Evolution and Creation

[Anathema]

the gene pools of the animals on the arc were good enough such that deformities did not take place.

Where in the bible is that said?

[emprworm]

science says it. that is good enough for me.

[Anathema]

The fact that science requires that 2 perfect specimens were present, offers no explanation where those came from.

[emprworm]

science does not require 2 perfect specimens. if only a few bad genes exist in the pool, there is an immense probability that the animals will come out just fine. Like I said earlier, we see this today with endagered species. Or did you miss that?

[Anathema]

But the pool is small, and the bad genes therefore make a larger part of the gene pool. The gene pools of most endangered species are still relatively "large". But if you look at for example the Amish people, the signs of inbreeding are clearly there- as a result of a gene pool that is too small.

[emprworm]

even in evolution, all species began with only a single type of that species anyway, so your argument refutes yourself. Besides, having 2 non-related animals with relatively pure gene pools replicating their species on a new world would not create catosrophic problems. There would be a few deformiteis, yes. We would expect that. But since that is precisely what we see in nature, our observations actually support Noah's ark because what we would expect to see today, is precisely what we do see.

[Anathema]

In evolution, a species does not "start". They are created by a gradual develpment of a single species. The new genes spread through the species till the original isn't left anymore (or at least in that particular area in wich the new species evolves), or more and more new genes spread through a closed, seperate gene pool till they cannot produce children anymore with the original, then it's a new species.

[DjCiD]

yes let us not forget that after the flood, Noah and his family repopulated the world. (which i may add is how everone got talking the same language... untill the tower of bable [this was brought up in antoher post, someone said how did everyone all over the world start talking the same language])

[emprworm]

there is no evidence whatsoever of one species evolving into another species. ever hear of the term "irreducible complexity?" this term requires that in order for certain species to "evolve" many components must simultaneously LEAP into existence via a gargantuan mutation. What you just described is impossible.

Read about irreducible complexity here:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/menu/irreducible/irreduce.htm

but to those who are too lazy to read about it, here is a basic definition of the term:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have any thing to act on. Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, 1996

[Anathema]

Changes can seem unimportant and ineffective- but suppose in a forest, a fox is born that has a blue fur. Then, if the trees miraculously turn blue, the blue fox has an advantage. The normal foxes will likely die out in that forest, but the blue foxes continue.

[emprworm]

yes, that would be miraculous wouldnt it? unfortunately, since all the other foxes are already camaflouged amongst brown, dead foilage and all the trunks of the trees, the blue fox, having no hiding place, would be killed quite fast indeed since it is by far the weakest of the foxes.

[Anathema]

Yes- but suppose the trees would turn blue. Then wich fox would survive- the one that blends in with the trees (the blue one) or the one that will be easily spotted? (the brown one)?

[DjCiD]

well if one turned bule what stopped the others? and what if the trees turned red instead of blue...

[emprworm]

thus you have adequately described the concept of "irreducible complexity" both the fox and trees would need to evolve simultaneously. Since the blue fox requires the blue trees to survive. Hence there is no 'gradual change' since the two systems are interlocked. This is the reason why evolution is hogwash, because such things could not possibly be random. You already have a 1 in a quadrillion chance of a blue fox mutating, which those odds would be factorialized in order for a species of tree to do the same thing at the same time, resulting in odds that are insurmountable given even trillions of years let alone a piddly 4 billion.

[Anathema]

Then both would be screwed and they all die- but that too is evolution.

Turning blue was a random event.

[emprworm]

irreducible complexity is why evolution is impossible.

adaptation within a species is true. evolution of species is unproven and too much counter evidence disproves it in my book.

It takes more faith to believe in that, then it does just to believe that God created the universe.

You have more faith than I do.

[Anathema]

Don't assume something can't happen because there are scientists that do not believe in it- that's what scientists are for, to be sceptical.

Evolution is very gradual. The "system" of an animal (or any organism) undergoes minor changes. If any of those changes will cause the animal to be non functionaly, that animal will die, end of story. But a system can continuously undergo minor changes without any of them being significant enough to destabilize the system.

A change does not need to be an improvement- just a property that is beneficial under certain conditions.

If you put replace some hardware in your PC, you are making changes to the system. Yet your PC does not cease to function. Now why is that?

[emprworm]

again, earthnuker, there are many biological systems that cannot exist through gradual change. they had to have "LEAPED" in order to exist. Tremendous Faith. Tremendous Doctrine.

The religion of evolution.

http://www.windowview.org/science/32irred.complx.html

[Anathema]

Sorry, but right now I don't have enough time to read all that.

If a creature is tuned in such a manner that it has no margin for changes in his sytem, then such a creature would not come to existance through evolution. An evolved creature will always have a certain margin for system adjustments.

[emprworm]

systems that contain multiple interlocking components which require all the components in order to function cannot possibly come into existence gradually.

In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.

As a simple example of irreducible complexity, is the humble mousetrap.

It contains 5 interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.

Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.

To embrace evolution in its myriads of irreducible complex systems requires tremendous faith. More faith, than the entire continent of India. It is much more simplistic to say "God created" then to have the immense amount of blind faith required to believe in cross-special evolution.

[Inoculator9]

It's more complicated explaining the existence of God. He's been there forever? That is the biggest leap of faith possible.

[Acriku]

I agree with this. It doesnt matter how many holes or how big the holes in evolution people find. They will always still use the same answer and say its true.

Faith.

Wrong! Scientists use facts and well-evidenced theories, and if they find a better, more proven theory they will accept that one. If a better one comes along they will accept that one. No faith!

what is your evidence to suggest mutation is beneficial? We have observed millions of mutations, and none of them are beneficial and all of them represent an error in replication. Replication errors are not evolving. They are representative of weakening. No evidence. You can BELIEVE it if you want. Then again, there are billions of other religious people on earth.

Mutations are random changings of the DNA, and the ones that help the animal survive slowly becomes permanent for that species, through reproduction and others. Filling the niche! Survival of the fittest!

you are now confusing adaptation with evolution and mutation. totally different.

Mutation breeds adaption, which breeds evolution. How are they very different? They may be done differently, but hey are definitely connected.

considering God was the one that flooded the world, I would assume that God was also the one that brought the animals.

In the bible it says that Noah called all the animals to him...

But this wont happen. There is no random mutation that gives an advantage. Show me an example. Adaption is not random at all. It is very specific and it does not involve mutation.

Monkey crap! Random mutations that aid in the survival of an organism either slowly becomes permanent, or it is isn't implemented fast enough they die out.

yes, that is true. We also share 100% of our atomic particles with the hair ball that my cat threw up outside the other day. We share 100% of our atomic particles with the noxious gas cloud orbiting some lonely star in the Andromeda galaxy. Big deal. Everything in the entire universe is made up of the exact same things.

DNA makeup and structure is different than atomic particles ::)

All of them scientists. All published. All have peer

review. All of them have PhD's. All living. How many PhD scientists do you know of that embrace evolution? And keep in mind, there really aren't that many PhD's out there. Most people do not get a PhD.

Wow, PhD's sure make all-knowing gods out of people ::) Fact is, just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you are right. People with PhD's might believe in aliens, who knows. And no I am not going to show you a PhD that believes in aliens.

i'm wide awake Duke. The simple truth is this: All things in the universe are made up of precisly the same components. Perhaps if you knew anything about science, you would have known that, eh?

As I and Duke have said, DNA structure and makeup and atomic particles are very different and it seems you are losing this particular argument and becoming absolute for some reason.

Having said that, why the hell can't we all just get along?

I'm a diehard christian, and a skeptical evolutionist. Religion and science are perfectly compatible.

Exactly, you can believe in both somewhat. But I will not believe in religion for now, maybe later...

Repoman, we also share exactly 50% of our DNA with bananas. Your point?

50% and 98% are very far apart, so ask that question again Big Shot.

All of them creationists. All of them respected in their fields. All of them reject evolution with abundant scientific counter-evidence. I'd say these guys know what they are doing. Would repoman tell them that they "just dont get it"?

Abundant counter-evidence? If they had enough evidence which you state they do, then they can go to the scientific community and disprove it. Since they have not, I have to assume they don't have enough evidence.

here is no evidence whatsoever of one species evolving into another species.

So the chicken was here from the beginning of time? Read this:

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

thus you have adequately described the concept of "irreducible complexity" both the fox and trees would need to evolve simultaneously.

Actually, a few birds were seperated by islands, and they adapted to the best possible fit, long noses to eat things in the ground and bark, etc. They "adapted" to the environment, and eventually after a few thousand or millions of years, the mutations will add up to the point where the birds that were seperated cannot breed, thus different species.

adaptation within a species is true. evolution of species is unproven and too much counter evidence disproves it in my book.

It takes too damn long! That's why! But we have observed lower organisms, such as viruses and algae (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) evolving into new species. So yes, we have proved it.

Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.

Empr, the lower organisms have simple DNA, and have evolved through mutations of that DNA, adding information, deleting information, replacing information, etc, until more complex organisms are made, and the DNA keeps changing. Comparing the trap to evolution is stupid, because traps do not have DNA to change (and yes DNA does change) among other reasons.

[Inoculator9]

Everyone, try to keep your posts a little shorter. It took me half an hour to catch up on all the posts here, and I started this thread yesterday.

[Acriku]

Same with me, I had to make one long post conscerning 3 pages.

[Inoculator9]

Try to keep it under 20 lines. Some people don't have enough time to read that much stuff.