Creationism vs. Evolution

[fukuda 351]

When something is proven, it works under every single circumstance and in all conditions. We don't know if it works for all life-forms (i.e. those on other planets or undiscovered) or for all conditions.quote>

It works for all lifeforms unless you find evidence that it doesn't.

But anyway, you'll need to find lifeforms on other planets to begin with

[Duke87 1,070]

Alien life forms might not work with DNA the same way those on earth do. So for them evolution might be very different or even impossible.

We have observed evolution occurring here on Earth. We know that it can and does happen. It's logical to conclude that it did in the past and will continue to in the future.

For us, anyway. Extraterrestrial life would be a seperate system and could reasonably operate differently, just as plants operate differently from animals.

Still, evolution says nothing about the origin of life itself. The clash with creation myth comes from the fact that evolution dictates god did not create all animals and plants, including humans, as they are a few thousand years ago. God could still have created the first living cell and the theory of evolution would not be invalidated... but if one takes the bible literally, that's not how it says it happened, and you get problems. Speaking of which, humor:

Lawyers anticipating lawsuits find the bible.

[Blazerhawk 162]

This is just a thought I came up with in my physics class today.

The Heat Death of the Universe, derived from the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, states that at some point all matter in the universe will eventually reach equilibrium temperature, and thus would no longer react. Now all this means is that the universe cannot cycle forever because eventually equilibrium will be reached. If the matter of the universe as we know it has not always existed, it must have been created at some point.

My point, I have yet to see anyone explain how the matter in our universe got here.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

My point, I have yet to see anyone explain how the matter in our universe got here.quote>

That is a seperate theory from Evolution. Nevertheless, I will respond.

The Universe is expanding at a certain rate. This is an observed fact. Rolling back the expansion we find that at some point around 14 billion years ago all matter was at a single point. This is the basis for the Big Bang theory, in addition to the CMBR. In light of this evidence, and no other explanations having any evidence, I think our Universe started with a Big Bang. What caused it is to date unknown.

When something is proven, it works under every single circumstance and in all conditions. We don't know if it works for all life-forms (i.e. those on other planets or undiscovered) or for all conditions.quote>

Then I guess we need to throw all the laws of physics out the window, because who knows? We could be wrong and the "laws" are different in other parts of the universe, or even in the suspected multiverse.quote>

No, we do not. The laws of physics have been proven to work under every circumstance and every condition in our Universe. Therefore Physics has been proven to be right in our Universe.

As for the Multiverse or other Universes, that is unknown at present.

[Blazerhawk 162]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

My point, I have yet to see anyone explain how the matter in our universe got here.quote>

That is a seperate theory from Evolution. Nevertheless, I will respond.

The Universe is expanding at a certain rate. This is an observed fact. Rolling back the expansion we find that at some point around 14 billion years ago all matter was at a single point. This is the basis for the Big Bang theory, in addition to the CMBR. In light of this evidence, and no other explanations having any evidence, I think our Universe started with a Big Bang. What caused it is to date unknown.quote>

 

I apologize. I should have been more clear.

I did not ask for why our universe hasn't experienced heat death. I asked how the matter that forms our universe came to be. The big bang assumes that all mass is there at that time, but gives no explanation for how it got there. That is what I want explained. How did matter come into existence?

I apologize if  the tone of this reply is harsh. Unfortunately, that is one of the downsides of typed debates.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: crushedcar How did matter come into existence?

quote>

Without a nice spaceship and a time machine, we will never conclusively know. It's just one of those areas of science that I doubt will ever be really solved.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: crushedcar This is just a thought I came up with in my physics class today.

The Heat Death of the Universe, derived from the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, states that at some point all matter in the universe will eventually reach equilibrium temperature, and thus would no longer react. Now all this means is that the universe cannot cycle forever because eventually equilibrium will be reached. If the matter of the universe as we know it has not always existed, it must have been created at some point.

...quote>

emphasis mine

Why? Why is something has not always existed must it have been created? (I assume you mean by created that an intelligence had to have made it).

Why does something that has not always existed need to have a creator as opposed to a beginning?

Since you are apparently studying physics (and presumably mathematics), can you tell me something that is finite but has no beginning or end?

Originally posted by: crushedcar

...

My point, I have yet to see anyone explain how the matter in our universe got here.quote>

Maybe you have yet to see anyone explain it yet, but that does not mean that anyone hasn't yet explained it (just that you haven't seen that explanation yet). Even if it hasn't yet been explained by anyone at all doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation. It just means we are yet to find it. After all, not long ago we couldn't explain gravity, chemical reactions, why the stars emitted light, where babies came from, how to make things fly, and a whole lot of other things. Our understanding of things did have a beginning. But it does not yet have an end.

Originally posted by: crushedcar

...

My point, I have yet to see anyone explain how the matter in our universe got here.quote>

I'd suggest starting with:

E=mc²

Originally posted by: crushedcar This is just a thought I came up with in my physics class today.

The Heat Death of the Universe, derived from the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, states that at some point all matter in the universe will eventually reach equilibrium temperature, and thus would no longer react. Now all this means is that the universe cannot cycle forever because eventually equilibrium will be reached.

...quote>

And when equilibrium is reached then what? Does everything cease to exist? No, thermodynamic equilibrium does not imply that matter and energy suddenly cease to exist, simply that the energy has been converted to a form that is no longer useful to drive reactions. Matter-Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another. At least according to our current knowledge.

It is known that the universe is expanding. If drawn to the calculations' mathematical conclusions the universe in the past was much smaller and more dense than it is now. At a time about 14.5 billion years ago the universe was very small and dense. However conditions at this "time" are strange indeed, more-so than anything in our current experience of the universe. Strange enough that the "laws" of physics as the average person understands them do not hold true.

Based on what we do know, time itself collapses, and the effects of quantum mechanics which in large scale physics has limited influence, become significant. This is in part why we cannot yet predict if the big bang was indeed the "beginning" of our universe, or what might have happened "before". Effectively it was the beginning as we can understand it, because this is as far back as time itself makes any sense, and which if anything did exist "before" (for which there is no meaning under these conditions) has to now no predictable influence on the universe as it became, therefore it is effectively the "beginning" of the universe. I would recommend something like Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time if you are interested in theories of universal origins explained at a popular level. There are probably more recent and up to date works, but this was one of the first and most comprehensive that tried to give an overall summary of the concepts and how science was addressing them.

Anyway, who ever said the Theory of Evolution had anything to say on the issue of the origin of the universe? Why do you expect that it would? Its a scientific theory. It has a specific scientific purpose and that is to explain the diversity of living things. Using it outside of its intended purpose is just asking for trouble. Most tools if misused will result in silly, non-sensical or even dangerous outcomes. Unfortunately the Theory of Evolution is one of the scientific tools that seems to be incredibly misused and abused by some people.

Originally posted by: crushedcar That is what I want explained. How did matter come into existence?

quote>

Keep studying physics and maybe you will be the one to explain it. Everything in science starts with a question, something that is unknown, and a desire to seek the answer. Finding the answer, changing the unknown into the known is what science is all about. There are still plenty of questions that need to be answered. If you keep asking them and seeking honest and truthful answers, maybe you will become the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking, the person who changes the way we see and understand our universe.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: sam

can you tell me something that is finite but has no beginning or end? quote>

How about a circle.

Or an ellipse. Or any other mathematical shape that forms a complete loop out of a continuous curve.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Paging M.C. Escher...

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Since you are apparently studying physics (and presumably mathematics), can you tell me something that is finite but has no beginning or end?quote>

How about a circle.

Or an ellipse. Or any other mathematical shape that forms a complete loop out of a continuous curve. quote>

I think she meant a beginning/end in time, not space.

Anyway, the origin of the Universe is not in the scope of this thread. This is about Evolution/Abiogenesis vs. Creationism, not Big Bang vs. Bible.

If we wish to have a discussion about the Universe's origins, I'll hapilly participate, but in another thread.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I think he meant a beginning/end in time, not space.quote>

Firstly, sam is a she.

Secondly, that may be what she meant, but it's not what she said. She just said something finite with no beginning or end. No specification of in what context.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I think he meant a beginning/end in time, not space.quote>

Firstly, sam is a she.

Secondly, that may be what she meant, but it's not what she said. She just said something finite with no beginning or end. No specification of in what context. quote>

Originally posted by: Duke87

...

Or any other mathematical shape that forms a complete loop out of a continuous curve.quote>

This was along the lines I was thinking. The point being that something can be finite yet have no beginning or end, so its not logical to assume that something must have a beginning or end simply because it exists.

Models of the universe and its origins are largely mathematical. Some of them have closed curves among their solutions.

Originally posted by: Duke87

...No specification of in what context. quote>

Sorry about that, my mind often wanders off on tangents.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Anyway, the origin of the Universe is not in the scope of this thread. This is about Evolution/Abiogenesis vs. Creationism, not Big Bang vs. Bible.

...quote>

Yes its always confused me (not to mention annoyed me) that some people say they disagree with Evolution, then the only reasons they give relate to areas the theory was doesn't and was never intended to speak to at all. Some people seem to expect that a scientific theory is a philosophy to live your life by. Its not and was never intended to be. Like I said in my earlier post, Evolution is a scientific theory. It has a specific purpose, which is to explain the diversity observed in living things.

<Edited to fix quotes>

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Firstly, sam is a she.quote>

Oh, sorry about that. The post has been edited to reflect this.

Anyway, the origin of the Universe is not in the scope of this thread. This is about Evolution/Abiogenesis vs. Creationism, not Big Bang vs. Bible.

...quote>

Yes its always confused me (not to mention annoyed me) that some people say they disagree with Evolution, then the only reasons they give relate to areas the theory was doesn't and was never intended to speak to at all. Some people seem to expect that a scientific theory is a philosophy to live your life by. Its not and was never intended to be. Like I said in my earlier post, Evolution is a scientific theory. It has a specific purpose, which is to explain the diversity observed in living things.quote>

Well put. There are actually three seperate concepts being discussed in this thread: Evolution, Abiogenesis, and Big Bang theory. I do concede that abiogenesis is within this thread's scope, since creationism is also being discussed, and by extension the origin of life.

So, this thread technically should be called "Creationism vs. Evolution and Abiogenesis", but I'm fine with the title the way it is.

[Blazerhawk 162]

Actually, the Big Bang and its related supprorting and opposing theories have a lot to do with the debate of Evolution vs. Creation. This is illustrated by mathematics and the contrast between Locke and Hobbes politcal philosopies. In mathematics the starting point of graph affects the whole of the graph. Moving the starting point up or down shifts the whole graph not just the starting point. To show the difference the starting point makes in these sort of debates, I'll use an example from my political science professor.

Thomas Hobbes was one of the early political philosphers. One of his signifcant ideas, put forth in his book Leviathan, was the relationship between a people and their ruler. Hobbes starting point was what one might call "evolutionary." He stated that before governments man lived in the "state of nature." In this state of nature life was "poor, brutish, nasty, and short." To insure protection man came together to form groups and established governments to whom they were subject. A diagram of his theory has the sovereign over the people. The people are responsible to obey the sovereign and the sovereign protects the people. The only way the sovereign can be replaced is for a more powerful sovereign to knock the existing one out of power.

John Locke was another early politcal philosopher. Like Hobbes he stated that governments started to protect men in the state of nature. However, he started with a "creationist" origin of man. Thus his diagram included God as the starting point of authority. God gave the gov't the authority to rule, and in return the gov't was responsible to God and the people. The People are obedient to the government and the gov't protects the people. However, if the people believe that the gov't is failing in its duties to God or them the people can talk to God. If God indicates that it is okay then the people may revolt. The work of Locke is fundamental in the Declaration of Independence. In fact the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is almost a direct quote of Locke (he said "life, liberty, and property.")

I know very little of what is written above deals with evolution or creation, but I felt it necessary to explain my logic for the questioning of the Big Bang theory. Hopefully, I have done that here. In the future I will try to refrain from the origin of the universe and stick to the topic at hand.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I have started a new thread for the discussion of the origin of the Universe.

[Blazerhawk 162]

Thank you manticorefan.

My main gripe with evolution is this. Bias has almost made it impossible for science supporting one theory to be accepted by the other. Human bias also taints results in everything from wording to a few (usually less than reputable) scientists faking results. It would seem to me that evolutionists and creationists alike are so quick to dismiss the other point-of-view that they only make their own arguements weaker.

That being said, I believe in creation for two reasons. 1) I would rather have faith in something and be wrong than have faith in nothing at all. In other words I would rather believe in the God of the Bible, and find out at the end of my life that evolution was right, than to believe all my life that I was just a result of evolution.

2) The ridiculous number of extremely low probability events that evolution requires are too much for me. First of all the sun has to form in just the right way so that it does not produce too much or the wrong kind of light. Second the earth, in addition to forming in just the right orbit, would have to have just the right chemical composition so that life like ours could develop. Third, the first cell would have to be just the right balance of chemicals to make up its DNA. Fourth, the formation of the moon (I know off topic). Fifth, the mutatations in creatures would have to occur rapidly and correctly to prevent mass extinction. Sixth, evolution has woven in several ELEs to explain fossil graveyards and such. Finally, (well actually just to wrap up this list) evolution takes so long that if land eroded at the current rate all land would have disappeared within about 300,000,000 years.

The first reason I believe in creation cannot be changed as it is not based in science. I am, however, willing to discuss the second reason.

[psander5 195]

Originally posted by: crushedcar

2) The ridiculous number of extremely low probability events that evolution requires are too much for me. First of all the sun has to form in just the right way so that it does not produce too much or the wrong kind of light. Second the earth, in addition to forming in just the right orbit, would have to have just the right chemical composition so that life like ours could develop. Third, the first cell would have to be just the right balance of chemicals to make up its DNA. Fourth, the formation of the moon (I know off topic).

quote>

Prof. Richard Dawkins could offer explanations for some of that. They are all problems I had with Evolution until I looked into Dawkins' work.  I was never a Creationism believer.  I've always sought for scientific answers to questions I couldn't answer.

The fact that we are the lucky ones alive means we are able to wonder at the low probability events that occured to enable our existence.  Say for example that there's a 1/1billion chance of life getting started around a star. Take 1billion stars, and there's an even chance that one of them will harbour life.  All the other's might have had some of the conditions, but not all so life could not begin.  The result is that the lifeforms inhabiting the lucky solar system look at all the other 999 999 999 stars without life and question why they should be the lucky ones.  The fact is someone has to win the lottery, it's just there aren't a billion unlucky ones for us to look down upon from our mansions and fast cars.  We're all alone because we are the lucky ones. 

It's also yet to be determined what some of these probabilities are.  We have no real idea what the likelihood is of life getting started is.  Since we are only able to analyse planets in our solar system, and vaguely the gas giants of a small number of other stars, we aren't able to make a true estimate of many of the probabilities involved.  The Drake Equation and all it's variables... The Drake Equation calculator (on the BBC's webpages - a nice little time passer)

Fifth, the mutatations in creatures would have to occur rapidly and correctly to prevent mass extinction.quote>

For every successful, advantageous mutation there are countless other mutations that have zero advantage or pose some detriment to the creature.  The advantageous mutations will always be more likely to be assimilated into the DNA of the species.  Individuals with disadvantageous mutations will not survive within a species for long.

Extinction and mass extinctions are one of the driving forces of evolution. Think of slash and burn.

Sixth, evolution has woven in several ELEs to explain fossil graveyards and such.quote>

woven in?  You make that sound like ELEs have been invented.  The stone that these events are recorded within are equally as valid and true as the words written down in creation depictions.  Some might say more so.

Finally, (well actually just to wrap up this list) evolution takes so long that if land eroded at the current rate all land would have disappeared within about 300,000,000 yearsquote>

Plate tectonics? Geology?  Land isn't static.  It's constantly being tilted, folded squashed, raised and splurged out of fiery pores.

All of the above is from memory of the book I read by Richard Dawkins, the Blind Watchmaker.   A lot of that book is based on the mathematics of evolution and learning to comprehend the big numbers, low probabilities and vast timescales involved.  I recommend it to anyone with an open mind who won't be easily offended by his writing style.  He can come across a little condescending to those who don't believe in evolution - he's a devout believer.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: crushedcar Thank you manticorefan.

My main gripe with evolution is this. Bias has almost made it impossible for science supporting one theory to be accepted by the other. Human bias also taints results in everything from wording to a few (usually less than reputable) scientists faking results. ...quote>

While bias is a natural human tendency, it can be controlled and mitigated if an honest and skilled effort is made to do so. Science is especially well designed to do this, and when undertaken properly, effective steps are taken to deliberately remove bias. It is very different to other methods in this respect, in that its methods are inherently unbiased as far as possible, more so than most other human methods. Even when bias cannot be completely eliminated further work is undertaken to understand and quantify the effects of any bias so it can be controlled for (eg double blind clinical trials).

These methods to control bias are used in all sciences including evolution biology. I wonder, do you consider the same amount of bias exists in other sciences such as pharmacy, conservation biology, electrochemistry, laser physics or entomology as you think there is in evolutionary biology?

Science also has an inbuilt mechanism to detect errors, mistakes, faulty experimental technique and fraud. Its called publish and peer review. Basically the idea is you test your ideas (by trying to destroy them). Then you get your colleagues to test it too. If it still works, submit an article to a journal. The editors and peer reviewers will also try to find any weakness in it. If not it might be published, then its available for anyone to try to find weakness in, even if it did get passed peer review. Anyone is free to try out the idea and verify if it works or not and criticise it. Dodgy or sloppy research and deception are pretty quickly picked up. An example occurred recently (Feb 08) where an article with significant suspected plagiarism was published online in advance. Within a matter of hours it had been dissected by members of the scientific community and even members of the general public, and the suspected "overlaps" documented and tracked to their sources. Within only a few days the article had been withdrawn, I believe by one of its authors. Deliberate deception or shoddy work stands virtually no chance against the scientific process. You will probably find instances of deception occur a lot less often than some people might have you believe. Dishonesty is not tolerated in science and is career suicide. No-one stands to gain anything out of it.  Science is largely self correcting due to its methods. Those methods can sometimes take some time to work, but they do work.

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Bias has almost made it impossible for science supporting one theory to be accepted by the other.  ...quote>

Other what?

Originally posted by: crushedcar

That being said, I believe in creation for two reasons. 1) I would rather have faith in something and be wrong than have faith in nothing at all. In other words I would rather believe in the God of the Bible, and find out at the end of my life that evolution was right, than to believe all my life that I was just a result of evolution.

quote>

That is your choice and your right and it is a right that I would defend. However I think it is also everyone else's right as well. What I find unacceptable though is that some people want to claim that right for themselves (fine), but they also want to make that choice for others as well (not fine), and deny those others the same right they want (for example by attempting to pass legislation to support their views or influence curriculum or censorship or deny others the freedoms of speech, religion, thought, free media or free academia).

Originally posted by: crushedcar

I would rather believe in the God of the Bible, and find out at the end of my life that evolution was right, than to believe all my life that I was just a result of evolution.

quote>

Maybe you or someone else can explain this to me. Why is it such a problem to think that we humans are (by inheritance) connected to all other living things, that we are part of a greater whole that we can see and experience now, that we share kinship with all the other wondrous living things on this beautiful planet of ours that we were so lucky to be born on. What is wrong with the wonder and joy of that? Why should we consider such kinship to be insulting and seek to deny it? Why should we be ashamed of that? What is wrong with being the result of evolution?

 

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Sixth, evolution has woven in several ELEs to explain fossil graveyards and such.quote>

Mass extinctions aren't supposed to explain large fossil graveyards, they explain why there are species and genera persisting for extended times in the fossil record and then disappearing from later in the fossil record, mostly all at the same time and across most of the earth's ecosystems at the time. When you see fossils en masse in a particular time/locality they are not the result of mass extinctions where everything just up and died and got instantly fossilised. Even the largest graveyards are due to localised events on a smaller scale than global extinction. The existence of them in the fossil record is the evidence of their life and is persistant. Its when they have been persistent and suddenly aren't in the fossil record that you may have evidence of an extinction event. Maybe.

Originally posted by: psander5

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Sixth, evolution has woven in several ELEs to explain fossil graveyards and such.quote>

woven in?  You make that sound like ELEs have been invented.  The stone that these events are recorded within are equally as valid and true as the words written down in creation depictions.  Some might say more so.quote>

Humans misunderstand things. They aren't necessarily reliable witnesses. Sometimes they get things wrong or see things that weren't there or forget or even lie. Sometimes they weren't even there. The rocks were there. They are the witnesses. The genes were there, they are a record of history older and more detailed than any book ever written. I think you can probably count me as one of those who prefer the scientific evidence to that of a human witness. Even if it turns out to be wrong in part I think its got a better chance of being more right overall.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Blazerhawk 162]

I will not quote psander5's or sam's post for sake of length.

psander5-I have heard this idea of inverse probabilities (it may be impropbable but given enough chances it will happen). That I agree with. What I have the problem with is the number of time it has to happen.

Your second point is basically a restatement of mine. Low probability of advantageous mutation would lead to extremely high extinction rates. What I don't get is how this would be advantageous to the species (losing most of its population).

Yeah, I worded that wrong. Perhaps I should have said needs. The problem is that most mass-extinction events would reduce the animal variety so much that it would result in a very limited number of species types.

Finally, in regards to land the problem is that in any average year there is more land lost than land gained. The idea of plate tectonics cannot explain the Appalachain mountains. Additionally if the earth has had these plates for billions of years, wouldn't they be more fragmented.

Sam-That works, except that most scientists believe in evolution. So yes it may filter out dodgy or faked work, but how can it account for connotation and the other embellishments of language. Remember they are scientists and what reads fair to them may read slanted to the public. BTW I know fakery is very uncommon.

The other side. Creationist are very quick to dismiss evolutionary ideas and vice versa. That is just poor science.

I agree. You have every right to believe in evolution and I will not force you to change. Yet, somehow that right to choose is lost in the educational system where the theory of evolution is taught exclusively. Schools are a captive audience and thus should inform students of the opposing viewpoints in equal manner. In some ways this is what has created the whole debate. I admit that there are schools that teach only creation (I attended one), but such are usually associated with a church and such a cirruculum is expected or desired by the parents.

I never said there was any problem with it. I believe the way I do because I am a Christian. I cannot answer your question fairly because I am biased against it. I guess the most I can say is that being a Christian and believing in evolution conflict with each other.

Thank you for that. Still there are problems of what were these ELEs and how did certain species survive.

Yes, rocks and genes may be more accurate but they must still be interpreted by humans. As you said humans make mistakes. One of my favorite examples of how differently things can be interpreted is radio-isotope dating. The whole concept is based on the assumption that x-amount of the measured radio-isotope existed within the specimen at the time of death. Think of how skewed that could make those dates.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Blazerhawk 162]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Evolution is scientific.  It is the universally accepted explanation for the development of life on earth.  Creationism is not scientific;  it cannot be shown by example, and, in fact, it cannot withstand scientific examination.  In the 150 yrs since the idea of evolution was presented in firm language, it has never been disproved.  Ever.  It has even grown stronger due to the challenges made against it.quote>

 

Yet it can only ever remain a theory because it cannot be proven to be the origin of life. The same can be said for creationism. Also, evolution has the benefit of being malleable. This means that if part of the theory were to be disproven it could be discarded and replaced. Thus, that theory of evolution would never have been disproven. 

I would also ask if you have ever read the creation story or any material supporting it. If you haven't, then what you are stating are not beliefs you have formulated as a result of comparative study, but are instead a result of "indoctination" of one side.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Your second point is basically a restatement of mine. Low probability of advantageous mutation would lead to extremely high extinction rates. What I don't get is how this would be advantageous to the species (losing most of its population). quote>

Most mutations are harmless. Those that are harmful do lead to deaths, but, seeing as only individuals without the harmful mutation survive to reproduce, nature weeds out the bad stuff.

And, say what you will about the likelihood of it causing drastic changes, we do know for a fact that such mutations do occur. We observe it all the time. That isn't just theory.

The problem is that most mass-extinction events would reduce the animal variety so much that it would result in a very limited number of species types. quote>

Depends on just how massive the extinction event is. Such things are rare, however.

Finally, in regards to land the problem is that in any average year there is more land lost than land gained. quote>

That may be true now, but it doesn't mean it always was. You're assuming that the rate of land loss and land gain is constant over time. Which is not a safe assumption since there's nothing suggesting that it's the case.

The idea of plate tectonics cannot explain the Appalachain mountains. quote>

Oh? And why ever not?

The geologic history of the Appalachians is not a mystery.

Additionally if the earth has had these plates for billions of years, wouldn't they be more fragmented. quote>

They're more fragmented than most people realize.

The typical depiction of a few large plates is a simplification of things. First of all, the boundaries between them are not one single fault but several smaller faults all packed in one region, generally. Secondly, even in the middle of plates, one can find cracks and faults in some places, it's just that these cracks are of the "greenstick fracture" variety in that they have a beginning and an end, rather than splitting the entire plate in two.

Also, consider that while the plates have been around for billions of years, most of the crust in a given plate is younger than that - gradually created at spread faults such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. In all likelihood, the material making up the rock deep below where you're sitting reading this was molten and part of the mantle a billion years ago (the shallower rock is likely sedimentary or metamorphic and would have formed from geological processes other than plate tectonics).

I agree. You have every right to believe in evolution and I will not force you to change. Yet, somehow that right to choose is lost in the educational system where the theory of evolution is taught exclusively. Schools are a captive audience and thus should inform students of the opposing viewpoints in equal manner. In some ways this is what has created the whole debate. I admit that there are schools that teach only creation (I attended one), but such are usually associated with a church and such a cirruculum is expected or desired by the parents. quote>

Public schools do not teach theology or religion. There are many varying stories and whatnot in that department and the school could not possibly cover them all, anyway. Besides, Creationism is not science and has no place in a science classroom. It belongs in a religion classroom. We don't have religion classrooms in public schools, but that doesn't mean you don't "have the right to choose". Nobody's stopping you, the parent, from teaching your kids about creationism. And if you send your kids to Sunday school or a Catholic school, they'll learn about it there.

Yes, rocks and genes may be more accurate but they must still be interpreted by humans. As you said humans make mistakes. One of my favorite examples of how differently things can be interpreted is radio-isotope dating. The whole concept is based on the assumption that x-amount of the measured radio-isotope existed within the specimen at the time of death. Think of how skewed that could make those dates.quote>

It can skew things somewhat, but those "assumptions" are not blind guesses, they're educated estimates. And the error introduced by such inaccuracy and uncertainty hardly makes the biologic and geologic history based on them fall to bits. So what if that fossil is actually 240 million years old as opposed to the 260 million we think it is? It's certainly not only a few thousand years old, as creation myth would stipulate it has to be. The margin of error is nowhere near that large. It can be off by 10 or 20 percent, certainly, due to inaccuracy in the method and uncertainty and bias in the estimate. But it's not going to be off by five or six orders of magnitude.

[fukuda 351]

Your second point is basically a restatement of mine. Low probability of advantageous mutation would lead to extremely high extinction rates. What I don't get is how this would be advantageous to the species (losing most of its population).quote>

Hmm I see a general misunderstanding about how genetics and natural selection work.

Mutations and genome

First of all, Only mutations in the reproductive cells will contribute to the species genome, which already reduces the chances of a working mutation.

The major part of mutations appear (more or less) randomly all along the double strand of DNA.

Let's use humans as an example, the hugest part of the human DNA is non-coding, this means that a big part of it is just a long line of senseless nucleotids, just a small part of it is actually coding genes or cis/trans-regulation zones. A mutation there means no change in the genome itself, so the changes of a random mutation causing any trouble decreased dramatically.About gene-coding sections, usually random mutations just change one of the 2 facing nucleotides, which causes a repulsion and a change of the shape of that part of the DNA, there are repairing proteins that fix these little errors.

If the repairing proteins skip the mutation, there's still another process that reduces the chances of the mutation having a functional impact, the genetic code.

This code is used to build the proteins (the molecules that will have a structural or chemical role in how the cell works and the body is built). It reads 3 pairs of RNA bases (AUGC) and assigns an aminoacid (a functional part) to the growing protein. However, this code is not an exact one, it's a degenerated one, which means that one aminoacid can be added not according to one given triplet, but according to several ones.

This is how it works:

let's say that we initially had a GGU triplet

GGU -> Gly

A random mutation occurs and the 3rd base id changed to A

GGA -> Gly

the protein remains the same.

Now the first G changes to C

CGU -> Arg

the protein has mutated to a different structure and probably a different shape.

This filters even more the results of a random mutation. It has to be said that this kind of mutations are accumulative and if our GGA suffers another mutation to GCA the protein will mutate.

With all these mechanisms the chances of a given mutation to actually mean a noticeable mutation are ridiculously low. That's why it takes millions of years for a population to mutate in a really noticeable way.

As you already stated, within those mutations a big part carry no advantage and some are a burden. However, meaning no advantage doesn't mean that they are disadvantageous, changing an aminoacid in one of the side chains of a protein will probably go unnoticed to natural selection as it means no changes to the function of the protein. Those mutations accumulate too and cause structural changes in the proteins, leading to advantageous or disadvantageous results.

Gene regulation

Until recently[1], we thought that the major part of evolution was due to mutations occuring in genes, but some recent research shows that the major part of evolution could had happened not in the genes themselves, but in the sections that regulate those genes.

For instance, we have a pigment receptor. Changing its protein structure could mean a serious disadvantage to the animal (being vulnerable to UV Rays, for instance). However, if the regulation section of the gene is mutated instead of the gene, the protein remains the same but it can appear in different parts of the body. It could for instance cover the entire part of the body instead of some parts of it, meaning a superior advantage in front of the other individuals, without changing the genes at all.

Natural Selection

Genes are very nice, but evolution plays at 2 levels. Mutation and selection. Having a disadvantageous mutation doesn't forcefully mean that you or your offspring will die, just that you and your offspring will lose against the offspring of the non-mutated individuals (or the offspring of individuals with advantageous mutations). Selection is not a matter of dying, it's a matter of statistical distribution.

For instance, let's say that an individual of an animal species shows a mutation that affects the position of several of its leg muscles. This mutation allows him to run faster and escape the predators. His offspring will have greater chances of surviving to predators and reproduce more. Due to this, the population of the non-mutated individuals will decrease  while the other population increases. The 2 populations will mix and the new mutated protein will finally override the old one.

The change has been advantageous and the species hasn't lost a noticeable part of its population.

Speciation

We've been talking about mutations within the same species, what about evolving into a new one?

One of the principal causes of speciation is geographic isolation. Let's say that we have 2 populations of the same species, if they are interconnected they'll share genetic material and will remain more or less the same species. Now, let's say that one of the 2 species migrates far away or a sea or mountain range appears just in the middle of their territory. The 2 populations will be unable to share genetic material and will be accumulating different mutations, way later, due to impossibilty of reproduction (shape changes) or genetic differences (different number of chromosomes for instance) they'll be completely unable to mix together. They evolved into 2 different species.

Sam-That works, except that most scientists believe in evolution.quote>

We don't "believe" in theories or laws, I don't "believe" in the Laws of Thermodynamics. Science is not a religion, we accept it until it shows false or we find a better explanation.

that right to choose is lost in the educational system where the theory of evolution is taught exclusively. Schools are a captive audience and thus should inform students of the opposing viewpoints in equal manner.quote>

? Creation is taught in schools, in the religion class, where it belongs.Creation and evolution are not opposing viewpoints in science. At the same level, we could teach Astrology as an opposed viewpoint to Astronomy in our science classes...

[1] = Scientific American (Nov-Dec 08)

[dabadon5 295]

Look around our Earth, look at nature, the people, the animals, the plants, it all has a order to it, and a great man once said

"if there is order, then there is inteligence" or something within those lines.

[fukuda 351]

Is there intelligence involved each time a regular crystal forms spontaneusly?

[Patricius Maximus 236]

My main gripe with evolution is this. Bias has almost made it impossible for science supporting one theory to be accepted by the other. quote>

Firstly, Creationism is not a theory unless it meets the definition of a theory, below is the dictionary definition of one:

A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.quote>

You tell me any experiments that can validate this concept, and then tell me what the results would be if Creationism is correct. If you can show neither, then it is not a scientific theory, is not testable, and therefore is irrelevant.

Human bias also taints results in everything from wording to a few (usually less than reputable) scientists faking results. quote>

Yes, and different humans have different biases. That is why the method of peer review is used for results. Few scientists fake results, but if they do, they are always disproven later.

It would seem to me that evolutionists and creationists alike are so quick to dismiss the other point-of-view that they only make their own arguements weaker. quote>

Evolutionist? There is no such thing as evolutionism, therefore there are no evolutionists.

Scientists dismiss the Creationist views because they are not a scientific theory, and they are thus irrelevant to science. Creation advocates (like those in the Discovery Institute) dismiss Evolution because, to put it bluntly, they are religious zealots who cannot accept the possibility that they are wrong.

Even I, who believe Evolution is correct, accept a certain possibility that I may be wrong. However, Science can only base itself on evidence, not speculation. If the evidence is in favor of a certain theory, naturally Science favors that theory as well.

That being said, I believe in creation for two reasons. 1) I would rather have faith in something and be wrong than have faith in nothing at all. In other words I would rather believe in the God of the Bible, and find out at the end of my life that evolution was right, than to believe all my life that I was just a result of evolution. quote>

Aside from something like Pascal's Wager, why would you rather have yourself proved wrong at death than be right all the time? That makes no sense.

And very few people believe from the time they are born that they are a result of Evolution. Those who believe that usually make a rational analysis and then decide.

The ridiculous number of extremely low probability events that evolution requires are too much for me.quote>

First of all, Evolution does not encompass the formation of the Earth. It is a seperate theory.

First of all the sun has to form in just the right way so that it does not produce too much or the wrong kind of light. quote>

Wrong kind of light? Ah, I think you mean too much ultraviolet and X-rays. That only happens with the more massive stars of spectral types A, O and B. The Sun is type G.

Secondly, life can arise on any planet that has a stable and non-destructive source of energy. Stars of types G, K, and M fit this nicely.

Thirdly, there simply wasn't enough mass in the proto-solar disc to form anything more than a G-type star.

Second the earth, in addition to forming in just the right orbit, would have to have just the right chemical composition so that life like ours could develop. quote>

If, on average, every star in our Galaxy has 10 planets, then there would be 2 trillion planets in our Galaxy. Even with one per star, it is 200 billion. It is almost certain that on at least one of them have the right composition

Third, the first cell would have to be just the right balance of chemicals to make up its DNA.quote>

Life can conceivably be made up of different encoding than DNA, so the first cell might not have had DNA encoding. Also, given how many different kinds of cells may have developed, some of them had the right composition.

 Fourth, the formation of the moon (I know off topic). quote>

That is irrelevant, since life does not require a large moon.

Fifth, the mutatations in creatures would have to occur rapidly and correctly to prevent mass extinction. quote>

How fast do cells reproduce? Pretty fast. And also take into account how difficult it is to destroy bacteria today. Perhaps some came from Mars that were blasted off by an impact, and landed on Earth as ALH84001. So, once cells propagate, they're pretty resiliant.

Sixth, evolution has woven in several ELEs to explain fossil graveyards and such. quote>

Evolution is not necessary to explain fossil graveyards. That is a seperate phonomenon.

Finally, (well actually just to wrap up this list) evolution takes so long that if land eroded at the current rate all land would have disappeared within about 300,000,000 years. quote>

True, if the Earth had no plate tectonics. Plate tectonics constantly shifts land around, and creates new land, so the current rate of erosion is not constant.

I have heard this idea of inverse probabilities (it may be impropbable but given enough chances it will happen). That I agree with. What I have the problem with is the number of time it has to happen. quote>

It only has to happen once for life to develop.

Sam-That works, except that most scientists believe in evolution. So yes it may filter out dodgy or faked work, but how can it account for connotation and the other embellishments of language. Remember they are scientists and what reads fair to them may read slanted to the public.quote>

Connotation of language does not alter the substance behind it. In other words, it doesn't matter.

The other side. Creationist are very quick to dismiss evolutionary ideas and vice versa. That is just poor science.quote>

You can't expect scientists to treat a non-scientific idea scientifically. It is not poor science.

I agree. You have every right to believe in evolution and I will not force you to change. Yet, somehow that right to choose is lost in the educational system where the theory of evolution is taught exclusively. Schools are a captive audience and thus should inform students of the opposing viewpoints in equal manner. In some ways this is what has created the whole debate. I admit that there are schools that teach only creation (I attended one), but such are usually associated with a church and such a cirruculum is expected or desired by the parents.quote>

The only reason that Creation is not taught in Science classes is because it is not science. If you can formulate a scientific theory, and validate it, then it can be taught in a Science class.

I never said there was any problem with it. I believe the way I do because I am a Christian. I cannot answer your question fairly because I am biased against it. I guess the most I can say is that being a Christian and believing in evolution conflict with each other.quote>

Yes, rocks and genes may be more accurate but they must still be interpreted by humans. As you said humans make mistakes. One of my favorite examples of how differently things can be interpreted is radio-isotope dating. The whole concept is based on the assumption that x-amount of the measured radio-isotope existed within the specimen at the time of death. Think of how skewed that could make those dates. quote>

Rocks and genes are the most accurate things we have. We should go with the most accurate option, not persue complete infallible accuracy, as all we have is our senses, and frankly, what else can we get?

As another person explained, the dates may be off by 10 or 20 percent, but not by many orders of magnitude.

Yet it can only ever remain a theory because it cannot be proven to be the origin of life. The same can be said for creationism.quote>

Well, it certainly will, since Evolution does not explain the origin of life. Also, Creationism is not a theory, as per my above response.

Look around our Earth, look at nature, the people, the animals, the plants, it all has a order to it, and a great man once said

"if there is order, then there is inteligence" or something within those lines. quote>

"An order"? It may appear that way on the surface, from the vantage point of one location. The Amazon rainforest is quite disorderly, and is a great example of natural selection and other evolutionary effects taken to an extreme extent. Some ecosystems may appear orderly, but that order can and does appear due to entirely natural causes -- like a crystal, or the seemingly orderly progression in the fossil record from simple to complex life.

Order does not mean intelligence, contrary to what that "great man" said.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Evolutionist? There is no such thing as evolutionism, therefore there are no evolutionists.quote>

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion·ist

Pronunciation: -sh(-)nst

Function: noun

: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolutionquote>

And btw, said dictionary also recognizes the word "evolutionism" though it doesn't seem to have a definition for it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa