Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

. I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions. I get cuppajoe's argument that "common ancestry" can be established, but the "6 degrees of separation" phenomenon pretty much establishes that being related isn't necessarily a linear progression (as I think he's implying).

---

agreed. the phrase should have been missing link(s). evolutionary evidence has come up with forms of our ancestors carbon dated to 4.4 million years ago: Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, austrolopithicus, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo sapien, us. there arent millions of forms between where man's ancestor split from the primates because small changes in each type's body chemistry don't neccessitate an entirely knew type of animal. for example, modern humans have infinite numbers of bodily differences within races, but we still call all of them humans. major differences like body composition and size as well as bone structure, brain size, reliance on olfactory sensing, and tool making are what seperate the types of our ancestors. as far as the relation of these forms being more similar to kevin bacon's relation to winona judd rather than your relation to your great grandfather, just check the carbon dating evidence.

Well, I personally see no reason for me to stir the pot further than anything that I have said before, which is that I believe that God created the Earth and everything in it and we evolved from that point into what we are today. I cannot believe in chance as the start of all things given that you must give it infinite tries to make it work. I choose to believe in God. You may choose to believe in whatsoever you wish. I do not choose to waste my time in trivial arguments. I think we should start taking care of this planet before we lose our home, no matter how we believe it came to be here. May God bless everyone one of you, even those who do not believe in Him. Adieu.

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

agreed. the phrase should have been missing link(s). evolutionary evidence has come up with forms of our ancestors carbon dated to 4.4 million years ago: Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, austrolopithicus, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo sapien, us. there arent millions of forms between where man's ancestor split from the primates because small changes in each type's body chemistry don't neccessitate an entirely knew type of animal. for example, modern humans have infinite numbers of bodily differences within races, but we still call all of them humans. major differences like body composition and size as well as bone structure, brain size, reliance on olfactory sensing, and tool making are what seperate the types of our ancestors. as far as the relation of these forms being more similar to kevin bacon's relation to winona judd rather than your relation to your great grandfather, just check the carbon dating evidence.

---

There are creatures in nature that have no know predecessors - evolution cannot account for them. As well, there are characteristics of many creatures that - if they had to occur over millenia with multiple tries (since the majority of mutations are harmful) - that would have effectively destroyed the species before it could have "learned" to alter itself. And, how does an entity like a plant "learn" or "realize" it needs to mutate? How - even at a molecular level - do these things "figure out" and "instigate" such change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

There are creatures in nature that have no know predecessors - evolution cannot account for them. As well, there are characteristics of many creatures that - if they had to occur over millenia with multiple tries (since the majority of mutations are harmful) - that would have effectively destroyed the species before it could have "learned" to alter itself. And, how does an entity like a plant "learn" or "realize" it needs to mutate? How - even at a molecular level - do these things "figure out" and "instigate" such change?

---

no known predessors could mean two things: none have been found with fossil evidence OR this creature is so ancient and successful that its been basically the same for millions of years (crocs)--so there really is no evidence that is unearthable, its buried too deep.

species don't learn to alter themselves anymore than you learn to breath. it just happens genetically. you didnt have to think you hair red did you? (assuming that by red zepellin your hair is red, sorry if i'm way off). species aren't destroyed when a negative mutation takes place. instead, that individual with the bad mutations chances of reproducing are reduced because it wont get mated with or it dies before it can get laid.

same goes with plants. they don't learn anything. they just do it. how did you learn to open and close your hand? you didn't. you just do it. same with plants. mutations happen for 2 reasons: inheritance and acquired. for our purposes, the latter is what we need to focus on. it happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division. in this case, the cell doesnt know what to do. when this happens, the cell must guess at it. some guesses are good, some bad. but the cell doesnt need to "Know" or "figure out" anymore than an acorn needs to figure out how to become an oak, it just does it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

no known predessors could mean two things: none have been found with fossil evidence OR this creature is so ancient and successful that its been basically the same for millions of years (crocs)--so there really is no evidence that is unearthable, its buried too deep.

species don't learn to alter themselves anymore than you learn to breath. it just happens genetically. you didnt have to think you hair red did you? (assuming that by red zepellin your hair is red, sorry if i'm way off). species aren't destroyed when a negative mutation takes place. instead, that individual with the bad mutations chances of reproducing are reduced because it wont get mated with or it dies before it can get laid.

same goes with plants. they don't learn anything. they just do it. how did you learn to open and close your hand? you didn't. you just do it. same with plants. mutations happen for 2 reasons: inheritance and acquired. for our purposes, the latter is what we need to focus on. it happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division. in this case, the cell doesnt know what to do. when this happens, the cell must guess at it. some guesses are good, some bad. but the cell doesnt need to "Know" or "figure out" anymore than an acorn needs to figure out how to become an oak, it just does it.

Bolding by Redzeppelin

---

The stuff I bold-faced is the problem that evolution cannot answer. Nothing "just does" anything; if life is accidental, then we need an explanation as to why creatures (especially plants) altered. Why must a cell "guess" and what says it should even have such a capability as the ability to do "trial and error" problem solving? That's what evolution cannot answer. We cannot go from the first protein (or whatever it was) into making alterations that help an entity survive without some sort of explanation as to why the thing would even try to survive at all. It "just happens" is no more credible than the idea of a Divine Being creating life.

your not going to get brilliant answers from an online forum, so i suggest that you dont use this discussion to bolster belief in creation or evolution. but, there are particles called free radicals which are discussed in gerontology that might be what causes alterations in DNA. cells dont know to improve it happens on accident. then those creatures which gain good changes survive to reproduce more and so do their descendants until the become the common species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The stuff I bold-faced is the problem that evolution cannot answer. Nothing "just does" anything; if life is accidental, then we need an explanation as to why creatures (especially plants) altered. Why must a cell "guess" and what says it should even have such a capability as the ability to do "trial and error" problem solving? That's what evolution cannot answer. We cannot go from the first protein (or whatever it was) into making alterations that help an entity survive without some sort of explanation as to why the thing would even try to survive at all. It "just happens" is no more credible than the idea of a Divine Being creating life.

---

everything just does everything. your hair is part of you, right. do you think about growing it. no, it just does it. just doing it does not mean accidental nor does it mean the "just doing" is not understood. it just means it can't be described effectively with words. you understand how to grow your hair, i know this because you do it. of course you can't explain how you do this, but you do it. same goes with opening and closing your hand. how do you do it? please don't try to explain. you'd have to type for days just to explain exactly what is going on to move your pinky.

why wouldnt a cell guess? what about when a cell's supposed to take a step with its left foot, figuratively speaking (cells have no feet), and there's no left foot there. . .well then, the cell with have to improvise. it will have to hop on its right foot so to speak.

cells arent thinking in terms of "trial and error." that is how we interpret their behavior from our standpoint. each cell is simply doing what it does. saying we lack a knowledge of cell "thought" isnt a hole in the evolutionary argument. its just you being anthropocentric. we know tons of stuff about human pregancy, but that doesnt mean we know if the sperm who almost made it to the egg feels bummed out.

thing is, "it just happens" happens all the time, every day, every moment. it just happens is saying we can't desribe it, but there it is. god creating the universe has only one of these "it just happens qualities." the exact opposite of "it just happens" actually: you can describe it, but there its not.

i'd rather have my beliefs lacking in description than lacking in existence. words are fickle anyways

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Hi there, Mr. Atheist -

I think it was Einstein who said (roughly paraphrased) that "creativity is more important than intellect."

Trust me, we'll enjoy our discussion.

---

We won't - I've done it countless times before and the rare instance of a person starting to think is far outweighed by the refusal of the majority to use their brains.

Pass, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

We won't - I've done it countless times before and the rare instance of a person starting to think is far outweighed by the refusal of the majority to use their brains.

Pass, thanks.

---

Thanks for the vote of confidence. We'll try to muddle through as best we can.

Hold on, I do believe we're on to something:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

First off, I don't believe there is such thing as a "missing link/transitional form" in terms of singular.

---

As any credible biologist will tell you, there most certainly is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Since most living creatures (including microscopic creatures) are composed of multiple intricate/interrelated systems that often must function together to function at all, then it seems logical to assume that there should be many many transitional forms to allow for the multiple alterations that many (if not all ) forms of life had to go through to become what they currently are. Since the process apparently went on for millenium after millenium, it seems logical that the fossil record should (must) be littered with numerous transitional forms to indicate the various stages that the creature went through.

---

Wonderful. This is exactly what the theory of evolution by natural selection predicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions.

---

Of course not every transitional form can be dug up. Fossilization is relatively rare, and many entire species have no doubt gone extinct without leaving any evidence that we can turn up. However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot. Here's a severly abbreviated list on the wiki. Here is several hundred pages worth of transitional forms just for certain fish, and if you read the entire thing I will be very impressed.

Saying that the theory of evolution is unsaisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Of course not every transitional form can be dug up. Fossilization is relatively rare, and many entire species have no doubt gone extinct without leaving any evidence that we can turn up. However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot. Here's a severly abbreviated list on the wiki. Here is several hundred pages worth of transitional forms just for certain fish, and if you read the entire thing I will be very impressed.

Saying that the theory of evolution is unsaisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

---

I'm aware that transitional fossils (or at least what is interpreted to be transitional fossils) exist - but I'm questioning the reality that the necessary changes required for every creature to go through for every specific modification that allows that creature to do what it specifically (and often uniquely) can do, should point to an endless supply of transitional fossils. Even if you argue that away, we still have to deal with the fact that there are certain characteristics of creatures that could not have developed slowly or by steps because either a) the lack of this characteristic would have resulted in the death of the creature because the characteristic if fundamental to the creature's life, or b) the lethal nature of some of the creature's defense systems would have resulted in the death of the creature during prior "flawed" mutations.

As much as I'd like to impress you, like yourself, I've got far too much reading and - as a liberal arts guy - I have extreme difficulty wading through dense scientific texts. I'll peruse a bit, but I've got papers to grade.

And yes, I may be arguing from ignorance, but how is evolution's arguing from a serious lack of said evidence any more credible? The theory is touted as being "factual" by many - yet the existence of a large and convincing body of transitional form evidence is incomplete - and perhaps, at best, merely suggestive rather than conclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

'm aware that transitional fossils (or at least what is interpreted to be transitional fossils) exist - but I'm questioning the reality that the necessary changes required for every creature to go through for every specific modification that allows that creature to do what it specifically (and often uniquely) can do, should point to an endless supply of transitional fossils.

---

In a perfect world, everything that died would be fossilised, and you would have your endless supply. The world, sadly, is quite imperfect and almost nothing gets fossilised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Even if you argue that away, we still have to deal with the fact that there are certain characteristics of creatures that could not have developed slowly or by steps because either a) the lack of this characteristic would have resulted in the death of the creature because the characteristic if fundamental to the creature's life

---

I'll need an example of a creature that could not possibly survive if one of it's charactaristics were different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

b) the lethal nature of some of the creature's defense systems would have resulted in the death of the creature during prior "flawed" mutations.

---

We've been over this. Bad mutation = immediately removed from the gene pool. Good mutation = immediately spreads through the gene pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot...Saying that the theory of evolution is unsatisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance...

---

It occurs to me the following analogy might be helpful to some in understanding this. Let's say your friend has a jigsaw puzzle that is two feet on a side consisting of a thousand pieces, but he keeps 800 of the pieces and give you only 200 to try to do the puzzle.

If you are very clever, you might very well correctly determine where the 200 pieces fit on the board and thus see enough of the picture to determine what the complete picture actually is.

The fossil record is like this (plus there are other lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion, e.g., consistency between fossils and geological layers, DNA similarities matching form similarities, consistent radioactive dating, overall redundancy of evidence, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

In a perfect world, everything that died would be fossilised, and you would have your endless supply. The world, sadly, is quite imperfect and almost nothing gets fossilised.

---

Then the necessary evidence that would solidly establish evolution is beyond our ability to procure. Is that what you're saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I'll need an example of a creature that could not possibly survive if one of it's charactaristics were different.

---

The whip scorpion can store a poison inside its body which is 84% acetic acid without dissolving itself. How many tries did that one take, and why would that particular defense arise? How can there be a transistional phase for this modification?

A chameleon without a complete ability to camoflage itself would be much more likely to predation.

Without echolocation, a bat would struggle to feed itself (if at all).

The gastric frog of Australia stops acid production to raise her tadpoles in her stomach. There cannot be transitional forms or else the eggs would be digested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

We've been over this. Bad mutation = immediately removed from the gene pool. Good mutation = immediately spreads through the gene pool.

---

But why mutation at all? Am I really to believe that every process that goes on in nature, the human body, the earth is a result of numerous failures? Why should life persist at all? If it only started by chance, and the odds are so largely against its survival, I don't get how people believe that the complex systems that orchestrate nearly every aspect of life are the product of random chance. Lots of time + lots of stuff = life. Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGL57

It occurs to me the following analogy might be helpful to some in understanding this. Let's say your friend has a jigsaw puzzle that is two feet on a side consisting of a thousand pieces, but he keeps 800 of the pieces and give you only 200 to try to do the puzzle.

If you are very clever, you might very well correctly determine where the 200 pieces fit on the board and thus see enough of the picture to determine what the complete picture actually is.

The fossil record is like this (plus there are other lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion, e.g., consistency between fossils and geological layers, DNA similarities matching form similarities, consistent radioactive dating, overall redundancy of evidence, etc.).

---

Nice analogy - but I don't think we're in disagreement about the fact that nature provides us with an incomplete puzzle in terms of its origins. I think what we disagree upon is what kind of picture the puzzle makes when completed. Evolutionists say that the picture is of blind force, chaos, random chance; Creationists say that the picture is of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Evolutionists say that the picture is of blind force, chaos, random chance; Creationists say that the picture is of God.

---

sorry to bud in, but i think the picture you painted evolutionist as putting together is a false one. what you call blind force, random chance and chaos would probably be better called ordered chaos or the nature of things. animals and plants werent following set rules, but nor were they acting randomly. they were following insticts which were passed to them from previous generations and some were also following behavior learned from parents or packs during the organisms lifetime. . . these animals and their genes were doing what came natural--surviving. survival, though chance may play a part, can be seen as not chaotic but orderly in that those that adapt, those that learn, those that compete better are more likely to survive.