Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by wahine
I personally find it VERY difficult to believe we originated as pond scum, but anyway...

Abiogenesis is a difficult concept to swallow. This may be were the creationists have their best case. Abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution, but an ancillary hypothesis.

I find it difficult to accept that if abiogenesis could occur once, that it couldn't have occurred numerous times. Yet the most basic cell functions in all living organisms all operate the same way. (DNA, RNA, etc). Is it the nature of the basic organic molecules, the building blocks of life, to only work a certain way (given the operating parameters of the earth's environments)?

Now, if these particles are moving at the exact same speed and all the other particles then every planet should be the same as the other--in theory.

That is where chaos theory comes in. The more complex the system the simpler the mechanism. Perfect uniformity is the least likely scenario in nature.

But, the truth is, although the planets could be shaped different because of the cluster of gasses etc. It is impossible for one planet to have it's axis at a different place, say...at it's side!

Isn't the top defined by where the axis is?

Also, how would the things that eventually made the cosmos have gotten there?

The bus?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an




Random mutations - yes, the VAST majority being either neutral or harmful. No evidence of beneficial mutations with increase in information, which would be req'd for changes up the line (species to genus to family, etc). . One cannot point to neutral and bad mutations and say "because these types of mutations occur, THEREFORE beneficial and information-gaining mutations also occur. It's an incorrect conclusion to draw. I think the best possible conclusion would be that "PERHAPS beneficial and information-gaining mutations MIGHT occur", wouldn't you agree?
However, if there were no observed mutations AT ALL, then I would agree that the mechanism of mutations must be abandoned. But just because negative and neutral mutations have been observed does not give you the logical right to assume beneficial ones; would you agree?
Inheritability - good only if you can achieve a beneficial mutation.

Neutral mutations don't affect the organism; negative mutations harm it, beneficial mutations help.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics. As a general thing this involves changing the features that antibiotics target.

Commonly, but not always, these mutations decrease the fitness of the bacteria, i.e., in environments where there are not antibiotics present, they don't reproduce as quickly as bacteria without the mutation. This is not always true; some of these mutations do not involve any loss of fitness. What is more, there are often secondary mutations that restore fitness.

Bacteria are easy to study. This is an advantage in evolutionary studies because we can see evolution happening in the laboratory. There is a standard experiment in which the experimenter begins with a single bacterium and lets it reproduce in a controlled environment. Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendents are clones. Since reproduction is not perfect mutations happen. The experimenter can set the environment so that mutations for a particular attribute are selected. The experimenter knows both that the mutation was not present originally and, hence, when it occurred.

Example of observed beneficial mutation- or do you think resistant bacteria don't occur? Please inform the WHO, the FAO, the CDC, Monsanto, etc. because they're under the impression that these beneficial mutations happen all over the place (beneficial to the bacteria of course; harmful to us) and they're in the process of spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to fix the problem.

And please note : it is not possible to claim that the resistances evolved in the new bacteria were already existing, because the genetic code of the bacteria is already known- it simply wasn't there before.

This directly falsifies the claim you made about beneficial mutations not occuring - this is simply wrong, not true, false, however you want to put it- and has been proven so.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an


.


Then why do they have 2 different names? Come on, now, GM, there must be SOME difference, right? I would say it's because one may be observed, and one has never been observed, for starters.



Nope; it's usually up to the person that makes the claim, such as macro evolution, to show the mechanism; wouldn't you say? If you disagree, then I say that the mechanism for different animals, etc. appearing is by special creation for God, and I "wait with bated breath" for you to show a mechanism that prevents this claim

There is no mechanism that prevents this claim; there is simply no mechanism that supports it- nor can there be.

As for the difference between micro- and macro- what's the difference between a big pile of sand and a small pile?

I can make a small pile on the beach, but I've never seen anybody make a big pile, so there must be some different mechanism involved?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I find it difficult to accept that if abiogenesis could occur once, that it couldn't have occurred numerous times. Yet the most basic cell functions in all living organisms all operate the same way. (DNA, RNA, etc). Is it the nature of the basic organic molecules, the building blocks of life, to only work a certain way (given the operating parameters of the earth's environments)?

I think you also have to take into account that the organelles and structures we see in most cells today were once separate "creatures" independent of one another but they integrated with each other over time as they found in mutual cooperation they could deal much better with their environment then in trying to survive on their own. in time they each solidified their roles and became inseparable. now the cells make up our bodies in the same sort of mutual collective as the original primordial cells. perhaps some day organisms at our level will also coalesce into an even higher form of life. who knows...

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an




Fossil Evidence for Creationism

The simplest bunch of plants and animals to leave lots of fossil remains is in the age/zone of Trilobites, or the Cambrian system. And what is found in this zone? A wide variety of things, including very complex invertebrates, nautiloids, and highly complex trilobites. Already in one of the earliest layers, acc'd to evolutionists, there exist very complex creations.

.

First of all, as I pointed out, this is again simply not true. The fossil record shows the development from the pre-Cambrian to the Cambrian of simple one-celled organisms through sponges, flatworms, roundworms etc.

Secondly, even if true, this is evidence AGAINST creationism.

According to your theory, along with the nautiloids , trilobites etc, should be modern fish, marine mammals and reptiles and the odd shipwreck, all tossed in together-- none of these occur.

And if I may repeat my earlier question, what on earth is an age/zone???

Your whole point is that this is NOT a remnant from a particular age; if you say that you're denying your entire premise.

So what is an "age/zone", given that the "age" part of the term must be by your own definiton totally misleading?

[Finmandos12]

*Hmm, an intelligent discussion. Time to join in!*

Let me start of by saying that I think that both sides (Evolutionist, creationist) are in general too dogmatic. I think both sides should sit down with an open mind and look at the evidence in a logical fashion. To anyone interested in the subject of creation and evolution, the best book I have ever read on the subject is The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder, who has the highest degrees attainable in both physics (from MIT) and in theology.

My view of how things happened fits the evidence, as well as the Bible. I believe that the Big Bang happened first. In no way does acknowleging it take anything away from a Supreme Being creating the universe. I then believe that over millions of years, the earth formed, cooled, etc.

Now onto the subject of life. I do not believe that each day of creation was twenty four hours. After all, there is that verse in the bible "A minute to God is like a thounsand years, etc." Interestingly, each day of creation in the Bible corresponds to a particular period in prehistory. The first day was the Big Bang and the period in which stars formed, matter coalesced into planets, etc. The first thing to appear was plants, which has been scientifically verified. Animal life first appeared in the water (Gen. 1 :20) which scientists also say (Remeber, if each day was several million years, different sealife could appear over that period). I'm not quite sure about the birds that it mentions in that same verse. After this, land life appeared. Finally, humans appeared.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by wahine
I personally find it VERY difficult to believe we originated as pond scum, but anyway...

Since there is no general topic about which parts of creationism we can give or retract information to...how about creation?!


Okay, first, the BIG BANG is highly imporbable because in a simplified version of the theory, cosmic particles and gasses whirled around in around till the energy produced from the blob in space exploded and made the stars and planets.

Now, if these particles are moving at the exact same speed and all the other particles then every planet should be the same as the other--in theory.

But, the truth is, although the planets could be shaped different because of the cluster of gasses etc. It is impossible for one planet to have it's axis at a different place, say...at it's side!

Also, how would the things that eventually made the cosmos have gotten there?

Another way of expressing "simplified version of the theory " is to say "incorrect version of the theory"

If what you are trying to say is that a uniform explosion should produce an absolutely smooth universe this is indeed a problem.

the leading contender for explaining this is the inflation theory of Alan Guth

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level..._contents.html

I personally think we've enough to handle dealing with life on Earth on this thread, but if anyone wants to open it up, go ahead

[jerseydevil]

So Finmandos12- what scientific evidence is there of god? How is introducing god into science - science? God is a belief and nothing more. I'm not saying you're not correct in your beliefs - but when a scientist tries to bring god into scientific theory - it puts the theory in question. God can simply be nature and that will fit the evolutionary model too.

I do not believe there is a "higher power". There may have been aliens or something that created our universe - but a supreme all knowing being just seems like pure fairytale.

God can NOT be a part of the equation when trying to do scientific experiments and try to develop theories - since it is a complete unknown.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I think you also have to take into account...

I said difficult, not impossible.

[Blackheart]

One of the problems with scientists is that the unknown makes them squirm uncomfortably, and the unknowable makes them fly into a frothing rage.

The (rare) scientific minds I have the most respect for are those who know and are up front about the fact that they are only working with a single piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and make no grand proclamations about what the box cover looks like.

Of course... That's why I like agnostics. They have enough sense to now that both atheists and believers have gotten themselves into the silly position of defending something that is unknowable...

<Troll mission executed-returning to base>

[Cirdan]

Nice to hear from you again, Blackheart. Must be old home week

[Blackheart]

Who you callin an Old Homey?



Why you young whippersnapper! I'll smack you around with my walkin stick!

<Keels over from exhaustion>

[Lizra]

OK...Lazy Lurker?

[Blackheart]

Hey! I roll over every aeon or so...

It's just that it's such a hassle to get a large number of slaves together and sacrifice them all at once....

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
That recycled quote about no looking for intermediates is just not true. How does this guy Parker know what every paleontolgist is doing?

That's the impression I got from reading both creationist and evolutionist literature. And when Sheeana made the same claim (and SHE actually has a degree related to this whole topic!), I didn't feel the need to back it up - she is certainly more in the field than any of us are, to the best of my knowledge. Here's 2 places where she said it: first and second. Perhaps she just meant human transitionals and I misinterpreted her, but I didn't read it that way.

And I certainly hope none of you have the GALL to accuse me of quote-mining here! I'm not saying Sheeana believes in creationism, okay! I just think that her opinion was important in this area, esp. since she has run around with some people in the field! (um, in the platonic sense, of course! ) And it seemed to confirm what I had already read.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
There is no mechanism that prevents this claim; there is simply no mechanism that supports it- nor can there be.

As for the difference between micro- and macro- what's the difference between a big pile of sand and a small pile?

I can make a small pile on the beach, but I've never seen anybody make a big pile, so there must be some different mechanism involved?

GrayMouser, I guess we'll have to just give up on this point, because I totally disagree with your analogy. From observation after observation, it's clear to see that - Change has bounds!. Let me say that again - Change has bounds! Breeders know this, because they see it again and again!

What about my typing analogy? I started at 15 wpm and am now at 90 or so ... should I expect to be able to reach 1000 wpm or more? If there are no bounds, why don't I reach 100,000 wpm or 1,000,000,000 wpm? Change has bounds! I will reach my physical bound first, then if I could somehow magically remove my physical bound in this area, I would reach a computer bound. It is both LOGICAL and OBSERVABLE that change has bounds!

Breeders try to bring out different traits in the animals they work with. They are successful, but only up to a certain point - there is a natural stopping point that is always hit. And dogs remain dogs - cows remain cows - etc. and etc. There was an example about bristled flies somewhere - sorry I can't find the reference offhand, I have too many books in front of me - but a scientist was trying to reduce the number of bristles. He was successful ... to a point! then there was no more progress. This is observable over and over and over. There is always a physical bound reached in breeding.

And that is not even touching the topic of the reduction of information and the typically reduced viability that takes place with this kind of breeding!

GM, do you really and sincerely believe that man and say, a fish, have a common, single-celled ancestor? Do you really believe that?

(I'll try to get to more of your points later, but I also want to get to some of Cirdans, and some of JD, and on and on .... )

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
What about my typing analogy? I started at 15 wpm and am now at 90 or so ... should I expect to be able to reach 1000 wpm or more? If there are no bounds, why don't I reach 100,000 wpm or 1,000,000,000 wpm? Change has bounds! I will reach my physical bound first, then if I could somehow magically remove my physical bound in this area, I would reach a computer bound. It is both LOGICAL and OBSERVABLE that change has bounds!

I believe Cirdan already pointed out that your are talking about a PHYSICAL limitation and debunked your anology. I think you shoudl point this out. You can't compare the two.

[Rían]

I must have missed the post where Cirdan discussed the typing analogy. But are you saying that macro evolution isn't PHYSICAL? My whole point is that PHYSICAL changes have PHYSICAL limitations, and they are easily and repeatably observable - ask any breeder.

I think it is a great analogy that demonstrates that change has bounds. I'll do a quick search for Cirdan's posts with "typing", tho.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Perhaps she just meant human transitionals and I misinterpreted her, but I didn't read it that way.

I thought I had already clarified that. Oh well. Take two. Anthropologists are not concerned with finding transitionals because the whole hominid record is considered transitional. That does not mean, however, that they are not concerned with pushing back the envelope to find hominids that blur the line between the hominoids and the hominids. But their prime concern is trying to complete the picture, and understand exactly what happened all those millions of years ago to churn out a sentient being.

[Rían]

Maybe I missed your clarification, Sheeana - that's why I asked - but in the part of my post that you quoted in my first referenced link (is that as clear as mud? ) - I used the term "evolutionists", and in your answer, you didn't narrow it down to anthropologists, you just used "we". And since I know you to be an evolutionist, I assumed "we" referred back to my use of evolutionist.

Do you think evolutionists in general are still looking for transitionals in the fossil record, to your knowledge?

And re your "because the whole hominid record is considered transitional" - altho I have some logical objections to that statement, I'll let it go because of lack of time, and because I'd rather address a bigger question - do you think the entire fossil record should be considered the same way? I.e., should the entire fossil record be considered transitional? If so, why? (this question open to others, too)