Creation vs Evolution

[rory_20_uk]

Oh dear oh dear... A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but complete ignorance...

Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.

Other types of "animal person" have been found. They are no longer around, either out fought or out bred by our ancestors (NOT us - they were slightly different).

I'm assuming you've never heard that human features are becoming more delicate as time goes on, human brains are increasing in size slowly and the expression of certain genes is showing a population shift (such as ones to digest milk, and for brain size).

Species are the snapshot of "now". We don't have a tail of our ancestors - they're dead. Perhaps ones from 5,000 years ago would on average be noticably different to us, 50,000 probably different to us. Genes drfted slowly to what we are now. There was not a fork in each species, the ancestral line of the humans metamorphosed and has almost artificial distinctions as to the nomenclature of the different types - in some cases possibly unhelpful.

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

[Zain]

Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.

There was not a fork in each species,

Unless I misinterpreted what you said, i'm going to say that those two statements are COMPLETELY contradictory.

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

How about another argument, how did the reproductive system come out PERFECT without God?

[KingOfTheIsles]

I am a Creationist because the idea of the bible being wrong doesn't work in my mind. The bible said He created MAN on the sixth day in His image. And if my memory serves me right, evolution says that man evolved from monkeys, and back and back to single celled organisms.

You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, simply the current money species of today had a common ancestor with humans.

Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect? Aren't the monkeys supposed to become more human-like?

Again, you completely misunderstand the process of evolution. It is not pre-destined that monkeys will evolve into human-like creatures. Each species evolved due to its circumstances, not some magical, pre-ordained destiny. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys was probably a tree-dwelling primate. Some of these went onto the plains as the forest dwindled, forced to by habitat change and the need to adapt, and gradually developed into humans (and other species) whereas the ones living in the trees did not need to evolve in this way, and instead adapted to their own environment differently.

Evolution is determined by circumstance, it is not a linear path.

That had nothing to do with the question. Why aren't there other monkey-humans walking around these days? I think in your mind you answered it in your other post, but just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about.

There were human species living until very recently. As they were competing with homo sapiens, they were either less adapted and became extinct, or perhaps were absorbed into the more successful species in part (the neanderthal gene theory is controversial). Natural selection has (we think) wiped out all other species of human.

That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?

Also knows as.....evolution. See, we made it in the end.

Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?

[Zain]

You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, simply the current money species of today had a common ancestor with humans.



Again, you completely misunderstand the process of evolution. It is not pre-destined that monkeys will evolve into human-like creatures. Each species evolved due to its circumstances, not some magical, pre-ordained destiny. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys was probably a tree-dwelling primate. Some of these went onto the plains as the forest dwindled, forced to by habitat change and the need to adapt, and gradually developed into humans (and other species) whereas the ones living in the trees did not need to evolve in this way, and instead adapted to their own environment differently.

Evolution is determined by circumstance, it is not a linear path.



There were human species living until very recently. As they were competing with homo sapiens, they were either less adapted and became extinct, or perhaps were absorbed into the more successful species in part (the neanderthal gene theory is controversial). Natural selection has (we think) wiped out all other species of human.

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

[Kralizec]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

Now you're just being lazy. Louis pointed out early in this thread that all species are transitionary in the theory of evolution, as a species that live today could be the precursor of species living in the future.

[rory_20_uk]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

[Sigh]. Everything that you see around is an example of transition from the past into the future.
What do you want? To walk down the road and a dog to spring up and converse in English? That would pretty much prove creationism.

The tail bone protects one's arse? Hardly - we'd be better off without it. The gluteals absorb most impact. All it does is occasionally get fractured. It is a vestigial browth from the embryo. the human goes through phases of looking like an amphibian, then a reptile, then finally a mammal. Why if not as that is how animals evolved? God and his little jokes?

[Zain]

Now you're just being lazy. Louis pointed out early in this thread that all species are transitionary in the theory of evolution, as a species that live today could be the precursor of species living in the future.

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

How do you know a cat has been a cat for all recorded history? I mean, by your own logic, you haven't seen them for anything longer than your own life, and even then you haven't seen all cats. How can you prove to me that a cat you haven't seen didn't change one night into a rat? Because that's the proof you require from your opponents - you haven't personally seen evolution happen in front of your eyes, so it must be bunkum.

Yet you're happy to believe some chap resurrected himself from the dead, without seeing that. Why are your standards of proof so flexible?

[KingOfTheIsles]

A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history.

By cat, I presume you mean the common domesticated cat, felis silvestris catus.

It speaks of cats on Noah's ark.

Which was, what? 4,000 years ago? It is absurd to expect a species to evolve beyond recognition in that space of time.

If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution?

It doesn't, but neither would it disprove it. In any case, cats most certainly have changed. Have you considered all the different varieties of breeds of cat? They have not yet been selectively bred long enough to be incompatible with other breeds, but with a much longer amount of time, it would happen. The fact is, human have been on the earth for hardly an eyeblink.

Or, perhaps the cats will not significantly evolve. Some species, such as sharks and crocodiles, have not needed to, because they were adapted enough for their habitats, which didn't massively change. They did evolve a bit, mind you, but not to the extent that other groups, such as mammals, did.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

Dogs. Bred from wolves. This has been mentioned before.

Evolution can be seen happening in bacteria. Cells divide every 20 minutes. Put them in an increasingly strong solution of antibiotic and they will evolve resistance. Et voila. One down.

my point was that god on day three decided to make himself into a lightbulb?

Noah's flood. great explanation. More interstingly how did all the animals fit onto the Arc? What did they eat? Where did they decacate? Let's leave aside the meterological evidence for a flood, and focus on one person making an arc for all animals on the planet, bringing in food - and all animals leaving alive? I know, best stick to details, as the story itself is absurd. Facinating theory on how the water got into the air - nearly concealed the rather more obvious problem!

How can you tell which version of the bible is translated loosely? There are few origional texts, and even fewer people read the language.

Ah, of course - only a few posts ago you can tell us that all the books not in the bible were not to do with creation! Aramaic, Latin, Greek - there's no end to your talents!!!

Zain. See the little thing above re: bacteria. The ones that aren't "fit" die. The ones that are live. No thought goes into this. It just happens. The exact change is one that makes it more "fit". It may be obvious (an enzyme to catabolise an antibiotic) or maybe not. It doesn't have to have a reason, it just does.

[doc_bean]

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history.

All of recorded history being roughly 5000 years, where as the human species as we know it is about 100 000 years old and life existed almost a billion years ago (according to evolution yeah yeah). Macro evolution is a slow process, you can't expect to prove it in a few years, it takes millennia for a different species to form.

You know the clock analogy don't you ? If the entire existence of earth was scaled to 24h, the existence of mankind would only take up the last 5 minutes or so. Evolution is slow, 5000 years is nothing compared to the timescale of evolution.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

I am so going to hate myself for getting back into this, but:

Since you want stunningly obvious transitional forms that you can see, try amphibians. You know, frogs, newts etc.

Not quite fish, not quite reptiles. What you might call fish-reptiles. See there's this fish with a simple lung called - guess what, a lung-fish. And it has some amphibian characteristics. Then there are fish which use their fins as limbs on the margins of land, but live almost wholly in the water. These fish have the basic pentadactyl (five-toed) arrangement in those fins which is found in all land animals.

Is that simple enough for you? Or does it have to be a monkey-cat or a mollusc-rhinocerous?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Look, I know this is a waste of time, but can I make a suggestion to the creationists out there to actually read On the Origin of Species?

I would also recommend to enquiring minds the book 'Darwin and the Barnacle' by Rebecca Stott (ISBN 0-571-21609-9). It's not at all dry, and provides the real story of Darwin's work in taxonomy. By classifying and researching the humble barnacle over twenty years, he established his reputation as a serious biologist and found staggering amounts of evidence for the theory of natural selection. The evidence you keep asking for and then dismissing.

It's also the story of how this man of deep faith (he was planning to be a cleric) found his observations challenging that faith, and his reluctance to change his mind until he could convince himself.

After all, guys, I have read your Bible

[Tribesman]

Let me educate you on how the Bible came about.
stop crossroad it hurts too much

According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board.
Wow , insects can survive a year long flood , thats clever nearly as clever as only one type of dog , I thought you were arguing against evolution ?

I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole
That has to be a classic , a religeous nut comparing people to inbred backwoods people . damn |I could have sworn that your average hillbilly would be a bit of a bible thumper with little knowledge of science .

[Zain]

Zain...

It works firstly as it's had billions of years to improve the model. Amoebas replicate very simply. They divide down the middle. Easy peasy. Over time things did get more complex.

But the failsafes thrown into the system are evident in how imperfect it is. 20 MILLION sperm to fertilise one egg. Talk about wastage. And there's not a 100% chance of success that copulation will result in fertilisation. A certain time of the month is required for starters.

Oh, and you left / ignored the long list of errors that I could think of off the top of my head. ERRORS = LACK OF PERFECTION!

The argument "it's complicated so God had to have done it" only works in Church. It has evolved to the state it is, and it works well enough, even with the large numbers of errors inherent the system.

And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[doc_bean]

And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Have you ever heard of genetic algoritmes ? They use the principles of evolution to solve optimization problems, they're quite effective if you use them right.

Does God make sure they work too ?

[crossroad]

I am so going to hate myself for getting back into this, but:

Since you want stunningly obvious transitional forms that you can see, try amphibians. You know, frogs, newts etc.

Not quite fish, not quite reptiles. What you might call fish-reptiles. See there's this fish with a simple lung called - guess what, a lung-fish. And it has some amphibian characteristics. Then there are fish which use their fins as limbs on the margins of land, but live almost wholly in the water. These fish have the basic pentadactyl (five-toed) arrangement in those fins which is found in all land animals.

Is that simple enough for you? Or does it have to be a monkey-cat or a mollusc-rhinocerous?

Explain the Platypus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...3/platypus.asp

[Avicenna]

Explain the Platypus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...3/platypus.asp

Same as before, they've got traits that allow them to be very successful in the environment they live in, and so they will reproduce more and be all over Australia. It's really not incredibly much to this evolution once you understand the concept.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Explain the Platypus.

What is there to explain?

Zain, God raised Jesus from the dead. And yes, that is one arguement that is very ironclad. The lives that have been changed by God, supernaturally, is with out a doubt very convincing.

Which argument is ironclad? The first one is anyting but ironclad. the second is a) a complete strawman and b) not ironclad, at least not the "supernatural" part.

A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.

Or they refer to giant squid, whales, elephants or hippos. The idea that humans and dinosaurs lived side-by-side has no evidence, and I am quite frankly astounded that anybody would seriously make that claim.

Don't you think we would look strange without them?

Not really, unless you look at it from the view that it would contradict the theory of evolution if there weren't any, which would indeed be odd.

Because we are mammals, and that's the way God made us.

That is just validating the conclusion using the conclusion as evidence. So why do we exhibit primitive, obsolete features such as a tail at that stage? If we are created in God's image, why do we look identical to every other animal, which is not? If mankind is so special, why did we get placed in the same group as mere mammals? Why do we function in essentially the same way? Why did God give us a tail, only to get rid of it before birth? All of these are compelling evidence that mammals share a common ancestor, whilst saying "God did it because he did" is not answering the question, let alone providing evidence for your viewpoint.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

I love this method of arguing.

"My argument has been shown to have been flawed. Insert identical and irrelevant argument."

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, we just haven't always found what they are transitioning between yet. Mankind is the transitional state between our ancestors and what we will evolve into. The simple fact is that a tiny proportion of dead animals will a) fossilise and b) be found in an identifiable state.

That said, there have been several well-documented finds that have species of human which show a progressively less sloping forehead and a gradually larger cranial capacity. This tends to point to the features of modern humans developing.

[Quietus]

How about another argument, how did the reproductive system come out PERFECT without God?

Zain, nothing is perfect. It's only an illusion.

The DNA accumulates and losses information randomly (mutation) and these information are passed on during reproduction (sexual and asexual). Whichever organisms happen to have the better genetic information are generally favored to live and reproduce within their environment (natural selection). Hence those that have the inferior and wonky codes tend to die and disappear (natural selection as well). Hence creating the illusion that reproduction is perfect.

Oh and here's how an eye can evolve:

The human eye is not irreducibly complex

[Zain]

Zain, nothing is perfect. It's only an illusion.

The DNA accumulates and losses information randomly (mutation) and these information are passed on during reproduction (sexual and asexual). Whichever organisms happen to have the better genetic information are generally favored to live and reproduce within their environment (natural selection). Hence those that have the inferior and wonky codes tend to die and disappear (natural selection as well). Hence creating the illusion that reproduction is perfect.

Oh and here's how an eye can evolve:

The human eye is not irreducibly complex

Using the word "perfect" got me into a lot of trouble. Either way, It's still very well "planned".

[rory_20_uk]

it works, but it is a mess.

The human genome is riddled with viruses, most of which have ceased to function a long time ago. There are large stretches that just repeat the same letters. Again, why planned? There's been a long time to develop complexity. The ones that didn't work died.

That cells divide is amazing. The sheer number of processes involved is enormous. But that alone is NOT reason to mean it requires supervision.

Natural selection IS evolution!

I'm sorry that your obvious thirst for knowledge has been shackled by your religion. It is a terrible shame when thologians place blinkers on people. As an agnostic I am able to accept that perhaps god did seed the planet with life. Perhaps it was aliens. Perhaps meteors. Perhaps it was on kaolin rock near saline seas. Perhaps one day we'll know for sure (such as digging up the Earth's serial number).

concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.

[Zain]

it works, but it is a mess.

The human genome is riddled with viruses, most of which have ceased to function a long time ago. There are large stretches that just repeat the same letters. Again, why planned? There's been a long time to develop complexity. The ones that didn't work died.

That cells divide is amazing. The sheer number of processes involved is enormous. But that alone is NOT reason to mean it requires supervision.

Natural selection IS evolution!

I'm sorry that your obvious thirst for knowledge has been shackled by your religion. It is a terrible shame when thologians place blinkers on people. As an agnostic I am able to accept that perhaps god did seed the planet with life. Perhaps it was aliens. Perhaps meteors. Perhaps it was on kaolin rock near saline seas. Perhaps one day we'll know for sure (such as digging up the Earth's serial number).

concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.

I know Crossroad personally, and he told me that's what he was talking about.

If Natural Selection is Evolution, and it's the Natural Selection I believe, then I guess Evolution is believable. Of course, the dating of the Earth also gets in the way of the whole thing. Also, the amount of change within the animals messes up that too. Natural Selection doesn't say there's going to be a huge change, but Evolution does.

[rory_20_uk]

I know Crossroad personally, and he told me that's what he was talking about.

Whoops! My bad!!

If Natural Selection is Evolution, and it's the Natural Selection I believe, then I guess Evolution is believable. Of course, the dating of the Earth also gets in the way of the whole thing. Also, the amount of change within the animals messes up that too. Natural Selection doesn't say there's going to be a huge change, but Evolution does.

As you say, natural selection is small changes in a direction based on the environment.

And a small change in one direction over a long timeframe leads to a large change.

Some small mutations can have a massive effect on an organism. For example, if a STOP codon is removed, the DNA is read past a certain point, which can lead to many new protiens being created. Depending on what they are the result can be startling e.g. Albinos.

Or nothing may be seen on looking. Lots of mutations to the "junk" DNA can do nothing (although the term "junk" is being debated as it might be that we just don't know the function yet). Or there may be 5 copies of a gene and the chance stops one from working, so the other 4 just plough on.

Anyway, it's bloody late, and I'm going to have to turn in. c ya later

[rory_20_uk]

Zain, merely that there are marks on human bones that match sabre tooth tigre's teeth is not conclusive. Nothing is. Perhaps God put them there. Perhaps aliens did. Perhaps the mammoth chewed the human's leg off.

Commet theory: sort of. There's a lot of iridium in a layer of dust that is extremely unusual unless a comet has hit. And I believe that there is evidence of a meteor strike in Canada (I think). After that it's conjecture.

But there have been many extinctions as shown in the fossil record. True, the sudden end of the dinosaurs is the most popular, but one of the earlier ones wiped out 90% of life on the planet.

Concerning Noah, I admit that once God enters the equation why not grab the water and then dump it. I'd say that it seems a great hastle when he could just kill the troublemakers. Oh, and a very similar story appears in other religious texts that predate the Bible.

What animals look like is their phenotype
Animals genetic code is their genotype

Rabbits and hairs look alike, but are not genetically similar (so, same phenotype, different genotype)
A poodle and a rottweiler may look very different, but have very similar genes.

Crocodiles and some dinosaurs look alike. Dinosaurs varied a lot. Some even had wings, and it is thought are the ancestors of modern birds.

[crossroad]

concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.

Actually I was agreeing that God changes people, and those miricles are hard to dispute.

[Ser Clegane]

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

Naah ... you only missed it - see post #85

[Kralizec]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

[Zain]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?