Creation vs. Evolution

[coachpill]

The following are proven facts, and are products of direct observation (not inference):

1) Mutations occur, and produce new alleles
2) New genes can form
3) Selection of alleles/gemes occurs
4) Speciation occurs
5) Genetic drift, population bottle necks, & founder effects exist
6) Morphological change can be a direct consiquence of mutation
7) Biochemical changes occur as a result of mutation
8) Mutation and selection give rise to new traits and biochemical pathways

Speaking "from the hip," if you will, the only ones of the list above that I might argue about would be #2 and sort of #8. But then again, you and I seem to have quite different views on certain definitions of things so maybe there really isn't any argument when it gets down to the brass tacks.

For example, antibiotic resistance seems to stem from mutations. These mutations produce a "new gene," I suppose, but the new gene is typically coupled with a loss of function somewhere...thereby making the bacteria resistant (for example, a loss or decrease in the ability to move substances across the membrane, thereby not allowing the antibacterial agent across). This loss of functionality rears its ugly head when the antibacterial agent is removed from the system and the mutated bacteria gets "out-competed" by the "wild-type" (in the example above, a decrease in the functionality of moving substances across the membrane would have quite deleterious effects...food in, wastes out, etc...)

So I guess I sort of agree with all 8 of the above statements, and kind of disagree with #2 and #8.

Ultimately, I obviously disagree with the final conclusion that is drawn; that this shows how over billions of years a single celled prokaryotic organism could evolve into a human...via mutations, of course, to get the new information.

Again, as I have said before, it is not the evidence, but the interpretation of the evidence with the resulting conclusions that are drawn that I disagree with.

And again, thanks for everything! I will see if I can find the article about C. vulgaris so I can read it!

 

[MikeFerrara]

I am continually amazed at the horrible level of reading comprehension being displayed here. Didn't we all at least have to take the SATs?

I don't remember taking SATs but I might have. Highschool was more than 30 years ago.

There certainly seems to be some comprehension problems but I don't know that it's as simple as "reading" comprehension. I think an examination of the thread shows that comprehension difficulties aren't isolated to any single group identified by view point.

As long as we're on the subject of comprehension though, I just re-read the opening post of the thread...included below for your convenience.

Maybe the study of evolution doesn't care where life came from, how or how the universe came to be, but the OP did not limit the scope of his question to the theory of evolution.

The OP's question seems to be more one of creation with God vs. creation without God.

In support of that interpretation I'd point out that the OP specifically mentions salvation (he says he was saved), faith, God, the "big bang" and the age of the earth. He mentions "evolution" which might be taken to mean "the theory of evolution" which is specific but he also mentions "creation". In the context of a Christian asking the question question, "creation" would probably refer to the creation of everything.

I'd say that abiogenesis is fair game regardless of whether or not it is addressed by the theory of evolution.

The opening post...Bold added by me

I was just wondering how many people out there believe in "Creation" and how many people believe in "Evolution." I would just like some feed back. Please keep comments polite and be respectable to other people's comments.

Personally, I believe in Creation. I was raised round church but never really paid any attention. So, I use to believe in Evolution, but now I believe in Creation due to the fact I became saved. In my opinion, I think evolution is no good. Anytime a scientist can not figure out when something walked this earth, they say something like "Fourhunderd Million Years Ago." Now come on! How old do people think the world really is. I think the world is only six - seven thousand years old. Most evolutionist, not all, believe in the big bang theroy. Now, what caused the big bang? Is it so hard to believe that maybe a higher being, "God" as we all call him, created us. Not everything can be explained with facts, sometimes we have to have FAITH.

That' my opinion. I have a lot more to say, but for time sake I kept it short and vague. I just want to see what you all have to say.

 

[Spencermm]

My pastor from my teen years was a very educated man and well versed in Hebrew and Greek as it pertains to scripture.
I recall him stating that the scripture that says that prior to creation the Earth was "...without form and void." would be better translated as the Earth being "In a chaotic state".
I'm not trying to make a point with this, but rather an inquiry. Can any Bible scholars speak to this?

 

[coachpill]

My pastor from my teen years was a very educated man and well versed in Hebrew and Greek as it pertains to scripture.
I recall him stating that the scripture that says that prior to creation the Earth was "...without form and void." would be better translated as the Earth being "In a chaotic state".
I'm not trying to make a point with this, but rather an inquiry. Can any Bible scholars speak to this?

The Hebrew words are "tohu" and "bohu." The former meaning lacking any clear structure or form...just particles, if you will, and the latter meaning not yet filled. Interesting to note that the creation week then follows with a process of forming and filling.

 

[Spencermm]

The Hebrew words are "tohu" and "bohu." The former meaning lacking any clear structure or form...just particles, if you will, and the latter meaning not yet filled. Interesting to note that the creation week then follows with a process of forming and filling.

That is interesting. Leaves a lot of room for supposition.
Spencer
(I've been following the thread and have my opinions, but am not terribly well educated on either take on this subject.)

 

[Warthaug]

For example, antibiotic resistance seems to stem from mutations. These mutations produce a "new gene," I suppose, but the new gene is typically coupled with a loss of function somewhere...thereby making the bacteria resistant (for example, a loss or decrease in the ability to move substances across the membrane, thereby not allowing the antibacterial agent across).

Scientifically speaking, a new gene has a very discrete definition. What you describe above would be considered a new allele; not a new gene. A new gene must, by definition, represent a new loci in the genome. Which, in plain speak means, there must be additional DNA, in a new physical site, coding for the gene. Otherwise, it is nothing more than an allele of an existing gene.

New genes can form in a number of ways, but the two most common are:
1) Gene transfer from another organism (common in bacteria and viruses, almost unheard of in people)
2) Duplication of an existing gene, followed by mutation to produce something with altered function.

Gene duplications are quite common; I couldn't find exact numbers for people, but diseases which are a product of such duplications occur at a rate of ~1:1500; meaning that at a minimum, one in every 1500 people has a duplication. The studies looking at indels suggest that the number is much, much higher than that - potentially as high as 1 gene duplication per person (although I suspect that is an overestimate).

In the case of us sexually-reproducing organisms, gene duplications are an unavoidable fact of life. You inherit chromosomes from mom & dad, and throughout your life mom & dad's chromosomes stay separate.

But when you make sperm/eggs your body mixes the DNA, through a process called cross-over. But, because this process is imperfect, you'll often get cases where the chromosomes don't mix evenly; resulting in one chromosome with two copies of a gene, and a second with no copies. The no copy chromosomes are usually not inherited - gene loss is often lethal - but the ones with additional copies can be passed on, and now that you have a second copy - can be mutated with little consiquence.

Back to your example. In your example there is no new gene; only a new allele. But, if for example, you were to duplicate the metallo-B-lactomase gene, and mutate two key residues to allow it to now process tetracyclene, you'd have a new gene.

The above mechanism is how Bacillus subtilis evolved tetracycline resistance.

So I guess I sort of agree with all 8 of the above statements, and kind of disagree with #2 and #8.

How do you "disagree" with proven facts. As pointed out in the initial post, all of those have been directly observed, and the observation confirmed using an alternate method of detection.

Bryan

 

[MikeFerrara]

...deletia...
Lets compare that to creationist "theory":
1) No specific predictions, so we cannot match what we see to what was predicted
2) Does not describe why the above events occur; in fact, it pretty explicitly states the above things should not be seen

That is why creationsim is not taken seriously; it does nothing to allow us to understand how the universe works, and in many cases predicts the exact, polar opposite of what we see occuring in the world around us.

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

So here's where I'm looking for a reply. I challange the creatinists to come up with an alternate explanation for the above facts which:
1) Is based on a literalistic interpretation of the bible/other religious text
2) Gives an explanation of why the above are seen
3) Is predictive (i.e. based on the description, we should expect to see the phenomina listed above)

No interpretation of the Bible explains anything about the natural world beyond saying that God created it so requireing the science to be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't reasonable.

The Bible is useful in helping understand man's relationship with God, explains why and even enables us to make predictons concerning our relationship with God.

That is where the science is at - until creationism can do the same you're not even playing the same game.

What would prevent an ID proponent (for example) from using the same observations to make the same predictions?

Haven't you mentioned scientists who believe in God? Surely, they believe that God has a hand in all this someplace? Could they be considered "creationists? Is their work in science valid?

 

[sheck33]

Edit: Forgot to add my closing line:

Until creationists can come up with an alternate theory that both explains all of the observation science has made to date about how life changes, and predicts future findings, creationism will always be treated as nothing more then an irrelevent piece of fundamentalist dogma. You can complain that its "naturalistic", "athiestic", or wahtever-istic you feel like, but at the end of the day your name-calling doesn't change the fact that it is the only theory out there which both predicts what we see in nature, and describes why we see it.

That is where the science is at - until creationism can do the same you're not even playing the same game.

And that about sums it all up doesn't it. Excellent post.

 

[Warthaug]

No interpretation of the Bible explains anything about the natural world beyond saying that God created it so requireing the science to be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't reasonable.

I agree. And yet creationists don't hold the opposite to be true - they (you included, based on past posts) expect science to conform to the obviously limited and simplistic description provided in the bible. When it doesn't, instead of accepting those results at face value, you instead go off on rants about how science is attacking religion, etc, etc, etc. Likewise, rather than develop an alternate explanation, creationists use tactics like lawsuits and taking over school boards to try and force their beliefs into the science classroom; even though by your own admission science in accordance with creationism is an impossibility.

All I was doing was reversing the tables - asking that creationists provide a description of their beliefs that conforms with the standards of science. Certainly, if you expect science to conform to your beliefs, you should be able to express those beliefs in a fashion which would be scientifically testable.

You want science to conform to your beliefs; I'm just asking that you show that your beliefs are consistent with what we observe occurring in the natural world.

What would prevent an ID proponent (for example) from using the same observations to make the same predictions?

Nothing, but I was asking for a creationist one. Afterall, as pointed out numerous times before, from a scientific point-of-view a naturalistic process could not be differentiated from a process wherein god acts through natural forces. Hence, why I included "demand" #4.

Of course, despite several decades of asking, IDists have yet to provide a concrete theorem for us to test, and their one claim that differs significantly from evolution - that complex systems cannot arise from simple ones - is already proven to be wrong.

Haven't you mentioned scientists who believe in God? Surely, they believe that God has a hand in all this someplace?

They can, and do. The ways in which they interpret things varies, but at the core of all their beliefs is that gods universe - however it was derived - obays rules which we humans can figure out through scientific investigation. As my good friend Steve said (we did our PhD's together, he now works at Yale) - "science reveals to me just how wonderful gods universe is". There is no conflict between that kind of belief and science. Its only when one literally interprets the bible, and demands that all knowldege conform to it, that you run into trouble.

Its called putting the cart before the horse, or in science-speak, holding to a conclusion in the face of contradictory evidence.

Could they be considered "creationists?

"Creationist" conventionally refers to individuals who take genesis to be the literal description of how the universe formed - i.e. over 6 days, in the recent past, etc. So no, they would not be considered creationist.

I would point out again that many scientists - Darwin included - came up with their theories while at the same time holding Christian beliefs. These things were not derived to eliminate god; many of the people who discovered these things thought they were coming to a greater understanding of god. The difference between them, and modern creationists, is that they saw the bible as the jumping off point to understanding gods universe, rather than a literal and final description.

Is their work in science valid?

So long as they derive their conclusions from their data, and their conclusions are consistent with the observations made by others, then their work is valid. That is the exact same standard we expect of all other scientists, no matter what the religious/political/race/sex/gender ID/whatever they are.

Bryan

 

[coachpill]

New genes can form in a number of ways, but the two most common are:
1) Gene transfer from another organism (common in bacteria and viruses, almost unheard of in people)
2) Duplication of an existing gene, followed by mutation to produce something with altered function.

In the case of us sexually-reproducing organisms, gene duplications are an unavoidable fact of life. You inherit chromosomes from mom & dad, and throughout your life mom & dad's chromosomes stay separate.

But when you make sperm/eggs your body mixes the DNA, through a process called cross-over. But, because this process is imperfect, you'll often get cases where the chromosomes don't mix evenly; resulting in one chromosome with two copies of a gene, and a second with no copies. The no copy chromosomes are usually not inherited - gene loss is often lethal - but the ones with additional copies can be passed on, and now that you have a second copy - can be mutated with little consiquence.

The above mechanism is how Bacillus subtilis evolved tetracycline resistance.

How do you "disagree" with proven facts. As pointed out in the initial post, all of those have been directly observed, and the observation confirmed using an alternate method of detection.

Bryan

Gene duplication itself does not produce new genes, correct, because 2 copies of the same piece of information does not increase the amount of information. Also, as you stated above, multiple copies of genes tend to "screw" things up so the duplicated gene would have to have been deactivated so as to not mess with "dosage" problems. So we are back to mutations.

While deactivated, this duplicated gene must have been mutated. It had to have been the deactivated gene because if the active gene were mutated the bacteria would have lost some original functionality, and we cannot have that now can we. If gene duplication followed by mutation would occur, then we would be left with the same degenerative force just as if no gene duplication had occurred, but mutation did occur. Then the mutated, deactivated duplicated gene must have been reactivated.

Some beneficial by products of mutations have been observed, yes, like resistance, but not without a decrease in functionality elsewhere. So it's back to square one.

These (as you state above) are not proven facts. B. subtillis was identified, with it's resistance already in place, in the 1800s, yes? Therefore, we did not observe any gene duplication followed by mutation. We must assume that was the way it happened. That is not a fact.

So again, I'm fine with speciation. I'm fine with natural selection and genetic drift and the founder effect and sympatric speciation. I'm not sold on the hypothesis that gene duplication followed by mutation actually adds any novel structures or functionality.