Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

I asked this long ago in the thread, but don't think I ever really got an answer. How do chromosome numbers change? For instance, humans and apes have a different # of chromosomes and obviously cannot mate. That is a big gap in my understanding - at some point, it seems like a parent and its offspring would have to have a different number of chromosomes and thus wouldn't be able to mate within the species. In humans, you end up with things like Down Syndrome when that happens, but I guess that's only when a specific chromosome is duplicated.

I'm sure this will fuel the creationist fire and I thought about asking it privately, but I think the more information out in the open, the better.

 

[Soggy]

Ok, I answered my own question here:
Re: How can genetic mutations change the n chromosome number of a species?

The Biblicists will love this one. Humans are a result of inbreeding. LOL

 

[Sas]

I'm sure this will fuel the creationist fire and I thought about asking it privately, but I think the more information out in the open, the better.

I agree. And to me your post illustrates one of the big divides between creationists and evolutionists, that you are seeking out further information when you have doubts or don't have knowledge in a certain area. I have not seen that from the creationists in this thread.

 

[H2Andy]

How do chromosome numbers change?

generally speaking, this happens during chromosome replication; also, keep in mind that animals that are closely related enough can reproduce even though they have different number of chromosomes

i think it's basically "accidental"

The Biblicists will love this one. Humans are a result of inbreeding. LOL

i wouldn't go that far ... but speciation is probably "fastest" when there's a limited number of genetic specimens contributing to the gene pool

and humans did go through a severe chokepoint; there were probably less than 15,000 humans left alive at one point in our history ... and all surviving humans can trace their DNA to one female human prior to this time and one male human around this same time

(one interesting theory: some time around 140,000 years ago, there were many human populations around ... all but ONE such population died out. in that ONE population of humans, probably a very tiny band, only the descendants of ONE woman survived .. and we can all trace our DNA to her. then, one of her descendants, this time a male, fathered a group around 70,000 years ago that would eventually lead to all humans alive today)

we came fragging close, man

we came fragging close, man

which reminds me ... it's kind of neat that we are not some "planned" master race destined to rule the world, but just survivors of a really bad population disaster which could have wiped us out

and somehow, we managed to make it through, mostly by random chance, i suspect

and would the world have been a better place if we had not made it? what if chimps were the dominant species?

would they have come up with World Wars I and II? Hiroshima? the Balkans? Rwanda?

i think, sadly, probably yes

 

[AXL72]

Teaching the concept of intelligent design, or the generic concept of "God", is not "Christianity"

Sure thing, Einstein. But if you insist on teaching about God, then we insist on teaching that there is no God.

So, Let's teach about a God and teach that there is no God. That is just brilliant and makes a lot of sense, huh?

I would think that you could do the math and admit that it would cancel the two out, don't you?

If we are respectful and allow tax payer dollars for another class period about God, I think it is only fair that you be respectful of our beliefs and allow the addition of another class period to teach that there is no God.

Now, I think you can admit that doing either one of those is utterly stupid. If you were smart, you would shell out the bucks to send yer own youngens to a perochial school and leave the edumacating of other people's kids about God or lack thereof to thier own respective parents.

Sound fair?

And for clarification, I don't consider evolution to mean that there is no God. Remember, geology helped form the understanding of evolution. I believe it was the layering process.

The science behind aging of rocks and carbon dating is just as legit as the medicine science your doctor practices on you and the forensic science behind DNA for prosecuting criminals. Don't discredit any of one of them just cause you don't like the perceived answer that one represents.

 

[emcbride81]

Ya know...it wouldn't suprise me that when we die, we are standing before the Big Man...and he is laughing...saying "that religon thing...I made it up to mess with y'all....you're ok, come on in"

 

[AXL72]

An atheist looks his/her entire life at fossils to prove that God doesn't exist and is upset because God fooled him. That's funny.

Not funny, just funny looking.

Some atheists look at the actions of the church, the clergy, and the perish and arrive at the belief of atheism.

Who needs fossils?

Scientisit on the other hand, may study fossils, rock structure, etc. as part of their career or to broaden their knowledge.

 

[AXL72]

Ya know...it wouldn't suprise me that when we die, we are standing before the Big Man...and he is laughing...saying "that religon thing...I made it up to mess with y'all....you're ok, come on in"

"I don't want to start any blasthemous rumors
but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor
and when I die
I expect to find
him laughing" - Depeche Mode

 

[emcbride81]

So, unless you see it happen in front of your eyes in a timespan of a few months or years, species evolving is impossible? There have been plenty of links to scientific studies, posted in this thread, that prove you are wrong.

Evolution is a reality, get used to it.

Evolution is a reality, I think that the line in the sand that has been drawn between God and science is ridiculous. I cannot understand how one cannot support the other. The Bible leaves so very many questions unanswered and doesn't say that science cannot be involved. At the same time the idea of there not being a "creator" has been shot down in debate after debate. I used to be a devout Christian, I have too many questions to say I am devout now, but during that time I researched transcripts of Aethiest vs Agnostics/Christian debates, and never once did the aethiests win.

In fact, the one question that the aethiests could not answer was based on Aquinas's 5 proofs of God. In my limited research, no scientist can solidly answer these proofs Religion B2: Aquinas's Five Proofs. Having a "Creator" makes more sense than an infinite regression of creation and evolution.

 

[AXL72]

In fact, the one question that the aethiests could not answer was based on Aquinas's 5 proofs of God. In my limited research, no scientist can solidly answer these proofs Religion B2: Aquinas's Five Proofs. Having a "Creator" makes more sense than an infinite regression of creation and evolution.

Aquinas's Proofs 1 to 3

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

No...according to the Proof, something or someone had to move God, because "anything moved is moved by another". Who says that there cannot be an infinite series? If that is so, then according to the proof, God can't have an infinite series of years of life.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

No...according to the Proof, something or someone had to cause God, because "anything caused is caused by another". Who says that there cannot be an infinite series? If that is so, then according to the proof, God can't have an infinite series of years of life.


3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

No...every contingent being fails to exist, but the "birds and the bees" prevails and new contingent beings are born...thus continuing existence of contingent beings and the continuation of something. This does not rule out that if there is or was a God, he is or was a contingent being. So, if God is a contingent being, he has or will fail to exist. There is no longer, or there will no longer be, a God.


Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 5

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

God is ok, not the greatest, so God had to get his greatness from something more impressively great (greater still). Is Jeebus not great? He came from God. So why cannot God come from somewhere or somewhere?


5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.


OK this is brilliant. The proof essentially says, Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by a God. So the world must have a GOD. This is God. ....Dare I continue?

Wow, that was easy. Cheap date, also?