Creation vs. Evolution

[AlexMDiver]

And it's still an HIV virus, is it not? Evolutionists leap to conclusions in their belief (not observation) that small steps within a genus/species yield great leaps into other lifeforms. And that is the essence of evolution; dinosaurs became birds, cows became whales, etc.

Evolution of new species has been observed scientifically. Please see my previous thread.

 

[wreckchick]

Losing your cool, aren't you?

Just getting awfully tired of the Straw Man arguements you and your brethern keep trying to throw out. If you wish to discuss the merits of my theory, learn it. If you actually have a valid set of facts to back up your theory, I'll be more than happy to study it and we can have a proper debate but as far as I can tell, you've got nothing but rhetoric with precisely nothing to back it up.

Your ancestors might be monkey's uncles, or goop, but mine are not.

Well, being from completely different species, I can understand why you might not agree with me on my origins.

Of course you did not see any of this alleged evolution occur but you believe it did based on current speciation. The common ancestor split into two, then four, then 8 then ... Is that how it allegedly worked? It's amazing that lifeforms that used sexual reproduction had a mate ready at the same time. But, I guess it must have, eh?

I have seen the "alleged" evolution occur. It's right there in the fossil record for anyone to see who choses to look.

When did evolutionists change their minds about birds 'evolving' from dinosaurs, and whales 'evolving' from a terrestrial mammal that spent too much time in or near the water?

Didn't change their minds about the bird dino thing. The terrestrial mammal that eventually led to the critter we now call a whale was not a cow which is what you said in your earlier post.

Speaking of cows, let me throw this at you, just for kicks. The cows we have today are pretty specialized in the sense that some are good for milk, some for meat, some for leather, etc. The evolutionary process, with a lot of help from humans and selective breeding is what gives us the breeds of cows we have today. If we continue to keep the lines seperate for another 10-20,000 years, it is possible that we'll have cow speciation to the degree that they will no longer be able to interbreed.

Is mankind "evolving" into ??? Or will the 'evolving' xIV cause the demise of our genus/species? If so, good for the planet, say I.

Don't keep me in suspense.

Here's the fun part. I can't predict what traits will be beneficial to humans for their environment in the future. I don't know what the environment will be. Aside from the second coming, the rapture, blah blah blah, do you know what this place will be like in the future? Can you think what would make one person more suited to that environment than another? Again, learn the theory before you attack it.

Rachel

 

[lamont]

Of course you will go to Scuba Hell if you don't dive DIR. But now the real question is whether DIR was CREATED or whether it EVOLVED!!!??? :11:

And thus it was written that George Irvine the Third came back from the end of the line and he told of what God had said to him through the Free-Flowing Reg. And God had spoken that from this day forth that thou shalt not layeth line with a stroke. And that God hath seen the baseplate and wing and blessed it, while cursing the poodle jacket. And yea, God hath spoken and said that all primary hoses shall be seven feet long and that while the heathen shall choke on the Long Hose that all who are blessed in the eyes of the Lord and beleiveth in DIR shall dive it without issue. And God said that all shall wear black, except for when trying to look good in a Red TLS350 on video, and that Spare Airs shall forever be crap.

 

[lamont]

Losing your cool, aren't you?

Your ancestors might be monkey's uncles, or goop, but mine are not.

Of course you did not see any of this alleged evolution occur but you believe it did based on current speciation. The common ancestor split into two, then four, then 8 then ... Is that how it allegedly worked? It's amazing that lifeforms that used sexual reproduction had a mate ready at the same time. But, I guess it must have, eh?

When did evolutionists change their minds about birds 'evolving' from dinosaurs, and whales 'evolving' from a terrestrial mammal that spent too much time in or near the water?

Is mankind "evolving" into ??? Or will the 'evolving' xIV cause the demise of our genus/species? If so, good for the planet, say I.

Don't keep me in suspense.

Once again. HIV didn't exist on this planet before about 1950. Either God created it in 1950, or else it evolved from SIV. Conveniently enough the molecular biotechnology that can explain how SIV evolved into HIV2 and HIV1 is also useful for producing protease inhibitors, explaining how the disease reproduces and spreads and interrupting it. The same genetic science can also produce estimates of when speciation occured in the past for entire families of organisms and with organisms in the fossil record. It has considerable predictive and explanatory powers, while Creationism isn't useful beyond "its that way because God made it".

I'm still betting on Evolution...

And really given the importance that molecular biotechnology and genetic science is going to have over the next 100 years, what Creationists want to do to our educational policies is just about criminally suicidal on a cultural level...

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Just getting awfully tired of the Straw Man arguements you and your brethern keep trying to throw out. If you wish to discuss the merits of my theory, learn it. If you actually have a valid set of facts to back up your theory, I'll be more than happy to study it and we can have a proper debate but as far as I can tell, you've got nothing but rhetoric with precisely nothing to back it up.

Straw man? LOL. If it was truly a straw man it could be set on fire and burned up. "Religious" people aren't the only folks that dispute the validity of evolution.

Well, being from completely different species, I can understand why you might not agree with me on my origins.

I have seen the "alleged" evolution occur. It's right there in the fossil record for anyone to see who choses to look.

Oh, please. You did not see evolution occur. You examine the fossil record, believe that it shows interim/transitionals, and use that as your "evidence" for evolution. Keep in mind this same fossil record is used by creationists as evidence of creation.

Didn't change their minds about the bird dino thing. The terrestrial mammal that eventually led to the critter we now call a whale was not a cow which is what you said in your earlier post.

My bad. Not a coo. But your theory does teach that whales evolved from a terrestrial mammal. "If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. But it better work this time." (Peace Sells, Megadeth)

Speaking of cows, let me throw this at you, just for kicks. The cows we have today are pretty specialized in the sense that some are good for milk, some for meat, some for leather, etc. The evolutionary process, with a lot of help from humans and selective breeding is what gives us the breeds of cows we have today. If we continue to keep the lines seperate for another 10-20,000 years, it is possible that we'll have cow speciation to the degree that they will no longer be able to interbreed.

But it will still be a cow, won't it. Or will it be a horse? Or something in-between?

Here's the fun part. I can't predict what traits will be beneficial to humans for their environment in the future. I don't know what the environment will be. Aside from the second coming, the rapture, blah blah blah, do you know what this place will be like in the future? Can you think what would make one person more suited to that environment than another? Again, learn the theory before you attack it.

Rachel

I know the theory. That's why I attack it. It's absurd.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Once again. HIV didn't exist on this planet before about 1950. Either God created it in 1950, or else it evolved from SIV. Conveniently enough the molecular biotechnology that can explain how SIV evolved into HIV2 and HIV1 is also useful for producing protease inhibitors, explaining how the disease reproduces and spreads and interrupting it. The same genetic science can also produce estimates of when speciation occured in the past for entire families of organisms and with organisms in the fossil record. It has considerable predictive and explanatory powers, while Creationism isn't useful beyond "its that way because God made it".

I'm still betting on Evolution...

And really given the importance that molecular biotechnology and genetic science is going to have over the next 100 years, what Creationists want to do to our educational policies is just about criminally suicidal on a cultural level...

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Viruses are known to be very adept at mutation/adaptation. It's what makes them so difficult to defeat. No creationist argues against adaptation. What they argue against is small steps in genus/species leading to giant leaps into completely different classes, families, etc. In any case, the SIV/HIV is still a virus. You have not proven macro-evolution.

"Criminally suicidal?"

 

[redacted]

Some believe that HIV (AIDS) was created as punishment. Then again, some believe the world is flat. To each his own.

 

[Bobbin-along]

Facts vs. theory vs. law:
Facts and theories are different beasts. Facts are observable data, they are undeniable. A theory puts facts together into an idea, but just because all the facts seem to come together into a cohesive idea doesn't make it scientific law. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. And as people continue to explore and learn more about the world, the evolution model (theory) gets tweaked. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic with assumptions being made until proven otherwise. Evolution from nothing to modern day is not a law or a fact, it is a theory.

For some reason Biologists and evolutionary academics seem to hate the idea of a theory. Evolution of a species (Darwins observations) is a very different beast from jumping Kingdoms, Phylums, Sub Phylums, and classes. Sure we can hybridize pea pods, develop cows who produce more milk or better steak, and birds can adapt, but that's a far cry from jumping between classes, let alone phylums. Evolution as proposed today claims just that, and we do not have definitive proof it actually happened. Our evidence is anecdotal at best, and that's OK. It's perfectly acceptable for something to be considered theory. It's a scientists job to hypothesize, test, analyze, re-tool, and try again. It's not our job to push public policy.

Before joining the dark side of the corporate world, I actually was a physicist at a university. Now as a physicist we lived in theory, at any day our life's work could come crashing down around us because some 14 year old prodigy could determine that our theories and hypotheses (which has been the foundation for 60 years of research) is suddenly bogus. You know what? It was expected. Over the door to the building we had an engraving which translated to "Leave no idea untested, leave no idea unknown" and each day it was our job to learn more, explore the unknown, and leave nothing assumed.

I've never understood why people in general have so many hang-ups with fact vs. theory vs. law thing. Do I belive in creation vs. evolution? I think they aren't really mutually exclusive. Just read the first couple chapters of Genesis, it doesn't matter which version they all follow the common theme. There was nothing, then the earth and the heavens, then water (in liquid form), then an atmostphere, then night and day, then land, then plants in the water and land, then animals, then mankind. And since according to the Bible that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, meaning that time is relative. So who says that things didn't progress in an evolutionary manner? We can't really rule it out can we?

 

[Hank49]

Facts vs. theory vs. law:
There was nothing, then the earth and the heavens, then water (in liquid form), then an atmostphere, then night and day, then land, then plants in the water and land, then animals, then mankind. ?

This is what I have a hard time with. Nothing IS something. How could there have been nothing? And how big was this "nothing"?
One thing is for sure though. No matter what we believe, we did all come from the same place (actually that's not 100% sure either but likely) and yet we divide ourselves as mankind to the point of killing each other over what we believe. that is amazing.

 

[Warthaug]

Doesn't AIDS pretty conclusively prove evolution? The virus hopped from SIV in monkeys to HIV probably around the 1950s and then spread all over the world (and it mutates incredibly rapidly even within the host carrier).

First, a quick note on when HIV was formed. The earliest confirmed infeciton dates to 1959, however computer models push that date back to the 1930's. There is anicdotal evidence of HIV infection prior to that - as early as the 1880's, but there is no way to confirm those dates. More likely, is that those eariler infections were SIV which was transfered to humans.

HIV itself evolves increadably fast - give a patient 1 anti-HIV drug, and a resistant strain of HIV will evolve within months. Give 2 anti-HIV drugs and you'll still get a resistant strain - it just takes longer. Even the infectious cycle of HIV requires evolution - when HIV first infects a patient it is nearly always what we call a R5 tropic virus. This form of the virus preferntially infect cells expressing a receptor called CCR5. Over time X4 tropic virus form, which infect cells expressing a different receptor - CXCR4 to be specific.

This change in tropism is not caused by some bit of stored genetic code. It is not caused by a change in the expression levels of viral genes. Nor is it caused by changes in the expression of genes in the patient. Rather, the change in tropism is entirely, 100%, and all-together caused by genetic mutations in the viral Env gene.

HIV is probably one of the best examples of evolution, but for another reason. Not only is virus evolution ALWAYS seen as part of the infectious cycle, but human evolution has been observed in response to the virus. This includes:

1) Selection for the delta-CCR5 mutation among Indian (as in India, not Native) and European populations with high levels of HIV infection (delta-CCR5 confers what we call "long-term non-progression", which is a fancy way of saying "they're either immune to HIV, or HIV disease progresses so slowly in these people we cannot detect it").

2) Selection of certain MHC and TCR haplotypes (groups of genes) which provide protection against HIV - a fact first noted among prostitutes in Kenya.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04

The flu pandemic of 1918 (and technically all flu pandemics) are also caused by mutation and natural selection -- in that case where I believe it hopped from swine to humans.

Duck -> Swine -> Humans. Every year that same loop goes round, and round, and round. Funny thing is we use our knowledge of flu genetics and evolution to predict what the next years flu virus will look like - this is how we prepare the flu vaccines before the flu season starts. Given this you have two things you can believe - either evolution occurs and we understand it well enough to use it to design vaccines. Or, alternatively, every flu epidemic since the creation of flu vaccines was deliberately caused by the vaccine manufacturers.

Those are the only two explanations which can explain our ability to "predict" the serology of next years flu virus, and design vaccines around it. And given that I work in the biomedical field, I can say with a great deal of confidence that it's not some massive conspiracy.

But then again, maybe I am the conspiracy. :uptosome:


Bryan