Creation vs. Evolution

[dlndavid]

whew...I need to hide in here..the math thread is too controversial.

smart lady

 

[lazyturtle]

And yes, Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
Evolution is just as much as a faith, as Creationism!!

Umm....when you're talking about science, theory has a different meaning. A scientific theory is something that is supported by a strong body of evidence and cannot be disproven. Gravity is a theory, why aren't you contesting that?
Creationism is not a theory. There is no evidence to support this line of reasoning. Scientifically speaking it’s a hypothesis (an idea that someone made up). Science is a fact-driven discipline.

And the earth is 6-7 thousand years old? That was made up by a bishop in the middle ages. Human history is longer than that. You don’t believe in many other things that people from this time belived (witch are made of wood? If a woman weighs more than a duck she’s a witch!)

 

[JeffG]

Gravity is a theory, why aren't you contesting that?

Actually, its a law.

 

[dlndavid]

oops...I think this one just crossed over the TOS...

reported and deleted

 

[dlndavid]

Actually, its a law.

that depends on what your definition of "its" is

 

[lamont]

i don't have time to take the test again, but last time I took it i was way out in the corner with gandhi...

 

[bwerb]

i don't have time to take the test again, but last time I took it i was way out in the corner with gandhi...

So was everyone else who's posted their results so...either the test is rigged to put us all there (a possibility) or all of us regardless of the debates we've been having are actually much closer to one another than we are to the governments we all live under...perhaps we're having the debate with the wrong people.

 

[Thalassamania]

So was everyone else who's posted their results so...either the test is rigged to put us all there (a possibility) or all of us regardless or the debates we've been having are actually much closer to one another than we are to the governments we all live under...perhaps we're having the debate with the wrong people.

Roger

 

[adza]

Wow, this thread moved fast. I feel really late replying now, and it hasn't even been 2 days...

I'm not the only one that feels that way. Cool!

Firstly, wolves and dogs are not considered to be different species, at least not in the classical sense.

This is good. I'm learning something here. Thans Bryan. (Also for those links).

From one link given:
There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists.

Ahh - this helps to clear things up.... um - actually, it makes it more confusing. Now when I'm talking to you (or anyone else) about species on this thread, (or kinds) we'll have to have a footnote describing what we mean by our 'term' species. I guess it's no different to different people having a different take on the word 'theory'.

Unfortunately, web links to the original science are lacking in those articles. Here's a few of the more recent articles which have been published regarding speciation:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO9890351.htm
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO9910621.htm
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00868.x

Good articules. Seriously. I have to agree with some of their wording here, such as:

It is concluded that reproductive isolation in parapatry was sometimes increased by the establishment of different chromosome fusions involving one ancestral chromosome common to both parapatric taxa.

These scientists are willing to use the word concluded - and they haven't overstepped the boundary by calling it fact. (My original argument wasn't that people can have conclusions of evolution based on scientific discoveries - it was that it's been taught widely as being fact. (As mentioned previously by some evolutioninsts previously on this thread).

In terms of non-speciation events which would fall into the category of macroevolution (alteration of body structure, formation of new biochemical pathways, etc), a small sampling shows:

<snip>

Thanks for these threads. They actually help me understand that I'm not totally crazy. For instance the thread you gave:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8783939&dopt=Abstract

... uses the word mutation. (Which I was canned preivioulsy for explaining that what some are calling evolution is actually mutation).

I'm beginning to think that maybe one of the problems with this conversation is that we're trying to relate to each other, while we're thinking of different descriptions of "Evolution".

I might have in my mind thinking of something as large as a Human coming from an ape, while when you reply, you might be thinking of Micro evolution (or mutations). This would certainly help expalin why we've not been able to communicate or think the other is making sence.

As for "kind", that is purely a creationist construction and does not exist in the scientific world.

Either a creationist construction - or a label used by God - depending if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is real.

That life changes, and these changes are driven by nature, is a fact. There is no getting around that - these types of changes have simply been observed too many times for it to be chance, or human stupidity.

I've never disagreed that life changes. My understanding is that when the changes occur, it is loss (or corruption) of information in the Gene pool. Some times this might have a temporary benefit - but in the end the information passed on has decayed / deteoriated - instead of being enhanced.

As for evolution not being testable, you are 100% wrong. It is very, very easy to test macroevolution and microevolution in the lab. One of the oldest examples (circa 1950) was the lab-generated speciation of the drosophila fly. Long story short - members of one species of drosophila were grown in different environments (this has been done in a variety of ways, from having different food sources, to different temperatures, etc). Each set of flies is kept in their different environments for several dozen generations. Eventually, you end up with new species of flies - flies which are no longer able to interbreed.

This once again goes with my understanding. You make call them new species of flies. Ok - as discussed above, what someone calls a species may be different from another. They're still flies. Further more - they have lost ability - not gained it. This agrees with the bible interpertation of a 'curse' on the universe - that things will contine to decay, and not the other way around.

Other macroevolutionary events have also bee observed under experimental conditions - for example, large morphological changes have been generated in a range of animals within the lab. If you want an interesting example, complete with freaky pictures, google "antennapedia". A pointless adaptation in the wild, but proof that massive morphological alterations in an animal can be evolved in a laboratory setting.

Cool stuff! Looks a bit like my mother in law.

Seriously though - here's another example of mutation (as described by the webpages I found). The ant in this case has legs growing out of its head where the antenna were. This does not show new information being inserted into the structure of the ant - instead it's a corruption of information (double up of the 'leg' information being placed where the antenna are). I can not see how these type of examples show that a fish with gills can evolve into lungs (or vise versa) - as this would be evolution - new information - not corruption or mutation of existing information.

Whoops - mine is too long too. Part two comming up.

 

[adza]

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. I still think that you are not understanding what "theory" means in science. It does not have the same meaning as it does in conventional use.

OK - let's try to sort this out. If you want to say evolution is a theory / fact - as far as the examples you've described above - then yes - I agree with you. It is a fact that these 'evolution' examples (or as I would call - mutations) have occurred, and have been observed. If this is where everyone has been comming from when they call evolution a fact - I now understand. Thank you very much for your patience with this.

However - if someone says that evolution (as far as us comming from apes, etc) is fact - then I would disagree (which I hope you can understand). Maybe this is where less knowledgeable people who believe in evolution are confused.

They've heard about evolution - choose to believe it, and then hear someone call it fact. They then believe that their's no doubt we came from apes (or goo, or whereever) - which causes problems when trying to dialog with other people. A world of confusion (or maybe a thread, as has been in this case )

That life changes, and these changes are a product of the environment is a FACT, plain and simple. Even you have agreed that this is true. In that context, evolution is a fact.

If you state that evolution is as described in the above examples - then yes. But here's where the problem starts. The word evolution is being used to describe both - the mutations (if I can use that word - even if incorrectly, to try and clarify the differences) - and the evolving of human from ape. You can probably understand why someone like myself would disagree that evolution is fact if someone is using it to describe more than what has being observed.

Goes something like this:

FACT #1: Organisms change
FACT #2: These changes lead to different characteristics in these species
FACT #3: Some of these changes are improvements, some are not
FACT #4: Animals with detrimental traits tend to leave less offspring then animals with beneficial traits

If you don't mind - would you mind showing me Fact #3 - as far as the improvements are concerned. (As above, I admit that some may have temporary 'benefits' - but caused by an overall loss or corruption of the information).

So if you consider zebras, horses and donkeys to be of the same kind (and presumably therefore they could have evolved from the same ancestor), then do you also believe that humans and chimps are of the same kind, and also therefore potentially derived form the same ancestor?

No - I don't believe that humans and apes are the same type. (As I believe what the bible states). This - then, makes the overall evolutionary theory (Is their another term I should use to describe this - so we don't get confused?) easier to prove to us fundamentalists. Show us a labratory result of Apes becomming human (or their offspring over a period of time), and you'll be able to drown out the fundamentalists once and for all.

1) Name 5, shouldn't be too hard if they are numerous..

I'm sorry - I missed something here... name five of ?

2) Christianity is not incompatible with evolution. I know several Christians at work at work who are both practicing Christians, and believe in evolution. For that matter, here's a list of over 10,000 clergy, in the USA alone, who believe in evolution:

Unfortuantly, the term Christianity is too broad to be used to describe those who believe in the bible. Some define themselves as Christian because they believe in God and heaven.

Many things have been done in the name of Christ - which go directly against what Christ had commanded. (The crusades as an example). Personally, I believe the majority of self proclaiming Christians cause more confusion - and help to deter people from understanding the bible.

If one believes what the bible says - then evolution (as far as us from apes) can not be true - as it takes more than 6,000 years - which someone taking the bible seriously can not believe.

If one chooses to water down the text of the bible, or not believe in the full bible, but only choose the parts they want to - then yes - they can too beleive in the 'whole evolution' (again - we need a term to describe this to seperate it) as well as God. Whether they are Christians or not depends on your viewpoint (and in the end will be up to God to decide).

It's no different to many people calling themselves scientists - but having different ways of comming to that conclusion.

Sincerely - may I say thank you for your time and effort in this - and for not being deoggerative in your postings. I appreciate that - and I am sincerely glad that we have been able to have this debate civilly - even if you and I disagree on some things. (Further more - I appreciate your patience for us to resolve what we mean by evolution, and where fact comes into play).

With grattitude...

Adza