive in Adam & Eve and, therefore, God. That plan must not be working too well, I'll bet Satan feels pretty stupid right about now.

[scrappy]

of course there has been possitive mutation, look at what happened to the homo sapiens when they moved out of africa, they CHANGED so they can survive in their environment. It's not rocket science you know...

[TehNinja]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Darkstar... Mutations that help HIV survive, or help MRSA resist antibiotics, have been well documented. Do you need a study that documents this, to convince you that positive mutations have occurred?

positive mutations but you don't see the HIV virus turning into a frog, do you? Mutations occur within the same species.

[TehNinja]

you are confusing microevolution with macroevolution. They are different things. Study up and get back to me.

TehNinja's 1st rule of debate: always know the subject you are supporting.

[gallo]

Quote by: TehNinja positive mutations but you don't see the HIV virus turning into a frog, do you?

What idiot made any such claim? Did you actually read any of the discussion? Are you sure you know what is being discussed? It seems not.

Quote by: TehNinja Mutations occur within the same species.

That doesn't even make sense. Who has ever claimed that a mutation in elephants would cause changes in whales? Of course a mutation is in "the same species." A mutation in a population would cause a changed in the allele frequency in that population, and that would be evolution. It would have no effect on other species. Try to think about what you are saying before you say it.

Quote by: TehNinja you are confusing microevolution with macroevolution.

No, he isn't. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Quote by: TehNinja They are different things.

Only if you get your biology from religious tracts. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually read biology to learn about biology?

Quote by: TehNinja Study up and get back to me.

It is quite evident that you have studied up on religious objections to science rather than studying science. As a result, you don't know much about science, biology in particular.

Quote by: TehNinja TehNinja's 1st rule of debate: always know the subject you are supporting.

Is that why you post one line religiously motivated objections instead of meaningful discussion? If you actually follow your rule, you won't be posting in this topic any more?

[TehNinja]

Quote by: gallo What idiot made any such claim? Did you actually read any of the discussion? Are you sure you know what is being discussed? It seems not. That doesn't even make sense. Who has ever claimed that a mutation in elephants would cause changes in whales? Of course a mutation is in "the same species." A mutation in a population would cause a changed in the allele frequency in that population, and that would be evolution. It would have no effect on other species. Try to think about what you are saying before you say it. No, he isn't. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. Only if you get your biology from religious tracts. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually read biology to learn about biology? It is quite evident that you have studied up on religious objections to science rather than studying science. As a result, you don't know much about science, biology in particular. Is that why you post one line religiously motivated objections instead of meaningful discussion? If you actually follow your rule, you won't be posting in this topic any more?

since when was micro the same as macroevolution? where do you get that idea? microevolution-also known as 'natural selection'

also, i've seen the two confused almost everytime i see evolution explained. people think that an animal keeps mutating until it becomes a whole new species.

why can't i come from the other side? why can't i oppose evolution, in my own style? isn't that what debate is about? and, just to let you know, i read the most lefty biology book EVER so don't tell me i don't know what i'm talking about.

[Aeris]

Quote by: TehNinja also, i've seen the two confused almost everytime i see evolution explained. people think that an animal keeps mutating until it becomes a whole new species.

:rolleyes: Tell me about it. Its all one straight line from the fishies to homo sapies. /sarcasm

That's how they teach it in school, isn't that sad?

I mean, its more of a branching tree that if you follow the jagged line down one side, jumping from species to species, you'll eventually get down to us.

But you brought up a good point - if biological evolution is going to be taught, the differences between macro- and micro-evolution should be emphasized.

[Right of Center]

Well really in our High School, there is no specific evolution class taught. While our school is extraordinarly small. Our biology books our the most current version published by National Geographic. They give two different definitions about micro evolution and macro evolution but do not go into further detail. To the contrary they rather give you a big picture of evolution with the major details. Unless you are majoring in biology, evolutionary biology, etc. You probably won't worry about the differences between micro and macro. Don't blame the schools. Just because people want to remain ignorant doesn't mean its the schools fault.

[gallo]

Quote by: TehNinja since when was micro the same as macroevolution? where do you get that idea?

Wouldn't it be nice if you actually read what was said? You responded to either Captain Chaos or scrappy, which one isn't clear due to your clumsy method of response, and asserted, "you are confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution." Your assertion is not true in either case. Captain Chaos was discussing mutations in HIV and/or MRSA. Either case would be micro-evolution. scrappy was discussing mutations in humans that were adaptive to living in northern latitudes. That is also micro-evolution.

Since you don't seem to know much about the subject, I'll explain to you. Stated simply, micro-evolution are genetic changes below the level of species. Macro-evolution are changes above species. Even though the two terms aren't used by scientists much any more, they do exist - it seems to the everlasting joy of uneducated creationists. However, even though creationists have never been able to show that there is a boundary beyond beyond which evolutionary changes cannot go. Creationists just assert that there is a boundary.

Quote by: TehNinja microevolution-also known as 'natural selection'

Balderdash. Learn what you're talking about before you try to instruct others. Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of organisms that possess beneficial genetic characters. Micro-evolution is changes in the allele frequency in a population over time that do not form a new species. Anyone who has bothered to learn the basics of the topic is aware that natural selection can also act to prevent changes in many circumstances.

Quote by: TehNinja also, i've seen the two confused almost everytime i see evolution explained.

From what I've seen, the confusion is yours. Others seem confused because you seem to inject your unfounded micro/macro assertions into the middle of discussions about other things. Perhaps it would help if you actually studied biology and learned what the terms mean rather than listing to some ministry.

Quote by: TehNinja people think that an animal keeps mutating until it becomes a whole new species.

Have you ever seen a herring gull? The European herring gull can be found all over northern Europe. They range out into the Atlantic and can be found even in Iceland and beyond. The are almost identical to, and freely interbreed with, the American herring gull, which ranges from southern Greenland and all across the northern North American continent. But there some are some differences that can be seen in the far western Alaskan population. But the American herring gull interbreeds with the Vega herring gull, which can be found in eastern Siberia. Which interbreeds with Birula's gull, which interbreeds with Heuglin's gull, which interbreeds with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull, which interbreeds with the lesser black-backed gull. All of these populations form a continuous, interbreeding population of gulls that undergo changes in appearance as you go west. But the lesser black-backed gull and the European herring gull share their range. They are both indigenous to northern Europe. But they do not interbreed. They have become a separate species and are known as such. I can explain that by the accumulation of small genetic changes in widely separated populations. How do you explain it in light of your above assertion?

Need more examples? Himalayan wren? Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast? How about brown bears and polar bears?

Quote by: TehNinja why can't i come from the other side? why can't i oppose evolution, in my own style? isn't that what debate is about?

No. That's not what the debate is about. The debate is based on the fact that scientific investigation has not supported the mythology of fundamentalist christianity. Various scientific studies have found that the universe is very old, that the earth is old, that there has never been a global flood, that mankind, like all organisms, is descended from a previous ancestor. But you can come from whatever side you wish. The problem is that you are working from your conclusions, based on mythology for which there is no evidence. You haven't bothered to learn the basics and make yourself look foolish.

Quote by: TehNinja and, just to let you know, i read the most lefty biology book EVER so don't tell me i don't know what i'm talking about.

Well, you don't know what you're talking about. What is a "lefty biology book?" It's sad that rather than learn science, you equate what you don't understand to some sort of political conspiracy. How terribly pathetic.

[gallo]

Quote by: Aeris Tell me about it. Its all one straight line from the fishies to homo sapies

That should be Homo sapiens. Genus names are always capitalized. Actually, it you got the idea that it is all one straight line, then you weren't paying attention.

Quote by: Aeris That's how they teach it in school, isn't that sad?

It would be if that were how evolutionary theory was being taught. Anyone who comes away with that idea wasn't paying attention.

Quote by: Aeris I mean, its more of a branching tree that if you follow the jagged line down one side, jumping from species to species, you'll eventually get down to us.

No jumping involved. However, Darwin actually called it the tree of life.

Quote by: Aeris But you brought up a good point - if biological evolution is going to be taught, the differences between macro- and micro-evolution should be emphasized.

Actually, not a very good idea. Why dwell on minute definitions rather than the processes and mechanisms of evolution. There is a lot to teach and pretending that the differences between micro and macro are meaningful is counterproductive.

[TehNinja]

did you know that the probability of life coming from non living chemicals is 1 x 10 to the 15 power? and that's the most optimistic one they have come up with.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: TehNinja did you know that the probability of life coming from non living chemicals is 1 x 10 to the 15 power? and that's the most optimistic one they have come up with.

Firstly, that is spontaneous generation, and not evolution. Secondly, did they also calculate the odds of an omnipresent, all powerful, always-existing being creating our universe, all the way down to the organism living on earth? Oh that's right, they have no analogus data or evidential framework, so they can't even attempt to come up with honest, mathematical probabilities concerning such a concept.

Sorry, for the sarcasm, but I feel that it is a point that needs to be made for perspective. We have very little data concerning the origin and because of this I think jumping to assumptions due to dubious mathematical proabilities/theorems is one of the worst things we can do.

[Right of Center]

There is hard science to the fact that evolution occurs among species. However ther is insufficient evidence to suggest that everything on earth is descended from a single celled organism in a prehistoric mud puddle. There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis of evolutions creation theory. Evolution is an important theory because it is real. But it does not and never can encompass the true beginnings of life. No matter what we will have to accept that we do not know.