Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

What do you believe? (private)

  • Biblical Creationism (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Christian Evolution (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non Christian Creation (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non Christian Evolution (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non Christian Science (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Christian Science (please explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • inexplicable (creation cannot be explained through current science or religion))

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other. Please explain in your post! :)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
How so? A strawman is a misrepresentation of someones argument in order to make it easier to defeat. Stating that man evolved from chimpanzees might be used as a straw man, but not my statement that no scientists are saying so. The only people who claim that man evolved from chimps are creationists (rather, they are claiming that evolutionists say that) ... not scientists arguing for evolution. Scientists claim that chimpanzees and man came from a common ancestor some 10 million or so years ago.



45276_137192139765851_1112755848_n.jpg


This is what I was calling a straw man argument
sorry for any confusion
 
That is a problem that I've run into. Creationists that I talk to either have no idea what evolution is, or they're just trying to use this strawman argument to make evolution look crazy. But many of them will say that with evolution you can start with a duck and get a crocodile or something to that effect. Ymmv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjThfkdAOoQ
Makes a person wonder why blatant dishonesty like this exists. oh http://www.onesmallspeck.com/ONE_SMALL_SPECK_HOME_.html never mind they are selling 30$ dvds
Notice the lack of enabled comments or ratings
 
It's all about favorable traits that lead to better survivability. It's about outcompetiting for resources.
I was totally blown away by the amount of people who believe in creationism. Maybe you guys are all just a little bit older generation. All my relatives that live near me(several dozen) are devout born agains and when I have sleep overs with my cousins, they even pray before going to sleep. But the general census I take is that they believe in evolution, there's just SOOOOOOOOOOOO much evidence. If you guys would take a course on evolution, maybe you would be swayed. Not saying you aren't educated, just not educated on genetics.

Statistically, there are more people believe in ghosts than accept evolution. Notice how I didn't say "believe in," evolution. It's really not a matter of belief when dealing with scientific topics. With evolution, you can either reject it based on evidence, or not; not being able to reject does not necessarily mean accept. In fact, most people do not have and do not want to even develop a basic understanding of what evolution is so they will never have to make an educated decision of reject or not. People who feel very strongly towards creationism, have made up their mind, no amount of arguing or evidence will ever change that. They will always find some way to justify their beliefs no matter what. Arguing is pointless, you will never change their opinions no matter what facts you can show or how well you document them. At some point you will just walk away and leave them to believe whatever they want.

Creationism is not science, it's done up to look like it, but all scientific topics have one basic component, they can be proven wrong. The Theory of Evolution absolutely can be proven wrong, it probably won't be, but evidence can be tested repeatedly and every test performed is a test against evolution. It is reasoned that since it has been repeatedly tested against and repeatedly the tests do not prove it wrong, we accept it as correct, until evidence can be found to dispute it. Creationism is fake science, there are no tests of the hypothesis and it can never be proven wrong. It is based on god, there is no scientific test for god, and you cannot disprove god, god is not scientific, it is purely a matter of faith. This one is reasoned out as, since it cannot be tested and therefore cannot be proven wrong, then it must be right.
Don't believe me, I challenge you, find me paper, published in a scientific journal, that actually tests an idea of creationists, with materials and methods and repeatable results, and does not just search for bit of confirming evidence found by poking holes in the Theory of Evolution.
 
1. We can tell a lot about a creature from its skeleton. Size, approximate weight, how it moved, what it ate (generally speaking), etc. And some fossils include impressions of exterior features, feathers, scales, skin texture, etc. Depends on the type of fossil. Do we know everying about it? No, of course not, nor is anyone saying 100% this is what something looked like - but we can make some very good deductions from skeletal remains.
I agree, Tell me if any of the supposed human ancestors were found with skin and facial structure, and i call this evidence-based information. Someone "drawings" Just prove HIS IMAGINATION.
2. Homology doesn't prove ancestry, but in combination with other evidences can be taken as supporting evidence.

Apes: I'm rolling with scientific consensus on this one. Sorry. And peer reviewed journals are preferred in citations. It may prove to be wrong... I expect someone who can prove it is, will get a nobel. But in the meantime, the vast majority of evidence points clearly to our common ancestry with the other apes. We can argue about which hominid belongs where in that ancestry, and which ones were evolutionary dead ends, but the principle remains unchallenged - only the specific path we took is in question, not that the path exists.
I am keen to know the evidnce of this "scientific consensus".

The phylogenetic tree has been supported, and where it did not mesh with the earlier fossil based tree, that one has been re-categorized and reassessed in light of new evidence (who knew that whales were more closely related to cows ... pretty cool). That self correction is what makes science great. New information = re-assessing our understanding. The links you provide do not refute evolution, they refute that there is a simple tree we can follow. There may be complicated networks of interrelated evolutionary chains (per your Biology Direct link), but the principles of evolution itself are not in question. (see page 11, the conclusion)
Give the articles above to unbiased reliable Molecular biologist, and he will explain the problems, and please do not use equivocation again. The papers surely explain there is serious problem with the "neo-darwinism=universal common ancestor" concept.

Again, I'm not basing this simply on how things look. There is more evidence than our physical appearance (and in the case of the apes, our genetic code) that makes use group man as an ape.
Actually, the main problem against supposed universal common ancestry is genetic. You need to produce "net gain in genetic information" to have a non-existing creature, for which there is no scientific mechanism yet.
Please Do not tell me that mutation can because it act on already present genome as i explained in my blog (http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/02/mutations-mechanism-of-evolution.html)
To avoid equivocation again: I have no problems with "change in allele frequency=scientic evolution)
As for your last picture - it rather misses the point of population sizes 5-10 million years ago, as well as the rarity of fossilization in general. But the fossil record is more complete that it lets on, and when supported with other data and evidence, becomes very hard to simply dismiss.
Again i am waiting for the other evidence.
I don't expect to find millions of the imaginary "common ancestor", I merely ask if we may expect to find his imaginary "progeny".
We are constantly learning more, and reassessing what we know. When you show me a way to test for creation, and explain how it accounts for the mountains of evidence we have that points towards evolution ... we can do that too.

Side note: The straw man argument is to assume that i said that human have chimpanzee ancestor, actually my question was above the photo, if anyone didn't notice !
 
Wow, all the mountains of info can be quite overwhelming. How much do we know? If knowledge were all the grains of sand on the earth do we even have 1 bucket full yet?

Micro-Evolution is completely understandable but unless someone can tell me otherwise where has there ever been a species to develop into another or pass on additional genetic information?
 
I agree, Tell me if any of the supposed human ancestors were found with skin and facial structure, and i call this evidence-based information. Someone "drawings" Just prove HIS IMAGINATION.

Nobody bases anything off of artists renderings.


I am keen to know the evidnce of this "scientific consensus".

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


Give the articles above to unbiased reliable Molecular biologist, and he will explain the problems, and please do not use equivocation again. The papers surely explain there is serious problem with the "neo-darwinism=universal common ancestor" concept.

Fair enough. They will happily explain why it is much more complicated than a single common ancestor, and will be better described as a web/network of interrelated co-evolutionary chains. Serious problems with the model of the TOL/Universal common ancestor, however, do not mean serious problems with evolution on the whole. If anyone is equivocating, it is you.

Actually, the main problem against supposed universal common ancestry is genetic. You need to produce "net gain in genetic information" to have a non-existing creature, for which there is no scientific mechanism yet.
Please Do not tell me that mutation can because it act on already present genome as i explained in my blog (http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/02/mutations-mechanism-of-evolution.html)
To avoid equivocation again: I have no problems with "change in allele frequency=scientic evolution)

I'll be honest. I don't understand what you are getting at here, and many of the assertions made in your blog are untestable, or irrelevant. Mutations are mostly harmful - yes. No argument. But some are not, those that offer an advantage are passed on. Those that are harmful, are not. The term net gain is not useful because it implies that positive mutations are negated by the weight of more negative mutations. This is not the case. A negative mutation is not passed on (simply ceases to be evolutionarily), the positive ones are preserved. So the arithmetic weight of negative mutations is zero. Only positive ones are preserved.

You state in your blog as an objection: "Yet mutations can never cause a living thing to acquire a new organ or attribute." This is patently and demonstrably not true. The Italian Wall Lizard experiment shows clearly in only 30 years, they have evolved a new digestive mechanism to totally change their diet from meat based, to plant based. I'm certain their are others, but I'm not a biologist.

I would be curious to know what Simpson would do with modern genetic data (He's also a paleontologist, not a geneticist - so I don't know what data he was using for his calculations regarding mutations.) I don't know when he made the calculation you cite, but he died in 1984, and we have learned quite a lot about genomes since then.
 
Is there evidence of new genetics or is it just fast track micro?

I'm afraid I do not understand your question.

If evolution from simple to complex organisms is what you are getting at have a look at the evolution of the eye. It has been studied in depth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

More interesting stuff
http://archive.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/allabout_7.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_biological_complexity
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html
 
I'm afraid I do not understand your question.

If evolution from simple to complex organisms is what you are getting at have a look at the evolution of the eye. It has been studied in depth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

More interesting stuff
http://archive.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/allabout_7.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_biological_complexity
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file021.html

I understand longer beaks, longer legs, more fur, etc.. I am not a scientist and am just wondering if a species has ever passed on a "different" gene thus becoming a different species?
 
Wow, all the mountains of info can be quite overwhelming. How much do we know? If knowledge were all the grains of sand on the earth do we even have 1 bucket full yet?

Micro-Evolution is completely understandable but unless someone can tell me otherwise where has there ever been a species to develop into another or pass on additional genetic information?

The only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is the amount of time involved. That's it. There's really no distinction between the two; what some call "macro-evolution" is just long term, collective "micro-evolution". A lot of small changes occurring over a long period of time may not look different to you while it's happening, but in the end, they all add up to a big change.

Take a bank account- let's say you add in a dollar every day. If you look at your bank account every day, you won't see that big of a difference. However, if you look at the amount you had in there on the first day and then take a look at it several decades later, there will be a noticeable difference. All those little changes added up to a big one. The thing about evolution is that people often don't take into consideration the incredible amount of time involved: millions upon millions of years.

I saw this floating around a little while ago, and I think it fits quite aptly:

VHwdRq6.png


I understand longer beaks, longer legs, more fur, etc.. I am not a scientist and am just wondering if a species has ever passed on a "different" gene thus becoming a different species?

A "different" gene? Like a mutation?

Mutations are often responsible for radical changes. If you're asking whether a species will all of a sudden change into a different species (e.g., a dolphin to an elephant), then perhaps- but only after millions upon millions of years. For example, the mammals in the sea (whales, dolphins, etc.) were once land dwellers, hence their being mammals. However, the dolphin won't really be an elephant- just a dolphin whose features have evolved over many, many, many generations to look like what we in present day call an elephant.
 
The only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is the amount of time involved. That's it. There's really no distinction between the two; what some call "macro-evolution" is just long term, collective "micro-evolution". A lot of small changes occurring over a long period of time may not look different to you while it's happening, but in the end, they all add up to a big change.

Take a bank account- let's say you add in a dollar every day. If you look at your bank account every day, you won't see that big of a difference. However, if you look at the amount you had in there on the first day and then take a look at it several decades later, there will be a noticeable difference. All those little changes added up to a big one. The thing about evolution is that people often don't take into consideration the incredible amount of time involved: millions upon millions of years.

I saw this floating around a little while ago, and I think it fits quite aptly:

VHwdRq6.png

Nah, bad analogy. Just more of the same thing! $1 or a $1,0000,000,000. Now if my dollar bill morphs into gold bars then we have something!
 
Nah, bad analogy. Just more of the same thing! $1 or a $1,0000,000,000. Now if my dollar bill morphs into gold bars then we have something!

I see what you're saying. I actually was just editing my post to reflect that, I'll quote it here:

If you're asking whether a species will all of a sudden change into a different species (e.g., a dolphin to an elephant), then perhaps- but only after millions upon millions of years. For example, the mammals in the sea (whales, dolphins, etc.) were once land dwellers, hence their being mammals. However, the dolphin won't really be an elephant- just a dolphin whose features have evolved over many, many, many generations to look like what we in present day call an elephant.

Evolution isn't straightforward, like adding in a dollar every day- that's obviously a very simplistic example just to demonstrate the principle of aggregate change. But if something develops a larger beak, as you say, though "micro-evolution", why could it not develop other features? On a long enough time line, all those changes could become more pronounced and varied.
 
As a raised Christian and now card carring atheist I have strong thoughts about religion. The more I read the bible, and I do, the less I believe. Understanding Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman history only solidifies my beliefs. That's all ill say. I'm for evolution.

Same here
 
I understand longer beaks, longer legs, more fur, etc.. I am not a scientist and am just wondering if a species has ever passed on a "different" gene thus becoming a different species?
That is what the study of phylogenetics is all about. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg
As populations over time accumulate changes they can no longer create viable offspring with others of the same lineage. They are by definition a different species and fork off onto their own branch of the evolutionary tree. Two populations with a common ancestor can look completely different and be incompatible to breed. Example the Hippo and the Whale have a common ancestor.

Edit: added the evolution of horses
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
 
RetiredGuns - I think your expectation is a bit off. But as for "more of the same thing..."

If you start with a leg with toes, and gradually shorten it. It's still the same thing (more of).
Now the webbing between the toes thickens a little. Still more of the same thing.
This continues, shortening of the limbs, and thickening of the webbing. More of the same thing.
But now, you have gone from a 4 limbed land mammal, to a whale.
The whale is clearly, by all indications a different species from the land mammal that was its ancestor. But it's all just more of the same thing.

whale_evo.jpg

Note - per the source, none of these as far as we know, is a direct ancestor of the others, but they do show the path evolution took in the origin of the modern whale. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
 
Last edited:
The biggest problem that I am having is that empirical evidence discounts the literal bible story. And the more i read about Genesis 1 and 2 the more I believe that they are in fact two different stories explaining different possible events. My pastor, my (Bible college educated) Bible study partner and my brother all believe that Gen 2 is a recounting of the creation of humans, but if you actually read it (and take it literally) Gen 1 and Gen 2 completely oppose each other. Even the order of creation is opposite. In Gen 1 man is created last as a sort of crowning achievement of God, and in Gen 2 man is created first to name and rule over all animals.


I highly recommend reading Joseph Campbell's "Occidental Mythology" if you haven't already. It has wealth of research regarding the evolution of Middle eastern and Western religious traditions, including some devoted to Genesis 1 and 2.

For the record, I am firmly in the non-Christian evolution camp - although natural selection doesn't cover all evolution questions, it does explain a great deal of them. Natural genetic engineering poses some very interesting ideas as well that fill in many of the small blanks left by straightforward natural selection.

Creationism as I understand it isn't science and therefore cannot be tested with scientific method...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top