Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

But we now have ^superscripting and _subscripting!

Aikaramba!!!!!

Not ^the most _conveneint thing to use :mooner:

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Those that claim that evolution has never been observed...you are wrong

From my understading, this depends on what you call 'evolution'.

Evolution is a scientific theory, and is well defined. And, based on the scientific definition of evolution it occurs. Creationists like to re-define the word for their own use, but that is wrong. Evolution is evolution; you can’t just redefine it to fit your preconceptions.

For evolution to work (as far as from a blob to us) - additional information needs to be added to the DNA structure. (ie - there was none, and then there was information - and more information was added to construct our lungs, muscles, etc).

While that is true, the addition of DNA is no longer necessary for evolution to continue. If you look at the DNA of a fish, pretty much every thing is there that is needed to make a human. You pick something even closer to us (evolutionarily speaking) and the differences are even less - the number of genes you have (or don't have) compared to any other mammal is likely less than 50. In the case of chimps, I am unaware of any gene we have that they don't, or any gene they have that we don't.

In many ways, life has built up a "toolbox" of genes that do pretty much everything that needs to be done. Much of the evolution which occurs now is simply fine tuning that toolbox. That said, new genes are created, and far more often then most people would expect.

Creatures do change these days, but from what I'm aware of, that comes under 'mutation' more than evolution. (Mutation comes from loss of data, or in some cases, copies of the same data - ie when someone may have 6 fingers instead of 5).

Firstly, mutation IS evolution. Forget the creationist propaganda you've been fed - evolution is nothing more then the change in a species genetic makeup over time. That change can be nothing more then a single mutation, or a slight change in the amount of a certain gene in the population; it can also be big changes like wholesale reorganization of the species genome. Regardless of the scale, it is still evolution.

Secondly, mutation does not always result in the loss of information. There are multiple forms of mutations. The most common are "point mutation", where a single base of DNA switches from one base to another (there are 4 possible bases, A T C & G). These mutations can have a range of effects, from no effect at all, to a complete alteration or elimination of the function of that gene. Other forms of mutations include deletion mutation (where a portion of DNA is removed), duplication mutations (where stretches of DNA are reproduced), insertional mutations (where a section of foreign DNA is inserted into the DNA), chromosomal breakage/rearrangement (where chromosomes get mixed up), transposable elements (where viruses, and other "transposons" insert themselves into DNA), high-level transfer (where parasites transfer DNA from one organism to another), symbiotic transfer (where symbiotes "steal" each others genes), and inversion mutations (where regions of DNA are inverted, relative to the genes around them).

Certain mutations have been descripted as evolution to support the theory, and not the other way around.

By "other way around", I assume you mean that no evidence has been shown for the addition of DNA. If that is your claim, then I hate to break it to you, but you are 100% wrong. Genetic events which result in the net addition of DNA are quite common - in fact, the very first scientifically identified speciation event (i.e. where a new species was observed to form) was a direct product of the addition of a large amount of DNA to the evening primrose. In case you're curious, that was back in 1905. That's right, the addition of DNA to an organism was first seen 101 years ago.

And people wonder why us scientists get so frustrated with this stuff. If you're going to argue with us, could you at least enter the same century first. Please

The addition of DNA is somewhat common in plants and animals; but in bacteria it reaches an unbelievable level - many bacteria have a way to have "sex"; as in exchange DNA between each other. But unlike us boring animals, they don't keep it in the species. Hell, they don't even keep it in the phylum, or even the family (cladistic family, that is). Bacteria engage in productive "sex" with other bacteria so far removed, it would be like you successfully reproducing with a sponge. And once those genes are in the bacteria they can be used for their original purposes, or evolved into other things.

The accumulation of new genetic traits - the formation of new genes, and new DNA, is scientific fact. It occurs, quite frequently. Any claims otherwise are simply wrong.

Bryan

 

[Thalassamania]

From my understading, this depends on what you call 'evolution'.

For evolution to work (as far as from a blob to us) - additional information needs to be added to the DNA structure. (ie - there was none, and then there was information - and more information was added to construct our lungs, muscles, etc).

Creatures do change these days, but from what I'm aware of, that comes under 'mutation' more than evolution. (Mutation comes from loss of data, or in some cases, copies of the same data - ie when someone may have 6 fingers instead of 5).

Certain mutations have been descripted as evolution to support the theory, and not the other way around.

Cheers

Adam.

Mutation is the source of new genotypes, evolution is just the name that we give to the process of some genotypes becoming more widespread in the population over time.

 

[Uncle Pug]

Evolution is a scientific theory, and is well defined. And, based on the scientific definition of evolution it occurs. Creationists like to re-define the word for their own use, but that is wrong. Evolution is evolution; you can’t just redefine it to fit your preconceptions.

Naturally, everyone wants to confine discourse within a framework of their own making.

If you control the framework then you can control the discussion.

If you are the definer of terms then you are determiner of what is meaningful.

You are the decider!

 

[H2Andy]

fine and dandy, but that's why definitions exist, so we know what we're talking about

if we're discussing evolution and someone makes a statement that misunderstands or misrepresent evolution, then we're wasting time

evolution, for example, does not claim that a horse will evolve fully formed from an amoeba, or that if you start flapping your arms after a while they'll become wings.

to demand to see evidence of that as proof of evolution is a fallacy. it ain't gonna happen, because that's not what evolution says will happen. it's never happened and we can sit and wait all we want, it ain't never gonna happen.

a basic understanding on both parts of what evolution posits and does not posit is integral for any meaningful discussion of the subject. from reading what Creationists say about evolution, i am horrified at how little they know about the subject -- yet they feel comfortable prounouncing it as a fraud, or silly, or false.

i'd be more comfortable with your rejection of evolution if i felt that you guys actually understood it

(that goes for pretty much any topic, i think)

 

[Uncle Pug]

See what I mean?

fine and dandy, but that's why definitions exist, so we know what we're talking about

define = know

 

[H2Andy]

define = know

no, i didn't define evolution

i just understand it




wouldn't you expect someone to learn what oxygen toxycity is before coming to you to discuss it, or to argue that it doesn't exist?

you don't have to AGREE with evolution. just take some time to actually LEARN what it is.

besides, any real refutation of evolution must be made by those who actually know what evolution is. otherwise, you guys are just making half-baked arguments that, frankly, don't hold much water

 

[Soggy]

otherwise, you guys are just making half-baked arguments that, frankly, don't hold much water

...certainly not enough water to go diving in, that's for sure! Most of the arguments I've seen are like a puddle from an overflowing septic system.

 

[mislav]

...certainly not enough water to go diving in, that's for sure! Most of the arguments I've seen are like a puddle from an overflowing septic system.

Not enough water for diving, but we could snorkel in the argument that god made all these fossils to fool us and test our faith.

It's just too much of a What-is-the-matrix argument, I had to love that one. I give it snorkel value.

 

[lamont]

But no evolutionary biologists.<G>

The thing about science that the lay public does not understand is that there is always a bunch of people looking over your shoulder, and they can make their reputation faster by destroying your's rather than having to do the hard work of original research. We got more points in undergrad and grad seminars for carving up the presenter than we did for our own presentations. Tends to keep you honest.

This still makes it sound a little too disconnected from the normal failings of human culture though. Critics often cut up other people's work due to entirely subjective qualities, but there's an important distinction between scientific criticism and aesthetic criticism which is that in science, experiment is the ultimate arbiter.

In science (properly done) you should be able to do experiments which can force an overwhelming majority of people who do not want to accept your theories that they are in fact correct. Einstein did this when he dismissed the ether and put the theory of special relativity together and explained the Michaelson-Morley results. Einstein also sort of had it done to him when he attempted to shred quantum mechanics and the heisenberg uncertainty principle, and the results of carrying out the EPR experiments did not confirm his views. Schroedinger also tried to attack quantum mechanics and instead he wound up making an essential contribution to QM (the Schroedinger Wave Equation) without actually falsifying any of the structure of QM.
Feynman was one of the founders of quantum field theory (quantum electrodynamics) But it was Gell-Mann's Quarks that explained the strong force and not Feynman's parton model (although it could be argued that quarks became the partons that Feynman was looking for...). Then there's the cases where there are purely experimental results, like wein's law and planck's law fitting to blackbody radiation curves -- where the experimental results came first, the fit to the data came second, and the understanding of what the heck was really going on took a decade or more to settle down....

I'm certain that before Special Relativity that there were graduate students that were chopping up presentations because the presenter didn't take into account the motion of the Earth through the Ether and scored a lot of points with the people in the audience that they were trying to impress. Scientists are human and this will go on, but ultimately reality took precidence and scientists have had to do away with the Ether.