Evolution, Creationisim, Abiogenisis, etc.

[OceanSecrets]

Everyone has starting presuppositions, a premise you begin on. Evolutionism relies on naturalistic beliefs, the idea that there is no supernatural being who interferes in the universe. Creationism starts with the Bible and believing in its inerrancy.

Both have people believing them who do not follow those two presuppositions, (people who believe in a god and evolution, people who believe in creation, but consider some of the events in the Bible to be mere stories), but both require their suppositions.

 

One looks at data and interprets it in the light of their suppositions. Two different people can look at the same fossil or the same star and come two different conclusions about it because of their beliefs.

 

In other words both sides can come up with evidence for their argument by looking at the same data.

 

Saying evolution (macro, molecules to man type) is proved beyond a doubt is an opinion. The theory has many problems and evidence against it as well as for it.

 

Erg. Not exactly sure what I wanted to say came across alright. I'm not used to debating in a forum like this, only face to face with words. Plus bio's not my cup of tea, physics and astronomy is.

[elderberrysyrup]

Variation within specific kinds is obvious through everyday observation, and differences BETWEEN completely different animals are also apparent. Cats, dogs. Fish, lizards. You can selectively breed dogs into different types of dogs, but you will never selectively breed a dog into a cat. (obviously a gross over simplification of evolutionary theory, but you get my point)

You're forgetting that evolution does not work that way. It takes variations in one species (take beavers for example) and those who are most optimally adapted will breed more of their kind, passing on this more optimal trait (hard teeth, big tails, more efficient lungs). This does not mean that they come something COMPLETELY AMAZINGLY DIFFERENT (beavers cannot evolve to make CHAINSAW TEETH), it takes what a species already has and then nature molds it to an environment.

 

You get new species from older species from many, many things. The easiest example is the concept of an island. A small population of insects or other animals can wash up on an island's shores, and then these variations in traits are pressured in different ways. For the previous example, if a population of beavers washed up on the shore of a tropical island with no ponds/lakes within it, the concept of a dam is lost to the beaver, and also the issue of fresh water is introduced. This causes new problems, and new variations will be given the advantage (slimmer tails when patting mud is no longer an issue, but running and less weight is more advantageous, a different mouth for eating plant vegetation other than small, new branches), these more advantageous individuals will breed more children with their advantageous traits. This constant environmental pressure, and isolation from its mother species, causes a new species to come out.

 

In this way, you can't breed a dog into a cat, and anyone who assumes evolution works that way is silly, but you can breed a dog into an increasingly feline-like dog by selecting shorter noses, slimmer body lengths, longer tails, etc.

[philpot123]

You're forgetting that evolution does not work that way. It takes variations in one species (take beavers for example) and those who are most optimally adapted will breed more  of their kind, passing on this more optimal trait (hard teeth, big tails, more efficient lungs). This does not mean that they come something COMPLETELY AMAZINGLY DIFFERENT (beavers cannot evolve to make CHAINSAW TEETH), it takes what a species already has and then nature molds it to an environment.

 

You get new species from older species from many, many things. The easiest example is the concept of an island. A small population of insects or other animals can wash up on an island's shores, and then these variations in traits are pressured in different ways. For the previous example, if a population of beavers washed up on the shore of a tropical island with no ponds/lakes within it, the concept of a dam is lost to the beaver, and also the issue of fresh water is introduced. This causes new problems, and new variations will be given the advantage (slimmer tails when patting mud is no longer an issue, but running and less weight is more advantageous, a different mouth for eating plant vegetation other than small, new branches), these more advantageous individuals will breed more children with their advantageous traits. This constant environmental pressure, and isolation from its mother species, causes a new species to come out.

 

In this way, you can't breed a dog into a cat, and anyone who assumes evolution works that way is silly, but you can breed a dog into an increasingly feline-like dog by selecting shorter noses, slimmer body lengths, longer tails, etc.

I get what you're saying, but my point is that it has never been demonstrated that over time you COULD create a new species from an old one, even following the currently accepted evolutionary chain. That example was OBVIOUSLY nothing close to what evolutionists believe, I clarified that. Adaptation that you are referring to can be readily demonstrated in everyday life, changing from one species into another completely different species cannot. So, even given time upon time upon time, could you EVER create a cat by breeding out traits from a dog?

Edited February 5, 2012 by philpot123

[elderberrysyrup]

I get what you're saying, but my point is that it has never been demonstrated that over time you COULD create a new species from an old one, even following the currently accepted evolutionary chain. That example was OBVIOUSLY nothing close to what evolutionists believe, I clarified that. Adaptation that you are referring to can be readily demonstrated in everyday life, changing from one species into another completely different species cannot. So, even given time upon time upon time, could you EVER create a cat by breeding out traits from a dog?

No, you couldn't because as I said, dogs do not have the genetics of a cat, such a retractable claws, parts of their digestive system, proteins, etc. It's not one species becoming another established species, it's one population of a species evolving to a new species once traits are selected for again and again and again, over millions of years.

 

You mistake that one species as a whole will evolve to a completely different species. It's more apt to say that one population of the species will separate to form a species of their own over time, that is related to be has distinct differences from the mother species. It isn't changing from one species to another, it's the creation of a new species after a population is isolated and left to adapt to a different environment. This has never been explicitly proven, which is why evolution is still a theory, and not a fact. This perhaps will take more lifetimes than can be counted to be proven, and it is why I am debating with you.

[Kestra15]

Everyone has starting presuppositions, a premise you begin on. Evolutionism relies on naturalistic beliefs, the idea that there is no supernatural being who interferes in the universe.

Science does not require belief. Creationism does.

[philpot123]

No, you couldn't because as I said, dogs do not have the genetics of a cat, such a retractable claws, parts of their digestive system, proteins, etc. It's not one species becoming another established species, it's one population of a species evolving to a new species once traits are selected for again and again and again, over millions of years.

 

You mistake that one species as a whole will evolve to a completely different species. It's more apt to say that one population of the species will separate to form a species of their own over time, that is related to be has distinct differences from the mother species. It isn't changing from one species to another, it's the creation of a new species after a population is isolated and left to adapt to a different environment. This has never been explicitly proven, which is why evolution is still a theory, and not a fact. This perhaps will take more lifetimes than can be counted to be proven, and it is why I am debating with you.

Yes, well, I guess we both agree that these things happen, but I disagree with you on the extent. Laying aside dogs/cats, you are faced with single celled organisms evolving into more complex, sea life evolving into land dwelling, air breathing creatures, etc... which WOULD require having the genetics of the creature they are slowly becoming wouldn't it? But a fish doesn't have the genetics of a gecko...

 

You mistake that one species as a whole will evolve to a completely different species.

 

But... that's what evolution is isn't it? Forget origins, evolutionary thinking is that all the diversity of life we see today can be traced to a common ancestor, an imperceptible blip of life that developed more and more complex/beneficial traits over time, at some undefined point, branching into multiple chains and giving us all various kinds of creatures? It WOULD be one species, evolving into a completely different one/s... Right?

[Alpha1]

But... that's what evolution is isn't it? Forget origins, evolutionary thinking is that all the diversity of life we see today can be traced to a common ancestor, an imperceptible blip of life that developed more and more complex/beneficial traits over time, at some undefined point, branching into multiple chains and giving us all various kinds of creatures? It WOULD be one species, evolving into a completely different one/s... Right?

 

You were using the "frog to a prince" argument. The evolutionary tree doesn't look like that.

 

Tell me phil, what is a biblical "kind"?

 

Aren't boa constrictors and black mambas both snakes? How are they so different? Are they of the same "kind"?

 

Is a bombardier beetle and a rhinoceros beetle of the same kind?

 

 

[OceanSecrets]

Science does not require belief. Creationism does.

Science cannot exist without belief.

Do you believe what you hear, touch, see, or smell? Can you prove the keyboard you are typing on exists? You believe it exists because you can feel it under your fingers, you can see it before you. You assume those senses are real, and so you believe the keyboard is there.

 

Evolutionism, for example, relies on the belief of uniformity. Natural processes continue today the same as they did in the past and will continue in the same way in the future. No one can go back to when time began and look and see if this belief is true, this is an assumption, a belief.

[philpot123]

You were using the "frog to a prince" argument. The evolutionary tree doesn't look like that.

 

Tell me phil, what is a biblical "kind"?

 

Aren't boa constrictors and black mambas both snakes? How are they so different? Are they of the same "kind"?

 

Is a bombardier beetle and a rhinoceros beetle of the same kind?

-sigh- and I clearly stated that I was aware that was NOT how evolution looks, it was merely a simple example.

 

 

A kind is an animal that can reproduce sexually with itself. Dogs can reproduce with dogs, cats can reproduce with cats, etc.

[elderberrysyrup]

Yes, well, I guess we both agree that these things happen, but I disagree with you on the extent. Laying aside dogs/cats, you are faced with single celled organisms evolving into more complex, sea life evolving into land dwelling, air breathing creatures, etc... which WOULD require having the genetics of the creature they are slowly becoming wouldn't it? But a fish doesn't have the genetics of a gecko...

 

 

 

But... that's what evolution is isn't it? Forget origins, evolutionary thinking is that all the diversity of life we see today can be traced to a common ancestor, an imperceptible blip of life that developed more and more complex/beneficial traits over time, at some undefined point, branching into multiple chains and giving us all various kinds of creatures? It WOULD be one species, evolving into a completely different one/s... Right?

It would be a single organism species that branched off into new species. They don't turn into other already existing species. A cat cannot become a dog, but a branch of cat species can have dog-like traits. This is the thing I had a problem with when you argued cats and dogs. A population of single celled organisms can develop into more complex organisms through mutation. In fact, an issue with the 'origin' of evolution that is still highly debated is what the first original organisms looked like that developed into all the world's life. Of course, we'll never know.

 

Also, yes, the fish shares genetics with a gecko. It's basic DNA structure. A fish and a Gecko both have hearts, vertebrae, head and brain. These are genetics that a gecko and a fish can share. However, a fish cannot /become/ a gecko, but a fish can evolve to become a land-based animal that may be similar to a gecko, but cannot be a gecko. I'm pretty sure all of animalia uses only 20 or so amino acid chains to form their proteins, for example.

 

Thank of it less drastic, and more gradual. You could say surface-like that a human and a chimpanzee are totally different, but when you lookat it from a biological persepctive, humans and chimps are actually a lot alike. However, a chimp and a human cannot breed to form viable offspring, and so they are different species.

[Kestra15]

Science cannot exist without belief.

1 + 1 = 2

 

I require no belief for this to be true. I don't need to believe in the triple-point of water; it will be solid, liquid and gas at 0.01 Celcius whether I chose to believe in it or not. This is where science and religion differ; a scientific theory (like evolution) is based in observable data, whereas religion is grounded in belief. You cannot prove the existence of God, but I can prove to you that 5 - 5 = 0 without you having to 'believe' in subtraction.

[Kai]

Assumption is belief and this sort of philosophical belief stuff is just playing with definitions.

[olympe]

Everyone has starting presuppositions, a premise you begin on.

That‘s where the ignorance I feel is there starts. As a scientiest, you don‘t start with presuppositions, but with observations.

Evolutionism relies on naturalistic beliefs, the idea that there is no supernatural being who interferes in the universe. Creationism starts with the Bible and believing in its inerrancy.

The same problem. Evolution does not rely on there not being any supernatural being interfering with the universe, but tries to explain the existence of so many different organisms without having to go the "and a miracle occurred" route. As long as there is a natural explanation, there is no reason to suggest that a supernatural being has had any influence ont it. Of course, it's not proof that said supernatural being does not exist, only that it is not needed for evolution to have happened.

One looks at data and interprets it in the light of their suppositions. Two different people can look at the same fossil or the same star and come two different conclusions about it because of their beliefs.

That‘s not how science works at all. In science, once you arrive at a conclusion, said conclusion gets tested, either in experiments or in observations of other, similar things. If the conclusion still works for the other areas it is supposed to work for, fine, it gets tested further and further. If not, it gets reworked or refined.

In other words both sides can come up with evidence for their argument by looking at the same data.

Once again, no. Scientists don‘t come up with evidence for their argument, they just come up with evidence and derive their argument from the evidence. Creationist scientists, however, have their argument (creation as described in the bible) and look for evidence or come up with reasons why the evidence of the other side does not work at all – very often by using methods in a way they‘re not supposed to be used, like radiometric dating on volcanic rock.

Saying evolution (macro, molecules to man type) is proved beyond a doubt is an opinion.

Another argument I encountered quite often. However, evolution does not make any statments as to how the first organisms happened to form, it only claims that all living organisms developed from a common living ancestor. Trying to disprove a scientific theory by quoting it wrongly doesn‘t strike me as overly sophisticated. The molecules to organism part, by the way, is either creation or abiogenesis, take your pick.

Variation within specific kinds is obvious through everyday observation, and differences BETWEEN completely different animals are also apparent. Cats, dogs. Fish, lizards. You can selectively breed dogs into different types of dogs, but you will never selectively breed a dog into a cat. (obviously a gross over simplification of evolutionary theory, but you get my point)

No, not in our live times. However, evolution does not work in those scales, but over millions and billions of years. And although it is quite impossible to make cats out of dogs, even over millions of years (because the development of any kinds of organisms can not be re-created), it is quite thinkable that dogs can be bred to be something entirely different. After all, didn‘t that happen with wolves, and only over a period of several 10,000 years? That‘s where our dogs come from, after all. And, no, not all dogs can be cross-bred any more, much less with wolves. (Try a breeding chihuahua with a wolf – the result would most likely be a wolf with its appetite sated.)

Feel free to tell creationists with biology PhD's from secular universities that they're ignorant. Perhaps it would be better if people stopped assuming ignorance and simply understood that people can view the same information and come to drastically different conclusions, without one or the other being ignorant, stupid, etc. Arguments are better all 'round with out ad hominems hm?

Well, no problem, I will if I can. I once even wrote to answersingenesis, being perfectly non-accusing and not telling them they were ignorant, but asking them to find a reason why XYZ (fact of evolution) is wrong (in their opinion). You know what? They never even bothered to respond. Or, from an earlier evolution/creationism thread, there was that person who said quite openly that she‘d rather discuss specifics in private. My – similarly friendly – PM went unanswered, too.

Also, if you feel that my explaining why I feel the way I do is an ad hominem attack, feel free to report that post, too. I‘ll survive it.

But... that's what evolution is isn't it? Forget origins, evolutionary thinking is that all the diversity of life we see today can be traced to a common ancestor, an imperceptible blip of life that developed more and more complex/beneficial traits over time, at some undefined point, branching into multiple chains and giving us all various kinds of creatures? It WOULD be one species, evolving into a completely different one/s... Right?

Wrong. If the whole original species, as you put it, would develop into a new one, there would still be only one species – the new one. With this supposition, Darwin‘s finches would still all be the same as all other finches, as all of them would have developed into a new species. It‘s always only part of a population (of one species) that develops into a new species. And you can see this happen, actually. Like I said before, you cannot cross chihuahuas with wolves any more. Also, look up Ensatina salamnders, if you please.

Science cannot exist without belief.

Do you believe what you hear, touch, see, or smell? Can you prove the keyboard you are typing on exists? You believe it exists because you can feel it under your fingers, you can see it before you. You assume those senses are real, and so you believe the keyboard is there.

Good one – but still wrong. There is a distinct difference between knowledge and belief. You don‘t have to believe in your keyboard being there because you can feel it, see it, measure it, even hear it when it‘s being typed on. But you cannot see (feel, hear, smell, taste...) any kind of god, so you‘ll have to believe in them.

A kind is an animal that can reproduce sexually with itself. Dogs can reproduce with dogs, cats can reproduce with cats, etc.

Not exactly. Not all dogs can reproduce with all dogs. Try crossing a chihuahua and a great Dane, for example. It‘s physically impossible. Or, if you‘re into cats, try breeding a house cat to a tiger.

Edited February 5, 2012 by olympe

[grimace]

Laying aside dogs/cats, you are faced with single celled organisms evolving into more complex, sea life evolving into land dwelling, air breathing creatures, etc...

Except there are animals doing this RIGHT NOW.

 

Mudskippers being probably the best example. There are also plenty of fish that breathe air.

[OceanSecrets]

That‘s where the ignorance I feel is there starts. As a scientiest, you don‘t start with presuppositions, but with observations.

Science starts with observations, that is fine, but the observations one makes are affected by one's beliefs. You cannot get around that fact that no matter how objective you try to be you can never be completely truly completely objective because of opinions you hold and ideas you have about what you observe.

 

The same problem. Evolution does not rely on there not being any supernatural being interfering with the universe, but tries to explain the existence of so many different organisms without having to go the "and a miracle occurred" route.

This first part of this sentence disagrees with my statement while the second part agrees. If one is trying to explain the existence of the universe without God one is assuming there is no God and relying on that belief.

 

One looks at data and interprets it in the light of their suppositions. Two different people can look at the same fossil or the same star and come two different conclusions about it because of their beliefs.

That‘s not how science works at all. In science, once you arrive at a conclusion, said conclusion gets tested, either in experiments or in observations of other, similar things. If the conclusion still works for the other areas it is supposed to work for, fine, it gets tested further and further. If not, it gets reworked or refined.

That is not how science should work, but it is how science does works. One's conclusions are influence by one's beliefs.

For example:

A fossil found is identified and given an approximate date of burial by a scientist.

How was the date determined? By the layer of rock the fossil was found in.

How was the date of that layer determined? By radiometric dating. Which is based on three key assumptions: 1. The amount of parent and daughter particles the sample contained in the beginning. 3. No contamination of the sample, i.e. particles were not added or removed by an external source. 2. The rate of decay is constant and unchanging.

There is no way of testing and eliminating these assumptions completely. These assumptions affect the date given for the rock and hence the date for the fossil.

 

Creationist scientists, however, have their argument (creation as described in the bible) and look for evidence or come up with reasons why the evidence of the other side does not work at all – very often by using methods in a way they‘re not supposed to be used, like radiometric dating on volcanic rock.

Yes, that is our starting premise. But as I pointed out, evolutionist have one as well. And unfortunately tend to do the same thing, though I'll not add the "in a way they're not suppose to." I am unsure of your accusation of inaccurate use of radiometric dating due to my lack of detailed knowledge on the subject. (I assume you are referring to samples from earth's core on page 4.)

 

Another argument I encountered quite often. However, evolution does not make any statments as to how the first organisms happened to form, it only claims that all living organisms developed from a common living ancestor. Trying to disprove a scientific theory by quoting it wrongly doesn‘t strike me as overly sophisticated. The molecules to organism part, by the way, is either creation or abiogenesis, take your pick.

Sorry, I was unclear. I, when talking of evolution in this manner, think of it in its entirety together. In other words that it includes a big bang, the formation of matter from energy, the formation of stars and planets (ours in particular), the beginning of life, evolution of life from non-complex organisms to what we have today. Hence molecules (non-living structures) to man (current). (I don't believe this is an incorrect summation of the theory.) I described it in that way to differentiate from micro evolution, natural selection, or speciation. I realize that not everyone believes in the whole thing, but I think of it as kind of a package deal.

 

No, not in our live times. However, evolution does not work in those scales, but over millions and billions of years.

I disagree. The changing and branching from one species to form another requires an adding of information. Natural selection however only represents a loss of information. Using the dog example chihuahuas did not gain the ability to be small with breeding, instead they lost the ability to be large. In order to gain information you must rely on mutations.

 

I once even wrote to answersingenesis, being perfectly non-accusing and not telling them they were ignorant, but asking them to find a reason why XYZ (fact of evolution) is wrong (in their opinion). You know what? They never even bothered to respond.

I am curious as to what you asked them and what manner you asked them. In my experience they are helpful and always try to answer those not abusing their contact system.

 

Good one – but still wrong. There is a distinct difference between knowledge and belief. You don‘t have to believe in your keyboard being there because you can feel it, see it, measure it, even hear it when it‘s being typed on. But you cannot see (feel, hear, smell, taste...) any kind of god, so you‘ll have to believe in them.

Hmm? What you are believing in is not the keyboard, but what that what your senses tell you of the keyboard is true.

Of course the existence of any god is a belief. But the idea that there is not any god is also a belief. Neither can be proved, neither can be tested, it is outside the realm of science whether or not God exists. But the belief or disbelief in God affects one's view of science.

[olympe]

Science starts with observations, that is fine, but the observations one makes are affected by one's beliefs. You cannot get around that fact that no matter how objective you try to be you can never be completely truly completely objective because of opinions you hold and ideas you have about what you observe.

Yeah, that's exactly why scientific theories have to be revised time and again, because people just assume them to be true. /sarcasm

 

This first part of this sentence disagrees with my statement while the second part agrees. If one is trying to explain the existence of the universe without God one is assuming there is no God and relying on that belief.

Not really, although it might seem that way. Let me give an example. You sure know the story of how Abraham (then Abram) went out to find a new land, right? Sure, the bible explains this as God's mission to Abra(ha)m, but in theory, Abraham could have come up with the idea himself, no? So, if you don't have the report from the bible (which I don't want to doubt right now), and you hear the story of how Abraham set out, would your first idea be "It must be God's work!", or would you try to find a logical explanation first? A scientist would try the logical explanation first, and only accept "It was God's work!" if he finds proof of that. (Let's accept scripture as proof in this instance.)

 

A fossil found is identified and given an approximate date of burial by a scientist.

How was the date determined? By the layer of rock the fossil was found in.

How was the date of that layer determined? By radiometric dating. Which is based on three key assumptions: 1. The amount of parent and daughter particles the sample contained in the beginning. 3. No contamination of the sample, i.e. particles were not added or removed by an external source. 2. The rate of decay is constant and unchanging.

1. No, by the amount of parent and daughter particles in the end.

3. Has to be considered, and there are things that disqualify rocks from being dated that way, like being heated beyond a certain point (which is different for each material).

2. It is, or scietists would have found a change at least in fast-decaying isotopes.

 

Yes, that is our starting premise. But as I pointed out, evolutionist have one as well. And unfortunately tend to do the same thing, though I'll not add the "in a way they're not suppose to." I am unsure of your accusation of inaccurate use of radiometric dating due to my lack of detailed knowledge on the subject. (I assume you are referring to samples from earth's core on page 4.)

If you count "Don't say it's God's work unless you can find proof of it," then, yes, that is a premise. However, there are many scientists working on evolution who do believe in God, but don't let that cloud their judgement of the facts they find. And, yes, that was the example I was referring to.

 

I, when talking of evolution in this manner, think of it in its entirety together. In other words that it includes a big bang, the formation of matter from energy, the formation of stars and planets (ours in particular), the beginning of life, evolution of life from non-complex organisms to what we have today. Hence molecules (non-living structures) to man (current). (I don't believe this is an incorrect summation of the theory.) I described it in that way to differentiate from micro evolution, natural selection, or speciation. I realize that not everyone believes in the whole thing, but I think of it as kind of a package deal.

Actually, the theory of evolution only starts with the first living (and surviving) organism. Everything before then is not part of evolution. Counting the big bang or abiogenesis as part of evolution is like counting the Quran and the teachings of Confucius as part of the bible.

 

I disagree. The changing and branching from one species to form another requires an adding of information. Natural selection however only represents a loss of information. Using the dog example chihuahuas did not gain the ability to be small with breeding, instead they lost the ability to be large. In order to gain information you must rely on mutations.

That's so totally not true. To go back to the dogs example - if the chihuahua "lost its ability to be large", did the great Dane lose its ability to grow no larger than a wolf? If so, which one now is the loss of information?

Or, let's talk about budgies. Cute birds, right? The wild type birds are green, which is combined of two different colorants, melanin (blue and black) and psittacin (yellow). And, as far as yellow, blue and white budgies go, there sure is a loss of information. As with most loss-of-information mutations, these are recessive towards the wild type (= original variety). However, there are also budgies of grey or grey-green color, of purple or darkend cblues and greens and greys. All of them show dominance over the wild type, because they have an additional facter (grey factor, purple factor, dark factor). Also, there are budgies which have the pattern on their feathers inversed. Once again, this is not a loss of information, but a change of information. (And we're still within the same species, with only a relative short time of humans breeding them selectively.)

 

I am curious as to what you asked them and what manner you asked them. In my experience they are helpful and always try to answer those not abusing their contact system.

I don't remember the exact wording, as this has been over a year ago, but in essence, I provided some facts mentioned in the then-current evolution vs. creationism discussion and asked them how that can be accounted for. I was definitely not in attacking mode, nor rude nor demanding or anything else. I still didn't get an answer.

 

Hmm? What you are believing in is not the keyboard, but what that what your senses tell you of the keyboard is true.

I tend to go with "Cogito, ergo sum." and, as a consequence, "believe" in my senses. (I'd still say it has nothing to do with believing, as it can be proven. If I can see it, and you can see it and pretty much everybody with working eyes can, then it's as good as proven. You know, if it walks like a duck...

Of course the existence of any god is a belief. But the idea that there is not any god is also a belief. Neither can be proved, neither can be tested, it is outside the realm of science whether or not God exists. But the belief or disbelief in God affects one's view of science.

Well, science does not say that there is no god, but tries to explain all kinds of phenomena without relying on any kind of deity and their intervention. If you have an accident with your car, it might be God's will - or just the fact that you didn't notice the ice on the road.

[Aderik]

As a horticulturalist I have to point out.

 

Its not only animals that benefit from evolution.

 

Now everyone agrees that apples, pears, strawberries, plums, cherries, peaches, apricots and almonds are all different plants right?

 

Did you know, however, that apples and pears, despite being different, can cross pollinate to produce new fruit?

 

That's because, while Apple and Pear plants whos genus is classified as Malus and Pyrus respectively, they are all under the genetic Rosaceae family.

 

That means that, while they are different plants producing different fruit, genetically they are similar enough to cross breed.

 

And guess what? Strawberries are classified as Fragaria, which is also a part of the Rosaceae family. So is Prunus, which also covers plums, cherries, peaches, apricots and almonds.

 

And incase anyone missed, this family also includes the genus Rosa, which encompasses' the Roses you might buy for a loved one.

 

All different plants who's genetic structures are not only similar, but many are similar enough to cross breed.

 

 

Along the animal vein. Are wolves different species than dogs? Physically they are very different, genetically they are very different, and yet many breeds of dogs are able to be bred with wolves. Why? Because they have similar enough genetics and physical structures to support mating.

 

Same with Lions and Tigers. Clearly different animals, yet they produce offspring.

 

 

 

This leads me, personally, to believe that these animals and plants at, some point, were one and the same plant. They evolved different traits to suit their environment and needs at the time.

 

Some arguements against this I've heard are 'scientists are simply over classifying things' as with species. A yellow apple is the same as a red apple right?

 

Right and wrong. They are definately both be apples, Malus, however a 'yellow' apple is clearly not the same as a 'red' apple any more than red 'apple' is the same as red 'strawberries'. There is a difference, and though it may be small, it's still there.

 

 

 

To the whole Belief issue... it's really bad choice of wording imo. Creationism involves Faith, the trust without proof that god existed before existence and made us all.

[Alpha1]

-sigh- and I clearly stated that I was aware that was NOT how evolution looks, it was merely a simple example.

 

Didn't see it, but it is a common argument made by people who don't believe in "macroevolution".

 

Evolution has been proven in numerous ways. For the issue of “macroevolution”, genetics proves phylogeny.

 

Here's an example of a phylogenetic tree.

 

 

According to this, there should be anatomical similarities between extant even-toed ungulates and whales. There should also be anatomical similarities between fossils of these two groups. Lastly, there should be similarities and differences between the genomes of extant clades of the groups. Evidence can be provided for each.

 

For example, whales share a few transposons (jumping genes) with hippos and cattle but not pigs. This is analogous to comparing wrong answers from students who had been copying answers to test questions from other students.

 

Another example is comparing protein sequences across different organisms. Cytocrome c is a good candidate because it is found in all aerobic organisms.

There are 10^49 different sequences that could code for this protein.

 

 

From the differences, a tree can be constructed.

 

 

There is three kingdoms of eukaryotes! It agrees with trees using morphological data. Only common decent can explain it.

 

What else? Synteny describes the physical co-localization of genetic loci on the same chromosome within an individual or species.

 

Lets look:

 

 

Puzzle fail

 

What happened? Translocations, centromere repositioning, and chromosome rearrangements.

 

A kind is an animal that can reproduce sexually with itself. Dogs can reproduce with dogs, cats can reproduce with cats, etc.

 

You’re making up a definition out of thin air. But okay, lets play.

 

A domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. The Przewalski wild horse has 66 chromosomes. They can produce fertile offspring. Are they the same kind?

 

Fun fact: A zebra has 44 chromosomes (depending on other species, it may be in the low thirties or higher). The domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes as mentioned above. The offspring may be infertile, but even with the considerable chromosome difference, they can reproduce. Are they the same kind?

 

With this narrow definition phil, God would have had a lot of work, and it brings into question his design of some organisms….

 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/taxa/inverts/...cephalopoda.php

 

“FUN FACT: A hectocotylus is a cephalopodic arm of a male, modified to deliver a spermatophore (sperm-containing sac) to a female. In some taxa, part of this arm can detach from the male and remain inside the female. In 1829, the famous naturalist George Cuvier first identified and described a hectocotylus in the paper nautilus (an octopus of the genus Argonauta) but, at the time he thought that this detached arm was a parasitic worm!”

 

 

Duck sexual arms race. Male ducks commonly force females, and females have some defenses....

 

H**p://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091223074659.htm

 

All different plants who's genetic structures are not only similar, but many are similar enough to cross breed.

 

Plants are also neat because many of them are polyploid. There's some ferns with over 1000 chromosomes. Maybe one will eventually get over 9000.

 

 

 

 

[OceanSecrets]

Biblical creation's starting point is "the Bible is true", no denying that. The history of Abraham (whom I will always refer to with that name for simplicity's sake). If the Bible said nothing about Abraham and his reasons for moving, then no I would not assume God told him to. If I was interested in why he moved I would try to find a natural explanation for his move (climate change, for example). But since the Bible does give a reason for his move, I accept that.

 

I'm not sure I understand this example. The last line states:

A scientist would try the logical explanation first, and only accept "It was God's work!" if he finds proof of that.

Since scripture is proof (for the example) and scripture states a reason for Abraham's move therefore we have proof for the reason for Abraham's move. Correct? I have no problem with working this way.

 

As I have stated before, the main difference evolution and Biblical creation is the starting premise of the Bible. Since the Bible gives an explanation of how the universe was created and how life came to be creationists accept that explanation and build their theories believing that to be true. Those who do not use Bible or any similar thing to start with, instead starting with no intervention of a supernatural being, result with evolution. Theorizing how all life came from a common ancestor and using large periods of time to explain how we have what we do today.

 

I would like to point out there are problems with this assumption of large periods of time. The amount of salt in the ocean and the strength of Earth's magnetic field being two of them. Long ages are an assumption necessary for the evolution of life supported by things such as radiometric dating.

Evolutionism accepts evidence of long ages and rejects evidence of shorter time spans due to the necessity of long ages for the evolution of life to occur.

Creationism accepts evidence of shorter time span because that is what a straightforward reading of the Bible gives, while rejecting evidence of long ages.

("Reject" here meaning "attempt to explain why the evidence appears contrary to reality.")

 

1. No, by the amount of parent and daughter particles in the end.

3. Has to be considered, and there are things that disqualify rocks from being dated that way, like being heated beyond a certain point (which is different for each material).

2. It is, or scietists would have found a change at least in fast-decaying isotopes.

1. How does that tell them? In order for that to conclusively tell one then one also needs to know for how long the decays went on, which is what is trying to be determined.

3. Why would a fast decay rate mean a fast changing decay rate. They are not necessarily directly related.

 

Counting the big bang or abiogenesis as part of evolution is like counting the Quran and the teachings of Confucius as part of the bible.

I have to disagree. If we are talking about evolution of life, then yes. But evolution in general, no. And I have several professors, who firmly believe in evolution and teach at a public university, who consider the whole thing to be 'evolution'. I suppose the problem is due to my field of study, and the courses I have taken that deal with stellar and galactic evolution, I don't immediately think 'evolution of life' when one says 'evolution'.

 

Regarding information loss.

The dogs that the great dane and the chihuahua originate from had the ability, the information, to be both large and small. Through selective breeding we have the two types. The great dane no longer has the ability, the information or genes, to be small. The chihuahua on the other hand does not have the information to be large.

From what I understand of what you wrote on the budgies the extra different colors (grey, purple, etc.) are from a mutation(s).

If you have an accident with your car, it might be God's will - or just the fact that you didn't notice the ice on the road.

This is a perversion of what we believe. One's lack of observance of the ice is what caused the accident. Whether or not it was God's will that one have the accident does not change the fact that slipping on the unnoticed ice caused the accident.

[Kai]

Biblical creation's starting point is "the Bible is true", no denying that. The history of Abraham (whom I will always refer to with that name for simplicity's sake). If the Bible said nothing about Abraham and his reasons for moving, then no I would not assume God told him to. If I was interested in why he moved I would try to find a natural explanation for his move (climate change, for example). But since the Bible does give a reason for his move, I accept that.

 

If the bible is true then do you claim it has exactly zero self-contradictions?

 

I would like to point out there are problems with this assumption of large periods of time. The amount of salt in the ocean and the strength of Earth's magnetic field being two of them. Long ages are an assumption necessary for the evolution of life supported by things such as radiometric dating.

Evolutionism accepts evidence of long ages and rejects evidence of shorter time spans due to the necessity of long ages for the evolution of life to occur.

Creationism accepts evidence of shorter time span because that is what a straightforward reading of the Bible gives, while rejecting evidence of long ages.

("Reject" here meaning "attempt to explain why the evidence appears contrary to reality.")

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/..._earth.html#h32

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

 

Pretty much guarantee someone just told you that salt / magnetic field contradicted the actual age of the Earth and because this confirms your beliefes you just ate it up.

 

I have to disagree. If we are talking about evolution of life, then yes. But evolution in general, no. And I have several professors, who firmly believe in evolution and teach at a public university, who consider the whole thing to be 'evolution'. I suppose the problem is due to my field of study, and the courses I have taken that deal with stellar and galactic evolution, I don't immediately think 'evolution of life' when one says 'evolution'.

 

They are wrong period. I hope they aren't professors of biology or more probably you just misunderstood them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

Origin of life section links to another article, ctrl+f big bang doesn't even show anything.

 

Regarding information loss.

The dogs that the great dane and the chihuahua originate from had the ability, the information, to be both large and small. Through selective breeding we have the two types. The great dane no longer has the ability, the information or genes, to be small. The chihuahua on the other hand does not have the information to be large.

From what I understand of what you wrote on the budgies the extra different colors (grey, purple, etc.) are from a mutation(s).

 

rofl, so the common ancestor varied in size from a chihuahua to a great dane. funny stuff. (hint: wolves dont have massively varying sizes)

Edited February 10, 2012 by Kai

[Alpha1]

They are wrong period. I hope they aren't professors of biology or more probably you just misunderstood them.

 

Abiogenesis is basically molecular evolution.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Alpha1

[Completely Different]

Abiogenesis is basically molecular evolution.

I think that's a bit of simplification. A good portion of ambiogenesis is working out how exactly you form self-replicating molecules in the first place; evolution only begins once that's established. It doesn't have anything to do with the formation of the very first amino acids, RNA molecules and the like. They're separate (if related) theories.

[olympe]

A scientist would try the logical explanation first, and only accept "It was God's work!" if he finds proof of that.

Since scripture is proof (for the example) and scripture states a reason for Abraham's move therefore we have proof for the reason for Abraham's move. Correct? I have no problem with working this way

Correct. But since scripture cannot really count as proof for scientific matter, the creation story cannot count as proof against evolution.

 

I would like to point out there are problems with this assumption of large periods of time. The amount of salt in the ocean and the strength of Earth's magnetic field being two of them.

How so? I don't know much about Earth's magnetic field, but enough to know that it changes direction every now and then (about every 250,000 years), which implies quite strongly that it is not constant, nor declining or rising constantly. Imagine it to work like a sine function (a simplification, I know):

No matter at which point we are, you cannot deduce that Earth is only XXX years old because of it, because each value occurs time and again.

 

On radiometric dating:

1. No, by the amount of parent and daughter particles in the end.

3. Has to be considered, and there are things that disqualify rocks from being dated that way, like being heated beyond a certain point (which is different for each material).

2. It is, or scietists would have found a change at least in fast-decaying isotopes.

1. How does that tell them? In order for that to conclusively tell one then one also needs to know for how long the decays went on, which is what is trying to be determined.

3. Why would a fast decay rate mean a fast changing decay rate. They are not necessarily directly related.

1. That's quite simple in some cases and quite complicated in others. The simple version: You have only the parent isotopes (like with uranium-thorium dating) in the original stone, for various reasons. (Uranium is water-soluble while thorium is not, so thorium cannot exist in stones grown (crystallized) from water unless it is a product of uranium decay.)

The more complicated version: You have to calculate what was originally there by comparing different minerals in the same sample (which is beyond me already)...

3) It doesn't, necessarily. But it's easier to spot an irregularity with quickly decaying isotopes (with a half-life range of milliseconds to a few years) than with isotopes that have an incredibly slow decay (with a half-life of several hundred thousands years or more).

 

I suppose the problem is due to my field of study, and the courses I have taken that deal with stellar and galactic evolution, I don't immediately think 'evolution of life' when one says 'evolution'.

How does stellar evolution fit into the creation story of the bible? After all,

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

[...] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,[...]

 

The dogs that the great dane and the chihuahua originate from had the ability, the information, to be both large and small. Through selective breeding we have the two types. The great dane no longer has the ability, the information or genes, to be small. The chihuahua on the other hand does not have the information to be large.

From what I understand of what you wrote on the budgies the extra different colors (grey, purple, etc.) are from a mutation(s).

And the extreme small size of the chihuahua is not a mutation?

In any case, you obviously do not reject the idea of mutations. That's a good start, because it obviously allows you to believe in change of genetic information, not just the loss thereof.

Now, if you think further: If many different mutations happen to a population of a given species over time, can't it become a different species? If different species develop in vastly different directions, can't they become different genera, given enough time? (Like, uh, African and Asian elephant? They are not that different, are they?)

 

Abiogenesis is basically molecular evolution.

Not really. Molecules can change, but I wouldn't consider it evolving. Also, abiogenesis is only one way to explain how the first living organism came into being. Another would be creation. Neither has been proven, as far as I know.

[Alpha1]

I think that's a bit of simplification. A good portion of ambiogenesis is working out how exactly you form self-replicating molecules in the first place; evolution only begins once that's established. It doesn't have anything to do with the formation of the very first amino acids, RNA molecules and the like. They're separate (if related) theories.

 

Not really. Molecules can change, but I wouldn't consider it evolving. Also, abiogenesis is only one way to explain how the first living organism came into being. Another would be creation. Neither has been proven, as far as I know.

 

It's hard to figure out because chemical evolution wasn't preserved in the geologic column. There's many chemical pathways. Nonetheless, the "messy" prebiotic world has has led to some interesting insights versus a more constrained but easier to analyse artificial environment.

 

Any protocell would be a far cry from modern cell machinery. For instance, current replication models use simple fatty acids instead of phospholipids for the membrane.

 

This means selective pressures would need to select for phospholipids, metabolism, membrane transport machinery, etc.

 

Dr. Szostak's work

 

http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html

 

"The theoretical protocell shown in the image on the right is made up of only two molecular components, a RNA replicase and a fatty acid membrane. An extremely pared down and simple version of a cell, the protocell is nonetheless capable of growth, replication, and evolution. Although a working version of a protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal appears well within reach."

 

Purely chemical processes can get to the easier stuff. Evolutionary processes can lead to more complex machinery.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131571/

 

Origin of Evolution versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm

 

"The question of the primordial ancestor must be approached through the search for the origin of evolution, not through the search for the origin of life. There is a major issue with the concept of life because it is impossible to define, thus is not a scientific but a metaphysical concept. On the contrary, evolution may be defined by as few as three conditions. These do not necessarily involve biopolymers."

 

 

 

[OceanSecrets]

If the bible is true then do you claim it has exactly zero self-contradictions?

Yes.

Pretty much guarantee someone just told you that salt / magnetic field contradicted the actual age of the Earth and because this confirms your beliefes you just ate it up.

For starters I will say this is dated material. Second, who is G. Brent Dalrymple and why can his research be consider legitimate? Especially on such a wide variety of topics, I doubt he is an expert in them all.

As for the magnetic fields, no one simply told me this, I read the scientific paper on it myself. I recommend this article for a short preview of the theory and why it has reason to be supported.

The reply given to salt in the ocean is based on the assumption of steady state (what goes in = what comes out) which is untrue. Unfortunately I have no article to reference to back it up, but then the one the site claims I cannot access to verify.

Your assumption that some told me and I swallowed it unquestioningly is untrue and, frankly, rather rude.

 

They are wrong period. I hope they aren't professors of biology or more probably you just misunderstood them.

They are professors of physics. In whose classes we don't usually deal with the evolution of life, but rather of the universe. Hence my apparently incorrect assumption, which I will revise. Evolution = evolution of life. (Unless you tag it such as stellar evolution.)

 

rofl, so the common ancestor varied in size from a chihuahua to a great dane. funny stuff. (hint: wolves dont have massively varying sizes)

No, of course not. The common ancestor had the information to be large or small. For the chihuahua: Smaller and smaller dogs were selected and bred over time, resulting in the small dog. For the great dane the opposite, large, was selected. (No doubt other traits were also chosen, but let's keep it at these two.) They came from a common ancestor, which hence had the information to be both large and small, though it was likely manifested by being of medium build. The chihuahua is small, it cannot be large, it has lost the ability, the information. The great dane is large...

As to the wolves, I understand why you mentioned them, but I don't think wolves are considered a common ancestor to dogs any more than chimpanzees are to humans.

 

How so? I don't know much about Earth's magnetic field, but enough to know that it changes direction every now and then (about every 250,000 years), which implies quite strongly that it is not constant, nor declining or rising constantly.

Yes, the change is not constant and it has switched directions several times in the past. (The timing of the switches based on the dating of the objects from which the switches were discovered.) But it is still decaying. (Even a sinusoid can decay.) The prevailing evolutionary theories for how planetary magnetic fields are generated and maintained has failed when tested against the magnetic fields of our planets. (See link above.)

 

How does stellar evolution fit into the creation story of the bible?

It doesn't. I took those classes in pursuit of my degree. If one is going to study astrophysics one must of course learn the prevailing theories in that field. (I found them interesting, though sometimes confusing, but I think that goes for all physics classes. (Except quantum, that's just confusing. )-: ))

 

If many different mutations happen to a population of a given species over time, can't it become a different species?

No, the changes the mutations add are not sufficient to change a species over time into an entirely new one. Elephant are still elephants. But I think this is a topic which could go on forever with one side insisting 'yes it can' and the other 'no it can't'.

 

By the way olympe, I wanted to say thanks for being polite when pointing out errors and disagreements.