Evolution vs. Creation

[Redzeppelin]

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?

[billyjack]

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

[Matrim Cuathon]

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.

[billyjack]

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

[The Atheist]

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

[cuppajoe_9]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

[cuppajoe_9]

'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.

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.

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.

[JGL57]

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.).

[Redzeppelin]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[billyjack]

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.

[Redzeppelin]

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.

In the absence of God, all that's left are the things I listed; without an intelligent being all we have is force, chance, arbitrary occurrence.

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. . .

And where did those insticts come from? As well, learned behavior cannot be incoporated into the genetic code that controls instinctual behavior.

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.

That's the problem: a God-less universe would be hostile to life; that life arose by chance (and at unbelievable odds) clearly argues against the natural tendency to survive.

[cuppajoe_9]

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

Not at all. We've got quite enough to be able to infer aproximately what's missing from the fossil record, and we can determine common ancestry among still-living creatures in other ways. If we have the fossilized remains of Organism A and Organism E, we can assume that there were living, at some point, transitional forms B, C and D. We might also be able to guess what they look like. If we find fossilized remains of B at some point, and they look something like what we expected to, that reinforces our theory. If not, oh well, the theory wasn't depending on them. If, at that point in the fossil record, we find the fossilized remains of Organism Z, then we have a serious problem on our hands, but that hasn't happened yet.

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.

The pre-scorpion first develops a risistance to some sort of venom that is present in its environment. It then, over time, starts developing the poison in its own body as a defense against being eaten. Nature eventually selects those scorpions which collect the poison in a gland, as opposed to excreting it, because those would be more poisonous, and therefore less likely to be eaten. Eventually, the pre-scorpions develop the ability to eject the poison from their bodies, first as a defense mechanism, and then for the purposes of hunting. Nature selects for those scorpions which can hunt most efectively, and you wind up with something extremely scary.

There are plenty of reptiles who survive without the ability to change colours. The chameleon likely developed that trick out of necessity as his environment became increasingly multi-coloured, likely by flowers competing for the attention of insects.

Bats, despite their reputation, are not blind. Early bats probably hunted in the day, until they were forced by environmental pressures to develop the ability to do so at night. Better hearing is certainly an advantage when you can't see, and the echolocation probably developed in parallel with that.

The frog is an interesting one. Perhaps the ability to turn of the stomach acid developed first, maybe because this particular frog was suceptible to ulcers to the point where it affected its ability to procreate. Raising ones young inside one's self has obvious advantages in terms of chances of passing on one's genes.

I am not saying that this is definitely how these traits evolved, or even that it is probably how those traits evolved. All I'm saying as that, even if you can't imagine transitional forms for some creatures, I certainly can. That doesn't make me right, but it makes it true that transitional forms aren't impossible.

But why mutation at all?

Because the process by which DNA is replicated is imperfect.

Am I really to believe that every process that goes on in nature, the human body, the earth is a result of numerous failures?

You've made it quite clear that you refuse to believe that. That's your perogative.

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.

If you are genuinely interested, Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. The odds are indeed long, but we've had one sextillion* trails running for 13.7 billion years. Something interesting was bound to come up eventually.


*A rough estimate of the number of planets in the universe