Many people believe that creationism is merely a belief/a dogma, and that people
who believe do so due to pure faith. I would like to challenge that thought,
There is plenty of scientific evidence so far that points to God.
So the debate question here would be:
Does scientific evidence so far favor creationism or evolution?
As this is a scientific debate, please attempt to avoid personal/subjective
comments like: "Believing in God is stupid" or "atheists only
reject God because they are afraid of judgment" Please avoid personal
beliefs such as, I believe in evolution/creationism because of the vast evidence
supporting it without actually stating any evidence. ie scientific
debate
To make it a fair debate, please only state ONE piece of evidence for evolution
or creationism only at one time/post ie I don't want to read a very long thread
stating 15 evidences for evolution or creationism, because its just too time
consuming to refute and to read and I do not wish to attempt to refute an entire
textbook nor do I have the time to bother. Also, you can only refute/diss
evidence that has been presented in this thread, ie you can't go to a website is
rephrase all the evidence against evolution or creationism, because information
changes and some of the evidence may be outdated and is not used anymore. Also,
try to keep each post as short as possible, I will try to do that also
Also Logic IS allowed as it is part of science
I will start off with the first piece of evidence that favors
creationism
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double helix. Duplicate copies of this long
tape of coded information are coiled up in each of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one
hundred trillion) cells in your body. You have 46 segments of DNA in almost all
of your cells. You received 23 segments from your mother and 23 from your
father. DNA contains the unique information that determines what you look like,
much of your personality, and how every cell in your body is to function
throughout your life.
If the DNA (46 segments) in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected, and
stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its details
could not be seen, even under an electron microscope. If all this very densely
coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would
fill a library of about 4,000 books.
Relevance- We are far too complex to have just evolved by chance and natural
selection. Our genetics contain a huge amount of information, too great for us
to have evolved just by chance. Evolutionist basically propose that from an
inorganic source (no coded information at all) that all this huge amount of
coded information just appeared by chance like 4000 books were written by
itself
Added later- after 84 posts
Just had to add this, for new people who can't be bothered to read 84 posts
which is understandable, irreducibily complex is NOT the only argument for
intelligent design. There is a whole book written about arguments for
creationism/intelligent design
for more info, www.creationscience.com
there is even more books written for evolution
for more info www.talkorigin.org
this though amazing but how do you doubt the fact that it is also science? The
universe being so big, like isn't there a chance on why these things just
happen? Naturally, if you compare to the fact that planets are actually born
from rocks/dust/heat or whatever, it is the same thing, they do appear just as
science said it is "chance". True, no book can write itself.
But how do you explain the equal complexity of human science that we have not
yet even begin to understand, when you mentioned that these chains of DNA are
made by an entity that designed the complexity, you left out all the other
aspects of other beings/ things...such as the planets and the stars, those are
relatively simple, forms of clouded dusts, happenings of chances, gravity, heat,
they all form the perfect concoction again by chance, which formed planets and
stars.
Relevance - Just imagine if everything is as simply said that there is a God
that created all of such, where does science stands and the thing is that the
universe being so big, we cannot even explain the overall of our little planet
and then we are expecting to explain the universe?
Then of course, the only thing now would mean that we shall refer to the word
and entity God. Because we do not have yet the evidence of all to prove or
disprove Him.
I don't think evolutionists are wrong, it can be pure chance that under the
right conditions and circumstances, concoctions of needs and basis, mixed with
the right surroundings, right time in the right place, and thus, here we are, so
called God's "complex creatures" when we are simply just another
chance of a happening.
I hope i am not out of line, I am just stating my view, I am Agnostic, there is
nothing that i believe in especially, but i keep my mind open.
as I said, I will only state one evidence at a time for fairness and a chance
for people to refute the argument, there is a chance for it to happen, but the
chance is incredibly small, like winning 5 lottos in a row which according to
science should not be used as evidence or is usually said to be incorrect
(inverse square law, data rejected). the point here is to state does evidence so
far in science favor creationism (we existed in complex state at the beginning,
all the planets are about the same age, all things are relatively new) or
evolution,(we are relatively old universe) I respect your view of being
agnostic, but you need to state some evidence to say why you believe your
agnostic. Pure belief is not science. I will wait for some evidence on the
evolutionist side before I state more evidence
I'm pro evolution, but there is room for well, not creationism, but intelligent
design to fit in scientifically.
Where creationism fits in? I believe that evolution is just God's instrument in
creating life. Where that fails, (on the microscopic level) is where intelligent
design sneaks in. But a majority of it is evolution.
Quote by mountainDNA (deoxyribonucleic
acid) is a double helix. Duplicate copies of this long tape of coded information
are coiled up in each of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) cells in
your body. You have 46 segments of DNA in almost all of your cells. You received
23 segments from your mother and 23 from your father. DNA contains the unique
information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and
how every cell in your body is to function throughout your life.
If the DNA (46 segments) in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected, and
stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its details
could not be seen, even under an electron microscope. If all this very densely
coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would
fill a library of about 4,000 books.
Relevance- We are far too complex to have just evolved by chance and natural
selection. Our genetics contain a huge amount of information, too great for us
to have evolved just by chance. Evolutionist basically propose that from an
inorganic source (no coded information at all) that all this huge amount of
coded information just appeared by chance like 4000 books were written by
itself
97% of our DNA is non-coding DNA, also called "junk
DNA". It is called this because it has no proven function. It's as if 3900
of the 4000 books were filled with nonsense. It shows that evolution promotes
what works, whether it is perfect or not.
Second, there is no known factor that could limit the amount of information or
the complexity that can be gained through the process of evolution.
Third, natural selection does nothing by chance. Mutations that provide an
advantage are promoted; mutations that are harmful are dropped.
first, it a misconception to label the DNA as "junk" just because we
do not know what it does yet. Gradually, we are finding uses for the so-called
DNA.
secondly, junk DNA proves creation, not evolution which is also another
misconception
On a theoretical note, it is often observed that the presence of high
proportions of truly nonfunctional "junk" DNA would seem to defy
evolutionary logic. Replication of such a large amount of useless information
each time a cell divides would waste energy. Organisms with less nonfunctional
DNA would thus enjoy a selective advantage, and over an evolutionary time scale,
nonfunctional DNA would tend to be eliminated. If one assumes that most junk DNA
is indeed nonfunctional, then there are several hypotheses for why it has not
been eliminated by evolution: (1) the energy required to replicate even large
amounts of nonfunctional DNA is in fact relatively insignificant on the cellular
or organismal scale, so no selective pressure results; (2) the aforementioned
possible advantage of having extra DNA as a reservoir of potentially useful
sequences; and (3) retroviral or transposon insertions of nonfunctional sequence
occurring faster than evolution can eliminate it. These are all hypotheses for
which the time scales involved in evolution may make it difficult for humans to
rigorously investigate.
taken straight from wikipedia, a more neutral source of information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA
and, there no known factor limiting complexity because there is no cases that
shows organisms can gain complexity. none of this has been empirically tested,
it is all thoery based
evidence:
It is notable that overall genome size, and by extension the amount of junk DNA,
appears to have little relationship to organism complexity: the genome of the
unicellular Amoeba dubia has been reported to contain more than 200 times the
amount of DNA in humans. The Fugu rubripes pufferfish genome is only about one
tenth the size of the human, yet seems to have a comparable number of genes.
Most of the variance appears to lie in what is now known only as junk DNA. This
puzzle is known as the "C-value enigma" (7).
relevance, we usually say that we came from the amoeba, how on earth can the
amoeba have more DNA coding than us, wouldn't it imply that humans evolved into
amoeba? According to evolution, amoeba should have very little DNA as it is one
of the first "life", its complexity shows that we did not occur by
chance. or how else would you explain the DNA coding fo amoeba? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA
Dude, you need to go back and study scientific method more thoroughly, because
you clearly have no idea what 'evidence' actually is. Observing that there are
questions which are non-trivial to answer is not evidence for any
hypothesis.
Not to mention that your hypothesis doesn't even answer the problem, it just
changes it from "spontaneous occurence of complex lifeforms" to
"spontaneous occurence of even more complex intelligence which can design
said lifeforms".
Evolution is a theory. Creationism is merely a hypothesis, and a rather
pointless one at that. The two are on completely different levels
scientifically. Come back when you've found a way in which creationism correctly
predicts facts about the real world not used in its formulation, or a repeatable
experiment.
I will just mention this. "What you believe determines how you analyze
facts". What I mean is if you believe one things, then you will find
evidence for those beliefs. If you are not first will to listen to what the
other side has to say, then how do you know you have made the right
choice?
Quote:
Dude, you need to go back and study scientific method more thoroughly, because
you clearly have no idea what 'evidence' actually is.
get a life man, what do you think scientific evidence is,
what I have stated is purely scientific evidence.
Quote:
Evolution is a theory. Creationism is merely a hypothesis, and a rather
pointless one at that
I'm taking this from someone who doesn't state any evidence in favor of
evolution. This is total ignorance, are you saying the things I've stated so far
is not scientific?
Quote:
I will just mention this. "What you believe determines how you analyze
facts". What I mean is if you believe one things, then you will find
evidence for those beliefs
are you talking about evolutionists or creationists. The evidence I have used so
far are not from creationists, in fact, the irony is, they are actually from
evolutionist. I've just interpreted it in another way. And I am willing to
listen to what the other side is saying, this is why this thread has been made,
but you guys have to start talking first- scientifically, not
religiously
as I said, this is a scientific debate, not a "I believe" opinion.
back up you beliefs with facts not faith. At this rate, I starting to think all
atheists are merely religious zealots. They put their trust in scientist as much
as zealots who put their trust in God.
I will continue to wait for evidence supporting evolution
I think gundamknight meant that you are finding evidence for creationism in the
science because you're looking for it. Although it probably goes both
ways.
Technically, evolution does not work toward complexity or perfection or more
DNA, just what works. For example the brains of certain dinosaurs actually
became smaller so their necks could become larger. I don't see why more DNA
would imply more complexity; sometimes simple works better. It also makes sense
that the evolutionary process would produce life that required less DNA to
function than its predecessors did. Doesn't really seem to point to intelligent
design anyway. Unless the amoebas were the life Yahweh created in his own image.
Giant amoeba god Yahweh sounds pretty cool actually.
This seems interesting. I think I will join into the debate too.
I don't see how the idea of junk DNA can support the idea of intelligent design
at all. In fact, I think it actually support the idea of evolution. People are
amazed how similar the sequences of junk DNA from different organisms are. In
fact, it's possible to create a phylogenetic tree base on the genome sequence of
all known organism. It shows how similar all the living things on earth is. We
all have a common ancestor
There's so far no concrete evidence that can support the idea of intelligent
design at all. We can't observe intelligent design in a laboratory or real life.
However, we can observe evolution in action all the time. Some relevant examples
would be DTT resistant bugs and the emergenace of anti-biotic resistance
bacteria.
It's true that amoeba may have more DNA than us. However, that just supports the
idea that human have a more complex gene regulation system. A smaller sets of
DNA can produce more complex results due to the existence of
"switches." Many genes in human and other complex organism also have
multiple functions.
A good analogy would the evolution of computers. The first generation of
computers are the size of a room but is less powerful than our current
calculators. Today's computer are much more smaller and compact, and also much
more powerful. This analogy can be apply to genomics. A larger DNA library
doesn't necessary mean the organism would be more complex
Hey moutain it is I CyberDragoon back from the grave. I've been holding back on
this thread out of laziness.
Evidence: Because of the ideas behind evolution a great many advances have been
made. For instance manipulation of crops and livestock through seletive breeding
as well as genetic manipulation of bacteria and virus. One only has to look at
how more and more antibiotic-resistant pathogens that arise each year to show
that they are evolving to survive the antibiotics. For example, the bird flu
that is in the news currently. Scientists worry that it will mutate to be able
to infect humans.
Evolution seeks to explain how species change over time due to the pressure of
natural selection. I cite the peppered moth incident. Basically what happened is
this. In the moth population there are two colors black and white. First the
light colored moths were the most common. Their lighter color helps them hide on
the light-colored lichen on the trees. During the industrial revolution the soot
killed the lichen and stained the trees black. The light-colored moths slowely
decreased in number while the black population sharply increased. Later when
stricter air quality laws were in place the light moths came back. As you can
see this is clearly evolution. The "pressure" was the soot and the
change was the pigmentation of the moths.
Relevence: Obviously these examples show that evolution does occur. Organisms DO
change over time. Because they do they evolve.
Now if evolution were incorrect then how in the world could any of the medical
advances based on evolution could have occurred? By accident?
Quote:
evolution does not work towards complexity or perfection or more DNA
yes, that is true, but for us to reach our current stage now, at one time, we
would have to have gained complexity, which has never be shown to occur.
Quote:
There is so far no concrete evidence that can support the idea of intelligent
design
thats true, but on the other hand, in the field of science, there is very little
concrete evidence for anything, depends what you call concrete evidence. thats
why I'm not trying to argue which one is scientifically correct, but merely
which one science favors.
Quote:
Some relevant examples would be DTT resistant bugs and the emergenace of
anti-biotic resistance bacteria.
many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response
to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,
-a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something
evolved
-a mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport
capacity of certain proteins,
-a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotics
effectiveness even more or
-a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides
and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria
were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore,
proliferated
What most evolutionist observe today is microevolution, which creationist agree
with. The controversy is macroevolution.
microevolution-Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic
variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies
macroevolution-Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results
in the formation of new taxonomic groups
from www.dictionary.com
so the thing I'm arguing against is macroevolution, so far examples that are
given in science are microevolution, macroevolution has never been observed.
which evolution theory is claiming.
Thus according to evolution, there should be a "phylogenetic tree base of
genome sequence" which there isn't, in fact, the genome of each species is
independant of each other species, "C-value enigma" which shows each
species occured on it own and is not related to another species, ie intelligent
design
Hey mountain... What you have quoted i agree are science THEORY but NOT EVIDENCE
.. there's a difference between evidence based and theory based... evidence
requires scientific studies to have been done, that is, either cohort, case
control, trials what have you... simply taking the theory that has been proven
to be correct and interpret it does not mean your interpretation is backed up by
evidence
Now as for my evidence for evolution... just look at fossils of apes supposedly
our ancestor.... you can see the change in the bone structure of our heads...
the skull getting bigger to accomodate for our increased brain size and the jaw
bone getting smaller as we develop tools for eating and no longer rely on strong
jawbones to break food up for us.... and look at the size of our appendix from
them... it is no longer important for our diet hence it has became a vestigial
organ for us with no function in digestion of our food... now if there is a
creator why did he/she created the appendix for us that has no real function?
merged: 11-28-2005 ~ 05:15pm
Sorry... my "evidence for evolution" was meant to be my arguement for
evolution instead... it is again my interpretation of the evidence which is NOT
evidence
merged: 11-28-2005 ~ 05:27pm
Also my response for your arguements...
Quote: many mistakenly believe that
insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and
antibiotics. Instead,
-a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something
evolved
-a mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport
capacity of certain proteins,
-a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotics
effectiveness even more or
-a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides
and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria
were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore,
proliferated
I think you've a misconception there...
evolution IS really based on gene mutations..... mutation doesn't mean always a
bad thing... evolution is simply due to a random event such as a mutation that
causes a living thing more adaptable to the environment hence able to survive
and pass on their mutated gene to the next generation and as time passes
creatures that are quite different from the original are said to have been
evolved
Quote: What most evolutionist
observe today is microevolution, which creationist agree with. The controversy
is macroevolution.
Ok yes i agree most are microevolution but that doesn't mean
that it is against evolution theory... come on how many years have we been
studying and observing for evolution... and how many years did it take earth's
life evolve to have us humans? the time we have been studying evolution... or
better still the time since humans exist on earth is like a second compared to
the time since earth began to have the simplest life forms....
Eh? How does that fit into this debate you're trying to have?
Quote: what do you think scientific
evidence is, what I have stated is purely scientific
evidence.
It's not evidence for creationism.
Rather, it's against macroevolution. And contrary to your hubris, if
macroevolution was disproved, creationism wouldn't suddenly become a theory, it
would remain a hypothesis, no better than any other hypothesis one might make,
because it predicts nothing about the real world. If you want evidence for
creationism you'll have to do what I told you, and I'll repeat myself, come back
when you've found a way in which creationism correctly predicts facts about the
real world not used in its formulation, or a repeatable experiment.
Quote: I'm taking this from someone
who doesn't state any evidence in favor of
evolution.
You are aware how much exists though? I'm not going to grep a load of journals
when you could just do the same. The thing is, evolution is currently the only
actual theory which exists. You're
trying to have a debate between a theory and a hypothesis, that is ludicrous. As
I said, you can start talking about creationism as a theory when you have a way
in which creationism correctly predicts facts about the real world not used in
its formulation, or a repeatable experiment. Maybe if I repeat this enough,
you'll pick up on it.
Quote: This is total ignorance, are
you saying the things I've stated so far is not
scientific?
I'm saying that you don't understand scientific method. Your understanding of
logic is strictly local, but you're trying to think generally.
sorry for the "get a life thing", I am trying to state that scientific
evidence so far favors creationism, not prove. creationism is not a hypothesis,
instead, if the evolution scientists have their way, it shouldn't even be
science related. and essentially, a hypothesis and a theory is relatively the
same, both needs proof, from my understanding, a theory is just a long
hypothesis.
Quote:
evidence requires scientific studies to have been done, that is, either cohort,
case control, trials what have you... simply taking the theory that has been
proven to be correct and interpret it does not mean your interpretation is
backed up by evidence
you forgot lab experiments, cross sectional (not that it matters) I do
understand the science method, what do you mean by my understanding of logic is
strictly local? all science methodology require evaluation of interpretation of
existing data. all the data I have given is empirical data (the best of the
best), repeatable is you can sequence DNA again independantly if you
want.
Quote:
It's not evidence for creationism
yes it is, maybe I have not made it clear, creationism is not about making a
scientific test to repeat how the supernatural being created something just as
evolution is not about making a test which can tranform a female monkey into
this HOT chick. But to prove things such as
- Everything in the universe, including the stars, the solar system, the earth,
life, and man, came into existence suddenly and recently, in essentially the
complexity we see today.
- Genetic variations are limited.
- The earth has experienced a worldwide flood.
this part is through empirically testable data.
all data needs evalution, interpretation, which is in this case, we were
created.
Quote:
You are aware how much exists though?
no, actually I'm not, most of its actually just bad science, prone to selective
bias (scientist selecting lab experiments that favor their hypothesis) and other
bias, variables which inferences that are given to are just plain insulting to
the field of science. ie fossil dating, using geological dating, which
geological layer the fossil it is in. The irony is, the geological layer is
dated by the type of fossils that exist in that layer.
From your definition of scientific evidence, fossils of apes mean nothing
because they do not test how these transformed into humans. If you understand
how evidence for evolution is derived, you will know that evidence for
creationism is equally as good.
The problem with ape-man fossil is that it could be just another case of
microevolution, another is the age of the fossil, new more accurate carbon test
have so far not shown any fossil to be older that 10 000 years
appendix is not a organ with no function, so far the function is just unknown
medical practitioners will not remove an appendix lightly, however, it seems at
the moment that its function may be limited. I will not use the vestigial word
because it is a strictly evolutionary word. I don't even know how you classify
what is a vestigal organ, something less prominant in other species? ie is the
brain of a monkey a vestigal organ if monkeys evolved from humans?
evidence: All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show
design.There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes skin, tubes
(arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs.
Everything we have in our bodys have a function.
relevance- macroevolution is unlikely to have occurs, which means, we were at
our current complexity when we came into our existence, which mean- we are
created
Quote: evidence: All species appear
fully developed, not partially developed. They show design.There are no examples
of half-developed feathers, eyes skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines,
etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Everything we have in our
bodys have a function.
*cough* there are so half-developed parts of the body of an animal... the
Archaeopteryx is a good example... it has reptilian type of beak, reptilian claw
on the wings, feathers of avian type on the wings and a long tail with many
vertebrae as well as feather... so basically a cross between reptial and
birds... now if you have to argue that a creator felt like mixing and matching
to create this type of animal that extinct very quickly as it can't adapt to the
environment please do....if that's the case i would think this all mighty and
cleaver creator would fit into what we call a mad scientist
nowadays....
also in humans there are half-developed organs... ever heard of aplasia or
dysplasia?... it's when a certain organ does not develop or half developed....
examples are adrenal aplasia when you're missing an adrenal gland
and just take a look at human embryology... as fetus we started off having a
tail and gills... now if there is a creator why did he has to create humans to
start of with these features that are so similar to other embryos of other
animals? All vertebrate embryos go through the same stage of development as
embryo... i think that is a good "evidence" that all species are
related together by evolution
Quote: I don't even know how you
classify what is a vestigal organ, something less prominant in other species? ie
is the brain of a monkey a vestigal organ if monkeys evolved from humans?
I never said the brain of a monkey is a vestigial organ... it still has function
it allows it to find food and have fine motor skills with their hands... don't
insult the monkeys they are intelligent....
Quote: new more accurate carbon
test have so far not shown any fossil to be older that 10 000 years
Again using your logic of just because we haven't find a function to an organ
doesn't mean it doesn't have any function... just because we haven't found any
fossil older than 10 000 years old doesn't mean they don't exist and this is
wrong anyway... the Archaeopteryx fossil dates back some 150million years
Now finally IF there is a creator... using your creation theory...who created
the creator? and who created the creator of the creator? you can continue asking
that questions endlessly... at some point you will have to reach a point where
there really is no creator apart from nature... eventually the creation theory
would lose....
I've read much of this thread and I must submit that you certainly do not
understand what the scientific method truly is. You claim that of the 4000 books
of DNA information contained in each strand, of which 3900 are either junk DNA,
jibberish, or not yet understood, that this fact "proves" creation.
This is a definitive statement that you have not substantiated. It is
insufficient to write an opinion and try to pass it off as fact. It does not
even fit the inference criteria. To claim something as fact, you must present actual evidence. You cannot
make a claim and expect someone else's dispute to start a war of words that
furthers your agenda.
I have not offered any substantiated evidence that proves evolution in the above
paragraph. You have asked people to offer evidence one point at a time, but you
have gladly positioned yourself comfortably by stabbing point after point at
people and have, IMO, lost the debate already.
In my life, I have seen, held, and participated in discussions dealing with this
issue. I have argued both sides, but I have come to one reasonable conclusion.
Evolution exists. It's happening today, all around us. Both you and I are right
now evolving, getting better, learning, and so on. Evolution is not about apes
turning into people. It's about life careening off resistance and surviving the
fall. It's about life finding a better way to work within its
environment.
Your argument that DNA proves creation is a rather short sighted effort to
bolster support by those whose minds have not been sculpted by reality, but
rather, by religion. Religious beliefs have always held that you should curtail
your curiosity in favor of honoring the wishes of authority. You haven't
excercised your mind because you may never have had the chance.
Oak trees, jellyfish, ants, elephants, people, lions, crows, rose bushes,
bacteria, whales, snakes, dogs, parakeets, and dinosaurs all have DNA. This DNA
differs very little from species to species. These are facts, not inferences or
opinions. I challenge you to show me these species must have been created by
forces other than by natural, and in some cases, artificial selection. The
behaviors of these species reflect certain distinctions in their DNA that afford
certain unique abilities that may be exclusive to them.
Quote by mountainwhat do you mean by my
understanding of logic is strictly local?
OK, let's try an analogy. Imagine that science is a big machine. You can look at
any of the pieces of the machine, and figure out roughly what they're for and
how they work. But you don't know what the machine as a whole is or how it
works. Which is why you're trying to push as "science" a hypothesis
which can neither be tested nor used. And hence, since it's impossible to do
anything with it, you spend all your time attacking the established theory
instead, thinking that doing so somehow supports your hypothesis, when all it
actually does is attempt to create a "no known theory"
situation.
If you knew what science actually was, instead of how to do little components of
it, you'd be able to see why creationism is unscientific, why it can never be a
scientific theory. You can't deduce anything new from it, and you can't explain
anything new with it. That is why your "evidence" is actually all an
attack on a different theory, it never actually supports yours. It is a
hypothesis which by its very nature is impossible to support with
evidence.
By the way, are you aware that someone with a sufficiently good telescope can
actually literally see billions of years into the past? The only way the world
could possibly have been around for only a short amount of time would be if it
was carefully planned to look like that. And once you assume that some
unknowable force is trying to trick you, any possibility of doing any science
flies right out of the window. One assumption that any scientist has to be able
to make is that nobody is tinkering with the results.
Quote by mountain yes it is, maybe I
have not made it clear, creationism is not about making a scientific test to
repeat how the supernatural being created something just as evolution is not
about making a test which can tranform a female monkey into this HOT chick. But
to prove things such as
- Everything in the universe, including the stars, the solar system, the earth,
life, and man, came into existence suddenly and recently, in essentially the
complexity we see today.
- Genetic variations are limited.
- The earth has experienced a worldwide flood.
this part is through empirically testable data.
all data needs evalution, interpretation, which is in this case, we were
created.
You're trying to prove those things? You can not actually believe that
everything was created suddenly and recently, can you? Most other creationists
have even given up on that one already. And the flood? That story is quite
obviously based on the Epic of Gilgamesh from Babylon; even if you believe
everything else in that accursed book you must be able to see at least Noah was
invented.
Quote by mountainno, actually I'm not,
most of its actually just bad science, prone to selective bias (scientist
selecting lab experiments that favor their hypothesis) and other bias, variables
which inferences that are given to are just plain insulting to the field of
science. ie fossil dating, using geological dating, which geological layer the
fossil it is in. The irony is, the geological layer is dated by the type of
fossils that exist in that layer.
Selective bias? Isn't that what you're doing by only stating the science that
supports your point?
Quote by mountainappendix is not a organ
with no function, so far the function is just unknown medical practitioners will
not remove an appendix lightly, however, it seems at the moment that its
function may be limited. I will not use the vestigial word because it is a
strictly evolutionary word. I don't even know how you classify what is a
vestigal organ, something less prominant in other species? ie is the brain of a
monkey a vestigal organ if monkeys evolved from
humans?
The appendix is an organ that really serves no important purpose; you won't die
without it. Doctors won't remove one lightly because it is a major surgery with
major risks. A vestigial organ is basically an organ whose original function has
been lost during evolution. The coccyx is the remnant of a lost tail; the
appendix exists as a vestigial remnant of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum
found in our herbivorous ancestors.
A monkey's brain isn't vestigial. If you remove a monkey's brain, it's dead. I
really don't know any life forms with a vestigial brain. Who the hell said
monkeys evolved from humans anyway?
Quote by mountain evidence: All species
appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design.There are no
examples of half-developed feathers, eyes skin, tubes (arteries, veins,
intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Everything we have
in our bodys have a function.
relevance- macroevolution is unlikely to have occurs, which means, we were at
our current complexity when we came into our existence, which mean- we are
created
I really would like to know how you think. All species are fully developed in
the sense that they are functional; they would be dead if they were not. In the
sense of perfection nothing is ever fully developed, life is constantly adapting
to its environment. The structures present in humans are not perfect. They work
in their environment, but to call them fully developed in the sense of
perfection is pure arrogance.
errr... I can't believe I'm left to defend whether my facts are so far
scientific or whether they are relevant to creationism.
I start explaining from after my last post
it good that you mentioned the Archaeopteryx, that itself is a matter of
controversy http://www.creationscience.com/FAQ119.html#wp1365100
that itself challenges whether the fossil records are right or not. it just
funny to say that the archaeopteryx has feathers and wings but yet its skeleton
does not favor it to fly, wouldn't the fossil go against natural selection.
aplasia or dysplasia, thats pathology, and is microevolution if anything
ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_and_phylogeny
neutral source, I think it actually favor evolution more, that statement is a
controversy in itself, but due to the many differences in ontogeny and
phylogeny, I do not believe in it. btw, how else are we suppose to develope in
embryo?
"Again using your logic of just because we haven't find a function to an
organ doesn't mean it doesn't have any function... just because we haven't found
any fossil older than 10 000 years old doesn't mean they don't exist and this is
wrong anyway... the Archaeopteryx fossil dates back some 150million years"
true, maybe in the future they can find a fossil older than 10 000 years. but
they haven't. the Archaeopteryx dates at 150 million years, the dating method
was most likely inaccurate and the person who dated it probably assumed many
variables that are wrong.
Its grossly unfair to ask who created the creator (cannot be backed up by
scientific evidence), like we could similiarly ask how the big bang was created?
how come the law of physics exist? (also can't be backed up by scientific
evidence, just assumed to exist and is the foundation of science). These are
questions that science cannot prove.
errr... I still can't believe I'm left to defend whether my facts are so far
scientific or whether they are relevant to creationism.
scientific method
has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the
hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical
relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to
predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent
experimenters and properly performed experiments.
(1) DNA is extremely complex, genome size and complexity is independant of its
phylogeny tree
(2) FAVORS to show that macroevolution does not occur because the DNA steps
between organisms of the phylogenetic tree are "out of whack". ie,
FAVORS the fact that these organisms came in essentially the complexity we see
today.
(3) Prediction- Macroevolution does not occur
(4) A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations,
gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process
can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement
has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts
to increase mutation rates
ok is there anything wrong with this in terms of scientific
methodology?
"OK, let's try an analogy. Imagine that science is a big machine"
I know, thats why my logic is local so far, you don't expect me to explain the
machine in one post do you? what do you expect me to do? Which other field do
you want me to explain creationism in?
another criticism is that I'm often refuting the evidence for evolution and not
proving my point. I have to. If not, the evidence given would be in great
support of evolution. Science itself is being critical about other peoples work,
to point out the "errors" in people experiment and the unrealistic
assumptions they make to come to their results. I believe if you truly
understand the science methodology, you will come to understand that not many
things in science are "facts", in fact, most experimentation have
unreasonable assumed variables that can easily manipulate the validity of the
results
merged: 11-29-2005 ~ 10:16am
"You're trying to prove those things? You can not actually believe that
everything was created suddenly and recently, can you?" yes thats what I'm
trying to say that science FAVORS, proofs only exist in mathematical formulas
and lawcourts.
selective bias- no, its a part of science methodology, in the data collection
area
"The appendix is an organ that really serves no important purpose; you
won't die without it"
our pinky does not really serve any important purpose, we also won't die without
it. is it a evolutionary remnant?
"A vestigial organ is basically an organ whose original function has been
lost during evolution. The coccyx is the remnant of a lost tail."
if macroevolution is shown to exist, coccyx protects ass and your intestines
when someone kicks you. and nothing sticks out from our butt like a tail
Quote by mountainit just funny to say
that the archaeopteryx has feathers and wings but yet its skeleton does not
favor it to fly, wouldn't the fossil go against natural
selection.
Not necessarily. Unless the feathers and wings provided a clear disadvantage
over species already in place that should have called for its destruction but it
survived instead of others, it doesn't go against natural selection.
Quote by mountainthe Archaeopteryx dates
at 150 million years, the dating method was most likely inaccurate and the
person who dated it probably assumed many variables that are
wrong.
You don't know that. For all you or I know that guy could be right.
Quote by mountainscientific method
has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the
hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical
relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to
predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent
experimenters and properly performed experiments.
(1) DNA is extremely complex, genome size and complexity is independant of its
phylogeny tree
(2) FAVORS to show that macroevolution does not occur because the DNA steps
between organisms of the phylogenetic tree are "out of whack". ie,
FAVORS the fact that these organisms came in essentially the complexity we see
today.
(3) Prediction- Macroevolution does not occur
(4) A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations,
gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process
can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement
has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts
to increase mutation rates
ok is there anything wrong with this in terms of scientific
methodology?
First of all, the hypothesis is trying to prove a negative, which isn't possible
through observed events, but I'll let that slide since this thread is about
drawing inferences from evidence and not proof. That aside, the experiment of
step four contains several flaws.
First is that it does not test complexity in itself or the phylogenetic tree, it
tests whether evolution itself is observed in the experiment.
Second, there is no mention of exactly what kind of environmental barrier had to
be overcome by the fruit flies. There is the possibility it wasn't necessary to
overcome, since 3000 consecutive generations lived through it, or that the flies
gathered, since they are likely a very small sample of the immensely large
insect population, did not have DNA with the genetic mutation or factor
necessary to promote a certain change.
Third, the time frame was likely too short. A hundred years might seem like a
long time to us, but for evolution, even with a rapidly reproducing species such
as the fruit fly, it is like the blink of an eye. If evolution and the theory of
the dinosaur era is correct, insects have survived on this earth in almost the
same form for hundreds of millions of years! With such a track record, there
would be little to no chance for an observable, necessary change over only a 100
year time frame.
Quote by mountainanother criticism is
that I'm often refuting the evidence for evolution and not proving my point. I
have to. If not, the evidence given would be in great support of evolution.
Science itself is being critical about other peoples work, to point out the
"errors" in people experiment and the unrealistic assumptions they
make to come to their results. I believe if you truly understand the science
methodology, you will come to understand that not many things in science are
"facts", in fact, most experimentation have unreasonable assumed
variables that can easily manipulate the validity of the
results
I'm and evolution guy, myself, but I'm going to support you on this one. You are
right in that there are few, if any, 'facts', and that proof as we want it
generally does not exist. Short of God giving us a demonstration tomorrow or a
flipbook-like pattern of fossils between two phylogenetic species, it is likely
we will never know the truth of the matter. And, short of proof, we will create
theories backed by science of our own creation. Science is not as unbiased as we
like to think it is, and people will concoct experiments and view the results in
a way that supports their hypothesis. Evolution believers will see the evidence
and observations as supporting their view, and creationists will see the same
evidence and say it supports theirs. Either way, they are both theories, and
without proof, are full of holes which need to be explained before we can truly
claim one is correct.
So we all agree on that microevolution is correct? Both creationists and
evolutionists do not dispute the ideas of microevolution. Now what is
microevolution?
"Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic
variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies." -
Dictionary.com
So microevolution is a slight change in the genome of a species that often gives
rise to subspecies. This new subspecies is different from the orginal species.
We all agree to this. Now what if the new subspecies undergoes microevolution
again to create another different subspecies. This newer subspecies would be
different from the subspecies and even more different from the orginal species.
Logically over time this creation of newer and newer subspecies could create a
subspecies so different from the orignal species it can no longer be considered
a subspecies but rather a new species.
Now one could argue that perhaps the newer subspecies could be more similar to
the original species than the subspecies that it arose from. However, the newer
subspecies would have to encroach upon the niche of the original species.
Because the original species is already well adapted to the niche it would be
extremely difficult for the subspecies to take over unless the new traits it had
gave it an overwhelming advantage. This advantage probably would have to come
from a large genetic change. Otherwise the subspecies would evolve to enter
other niches that are easier to enter.
I cite the Galapagos finches observed by Darwin. (http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/finches.html)
Darwin's finches share similar size, coloration, and habits. Their salient
difference is in the size and shape of their beak. It was found through genetics
that they all shared a common ancestor. Evolution driven by mainly by diet
caused the speciation which gave rise to 14 similar but different finch species.
There's some other stuff , but you should read the short article about it
instead of listening to me.
Relevence: Because microevolution is true it can be inferred that macroevolution
is true as well. The example of speciation I proposed helps to show this.
Many people believe that creationism is merely a belief/a dogma, and that people who believe do so due to pure faith. I would like to challenge that thought, There is plenty of scientific evidence so far that points to God.
So the debate question here would be:
Does scientific evidence so far favor creationism or evolution?
As this is a scientific debate, please attempt to avoid personal/subjective comments like: "Believing in God is stupid" or "atheists only reject God because they are afraid of judgment" Please avoid personal beliefs such as, I believe in evolution/creationism because of the vast evidence supporting it without actually stating any evidence. ie scientific debate
To make it a fair debate, please only state ONE piece of evidence for evolution or creationism only at one time/post ie I don't want to read a very long thread stating 15 evidences for evolution or creationism, because its just too time consuming to refute and to read and I do not wish to attempt to refute an entire textbook nor do I have the time to bother. Also, you can only refute/diss evidence that has been presented in this thread, ie you can't go to a website is rephrase all the evidence against evolution or creationism, because information changes and some of the evidence may be outdated and is not used anymore. Also, try to keep each post as short as possible, I will try to do that also
Also Logic IS allowed as it is part of science
I will start off with the first piece of evidence that favors creationism
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double helix. Duplicate copies of this long tape of coded information are coiled up in each of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) cells in your body. You have 46 segments of DNA in almost all of your cells. You received 23 segments from your mother and 23 from your father. DNA contains the unique information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and how every cell in your body is to function throughout your life.
If the DNA (46 segments) in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected, and stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its details could not be seen, even under an electron microscope. If all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books.
Relevance- We are far too complex to have just evolved by chance and natural selection. Our genetics contain a huge amount of information, too great for us to have evolved just by chance. Evolutionist basically propose that from an inorganic source (no coded information at all) that all this huge amount of coded information just appeared by chance like 4000 books were written by itself
Added later- after 84 posts
Just had to add this, for new people who can't be bothered to read 84 posts which is understandable, irreducibily complex is NOT the only argument for intelligent design. There is a whole book written about arguments for creationism/intelligent design
for more info, www.creationscience.com
there is even more books written for evolution
for more info www.talkorigin.org
this though amazing but how do you doubt the fact that it is also science? The universe being so big, like isn't there a chance on why these things just happen? Naturally, if you compare to the fact that planets are actually born from rocks/dust/heat or whatever, it is the same thing, they do appear just as science said it is "chance". True, no book can write itself.
But how do you explain the equal complexity of human science that we have not yet even begin to understand, when you mentioned that these chains of DNA are made by an entity that designed the complexity, you left out all the other aspects of other beings/ things...such as the planets and the stars, those are relatively simple, forms of clouded dusts, happenings of chances, gravity, heat, they all form the perfect concoction again by chance, which formed planets and stars.
Relevance - Just imagine if everything is as simply said that there is a God that created all of such, where does science stands and the thing is that the universe being so big, we cannot even explain the overall of our little planet and then we are expecting to explain the universe?
Then of course, the only thing now would mean that we shall refer to the word and entity God. Because we do not have yet the evidence of all to prove or disprove Him.
I don't think evolutionists are wrong, it can be pure chance that under the right conditions and circumstances, concoctions of needs and basis, mixed with the right surroundings, right time in the right place, and thus, here we are, so called God's "complex creatures" when we are simply just another chance of a happening.
I hope i am not out of line, I am just stating my view, I am Agnostic, there is nothing that i believe in especially, but i keep my mind open.
as I said, I will only state one evidence at a time for fairness and a chance for people to refute the argument, there is a chance for it to happen, but the chance is incredibly small, like winning 5 lottos in a row which according to science should not be used as evidence or is usually said to be incorrect (inverse square law, data rejected). the point here is to state does evidence so far in science favor creationism (we existed in complex state at the beginning, all the planets are about the same age, all things are relatively new) or evolution,(we are relatively old universe) I respect your view of being agnostic, but you need to state some evidence to say why you believe your agnostic. Pure belief is not science. I will wait for some evidence on the evolutionist side before I state more evidence
I'm pro evolution, but there is room for well, not creationism, but intelligent design to fit in scientifically.
Where creationism fits in? I believe that evolution is just God's instrument in creating life. Where that fails, (on the microscopic level) is where intelligent design sneaks in. But a majority of it is evolution.
97% of our DNA is non-coding DNA, also called "junk DNA". It is called this because it has no proven function. It's as if 3900 of the 4000 books were filled with nonsense. It shows that evolution promotes what works, whether it is perfect or not.
Second, there is no known factor that could limit the amount of information or the complexity that can be gained through the process of evolution.
Third, natural selection does nothing by chance. Mutations that provide an advantage are promoted; mutations that are harmful are dropped.
first, it a misconception to label the DNA as "junk" just because we do not know what it does yet. Gradually, we are finding uses for the so-called DNA.
secondly, junk DNA proves creation, not evolution which is also another misconception
On a theoretical note, it is often observed that the presence of high proportions of truly nonfunctional "junk" DNA would seem to defy evolutionary logic. Replication of such a large amount of useless information each time a cell divides would waste energy. Organisms with less nonfunctional DNA would thus enjoy a selective advantage, and over an evolutionary time scale, nonfunctional DNA would tend to be eliminated. If one assumes that most junk DNA is indeed nonfunctional, then there are several hypotheses for why it has not been eliminated by evolution: (1) the energy required to replicate even large amounts of nonfunctional DNA is in fact relatively insignificant on the cellular or organismal scale, so no selective pressure results; (2) the aforementioned possible advantage of having extra DNA as a reservoir of potentially useful sequences; and (3) retroviral or transposon insertions of nonfunctional sequence occurring faster than evolution can eliminate it. These are all hypotheses for which the time scales involved in evolution may make it difficult for humans to rigorously investigate.
taken straight from wikipedia, a more neutral source of information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA
and, there no known factor limiting complexity because there is no cases that shows organisms can gain complexity. none of this has been empirically tested, it is all thoery based
evidence:
It is notable that overall genome size, and by extension the amount of junk DNA, appears to have little relationship to organism complexity: the genome of the unicellular Amoeba dubia has been reported to contain more than 200 times the amount of DNA in humans. The Fugu rubripes pufferfish genome is only about one tenth the size of the human, yet seems to have a comparable number of genes. Most of the variance appears to lie in what is now known only as junk DNA. This puzzle is known as the "C-value enigma" (7).
relevance, we usually say that we came from the amoeba, how on earth can the amoeba have more DNA coding than us, wouldn't it imply that humans evolved into amoeba? According to evolution, amoeba should have very little DNA as it is one of the first "life", its complexity shows that we did not occur by chance. or how else would you explain the DNA coding fo amoeba?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA
Dude, you need to go back and study scientific method more thoroughly, because you clearly have no idea what 'evidence' actually is. Observing that there are questions which are non-trivial to answer is not evidence for any hypothesis.
Not to mention that your hypothesis doesn't even answer the problem, it just changes it from "spontaneous occurence of complex lifeforms" to "spontaneous occurence of even more complex intelligence which can design said lifeforms".
Evolution is a theory. Creationism is merely a hypothesis, and a rather pointless one at that. The two are on completely different levels scientifically. Come back when you've found a way in which creationism correctly predicts facts about the real world not used in its formulation, or a repeatable experiment.
I will just mention this. "What you believe determines how you analyze facts". What I mean is if you believe one things, then you will find evidence for those beliefs. If you are not first will to listen to what the other side has to say, then how do you know you have made the right choice?
Good luck guys.
get a life man, what do you think scientific evidence is, what I have stated is purely scientific evidence.
I'm taking this from someone who doesn't state any evidence in favor of evolution. This is total ignorance, are you saying the things I've stated so far is not scientific?
are you talking about evolutionists or creationists. The evidence I have used so far are not from creationists, in fact, the irony is, they are actually from evolutionist. I've just interpreted it in another way. And I am willing to listen to what the other side is saying, this is why this thread has been made, but you guys have to start talking first- scientifically, not religiously
as I said, this is a scientific debate, not a "I believe" opinion. back up you beliefs with facts not faith. At this rate, I starting to think all atheists are merely religious zealots. They put their trust in scientist as much as zealots who put their trust in God.
I will continue to wait for evidence supporting evolution
I think gundamknight meant that you are finding evidence for creationism in the science because you're looking for it. Although it probably goes both ways.
Technically, evolution does not work toward complexity or perfection or more DNA, just what works. For example the brains of certain dinosaurs actually became smaller so their necks could become larger. I don't see why more DNA would imply more complexity; sometimes simple works better. It also makes sense that the evolutionary process would produce life that required less DNA to function than its predecessors did. Doesn't really seem to point to intelligent design anyway. Unless the amoebas were the life Yahweh created in his own image. Giant amoeba god Yahweh sounds pretty cool actually.
This seems interesting. I think I will join into the debate too.
I don't see how the idea of junk DNA can support the idea of intelligent design at all. In fact, I think it actually support the idea of evolution. People are amazed how similar the sequences of junk DNA from different organisms are. In fact, it's possible to create a phylogenetic tree base on the genome sequence of all known organism. It shows how similar all the living things on earth is. We all have a common ancestor
There's so far no concrete evidence that can support the idea of intelligent design at all. We can't observe intelligent design in a laboratory or real life. However, we can observe evolution in action all the time. Some relevant examples would be DTT resistant bugs and the emergenace of anti-biotic resistance bacteria.
It's true that amoeba may have more DNA than us. However, that just supports the idea that human have a more complex gene regulation system. A smaller sets of DNA can produce more complex results due to the existence of "switches." Many genes in human and other complex organism also have multiple functions.
A good analogy would the evolution of computers. The first generation of computers are the size of a room but is less powerful than our current calculators. Today's computer are much more smaller and compact, and also much more powerful. This analogy can be apply to genomics. A larger DNA library doesn't necessary mean the organism would be more complex
Hey moutain it is I CyberDragoon back from the grave. I've been holding back on this thread out of laziness.
Evidence: Because of the ideas behind evolution a great many advances have been made. For instance manipulation of crops and livestock through seletive breeding as well as genetic manipulation of bacteria and virus. One only has to look at how more and more antibiotic-resistant pathogens that arise each year to show that they are evolving to survive the antibiotics. For example, the bird flu that is in the news currently. Scientists worry that it will mutate to be able to infect humans.
Evolution seeks to explain how species change over time due to the pressure of natural selection. I cite the peppered moth incident. Basically what happened is this. In the moth population there are two colors black and white. First the light colored moths were the most common. Their lighter color helps them hide on the light-colored lichen on the trees. During the industrial revolution the soot killed the lichen and stained the trees black. The light-colored moths slowely decreased in number while the black population sharply increased. Later when stricter air quality laws were in place the light moths came back. As you can see this is clearly evolution. The "pressure" was the soot and the change was the pigmentation of the moths.
Relevence: Obviously these examples show that evolution does occur. Organisms DO change over time. Because they do they evolve.
Now if evolution were incorrect then how in the world could any of the medical advances based on evolution could have occurred? By accident?
I think I get where you guys are coming from
yes, that is true, but for us to reach our current stage now, at one time, we would have to have gained complexity, which has never be shown to occur.
thats true, but on the other hand, in the field of science, there is very little concrete evidence for anything, depends what you call concrete evidence. thats why I'm not trying to argue which one is scientifically correct, but merely which one science favors.
many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,
-a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something evolved
-a mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport capacity of certain proteins,
-a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotics effectiveness even more or
-a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated
What most evolutionist observe today is microevolution, which creationist agree with. The controversy is macroevolution.
microevolution-Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies
macroevolution-Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups
from www.dictionary.com
so the thing I'm arguing against is macroevolution, so far examples that are given in science are microevolution, macroevolution has never been observed. which evolution theory is claiming.
Thus according to evolution, there should be a "phylogenetic tree base of genome sequence" which there isn't, in fact, the genome of each species is independant of each other species, "C-value enigma" which shows each species occured on it own and is not related to another species, ie intelligent design
Hey mountain... What you have quoted i agree are science THEORY but NOT EVIDENCE .. there's a difference between evidence based and theory based... evidence requires scientific studies to have been done, that is, either cohort, case control, trials what have you... simply taking the theory that has been proven to be correct and interpret it does not mean your interpretation is backed up by evidence
Now as for my evidence for evolution... just look at fossils of apes supposedly our ancestor.... you can see the change in the bone structure of our heads... the skull getting bigger to accomodate for our increased brain size and the jaw bone getting smaller as we develop tools for eating and no longer rely on strong jawbones to break food up for us.... and look at the size of our appendix from them... it is no longer important for our diet hence it has became a vestigial organ for us with no function in digestion of our food... now if there is a creator why did he/she created the appendix for us that has no real function?
merged: 11-28-2005 ~ 05:15pm
Sorry... my "evidence for evolution" was meant to be my arguement for evolution instead... it is again my interpretation of the evidence which is NOT evidence
merged: 11-28-2005 ~ 05:27pm
Also my response for your arguements...
I think you've a misconception there... evolution IS really based on gene mutations..... mutation doesn't mean always a bad thing... evolution is simply due to a random event such as a mutation that causes a living thing more adaptable to the environment hence able to survive and pass on their mutated gene to the next generation and as time passes creatures that are quite different from the original are said to have been evolved
Ok yes i agree most are microevolution but that doesn't mean that it is against evolution theory... come on how many years have we been studying and observing for evolution... and how many years did it take earth's life evolve to have us humans? the time we have been studying evolution... or better still the time since humans exist on earth is like a second compared to the time since earth began to have the simplest life forms....
Eh? How does that fit into this debate you're trying to have?
It's not evidence for creationism. Rather, it's against macroevolution. And contrary to your hubris, if macroevolution was disproved, creationism wouldn't suddenly become a theory, it would remain a hypothesis, no better than any other hypothesis one might make, because it predicts nothing about the real world. If you want evidence for creationism you'll have to do what I told you, and I'll repeat myself, come back when you've found a way in which creationism correctly predicts facts about the real world not used in its formulation, or a repeatable experiment.
You are aware how much exists though? I'm not going to grep a load of journals when you could just do the same. The thing is, evolution is currently the only actual theory which exists. You're trying to have a debate between a theory and a hypothesis, that is ludicrous. As I said, you can start talking about creationism as a theory when you have a way in which creationism correctly predicts facts about the real world not used in its formulation, or a repeatable experiment. Maybe if I repeat this enough, you'll pick up on it.
I'm saying that you don't understand scientific method. Your understanding of logic is strictly local, but you're trying to think generally.
sorry for the "get a life thing", I am trying to state that scientific evidence so far favors creationism, not prove. creationism is not a hypothesis, instead, if the evolution scientists have their way, it shouldn't even be science related. and essentially, a hypothesis and a theory is relatively the same, both needs proof, from my understanding, a theory is just a long hypothesis.
you forgot lab experiments, cross sectional (not that it matters) I do understand the science method, what do you mean by my understanding of logic is strictly local? all science methodology require evaluation of interpretation of existing data. all the data I have given is empirical data (the best of the best), repeatable is you can sequence DNA again independantly if you want.
yes it is, maybe I have not made it clear, creationism is not about making a scientific test to repeat how the supernatural being created something just as evolution is not about making a test which can tranform a female monkey into this HOT chick. But to prove things such as
- Everything in the universe, including the stars, the solar system, the earth, life, and man, came into existence suddenly and recently, in essentially the complexity we see today.
- Genetic variations are limited.
- The earth has experienced a worldwide flood.
this part is through empirically testable data.
all data needs evalution, interpretation, which is in this case, we were created.
no, actually I'm not, most of its actually just bad science, prone to selective bias (scientist selecting lab experiments that favor their hypothesis) and other bias, variables which inferences that are given to are just plain insulting to the field of science. ie fossil dating, using geological dating, which geological layer the fossil it is in. The irony is, the geological layer is dated by the type of fossils that exist in that layer.
From your definition of scientific evidence, fossils of apes mean nothing because they do not test how these transformed into humans. If you understand how evidence for evolution is derived, you will know that evidence for creationism is equally as good.
The problem with ape-man fossil is that it could be just another case of microevolution, another is the age of the fossil, new more accurate carbon test have so far not shown any fossil to be older that 10 000 years
appendix is not a organ with no function, so far the function is just unknown medical practitioners will not remove an appendix lightly, however, it seems at the moment that its function may be limited. I will not use the vestigial word because it is a strictly evolutionary word. I don't even know how you classify what is a vestigal organ, something less prominant in other species? ie is the brain of a monkey a vestigal organ if monkeys evolved from humans?
evidence: All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design.There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Everything we have in our bodys have a function.
relevance- macroevolution is unlikely to have occurs, which means, we were at our current complexity when we came into our existence, which mean- we are created
*cough* there are so half-developed parts of the body of an animal... the Archaeopteryx is a good example... it has reptilian type of beak, reptilian claw on the wings, feathers of avian type on the wings and a long tail with many vertebrae as well as feather... so basically a cross between reptial and birds... now if you have to argue that a creator felt like mixing and matching to create this type of animal that extinct very quickly as it can't adapt to the environment please do....if that's the case i would think this all mighty and cleaver creator would fit into what we call a mad scientist nowadays....
also in humans there are half-developed organs... ever heard of aplasia or dysplasia?... it's when a certain organ does not develop or half developed.... examples are adrenal aplasia when you're missing an adrenal gland
and just take a look at human embryology... as fetus we started off having a tail and gills... now if there is a creator why did he has to create humans to start of with these features that are so similar to other embryos of other animals? All vertebrate embryos go through the same stage of development as embryo... i think that is a good "evidence" that all species are related together by evolution
I never said the brain of a monkey is a vestigial organ... it still has function it allows it to find food and have fine motor skills with their hands... don't insult the monkeys they are intelligent....
Again using your logic of just because we haven't find a function to an organ doesn't mean it doesn't have any function... just because we haven't found any fossil older than 10 000 years old doesn't mean they don't exist and this is wrong anyway... the Archaeopteryx fossil dates back some 150million years
Now finally IF there is a creator... using your creation theory...who created the creator? and who created the creator of the creator? you can continue asking that questions endlessly... at some point you will have to reach a point where there really is no creator apart from nature... eventually the creation theory would lose....
Mountain,
I've read much of this thread and I must submit that you certainly do not understand what the scientific method truly is. You claim that of the 4000 books of DNA information contained in each strand, of which 3900 are either junk DNA, jibberish, or not yet understood, that this fact "proves" creation. This is a definitive statement that you have not substantiated. It is insufficient to write an opinion and try to pass it off as fact. It does not even fit the inference criteria. To claim something as fact, you must present actual evidence. You cannot make a claim and expect someone else's dispute to start a war of words that furthers your agenda.
I have not offered any substantiated evidence that proves evolution in the above paragraph. You have asked people to offer evidence one point at a time, but you have gladly positioned yourself comfortably by stabbing point after point at people and have, IMO, lost the debate already.
In my life, I have seen, held, and participated in discussions dealing with this issue. I have argued both sides, but I have come to one reasonable conclusion. Evolution exists. It's happening today, all around us. Both you and I are right now evolving, getting better, learning, and so on. Evolution is not about apes turning into people. It's about life careening off resistance and surviving the fall. It's about life finding a better way to work within its environment.
Your argument that DNA proves creation is a rather short sighted effort to bolster support by those whose minds have not been sculpted by reality, but rather, by religion. Religious beliefs have always held that you should curtail your curiosity in favor of honoring the wishes of authority. You haven't excercised your mind because you may never have had the chance.
Oak trees, jellyfish, ants, elephants, people, lions, crows, rose bushes, bacteria, whales, snakes, dogs, parakeets, and dinosaurs all have DNA. This DNA differs very little from species to species. These are facts, not inferences or opinions. I challenge you to show me these species must have been created by forces other than by natural, and in some cases, artificial selection. The behaviors of these species reflect certain distinctions in their DNA that afford certain unique abilities that may be exclusive to them.
So, show me evidence...
OK, let's try an analogy. Imagine that science is a big machine. You can look at any of the pieces of the machine, and figure out roughly what they're for and how they work. But you don't know what the machine as a whole is or how it works. Which is why you're trying to push as "science" a hypothesis which can neither be tested nor used. And hence, since it's impossible to do anything with it, you spend all your time attacking the established theory instead, thinking that doing so somehow supports your hypothesis, when all it actually does is attempt to create a "no known theory" situation.
If you knew what science actually was, instead of how to do little components of it, you'd be able to see why creationism is unscientific, why it can never be a scientific theory. You can't deduce anything new from it, and you can't explain anything new with it. That is why your "evidence" is actually all an attack on a different theory, it never actually supports yours. It is a hypothesis which by its very nature is impossible to support with evidence.
By the way, are you aware that someone with a sufficiently good telescope can actually literally see billions of years into the past? The only way the world could possibly have been around for only a short amount of time would be if it was carefully planned to look like that. And once you assume that some unknowable force is trying to trick you, any possibility of doing any science flies right out of the window. One assumption that any scientist has to be able to make is that nobody is tinkering with the results.
You're trying to prove those things? You can not actually believe that everything was created suddenly and recently, can you? Most other creationists have even given up on that one already. And the flood? That story is quite obviously based on the Epic of Gilgamesh from Babylon; even if you believe everything else in that accursed book you must be able to see at least Noah was invented.
Selective bias? Isn't that what you're doing by only stating the science that supports your point?
The appendix is an organ that really serves no important purpose; you won't die without it. Doctors won't remove one lightly because it is a major surgery with major risks. A vestigial organ is basically an organ whose original function has been lost during evolution. The coccyx is the remnant of a lost tail; the appendix exists as a vestigial remnant of the larger cellulose-digesting cecum found in our herbivorous ancestors.
A monkey's brain isn't vestigial. If you remove a monkey's brain, it's dead. I really don't know any life forms with a vestigial brain. Who the hell said monkeys evolved from humans anyway?
I really would like to know how you think. All species are fully developed in the sense that they are functional; they would be dead if they were not. In the sense of perfection nothing is ever fully developed, life is constantly adapting to its environment. The structures present in humans are not perfect. They work in their environment, but to call them fully developed in the sense of perfection is pure arrogance.
errr... I can't believe I'm left to defend whether my facts are so far scientific or whether they are relevant to creationism.
I start explaining from after my last post
it good that you mentioned the Archaeopteryx, that itself is a matter of controversy
http://www.creationscience.com/FAQ119.html#wp1365100
that itself challenges whether the fossil records are right or not. it just funny to say that the archaeopteryx has feathers and wings but yet its skeleton does not favor it to fly, wouldn't the fossil go against natural selection.
aplasia or dysplasia, thats pathology, and is microevolution if anything
ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_and_phylogeny
neutral source, I think it actually favor evolution more, that statement is a controversy in itself, but due to the many differences in ontogeny and phylogeny, I do not believe in it. btw, how else are we suppose to develope in embryo?
"Again using your logic of just because we haven't find a function to an organ doesn't mean it doesn't have any function... just because we haven't found any fossil older than 10 000 years old doesn't mean they don't exist and this is wrong anyway... the Archaeopteryx fossil dates back some 150million years"
true, maybe in the future they can find a fossil older than 10 000 years. but they haven't. the Archaeopteryx dates at 150 million years, the dating method was most likely inaccurate and the person who dated it probably assumed many variables that are wrong.
Its grossly unfair to ask who created the creator (cannot be backed up by scientific evidence), like we could similiarly ask how the big bang was created? how come the law of physics exist? (also can't be backed up by scientific evidence, just assumed to exist and is the foundation of science). These are questions that science cannot prove.
errr... I still can't believe I'm left to defend whether my facts are so far scientific or whether they are relevant to creationism.
scientific method
has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
(1) DNA is extremely complex, genome size and complexity is independant of its phylogeny tree
(2) FAVORS to show that macroevolution does not occur because the DNA steps between organisms of the phylogenetic tree are "out of whack". ie, FAVORS the fact that these organisms came in essentially the complexity we see today.
(3) Prediction- Macroevolution does not occur
(4) A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates
ok is there anything wrong with this in terms of scientific methodology?
"OK, let's try an analogy. Imagine that science is a big machine"
I know, thats why my logic is local so far, you don't expect me to explain the machine in one post do you? what do you expect me to do? Which other field do you want me to explain creationism in?
another criticism is that I'm often refuting the evidence for evolution and not proving my point. I have to. If not, the evidence given would be in great support of evolution. Science itself is being critical about other peoples work, to point out the "errors" in people experiment and the unrealistic assumptions they make to come to their results. I believe if you truly understand the science methodology, you will come to understand that not many things in science are "facts", in fact, most experimentation have unreasonable assumed variables that can easily manipulate the validity of the results
merged: 11-29-2005 ~ 10:16am
"You're trying to prove those things? You can not actually believe that everything was created suddenly and recently, can you?" yes thats what I'm trying to say that science FAVORS, proofs only exist in mathematical formulas and lawcourts.
selective bias- no, its a part of science methodology, in the data collection area
"The appendix is an organ that really serves no important purpose; you won't die without it"
our pinky does not really serve any important purpose, we also won't die without it. is it a evolutionary remnant?
"A vestigial organ is basically an organ whose original function has been lost during evolution. The coccyx is the remnant of a lost tail."
if macroevolution is shown to exist, coccyx protects ass and your intestines when someone kicks you. and nothing sticks out from our butt like a tail
Not necessarily. Unless the feathers and wings provided a clear disadvantage over species already in place that should have called for its destruction but it survived instead of others, it doesn't go against natural selection.
You don't know that. For all you or I know that guy could be right.
First of all, the hypothesis is trying to prove a negative, which isn't possible through observed events, but I'll let that slide since this thread is about drawing inferences from evidence and not proof. That aside, the experiment of step four contains several flaws.
First is that it does not test complexity in itself or the phylogenetic tree, it tests whether evolution itself is observed in the experiment.
Second, there is no mention of exactly what kind of environmental barrier had to be overcome by the fruit flies. There is the possibility it wasn't necessary to overcome, since 3000 consecutive generations lived through it, or that the flies gathered, since they are likely a very small sample of the immensely large insect population, did not have DNA with the genetic mutation or factor necessary to promote a certain change.
Third, the time frame was likely too short. A hundred years might seem like a long time to us, but for evolution, even with a rapidly reproducing species such as the fruit fly, it is like the blink of an eye. If evolution and the theory of the dinosaur era is correct, insects have survived on this earth in almost the same form for hundreds of millions of years! With such a track record, there would be little to no chance for an observable, necessary change over only a 100 year time frame.
I'm and evolution guy, myself, but I'm going to support you on this one. You are right in that there are few, if any, 'facts', and that proof as we want it generally does not exist. Short of God giving us a demonstration tomorrow or a flipbook-like pattern of fossils between two phylogenetic species, it is likely we will never know the truth of the matter. And, short of proof, we will create theories backed by science of our own creation. Science is not as unbiased as we like to think it is, and people will concoct experiments and view the results in a way that supports their hypothesis. Evolution believers will see the evidence and observations as supporting their view, and creationists will see the same evidence and say it supports theirs. Either way, they are both theories, and without proof, are full of holes which need to be explained before we can truly claim one is correct.
Uh oh! It looks like mountain is quoting outside sources like he said no one could do...
Shame on you...
So we all agree on that microevolution is correct? Both creationists and evolutionists do not dispute the ideas of microevolution. Now what is microevolution?
"Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies." - Dictionary.com
So microevolution is a slight change in the genome of a species that often gives rise to subspecies. This new subspecies is different from the orginal species. We all agree to this. Now what if the new subspecies undergoes microevolution again to create another different subspecies. This newer subspecies would be different from the subspecies and even more different from the orginal species. Logically over time this creation of newer and newer subspecies could create a subspecies so different from the orignal species it can no longer be considered a subspecies but rather a new species.
Now one could argue that perhaps the newer subspecies could be more similar to the original species than the subspecies that it arose from. However, the newer subspecies would have to encroach upon the niche of the original species. Because the original species is already well adapted to the niche it would be extremely difficult for the subspecies to take over unless the new traits it had gave it an overwhelming advantage. This advantage probably would have to come from a large genetic change. Otherwise the subspecies would evolve to enter other niches that are easier to enter.
I cite the Galapagos finches observed by Darwin. (http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/finches.html) Darwin's finches share similar size, coloration, and habits. Their salient difference is in the size and shape of their beak. It was found through genetics that they all shared a common ancestor. Evolution driven by mainly by diet caused the speciation which gave rise to 14 similar but different finch species. There's some other stuff , but you should read the short article about it instead of listening to me.
Relevence: Because microevolution is true it can be inferred that macroevolution is true as well. The example of speciation I proposed helps to show this.