Evolution vs. Creation

[The Atheist]

Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?

Did you go to the link I showed Red?

As someone already noted, the fact that mutations are rarely beneficial is pretty obvious - those which aren't become extinct and those which are survive.

Given that you're a creationist, how do you explain all of the extinct species?

Edit - as to names of people to read to refute the wildly incorrect odds quoted, I suggest starting with Francis Crick himself and read as much of his work as you can

[Redzeppelin]

These questions you're asking are the same as the ones I deal with when my seven year old asks questions. Reality is what it is. This is a Phil 101 discussion and not really worth my time.


Can I suggest you take a very elementary Philosophy course, because your questions are really basic stuff. Schrodinger's cat et al.



I doubt your ability to learn if you won't address facts.


Your faith is a little shaky and for some reason you seem to think that coming in here and denying evidence will strengthen your faith. I've indulged your fantasy long enough.

I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.

Cheers.

The boldfaced line is a stereotype and is in poor form coming from an educated person.

I'll have to pass on your offer of "education," thanks. But, in view of your generosity, I will reciprocate: if you ever want to truly understand the God who rules the universe, feel free to send me a PM and I will be happy to lift you out of your elementary understanding of the Almighty. It's the least I could do.

Cheers.

[cuppajoe_9]

Are we to assume that all positive mutations were a "first try" (because some negative mutations, I'm guessing, would result in the death of the life form).

Yes, some mutations do result in the death of the individual organism, thereby removing that mutation from the gene pool. However, when a beneficial mutation occurs, the organism that it occurs in has (by definition) an evolutionary advantage, and therefore that mutation spreads throughout the gene pool. Mutations occur in individuals, not species. A harmful mutation in one individual has almost no chance of causing the extinction of the entire species (which is what I assume you mean by "the death of the lifeform").

I'm speaking rather simplistically here, but considering the idea philosophically, how can progress occur when the odds for positive movement are largely minor (and - like much of evolution, requires immense time and seemingly insurmountable odds).

Because when a beneficial mutation does occur, that gene is rewarded with more copies of itself; and when a harmful mutation does occur, the gene in question is punished by extinction. The odds are indeed long, but one-in-a-million odds aren't so bad when you're allowed several billion trials and several billion years with which to work.

[cuppajoe_9]

Second, it's interesting how you've defined "beneficial" here - it's all about perspective, I guess. Since HIV involves mutations that are hostile to life (because once the host is dead, HIV has nohwere to go) I would say that its mutation is generally negative in nature.

Negative to you, maybe, absolutely wonderful for the virus. Once the host is dead, it likely has a few billion HIVs in it, and has more than likely passed it on to another host. If this was not true, you would never have heard of HIV.

[Redzeppelin]

Negative to you, maybe, absolutely wonderful for the virus. Once the host is dead, it likely has a few billion HIVs in it, and has more than likely passed it on to another host. If this was not true, you would never have heard of HIV.

Fair enough; I kind of sensed that the point I was making would result in this answer.

[andave_ya]

I read the article you suggested, The Atheist, but before I began I was inclined to doubt its veracity because it's a Wikipedia article and anyone, trained and untrained, is free to get in there and edit it. The article itself was full of unecessary jargon and I would like to know who is the "we" of whom the author speaks.
Furthermore, if there is such an influx of missing links, how come I've never heard of them before? Even Darwin said that the fact of the missing links is the weakest point in his theory.

For me, the extinction of the dinosaurs is explained by this verse from the Bible:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Genesis 7:11

Of course this verse is talking about the flood. Since the fountains of the great deep broke up and the windows of heaven were opened, the climate and atmosphere of the world changed and was unable to support the dinosaurs; so, soon after, they became extinct.


I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.

What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?

??? What about them?

The Atheist said we have hundreds of years of scientifically proven fact. The Cro-Magnon, Java, and Neanderthal Men were all thought to be missing links until they were proven to be forgeries and fakes. In such an important matter as science, one loses veracity by deliberately suppressing or misleading the scientific community.

To deny science is to deny the bible.

That's creationist thinking and I think Redzeppelin already said that the Bible and science are not incompatible. Did you mean to say it that way or did I misunderstand you? Sorry.

Unfortunately, facts don't work like that. Things aren't true because you want them to be, they either are or they aren't

Precisely! Now how does that fit in with the whole forged embryo mess?

[cuppajoe_9]

The Cro-Magnon, Java, and Neanderthal Men were all thought to be missing links until they were proven to be forgeries and fakes. In such an important matter as science, one loses veracity by deliberately suppressing or misleading the scientific community.

Well, the jury is still out on Java Man (or men, rather, there were two different specimens), but it certainly wasn't an intentional forgery. Cro-magnons and Neanderthals aren't individual finds, but rather entire species. Neaderthals aren't a missing link between anything, they're simply antoher species of ape, now extinct. No word on either of those species having been forgeries. You're postulating a rather large conspiracy if you claim that they are.

The "missing link" betwen humans and other apes is not a scientifically valid concept, and is in any case unnecesary, as we can compare human and chimpanzee genomes to determine common ancestry.

[billyjack]

Furthermore, if there is such an influx of missing links, how come I've never heard of them before? Even Darwin said that the fact of the missing links is the weakest point in his theory.


I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.




?

1)darwin said the missing links were the weakest part of his theory, this is true. but that was over a hundred years ago. since then, we've found austrolopithacean (lucy) and even a few pre-lucy's (name eludes me).

2) so people lived for 300 years on average pre-floud thanks to the climate? the world as it is today is full of all the climates on the spectrum. no one lives past 120. our medicine is head and shoulders above the medicine of old too. so why would people live longer back then?

[Reccura]

Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)

[Redzeppelin]

1)darwin said the missing links were the weakest part of his theory, this is true. but that was over a hundred years ago. since then, we've found austrolopithacean (lucy) and even a few pre-lucy's (name eludes me).

The return of the "missing link." I've been doing so thinking and reading on this subject and I think the dismissal of the importance of transitional/intermediate forms is more important than (at least some) evolutionists seem to want to admit. First off, I don't believe there is such thing as a "missing link/transitional form" in terms of singular. 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. 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).

[The Atheist]

Of course this verse is talking about the flood. Since the fountains of the great deep broke up and the windows of heaven were opened, the climate and atmosphere of the world changed and was unable to support the dinosaurs; so, soon after, they became extinct.


I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.

Same applies as I said to Red.

If you're actually able to believe that a global flood happened, then you clearly have no knowledge of reason, science, or physics and no understanding of what facts or evidence actually are.

There is a level of wilful disregard for scientific fact at which I have no interest. Belief in a the Noah's Ark/global flood far surpasses my tolerance level.

I hope you have a pleasant discussion.

[The Atheist]

Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)

And yet all scientific evidence points to ever-increasing longevity of humans. Funny how all of the remains, bodies from peat-bogs and tombs, which match, or pre-date biblical times have been under 70 years of age at death.

[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.

[billyjack]

. 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.

[Pendragon]

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