Spinoff of God thread - creation/evolution

[Johnny G]

Now I'll be the first to admit that the evolutionists often sound a lot cleverer than the creationists. I humbly suggest that they need to, in order to convince themselves of such nonsense

Neither creation nor evolution can be scientifically proven. The reason for this is that neither can be tested in the present, since they happened in the past. And the scientific method deals only with what can be tested in the present.

Therefore we can use logic and history to prove our points, but asking to prove either theory scientifically is asking too much, since no experiment you can do will result in either a new act of creation or a new evolutionary origin of the universe.

However if evolution were true it would be continual, therefore going on now, therefore observable. It has not been observed. There are variations within species, even new species; but the new species are not more advanced than the old, and they are of a similar kind, i.e. dog/wolf/dingo etc.

I'll pop back into this thread and answer arguments occasionally, for now I refer you to www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Postings.asp.

Have a dig around and see what you think.

Cheers

J

[bugmeister]

Evolution is a very slow and steady process, as a result you will never see new species, just updated versions of the old ones. There are many examples, particularly in the plant/bug world, of species developing tolerancies to specific poisens and toxins. Just look at malaria. There is an ongoing battle to develop new drugs to combat it, and each time a new bug comes along that is tolerant to them all. This is evolution in progress.

Even man is changing, as races interbreed so new shades appear, we are all taller than we were 100 years ago, our brains are getting bigger.

The majority of changes happen over thousands if not millions of years and as a result cannot be seen.

The very nature of evolution is change, sometimes the new variations work, sometimes they don't, but the natural world is gradually changing.

This does not mean I don't believe in a greater being. Maybe we are a giant experiment for someone else. So yes the answer may well be 42.

[plotloss]

Having studied Darwins Theory to my mind there can be no other way, its all just so fitting and logical.

Matt.

[Don]

plotloss said: Having studied Darwins Theory to my mind there can be no other way, its all just so fitting and logical.

Matt.

Darwin was undoubtedly correct IMO.

[MEMSDesign]

www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Postings.asp.

So far, I think that's a dead link.

[Mr E]

Microevolution is easily proved in a lab. I did it in GCSE science with fruit flies, so it can't be that hard.

Macroevolution is somewhat harder to prove to the creationists, mainly because they tend to refuse to define what they class as a "kind" in any meaningful way.

I haven't seen an arguement for creationism that isn't so debunked it had to go to Argos to buy a cheap set of kiddies pine bunks, so it could come back for a second round.....

I tend to place creationism in the same draw as the Flat-Earthers, to be quite honest.

[Johnny G]

ack, just use the home page then

www.answersingenesis.org/intro.asp

J

[alan_driver]

I can only base my knowledge on GCSE biology. But evolution does have some very strong arguments and personally I beleive in evolution but not creation.
You mentioned 'why are we not evolving now' (or similar). How do you know we are not? Test have been done, but not over much time. 100 years, in millions is nothing. Also, its like a car, you can continue to improve it, but one day you cant make it any better. Same with animals?

[MEMSDesign]

Neither creation nor evolution can be scientifically proven. The reason for this is that neither can be tested in the present, since they happened in the past. And the scientific method deals only with what can be tested in the present.

I don't agree with you. Evidence from the past is not inadmissable in support of a scientific hypothesis. If it was, nothing could ever be proven in the present, since all experiments are in the past the instant they have occured.

[Johnny G]

bugmeister said: Evolution is a very slow and steady process, as a result you will never see new species, just updated versions of the old ones. There are many examples, particularly in the plant/bug world, of species developing tolerancies to specific poisens and toxins. Just look at malaria. There is an ongoing battle to develop new drugs to combat it, and each time a new bug comes along that is tolerant to them all. This is evolution in progress.

What is going on in this situation is a loss of genetic information. The new bug develops because of natural selection, that is true. But it is not more complex than the bug that preceded it, rather it is less so.

And it's still a malaria bug. Not something else.

Even man is changing, as races interbreed so new shades appear, we are all taller than we were 100 years ago, our brains are getting bigger.

You have proof that our brains are getting bigger? Doubt it . . .

And as for being taller, that just might have to do with environmental/nutritional/medical changes, not?

It's all about the information. Variations within species are not more complex than than their predecessors, because no NEW information has been added to their DNA.

J

[DanL]

The thing that I remember that (sort of) proved evolution (or at least natural selection) was to do with moths and the industrial revolution.

IIRC there's a species of moth that has wings to blend in with the trees it lands on - these trees had silver bark (can't remember the tree name - I'm hopeless like that), and the moths wings were mottled silver. Industrial revolution happened, and the tree bark near large industrial settlements turned black with the soot. The moths wings changed colour to black over a few years, as the black wings provided better protection from predators, and so more of these moths survived to breed.

Then the industrial process got cleaner, the tree bark stopped being stained with soot, and the moths wings returned to the silver colour as this provided better camouflage.

This is (I believe) all a matter of fact, as the moths were collected by the Victorians, who noticed the moth was the same, er, species(? - probably wrong technical word), but with different coloured wings.

I'd google it to back up my claims with links and such, but sadly I'm too busy at the mo'.

Dan

[jinx]

Not sure I agree with the premise we are "improving" at all.
The environment effects us at the molecular even genetic level which creates the changes we interpret as evolution. This external influence has a greater impact on our systems than "random" mutations and therefore I suspect we get evolved rather than evolve ourselves. Is this an improvement? Only time will tell (much discussion in journals at the moment as to whether or not evolving two sexes was a good idea).

[MEMSDesign]

The point of view seems best summed up by www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp
Interesting reading, but I don't find myself converted.

"If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?"

The arguments are based on the basic axiom that there is a god. I've done quite a bit of personal study of philosophy, and I don't think that this is a necessary axiom on which to found a view of the world.

[Johnny G]

Mr E said: Microevolution is easily proved in a lab. I did it in GCSE science with fruit flies, so it can't be that hard.

What you define as microevolution I am not arguing with.

Macroevolution is somewhat harder to prove to the creationists, mainly because they tend to refuse to define what they class as a "kind" in any meaningful way.

That's because the lines are a bit fuzzy.

J

[moleamol]

Johnny G said:You have proof that our brains are getting bigger? Doubt it . . .

And as for being taller, that just might have to do with environmental/nutritional/medical changes, not?

It's all about the information. Variations within species are not more complex than than their predecessors, because no NEW information has been added to their DNA.

J

The thing is, the variations are mnore complex, the species is evolving. There may be no new genetic information, but what exactly does that mean? We have a lot of DNA that we share with mice, are we 90% mice? I think not. The only reason no new information gets added is because it is physically impossible, that means nothing (apart from making Spiderman impossible, but we all know he's real ) The fact remains that when a species is challenged by the forces of nature, it evolves to combat the forces. Many species are a result of evolution and natural selection. Not a beardy chap with 7 spare days and no wimmin about

[Johnny G]

DanL said: The thing that I remember that (sort of) proved evolution (or at least natural selection) was to do with moths and the industrial revolution.



Dan

---

You are quite right that it proves natural selection, but not evolution.

There were two varieties of the moth, one dark, one light - the light ones got eaten, and didn't survive.

Therefore the genes for the light ones no longer existed. Ergo less information, not more.

J

[DanL]

I'll add: I assume that the argument against the fossil record of evolution is that the fossils that various animals are 'supposed' to have evolved from aren't more primitive forms, but completely separate species that have just died out?

Presumably the lack of fossil record for our 'strain' of humanity until after the more primitive life disappears is to do with either no-one having found the fossils (but they are out there), or some sort of debunking of the dating of the older fossils? Can anyone fill me in on this, as I'm genuinely interested, rather than trying to pick a fight!

Dan

[mr_tony]

However if evolution were true it would be continual, therefore going on now, therefore observable.

This isn't as silly as it sounds. Much of evolution according to the fossil record happens in quick bursts. Usually after some kind of dramatic environmental change (eg comet hits earth 65million years ago). Events like this wipe out many species, change the habitat completely leaving big gaps where species can evolve quickly throwing up many variations unchallenged, some of which surive, most of which do not. As such in todays world evolution in most stable habitats is occuring at a very slow rate, as we see in modern humanity. Evidence is still there.

In habitats where the environment is changing evolution is much more obvious.

It has not been observed

I'm sorry but that statement is false, the historical record provides many good observations of this happening on a massive scale. Including non fossil evidence. As others have said you can produce evolution in various animals in a lab.

Why therefore do we share a %age of our DNA with every other living creature on the planet, from bacteria to Rhinos?

[plotloss]

I was going to waffle on about my theory concerning the existence of Porifera (Sponges) but I cant really get my point across as I am a bit thick:

This seems to work though:

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. To deny evolution (as defined here) is on the same level of logic as to deny the fact that if someone jumps off the balcony of a high rise apartment and carries no special apparatus, she will fall towards the ground. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

Matt.

[Mr E]

Johnny G said:

What you define as microevolution I am not arguing with.

Because it can be proven, cast iron, in the lab again and again.

Good. That's a start.

That's because the lines are a bit fuzzy.

Hmmmm. Not really, but I'll roll with that.

Please explain to me, the *exact* difference between Micro and Macro evolution. When does lots and lots of Microevolution (which you agree is proven) over millions of years become *macro*evolution?

Oh, and it's perfectly possible for a mutation to add information. Plants do it all the time. There are various conditions in humans caused by an additional chromosone......