Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

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.

It is as close to fact as we can prove. Every measure we've made screams this fact to us - be it genetic similarity, the fossil record, biological and biochemical comparisons, the tendacy of us to share pathogens, etc, all support this conclusion.

Ochams razer; the simplest explanation is the most likely. That this similarity is due to a common ancestor is the simplest explanation. That we derived this similarity independently is much less likely.

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.

But the bible DOES NOT SAY it took 6 thousand years. That claim is based on a calculation made by some priest back in the middle ages. In fact, in older versions of the old testament (i.e. old hebrew), the term "days" isn't even used to describe the timing of creation - rather a word describing what is effectively "generic period of time" is used.

In that light, creationist claims seem to be little more then a mistranslation of the bible...

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

. . .

Half of my last post seems to have disappeared, and of course it was the important half. Rather then re-replying, I'll just go over the major points I wrote:

1) You failure to acknowledge humans and chimps as the same "kind" is a perfect example of why that "definition" is useless for discussions of scientific theories. By every measure we have humans and chimps are closer related than are horses and donkeys. Genetically, biochemically, structurally, immunologically, etc, humans are closer to chimps then horses are to donkeys. "Kind" is simply too subjective for any practical use in these discussions, and too easily redefined. This is why scientists have such stringent definitions of things like "species", "family", "genus", "theory" and whatnot - it leaves no room for quibbling over the definition of the word.

2) The experiment you keep asking for to "prove" evolution - the rapid creation of a different "kind", actually represents a disproof of evolution. Keep in mind that evolution predicts gradual change - gradual as in taking hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of generations. So if I made a human form form a chimp in the lab, this would directly disprove the theory as evolution which should occur over millions of years would have occurred in a matter of years.

So the very thing you're asking for as "proof", would in fact disprove the very theory you claim it would "prove". Evolutionary theory says that changes of that magnitude should not occur rapidly, but instead should take many thousands of generations.

A second point worth making here is that the kinds of changes you're asking about have been demonstrated in simpler organisms, and they occur over the expected period of time (as measured by generations). Evolutionary changes on the scale of the difference between humans and chimps (i.e. 1-2% difference in coding genes) have been observed (in lab and in nature) in things like bacteria, nematodes and insects. A lot of that was covered in the links I provided previously. And these observations support evolution - they take a long period of time (in terms of generations, a bacterial generation can be as short as 20 minutes, a nematode 1 day, etc), they occurred gradually, and occurred in response to selective pressures.

3) You claimed that "many evolutionary scientists" have switched teams and now support creationism. The "list 5" comment I made was a request for the names of five such scientists - i.e. proof that there are "many" evolutionary scientists who have done this.

4) Your claims that beneficial mutations (i.e. ones which add, rather than remove genetic information) do not occur, or somehow "degrade" genetics, is wrong. In fact, one of the most common forms of mutation (duplication mutations) do exactly that - replicate regions of DNA, leading to an overall increase in the amount of DNA an organism has. In addition to this, numerous point mutations have been identified which are beneficial and do not incur a loss of the genes function.

For example, many of the mutations which lead to antibiotic or drug resistance are simply changes in the gene which is targeted by the drug, and these mutations allow the gene to function normally without being affected by the drug.

That's all I have tome for now - I'm writing this during my coffee break. Back to ye olde grindstone...

Bryan

 

[mikerault]

When I worked with Marion-Merrell-DOW pharmaceuticals we had a laboratory in Geranzano Italy that did nothing but perform accelerated mutation on micro-organisms forcing them to evolve, they were then exposed to various pathenogens and those that showed they could kill the pathenogens where grown and studied.

If we can encourage evolution, don't you think God can? He has the instruction books...

Mike

 

[H2Andy]

I see some problems with your logic. If Christians have it right then you say God is not worth following. But...not to follow is to fry. It sounds to me like it is worth following unless, of course, you think that willingly choosing to fry makes sense.

you're missing my point.

would you follow a politician that said "You better follow me, cause when i come to power, all who don't follow me are going to fry?"

or let's put it this way:

if you were born into a country were you had to become a party member or you were sent to a firing squad....

would you think that was a good system? would you have any respect for the government?

would it be a good system that gave you two options: follow or fry.

is that the way life ought to be?

Now you switch from discussing tha laws of God to the laws of man. Fair enough.

shouldn't God be at least a little better than his creation? i mean, we humans seem to have decided Auschwitz was not a good thing.

how come God is planning something that will make Auschwitz look like child's play?

(you do realize you are ok with sending billions of human beings to hell? doesn't that seem odd to you? why do YOU think that is ok? why do you belive that is as things should be?)

why does God get to be a mass murderer, but humans can't?

shoul't we be following his example?

 

[Uncle Pug]

Because way back in the back of every human's mind, near that place where there is a sense of past and future, God put a little piece of His Spirit, a little piece that tells us there is more than meets the eye and the senses, more to life than just living and reproducing, more than now, more than life, something that transcends death, that yearns to reveal to us the great beyond. This "sense of God" predates all today's major religions, and the historical events recorded in our Judeo-Christian Bible.
Rick

No matter how erudite the argument for a materialistic, no-god model of reality there is that which the Creator has placed of Himself within each one of us. At the depth of our soul, in our inner most being, a desire to know Him and be known of Him.

The Bible indicates this is so... and I have seen it played out time and again. Folks who have wrapped themselves in studied unbelief, fiercely resisting the call of the One who created them, turn as a leaf blown by the wind. They call out to Him and He answers. They believe and faith is born.

I say, 'What changed your mind, friend?' and they reply 'It was my heart that changed.'

Faith is not a rational thing... it is a spiritual thing... and we are more than matter ~ we are spiritual beings. We are not just a bag of organic chemicals and our thoughts and feelings are not just the interplay of electrochemical reactions in our brains. We are the offspring of God. We live and move and have our being in Him. There is no place you can go from His presence and there is nothing that can separate you from His love.

God loves you whether you will ever love Him back.

 

[H2Andy]

God loves you whether you will ever love Him back.

nice to know ...

i'll keep it in mind when i'm frying in hell

 

[JeffG]

nice to know ...

i'll keep it in mind when i'm frying in hell

LOL...I was thinking the same thing.

 

[H2Andy]

i know they mean well, but whenever i hear an evangelist talking about God being a God of love, i think

HELL

that doesn't sound like love to me.

i keep thinking back to the Third Reich. i'm sure they believed they had a real good reason for doing what they did, but look at the end result

fields of death; the skeletal bodies; the crematoriums

that is child's play compared to Hell

i'd trade you all the "spirituality" in the world for the moral courage to say, "hey, that's just wrong. i don't worship that kind of God"

even if it means you end up in the ovens too

 

[MikeFerrara]

you're missing my point.

would you follow a politician that said "You better follow me, cause when i come to power, all who don't follow me are going to fry?"

or let's put it this way:

if you were born into a country were you had to become a party member or you were sent to a firing squad....

would you think that was a good system? would you have any respect for the government?

would it be a good system that gave you two options: follow or fry.

is that the way life ought to be?

Is that the way it ought to be? If God says so.

shouldn't God be at least a little better than his creation? i mean, we humans seem to have decided Auschwitz was not a good thing.

how come God is planning something that will make Auschwitz look like child's play?

(you do realize you are ok with sending billions of human beings to hell? doesn't that seem odd to you? why do YOU think that is ok? why do you belive that is as things should be?)

why does God get to be a mass murderer, but humans can't?

shoul't we be following his example?

It's nothing like Aushwitz. God gives you a choice. He has told you that you are headed for Aushwitz by your own hand. He has designed an escape for you. He has sent a car right to your door to pick you up and He has already paid the fare because He knows that you can't afford the ride. He has done all this because He loves you and wants you with Him for all time. You don't like the color of the car He sent and you're refusing to get in. You think it sucks that he sent a blue car when you would have prefered a red one. You can't understand why you can't pick your own car.

He's not sending you to Aushwitz. you're headed there on your own and He is trying to convince you not to go.

Why do I think it's ok? Because Hell is seperation from God and those who don't want to be with God MUST be seperated from Him.

Without God there is no life. God isn't taking anything from you. He is offering you something that just can't be had apart from Him. It doesn't exist anyplace else or any other way. You don't have anything. It's all His. He can't murder you because murder is taking your life...but your life isn't yours, it's His. Everything you see, feel touch, think you posses, it's all His. Anything you have is a gift from Him. You didn't earn it, you don't deserve it, God doesn't owe it to you and He doesn't need anything from you. You have nothing to offer. It's you who needs Him...and you need Him for everything. That's why some of us thank Him for all we do have.

You don't want God but you want a Heaven of your own of sorts? Where the rules are more like what you would set up? That's what Satan thought and he didn't get away with it either.

 

[adza]

Hi Bryan,

Thanks for your reply...

Wow, go away for 2 days and I'm 10 pages behind (

Yeah - tell me about it.

Also, there are certain specific definitions for species used to describe specific characteristics. For example, there is a definition (which I've forgotten) for species which genetically are the same species, but won't breed with each other (i.e. due to behavior). A chewawa vs wolf would be an example of that.

- I've just got this real funny picture in my mind.

A lot of the creationist/evolutionist debate surrounds the creationists trying to redefine the terminology of evolution. Thing is, evolution is a scientific concept, so any definition outside of what science uses is incorrect. Many of your posts are a good example of this - you mis-use terminology, and based on that I end up having to try and define it for you properly, rather then countering the actual point.

And I appreciate you doing that. Sincerely! I think I'm learning from these discussions that what I've been taught at school disagrees with what science is finding.

Maybe then, you'd agree with me (correct me if I'm wrong) - that at the least - the evolution studies that are taught in our schools or on TV disagree with the scientific studies of "evolution" - or that some parts agree, but their's a lot of hogwash being thrown around about evolution (such as it being FACT that we came from apes) that it gives scientists working on 'true mutation/evolution' a bad name?

I was taught in school that evolution showed that we came from apes, and prior to that some fish, and prior to that from some goo. If this is not what evolution is about, and as you have explained previous, it's about new species (which can be the same 'type' of animal) emerging - then maybe it would make it easier for us all to try and have a good understanding of each other.

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.


This is simply incorrect. Many of the articles I pointed you to demonstrated mutations which lead to new function, hence INCREASED (enhanced) genetic content of that species. Plus, you have to understand that many mutations will dramatically increase the amount of DNA in an organism - insertional mutation and duplication mutations being examples of that.

I couldn't find anything relating to new information in the links you posted. I saw parts of duplication mutations (if my definition of this is correct) - such as the ant with the extra legs where the antennae should have been - but I would not see this as having new information added to the gene pool, but rather a duplication (or insertion) of existing information. (I guess one could argue that having extra arms/legs is an extra function - but it really is more a duplication of existing functions)

As for insertioonal mutation - correct me if I'm wrong here too - but doesn't that imply inserting data/information from somewhere else. (ie - with both mutations, nothing new has just appeared. It's been gathered from previously existing information).

If this is what evolution is - simply existing information been inserted / added / altered, then from what I've seen - yes - there is plenty of evidence to support that this can happen. But then, that fails to explain how lungs were formed from gills, etc. (Again - if this is not what evolution is about (ie, gills to lungs) - then as posted above, it looks like we agree on things more than we probably first thought - I'd just wish then, that the schools and TV stations would get it right).

It would also appear to show that 'scientific evolution' (as opposed to 'monkey evolution') is not capable of showing the origins of life to start with.

But they are a different species. If what you think is needed to prove evolution actually occurred (i.e. a fly giving birth to a cat) it would actually be a direct disproof of evolution. Evolutionary theory states, quite explicitly, that evolution occurs via descent my modification. What you are suggesting would have to happen to "prove" evolution would actually disprove the theory - a rapid and immediate changes in the overall form of the organism would disprove, rather then prove, the theory.

Hmm - so in that respect, evolution as far as fly to cat can not be observed, or proven to be fact, but is moreso a conclusion as to what some scientists believe may have happened from the direct observations they've been able to see on a macro/micro scale?

And what exactly have they lost? They still have all of the characteristics of flys; they simply cannot breed with each other. But everything else works as it did before.

From the examples I've seen most mutations normally end up with loss of information (or errors which cause loss of function). Some have duplication, but no natural mutations end up with new information where their was none prior.

That is not entirely true. The information for the antenna is still there; what has happened is that where those genes (and the genes for legs) gets turned on has been changed. The original information is still there.

This is great - we're still agreeing. :14: So - those genes get turned on. (ie - the information was always there to start with. Maybe in a different place - but the same information).

This is actually how most major structural changes occur. For example, the biggest difference between humans and chimps is how long the genes which regulate brain growth are active - in humans the brain continues to grow long after the brain of the chimp has. So we get bigger brains, and hence are smarter. But the genes behind that are pretty much the same.

You'll forgive me if I think that sometimes us humans aren't smarter than chimps. (Some of the lawsuits I've seen lately - sheesh)

Being serious though - I've heard that the gap between humans and chimps is of least 48x10^6 nucleotides- and that a change of 3 or 4 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. From what you've heard - is this true?

Thanks for the reply too! I'm really finding you informative and great to talk to!

Cheers

Adza