Evolution vs. Creation

[Swad]

The ultimate debate.

 

Go.

 

I'll start off with my opinion. Science is about verifiability and falsifiablity - it's not enough to find evidence to support a theory, the trick is to probe it and try to poke holes in it. You can build evidence to support a theory until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, if it can be falsified, your work is in vain.

 

Now, since we obviously weren't there, we can't falsify or verify the origins of life. Therefore, it necessarily falls out of the scientific realm into natural philosophy - whatever you propose the origins of life to be, you've already decided in favor of a God or random mutations.

 

I say this because too many people come at the debate like it can be scientifically proven one way or another. At the end of the day, both sides are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions.

 

I'll add more later, but let me just add this: make sure in this debate you are clear about your definitions. "Evolution" is sometimes a catch-all word and in its purest sense, it just means the development of life from a common ancestor. It is not the Big Bang or anything else, which is another thread.

 

As always, be respectful. Since none of us really know the answer to the debate, everyone's opinion is equally as valid so long as it is supported by evidence.

 

(P.S. In reply to a comment in another religion thread, let me just say that everyone is "religious" - we all base our worldviews on our opinion about the nature of the supernatural, which is what "religion" is at its most basic level. Some opt for a God, some opt for many gods, some opt for none. But we all opt. Just keep that in mind.)

 

With that, let's hear what you think.

[Colonel]

Creation. How else did everything get here. God must have made it. Where would it have come from? I say it's definately creation.

[quixos]

my main problem with creationism, is that there is nothing you can do with it. there really isn't any real world application of creationist theory.

 

one can predict the number of generations of successful disease/pest resistance of say, a particular strain of wheat or corn, against a problem causing bacteria or fungus or insect pest. this is one example of evolutionary theory in practice that feeds millions.

 

are there any real world applications of creationist theory?

 

(i might be confused still about what this thread is about, but i'm enjoying it. evolution is an everyday fact. it happens in us, and around us, in every forest and every toothbrush (eeee!). is there a creator? that is a different question. )

[slipstream]

nice clear post and I believe in a creation what that means to differt people no doubt may be vastly different to many people. I am also from a scientific background and know how scientist first create a theory then look to make up a series of test to prove or disprove their theory. As none of us where there and we attempt to extrapolate our tests and theories over many 100's 1000's and alot more zeros we are only really guessing

A point .. Mt St Helens in 2 days created layers that where originally thought that would take hundereds of thousands of years.. theorys are adjusted all the time to fit the facts or our believes which influence how we interperit or leave out certain facts.

So yes it is not possible to prove those sorts of things from a scientific standpoint

Evolution is a Theory though often presented as a fact which is wrong.

Creationism from a scientific stand point again is a theory and again can not be presented for the same reasons as a fact. People do well to keep this in mind and keep there emotions in check. I have seen both camps get extremly emotional about it and a number of eminent scientists that are on opposite sides of the fence on this and yes many other different theories. I personally dont think evolution or creation as a theory has alot ot do with my belief in God or not. I see a mechanism in place to at least adapt and change within a type. If evolution was out right proven it would not effect my belif in God or a Designer. I see amazing design everywhere

 

Anyway thats my 2 cents worth from someone who has worked in a scientific arena for 10 years.

[brainbone]

Evolution and Creation do not need to be mutually exclusive. That is to say, you can have one along with the other, as long as you make slight modifications to the preconception of both.

 

Evolution has some pretty hard evidence on its side. We "know" organisms evolve. We've watched it happen before our eyes.

 

But, what was the catalyst? Bacteria forming near deep sea volcanic activity? What set that into motion? Big bang? What caused that event?

 

That's not to say I whole-heartedly believe in creation, but I can't completely close the door on it -- but what good does it do us either way it this point? We certainly have no proof, so it’s just mental masturbation.

 

I, however, absolutely can not dismiss what we "know", and are continually discovering about evolution.

 

 

Edit: When I say "know", I'm not saying "fact", but rather "to the best of our current knowledge". Just wanted to put that out before someone jumps on me about it.

[Aurora]

M'kay...

 

Let me start with a few definitions before I begin my statement.

 

Evolution - The process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its occurrence over long stretches of time explains the origin of new species (speciation) and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world.

 

Microevolution - The occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

 

Macroevolution - Evolution that occurs above the level of species.

 

Natural Selection - The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

 

There. If anyone disagrees with any of these, let me know why, or else I stand by them.

 

Without question, microevolution and natural selection have indeed been proven. Any organism with diversity within its species, various breeds of dogs for example, will adapt to a given climate or environment within a relatively short period of time. For example, taking these dogs and putting them in a subarctic climate zone. The dogs ill-suited for this environment, i.e. chihuahuas, greyhounds, and other dogs with short coats, will soon die from exposure leaving those better suited, like wolves, huskies, and perhaps collies. Everything kosher here.

 

The problem lies with the macroevolution, or more often called just evolution. Macroevolution attempts to take the process of natural selection and use it to explain how diverse the five kingdoms have become since starting off as a single-cell organism. Herein lies the irony: natural selection, the process that macroevolution purports to use, cannot cause diversity, it actually shrinks it. New species require new information in the genome. Natural selection cannot add to the genome; information is actually being removed from the gene pool (short-haired dogs from the population).

 

M'kay, where do we get new information to sprout antlers, wings, scales and whatnot?

 

Mutations? No natural process observed has ever caused a useful mutation. Here again, mutations are weeded out by natural selection since they make the organism less fit for the environment. Of course there is the odd chance that we just haven't observed the right organism under the right conditions with the right cause of mutation. But if we have to go to the point where we're controlling the conditions to create mutations and still can't do it, how much more astronomical are the chances said mutation could take place in natural conditions?

 

Slow changes into something else? Let's take scales and feathers for example, feathers are supposed to have been evolved from scales. Let's cross a feather and a scale. We get a limp, slimy, hairy piece of flesh that's good for neither flying or swimming and will probably soon be eradicated by natural selection. There really aren't smooth transitions from fins to legs, cold blood to warm blood, etc.

 

Genetic similarities? I hear a lot of people say that since we share around 98% of our D.N.A. with chimpanzees so we must be related somehow. Fine. We also share about 50% of our D.N.A. with bananas.

 

I realize none of this disproves or proves anything I believe, but I thought I'd just share that with everyone. People could just say evolution has been driven by a supreme being, like God, and explain away all the inconsistensies and it would work. I have thoughts on that too but it's for a different topic (the validity of the Bible).

[slipstream]

yes sounds good to me.. I have a huge difficulty seeing how something like a feather can evolve.. If one studies a feather it is an extremly complext structure of hooks and eys almost.. The problem with evolutuion is that how does this "inbetween" stage work ?

it just doesnt.. it has to do a big jump from one complext structure to another and as u say mutations area job.. mathemtical probablilities are considered insanely high

 

One thing that is obvious is that there is a complex design throughout nature... you can argue till youre blue in the face whjo or what or where thst design came from but the more you closely study life the more complex even a single cell is. Th idea that things just happened is pretty crazy in my view. The second law of thermodynnamics states that everything is in a state on entropy or if u leave something it goes down hill or almost devolves in some sense. yet evolution in it's purest form is always suppose to be improving and getting better and better.. I dont really see it at this level but you do see natural selection.. this is built in.. something dies off because it doesnt have the ability to survive. somethings do because they have those charachteristics built in and the mate with like and reinforce that.. It is just a matter of to what extent this happens. I have done a ton of breeding work including genetic engineering in plants and studying DNA to simply switch on and off what is there and maybe dormant.. We made a blue apple

How we switched the appropriate gene on that already existed in an apple

so what happened when we left it? it reverted back.. gee what a waste of time but it was fun.

[Swad]

Aurora -

 

Thanks for the macro- and micro- distinction. I was just about to get to that.

 

Another main problem I have with evolution is its foundation - 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy baby. Things fall apart. If you leave a pile of junk in a field for a million years it doesn't automatically become a porsche. It stays junk.

 

I know that there are differences between open and closed systems. But can I really accept that everything I see around me came from primordial soup? That we came to you from goo by way of the zoo? That's a lot of faith.

 

The biblical account may not be the most accurate (or the interpretations are just different) but macroevolution just seems like bad science to me. I think that in 500 years we'll look back on evolution like we do the "four elements" etc.

[johan]

Aurora -

 

Thanks for the macro- and micro- distinction. I was just about to get to that.

 

Another main problem I have with evolution is its foundation - 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is all about entropy baby. Things fall apart. If you leave a pile of junk in a field for a million years it doesn't automatically become a porsche. It stays junk.

 

I know that there are differences between open and closed systems. But can I really accept that everything I see around me came from primordial soup? That we came to you from goo by way of the zoo? That's a lot of faith.

 

The biblical account may not be the most accurate (or the interpretations are just different) but macroevolution just seems like bad science to me. I think that in 500 years we'll look back on evolution like we do the "four elements" etc.

 

what about dogs... don't you think that they are descendants from wolves ?

http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

 

 

missing link: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

[brainbone]

Herein lies the irony: natural selection, the process that macroevolution purports to use, cannot cause diversity, it actually shrinks it. New species require new information in the genome. Natural selection cannot add to the genome; information is actually being removed from the gene pool (short-haired dogs from the population).

 

Natural selection is actually quite the opposite of "being removed from the gene pool". It's a process of adaptation (adapt or die), a process that inherently adds diversity to the gene pool, provided you take microhabitats in to account. Because Subject A from Microhabitat A changes to Subject B when trying to live in Microhabitat B doesn’t require that Subject A no longer exist in Microhabitat A.

[Ouch]

Great post Aurora - although i don't like applying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to evolution because it was never intended to apply to that area of science. It's about conservation of energy etc and the full law is "the entropy of any totally isolated system not at thermal equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value." Clearly creationists who use this law as an argument against evolution are on shakey ground.

 

Glad someone picked up on the differences between macro and micro evolution though because when i have this argument with people those frequently need explained.

 

The i would like to pick up on a few thoughs from the thread that this was born from:

 

evolution theory doesn’t claim to be the ultimate truth

 

the word says it: evolution theory

 

so its humble just by definition

 

religious people aren’t humble by definition. As they claim to know the ultimate truth of their god

 

science by its nature is not dogmatic, religion is

 

so calling evolution theory a religion is absurd

 

it’s a science based theory, that has sound proof.. but it doesn’t claim to be the ultimate truth

 

if other theories come, that have a sound scientific base.. scientist will change their views

 

were as religions people will stick by the some old dogma’s, no matter what evidence is presented

 

so science is not a religion. Its completely different

There is zero evidence for macro-evolution yet scientists insist we evolved from monkeys, if that's not a faith i don't know what is. I'm not calling it a religion because that implies a certain dogma, but evolution is based on faith in science and to claim that science is the only thing modern society can put faith in makes it as montheistic as any other religion.

 

Evolution may be a belief, but it is definitely not a religion, nor is it blind faith. Evolution is based on science, which is based testing and observation. Where the belief comes in is in the perception of what you're observing.

Brainbone made a comment in the previous thread about science being based on testing and observation - i can say the same of my life as a Christian - i observe and experience God in my life every day of course someone who has no faith in God cannot fathom this so it becomes a dead end - normally by the person i'm talking too insisting (as tactfully as they can) that i am simply deluding myself.

 

So if both evolution and christianity are faiths, which would i rather have - the one that lets me live on eternally with the creator of the universe, or the one that promise that the universe will eventually collapse in on itself ending all life, and nothing anyone ever does will be of any significance. If i am deluding myself - ignorance is bliss.

[brainbone]

Brainbone made a comment in the previous thread about science being based on testing and observation - i can say the same of my life as a Christian - i observe and experience God in my life every day of course someone who has no faith in God cannot fathom this so it becomes a dead end - normally by the person i'm talking too insisting (as tactfully as they can) that i am simply deluding myself.

 

 

But your observations are through a filter of faith in that God. With science, and to try to stay on topic, evolution, there is (ideally) no faith filter - just gaps in knowledge, that are being filled and modified at varying rates, based on observation.

 

 

In short:

Religion seeks to modify what you observe in life to fit the beliefs of that religion.

Science seeks to modify the beliefs of a theory to fit the observation in life.

 

You couldn’t have two more different situations.

[Ouch]

So why then do scientists insist that macro evolution is an valid explanation for the current life on our planet, despite any observations to back it up? Why not just admit that there is not scientific explanation for how human beings came to exist...? I don't mind scientists making up theories on how they think things could happen - my only objection is that this theory is largely being taught as fact.

[brainbone]

So why then do scientists insist that macro evolution is an valid explanation for the current life on our planet

 

For just one example, See:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/sp.evid.html

 

Yes, there are still gaps, but from current evidence it is a reasonable conclusion. And as more evidence is gathered the conclusion has so far been reinforced. If it was as absurd as you imply, you would expect the opposite.

 

This is still very consistent with my original assertion.

[intradink]

[Cyman]

I just want to add my opinion without referring to any of the above posts (or not a particular one).

 

For me, science is my religion, I think people who believe in science can consider science and physics as their religion and (dogmatic) laws, therefore the ultimate indefinite knowledge (I don't know how you call it in english) is the state of God. Once we know everything we'll have reached this "God status" (which we'll never reach, realistically). I guess that if we did, we would stop to exist (because this is most likely becoming too philosophically here, we won't go deeper into this.

 

Second, about mutations and evolution. What else is evolution than a continued improvement of an organism? With millions of years that have passed, all sorts of creatures on this planet have always developed mutations. Some of them were not very successful, because they were rather some kind of disease/failure. Other mutations proved to be useful and were transmitted with the genetic code to the next generation and so on (unfortunately this applies also for the genetic diseases).

Some of these models seem to be successful until our days and others which don't "qualify" for the "all-day-survival" do not evolve further. They are condemned to fail, i.e. to die! Most of the genetic diseases many people are suffering from are nothing different than mutations which have been multiply transmitted from generation to generation. I also wonder how many of us humans have ancestors with the same family origins - which, seeing it strictly is incestuous, but hard to exclude with more than six billion people living on this planet.

Mutations result from many aspects and depend on many different factors.

I would like to know how whales have become what they are, if there had not been evolution and mutations. I guess they would have to go and buy overisze-diving equipment. ;-)

Honestly, I can't imagine how creationists want to explain these things!

[brainbone]

Honestly, I can't imagine how creationists want to explain these things!

 

See:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/theistic.html

and

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/earthsage.html

[Aurora]

what about dogs... don't you think that they are descendants from wolves ?

http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

missing link: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

 

I think dogs and wolves have a common ancestor that contained in its genetic sequence all the information for every breed we have today. Perhaps something along the lines of a medium-sized dog with normal-length hair. Differences emerge with different combinations, like blue-eyed parents having brown-eyed children. All the necessary information for every variation is already in the D.N.A. code, it's just a matter of whether it's dominant or recessive. Size, hair length, hair color, behavior, etc. begin to emerge as different combinations of dogs breed with each other. Even more so as different packs split off towards different areas, deserts, jungles, mountains, tundras, and others.

 

This water-dwellter-to-land-dweller missing link may have indeed had fin-like legs, but I doubt you'll find a link between it and water-dwellers or between it and land-dwellers. It was also discovered as a fossil so we'll never know what it may have looked or acted like.

 

A good example of finding "missing links" would be a 1,000,000,000-square bingo sheet. On it are seen all of the present-day species located on the sheet according to their different relationships with other species. Between various species, for example cats and dogs, there are several dozen "missing link" squares still empty. Briefly, the excessively lack of satisfying "missing link" species or fossils doesn't surprise me since they shouldn't exist.

 

...I have done a ton of breeding work including genetic engineering in plants and studying DNA to simply switch on and off what is there and maybe dormant.. We made a blue apple...

 

Perfect example. The information is here. Just needs activation.

 

Natural selection is actually quite the opposite of "being removed from the gene pool". It's a process of adaptation (adapt or die), a process that inherently adds diversity to the gene pool, provided you take microhabitats in to account. Because Subject A from Microhabitat A changes to Subject B when trying to live in Microhabitat B doesn’t require that Subject A no longer exist in Microhabitat A.

 

But where is the diversity coming from? Information doesn't come from nothing.

 

It's already there, just unused.

 

For just one example, See:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/sp.evid.html

 

Yes, there are still gaps, but from current evidence it is a reasonable conclusion. And as more evidence is gathered the conclusion has so far been reinforced. If it was as absurd as you imply, you would expect the opposite.

 

This is still very consistent with my original assertion.

 

The conclusion takes very much for granted. Wolves and hyenas are able to cross-breed and are classified in the same Family, Canidae. However, humans and apes are also in the same Family, Hominidae, but as far as I've seen, we're unable to reproduce with an ape.

 

I've already answered the genetic similarity question.

 

It's absurd to put apes and humans in the same category, the likeness and behavior are worlds apart. Practically speaking we are the only race on the planet with sufficient intelligence to achieve space flight, engineer skyscrapers, practice various belief systems, and debate philosophies on a level that nothing else could comprehend. Mankind is unique, so why do we try and drag ourselves into being brothers with apes?

[brainbone]

already answered the genetic similarity question (50% banana, anyone?).

 

Easy; see: Common Descent.

 

You banana parallel is actually evidence of Common Descent, not evidence against it.

 

It's absurd to put apes and humans in the same category, the likeness and behavior are worlds apart.

 

No more absurd than bananas… but that's the idea.

 

It's also no more absurd than saying the earth was created in 6 days, some 6000 years ago.

 

Please go back and read:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/sp.evid.html

Including all links in it.

 

I'm not expecting it to change your mind, far from it, but I do expect you to at least fully understand the argument.

[slipstream]

So why then do scientists insist that macro evolution is an valid explanation for the current life on our planet, despite any observations to back it up? Why not just admit that there is not scientific explanation for how human beings came to exist...? I don't mind scientists making up theories on how they think things could happen - my only objection is that this theory is largely being taught as fact.

 

exactly as I stated earlier my work has been with The department Of Scientific and Industrial research for 10 years and people have an incorrect impression of scientist and therfore the science they create . Scientists are people with often opposing theories which create experiements which seem to prove exactly the opposite of each other at times.

If we keep this in mind then it helps us to understand all the problems such as yours stated above.

And to your comment above about no facts to back up certain theories and why dont they admit this and stop teaching it as if it was a fact..

here is a great example.

Suzy the chimp was suppose to be an amazing breakthough in scientific discovery. It was the link between being on all 4's and standing upright.

It was proved and published in the papers that this was a hoak. someone took an angle grinder to the bone and modified it.. These people came out publically and admitted this was a hoak and how they did it.

So why years later when I go to our main cities biggest University are they still teaching this as truth when everyone that can read a paper knows that this is not evidence at all

 

If you keep these things in mind it helps to balance things out and makes you realise that science is done by people and people have there own ideas and "bents" and want to prove whatever that maybe. None of them like being wrong . So why should these things surprise us. It is just normal to me and i see it daily in my work with other Scientific staff.

[brainbone]

If you keep these things in mind it helps to balance things out and makes you realise that science is done by people and people have there own ideas and "bents" and want to prove whatever that maybe.

 

And religion is taught, interpreted and propagated by people. Those same fallible people that make mistakes, or hoaxes, with science.

 

This doesn’t mean everything to do with evolution is a hoax by a long shot. How many hoaxes have there been related to different faiths? Should those be used as reasons not to follow said faith?

[slipstream]

And religion is taught, interpreted and propagated by people. Those same fallible people that make mistakes, or hoaxes, with science.

 

This doesn’t mean everything to do with evolution is a hoax by a long shot. How many hoaxes have there been related to different faiths? Should those be used as reasons not to follow said faith?

 

I am not discussing religion here.. that is a separate subject to what i was discussing. I am giving people an insite into the scientific community only and how that functions.

 

All people are fallible including me and you. Anyone who thinks they know it all are sadly deluded .. In the same way you may apply this to ANY group of people on the face of the globe. I am sure if we could see in an instant what is and isnt accurate in our own thinking and perceptions of things we would probably fall over dead from a heart attack.

 

Science , Religion, whatever the area of "knowledge" I try to keep as open a mind as possible and so should we all. We all have some sort of religious beliefs as stated earlier as I stated above I am not discussing Religion and don't Creation verses Evolution to me I dont need to start discussing religion or God when creation is mentioned.

I can if you want though but it generally gets you no where in a discussion.

[brainbone]

I am not discussing religion here.. that is a separate subject to what i was discussing. I am giving people an insite into the scientific community only and how that functions.

 

The main obstacle to Evolution, since it's predictions have yet to be disproved, is that is clashes with a number of religions that believe in Creation. So, in this regard, religion is part of the discussion.

 

If you bring up points that a portion of the evidence used to back up evolution was faulty, and that it could mean a great deal more is in the same boat (if you weren’t implying this, then there would have been no reason to bring it up), then you also need to accept the same possibility for any other explanation of the development of life on earth, or counters to those explanations.

 

but it generally gets you no where in a discussion.

 

Exactly my point. It is a dead end argument for any side of the discussion. Humans are faulty. This is not news.

 

If you want to disprove macro evolution, or Common Descent, you need to find fault in it's predictions, or evidence that contradicts those predictions. Until then, much evidence has been found that follow it's predictions.

[Ouch]

A good example of finding "missing links" would be a 1,000,000,000-square bingo sheet. On it are seen all of the present-day species located on the sheet according to their different relationships with other species. Between various species, for example cats and dogs, there are several dozen "missing link" squares still empty. Briefly, the excessively lack of satisfying "missing link" species or fossils doesn't surprise me since they shouldn't exist.

Perfect example. The information is here. Just needs activation.

But where is the diversity coming from? Information doesn't come from nothing.

 

This is the flaw in macro-evolution theory - the taking of fossils with similar traits to other fossils and saying they are an evolutionary chain. It's like saying oranges evolved into cucumbers because we have green apples which are green like cucumbers and round link oranges!

 

Doesn't it seem reasonable that an intelligent designer would re-use his most efficient design elements in different species (i do it in programming all the time - and i'm not that intelligent!) which would be as good an explanation for cross species similarities as evolution is.

[brainbone]

It's like saying oranges evolved into cucumbers because we have green apples which are green like cucumbers and round link oranges!

 

Seriously, if you're going to argue this, go read thoroughly through the link (including sub-links) I provided earlier. There is much more detail and methodology than you imply, with more being found every day.