Evolution and Creationism

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I found an intresting picture. I have removed all the labels and specie names on it. Can you tell, with out reasearching on the internet, which embryo belongs to which class (reptile, bird, mammal). If all animals were magically zapped into existence by some benevolent overlord why would we all share so many common characteristics at this early stage of life? Is god so limited in his creativity and power that she would follow a basic design for all vertebrate animals? Or would a more resonable explanation be that we all share a common ancestor? (very very far back).

EDIT.. by the way there are two mammals. One is human and one is a pig. Intresting how a human embryo has a tail. Why would god give a human embryo a tail only for it to disappear later in development?

[Hunt57]

Originally posted by Wild Bill Kelso@Sep 21 2004, 06:56 AM
EDIT.. by the way there are two mammals. One is human and one is a pig. Intresting how a human embryo has a tail. Why would god give a human embryo a tail only for it to disappear later in development?

Or pharyngeal gill slits for that matter, as the fetus doesn't use them; gas exchange is done through the umbilical cord.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Well here is the picture with labels.. The similarities between such different species are strikingly obvious.

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

hey check it out. If I came from a monkey, why do i have all these vestigial prtosions here and there. BEcause the devil put them there to trick us into sin! Its so clear! Cant you see!

Hi this is my first post.

Ok about evolution..how can anybody not believe in it?
Just take thiis:
When animals who have fur get cold, small muscles attached to every hair in the fur is tightened so that their fur traps pockets of air. This air gets hot and doesnt circulate but stays put. You probably have seen this in your cat or dog in the winter.
Anyways my point is that this phenomenon is present in humans too. Getting goosebumps, but the hair on our body is not enough to trap air. This is a indication to that we had fur long time ago.

What’s this about us not having fur!? You obviously haven't seen my uncle. (hairy dude, lol). But really, some people don't believe in evolution because they don't want to. It clearly goes against the book of genesis and of the creation stories (I hate to use the word myths) of other cultures. Some people have a hard time reconciling this.

[sunsmountain]

I believe in God
I believe in evolution

So I place all authority on myself.
Then I shut up, so I can give it away at any time.

Problem solved.

I believe both. Consider a system which evolves to its maximum potential. Name this state of maximum potential Creation. Eliminate the factor time, and presto! Evolution = Creation.

With this maximum potential I am referring to a state of the universe billions and billions of years in the future. Evolution is a change in the gene pool, based on mutations occuring randomly, seemingly without any longterm set goal.

However, evolution seems guided, as if it had a goal. It is this final goal that can be combined with a creationist view of a complete beginning, as a solution for the equation. The only problem then is time.

[Syron]

So I place all authority on myself.

Then I shut up, so I can give it away at any time.

You keep saying things like this, what are you on about?

With this maximum potential I am referring to a state of the universe billions and billions of years in the future.

Again, what are you on about? The billions of years in the future. I would consider it then probably at it's lowest potential. Please clarify, without your crystal ball preferably!

Evolution is a change in the gene pool, based on mutations occuring randomly, seemingly without any longterm set goal.

Of course there is no set long term goal, because it can't be set! That's why it's called random mutation!

However, evolution seems guided, as if it had a goal. It is this final goal that can be combined with a creationist view of a complete beginning, as a solution for the equation. The only problem then is time.

Oh, and what is that goal? How can you say that evolution seems guided? Have you ever heard of the anthropic principle?

[sunsmountain]

You keep saying things like this, what are you on about?

I am talking about how i combine evolution and creation in my mind, by bridging the gap:
- So I place all authority on myself: I am defining evolution and creation in terms that can be combined.
- Then I shut up, so I can give it away at any time: Since I just defined my solution, I cannot accept any other unless i listen. Of course I can listen to you stating they cannot be combined. But unless you have something more convincing to add than the usual measurements or definitions in words everybody uses, it's pretty boring. How does this inspire you?

By definition, creation and evolution are not the same, and can never be combined. I'm trying to point out 1 is illusional, while the other is real. Creation is real, and outside time. Evolution is unreal, and inside time.
With that i do not mean it cannot be proven or measured physically. What I am trying to point out, is that it (evolution) could theoretically be a guided process to a state of full realization, full expression of DNA & this universe we live in.
Perhaps we will even go beyond DNA.

With this maximum potential I am referring to a state of the universe billions and billions of years in the future.

Any state! I have already assumed it exists, so the time it takes for it to appear is arbitrary.

Of course there is no set long term goal, because it can't be set! That's why it's called random mutation!

How are you certain? Perhaps it appears random to us, without direction. We can even prove that mathematically. Mutations only survive, however, if they serve a purpose in a particular environment. Since the physical environment is not that challenging to us humans anymore, we learn how to adapt to a social or even a mental environment. That, however, refers to an evolution of conciousness, not genes.

I must remember to be more explicit in my definitions. But even now I am sure you will believe none of this, because it goes outside what you believe. You think I am looking into my crystal ball where I am simply discussing ideas with you.

I also know about your anthropic principle, though Observation Selection Effects already pre-suppose certain properties and conditions about the phenomena you're trying to reason about, giving you answers you yourself have supplied.
So while it is a method to reason accurately, it does not need to be an accurate method.

[Portuguese Rebel]

What I am trying to point out, is that it (evolution) could theoretically be a guided process to a state of full realization, full expression of DNA & this universe we live in.

Then the guide clearly doesn't know what he is doing... :p

Mutations only survive, however, if they serve a purpose in a particular environment.

Actually no. Mutations survive as long as they have at least no effect on viable offspring. If they have a positive effect then they spread fast through the population.

Since the physical environment is not that challenging to us humans anymore,

Who told you that? We are unfit for the kind of life we live. we eat too much for our needs in civilized countries, have to deal daily with polution and over-population and many other drastic pressures from our surrounding enviroment. We don't have predators hunting us anymore but we are being chalenged nonetheless.

Perhaps we will even go beyond DNA.

We and a bunch of other animals already have. It is called culture and social memory...

[Syron]

I am talking about how i combine evolution and creation in my mind, by bridging the gap:
- So I place all authority on myself: I am defining evolution and creation in terms that can be combined.
- Then I shut up, so I can give it away at any time: Since I just defined my solution, I cannot accept any other unless i listen. Of course I can listen to you stating they cannot be combined. But unless you have something more convincing to add than the usual measurements or definitions in words everybody uses, it's pretty boring. How does this inspire you?

By definition, creation and evolution are not the same, and can never be combined.

And you wonder why I have problems understanding you! First you say that evolution and creationism can be combined, then you say that I say that thay can't then you say that by definition they cannot be combined and then you say one doesn't even exist ! Please sort out your reasoning first!

I'm trying to point out 1 is illusional, while the other is real. Creation is real, and outside time. Evolution is unreal, and inside time.
With that i do not mean it cannot be proven or measured physically.

:devil I love this bit, as there is actual evidence in favour of evolution, what makes you think that creationism isn't an illusion on your side?!

What I am trying to point out, is that it (evolution) could theoretically be a guided process to a state of full realization, full expression of DNA & this universe we live in.

And as I pointed out with the anthropic principle it could just as easily "look" guided because if it didn't we would exist to say so!

Full realisation! stop dodging around this issue and actually say what you mean, what is this "full realisation". As has been explained to you know so many times the only thing evolution does is, through all the weakest dying off, the others better suited to the CURRENT situation survive. It does NOT make things better. "full expression of DNA" what on earth do you mean?

Perhaps we will even go beyond DNA

Again, state what you mean instead of making these pointless comments.

Any state! I have already assumed it exists, so the time it takes for it to appear is arbitrary.

Will you please stop dodging this, you know exactly what I mean, You claim to know of a state of maximum potential and that the universe will somehow :wack reach it. What is this state then and how do you know of it's future existence hence the crystal ball comment. My arguement is not about the timing, it's about how the hell you "supposedly" know this!

I must remember to be more explicit in my definitions. But even now I am sure you will believe none of this, because it goes outside what you believe. You think I am looking into my crystal ball where I am simply discussing ideas with you.

It's not I won't accept these ideas because your on the other side of the fence, I wont because your starting this whole rubbish about maximum potentials and the like from the point of view thats it's so obvious to you because you "believe"! I know this well, my sister is a spiritualist and she comes up with the same load of rubbish from time to time too (but we do mostly get on!).

I also know about your anthropic principle, though Observation Selection Effects already pre-suppose certain properties and conditions about the phenomena you're trying to reason about, giving you answers you yourself have supplied.
So while it is a method to reason accurately, it does not need to be an accurate method.

My anthropic principle, I don't think so. It is simply a logicical system of reasoning, it's not mine, yours or anyones for that matter. Did I actually state it as a fact, that's why it's called a principle, your arguement doesn't even have that. I simply proposed a valid arguement showing how easy it is to argue the other way. I don't think you know the anthropic principle at it's most basic, "the universe is the way it is because if it wasn't then we wouldn't be here to argue about it"! So at it's most basic the principle pre-supposes nothing.

But again you conveniently dodge the actual question by answering the second part but I say again:

Oh, and what is that goal? How can you say that evolution seems guided?

[Portuguese Rebel]

"full expression of DNA" what on earth do you mean?

Popular sentence in New Age publications of pseudo-scientific content.

[Bigfootedfred]

Originally posted by sunsmountain@Sep 21 2004, 06:58 PM
However, evolution seems guided, as if it had a goal. It is this final goal that can be combined with a creationist view of a complete beginning, as a solution for the equation. The only problem then is time.

what long term goal is this?

for humans to come along and evenuntlly destroy practiclly eveything?

what an odd goal.

nature as its ways. and somthing will serrisly deplete human numbers one day.

that will test human inteeligence.

Excuse me if I didn't read the previous 250 posts and say something that's already been said. But here's my two cent's worth anyway.

Evolution is a valid theory and very provable in how a species adapts to it's surroundings. Still, none of that disproves a creationist theory or God. It contradicts what many people typically imagined as the creation of the world and it's species. Most Christians, and others who believe in similar things believe God was going around waving a wand and zapping a bird here, elephant there, lion over here etc.

The Book of Genesis never goes into detail about how God created specific creatures. Sure, it says he made man from the dirt of the earth, and made woman by taking one of the man's ribs. If you take that literally, then you think God scooped up a handful of dirt and sculpted a man.

The way I see it, is the word 'dirt' is describing a substance that is practically nothing. Whether that may mean that God had us evolve from bacteria or actual dirt I could care less.

Being a Christian is not to sit here and deny what proof you may find of how we were created, but to trust that however we may have been created-it was by God's hand. Last I checked, He left off his exact recipe.

Interesting tid-bit: Men actually have 1 less rib than women.

EDIT: I stand corrected. Was something I had always heard. Researched it and stand corrected.

Anyway, sorry for going religious with this thing, but that's just where I went.

[Portuguese Rebel]

nteresting tid-bit: Men actually have 1 less rib than women.

No they don't...

Well, this certainly sounds interesting, and probably everything has been said... buuut, im still gonna add my two cents...

Mebbe you guys should try reading the book Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown. Before people start flaming me cuz it is simply a dam book of fiction, made up by the "idiot" who screwed around with the works of Da Vinci, let me tell you this, it actually does "seem" , note the word seem, to have a valid arguement about how creation and evolution could have co-existed.

In the book, it states that the big bang which scientist believ began the universe (thats right, isnt it?) is the main point of focus which creationist people use to prove that there was a greater being which created the word as it is impossible to "create" new energy, or matter, for that, without the degeneration of another source. Hence, it "proves" that the big-bang theory is wrong, since if the universe began from nothing (or that infitisimally small speck of matter), than it would not possibly be able to grow this big, would it?

However, (here is when i start putting MY opinion in) what if god was the one who sparked the bang, "feeding" it with his energy or somewhat, and hence, giving the universe the matter and energy required to "start it up". Hence, that would indicate the presence of a greater being (but it makes the Adam and Eve thing total jack squat), and yet, evolution would still work, since after the creation period, the bacteria and whatnot, would be able to evolve, or mutate, if you prefer it, to have more cells in order to take a better advantage of a certain situation - the bigger you are, the larger your food base. Hence, they then grew larger due to continued competition with each other (the theory of co-evolution, like the oak tree and a certain type of bug, names excape me...the oak gives off a certain type of poison, the bug evolves to tollerate it, the oak evolves a stronger poison, and so on).

In summary, cuz i think im not very clear above, i think that there probably was some "thing", be that a greater being, or just a coicidence, which sparked off the big bang, and thus created the universe as we see it right now. And then, following a pattern of competition and co-evolution, the life-forms generally evolved into what they are today!

[LegionnaireX]

Originally posted by Aesir@Sep 21 2004, 03:11 PM
Hi this is my first post.

Ok about evolution..how can anybody not believe in it?
Just take thiis:
When animals who have fur get cold, small muscles attached to every hair in the fur is tightened so that their fur traps pockets of air. This air gets hot and doesnt circulate but stays put. You probably have seen this in your cat or dog in the winter.
Anyways my point is that this phenomenon is present in humans too. Getting goosebumps, but the hair on our body is not enough to trap air. This is a indication to that we had fur long time ago.

:wack This is an easily refutable arguement. This does not provide any evidence for evolution at all. The hair on our bodies does tighten to try to preserve heat. It is a natural body function even though it does not work as well as it does in other mammals.

Hair has to do with genetics, Hairs sole purpose is to preserve heat. But some people have little hair, and some have alot. This just depends on the genetic layout of a parent or parents. Like, my dad has a lot of hair, so I might be designed to have alot of hair as well, and so on through generation.

And different races losing hair is no evidence of evolution of any kind either. It just suggests that the isolated populace of a species became "less hair dominant" through breeding over the generation, and also, hair falls out, or is shed when it is no longer needed, like a dog shedding its winter coat. Some of you evolutionists claim that we humans lost our hair as we lived in warmer climates. I tell you this cannot be. Genetics doesn't allow for a species to drop a fur coat forever. Genetics show that whatever is programed into us at birth will never change, and any accumulated physical trait aquired over the lifespan of an animal will never make its way into its offspring due to the fact that it is not in its genetic code. Just as dogs which live in the bahamas develope a winter coat even though it is uneeded. So, this theory is quite absurd. If we evolved from fur coated animals, than all babies would be born with, or develope a fur coat at some point in early child hood, but instead, babies and young children have very little hair.

Let tell you why different races exist, and why it is not evidence for evolution:

SOME evolutionists try to put the existence of different races forward as evidence for evolution. In fact, this claim is more frequently expressed by amateur evolutionists who have a less than sufficient knowledge of the theory they defend.

The thesis proposed by those who defend this claim is based on the question, "If, as divine sources say, life began with one man and one woman, how could different races have emerged?" Another way of putting it is: "Since Adam and Eve's height, colour, and other features were those of only two people, how could races with entirely different features have emerged?"

In fact, the problem lying beneath all these questions or objections is an insufficient knowledge of the laws of genetics, or the ignoring of them. In order to understand the reason for the differences between the races in today's world, it will be necessary to have some idea of the subject of "variation," which is closely linked to this question.

Variation, a term used in genetics, refers to a genetic event that causes the individuals or groups of a certain type or species to possess different characteristics from one another. The source of this variation is the genetic information possessed by the individuals within that species. As a result of breeding between those individuals, that genetic information comes together in later generations in different combinations. There is an exchange of genetic material between the mother's and father's chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of this is a wide variety of individual features.

The different physical features between human races are due to variations within the human race. All the people on Earth carry basically the same genetic information, yet some have slanted eyes, some have red hair, some have long noses, and others are short of stature, all depending on the extent of the variation potential of this genetic information.

In order to understand the variation potential, let us consider a society in which brunette, brown-eyed people predominate over blond, blue-eyed individuals. As a result of the two communities intermingling and marrying over time, new generations which are brunette but blue-eyed will be seen. In other words, the physical characteristics of both groups will come together in subsequent generations and produce new appearances. When one imagines other physical characteristics mixing in the same way, it is clear that a great variety will emerge.

The important point that must be understood here is this: There are two genes that rule every physical feature. One may dominate the other, or they may both influence matters to an equal extent. For instance, two genes determine the colour of a person's eyes. One comes from the mother, the other from the father. Whichever gene is the dominant one, the individual's eye colour will be determined by that gene. In general, dark colours dominate lighter ones. In this way, if a person possesses genes for brown and for green eyes, his eyes will be brown because the brown eye gene is dominant. However, the recessive green colour can be passed down the generations and emerge at a later time. In other words, parents with brown eyes can have a green-eyed child. That is because that colour gene is recessive in both parents.

This law applies to all other physical features and the genes which govern them. Hundreds, or even thousands, of physical features, such as the ears, nose, the shape of the mouth, height, bone structure, and organ structure, shape, and characteristics, are all controlled in the same way. Thanks to this, all the limitless information in the genetic structure can be passed on to subsequent generations without becoming outwardly visible. Adam, the first human being, and Eve, were able to pass the rich information in their genetic structure on to subsequent generations even though only a part of it was reflected in their physical appearance. Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups. Over a long period of time, this led to different groups having different bone structures, skin colour, height, and skull volumes. This eventually led to the different races.

However, this long period did not change one thing, of course. No matter what their height, skin colour and skull volume, all races are part of the human species.

Another arguement for debate sake:

In the time of darwin, little was known about the complexity of a cell, and nothing hardly at all was known about DNA, RNA and every other genetic code. The cell, the earths simplest, yet extremely complex, lifeform, could absolutely not have developed randomly from any mix of non-living chemicals. Some compare the layout and complexity of a cell to that of a large city. This could not have just "formed" from inanimate matter. Life only comes from life. There have only been 3 cases of life coming from non-life:

Frosty the Snowman
Pinochio
Frankenstein

Yeah, real credible eh? :p To claim that a cell could just form naturally, is just as unthinking to claim that a 747 Jumbo Jet could form naturally by a tornado. Both are impossible, because both require intelligence to design, and/or create. And one last thing, if our bright scientists of today cannot create a living cell, what makes you think that one can form naturally?

[Portuguese Rebel]

The important point that must be understood here is this: There are two genes that rule every physical feature.

This is incorrect. Many features require control from several pairs of genes. Eye colour for example requires 7 iirc.

In the time of darwin, little was known about the complexity of a cell, and nothing hardly at all was known about DNA, RNA and every other genetic code. The cell, the earths simplest, yet extremely complex, lifeform, could absolutely not have developed randomly from any mix of non-living chemicals.

This has nothing to do with evolution. Quit mixing abiogenesys and evolution. It's two different things.

But on abiogenesys, i haven't seen anyone claim that a full cell was formed with it's fully finished modern shape. I would like that you creationists actually criticized the real hypothesys and not something you think the hypothesys involves...

In order to understand the variation potential, let us consider a society in which brunette, brown-eyed people predominate over blond, blue-eyed individuals. As a result of the two communities intermingling and marrying over time, new generations which are brunette but blue-eyed will be seen. In other words, the physical characteristics of both groups will come together in subsequent generations and produce new appearances. When one imagines other physical characteristics mixing in the same way, it is clear that a great variety will emerge.

Ok that explained what happened when you brought two different populations together... Somehow you forgot that the initial variability has an explanation too. Since Adam and Eve (hehehe!) had a limited number of features (they could not have all the human gene variations) new variability had to be produced. Why did you left this out? Are you afraid of answering the question on what limits the inclusion of variablity? Yes, because if new viable variations are possible to be included then what is the barrier that keeps being from speciating when they are reproductively isolated? Ya going to pull a magic trick to explain this?

Yeah, real credible eh? on_3.gif To claim that a cell could just form naturally, is just as unthinking to claim that a 747 Jumbo Jet could form naturally by a tornado.

Dumb analogies like this are always comming up. The parts of a jumbo cannot be compared to parts of the cell. The chemical bonds established in cell have a high probability of forming. For example, the celular membrane is made of phospholipids which are polar molecules. These will always, if in enough quantity, form a double layer in water. If you calculate this position as random you'll get a huge number, but this happens EVERY time. The DNA structure for example, the double helix, is formed due to the hidrogen bridges that form when two strands of DNA are present.

This is all but random. And i would again like to point out that nobody said that a whole cell was formed like this.

[Bigfootedfred]

To claim that a cell could just form naturally, is just as unthinking to claim that a 747 Jumbo Jet could form naturally by a tornado. Both are impossible, because both require intelligence to design, and/or create. And one last thing, if our bright scientists of today cannot create a living cell, what makes you think that one can form naturally?

i have read the article on the Forerunner site.
but what you have to consider, is they are taking it from the perspective of creation of our known life.
there basing that its impossible beacuse the chances of all the comopents linking together to form our know DNA sequence are almost negliable.

it makes a rather huge assumption.

who is to say that our combonation is the the only viable way for life to exsist?
sure ok, all life on our planet has the same amount of base pairs,
dosent mean it couldnt have gone diffrenlty and still not have been life.

[LegionnaireX]

But on abiogenesys, i haven't seen anyone claim that a full cell was formed with it's fully finished modern shape. I would like that you creationists actually criticized the real hypothesys and not something you think the hypothesys involves...

Caught you off guard didn't. Whats up with all the exuses for answering the questions? I cell can only survive if it is a full cell. If it is missing any parts, than it will not survive at all. No matter what "form" a cell would be, they are all extremely complex. Life requires complexity.

Ok that explained what happened when you brought two different populations together... Somehow you forgot that the initial variability has an explanation too. Since Adam and Eve (hehehe!) had a limited number of features (they could not have all the human gene variations) new variability had to be produced. Why did you left this out? Are you afraid of answering the question on what limits the inclusion of variablity? Yes, because if new viable variations are possible to be included then what is the barrier that keeps being from speciating when they are reproductively isolated? Ya going to pull a magic trick to explain this?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking me. But anyway, to answer what I think is one of your questions:

No new variation had to be produced. Adam and Eve had a certain set of genes, and when they reproduced the genes intermingled, and some mutated, resulting in some traits of Abe, being dominant from Adam, some being dominant from Eve, some being a little of both, and some being of neither, but just slight neutral mutations. This creates a completely different set of genetic for Abe, and then another for Cain. And then when they had their children, they may have physical traits from their dad, from their mother, some traits from both, some maybe from their grandpa good ole Adam, and maybe some from both Adam and Eve. And these traits are all part of the individuals genetic layout. So therefore, this creates new variation, and the system gets extremely complex as it progresses. I may have traits from my ancestors 2,000 years ago.

and your other question here:

I believe what your asking is why don't species change into other species if they are isolated. This is a fairly easy one to answer. Evolution works on genetic mutation, not genetic variation. Genetic variation does not account for evolutionary change. But genetic mutation does not add new genetic information to the individual, it corrupted already given information. Therefore someone with a respiratory mutation will have possibly inferior and/or damaged lungs. But they will still be lungs, not gills, because a gill and a lung are to completely different organs which serve 2 different purposes, and are constituted for certain envirements, one water, one air. And don't forget that the organs of species are near perfect and suited for certain envirements. I don't think mutation can account for this.

i have read the article on the Forerunner site.
but what you have to consider, is they are taking it from the perspective of creation of our known life.
there basing that its impossible beacuse the chances of all the comopents linking together to form our know DNA sequence are almost negliable.

it makes a rather huge assumption.

who is to say that our combonation is the the only viable way for life to exsist?
sure ok, all life on our planet has the same amount of base pairs,
dosent mean it couldnt have gone diffrenlty and still not have been life

What exactly are you asking? It is of my belief that life has to have certain conditions to be in existence. It might not have to be oxygen, or carbon dioxide, but there are strict guidelines. Becuase if there weren't than I would expect life to exist everywhere. I would expect us to be able to live off of eating dirt, instead of nutrient rich foods. See what I mean?