Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante

It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.

---

Again, quite false. Uranium-lead radiometric dating can date rocks 3 billion years old with a margin of error of about 2 million years, and argon dating has a margin of error of less than 5%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante

It is impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesirable trait, but I'm not talking specifics; there has been a tiny-nonexistent amount of badly mutated creatures of any kind.

---

Fossilization is rare. There have been rarely few creatures with harmful mutations because these creatures, by definition, die before being able to pass on their genes. Beneficial mutations are easier to find because these things spread through the gene pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante

Darwinism requires there to be even more badly mutated organisms than well mutated, while fossils have shown just the opposite.

---

Nope, it requires more non-beneficial mutations than beneficial. However, it predicts that creatures displaying beneficial mutations will be more common, because they – again, by definition – are better at replicating themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

*puts on devil's advocate hat*

In Red's absense, I will point out that while you can't think of more than one thing at a time, there is no reason to think that God, if he exists, can't.

---

okay. i do not think that this being able to think more than one thing at a time would be called thinking as we know it. it would be more in par with the same kind of intelligence we possess when we breath, grow our hair, fire our nerves, digest our meals, ect....basically, unconscious, or ignored by our consciousness.

point is, this kind of intelligence isnt godly-- at least not in the christian sense--rather, its nature. and if this is what they want to call godliness, i am going to have to call myself god, and you, and red, and everybody and everything because we all have the natural ability to do without knowing how we do or do many things at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy, not in proving intelligent design. It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.

---

yea, 10 million years according to some crazy evangelical preacher:lol:

What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?

Other than christianity, I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy,

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good luck!

Let me know how you get on, I have a link to the Nobel Institute and you'll be a certainty for the Biology Prize!

Mate, that's the funniest thing I've seen this year - cheers.

Interesting poll details so far, on quite a large sample.

Glad to see that over 49% of responses are sane.

Creation -- believe in creation. Every little thing's are created. That means us too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reccura

Creation -- believe in creation. Every little thing's are created. That means us too.

---

No but the debate is whether you believe if God zapped humans directly on the planet from scratch, or if you believe in evolution. please specify (of course we were created, but from what?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Well, sometimes it doesn't work that way. The alternative is one or both species going extinct. That usually happens one way or another. It progresses slowly because evolution takes several generations to take effect.

---

Several generations? That's it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Because they happen to live in an environment where it's easier to get certain nutrients out of insects than out of the ground. Why else?

---

A good answer, but come on - the idea that a plant is carnivorous goes against the general rule of plant life. I do not see the logic in a plant which lives in an environment so bereft of "food" in the soil that it somehow managed to morph into a meat eater rather than simply die (like most of the other plants around it that were certainly starving too)? Really? Your answer is at the same time reasonable and absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

I can't believe I've bothered to respond to this. For information regarding the observations that lead to evolution and the predictions which it makes and then tests sucesfully, please refer to the entire rest of this thread.

---

Well good grief, joe, don't let me waste your time. You're free to ignore any comment of mine that strikes you as absurd, illogical, or just plain ignorant, OK? Nobody makes you respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?

---

I wonder the same thing, but in the spirit of Christian forgiveness and compassion, I and my believing brothers do the best we can to put up with them :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good luck!

Let me know how you get on, I have a link to the Nobel Institute and you'll be a certainty for the Biology Prize!

Mate, that's the funniest thing I've seen this year - cheers.

---

Why is that the funniest thing you've seen this year? It is an odd theory and the evidence of it is something I wish to analyze. Einstein analyzed Newton, but that detracts nothing from either. Einstein even proved Newton wrong in regards to the details of gravity. Speculation is inevitable, and just because I have a preconcieved notion in the issue does not mean that it is false. You have given no evidence to suggest that you are more knowledgable than I except that you side with a majority of biologists while I don't. That means nothing. New ideas inevitably replace old ones. The story of Genesis has been replaced, but what it has been replaced with (Darwinism) can still be subject to retrospect. I'm not even talking about religion, I intend to find the scientific evidence for evolution via natural selection and to find the truth and not be subjected to "The Peppered Moth Experiment" and the Archeopterix as proof.

Just attempting to clear up a few things from the last couple of pages:

Generations to take effect for adaptations/mutations:

Ok, I am going to attempt to not go too far into genetics to explain this, but there are some basics of genetic theory neccessary to be understood for this (the work of the monk Mendel in particular).

The short answer is the # of generations for the change to be noticeable basically depends on 3 things: How beneficial is the original mutation; How shallow is the gene pool; How complex is the organism.

Now the longer answer.......Most physical characteristics have a dominant and recessive characteristic, the characteristic I am going to use in this example is vestigial wings in fruit flies (idea is the same for all characteristics - with the exception of linkage, which if people are interested I will try to explain at a later date).

So a short intro to genetics (please bear with me I am not sure the level of knowledge of everyone regarding this subject so I will be starting from scratch) Genes are located on different chromosomes. Chromosomes are found as pairs inside the nuclei of cells. When an offspring is created it will get one chromosome from each parent for each chromosome pair.

All right back to our Drosphilia (fruit fly). The dominant characteristic is to have normal wings (designated to be N in the cross below) as opposed to vestigial wings (signified by n).

2 "strong" normal wing parents:

NN x NN Parents

NN NN NN NN Offspring

All offspring will be "strong" normal winged fruit flies


1 "strong" normal wing & 1 vestigial wing:

NN x nn Parents

Nn Nn Nn Nn Offspring

All offspring "weak" normal winged


1 "strong" normal wing & 1 "weak" normal wing:

NN x Nn Parents

NN Nn NN Nn Offspring

"strong" and "weak" normal offspring created in 1:1 ratio


2 "weak" normal winged:

Nn x Nn Parents

NN Nn Nn nn Offspring

Normal and vestigial winged offspring created in a 3:1 ratio

So as can be seen from the above once the mutation has found its way into the gene pool it will become visible in the 3rd generation, however the offspring bearing that charateristic will be in a definite minority. Then depending on the benefits/drawbacks of the mutation it will become more or less prevalent in the society


I had been going to attempt to explain some other things as well, but this post has taken longer than I thought so I'll adress them at a later date.

It's a mix between Creation and Evolution.

The whole thought of creation arises the possibility of a creator. I could easily believe that even if i don't follow any mainstream religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bakiryu

It's a mix between Creation and Evolution.

The whole thought of creation arises the possibility of a creator. I could easily believe that even if i don't follow any mainstream religion.

---

Exactly. No one doubts that simple changes can arise, but complex organs (such as the cellular cilia) cannot be explained without undertaking immense odds against such an occurance. Darwinism doesn't accept cellular Darwinism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Again, quite false. Uranium-lead radiometric dating can date rocks 3 billion years old with a margin of error of about 2 million years, and argon dating has a margin of error of less than 5%.

---

When refering to billions of years, 5% is an awful lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Fossilization is rare. There have been rarely few creatures with harmful mutations because these creatures, by definition, die before being able to pass on their genes. Beneficial mutations are easier to find because these things spread through the gene pool.
But there should be at least as many poorly mutated creatures as pathways of well mutated creatures.

Nope, it requires more non-beneficial mutations than beneficial. However, it predicts that creatures displaying beneficial mutations will be more common, because they – again, by definition – are better at replicating themselves.

---

But there should be at least as many poorly mutated creatures as pathways of well mutated creatures. Fossils show a direct pathway, without as many poor mutations as there should be.