Evolution vs. Creation

[Adolescent09]

It surprises me how heated these debates become (after I post this it will be the 1713th reply in this topic). If we could truly accept the fact that some people believe in God and Creation while others believe in "Evolution" why would we have to incessantly debate on the matter? I've seen some eloquently written posts in this thread, some of which have progressively strong points to support their opinions, but it appears (to me at least) outright ridiculous to go on back and forth, back and forth on which view appears more plausible. I personally believe in both creation and evolution... I believe Providence created the creatures which encompassed the earth and evolution biologically tweaked God's creatures to adapt with capricious environmental changes (Giraffe neck growth over centuries and land turtles to armadillos for an example..)

[cuppajoe_9]

Evolution had to begin somewhere, I have seen no other explination as to how it began other that abiogenesis.So in my book it is abiogenesis. If you feel differently please explain how it began, I'd be happy to understant.

I don't know how it began. Neither does anybody. It doesn't matter, because it happens.

Also I'am not interested in your websites I want to here the argument from you.

You're getting the argument from me. The websites contain the evidence.

just a question how many classes have you taken on this subject?

Whether I've never taken a class or whether I'm Emiritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University has no relevance to my argument. If you're interested, however, I finished high school biology and read a few books out of personal interest.

another question do you believe the punctuated equilibrium?

It seems to be the way things work, yes.

I've seen some eloquently written posts in this thread, some of which have progressively strong points to support their opinions, but it appears (to me at least) outright ridiculous to go on back and forth, back and forth on which view appears more plausible.

As for myself, I stay here because it forces me to stay educated about biological evolution, not because I really think I'm going to convince anybody.

[ruhbr_ducky]

Well I'll start with your punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.According to this idea, new kinds of oraganisms arise as a result of drastic environmental changes, which bring about rapid genetic changes in small groups of animals and plants.Some even go as far as to state that drastic genetic restructurings called macromutations that suddenly change one kind of creature into another.(1 What proof do you have that there was a sudden drastic enviromental change that would cause macromutation?(2 mutations are not an improvement in an organisms it is always harmful and distructive.

This is nothing but a way to side step the fact that there are no true transitional forms.

[ruhbr_ducky]

However,it matters greatly how it began. This is the whole question of the matter. You stated that you do not know, neither does evolution. It only provides more questions,not awnsers.I want to give ya some more quotes.
This is by Thomas Henery Huxley, an accredited scientist," If the hypothesis of evolution be true,living matter must have originated from non-living matter
for,by that hypothesis, the conditions on the globe were at one time such that living matter could not have existed, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state."

[ruhbr_ducky]

Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University) states it thus:" We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and experimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life."

[ruhbr_ducky]

I have two other problems for ya.(1 What about the plant life? There are no signs of evolutionary, or otherwise.C.A. Arnold said this," As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
Also what about you "simularity equals connection" hypothesis? Take for instance Eohippus or "dawn horse," the linage runs thus from "dawn horse" to "modern horse," goes like this, Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs, but its supposed descendant Orohippus had only 15 pairs;a later stage in the "tree,"
Pliohippus, had 19 pairs of ribs, while the modern horse has 18 pairs of ribs. Such jumping back and forth, with ribs disappearing and reappearing like magic, is a strong indication that the "horse series" is actually a collection of unrelated mammals that share a smiliar overall body plan.
Somewhat like your human,ape, E. coli.

[cuppajoe_9]

(1 What proof do you have that there was a sudden drastic enviromental change that would cause macromutation?

Observation. We can see observe animals that have experienced sudden, drastic, environmental changes and the ensuing speciation. For example, we can compare those organisms on volcanic islands with those on continental islands. The organisms on volcanic islands, who would've had to wind up there by accident, can be shown to have diverged greatly from their ancestors because of the difference between the continental environment and the sea-locked environment. Species on continental islands, however, are relatively close in physiology and genetics to their ancestors, because a continental island's environment doesn't change much when it seperates from the mainland. Check out the differences in the animal populations between, say, Vancouver Island and Hawaii.

(2 mutations are not an improvement in an organisms it is always harmful and distructive.

Demonstrably false. We've observed organisms speciating due to beneficial mutations, as in the HIV, for example.

However,it matters greatly how it began. This is the whole question of the matter. You stated that you do not know, neither does evolution.

Fortunately, it doesn't need to. The theory of evolution by natural selection describes how all life on earth originally speicated from a common ancestor. Where that ancestor came from is entirely secondary.

An illustration: most evolutionary biologists assume that abiogenesis occured because the conditions on early earth were such that self-replicating organic molecules were formed which, over the course of millions of years, evolved into the first cells. Suppose, however, the hypothesis suggested by the film Mission to Mars was shown to be correct, and the first organisms on earth were actually put there my martian scientists. Modern biologists would certainly be surprised, but would they have to throw out their taxonomy tree? No, of course not, because the fact that organisms evolve and speciate through the process of natural selection does not depend on the current assumtion of abiogenesis from self-replicating organic molecules.

Another illustration: the theory of gravity is, to put it one way, generally accepted among physicists. How gravity actually works, however, is deeply mysterious. The best current hypothesis, in my limited understanding, is Loop Quantum Gravity which, if you try to understand it, will give you a raging headache. There are numerous competing hypotheses for the mechanics of gravity, however, and nothing is difinitely settled as to how gravitation actually takes place. This does not, however, change the fact that whenever you drop an object it travels at a certain number of meters per second per second towards the centre of the earth until somehow impeded.

Incompleteness is not proof of defect for the theory of gravity, and it is not proof of defect for the theory of evolution.

This is by Thomas Henery Huxley, an accredited scientist," If the hypothesis of evolution be true,living matter must have originated from non-living matter
for,by that hypothesis, the comditions on the globe were at one time such that living matter could not have existed, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state."

Well he may be an accredited scientist, but I hope he's not a biologist, because evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, and it does not depend on abiogenesis.

Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University) states it thus:" We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and experimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life."

Translation: we don't know. Yet.

[cuppajoe_9]

(1 What about the plant life? There are no signs of evolutionary, or otherwise.C.A. Arnold said this," As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."

Again, I don't know who C.A. Arnold is, but I hope he's not a biologist, because that is simply false. We've traced the taxonomy of the plant kingdom the same way we've traced the taxonomy of the animal kingdom.

Also what about you "simularity equals connection" hypothesis? Take for instance Eohippus or "dawn horse," the linage runs thus from "dawn horse" to "modern horse," goes like this, Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs, but its supposed descendant Orohippus had only 15 pairs;a later stage in the "tree,"

Evolution = more ribs, now? The question is not one of 'similarity', we can trace inhereted genetic markers as a way of confirming physiolgical similarity, and it almost always works. In addition, most fossilized transitional forms, by necesity of probability, are not actual ancestors, but rather closely related evolutionary 'side-branches' that went extinct.

[ruhbr_ducky]

Ok I went and looked at the website, try looking into old tales of original tribes, most have a story concerning a world wide flood,sometimes the details are different but it is generally the same story. So if you don't believe the Bible you might try listening to them.Study tip, start with the Tower of Babel.

[cuppajoe_9]

What makes you think I haven't studied the Bible?

[ruhbr_ducky]

There isn't any where in the world that you can observe animals in speciation you can only speculate that it happened that way, no proof. That is merely
an example of natural selection. ALSO THE BEGINING IS VERY IMPORTANT,ELSE YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT THAT YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS EVEN CREDIBLE!!!

[ruhbr_ducky]

I didn't say you didn't study the Bible, I said if you don't believe it.

[cuppajoe_9]

There isn't any where in the world that you can observe animals in speciation you can only speculate that it happened that way, no proof.

Yes, we can. We observed the speciation of the HIV. You may have heard something about it in the news.

That is merely an example of natural selection.

Umm...yes.

ALSO THE BEGINING IS VERY IMPORTANT,ELSE YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT THAT YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS EVEN CREDIBLE!!!

You can just read my previous post again if you want me to tell you why this is wrong.

[ruhbr_ducky]

the ribs were a point that the linage isn't logical.

[ruhbr_ducky]

natural selection does not mean evolution.
We clearly have a different meaning of the term.