Stirring the pot - creation vs. evolutionism

[StarFyre]

the funny thing is

if god exists, god could create the world in such a way to make evolution the ongoing method, instead of him/her doing it all

ie. god created evolution, and then let it run things

hehe

(no, I don\'t believe in that...and I agree, if god existed, which could be possible, but doesn\';t have to be, please explain who created god )

Sanjay

 

[Modderrhu]

If the Universe is geared towards life, then... see... but if Torn blue sky was made, then he was made by a mistake, and then he\'s also a mistake, right? Unless he\'s only made of hydrogen...

I feel so much better now, we\'re all mistakes, every last one of us. :flip:

Sorry rev, didn\'t mean to sound serious. I just happen to your previous post about going to Theology Online for this stuff. Politics, religion, guns and Alexi Z are dire topics for CMON.

 

[Torn blue sky]

Thanks for clearing that up Mod.
My mother would never tell me the truth of it lol

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by reverend
If you fancy some proper rows you lot, get over to Theology Online. I go more for Biblical debate about the trinity and hell and the pointlessness of creating humans knowing they would sin, etc...

Arguing theology vs. theology. A time-honoured profession.

...but there\'s an ongoing creationsim v Evolution debate on the site under the Religion forums.

Arguing theology vs. science. A recipe for futility and intellectual dishonesty.

Anyway I\'d like to publicly clarify that my above reply certainly isn\'t meant as an insult to johnboyjjb... although it can be meant as an insult to Hovind, Ham, Buchanan and every other sneaky bastard whose goals are to undermine scientific advancement and force teachers to teach their specific religious belief as a scientific theory.

 

[paintingploddy]

I\'m heartened by the lack of credence being given to creationism. I expected the worst opening the thread. I studied geology and we were as much in the gunsight as biologists.

 

[johnboyjjb]

Originally posted by Torn blue sky
Take a common cold Virus for instance. That evolves very rapidly into a new strain!
It\'s not what it once was, it has EVOLVED into something more adaptable to suit its own needs and survival.

My understanding of bacterial adaptability is that the genetic coding for an improvement has always been there and gets bred to the surface or that genetic code is lost; the bacteria has lost the ability to do something and is weaker. A case of the second example is seen with \"a disease\" (can\'t remember what was used but I\'ll see if I can be more specific) becoming resistant to drugs being used. The problem being that the bacteria in that case was no longer able to process a protein. The protein was used in the vaccine.

The problem with this as a proof for evolution is that the first one is not evolution. It is breeding.

The problem with the second one is that the new bacteria is less capable and complex than the original. Evolution demands that things get more complex.

That like the sickle cell anemia disorder being used as proof that we are evolving to fight malaria. Sickle cell anemia is a disease where you blood cells aren\'t put together right. The advantage of being immune to malaria will be far out-weighed by the disadvantages of anemia.

 

[Ritual]

You seem to be taking for granted that there is some sort of purpose behind evolution. It is simply a very long-term adaptation to outer circrumstances. It doesn\'t necessarily mean that the species has to become more complex or \"better\" in some general way. The adaptation to one particular factor can very well become a problem due to another factor later on.

 

[johnboyjjb]

Originally posted by paintingploddy
I\'m heartened by the lack of credence being given to creationism. I expected the worst opening the thread. I studied geology and we were as much in the gun sight as biologists.

Does that mean you believe the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River over millions of years?

Originally posted by Darklord
what gets me is how these people spout the bible and things happen exactly like that but never seem to mention the many other gospels that never made it into the bible simply because the priests at the time didn\'t favor them. it\'s funny how as science and our understanding of our world increased the number of miracles went down

Just to clarify, creation is a Judeo-Christian belief. New Testament gospels have little to due with support for creation/evolution debate. Also, in regard to miracles, the medical field frequently has miracles. Since people have become more skeptic, even the mentioning of miracles in media has become more remote. The doctors said that my brother had a 5% chance to live through his car accident. He would never come out of a coma. Never be anything more than a vegetable. Never eat, talk, or walk on his own again. He does all these things. The doctors were certain he wouldn\'t. Would you call that a miracle, probably not. I do.

 

[Gilvan Blight]

Agree with most of what was said above, but thought I would share a counterexample to Darwinism, that I have found having just created life with my wife.

Darwins theory, in the simplest form is that adaptive traits and non adaptive traits come with each new generation, and that those will adaptive traits will survive and those with non-adaptive traits will die off, thus elvovling whatever species.

My counterexample: the human child.

A human baby is born barely mobile, it can\'t lift it\'s own grossly huge head, it cannot see past 6 inches, it has a basic set of \'reflexes\' but no motor control, and (this one I really didn\'t know) it has to be taught how to feed and it has little or no immune system until it feeds.

How the heck are any of those adaptive traits?!? I\'m sure I am missing some there.

Ever see the birth of a horse or cow or goat on a farm. Within minutes the baby is up on it\'s feet and feeding from mom.

How the heck did we become a dominant species?

 

[johnboyjjb]

Originally posted by Ritual
It doesn\'t necessarily mean that the species has to become more complex or \"better\" in some general way. The adaptation to one particular factor can very well become a problem due to another factor later on.

The problem is the loss of genetic coding. Once all of a genetic coding is bred out of something, it can not go back. You would eventually run out of genetic code to drop.

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
How the heck are any of those adaptive traits?!? I\'m sure I am missing some there.

Despite this, people have been able to make their children survive (not all of them, but enough) to adult age. Can\'t really see your point here...

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by johnboyjjb

Originally posted by Ritual
It doesn\'t necessarily mean that the species has to become more complex or \"better\" in some general way. The adaptation to one particular factor can very well become a problem due to another factor later on.

The problem is the loss of genetic coding. Once all of a genetic coding is bred out of something, it can not go back. You would eventually run out of genetic code to drop.

My point is that there is no purpose behind evolution. There is no masterplan to make the species better behind it.

 

[johnboyjjb]

Originally posted by Ritual
My point is that there is no purpose behind evolution. There is no master plan to make the species better behind it.

Your point is that evolution just happens without the choice of the evolved. We do not choose to get better we just do. Correct?

My point is that lose of genetic coding always makes something less diverse, not more. We should all end up more the same, not more different.

 

[supervike]

I\'ve seen some of the Dr. Dino videos before...and I admit I am easily swayed by a good argument. He does that in spades, he is very pursuasive. That is not to say I believe him. I\'m not even sure if I believe in God or a higher power.

I think evolution has a ton of holes in it, and SOMETIMES it is treated as a \'belief\' system too. There is much blind faith in that approach as well. It is still, a THEORY, it is not concrete evidence.

But, all that being said, I still don\'t know what I believe in. As just an observer of the world, one has to admit, that life surviving at all is pretty fascinating...especially given the complexities of it. Could there be intelligent design? I think that is a viable possiblity.

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by johnboyjjb
Perhaps I was unclear, I was looking for discussion about the seminars. The speaker quite strongly argues that evolution is not a viable theory and wanted somebody here to punch holes in his argument. He is offering $250,000 reward for proof of macro-evolution.

People who want \"proof\" have to learn difference between math an science. This difference is taught btw somewhere in the 3rd-4th grade. Math operates by proving things, science only provides evidence in support or evidence against,. If somebody wants to \"prove\" macroevolution or anything else which does not belong to Math realm it tells me that the person\'s the level of education and understanding of major concepts in moder science is somewhere below the 3rd-4th grade of elementary school and he simply doesn\'t have relevant information to discuss the problem.

Bacterial examples are the most ridiculous btw. and \"prove\" my point - basic course in microbiology would help and it is neither my desire nor my purpose to provide one here.

As for \"adaptive\" traits in human child, yet another example of complete misunderstanding how selection operates. My suggestion is to look at the concept of \"trade-offs\" which is rather interesting and kinda makes some sense.

As for this

Macro-evolution is a hypothesis that was made. No lab results have been able to recreate it and it has never been observed in natural phenomenon.

This part has to be taken on faith making macro-evolution a belief system.

(I\'m still reading the talkorigins site trying to catch up.)

I would suggest to familiarize yourself with molecular methods in evolution and mathematical modeling of macroevolutionary processes, granted methodology is relatively complicated and require certain understanding of things beyond 3rd-4th grade but again, quite interesting, when you take your time (granted it would take MUCH MORE time then creationist\'s drivel, that\'s why they never even attempt - too boring and takes too much efforts. Bible all the way - simple and clear)

 

[Rodnik]

I never really understood the \"choose one\" option. I\'ve always chosen both--

My reasoning is simple:
I\'m a Christian and raised in a Christian family----
But, to this day, no one has ever been able to show me the \"dates\" when creation took place.

Now...folks can argue the timeline---give or take a few thousand years---based on the theory that God considers a day is 24 hours long---which I consider a ridiculous assumption on which to base a theory.

Now, granted---I don\'t know many omnipotent/omniscient supreme beings---but I do suspect that even if I did, I would have a very difficult time understanding his/her/its view and perceptions of the universe.

If there\'s one very important, and definite) difference in man\'s perception of the universe vs. an eternal being\'s view of the universe---it would be in the measurement of linear time.

The sciences have developed very believable views on the age of the universe, as it relates to man\'s understanding. Faith let\'s me believe the initial \"spark\" was from the Finger of God.

I know my views aren\'t \"popular\", but it\'s what I believe---being both scientist and Christian.

Cheers!
Kev

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by johnboyjjb

Originally posted by Ritual
My point is that there is no purpose behind evolution. There is no master plan to make the species better behind it.

Your point is that evolution just happens without the choice of the evolved. We do not choose to get better we just do. Correct?

My point is that lose of genetic coding always makes something less diverse, not more. We should all end up more the same, not more different.

Yes, there\'s no choice involved and evolution happens over large time frames with most species (not all are as simple as bacteria).

If you look at a particular feature of a species the species DOES become more the same due to evolution, that\'s the whole point. Giraffes with short necks don\'t survive as easily as giraffes with long necks (as their basic food is located high above the ground), thus giraffes have long necks. But this doesn\'t mean that other variations in the giraffe species don\'t occur. And new variations can appear in time due to mutations.

@supervike
ALL science is theories. That\'s how it works. You make a theory that explains things that you can observe. Sometimes you observe things that can\'t be explained by the theory and then you develop the theory. Sometimes you observe things that contradict the theory and then you try to change the theory. Sometimes you can\'t change the theory so it has to be abolished. Science is a constant work-in-progress.

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by Rodnik
I never really understood the \"choose one\" option. I\'ve always chosen both--

I think you can! I\'m a physicist and an atheist (which is also a belief), but I see no problem in being a scientist and believing in something. The problem is when you try to use a belief system to provide you with arguments in a scientific debate.

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by johnboyjjb

Originally posted by Ritual
It doesn\'t necessarily mean that the species has to become more complex or \"better\" in some general way. The adaptation to one particular factor can very well become a problem due to another factor later on.

The problem is the loss of genetic coding. Once all of a genetic coding is bred out of something, it can not go back. You would eventually run out of genetic code to drop.

Loss of function creates as much diversity is a gain of function. Function has nothing to do with diversity. Selection again \"loss of function\" will or will not occurs just as well as against \"gain of function\". The event itself has nothing to do with selection, the adaptive value of the event is what\'s matter

As for the second part of your sentence, you are absolutely right and there a number of examples to illustrate this. If you compare closely related parasitic and free living species you will notice that parasitic species tend to loose functions that can be compensated by the host. The genome of parasitic species is smaller and much more \"steamlined\" then the genome of their free-living relatives. Does \"the loss\" of coding capacity provides an advantage? You bet it does. Replication of the genome occurs at more or less fixed rate so, if you have smaller genome you replicate it faster with less energy expenditure. Since there are more of you can infect more hosts.

Does it results in disadvantages? But of cause! You now can leave only in that host you yours that compensates your metabolic ineptitude. Your niche is much more narrow
and you cannot colonize other niches. Again, just a small homework.

 

[Rodnik]

I\'ve always hated genomes---those friggin\' short little bastards with their pointy ears!!


(I know..I know..I just couldn\'t help myself).