Evolution and Creation

[Acriku]

Why though? I should make many smaller posts then? Or just keep most of my thoughts to myself so you can read everything within the alotted time?

[Inoculator9]

No, just try to compress your thoughts. Im just making a suggestion. I don't want to restrict people, just don't include useless stuff.

[Acriku]

Well I did have a lot of posts to reply to, so this isn't a common practice of mine. And if you don't have time to read it all, then don't...

[Inoculator9]

Ok, nevermind I said anything, I didn't mean to sound rude.

[emprworm]

Empr: 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.

Acriku

[Anathema]

lol. You contradict yourself. If a better one comes along, that means the one they all believed previous was actually wrong. Yet they BELIEVED it anyway. You invalidate yourself. Having faith and not admitting it does not mean you dont have it. It just makes you ignorant. You BELIEVE in evolution. It has not been proven. You are no different than any religious person. Or are you going to prove it?

There is a difference between faith and assumption- faith being the stronger one. We assume the evolution theory is correct.

Mutations do not help any animal survive. Please cite your sources. Mutations are mistakes in replication that weaken the creature, they do not strengthen it.

There is no law that dictates mutation has to be counter productive. The evolution theory is based on the assumption that mutations can be beneficial. If you state otherwise then it is you who needs to back up that claim.

Acriku

[emprworm]

There is a difference between faith and assumption- faith being the stronger one. We assume the evolution theory is correct.

lol. now we're really reaching. uh, i assume that it is incorrect. you assume. you believe. call it whatever you want.

There is no law that dictates mutation has to be counter productive. The evolution theory is based on the assumption that mutations can be beneficial. If you state otherwise then it is you who needs to back up that claim.

no law. just evidence. and your faith.

I missed this part of the discussion, but DNA and atomic particles are different areas.

ooooh, wow. another brilliant scientist. nobel prize for you too?

If there was any actual evidence the evolution theory is incorrect, then step in the ring with it. Since nobody throws evidence against evolution in the science ring, your statement is false.

already been done. maybe this is why there are so many scientists who reject it.

The fact we share a significant amount of DNA with other species, would suggest we have common ancestors. An alien that evolved completely independantly from Earth life would not share our DNA.

or a common designer.

the fact that we share the same sub-atomic particles would also indicate a common designer.

Again, I'd prefer if you use the term assumption rather then faith. Acriku would reject the evolution theory if it was proved wrong.

sure, if that makes you guys more comfortable, i'll use the term assume.

I believe the evolution theory is correct. That's an assumption, because there is no inconrovertable evidence.

yes you do. and i believe in God.

Irreducable complexity would oppose evolution, however, then life would have to be irreducably complex. Who says where life is?

yes it does oppose evolution. and it is absolutely true. who says? Uh, people who have faith in evolution say...I guess.

[Anathema]

already been done. maybe this is why there are so many scientists who reject it.

No evidence, just indications. If there was incontrovertable evidence against the evolution theory then nobody would believe it (or at least no sensible persons).

The theory of irreducable complexity is not evidence against evolution, because it does not prove life on Earth is irreducable complex.

[Caid Ivik]

Believe in evolution became a dogma. But it's nonsense. If it's true, how is possible intelligence? This radical improvement in just five million years? Also was it really five million years? I read an article about slimes, and carbonic experiment shows that suspected slimes lived for 15 000 - 60 000 years. That is nonsense. Evolution is source of some changes, but I can't believe it has created these millions of lifeforms. Biology still waits for real revolutionary theorem.

[emprworm]

If there was incontrovertable evidence against the evolution theory then nobody would believe it (or at least no sensible persons)

this is true, Earthnuker. I will agree with you for a change. ;D

neither side has incontrovertable evidence. Given evidence alone, both sides are just as objectively rational and neither side is any more proven or disproven than the other. in my opinion, creation is the stronger case. There's too many gaping holes in evolution. But i admit the evidence is not incontrovertable. but then again, not much is

The theory of irreducable complexity is not evidence against evolution, because it does not prove life on Earth is irreducable complex

i dont think you really understand irreducable complex very well. it is not referring to life as a whole. it is referring to biological systems within life. There are numerous. I'll quote one here for you: the cilium. diagram of one below:

"Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of "bridges"-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges.

Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the "motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We can't evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost. "

What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale. Recall that by "irreducible complexity" we mean an apparatus that requires several distinct components for the whole to work. A mousetrap must have a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar, all working together, in order to function. Similarly, the cilium, as it is constituted, must have the sliding filaments, connecting proteins, and motor proteins for function to occur. In the absence of any one of those components, the apparatus is useless.

The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed."

sources; http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/cilium_all.htm

http://www.ideacenter.org/irredcomplex.htm

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

[nemafakei]

What the flagellum and cilia thing seems to suggest is that many scientists seem to have failed to see a way around the problem. But that sort of thing is merely our own failing, in that we don't understand how something applies. It is proven that there is evolution. It is not so easily proven that evolution was the driving force that has produces the species today. And so, this has not yet proven.

The problem is, we need to know how much proof is enough?

Is it to prove that evolution has occurred at some stages throughout our history, and show examples of how this has produced a few species?

Is it to give a family tree of every species from the beginning of life?

Do we also have to find examples of each species?

Do we also have to explain every complex organ and organelle like the flagellum?

[DjCiD]

The fact we share a significant amount of DNA with other species, would suggest we have common ancestors. An alien that evolved completely independantly from Earth life would not share our DNA.

or a common designer.

the fact that we share the same sub-atomic particles would also indicate a common designer.

or as i like to say Gods fingerprints... thats why we share DNA, genetic material, or what ever you call it with a fruit fly, cabbage, monkeys, and bananas... HE created us all.

[emprworm]

The problem is, we need to know how much proof is enough?

the problem is that you pose this question as if you already have an abundant of evidence. WIth so many definitions of evolution, we need to come to an agreement on what exactly has been proven and what hasn't. Cross-special evolution has not been proven. The evidence for it is full of wide, gaping holes.

Having said that, adaptation fully within a species is proven, and evidence is abundant. Creationists do not argue against adaptation. God made life very resillient.

Considering there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever of cross-special evolution, I'd say that even a single proof would be necessary long, long before we even start talking about "too much". Lets just start with 1.

[nemafakei]

"the problem is that you pose this question as if you already have an abundant of evidence"

Irrelevant of whether or not I do, we need to know what is enough - else we will have a continual case of moving the goalposts.

"Cross-special evolution has not been proven"

By which you mean when members of one species diversivy so much that they begin to be another species? Well, there is no difference in the manner of change - it is merely the degree of change. We konw that life has changed a lot, and that species have "appeared", therefore, since we know one process works over a short amount of time, there is no logical reason for it not to work over a longer period of time, and thus do what has been logically predicted.

Remember that 'species' is a term like 'language' - it is relative to other members of similar families:

Moving through time, you might conclude that 100BC Latin and 500AD Italian are the same language, and that 500AD italian and 1200AD Italian as the same language - but 0AD Latin is too different from 1200AD Italian to really be considered the same language.

Similarly, the taxonomy of a species is arbitary in terms of how much can be evolved.

Note also that if there is little stimulus for change, then little change will occur. Hence, evolutionary rates vary as conditions change.

Hence, yes, leaps do occur.

[DukeLeto]

To put it simply, Religion is nothing but a bunch of BS to explain away what you cannot comprehend. Instead of even TRYING to find scientific answers, you just say "God did it" and leave it at that.

Consider the following:

1. The great flood: Why wasn't it recorded by other civilizations? For instance, Native American literature/mythology/legend describes nothing of the sort.

Explanations: A. At the time, most Europeans/Arabs lived near rivers or oceans. When the Ice age ended, the waters swelled. All they knew was flooded, but that was only THEIR view of the world. B. It just never happened.

2. Moses and the Red/Dead/Whatever Sea thing: It just shouldn't happen. But it is POSSIBLE.

Explanations: A. Ever heard of the TIDES? If "Moses" stayed relatively close to the shore, it may have seemed as if the sea had moved. B. However unlikely, the sea MAY HAVE parted. It is a rare phenomena, but it has been duplicated in labs. It doesn't mean "Moses" caused it. Or, of course: C. It just never happened.

You really need me to go on?

[Edric O]

Ever read Inca mythology, Leto? Among others, it speaks of a great flood whose only survivors were animals and humans who took refuge on the highest peaks of the Andes. The legend says only one human family survived...

[nemafakei]

That is known as exaggeration (or possibly complete fabrication). As I recall, I got the impression that the Incas were good at that.

[Edric O]

Of course it is. I was just pointing out to Leto that the Flood theme is common to many cultures, even isolated ones.

[Acriku]

Legends change over time...ever hear of the phone call theory? You "call" a person one thing, then he "calls" another the same, and after 10 people it becomes so different from the original.

Also, floods happen. People exaggerate. Legends change. It doesn't have to be a worldwide flood even if two civilizations on opposite ends of the earth talk about a flood. And it isn't hard to imagine a great flood that cleansed the earth and everything started over.

[Edric O]

Well, actually, there WAS a Great Flood of sorts. The end of the last ice age, only 12.000 years ago. It's not unusual for such a dramatic event to remain in the collective consciousness of mankind for a very long time.

And who knows, maybe God caused the ice age to end...

[Anathema]

But the bible wasn't written 12,000 years ago.

[Edric O]

Word can be passed down many generations + divine revelation

[Acriku]

And can be distorted through time. And will I should say.

[Anathema]

Yes- that was prehistorical time. Nothing but wall paintings and such to pass on stories.

[emprworm]

Duke_Leeeto: once again you are speaking about things you haven't researched.

There is abundant evidence of a world-wide flood. Seashells have been found on mountain tops.

Let me help you out:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=evidence+of+a+worldwide+flood

"Evidences of a worldwide flood can be found in more than 270 flood stories and historic records found in many parts of the world"

Or how about this amazing fact:

"Clams are found at the top of Mount Everest (29,035 ft.), evidence that it must have been underwater at some point. Provides evidence of a catastrophic worldwide flood. Every major mountain range on Earth contains fossilized sea life