Evolution vs Creationism

Remove all ads!

This is wrong. Microevolution doesn't involve the input of new information through mutation, it is only the redistribution of genotype commonality. What was a rare oddity becomes common and what was common becomes a rare oddity, but the overall variety of the genetic profile of the species rarely changes, and if it does at all, it is reduced.

The problem here is less one of ecological patterns and more one of rate and effects of mutation. As I understand it, the actual rates of mutation are dependant on mutation-causing effects, such as toxins and radiation. Survival of the fit then filters random and often dangerous mutations so that only the productive ones survive. Regardless, the odds of producing a helpful mutation shouldn't be radically changed by ecological stresses on the species. Yes, certain situations will increase the range of mutations that are 'fit', but we're still talking a tiny fraction of a percentage of all mutations. This isn't nearly drastic enough of a change to explain what we see. Further more, if we don't even have enough of a fossil record to know if this is mutation or migration, how can you possibly call evolution a 'fact'? Lastly, unless a reasonable mechanism for the change in rate and/or result of mutation can be provided, or the claim of mutation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I put little credence in the theory. I believe gravity because there's no question of it, even though there's no real explanation of 'why' or 'what mechanism does it'. I believe nuclear fission because we have a working model of the process, even if I can't see it. This meets neither of those.

Ok, a theory is a testable, falsifiable idea. A hypothesis is just an idea that hasn't been put into testable, falsifiable form yet. There no more certain category than a theory, but many theories are far, far from certain or really understood. As long as the results can be tested and disproven, it's a theory. On top of that, I think you're deluding yourself as to how much speculation and educated guesswork goes into modern evolutionary biology. Just look at how many competing theories and models there are. Every competing theory or model must be based on some level or guesswork and speculation or another.

You're right that our understanding is increasing, but just like science in general, the more we learn the more questions there are to ask. The more we learn about the actual historical process of what made us what we are today, the more uncertainties pop up in how we thought things worked. Also, you'r right that life is a complex series of chemical reactions, or at least, on a chemical level it is. That's about like saying the Mona Lisa is a collection of chromatoreflective layers. That doesn't mean that's all there is to it, though. There's far more, depending on what level you view it on.


Coin, unfortunately, in modern science, 'theory' refers to both highly sure and highly unsure ideas. The form of the idea is what makes it a theory, not the certainty. This causes a lot of confusion, yes. Your wiki quote, however, is completely wrong. The theories that are so heavily accepted as to be almost unquestionable are called 'Laws', though this is not a very official term, and strictly speaking, these 'Laws' are still theories. To exemplify, look at the contrast between the Theory of General Relativity and the Higg's Field Theory. Relativity is generally accepted as pretty much true by most scientists (with various expansions on the details, etc.), while Higg's Field Theory is almost laughed at by a lot of particle physicists. That may be drastically changing soon, as we're finally in the position to really test it. Furthermore, even these 'Laws' are not absolute, as was shown in Einstein's radical modification of the 'Law of Gravity'. Newton's work was so accepted that it was called a law, yet it was still subject to vast revisions as the evidence came about.


Taza, you are exactly right, though I think quantum physics takes the cake on building theories on theories. It's to the point that many scientists don't even consider M-Theory a real, scientific theory.

Nataraja, actually, that really depends on your idea of chaos. If you're talking entropy, there was very little created by the Big Bang, but if you're talking organizational levels, there were essentially none. At first, it was all energy, then some of the energy began to condense into matter, in the form of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and neutrons could bond strongly, but for quite a while (relatively speaking), every time an electron got into an orbit, it was knocked back out by a stray photon. As the universe began to cool (through expansion), this stopped happening and atoms could form. Then gravity did it's thing and here we are. How's that for a brief history of the universe?

Oh, and the moment you start calling you're evidence 'insurmountable', you abandon science altogether.

 

The 'laws' of nature are basically the 'theories' of nature, dubbed laws, but there is no procedure in the scientific method to elevate them. This is an arbitrary name, more linguistic than scientific. Evolution would have been named a law long ago, were it not for the religious objections. Scientists have their hands tied when sponsors are christian, this is an especially big problem in the States. Let me just quote something which answers this perfectly:

So, it's the LAW of evolution.

 

Why is the Christian getting the science down best in this thread?

Now, the data - hardly - microevolution is macroevolution over long timespans, and additional generation of mutation can be caused by radiation and random chance easy enough - and outbreeding the ones with less beneficial mutations is effortless when there's plenty of resources to go about.

So he's wrong in the scientific way while the defenders of evolution are right in the dogmatic way. This, this is what's wrong with science on the other side of the pond. And to some extent, here too.

 

Taza, as I have always heard it, mircoevolution, as I said, doesn't involve mutation. There is no expansion of the genes available to the species. Every change that occurs in microevolution is already there. This is evident in bacterial resistances, because the antibiotic kills everything that isn't resistant to it, but survivors were already resistant to it before it ever came around. Antibiotic resistance develops when there are enough survivors, either because of straight resistance or because of a combination of resistance and unresistant bacteria being unexposed (not a full coarse of treatment), and the environment the resistant bacteria are left in is appropriate to spread. In a regular full coarse of treatment, the few resistant bacteria can be finished off by the immune system. The antibiotic was never meant to kill them, only to leave them vulnerable. In an unfinished coarse, though, a large enough colony of survivors can remain to fight off the immune system. Anyway, the point is that the code for resistance to the antibiotic was already there, it just wasn't beneficial and so it was rare. Environmental pressures suddenly made it very beneficial and so it suddenly becomes the norm instead of a rarity. This is microevolution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In macroevolution, mutation actually changes the genetic code, creating new strands of DNA that never existed before. Environmental pressures then weed out any disadvantagious strands and leave the advantagious strands to reproduce. Thus new advantagious DNA is added to the species, DNA that wasn't there before. When the difference between what was and what is is big enough, we call it a new species. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for radiation and the like explaining bursts in evolution, if it happened once or twice in the known fossil record, I'd be fine with that, but when it's recognized as the standard mechanism of evolution, and it doesn't match the paterns of an astrological event (the entire world experiencing this at once), one has to wonder. The only other explanation I could understand is a localized toxin/radiation source appearing, but there's no evidence (that I know of) of periodic and localized eruptions of mutagenic toxins or radiation. Landslides and erosion could expose uranium and the like and explain it, but only in the mountains where you would find uranium. That doesn't explain bursts of evolution in the ocean or the plains. Also, while it wouldn't be seen in the entire world, something like that would be seen throughout the environment in question, and to the best of my knowledge it isn't. One species sees a burst while the rest of the species in the environment don't. Any mechanism that brought about such mutation would have to target a single species, or small clusters of species, and leave everything else alone. There's evidence that viruses can play a role in the mutation of a species, exchanging small bits of DNA from one source to another, but again that would be a continuous effect, not sporadic. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Seriously, please fill me in if you know better. The reason, as you put it, that 'the Christian [is] getting the science down best in this thread' is because I always want to learn, I always want to understand systems. Yes, I'm a Christian, but that doesn't go agianst science and science doesn't go against that. In fact, I believe that, much like studying an artist by studying his works and his brush strokes, one can learn a great deal about God by studying His creation and the processes He used to create it and uses today to govern it.

 

I'm coming in late to this party, but I'll put in my two cents anyhow. I've heard proponents of evolutionary theory basically say things like "we've got this set of facts and these test results, and the bottom line is that they disprove God"

I don't see these people as being overly credible as scientists. Aldeth said it best when he had this comment:

A lot of devout, practicing Christians are very successful and intelligent scientists as well. They may reject the athiestic conclusions that some people reach with their scientific data, but that doesn't make then stupid or unable to comprehend the science or the scientific process.

Someone else said that Creationism (or was it Intelligent Design?) was an attempt to shoehorn religion into the classroom. I agree. I believe that it is possible for rationale, fair minded people to have a science class that teaches Evolutionary science to the students, working with facts, expriments, and the other elements of the scientific process, and then to have a religion class that teaches religious matters, working with faith, spirituality, and belief. I am not happy with the efforts of some in the US and elsewehere to try to confuse the issue by soft peddling a matter of faith as science. But if the religionists stay out of the science classroom, then the science teachers shouldn't go around saying things like "this evidence proves that your silly Bible is a pack of lies!" Both sides should stick within their own bailiwick.

 

Now I find *this* a bit offensive. We were giving information about the procedures in the scientific method, and correcting linguistic mix-ups about terms like 'fact', 'theory' and 'law'. And now all of a sudden we're dogmatic? Gimme a break.
The subject was headed to the point where it was claimed that the scientific community was skeptic about the theory of evolution, because it was 'just a theory' and 'not a law'. It became necessary to define the meaning of these words, to explain these common misconceptions. You took our words completely out of context, and labeled them as dogmatic. If I read from the dictionary, am I oppressing free thought? Sure, the scientific method can be seen as a doctrine, but how else would you propose we conduct our research? Calling it dogmatic is a bit of an exaggeration.

 

Evolution by no means disproves the existence of any gods, the same as no scientific theory or law disproves the existence of any gods. All science shows is that if there are gods then they are not doing what we have been saying they have been doing, there are natural explanations for how and why things are the way we observe them. Im not an atheist, I dont think I could ever be one, but I am definitely not a theist, I am a panentheist. I do however understand why most scientists are atheists, because the gods that do exist do not appear to exist outside of our minds.

As for insurmountable evidence for evolution...it is no different from the insurmountable evidence for the theory of the solar system, or the atomic theory, or the theory of gravity, or any other theory of science that is extremely unlikely to be false.

This is something I would consider insurmountable evidence...

 

First, the thread also references Creationism. That's where that point is relevent. Read the bleeping title. Secondly, the process of the condensing of the energy is the first "day" or two in the Creation account, or the formation of the Heavens and the Earth, the stars and the like. Evolution doesn't come in until the 4th and 5th "days" where plants and animals come into play. I'm not commenting on the 6th "day" as Humans were created in God's image.

First, It was part of the divine plan that we come to Earth, live and die. As a result, our bodies are not perfect. But they are in the image of God, so if the design of the knee and placement of facial nerves worked for Him, it should also work for us.

I never said any of the things you accuse me of saying, and I am NOT denying evolution. Learn to read and you too could see that I was talking about two different things in my post. Both fall under the title of the thread...

I've heard that that's been noticed in selectively bred race horses. At one point this year, there was a high profile horse that buggered up a leg at a high profile race and had to be put down. They looked at the lineage, and one famous horse was found on its pedigree on 5 lines. They suggested that that was the reason for an increase in horses having leg problems at these races...

And for the Layman, it becomes more difficult to look at the science of it when the people trying to show it to us try to shove their aetheistic conclusions in our face. WE first have to clear away the parts that we reject to get to what they try to say...

And that's where your idea falls apart. There are too many people with too many axes to grind on the issue...

I'll go one step further and ask the Scientist to admit that Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, and have the Religious teachers suggest that Science is showing us how God created the universe. While they should each stick to their own element, they don't have to contradict one another.

 

Hey guys, don't forget one important point:

This is an internet forum of a bunch of dumb-ass internet junkies who like playing a few computer games. It's not frequented by genetic biologists or angels. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of us are sufficiently expert to make definitive statements about any of this stuff. This thread is just full of guesses and conclusions based on other stuff you're read and heard from other people (who are possibly just as ill-informed). The seriousness with which you are making supposedly factual declarations in this thread is hilarious.

Having said that, evolution makes perfect sense to me and I don't understand how anyone can think that 5 billion humans are descended from one man and one woman.

 

Now, I'm sure I specified that this was a nice discussion with no insults... we were doing so well, please don't spoil it now.

You have obviously never been to some of the small villages in the North of England!

 

Well actually HB, the bible doesn't say that God ONLY made 1 man & 1 woman

It's described variously in the different versions but they all boil down to the fact that he was sent to the neighboring land & took a wife. Now where did she come from if God had not been making more people?(maybe she was an elf?)

 

You remind me of the guy on a Christian forum saying that entropy is false because we'd have to have a massive source of energy for life to exist on earth.

Anyway, sources of radiation. Cosmic background radiation. Always there.

And then the source of radiation closest to home - that little ball of iron we call earth. Which produces massive amounts of energy with radiation - causing, among other things, the liquid core.

And more importantly, it isn't as much bursts. It's a constant effect causing small mutations - some die off, most don't. Once there's an event causing a lot of the species to die off, the ones surviving are more likely ones with beneficial mutations and some beneficial mutations cause some of the survivors to outbreed others.

Simple, really.

 

Also taza who knows how much extra cosmic radiation bombards the earth when the magnetic poles flip(IIRC, the last time was supposed to be about 300,ooo years ago).
Maybe these periodic intervals of higher radiation are some of the evolutionary causes.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7811875.stm

This shows that Darwin may have things slightly wrong...plus it's about pink iguanas!

 

Yeah, no...it doesnt prove that Darwin may have had things slightly wrong. All it shows is that more study is required.

 

Yeah, no? You'll have the grammer nazis on to you!

 

Its pretty standard in NZ English from what I gather, I blame the locals for teaching me to speak bad englands.

 

Science is an on-going process. what one person starts others continue. What was believed yesterday may have been proved wrong or slightly incorrect today. What is believed today may be proved wrong or slightly incorrect tomorrow. That is the advantage of science over religion. Science is never absolute.

When I was teaching the middle level, 5th through 8th grade level, I think the best thing I did was to teach the students to question authority. Don't believe something simply because it is written in a book or stated by some one called an expert or authority. Check everything and then double check your checking.

 

Nakia, I wish more people thought like you, but, here in America at least, science is being treated more and more like a religion by the non-scientific.

 

That's an interesting comment, NOG -- could you elaborate on it a little bit?