Creation vs evolution total [relism] vs [Ferrets54] Commentary thread

[Incesticide]

1. Put your fingers in your ears.
2. Close your eyes.
3. Scream LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!

A flawless argument. Admittedly.

[DisgruntledGoat]

Wow, TR has dropped any semblance of debate and shifted entirely to attempting to belittle Ferrets. Every post ignores questions and answers and instead finds new ways of telling Ferrets he doesn't understand anything. That's not a debate TR.

[Jack04]

This is infuriating to read, quite how Ferrets carries on is beyond me.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I would of shot myself twice by now.

I am pretty sure everyone knew lactose intolorance in humans was normal considering our earliest ancestors didnt get a lot of milk hunting and gathering in Africa before humans settled down in the Middle East and elsewhere.

[Vagn]

I would of shot myself twice by now.

I am pretty sure everyone knew lactose intolorance in humans was normal considering our earliest ancestors didnt get a lot of milk hunting and gathering in Africa before humans settled down in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Yes, but in Northern Europe, Mongolia and East Africa, lactose intolerance is quite rare, because of the sedentary lifestyle and the historical consumption of dairy products into adulthood. TR has managed to use an example of evolution to try and refute evolution. Between 5 and 25% of Northern Europeans are lactose intolerant, so whilst the normal position would be lactose intolerance in certain regions there were heavy selection pressures for the ability to digest lactose into adulthood. How he can use this to argue against evolution is beyond me.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yes, but in Northern Europe, Mongolia and East Africa, lactose intolerance is quite rare, because of the sedentary lifestyle and the historical consumption of dairy products into adulthood. TR has managed to use an example of evolution to try and refute evolution. Between 5 and 25% of Northern Europeans are lactose intolerant, so whilst the normal position would be lactose intolerance in certain regions there were heavy selection pressures for the ability to digest lactose into adulthood. How he can use this to argue against evolution is beyond me.

Agriculture and a transition to farming occurred earlier in the Middle East... so I would wager the Middle East is more tolerant to Lactose than much of Africa and not affected by farming.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Ah, the ancient debate tactic of 'we will bury them with nonsense'. Good work TR.

[Incesticide]

Agriculture and a transition to farming occurred earlier in the Middle East... so I would wager the Middle East is more tolerant to Lactose than much of Africa and not affected by farming.

The interesting thing is that a quick search (i.e. just read through some abstracts) on ISI's WebOfKnowledge showed that while a single genetic mutation is responsible for lactase persistence in Europeans, in the Middle East and Africa it appears that there are several such mutations - none of which include the European one. Since these genes appear to have evolved with the presence of cattle (via convergent evolution), I'd wager that the Middle Eastern mutations took place before the African ones. However I doubt it would be as clear cut (i.e. Middle East > Africa) with regards to degree of tolerance.

I'll make a proper search when I have the time, it's an interesting question. Damn my curiosity.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

He does like to copy paste his own text.

[Admiral Piett]

Even my staunchly conservative and traditional German Lutheran mother, who also considers herself a Bush loyalist, undeniably accepts evolution as a part of creationism. She does the more mature thing and simply uses science as a way of better understanding god's creation in her eyes.

If even a lot of sects of the Lutheran church have accepted evolution as viable, I wonder what sect TR is coming from.

[Ying, Duke of Qin]

The thing is, I think the point is a bit moot. To me, evolution and creation are not incompatible in the first place. Evolution deals with scientific theory and the empirical method. Creation is faith-based and deals in a totally different realm. In other words, creationism answers the why, while evolution answers the how. And, really, does it matter? You take two scientists. Let's say one's a believer and one isn't. They're both looking at the same evidence presented to them, aren't they? So who cares if one believes that God started the whole thing while the other believe that we got here due to random chance?

Science is impartial. It is based on what observations we can make. Evolution is solid science - though you may be interested in knowing that even amongst evolutionary biologists there are staunch schools of thought. Gradualism. Punctuated Equilibrium, Orthodox Darwinian - they're all valid theories .

Saying that "God made it, here r proofs lol" feels like a bit of a cop-out to me. Should a scientist, if she truly believe in the existence of a divine creator, not work all the harder to discover her God's wondrous work? Why try to fit the evidence to such a narrow paradigm of one particular interpretation? The Bible may be clear on certain things, but I honestly do not think you could read Genesis and go, "yup, that's how God made the world exactly." If the Bible is truly divinely inspired, then shouldn't people be a bit cautious to state their beliefs, for fear of misinterpreting God's words? Reading some of the broad claims cited makes me uneasy, because what man can know the mind of God?

The creationist is misinterpreting the opposition's refusal to acknowledge some things as being unable to answer or refute the statements. He also is operating under the entire guise that he himself knows more about evolution than his opponent and is posting a bunch of pseudo-intellectual statements cropped and pasted from a Christian Science website. The sad part is I think I know where its coming from.

I can assure you, not all creationists argue in such a manner.

Also, I have a bit of a nitpick. Genes aren't turned on and off like switches - this is a message for both sides. Genes are activated and deactivated in an equilibrium state. For most genes (with the exception of housekeeper genes - like those that are vital for function), a very small amount is constitutively active regardless of what may happen. Take the lac operon, for instance - when lactose is present and there is no other sources of food, the gene will be "activated," prompting a larger amount of product being generated. To activate the operon, however, a small amount of the gene product is required to deactivate the repressor.

[Incesticide]

In reference to Ferrets' argument against Totalrelism, I noticed that TR seems to be under the quite mistaken impression that Ferrets is using an arbitrary opinion. To take lactase persistence as an example, most recently evidence has been published in:

Ingram et al. (2009), Lactose digestion and the evolutionary genetics of lactase persistence, Human Genetics
Jarvela et al. (2009), Molecular genetics of human lactase deficiencies, Annals of Medicine
Coleho et al. (2005), Microsatellite variation and evolution of human lactase persistence, Human Genetics
Tishkof et al. (2007) Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe, Nature Genetics (this one states that in contrast to Europeans' C/T-13910, an SNP in the gene coding for lactase, a survey of 470 Kenyans and Tanzanians showed that they have three Single Nucleiotide Polymorphisms responsible for lactase persistance, these are G/C-14010, T/G-13915 and C/G-13907)
Ingram et al. (2007), A novel polymorphism associated with lactose tolerance in Africa: multiple causes for lactase persistence?, Human Genetics
Gerbault et al. (2011), Evolution of lactase persistence: an example of human niche construction, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences
Holden and Mace (1997), Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of lactose digestion in adults, Human Biology

That's merely from the first and second pages of my search - out of eighteen.

Moreover TR's definition of evolution is hopelessly incorrect. The definition of evolution is merely the cumulative change in the gene pool of a population. If TR is genuinely interested in gleaning an understanding of information gain in evolutionary biology, I would strongly advise that he reads the four books that Dawkins wrote on the matter seeing as the man is an eminent evolutionary biologist (and also held the Charles Simonyi position for public understanding of science at Oxford university until 2008).

The thing is, I think the point is a bit moot. To me, evolution and creation are not incompatible in the first place. Evolution deals with scientific theory and the empirical method. Creation is faith-based and deals in a totally different realm. In other words, creationism answers the why, while evolution answers the how.

While I do agree with the gist of your point (and you make good point of bringing up gene expression/the LAC operon) I would be very wary with regards to rhetoric that states: "In other words, creationism answers the why, while evolution answers the how." I'm afraid I give pretty short shrift to "science cannot answer why questions" myself. The mere fact that it is possible to frame a question does not make it legitimate or sensible to do so.

Actually, Darwinians do frame a kind of “Why” question about living things, but they do so in special, metaphorical sense. e.g. why do birds sing, and what are wings for?

[Cahoma]

as you yourself admit
"You don't observe something, such as an organism gaining the information required to develop a double-chambered heart" ferrets

If there's one thing TR is good at, it's quoting out of context.

[Ying, Duke of Qin]

While I do agree with the gist of your point (and you make good point of bringing up gene expression/the LAC operon) I would be very wary with regards to rhetoric that states: "In other words, creationism answers the why, while evolution answers the how." I'm afraid I give pretty short shrift to "science cannot answer why questions" myself. The mere fact that it is possible to frame a question does not make it legitimate or sensible to do so.

Actually, Darwinians do frame a kind of “Why” question about living things, but they do so in special, metaphorical sense. e.g. why do birds sing, and what are wings for?

Ah, thank you for pointing this out. Perhaps I should have made myself clear. I am by no means stating explicitly that creationism or evolution only answers those questions (how or why) that I have framed. I was, however, in a hurry.

In the same way, a scientist believing in a creator God could pose how questions as well - though again, I suspect there would be no visible difference. After all, the only thing different between her colleagues would probably be the fact she attributes her discoveries to God. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

As for good books - I strongly recommend Darwin's Origin of Species. For people who prefer someone else other than Dawkins, Stephen Gould and Jerry Alder are also names one could look at - the former particularly interesting due to his theories regarding punctuated equilibrium, which is one of the most interesting phenomena in EB today.

[Incesticide]

Ah, thank you for pointing this out. Perhaps I should have made myself clear. I am by no means stating explicitly that creationism or evolution only answers those questions (how or why) that I have framed. I was, however, in a hurry.

You are duly forgiven.

In the same way, a scientist believing in a creator God could pose how questions as well - though again, I suspect there would be no visible difference. After all, the only thing different between her colleagues would probably be the fact she attributes her discoveries to God. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

In general no scientist would have a problem with that, in fact quite a substantial number would identify with your statement. I myself know several.

As for good books - I strongly recommend Darwin's Origin of Species. For people who prefer someone else other than Dawkins, Stephen Gould and Jerry Alder are also names one could look at - the former particularly interesting due to his theories regarding punctuated equilibrium, which is one of the most interesting phenomena in EB today.

I would also strongly recommend Matt Ridley's The Red Queen, which explains the evolution of sex and will seriously mess with your mind.

Gould authored a wonderful (albeit monstrously thick - I would know, I read it ) book called The Structure of Evolutionary Theory which I would recommend to anybody with some time on his/her hands to read. That said Maynard Smith, Dawkins and others criticised him considerably mainly for his views on the Burgess Shale fauna (in Gould's book Wonderful Life) and evolutionary psychology. Dawkins' theory of selection at the gene level on the other hand was questioned by people like Lewontin and Gould.

Of course, all ideas should be welcome as long as they're properly thought out and backed up.

[Lord Romanus III]

I don't know why Ferrets bothers. TR makes no sense half the time and seems to be continuously asking for the origin of life (abiogenesis) and can't grasp that there is a difference between that and evolution....

[Lord Rahl]

I find it easy enough to understand Ferrets54's debating strategy against TR. He's sticking to one point whereas TR has shown an affinity for posting several arguments at once.

Ferrets this will sound gay but i love you, i hope sometime you will think on what i have said here, look at your own beliefs challenge everything and come away with a honest opinion of your own

As for the first statement, I have no idea where that came from, but then he accuses Ferrets54 of not presenting his own opinions. I find that point ironic coming from a guy who is quite possibly the most egregious quote bomber to ever peruse these forums.

[Manco]

It's hilarious how TR lambasts Ferrets for being ignorant about creationism while he STILL hasn't grasped the basics of evolution theory, and that after 2 years or something of people on this very site spelling it out for him.

[Incesticide]

It's hilarious how TR lambasts Ferrets for being ignorant about creationism while he STILL hasn't grasped the basics of evolution theory, and that after 2 years or something of people on this very site spelling it out for him.

I agree. It's very much akin to having a brain damaged pet. Entertaining, even when they are walking repeatedly into large items of furniture.

That said, I can't see why the more experienced debaters here haven't made a decision among themselves to ignore TR's calls to "debate". It doesn't take much, merely a pm to multiple people. If it's attention that creationists seek, why give it to them? Why not allow the creation threads in the Ethos section to simply die a natural death?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

That said, I can't see why the more experienced debaters here haven't made a decision among themselves to ignore TR's calls to "debate". It doesn't take much, merely a pm to multiple people. If it's attention that creationists seek, why give it to them? Why not allow the creation threads in the Ethos section to simply die a natural death?

That's what a lot of people said about participating in the fight against Hitler.

Although I guess a special exception could be made here. I don't believe I've seen a single post by Total Relism that was remotely related to the Total War franchise.