Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

"But we must not confuse religion with God, or technology with science. Religion stands in relationship to God as technology does in relation to science. Both the conduct of religion and the pursuit of technology are capable of leading mankind into evil; but both can prompt great good."

---

I like this. That sounds like a really interesting book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaultking

Its way too complex to be made by one freak mutation

---

That's your opinion. In fact, it was millions and millions and millions of freak mutations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noais_Dantes

ok someone who is an evolutionist please answer these questions... If we are animals then why are we being punished for acting like animals? Why are the public schools having problems with gun fights and the such when they have been taught evolution all their lives, meaning they are just shooting another animal? Please i am at a loss as too how to understand that you can say that we are animals, but when some acts like one they get in trouble.

---

Well, first, as an opponent of hunting for sport, I would take issue with anyone shooting an animal. :p Your argument seems to be rooted in the supposition that the life of an animal is not as important as that of a human being. I, who, even as a religious child, was always taught that human beings are a kind of animal, see no reason why that should make their lives less valuable. I see it as an unfortunate side-affect of the belief in Creationism, that some people view human beings as vastly superior to other kinds of animals, and therefore, when introduced to the idea that humans are also animals, are offended based on their belief that "animal" is an inherently negative term. If all living creatures are animals, then animals can't be "worse" than another form of creature, can they, being that there's only one? Unless you choose to believe that plants are superior to us.

But, secondly, I have to return to the point that has been made time and again in this thread: Why should the hypothetical truth of evolution/falseness of God negate the the importance of moral action? I understand, I think, the point that you're trying to make; that if morality is a God-given trait, and violence is a natural, or animalistic, trait, then the removal of God should leave no argument against our naturally violent tendencies. I would point out a common flaw of such reasoning, as I suggested earlier: you attribute morality and other "civilized" traits to religion alone, and assume that those who don't credit God with giving them to us would also reject the ideas themselves. Well, there are certainly *violent and cruel people on this earth who like to reject them to excuse their actions, but most people, religious or not, don't. I think that moral ideas are inherent to the human brain, then got attributed to God with the advent of religion. People who don't believe in God still believe in acting morally (*with the noted exceptions, which occur within the religious population as well). Being an animal doesn't mean being stupid. Human beings are intelligent, emotional animals, with an advanced notion of how to keep peace within their social circles, which often involves suppressing our more primative violent tendencies. Not shooting each other isn't a religious idea; it's a human idea. Although, there is mounting evidence that we may not be alone in that:

An old BBC article addressing animal sentience
A cool, cool website about animal sentience
A Cool Social Morality Quiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaultking

someone please explain to me how evolution can explain the development of the eye. Its way too complex to be made by one freak mutation, and if one little thing goes wrong, then the eye becomes a completely useless mass of flesh.

---

If I recall an experiment correctly, scientists were able to make one eye of a simple animal grow on its foot instead of its head by tampering with its genes.

Genetics is a very complicated science. Humans have something like 130,000 genes and it was recently discovered that each gene has more than one function.

Don't forget that evolution is driven by natural selection as well as random (genetic) mutation. There is nothing "freakish" about the whole process.

I wasn't sure whteher to put ---Ivan after that quote.
And yes, I do realize that Dostoyevsky thought Father Zossima's ideas far out-weighed Ivan's cynicism. Dostoyevsky thought that Russia would be saved by the youth following Father Zossima's ideas and Aloyasha's care. Still, he wrote about Dmitri, Ivan and Alexey; they all had their own diverse, individual ideas.

I gave a quote, not a sysnopsis of the novel.

Still, science is rather convincing, I even get jazzed on the facts.
Luckily, my religous faith isn't based on me, or my emotions.
A promise is a promise despite my own passing emotions. Feelings are real, but they're not always true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily655321

I like this. That sounds like a really interesting book.


Well, first, as an opponent of hunting for sport, I would take issue with anyone shooting an animal. :p Your argument seems to be rooted in the supposition that the life of an animal is not as important as that of a human being. I, who, even as a religious child, was always taught that human beings are a kind of animal, see no reason why that should make their lives less valuable. I see it as an unfortunate side-affect of the belief in Creationism, that some people view human beings as vastly superior to other kinds of animals, and therefore, when introduced to the idea that humans are also animals, are offended based on their belief that "animal" is an inherently negative term. If all living creatures are animals, then animals can't be "worse" than another form of creature, can they, being that there's only one? Unless you choose to believe that plants are superior to us.

But, secondly, I have to return to the point that has been made time and again in this thread: Why should the hypothetical truth of evolution/falseness of God negate the the importance of moral action? I understand, I think, the point that you're trying to make; that if morality is a God-given trait, and violence is a natural, or animalistic, trait, then the removal of God should leave no argument against our naturally violent tendencies. I would point out a common flaw of such reasoning, as I suggested earlier: you attribute morality and other "civilized" traits to religion alone, and assume that those who don't credit God with giving them to us would also reject the ideas themselves. Well, there are certainly *violent and cruel people on this earth who like to reject them to excuse their actions, but most people, religious or not, don't. I think that moral ideas are inherent to the human brain, then got attributed to God with the advent of religion. People who don't believe in God still believe in acting morally (*with the noted exceptions, which occur within the religious population as well). Being an animal doesn't mean being stupid. Human beings are intelligent, emotional animals, with an advanced notion of how to keep peace within their social circles, which often involves suppressing our more primative violent tendencies. Not shooting each other isn't a religious idea; it's a human idea. Although, there is mounting evidence that we may not be alone in that:

An old BBC article addressing animal sentience
A cool, cool website about animal sentience
A Cool Social Morality Quiz

---

Well animals kill each other all the time. So if we are animals then why is it wrong to kill each other? Now you mentioned that we as humans have a moral that we KNOW it is wrong to kill each other....so...where did it come from if it didn't come from God? the only sensible explanation i can get is that God and ONLY God could have given it to us. you see animals and humans have noticably differantes. such as an animal doesn't talk. they make sounds. they do not have their own language or anything like that. but humans do! humans have a soul, animals do not, and animals have NEVER thought about right or wrong. they just act on instances. so how can there NOT be a God with all this delicate artifacts that He has left us, but believe in something totally confussing? oh, BTW, did you know that Hilter believed in evolution and here is his evolutionary scale of the last 2. Jews were all ape and blacks were mainly ape. (this is NOT my thinking but Hilter's. this does NOT reflect my beliefes that that last statement!) he considered the Jews worse ANY body and he just forced his beliefs on everyone he could. also don't forget how France fell.

Greenburke,
Maybe it would help if you knew what the forces of speciation are..
1.) Non random mating (Consanguineous mating, Assortative mating)
2.) mutations
3.) migration
4.) natural selection (Fitness of offspring to reproduce)
5.) genetic drift (Alleles that no longer exist)

These are the forces that drive speciation, not just mutations.

I don't agree with most of the stuff you posted but I can't rebut now because i just saw something worse...

"ok someone who is an evolutionist please answer these questions... If we are animals then why are we being punished for acting like animals? Why are the public schools having problems with gun fights and the such when they have been taught evolution all their lives, meaning they are just shooting another animal? Please i am at a loss as too how to understand that you can say that we are animals, but when some acts like one they get in trouble."


:rage: WE ENTERED INTO SOCIETY, WE HAVE A SOCIAL CONTRACT TO FULFILL. WE HAVE FREAKIN LAWS!!!! :rage:


It's that simple. Common man, this isn't a real question...is it? Don't make me bring out Rousseau, John Locke, Neitzsche etc...

Kudos to emily for answering his question with a level headed approach. Very eloquent. I would say though that there is probably a heirarchy to the animal kingdom, as there is in human affairs. I don't know about the morality of it all though either but we are digressing fast. Morality to me is such an ugly term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noais_Dantes

Now you mentioned that we as humans have a moral that we KNOW it is wrong to kill each other....so...where did it come from if it didn't come from God? the only sensible explanation i can get is that God and ONLY God could have given it to us.

---

Humans had morality long before monotheism. The earliest humans lived in small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers, valued cooperation over competition, shunned murder and violence and shared resources with each other. This was a moral system that didn't come from God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noais_Dantes

such as an animal doesn't talk. they make sounds. they do not have their own language or anything like that.

---

Actually, if you've ever observed any two or more mammals for any length of time, you may come to realise that they do have a language all their own. Wolves in packs or horses in herds are easy examples. They use complicated systems of body language and sounds to communicate just fine.

Just because the world revolves around humans and our `intelligence' shouldn't negate other sentient beings' importance or worth.

I think most humans could expand their `intelligence' quota by understanding animals more :)

Animals communicate through body language also... Its amusing that many are similar to humans, such as the bluff, or signs of anger.

Quote:

---

I think most humans could expand their `intelligence' quota by understanding animals more.

---

Logos that is a beautiful statement!

I've trained horses for 25 years, and I've learned +much+ about people because of :D and the similarities in body language are uncanny.

+ haha! ok so I'm a little biased +

Horses can read a human's personality, and take advantage if one is given. I used to live just outside Yellowstone. Its amazing that people can't see when an animal is telling them to back off. I worked with horses for a couple of seasons, and I couldn't continue. Some people just should not be around animals.

<Now you mentioned that we as humans have a moral that we KNOW it is wrong to kill each other....so...where did it come from if it didn't come from God?>

Co-operation is a benefit. Society relies on co-operation (as well as competition). For society to flourish, it needs to have moral codes endorsed by the population. It seems to me that morality is far more comprehensible as a product of social cohesion than as some gift from a man-made concept we call god. One might as well say that Santa Claus gave us morality. (Of course, the idea of Santa Claus could contribute to moral development, and some primitive concept like Santa from the depths of prehistory could have inspired the birth of moral development, but that wouldn't mean that Santa or his predecessors ever existed as autonomous entities)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamuscubed

Greenburke,
Maybe it would help if you knew what the forces of speciation are..
1.) Non random mating (Consanguineous mating, Assortative mating)
2.) mutations
3.) migration
4.) natural selection (Fitness of offspring to reproduce)
5.) genetic drift (Alleles that no longer exist)

These are the forces that drive speciation, not just mutations.

---

Everyone has seen paintings in museums and textbooks of our "family tree," with its worms, birds, apes, and man shown in relation to how they evolved from one another. The impression is given that there can be no doubt that it really happened that way, for did not scientists prepare those charts?

"Delicate twigs, burgeoning in all directions, is closer to our current idea of evolutionary history."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution

All it really consists of is separate twigs, with each twig a separate species.

Classification is only the box species are put in, not the proof of evolution.

Chickadees. The Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinus) and the black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus) look just like each other in every way, and freely interbreed. Yet they have different songs! Although they have been classified as two different species, we have here one species with two alternate gene factors.

Wheat. Linnaeus classified spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L) as a different species than winter wheat (T. hybernum L). Yet they are both strains of the same wheat. They will cross and produce fertile hybrids. They should have been classified as sub-species.

Song sparrows. For over two centuries four species of sparrows in North America had been listed (Lincoln, fox, swamp, and song). Gradually this number increased as taxonomists moved westward and found additional sparrows. Soon we had lots of sparrow "species." But as more and more were discovered, it was recognized that they were but intermediates between the others! So the experts finally got together and reclassified them all as sub-species of but one species, the song sparrow (Passereila melodía).

Cattle. There are several different subspecies of cattle (Bos taurus L). Although the American bison (Bison bison L) and the European bison (Bison bonasus L) have a similar morphology (appearance), they will still generally crossbreed with cattle. In addition, it has been discovered that the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) also interbreeds with them—yet the bison and cattle have been placed in totally different genera.
Corn. One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn), while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one species.




Evolutionists point to changes WITHIN the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that theorized changes ACROSS species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring.
But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. New plant varieties and animal breeds never cross the species barrier.

There are many different sub-species in some species while there are but few for others. A key factor seems to be the ability of the creature to travel (migrate) migrate whether by seed, spore, or in person.
For example, the tiny fruit flies cannot travel very far, so there are many varieties of them. The animal with the most sub-species appears to be the southern pocket gopher (Thomomys umbrinus) with 214 subspecies and, next to it, the northern pocket gopher (T. talpoides) with 66. Another highly isolated species is the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) with 66 subspecies.
"There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics
Yes, variations are limited by the species barrier,—but immense variations are possible within a given species!
New varieties and new breeds are not evolution; they are only variation within the already existing species. There is no such thing as "microevolution." Changes within the true species are not evolution.

LIMITS OF VARIABILITY-
"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through gradual, continuous change, species could (in Wallace’s phrase) ‘depart indefinitely from the original type.’ Around 1900 came the first direct test of that proposition: the ‘pure line research’ of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred with the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they ‘depart indefinitely’ from the original type, or are there built-in limits and constraints?

"Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwin’s theory seemed to predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or ‘pure lines’) of large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either direction. Continued selection had no effect.

"Johnannsen’s work stimulated many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, ‘as unyielding as iron.’

"Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long.

"He found you could breed some super-layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be increased by relaxing selection—by breeding from ‘lower than maximum’ producers."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution
Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)—but no exit through that wall.

"Darwin’s gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution


LOSS OF FITNESS—Not only is there a limiting wall that will always be reached,—but as the researcher nears that outer wall, the subjects being bred become weaker. The variations made within those borders do not actually bring overall improvements in the corn, cows, and chickens. All of the apparent improvement is made at the expense of overall fitness for life. Gish explains why this is so:

"It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals do not compete well with the original, or wild type . . They survive only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated."—Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.

"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness for life under natural conditions, and only the fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."—*O.S. Falconer, introduction to Quantitative Genetics

.
GENE DEPLETION—The scientific name for this loss of fitness through adaptation is gene depletion. According to this principle, selective breeding always weakens a species—and never strengthens it.

"[The original species came into existence] with rich potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even improving existing kinds, such variations are always characterized by intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in accordance with the outworking of the second law of thermodynamics through gene depletion and the accumulation of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur in living things through the passage of time are always within strict boundary lines."—John C. Whitcomb

In addition, with the passing of time, genes are damaged through random radiation and mutations occur. Such mutations are also weakening, and gradually a genetic load is built up.

EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROW—It is an astounding fact that evolutionary theory, if true, could only produce ever weaker creatures with continually narrowed adaptive traits. A Dutch zoologist, *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were descended from animal ancestors, "man should possess a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors!" (*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology)

If we had actually descended from an earlier mammal, then we would have less genetic potential than they have! Our anatomy, physiology, brains, hormones, etc. would be less competent than that of our anscetors.

"Selection" requires intelligence, planning, and consistent effort by someone who is not the rose, corn, or cow. Random action is not "selection." Therefore "natural selection" is a misnomer. It should be called "random activity." The word "selection" implies intelligent decision-making. "Meaningless muddling" would better fit the parameters the evolutionists have in mind.
Selective breeding can provide no evidence of evolution, since it is intelligent, careful, planned activity; whereas evolution, by definition, is random occurrences.

Although random accidents could never produce new species,—neither can intelligent selective breeding! Selective breeding never, never produces new species. But if it cannot effect trans-species changes, we can have no hope that evolutionary chance operations could do it.

Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool; although it may have produce a nicer-appearing rose, at the same time it weakened the rose plant that grew that rose. Selective breeding may improve a selected trait, but tends to weaken the whole organism.

Because of this weakening factor, national and international organizations are now collecting and storing "seed banks" of primitive seed. It is feared that diseases may eventually wipe out our specialized crops, and we need to be able to go back and replenish from the originals: rice, corn, tomatoes, etc.

"Genetic Drift" is frequently spoken of as another "evidence" of evolution, but even confirmed evolutionists admit it proves nothing in regard to evolution. Genetic drift is changes in small groups of sub-species that, over a period of time, have become separated from the rest of their species. Oddities in their DNA code factors became more prominent, yet they all remained in the same species.

Frank Rhodes (Evolution) explains that all that "genetic drift" refers to is changes in a "sub-species" of a plant or animal (or in a "race," which is a sub-species among human beings). Even Rhodes recognizes that genetic drift provides no evidence of change from one species to another. All the drift has been found to be within species and never across them.

And all Consanguineous mating is, is A mating in which male and female are related by descent.

Very Good,
I told you truth was empirical, and you say well then I see no truth!

The fossil record is put together by people fascinated with legos as a child, and you don't want to take their word for it now do you levar burton?

Australopithecus afasrensis, A. africanus, A. boisei, A. robustus....Homo habilis, H. erectus, H sapiens.

The question of the day is.... DO ALL THESE MICROEVOLUTIONS MAKE ONE GIANT MACRO EVOLUTION? Is lucy really the missing link...

Are these merely the twigs we place down to suggest relatedness?
Even if all these "species" are infact all subspecies of the homo, or even if they are the same species of homo, if you are so inclined to believe, they no longer exist. We are the living proof, because something caused them to go extinct. Maybe you shall argue that H. erectus cannot beget a homo sapien. I cannot prove you wrong, therefore if you are not wrong, then you must be right! Well no, you are just not wrong, yet..
It is only through your variance that so "weakens each species" that slightly different organisms occur. This is the only thing that has to be believed for the model of evolution to work. Slightly changing orgainism produce slightly different organisms. So called "sub species"... If the original organisms go extinct to leave only the slightly different ones what is the only blue print left life has to read from? Not the extinct model. Subspecies are proof of evolution because eventually with/with out human care, something will die off, leaving what is left behind as the blue print of what works in the present environmental conditions...Which happen to be fairly stable as of lately...

Microevolution is the most noticeable, and only observable evolution we have known to date. The galapagos finches are usually only separate in beak size/shape and body size. But they are different in: behavior/habitat on which they dwell/physically. We can say they are in the process of evolving, and possibly since they are intermingling so, they could never evolve totally from each other.

Size is usually considered a polygene, therefore why variance is high within a certain species. Although the studies, that greenburke cited, that tested the variance were brilliant in theory, they fall very short from what they are trying to imply.

At no time is size the defining characteristic of species. Although again with Darwins finches it is one type that some taxonomists use to sieve through species ( I don't agree). Yao Ming (basketball player, Houston Rockets) is the product of selective breeding in the era of communist China... Yao is quite a significant fellow, but he retains his humanity because of all the other factors he possesses. Yao will go on, if he breeds, to produce Homo sapiens.
But it is possible that his lineage will forever be tall, a slight microevolution.

Because human activity breaks a couple of the fundamental rules of speciation (Migration, "natural selection") humans may never evolve more unless a catastrophy of a huge proportion were to occur.

Lastly would you say that because penicillin is practically never prescribed (because it has been rendered useless) any more have many bacteria evolved? The answer is yes, because evolution trys to explain the changes organisms make or have... Unless god made them more resilient to penicilin over time...This is again an example of microevolution, and so I return to the begining where empirically a wolf does not beget a poodle. Until this is proven we have nothing to go on for macroevolution besides faith (ouch, couldn't I have used a better term?)...that time can show that many micro evolutions will infact create a macro.