Creation vs. Evolution

[Uncle Pug]

BTW ~ I meant to mention this earlier but got side tracked:

For those who would prefer a mechanistic explanation for morality rather than accept that we received our sense of right vs wrong through the personal failure of our first parents in the Garden of Eden:

Moral Minds

Personally, I'll stick with the Garden of Eden story. It explains so much more in far fewer words.

 

[Kim]

Having been on your end, I do take that into consideration.

I also understand the fear some have expressed about the Fundamental Evangelical movement's bid for political and social power and all that goes with that. Personally I think a great many Christians have been led astray by an earthly/temporal agenda and away from Faith, Hope and Love.

I am grieved more by that than I am by those who do not believe by far!

************
Here is something I've been wondering about, though we are specifically not permitted to talk about it on SB since it involves politics:

What is the political disposition of those responding in this thread? I think it would be very interesting and even produce some surprises.

Again, I'm not suggesting that we talk about it because that is definitely against the TOS.

It's nice to read this because I think that it's exactly the Fundamental agenda and it's linkage with politics that has created a lot of the modern friction. If you add into that the Fundamental Moslem agenda then we start seeing the real trouble that is getting people killed everyday now. I can't help but have a real dislike of "Fundamental" period. It never seems to leave much room for tolerance and for me almost invariably flies in the face of what the various religious leaders have taught.
I've also been extremely curious myself about political affiliations from posters. I know we can't go there but I agree with you that there might be quite a few surprises. Sometimes the colours shine through and the coat tails show!

 

[lamont]

Are we there yet?

 

[Uncle Pug]

That is the name of our trawler. Youngest son named it when he was 14. At seven knots it takes a while to get from Everett to Ketchikan... but it did get us there and back. He grew several inches that summer.

He's older now and understands that we are there as soon as we all get on the boat.

 

[Rick Murchison]

What is the political disposition of those responding in this thread?

My political position is that I will support those who help me and my children keep from becoming dhimmi.
Rick

 

[H2Andy]

i don't think you have anything to worry about

they want us out; they dunna wanna come here

 

[Kim]

My political position is that I will support those who help me and my children keep from becoming dhimmi.
Rick

Good grief......do you REALLY think that there is even a chance the US could be governed by Sharia law in the future??????

 

[lamont]

That is the name of our trawler. Youngest son named it when he was 14. At seven knots it takes a while to get from Everett to Ketchikan...

personal trivia: i was born in Ketchikan... moved away when i was 6...

 

[Warthaug]

Wow, this thread moved fast. I feel really late replying now, and it hasn't even been 2 days...

I didn't say that microevolution has not been observed - but I did state that macro has not. Can you please shoot through a link to a paper if you have it on documentation of one kind being formed from another. (Note - I didn't say species, I said kind. It's my understanding that wolves and dogs are considered different 'species' - but they are still the same 'kind' of animal. AFAIK, A wolf can breed with a dog)

Firstly, wolves and dogs are not considered to be different species, at least not in the classical sense. The classical way to determine if two animals are of a different species we see if they can breed together and form viable offspring - viable meaning that their offspring can also have babies. Since wolves and dogs can breed together, they are the same species. This is indicated by their species name - both dogs and wolves belong to the same species - Canis lupus. Obviously, the evolution of a new species requires a little bit more then the genetic differences between wolves and dogs.

In terms of scientific references, there are a lot to choose from. In terms of speciation, the talk.origins webpage contains two good lists of scientific citation of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Unfortunately, web links to the original science are lacking in those articles. Here's a few of the more recent articles which have been published regarding speciation:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO9890351.htm
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO9910621.htm
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00868.x

In terms of non-speciation events which would fall into the category of macroevolution (alteration of body structure, formation of new biochemical pathways, etc), a small sampling shows:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8783939&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7765838&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9721651&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10761585&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8745072&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10688137&dopt=Abstract

As for "kind", that is purely a creationist construction and does not exist in the scientific world.

I don't disagree with people having a conclusion on what they believe has happened (which I may have incorrectly called 'theory' previously). I have a problem with people pushing this belief on others as fact.

That life changes, and these changes are driven by nature, is a fact. There is no getting around that - these types of changes have simply been observed too many times for it to be chance, or human stupidity.

We've directly observed the formation of new species, changes in morphology (structure), changes in biochemical pathways, and identified the genetic changes which lead to these events.

And as scientific theories go, it is quite possible the largest, most complete, and most consistent set of suppurating facts there is.

But much of science can be tested and proved. (Theory of gravity - theory of relativity, etc). Evolution (on the grander scene. Remember - I do not consider micro evolution the same as evolution being the source of where we all came from) can not be tested.

So you personally redefined what evolution is, and based on your interpretation - an interpretation which is 100% wrong from a scientific, or even logical standpoint, we should reject the theory.

As for evolution not being testable, you are 100% wrong. It is very, very easy to test macroevolution and microevolution in the lab. One of the oldest examples (circa 1950) was the lab-generated speciation of the drosophila fly. Long story short - members of one species of drosophila were grown in different environments (this has been done in a variety of ways, from having different food sources, to different temperatures, etc). Each set of flies is kept in their different environments for several dozen generations. Eventually, you end up with new species of flies - flies which are no longer able to interbreed.

It's a classic experiment, and one which is nearly 60 years old.

Other macroevolutionary events have also bee observed under experimental conditions - for example, large morphological changes have been generated in a range of animals within the lab. If you want an interesting example, complete with freaky pictures, google "antennapedia". A pointless adaptation in the wild, but proof that massive morphological alterations in an animal can be evolved in a laboratory setting.

Is the bacteria a different kind of animal, or does it just have different traits. (refer to 'kind' above)

Bacteria are not animals. However, the genetic changes which have been observed occurring in bacterial species are immense. To put it into animal context, we're talking evolutionary changes, in a matter of years to decades, of 20% change in the total genetic makeup of the bacterium. To put that into animal context, that's about the same as the difference between a dog and a frog.

And here's where it starts over again. You say that it's a Theory. I get told off when I use the same word. You haven't called it FACT and I can agree with you on this.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. I still think that you are not understanding what "theory" means in science. It does not have the same meaning as it does in conventional use.

That life changes, and these changes are a product of the environment is a FACT, plain and simple. Even you have agreed that this is true. In that context, evolution is a fact.

The "theory" part of it is the scientific explanation of WHY and HOW life changes. That life changes is still a fact, the theory of evolution is simply our best description of how these changes occur, and what drives them (i.e. the how, and the why).

Goes something like this:

FACT #1: Organisms change
FACT #2: These changes lead to different characteristics in these species
FACT #3: Some of these changes are improvements, some are not
FACT #4: Animals with detrimental traits tend to leave less offspring then animals with beneficial traits

All of those are facts - observed in nature, and impossible to refute. Based on those facts we have proposed evolutionary theory, a theory which states simply that the environment (and other factors) select for traits which are beneficial to the individuals which have them. These individuals leave more offspring, which in turn carry the beneficial traits. This results in changes to the species as beneficial traits are selected for and detrimental traits are selected against.

As you can see, the theory part is simply an explanation of the facts.

However - to say that it has absolutely no conflicting data once again points out that what you consider data and what you don't is selective to what you want to prove.

Another common creationist claim. But the counter question has been unanswered for 150+ years now - what evidence are we ignoring? Given that opposition to evolution is as old as evolutionary theory itself, you'd think that someone would have kept track.

Apparently this is too long, I'll post the sencond 1/2 of my reply ASAP.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Part II...

Life does change. New 'species' may form - but they're still the same kind of animal. The bible doesn't say that one animal can't create another species - it says another kind. A play on words - maybe. But I think arguing that these changes prove that we evolved from a different kind of animal (something lower down the 'chain' like an ape) is where you turn the science into belief.

I think you're splitting hairs here. Plus, you are being very, very selective about what you consider kind verses non-kind. For example, humans and chimpanzees are nearly identical. We share ~98% of our genes. Aside from head size, our skeletons are nearly indistguisable. I probably shouldn't mention this, but during my earlier grad-student years my boss made me teach his anatomy lectures to the med school. As a joke, on one slide I put a picture of a human and chimpanzee skeleton side-by-side, blown up to be the same size, and asked the class what they were. I got a huge range of answers - from a man vs woman human skeleton, to a child vs adult skeleton (in Africa, chimpanzee skeletons are occasionally mis-identified as the remains of human children), to a normal vs. microcephaly patient.

Now compare that to your example - zebras, horses, and donkeys. We don't have whole-genome sequences of these animals, but related genetic techniques put the similarity between these animals at 93-98% (depending on the method used, and which species you're comparing). Morphologically speaking, differences between these animals (particularly between horse/zebra vs donkey) are rather obvious - even someone without any training can easily tell the difference between a horse and donkey skeleton, even if you've got an as$ (pun intended) like me fiddling with the size of the photos.

So if you consider zebras, horses and donkeys to be of the same kind (and presumably therefore they could have evolved from the same ancestor), then do you also believe that humans and chimps are of the same kind, and also therefore potentially derived form the same ancestor? After all, by both a scientific measure (genetic similarity) and by a more general measure (similarity of the skeleton) we're more closely related then your example...

Only if you choose to ignore the conflicting evidence. What evidence? That's exactily what I mean. If you choose to ignore other evidence, and make up excuses before checking the facts - you'll always live in the safe world where evolutoin is concrete.

Firstly, by ignoring all of the evidence - the evidence that myself, thal and others have been posting this whole thread, you're living in a safe world where evolution could never be true. Secondly, I'll repeat my challenge from above - what evidence contradicts evolution? Your claims are pretty common creationist claims, and yet after all these years of the same claims being made by your side, I've yet to see you offer up a single piece of contradictory evidence.

Just because I haven't agreed to accept evolution doesn't mean I haven't read the replies.

That's not the issue. The issue is after supposedly reading our replies you continue to make the same mistakes - i.e. not understanding what the term "theory" means.

As some christians might revert to (which I have) - well, what does it matter... if we die... etc - evolutionists have great delight in summarising it as anyone who doesn't accept their statements has a poor understanding of the theory - as though someone who understands the theory will accept the theory.

Far from it. But you clearly do not understand the theory. I do not mean that as an insult, but it is very obvious that you do not understand even the basic concepts. Read the following list of terms, if you do not know what they mean without having to check them up then you do not understand the theory. These are the most basic concepts - I've copied them out of my high-school science text:

Genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection, allele, descent by modification, morphology, mutation, taxonomy, niche, survival of the fittest, acquired trait, adaptation, artificial selection, convergent evolution, divergent evolution, dominance, recessive, extinction, fitness, founder effect, haploid, Hardy-Weinberg ratio, polymorphism.

Evolutionary theory has advanced a little since then, so I would add two more terms to that list: punctuated equilibrium, cladistics.

Those are the most basic concepts in evolution, if you do not understand those you don't understand the theory.

There are numerous evolution scientists who have converted to Christianity after fighting for evolution. Do they too have a poor understanding?

1) Name 5, shouldn't be too hard if they are numerous..
2) Christianity is not incompatible with evolution. I know several Christians at work at work who are both practicing Christians, and believe in evolution. For that matter, here's a list of over 10,000 clergy, in the USA alone, who believe in evolution:

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm

Bryan