Author |
Topic: Creation vs Evolution (Read 24152 times) |
|
Ghost Sniper
Senior Riddler
Do not hide. It is useless.
Gender: 
Posts: 599
|
 |
Creation vs Evolution
« on: Oct 1st, 2007, 10:54am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I have heard very convincing arguments on both sides. Science teachers stick with evolution, while theologist stick with creation. I just want to see what people here think of the two, and which one offers the more convincing argument.
|
|
 IP Logged |
*sob* I miss my mommy... *blows nose* huh, I'm on? oh right.
(thinks to self) Time for my speech to these college kids.
"Reason is more important than all emotions..."
|
|
|
Sameer
Uberpuzzler
Pie = pi * e
Gender:
Posts: 1261
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #1 on: Oct 1st, 2007, 10:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
What convincing argument did you hear about creation? Do you mind writing that down? Aren't you too young for this kind of debate? 
|
|
IP Logged |
"Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.
--Bell, Eric Temple
Proof is an idol before which the mathematician tortures himself.
Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Bridges to Infinity
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #2 on: Oct 1st, 2007, 11:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 1st, 2007, 10:54am, hiyathere wrote:| I have heard very convincing arguments on both sides. Science teachers stick with evolution, while theologist stick with creation. |
|
Not even the pope sticks with creation anymore (not beyond God setting the universe in motion, anyway). So I would say it's an unfair generalizations over theologists.
There are tons of creation myths in the world, one no more realistic than another. And beyond being interesting to read, I don't see the use of them.
Evolution on the other hand is something I can work with; I can let programs and parameters evolve, resulting in better solutions to problems that are too complex to solve 'intelligently'.
There isn't really a way to tell what process resulted in us being here; it is entirely possibly, philosophically speaking, we popped into existence last Thursday and only have earlier memories because those memories came into existence with us. There is absolutely no way to distinguish different cases that can lead to this exact same reality.
For all we know, in 'real' time, our universe might be on pause every other second; who knows what the daemons running the matrix think up as a joke.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2007, 11:12am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Ghost Sniper
Senior Riddler
Do not hide. It is useless.
Gender:
Posts: 599
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #3 on: Oct 1st, 2007, 11:36am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 1st, 2007, 10:58am, Sameer wrote:| What convincing argument did you hear about creation? Do you mind writing that down? Aren't you too young for this kind of debate? |
|
For example, how was DNA first formed? I mean, it is a combination of several million molecules, and even the simplest smallest bacteria has several thousand pairs of DNA. You can't just say it just simply appeared.
On the flip side of the coin, how do you explain the fossil history, or the rock record?
I'm in high school, and I've taken biology and earth sciences already. Trust me, I'm not too young for this argument.
on Oct 1st, 2007, 11:11am, towr wrote:
Not even the pope sticks with creation anymore (not beyond God setting the universe in motion, anyway). So I would say it's an unfair generalizations over theologists.
|
|
Look through history. How many mistakes has the Catholic church made? Countless. That is why I don't trust the Catholic church. However, I can accept arguments from eastern Orthodox or Protestant theologists.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2007, 11:37am by Ghost Sniper » |
IP Logged |
*sob* I miss my mommy... *blows nose* huh, I'm on? oh right.
(thinks to self) Time for my speech to these college kids.
"Reason is more important than all emotions..."
|
|
|
TenaliRaman
Uberpuzzler
I am no special. I am only passionately curious.
Gender:
Posts: 1001
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #4 on: Oct 1st, 2007, 11:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 1st, 2007, 11:11am, towr wrote:| who knows what the daemons running the matrix think up as a joke. |
|
What did one daemon say to another?
Just fork off and die!
-- AI
|
|
IP Logged |
Self discovery comes when a man measures himself against an obstacle - Antoine de Saint Exupery
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #5 on: Oct 1st, 2007, 12:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 1st, 2007, 11:36am, hiyathere wrote:For example, how was DNA first formed? I mean, it is a combination of several million molecules, and even the simplest smallest bacteria has several thousand pairs of DNA. You can't just say it just simply appeared. |
|
Have you ever looked at a stone arch? With any of the stones missing, it would collapse. Surely it could never have been built from the ground up, every stone would have to have been created in place.
Or perhaps, all the scaffolding that led up to it has long since disappeared into obsolescence.
And if it needs to be mentioned: the organic case could have gone analogue. We don't know the makeup of the earliest organisms. They may well have not run on DNA at the start. But once a DNA/RNA/protein system was build up beside the original 'life-engine', the latter became obsolete and was selected out. What we're left with is the 'arch', with no clue of the 'scaffolding' since that has been long cleaned up.
If it weren't for museum pieces and history books, our technological society would seem just as ludicrously irreducibly complex. All the machines that are in use are create by machines that are in use. You can't design a computer these days without using a computer; so how that could the first computer have been created? Luckily, we haven't thrown our history away, we can trace back the development to computers that didn't need to be designed by computers. Nature is nothing that conservative, if it can get away with less, it usually does; it doesn't look back.
Quote:| On the flip side of the coin, how do you explain the fossil history, or the rock record? |
|
God likes a good joke at our expense 
He gives us the power of reason, and then his Church(es) tell us for centuries not to use it.
Quote:| Look through history. How many mistakes has the Catholic church made? Countless. |
|
To err is human. Everyone makes mistakes, and lots. And inquisitive people probably more than others, it's how you learn best. (Especially in Popper's view, where a scientist learns only from his mistakes).
The point, however, is that the Roman Catholic church reconsidered their position on creation; and that is rather significant since they aren't the easiest lot to convince.
Quote:| That is why I don't trust the Catholic church. However, I can accept arguments from eastern Orthodox or Protestant theologists. |
|
As far as protestants are concerned, I think they have less of a problem with evolution than catholics had traditionally.
I don't know much about the Orthodox Church, so I can't say much on their position.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #6 on: Oct 1st, 2007, 12:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 1st, 2007, 11:36am, hiyathere wrote:For example, how was DNA first formed? I mean, it is a combination of several million molecules, and even the simplest smallest bacteria has several thousand pairs of DNA. You can't just say it just simply appeared. |
|
But the real question isn't "can modern DNA appear spontaneously in relatively short periods of time?" but "what's the simplest form of DNA that can reproduce itself?"
Once you have a self-replicating molecule, the process of evolution can transform it into the whole range of modern DNA.
Of course, one of the fun things about science in general is that almost all of it is (probably) wrong in the details - the point is that, almost all the time, the predictions scientists make are not wrong by very much. Whether the universe was created in 4004BC, or roughly 10 billion years ago, or 28 years ago, or even a couple of seconds ago, it behaves now (or, if it were created a couple of seconds ago, the created evidence of the past suggests it behaves) in pretty much the way it would if evolution were the correct explanation for life as we know it. To convincingly replace evolution as the preferred theory, you need to find a theory that not only does at least as well at explaining the things that evolution explains, but also explains why evolution looks so good. The trouble with creation as a theory is that the versions that have survived don't offer testable predictions that differ from those of evolution - in general, creationists tend to try and explain inconvenient facts after discovering them rather than predicting them from the explanations in advance.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sameer
Uberpuzzler
Pie = pi * e
Gender:
Posts: 1261
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #7 on: Oct 1st, 2007, 1:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
So how does creation explain the creation of new species e.g. ebola virus, etc. and extinction of existing species e.g. dodo, etc.?
Note: I really don't know so I would like to get more information.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 1st, 2007, 1:47pm by Sameer » |
IP Logged |
"Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.
--Bell, Eric Temple
Proof is an idol before which the mathematician tortures himself.
Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Bridges to Infinity
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #8 on: Oct 2nd, 2007, 5:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 1st, 2007, 1:47pm, Sameer wrote:So how does creation explain the creation of new species e.g. ebola virus, etc. and extinction of existing species e.g. dodo, etc.?
Note: I really don't know so I would like to get more information. |
|
Last I heard, Creation denies the creation of new species (other than by the intervention of man)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7527
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #9 on: Oct 2nd, 2007, 7:31am » |
Quote Modify
|
Imagine what little problem flu would be without evolution.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
FiBsTeR
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 581
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #10 on: Oct 2nd, 2007, 7:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I personally have no problem with evolution, although I am Roman Catholic. However, I also think that there is a limit to what we can know through science. Evolution as I know it is a process, and it does not say where it all started. Faith offers an answer to this.
</my 2 cents>
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #11 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 3:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 2nd, 2007, 7:31am, Grimbal wrote:| Imagine what little problem flu would be without evolution. |
|
This highlights a common misconception of what creationists believe; and I consider myself to be one. The point we make is that there is an important difference between Darwinian evolution, which we reject, and genetic mutation, for which there is clear scientific evidence and we fully embrace. That is, although the flu virus mutates and rearranges its genetic code this is not the same as "evolving" into an organism different to an influenza virus. Firstly, the amount of genetic information the virus can carry is restricted and evolution does not allow for mutations to cause this sequence to be extended. Secondly, there is a limited amount of mutation to its genome before it stops functioning. This is exactly what virologists do in manipulating existing viruses and are fully aware of the limits to genetic manipulation before it "dies".
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Sameer
Uberpuzzler
Pie = pi * e
Gender:
Posts: 1261
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #12 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 3:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 10th, 2007, 3:05pm, Sir Col wrote:
This highlights a common misconception of what creationists believe; and I consider myself to be one. The point we make is that there is an important difference between Darwinian evolution, which we reject, and genetic mutation, for which there is clear scientific evidence and we fully embrace. That is, although the flu virus mutates and rearranges its genetic code this is not the same as "evolving" into an organism different to an influenza virus. Firstly, the amount of genetic information the virus can carry is restricted and evolution does not allow for mutations to cause this sequence to be extended. Secondly, there is a limited amount of mutation to its genome before it stops functioning. This is exactly what virologists do in manipulating existing viruses and are fully aware of the limits to genetic manipulation before it "dies". |
|
So is this summary right? Creationists accept the idea of mutation but reject the idea that Humans are end product of millions of years of mutation (as suggested by Darwin)?
|
|
IP Logged |
"Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.
--Bell, Eric Temple
Proof is an idol before which the mathematician tortures himself.
Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Bridges to Infinity
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #13 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 3:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
That is certainly my understanding. We believe that, by the processes of natural genetic mutations, no amount of time would allow one species to become a different species.
I found an article that may be of interest, but it is written by a Christian creationist organisation, so you may not like its obvious "bias". However, the particular section that is most relevant is cited:
Quote:Because of the obvious analogy with neo-Darwinian mutation and natural selection, we asked, did this show that it was plausible to go from microbes to man, given billions of years?
‘Definitely not’, he replied. ‘When my bacteria gain the ability to do something, in the process they lose something else. And the circumstances have to be very carefully controlled by human manipulation.’
Engineering genes is of course the opposite of evolution, in which things are supposed to happen by themselves; it demonstrates creativity and applied intelligence.
Dr Eirich gave us other insights from his perspective. He said, ‘We don’t yet have the ability to predict from the gene sequence what the exact function of a gene will be—a lot of it is trial and error. You can put gene “x” into organism “y”, and it may not do what it did in the original organism. Scientists doing this kind of work are finding it takes years of effort to get genes to function properly in an organism because the regulating pathways have to be made to work.’
He continued: ‘If you wanted to engineer a fly to turn it into something else, it would have to be re-engineered from the ground up. Natural selection would tend to eliminate all the adjustments along the way. Blind chance and future environments would not know that it has to keep useless bits of equipment until another enzyme evolved; you need a chain of enzymes, and you need the enzymes to be regulated.’
Dr Eirich went on: ‘Lots of genes are common to many creatures; bananas, for instance, share 50% of their genes with humans. But it’s how the genes are regulated that makes a bat a bat and a cat a cat. We don’t understand this very well at all in science. The so-called “junk” DNA is probably involved in that somehow. There are layers of additional complexity that we are only just discovering—codes within codes as it were. |
|
Full article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/eirich.asp
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
JiNbOtAk
Uberpuzzler
Hana Hana No Mi
Gender:
Posts: 1187
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #14 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 6:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
In other words, an apple is an apple. It could be a super sized apple, it could be a an apple that tasted like strawberries, it could be a blue apple, but it is still an apple. It could never be an banana.
Eh, Sir Col ?
<Incidentally, I'm with Sir Col on this one>
|
|
IP Logged |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
ima1trkpny
Senior Riddler
"Double click on 'Yes'... Hey!"
Gender: 
Posts: 452
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #15 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 6:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Fair enough... but a species is defined as a group with the same attributes given the same name. If you change the taste of an apple (which is considered a rather important characteristic) and then maybe later change the color, eventually the shape, and so forth due to whatever characteristics it will need to continue to survive, you could very quickly end up with a strawberry, etc or something with an entirely different set of characteristics. I find genetics a fascinating subject, but really what it comes down to is that in your DNA you have between 20 and 40 thousand (been a bit since I checked the latest numbers) different genes, most of which are inactive. Those genes posses all the coding, that with a rearrangement of the regulatory proteins, you could assume the characteristics of any mammal.  In fact think about it... pretty much any land mammal (dogs, cats, elephants, etc) has the same skeletal structure merely with different proportions and developed traits designed for their specific environment.
I'm not disregarding anybody's beliefs, etc. but for me I don't think that evolution is that big of a stretch. I mean take the virus example you used earlier... one that comes to mind is Chicken Pox, one that came from Small Pox. Now entirely different viruses. Given enough time and enough mutations, would you still call the "apple" that has changed it's taste to that of strawberries, turned blue, and changed shape an apple? Even though it no longer has any of the characteristics of an apple do we still call it that? Or do we give it another name so as to be able to distinguish?
<Edit> And congratulations JiNbOtAk! You're now an uberpuzzler! 
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 10th, 2007, 8:42pm by ima1trkpny » |
IP Logged |
"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." -Churchill
|
|
|
JiNbOtAk
Uberpuzzler
Hana Hana No Mi
Gender:
Posts: 1187
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #16 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 8:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 10th, 2007, 6:34pm, ima1trkpny wrote:| .. but for me I don't think that evolution is that big of a stretch. |
|
It's not, if it's part of creationism. A human is created human, through time, he evolved into a human suited for the environment that he's living in, but he is still a human. In other words, there are limitations as to what his genetic mutation could achieve, rather than unlimited mutation, evolving into a another species. ( or better yet, something out from the X-Men )
on Oct 10th, 2007, 6:34pm, ima1trkpny wrote:| <Edit> And congratulations JiNbOtAk! You're now and uberpuzzler! |
|
Heh, thanks !! Didn't notice it until you mentioned it. Though I could cite numerous other members who should have been uberpuzzlers before me. 
|
|
IP Logged |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
ima1trkpny
Senior Riddler
"Double click on 'Yes'... Hey!"
Gender:
Posts: 452
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #17 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 8:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 10th, 2007, 8:39pm, JiNbOtAk wrote:
A human is created human, through time, he evolved into a human suited for the environment that he's living in, but he is still a human.
|
|
Unless you believe the monkey idea entirely possible. I won't say for sure that is what happened as I sure wasn't there... but it is entirely plausable from my viewpoint.
|
|
IP Logged |
"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." -Churchill
|
|
|
JiNbOtAk
Uberpuzzler
Hana Hana No Mi
Gender:
Posts: 1187
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #18 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 8:57pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 10th, 2007, 8:44pm, ima1trkpny wrote:| Unless you believe the monkey idea entirely possible. |
|
That's exactly my point, I don't. Not even one bit.
|
|
IP Logged |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
ima1trkpny
Senior Riddler
"Double click on 'Yes'... Hey!"
Gender:
Posts: 452
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #19 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 9:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 10th, 2007, 8:57pm, JiNbOtAk wrote:
That's exactly my point, I don't. Not even one bit. |
|
Fair enough, you have a right to your own opinion. I'm not sure what I believe... but in my opinion it is at least possible. I've seen far more bizarre things happen to discount something with as much solid supporting evidence as this, which is at least worth considering.
|
|
IP Logged |
"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." -Churchill
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #20 on: Oct 10th, 2007, 11:49pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I'm certainly no expert in genetics. But it is my understanding that given a particular species there is only so much engineering that can be done on the genome before it will not survive. However, we're not talking about human intervention, we are discussing the natural processes of "evolution".
For example, there are species of fox that are suited to living in extremely cold conditions and another species entirely suited to living in extremely hot conditions. If you examine the DNA of both foxes you will find a significant amount of DNA in common. However, the mutations that occur naturally over time - that is, those not instigated by human intervention - will not allow the conversion. Only a very small part of its DNA can be altered before it cannot function at all and that small part is not sufficient to change one species into the other.
As far as I know this is the current status of research in genetics. Of course if any evidence exists showing precisely how one species can naturally mutate to another - demonstrating which strands have mutated - then I would sit up and listen very carefully. To state that this species and that species have 99% DNA in common hence they must be related does seem plausible, until we look at the real science of genetics and see that so far the research has only managed to demonstrate that the strands that are different cannot mutate naturally without either species suffering massive functional failure, leading to death. Quite simply, evolution is not science, it is based on pure speculative reason and there is currently no real evidence to support the theories.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #21 on: Oct 11th, 2007, 1:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 10th, 2007, 3:05pm, Sir Col wrote:| Firstly, the amount of genetic information the virus can carry is restricted and evolution does not allow for mutations to cause this sequence to be extended. |
|
Evolution allows for mechanisms other than point mutation as well.
Nevermind that viruses, and bacteria, have a merry old time exchanging packets of genes (and sometimes dropping them); and that's under mechanisms that Creationism allows.
Quote:| Secondly, there is a limited amount of mutation to its genome before it stops functioning. |
|
I disagree, but obviously when you assume this, then evolution in the Darwinian sense would indeed by impossible.
The premise of Darwinism is that it can happen; and there's nothing to suggest it can't, in fact computer simulations support it (for as much as one considers that worth something), and it neatly explains a whole slew of things about species and the archaeological record.
It's very unlikely, as I see it, purely on a mathematical basis (and baring in mind the equivalence classes of DNA-triples, forced protein folding, etc), that you couldn't by some path change one genome into an other while having a viable organism all the time; the phase space of genomes is enormous.
How likely it is to go down such a path is yet another issue, and harder to address. (Inevitably Creationists would find it incredibly more unlikely than a Darwinist)
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #22 on: Oct 11th, 2007, 1:54am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 10th, 2007, 6:34pm, ima1trkpny wrote:| but for me I don't think that evolution is that big of a stretch. |
|
And it's really God's prerogative whether he wants to do it that way or not; certainly he could if he wanted to.
on Oct 10th, 2007, 11:49pm, Sir Col wrote:| I'm certainly no expert in genetics. But it is my understanding that given a particular species there is only so much engineering that can be done on the genome before it will not survive. |
|
When people try to do it, it inevitably looks that way, so far. The problem is that many genes are codependent, so they can't be changed arbitrarily and as if they are independent. If you consider genomes as a sort of 3-D landscape, than you have to follow paths of (very nearly) least resistance, rather than try to go over the mountains. Our problem is we haven't a clue really what the landscape looks like. (And of course the fitness of each genome changes with the environment)
Quote:| However, we're not talking about human intervention, we are discussing the natural processes of "evolution". |
|
The advantages nature has in this respect, is that it can try many paths at once, and it has more time.
However, even though it's much more involved than just this; the problem is more complex still because it is not all down to genetics. One thing that has proven very important is protein folding. Even when the sequence of aminoacids is changed because of mutations in the genetic code, they may not become apparent for generations to come. We have special proteins whose job it is to force forming proteins into the right shape. And only when those controlling proteins fail (due to stresses, which distract them from their regular job), can the newly formed proteins take the shape they want.
In this way many mutations can accumulate without any ill effect until they are by some trigger all expressed at once. And, quite probably, the organism fails to be viable; but a few might.
Quote:| For example, there are species of fox that are suited to living in extremely cold conditions and another species entirely suited to living in extremely hot conditions. If you examine the DNA of both foxes you will find a significant amount of DNA in common. However, the mutations that occur naturally over time - that is, those not instigated by human intervention - will not allow the conversion. Only a very small part of its DNA can be altered before it cannot function at all and that small part is not sufficient to change one species into the other. |
|
I'd be more inclined to think they aren't looking for the right path. To examine such a conversion, the typical pitfall is to look for a direct change; but obviously the natural change (according to evolution) would have been from a common ancestor to both, rather than from one to the other. Intermediate steps may have taken place.
Consider a fruitcake and a chocolate cake; obviously you can't change one into the other, but if you start with their common ancestor, a neutral cake batter, you can get to either. Add fruits, or chocolate. Trying to pick out the fruits afterwards and adding chocolate would lead to an utter culinary mishap.
Quote:| To state that this species and that species have 99% DNA in common hence they must be related does seem plausible, until we look at the real science of genetics and see that so far the research has only managed to demonstrate that the strands that are different cannot mutate naturally without either species suffering massive functional failure, leading to death. |
|
But the question isn't whether they can mutate toward each other, but whether something else (but similar) could have mutated to both. Darwinism doesn't claim that monkeys are our ancestors, it says they're cousins (just as evolved, but on a different path)
Quote:| Quite simply, evolution is not science, it is based on pure speculative reason |
|
...
...
Well, let's send all those non-scientists doing non-research on this non-scientific research program home then.
Speculative reasoning is part of science, but evolution theory is based on more than just reasoning. It fits with a lot of observations that have been made, perhaps not perfectly (but hardly any theory does, and less so in biology) and a lot of questions are left open (but that's the whole point).
Many observations have been made because evolutionary theory suggested there was something there to be looked at in the first place. Genetic research is part of the evolutionary paradigm; it's science, and it's paying off. Just because you don't like the premise doesn't make it less of a science; scientists make it a science.
Quote:| and there is currently no real evidence to support the theories. |
|
There is a lot of evidence for many parts of many theories; just no 'real evidence' that the premise holds true. That hardly makes it unique in the scientific world though. e.g. String theory has very little going for it other than that it's pretty.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #23 on: Oct 11th, 2007, 2:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html
Quote:Is Evolution Science?
Philosophers of science such as Popper and Kitcher say that it is. Scientists such as Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Ridley agree. Many organizations have passed resolutions to this effect. However, the important question is whether these authorities can back up what they say with evidence.
The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:
* Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
* Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
* There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
* Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
* Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed. This lack of mixing stongly implies that the rockbeds have different ages.
* Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
* The theory of Common Descent predicts that the species alive today can be organized into one single family tree, where each species is a descendant of a parent species. (And therefore, there should be a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness.)
For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
Dogs are another example. There should be species we would group with dogs, and there are - such as wolves and coyotes. So we are not surprised when dogs and foxes turn out to share some peculiar features of the middle ear. This group - the Family Canidae - can be grouped with the bears, raccoons and weasels, because their ears have some similarities to those of dogs. All of these have carnassial teeth, but so do cats, civets and seals - so we group the entire lot as being Order Carnivora. Carnivores all have 3 middle ear bones, mammary glands, placental development, hair, a diaphragm, a four-chambered heart, and a larynx. But they share those features with humans, bats, elephants and whales. So we group that entire lot as being Class Mammalia. But mammals have amniote eggs, and so do birds, lizards, snakes and turtles. And amniote animals share with frogs and salamanders the property of having four legs - they're tetrapods. Tetrapods and fish both have backbones - they're vertebrates. Vertebrates and starfish are both deuterostomes because they share the way their embryos develop a mouth. Deuterostomes are left-right symmetric, so we group them and insects and snails as bilateral. The bilaterals, the jellyfish and sponges are all animals. Animals, fungi, rose bushes and amoebas all have a nucleus inside each cell - they're eukaryotes. Eukaryotes and bacteria and archaea share the DNA mechanism, lipid-based cell membranes, and hundreds of other biochemical details.
(And that's the short version of the story! For all the fancy Latin names, see the Tree of Life.)
Notice that the dog-to-bacteria story has some apparent irregularities. For example, I said that elephants and whales are mammals, and that mammals have hair. It is not obvious, but elephants and whales do have a small amount of hair. Also, scientists group whales and snakes as tetrapods. So where are their four legs? From the theory of Common Descent, we see that they must be descended from four-legged creatures, and that they have lost their legs. (Loss is an easy mutation - as witness hairless dogs.) So, we predict that there should be fossils of whales with legs, and snakes with legs. These fossils have been found. Similarly, starfish outwardly have radial symmetry, but we classified them as bilateral. So Common Descent predicts that their group (echinoderms) had bilateral ancestors, and such a fossil has been found.
* Another prediction from Common Descent is that there will be species that are highly similar, so that they are fairly obviously a group. And, when we talk about groups of groups, we will see one notch less similarity. For example, we group the tree species that give oranges, mandarins, lemons, limes, tangelos, lemonades (a rounded fruit that's sweet like lemonade) and grapefruits. They're called citrus trees. We also group the stone fruit trees - those are the ones with peaches, apricots, plums, nectarines, peachcots (a cross between peaches and apricots) or peacherines. Gardeners can graft a branch from an orange tree onto a lemon tree, and get it to grow, so that they then have a tree that grows both oranges and lemons. Gardeners can mix any two citrus trees, and they can mix apple varieties, or pear varieties. But apples and peaches don't mix.
* Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve more than once. They will evolve in several species, quite independently of each other (because there has been time for that to happen). And, independent lines of evolution will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects. |
|
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 11th, 2007, 2:15am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #24 on: Oct 11th, 2007, 2:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
(continued)
Quote: * In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was discovered, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
* It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
* From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
* In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
* Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
* In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
* Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
* A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
* The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
* An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. (Skills such as the ability to do without fresh water.) Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.
The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where. |
|
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print