Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[WidowMakers]

Widowmakers
But you have still produced no evidence in favour of creationism , all you have done is question aspects of the theory of evolution

Hey I am only 1 man. I can only do things so fast.

The previous post was not to prove creation. It was to show the meaning of the definitions everyone has been throwing around. To show how natural selection is NOT evolution.

Plus I cannot show you evidence of creation any more than you can show me evidence of evolution. What I can show you is the unlikelyness of evolution and how there are many holes and problems with it when it is looked at from a board overall aspect. Remember creation or evolution must present a good argument for EVERY ASPECT of the model.

That is what I am trying to do and I just wanted to get these definitions out there so when we talk further, we can understand what we all are actually saying.

WM

P.S. This is the first book I ever read on this subject. Scientific creationism by Henry M. Morris.
http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Creati ... 898&sr=8-2
It looks at both side of the issue and compares them. Wonderful read.

[Snorri1234]

Wow, that's amazing. Both of those definitions are totally incorrect!


Kudos.

[WidowMakers]

And if you don't want to buy that book I found an source that covers all of those topics plus more.

Problems of Evolution
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html

Please read! Then discuss topics from that. I could post them one at a time but why not have some of you challenge them instead.

WM

[WidowMakers]

Wow, that's amazing. Both of those definitions are totally incorrect!


Kudos.

Then what are the definitions? Please don't just spam and say I am wrong. Give some data to back up your opinion.

[Snorri1234]

Plus I cannot show you evidence of creation any more than you can show me evidence of evolution. What I can show you is the unlikelyness of evolution and how there are many holes and problems with it when it is looked at from a board overall aspect. Remember creation or evolution must present a good argument for EVERY ASPECT of the model.

But creation has only one argument. It basically says "God did it" all the time. While sure there are some things that aren't proven in the theory of evolution, there are actually some things that have been proven.

[WidowMakers]

Plus I cannot show you evidence of creation any more than you can show me evidence of evolution. What I can show you is the unlikelyness of evolution and how there are many holes and problems with it when it is looked at from a board overall aspect. Remember creation or evolution must present a good argument for EVERY ASPECT of the model.

But creation has only one argument. It basically says "God did it" all the time. While sure there are some things that aren't proven in the theory of evolution, there are actually some things that have been proven.

Then please provide proof. The previous examples provided by others in this forum have been the iriduim layer, nylon bacteria, , and antibiotic resistant bacteria. Each of which has been said to be PROOF of evolution.

But I have provided a scientific explanation to the contrary for each topic. So none of those "facts" are really facts they are opinions based on assumptions.

So again please provide a FACT and I will show you how it is really just an opinion based on assumptions that can't be proven.

WM

[Snorri1234]

Wow, that's amazing. Both of those definitions are totally incorrect!


Kudos.

Then what are the definitions? Please don't just spam and say I am wrong. Give some data to back up your opinion.

Well, to quote from the wikipedia entry on evolution.
Evolution= The change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation. (Inherited traits in your genes ofcourse.)
Natural selection= A process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become more rare.


Evolution doesn't mean everything has to become more complex. Genetic information can be added and removed depending on it's usefullness. (If it doesn't have any negative or positive effects, it frequently just stays there reproducing with every cell-division.) Being more complex doesn't have to mean you're better, just look at all the simple bacteria that exist which are totally doing a great job of living.

"So Natural Selection is the process by which an organism can adapt or pass on information to its offspring within and limited by its own genetic information. While natural selection does produce change, it does not do it by adding new genetic information, but by weeding out some of the information that was already there."

Plain and simple, natural selection can actually add new information. You must not be familiar with the process of celmutations, but I'll explain it.
There are many different kinds of mutation. (All of which have been observed.)
1.1 Pointmutations, where one nucleotide in the DNA-sequence is exchanged by another.
1.2 Deletion, where one nucleotide is removed from the sequence, which can lead to an alteration of the reading frame.
1.3 Insertions, where one nucleotide is added to the sequence, which can also lead to an alteration of the reading frame.
...
actually, just read the wiki-entry and learn about it. It's quite simple.

[WidowMakers]

Evolution doesn't mean everything has to become more complex. Genetic information can be added and removed depending on it's usefullness. (If it doesn't have any negative or positive effects, it frequently just stays there reproducing with every cell-division.) Being more complex doesn't have to mean you're better, just look at all the simple bacteria that exist which are totally doing a great job of living.

The evolution we are discussing REQUIRES information to become more complex. Small single celled organisms >= Millions of years >= man.

That requires added information to work. And look at the FACTS on mutations, insertions and deletions.

-How many of them are actually beneficial compared to the number that are harmful?
-What is the probability that two mutations will act together to be beneficial to the organism?
-What is the probability that three would?
-How likely are these 1 in a million beneficial mutations likely to change the structure so much that the benefit of the single mutation will overpower the population and the mutation will continue to flourish through the rest of the genetic pool?

[unriggable]

-How likely are these 1 in a million beneficial mutations likely to change the structure so much that the benefit of the single mutation will overpower the population and the mutation will continue to flourish through the rest of the genetic pool?

Okay. Here's evolution in a nutshell.

Monkey.

Is a monkey with a hip adjustment (A) more likely to survive than one without (B) if Monkey A can stand up and see farther through the grass? Is A more likely to survive in the warmer conditions if it has less hair? An elongated nose to rid itself of heat? What about arched feet allowing it to run? Or a bigger brain allowing it to hunt more effectively? One mutation by itself is natural selection, but over time they add up and split species in two. Evolution. It's easier to imagine this way - one of the main reason people don't believe in evolution is because of how limited their imaginations are.

[AlgyTaylor]

Hold on, why is it evolution that needs to be defended anyway, since the vast majority of people agree that it's correct. You defend your point of view for a change!

OK, some problems I have with creationism.

1) As Jay has quite rightly said carbon dating is accurate to 70,000 years. The bible says the earth is considerably younger than that. Explain this glaringly obvious problem.

2) Why don't you find fossils of modern day animals? I mean, according to your reasoning surely there should be fossils of animals that lived 100 years ago ...

3) WITHOUT USING YOUR BIBLE, is there any actual evidence that you can point to that shows the earth was created. And please, don't go down the "it's too complicated for me to understand so therefore god did it" route either. I don't understand how Shakespeare managed to write brilliant plays but it doesn't mean that god did it for him. Actual evidence that you do understand that proves your idiotic theory.

That should give you something to be getting on with. I'll give you some more problems if/when you manage to answer those questions for me.

Will one of the two creationists here please try to answer these questions ...

[Carebian Knight]

I believe in the Bible. Based on the Bible the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old (chronology from Adam to Jesus).

I also believe the bible, however how can you figure out how old the earth is by a list of who had who.

[Snorri1234]

The evolution we are discussing REQUIRES information to become more complex. Small single celled organisms >= Millions of years >= man.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's the only definition of evolution.

-How many of them are actually beneficial compared to the number that are harmful?

Actually, there is no way to say that. Most mutations actually have no effect whatsoever. But when enough mutations happen they can lead to a change, either for good or for bad.
But since harmfull mutations tend to get weeded out (due to lessening the survival rate), benificial mutations usually have a better effect. Mutations are rare if you look at a single protein, but if you account for the number of actual nucleotids in your DNA, a mutation isn't that unlikely.

-What is the probability that two mutations will act together to be beneficial to the organism?
-What is the probability that three would?

Well for that to work it only has to mean that the mutations either don't affect eachother in any way or they work together. Working together is rare, but not affecting isn't.

-How likely are these 1 in a million beneficial mutations likely to change the structure so much that the benefit of the single mutation will overpower the population and the mutation will continue to flourish through the rest of the genetic pool?

Even with a slight increase in survivability, it will become more frequent. Mutations don't happen once in a while, they happen all the time. You have 3 billion base pairs in your DNA, how much of stretch is it to believe you get quite a few mutations? A mutation doesn't have to show in phenotype to have a benificial effect. It can mean a better protein-usage, it can mean an increased fertility, it can mean slightly smarter brain, it can mean just about anything.


You're looking at it the wrong way. Don't imagine a mere thousand reproductions, imagine a few billion.

[AlgyTaylor]

-How many of them are actually beneficial compared to the number that are harmful?
-What is the probability that two mutations will act together to be beneficial to the organism?
-What is the probability that three would?
-How likely are these 1 in a million beneficial mutations likely to change the structure so much that the benefit of the single mutation will overpower the population and the mutation will continue to flourish through the rest of the genetic pool?

You don't seem to understand ... evolution takes a VERY long time. In each generation you will get very small differences, different length of ears or whatever. Say that an animal would have a slight advantage over another if it had better hearing, the larger eared animals would be marginally more likely to survive. So overall, the average size of ears in that generation would increase marginally. Say it's some minute amount, maybe 0.01mm. Over 100 generations that's only 1mm difference, barely recognisable. But 100 generations might *only* mean maybe 300 years. Over 30,000 years you'd be looking at around 100mm, which is quite significant.

Now bear in mind that the lengths of time we're talking about are MUCH greater than 30,000 years. Just for proto-monkeys turning in to humans you'd be looking at 7,000,000 years. It doesn't take a genius to work out that even with very small changes in each generation you'd get massive changes overall.

Say to double in (average) height, assuming it was always an advantage to be taller, we'd need to grow on average 0.002mm per generation. Which is next to nothing.

[Carebian Knight]

You don't seem to understand ... evolution takes a VERY long time. In each generation you will get very small differences, different length of ears or whatever.

I remember hearing something about scientists have witnessed evolution in some animals taking only a few years. 2 or 3 generations.

[Snorri1234]

You don't seem to understand ... evolution takes a VERY long time. In each generation you will get very small differences, different length of ears or whatever. Say that an animal would have a slight advantage over another if it had better hearing, the larger eared animals would be marginally more likely to survive. So overall, the average size of ears in that generation would increase marginally. Say it's some minute amount, maybe 0.01mm. Over 100 generations that's only 1mm difference, barely recognisable. But 100 generations might *only* mean maybe 300 years. Over 30,000 years you'd be looking at around 100mm, which is quite significant.

Now bear in mind that the lengths of time we're talking about are MUCH greater than 30,000 years. Just for proto-monkeys turning in to humans you'd be looking at 7,000,000 years. It doesn't take a genius to work out that even with very small changes in each generation you'd get massive changes overall.

Say to double in (average) height, assuming it was always an advantage to be taller, we'd need to grow on average 0.002mm per generation. Which is next to nothing.

Okay, that's a much better explanation.

[AlgyTaylor]

You don't seem to understand ... evolution takes a VERY long time. In each generation you will get very small differences, different length of ears or whatever.

I remember hearing something about scientists have witnessed evolution in some animals taking only a few years. 2 or 3 generations.

Yes, I imagine so. But just trying to put it in to context for our creationist friends, the vast majority of changes take place over a length of time that quite frankly it's exceptionally hard to comprehend. If you think about how much humans have progressed socially since before ancient Egypt .... that's a drop in the ocean, less than 1% of human existance - to say nothing of the human precursors

[Carebian Knight]

You don't seem to understand ... evolution takes a VERY long time. In each generation you will get very small differences, different length of ears or whatever. Say that an animal would have a slight advantage over another if it had better hearing, the larger eared animals would be marginally more likely to survive. So overall, the average size of ears in that generation would increase marginally. Say it's some minute amount, maybe 0.01mm. Over 100 generations that's only 1mm difference, barely recognisable. But 100 generations might *only* mean maybe 300 years. Over 30,000 years you'd be looking at around 100mm, which is quite significant.

Now bear in mind that the lengths of time we're talking about are MUCH greater than 30,000 years. Just for proto-monkeys turning in to humans you'd be looking at 7,000,000 years. It doesn't take a genius to work out that even with very small changes in each generation you'd get massive changes overall.

Say to double in (average) height, assuming it was always an advantage to be taller, we'd need to grow on average 0.002mm per generation. Which is next to nothing.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that there's no way we could've evolved from apes either.

[Snorri1234]

Hold on, why is it evolution that needs to be defended anyway, since the vast majority of people agree that it's correct. You defend your point of view for a change!

OK, some problems I have with creationism.

1) As Jay has quite rightly said carbon dating is accurate to 70,000 years. The bible says the earth is considerably younger than that. Explain this glaringly obvious problem.

2) Why don't you find fossils of modern day animals? I mean, according to your reasoning surely there should be fossils of animals that lived 100 years ago ...

3) WITHOUT USING YOUR BIBLE, is there any actual evidence that you can point to that shows the earth was created. And please, don't go down the "it's too complicated for me to understand so therefore god did it" route either. I don't understand how Shakespeare managed to write brilliant plays but it doesn't mean that god did it for him. Actual evidence that you do understand that proves your idiotic theory.

That should give you something to be getting on with. I'll give you some more problems if/when you manage to answer those questions for me.

Will one of the two creationists here please try to answer these questions ...

It's the new hype nowadays to not reply to anything that proves you're wrong.


Actually, I wonder why we have to come up with proof for evolution and Widowmakers doesn't have to prove anything....

[AlgyTaylor]

Carebian Knight - You're right, we didn't evolve from apes at all. We share a distant ancestor with apes.

[Snorri1234]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that there's no way we could've evolved from apes either.

Why not?=)

[Carebian Knight]

The first part of the "human evolution chain" lucy, have you seen a picture of that skeleton, like half of it is missing, how can you prove anything from half a skeleton. Maybe it was a human with some monkey like characteristics, we've all seen them.

[Carebian Knight]

I mean come on.

[AlgyTaylor]

You mean these?



Sahelanthropus tchadensis?

Looka fairly monkey-esque to me, but there's plenty of evidence to show that we're descended from them.

[Carebian Knight]

That is a drawing, the dimensions of the head were guessed(approximated). That is not proof. Show me serious proof.

[Snorri1234]

The first part of the "human evolution chain" lucy, have you seen a picture of that skeleton, like half of it is missing, how can you prove anything from half a skeleton. Maybe it was a human with some monkey like characteristics, we've all seen them.

Ofcourse half of it's is missing! It would be awesome if we discovered a complete and intact skeleton, but sadly the earth is against us. This is why we use scientific methods and analysis of the bonestructure and stuff like that to see what it looked like and if it might be humanlike enough...


Besides, we don't think it is actually part of the human evolution chain anymore.