Creation vs. Evolution

[Bryan]

we know when amoebas hung around for the first time

if they eventually "turned into" creatures with lungs, then you will not find creatures with lungs PRIOR to the amoebas.

so, if you find a creature with lungs BEFORE the amoebas came on the scence, you've disproven evolution

(since evolution says that all creatures with lungs evolved from the amoebas, so finding a creature with lungs PRIOR to the amoebas will debunk it)

I suppose that is one vector for disproving evolution, but would you agree it isn't the only one?

 

[H2Andy]

of course not

just do some DNA sampling that contradicts evolution and you're set

unfortunately, every DNA sample ever made supports evolution

 

[Uncle Pug]

prove what, Pug?

Well... prove this statement:
"i would say evolution is about 95-98% proven"

My original 'prove it' was concerning the notion that the Sarcopterygian ancestors of the amhipia transformed swim baldder tissue to lungs, ect.... but since you've preemptively stated that evolution cannot be proven 100% I assume that allows individual statements such *the transformation of swim bladder into lungs* immunity from challenge.

 

[Uncle Pug]

we know when amoebas hung around for the first time

When was that?

How do we know that?

How do we know that they were first?

 

[Bryan]

of course not

just do some DNA sampling that contradicts evolution and you're set

unfortunately, every DNA sample ever made supports evolution

OK, but why does everyone think that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive?

Scenario 1: Couldn't there have been a creator that created initial forms of life, which then evolved into the forms we see today? Just as flies don't spontaneously arise from rotten meat, maybe life didn't spontaneously arise from some goo. Evolution is involved, and the common DNA is accommodated.

Scenario 2: Couldn't all forms of life have been created by a common creator, who used the same DNA building blocks? A mailbox enclosure and a house and a hi-rise may all contain brick. Does that mean all hi-rises are higher forms of mailbox enclosures, or does that just mean that the brick worked out ok for smaller structures, and so was used in larger ones? Couldn't the analogy hold for DNA as building blocks for life? Why wouldn't a creator build a "library" of life functions into DNA to be used for all creatures? Programmers do this every day with their libs and DLLs, and design or select those libs and DLLs ahead of time when creating their architecture. In this scenario, evolution is not involved and the common DNA is accommodated.

Thus, the premise that every DNA sample ever made shows common DNA in higher forms as found in lower forms may be inadequate in some scenarios as a test for disproving Creation.

 

[Potapko]

You did more than that, you were "asking her to reconsider." Since the Catholic Church has no problem with mixed (religious) marriages, I don't see why you would have a problem with it enough to butt in where your opinion was not asked for.



Your encouragement of segregation is promotion of bigotry. It is no different than saying that white people should not marry black people.

Actually official catholic doctrine does prohibit mixed (religious) marriages. A few parish priests will not comply but the non-catholic is normally required to convert. But in this case I think you are correct. The Bible says nothing about a catholic marrying a non-catholic. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Hope you two are very happy together.
Sincerely

 

[Thalassamania]

My original 'prove it' was concerning the notion that the Sarcopterygian ancestors of the amhipia transformed swim baldder tissue to lungs, ect.... but since you've preemptively stated that evolution cannot be proven 100% I assume that allows individual statements such *the transformation of swim bladder into lungs* immunity from challenge.

The reason many people don't "believe" in evolution is that the lack the background to understand it. With all due respect, to "prove" this to you would require that you complete about 12 credits of upper division work in Zoology, not to mention the time that it'd take you to fill the holes in your background that are prerequisite to those courses.

 

[Thalassamania]

OK, but why does everyone think that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive?

Scenario 1: Couldn't there have been a creator that created initial forms of life, which then evolved into the forms we see today? Just as flies don't spontaneously arise from rotten meat, maybe life didn't spontaneously arise from some goo. Evolution is involved, and the common DNA is accommodated.

Sure, that basically what Collins argues and what Dawkins describes as a cop-out.

Scenario 2: Couldn't all forms of life have been created by a common creator, who used the same DNA building blocks? A mailbox enclosure and a house and a hi-rise may all contain brick. Does that mean all hi-rises are higher forms of mailbox enclosures, or does that just mean that the brick worked out ok for smaller structures, and so was used in larger ones? Couldn't the analogy hold for DNA as building blocks for life? Why wouldn't a creator build a "library" of life functions into DNA to be used for all creatures? Programmers do this every day with their libs and DLLs, and design or select those libs and DLLs ahead of time when creating their architecture. In this scenario, evolution is not involved and the common DNA is accommodated.

DNA is not a building block rather it is a blueprint, you need a better and more accurate analogy.

Thus, the premise that every DNA sample ever made shows common DNA in higher forms as found in lower forms may be inadequate in some scenarios as a test for disproving Creation.

Taken by itself it would be adequate, but taken as independent confirmation of the fossil record and the independent immuno-distance data, it's rather conclusive.

 

[Midnight Star]

The reason many people don't "believe" in evolution is that the lack the background to understand it. With all due respect, to "prove" this to you would require that you complete about 12 credits of upper division work in Zoology, not to mention the time that it'd take you to fill the holes in your background that are prerequisite to those courses.

Isn't that indirectly calling those on an opposing side "stupid" ... uneducated ... blind ... misguided? Oh, man I couldn't resist that one.

Actually, I dont have a Master's Degree in Astrophysics or Zoology, but I certainly can see the evolutionary tract of animalia across the eras. Which, interestingly enough I don't really think is the heart of this debate (not this thread per se, but from it's inception). I believe the "heart" of this debate is over something much more simple than evolution - which most can see has happened, and does continue to happen. The real question is, did we personally evolve from apes. Science says yes, but only in theory. We have to agree theory, since no one was actually there to witness it; circumstantial. Now to take it farther, since we can't directly prove God in a way to appease the scientific community (I guess he doesnt work for us like some would like him too), some conclude that evolution is the only conceivable path that man has taken. See how that can also work? So again, does the circumstantiality of a given situation validate it? In reality, no not really. Where did matter initially come from? Since matter can neither be created or destroyed ... only transformed (an evolutionary trait?), did it conincidentally make itself? Perhaps the unknown, has bounded the known.

Remember when I said earlier that the unknown bounds the known? and you replied that the unknown cant be quantified by the known - or vice versa? I wasnt referring to quantification, but bounding - defining the results. Here's an example: What we knew ... certain naturally occuring rocks could allow us "see" inside a human hand - the known. What was unknown, were x-rays. We based, pretty much, our entire system of diagnostic and exploratory medicine (non invasive), at time on the ability to use something we could not touch, see or understand (if we fully couldve, many doctors wouldnt have lost their limbs to radiation poisoning, cancer, and etc.,. to caliberate the machine). It was what we didn't know or see (the x-rays), that bounded the known (that gave us the results).

Again, just a few more things to think about along the way.

-----

Mike.

 

[Thalassamania]

Isn't that indirectly calling those on an opposing side "stupid" ... uneducated ... blind ... misguided? Oh, man I couldn't resist that one.

No it is not. It means exactly what it says.