Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[WidowMakers]

if humanity is a single species, why do we all look different? Why was I born without an appendix, and most of us were? Why am I 6'3" even though my dad is 6'2"? Why are our toes smaller and our brains bigger and our bodies taller than our ancestors?

I will get to this once I get my Evolution vs. Natural Selection post finished.

I have plenty of info on how there is diversity among a single species. And it is not evolution.

But first back to the EVOLVING BACTERIA.

Ok, so my example is one of acclimation. What about antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

CATEGORY: BIOLOGY
ISSUE: Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance To Antibiotics?
FACTS:
Germs over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before.
=========================================
Evolution Assumptions:
PLEASE PROVIDE TEXT FOR THIS AREA!!! PM ME
Evolution Conclusion:
PLEASE PROVIDE TEXT FOR THIS AREA!!! PM ME
=========================================
Creation Assumptions:
- Designed to Adapt Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.

Source: Medical Tribune, December 29, 1988, p. 1, 23.

-Designed to Adapt bacteria did not “mutate” after being exposed to antibiotics; the mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics.

Source: Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983), Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon Books) pgs 137,138

-No new information passed by reproduction In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.

Creation Conclusion:
-The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries (I.E. crossing from one species to the next http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic) . In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred. No new information was added. Hence NOT EVOLUTION!

[unriggable]

Question: seeing as how bacteria were revived, why would they do tests on them? For that matter, how would the bacteria successfully make it from the Arctic all the way to the labs without being altered? Third, are you sure the bacteria weren't added on afterwards, since I doubt they bring powerful microscopes to the ice.

[Frigidus]

Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.

The question is, did every single one of the bacteria survive? I'd wager no. If that is the case, then a new condition (penicillin) has stimulated the population of bacteria, and some of the more resilient members of the population survived while others did not. This is pretty much a case in point example of natural selection. Of course I am assuming that a percentage of the bacteria did not survive, but I don't think that's a bad assumption to make. If I am wrong in that assumption please correct me.

[unriggable]

The point is that there are s many things that could go wrong, I wouldn't count on it being solid evidence.

[Iliad]

This debate bores me now. All christians have to do when the countless flaws are pointed out is shout:
"But god can do anything!"

There is no point playing if your opponent can change the rules at any time

[heavycola]

Unfortunately evolution is taught as fact even though it is not yet proven. I would gladly accept it if there was a way to reproduce it. One of the main reasons I am still a creationist is because of my faith.

The ONLY reason you are a 'creationist' is because of your faith. Please don't bring scientific concepts anywhere near your beliefs. They have nothing to do with each other.

Your belief in 'creationism' has nothing to do with science's inability to prove evolution. It has everything to do with the fact that your preacher tells you that the bible is 100% true.

This thread is really pissing me off. There is no debate. The hebrew creation story has no more to do with science than the australian aboriginal creation story. Absolutely none.

No, my faith has everything to do with how I interpret science

That's exactly what I said.

Not only are you are sadly mistaken if you really think that science and the bible are two totally different realms but by pushing it away you are pushing the spotlight away from the creationists. I will not let you do that. If they were two separate realms then there would be no argument.

That's right, there is no argument.
Deuteronomy 13:7 - 'from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;'
Job 38:13 'that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it'
Do these passages shape your scientific opinion that the earth is flat?

I believe the Bible is 100% true from my own logic

...apparently the answer is yes.


look, my point is that these are not competing 'theories'. 'Creationism' is a belief in the hebrew creation story. it is founded on the belief that the bible is 100% true. That is its foundation. No bible, no fundamentalist xianity, no 'creationism'. Yes?
Evolution is a scientific theory, like gravity or electromagnetism, that best fits observations made about the natural world.
There IS NO ARGUMENT. Pitch your creation story against the Mohawk or the Muslim version. But don't pretend it has anything to do with science. After all, science is only man-made.

So you are saying the Evolution is a theory because of observations made... so does that mean that people have witnessed the process of evolution like they have gravity or electromagnetism? No they have not. They have taken the end product and made a theory around that.

LIKE THE BIBLE??!?

That is risky. You can easily get the wrong idea from that process. That is why we have the scientific method.

where is the massive eye-roll smiley when you need it?

[jay_a2j]

but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not

No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.

[Skittles!]

but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not

No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.

Natural selection, I hear. It adapted to it's surroundings, making it still a bacteria, but a different type of bacteria which can be immune to several other things.

So, it's ADAPTED and EVOLVED to survive with natural selection. Didn't you learn that about evolution?

[Iliad]

but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not

No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.

*sigh* But if we can see how it adapts can't you see how it can evolve after more time?

[jay_a2j]

but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not

No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.

*sigh* But if we can see how it adapts can't you see how it can evolve after more time?

No, because every living creature has a set number of chromosomes. So if science can explain how an animal with 24 chromosomes can somehow obtain 2 more to make it 26... not only will they become very rich but they might even persuade some of us religious fanatics.

[Iliad]

but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not

No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.

*sigh* But if we can see how it adapts can't you see how it can evolve after more time?

No, because every living creature has a set number of chromosomes. So if science can explain how an animal with 24 chromosomes can somehow obtain 2 more to make it 26... not only will they become very rich but they might even persuade some of us religious fanatics.

I am so bored by these debates. This has been explained a lot and frankly I haven't seen ANY proof for creationism

[jay_a2j]

Well, THIS about sums up the debate.


However, I'd just like to say, I can understand why evolutionists find it hard to see creationism as logical... because without faith in an all-powerful God, it isn't. But even if I held no belief in God, I still would not buy evolution.

[Iliad]

Well, THIS about sums up the debate.


However, I'd just like to say, I can understand why evolutionists find it hard to see creationism as logical... because without faith in an all-powerful God, it isn't. But even if I held no belief in God, I still would not buy evolution.

That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

[Skittles!]

Well, THIS about sums up the debate.


However, I'd just like to say, I can understand why evolutionists find it hard to see creationism as logical... because without faith in an all-powerful God, it isn't. But even if I held no belief in God, I still would not buy evolution.

That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

No Iliad. It does have flaws and it has not been proven. It is a theory. It has evidence, but it has not been essentially proven to be the accurate thing. Hence, it has not been proven.

[jay_a2j]

That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

Are you crazy??? Evolution has TONS of flaws! Has NEVER been proven! And if someone could prove to me there was no God. I STILL wouldn't believe in evolution!


*** fast posted***

[Iliad]

That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

Are you crazy??? Evolution has TONS of flaws! Has NEVER been proven! And if someone could prove to me there was no God. I STILL wouldn't believe in evolution!


*** fast posted***

Yeah? If there are tons of flaws point out 3. That's all I'm asking.

[AlgyTaylor]

Um, evolution is a fact. Observable. See bacteria.

The natural selection theory is a model based around said facts. It suggests, controversially that if you make lots of little changes over a very long period of time, that might amount to some pretty fecking big changes.

Obviously this is a load of rubbish, lots of little changes in no way result in one bigger change

[MeDeFe]

but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not

No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.

And if a salmon evolves it's still a fish. Nevertheless it has evolved.

[jay_a2j]

That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

Are you crazy??? Evolution has TONS of flaws! Has NEVER been proven! And if someone could prove to me there was no God. I STILL wouldn't believe in evolution!


*** fast posted***

Yeah? If there are tons of flaws point out 3. That's all I'm asking.

1. It has NEVER been observed nor reproduced.

2. The "missing link" has never been found. (ex. Fossil of part fish, part bird)

3. Does not give reasons for different races nor languages.

[jay_a2j]

but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not

No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.

And if a salmon evolves it's still a fish. Nevertheless it has evolved.

No it hasn't. A species of fish migrated into underwater caves which were pitch black. They went blind as a result of not needing sight (because they lived in total darkness) Although the fish are now born blind, they REMAIN a fish. This is called ADAPTATION not evolution. Evolution is when one animal becomes another, totally different animal (count the chromosomes) over a long period of time. (ex. a fish becoming a frog)

[joecoolfrog]

That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

Are you crazy??? Evolution has TONS of flaws! Has NEVER been proven! And if someone could prove to me there was no God. I STILL wouldn't believe in evolution!


*** fast posted***

Yes there are flaws in the theory, its tough to prove 100% something that
has occured over a vast time period. That does not explain your hostility towards evolution though and it would be far more honest if you simply admited the fact that religion is the sole reason for refusing to accept probability. You are refusing to accept a proposition despite having nothing scientific to put in its place,nothing !

[Iliad]

That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

Are you crazy??? Evolution has TONS of flaws! Has NEVER been proven! And if someone could prove to me there was no God. I STILL wouldn't believe in evolution!


*** fast posted***

Yeah? If there are tons of flaws point out 3. That's all I'm asking.

1. It has NEVER been observed nor reproduced.

2. The "missing link" has never been found. (ex. Fossil of part fish, part bird)

3. Does not give reasons for different races nor languages.

1. Yes it has. Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced. You do realise it takes a long,long time for an animal to evolve

2. Yes it has. For example thrinaxodon is the link between mammals and reptiles. And you do realise that's not how evolution works? It's not like: fish one generation, bird next generation

3.Languages and evolution have no link. At all. You might as well say: evolution does not explain the building of the Pyramids.

So I have pointed out the flaws in your flaws. Next

[AlgyTaylor]

1. It has NEVER been observed nor reproduced.

Yes it has. Many times.

2. The "missing link" has never been found. (ex. Fossil of part fish, part bird)

What about newts? They live in water and have legs, so can move about on land. Is it so hard for you to imagine that over hundreds of thousands of years a newt could become entirely landbound, learn to walk on it's hind legs?

3. Does not give reasons for different races nor languages.

Why should it give a specific example of humans? There are examples of other animals (pigeons for one), why do you need an example for every single species to understand the concept? Are you *really* stupid or something?

[jay_a2j]

That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

Are you crazy??? Evolution has TONS of flaws! Has NEVER been proven! And if someone could prove to me there was no God. I STILL wouldn't believe in evolution!


*** fast posted***

Yeah? If there are tons of flaws point out 3. That's all I'm asking.

1. It has NEVER been observed nor reproduced.

2. The "missing link" has never been found. (ex. Fossil of part fish, part bird)

3. Does not give reasons for different races nor languages.

1. Yes it has. Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced. You do realise it takes a long,long time for an animal to evolve

2. Yes it has. For example thrinaxodon is the link between mammals and reptiles. And you do realise that's not how evolution works? It's not like: fish one generation, bird next generation

3.Languages and evolution have no link. At all. You might as well say: evolution does not explain the building of the Pyramids.

So I have pointed out the flaws in your flaws. Next

You've done nothing. Posting hogwash, nothing more. Your #1 has already been addressed...thats Adaptation not evolution.

[Iliad]

That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

Are you crazy??? Evolution has TONS of flaws! Has NEVER been proven! And if someone could prove to me there was no God. I STILL wouldn't believe in evolution!


*** fast posted***

Yeah? If there are tons of flaws point out 3. That's all I'm asking.

1. It has NEVER been observed nor reproduced.

2. The "missing link" has never been found. (ex. Fossil of part fish, part bird)

3. Does not give reasons for different races nor languages.

1. Yes it has. Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced. You do realise it takes a long,long time for an animal to evolve

2. Yes it has. For example thrinaxodon is the link between mammals and reptiles. And you do realise that's not how evolution works? It's not like: fish one generation, bird next generation

3.Languages and evolution have no link. At all. You might as well say: evolution does not explain the building of the Pyramids.

So I have pointed out the flaws in your flaws. Next

You've done nothing. Posting hogwash, nothing more. Your #1 has already been addressed...thats Adaptation not evolution.

OH MY FUCKING GOD(pun not intended) Why are you so stupid! Great debating skills! I go and post and rebutt your points and what do you do? You reply that it's all "hogwash". Fucking hell. Jay please actually debate