Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Insidious Rex]

And the seed-bearing grassy type thing REMAINED a seed-bearing grassy type thing. It did NOT turn into an oak tree or a marigold.

It went from being grass to being corn stalks. Not grass to different grass. If you had grown 20 times your size and completely different body structures inside and out so much so that you would be essentially unrecognizable to beings that shared your original form then wouldn’t you say that’s significant change? Especially if all that occurred in a few short thousand years. Imagine down what meandering paths such changes would take you after millions of year.

and also from what I've read, corn would NOT have survived natural selection, because the changes involved were NOT advantageous to the corn, just to the humans that like to eat corn!

they were obviously advantageous to the corn because the corn survived and thrived did it not? Ever heard of a symbiotic relationship? Whos really in control here? The corn or humans? Id say the corn has a pretty good deal going. Humans meticulously care for each plant. Fertilize and water them. And propagate their genes by actively causing them to reproduce. What you call limited guided development I call proof that evolution doesn’t care who is intelligent and who is a vegetable (literally). ALL it does is allow organisms to survive by having characteristics that are beneficial to their particular environments. Pull back from where you stand and look at the much broader picture here. Your vision is way too short sighted. Evolution is simply about survival. Doesn’t matter if you call that survival “artificially induced� or not. Its just survival. And the corn wins. And so do we.

[HOBBIT]

The humans guided the corn to becoming that - I would say that that is evolution. I'd guess that they only at the big ones and left the small ones or something, and over time they mutated.

[Rían]

Just so I get this absolutely clear, IRex, are you really saying that the example of Indians developing corn proves evolution? (the entire theory of evolution, not just changes at species level.) Even the "one-celled thingy to man" part of the theory of evolution?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
they were obviously advantageous to the corn because the corn survived and thrived did it not? [/B]

But that is NOT natural selection; are you claiming it is? And natural selection is a crucial part of the theory of evolution.

Could I please get the opinion of the others, such as Sheeana, Cirdan and GrayMouser, who have not yet posted, on this whole intelligent Indians developing corn "proves" evolution concept?

[HOBBIT]

no, its not an example of natural selection - artificial selection. im confused now. i asked a friend of mine who is a junior if it was an example of evolution, and honestly he said no. said something else, but i wasn't clear on the distinction.

and who said anything about proving all of evolution???
IR just said that it was an example of it!

if not evolution, what is it? and if you are saying that evolution HAS to be natural, then evolution started by god, which a lot of people believe in, doesn' t work.

Scientists playing around with cells and bacteria, they create mutations and advance them - I would call that evolution.

Also, I think back several years to Pokemon The pocket moneters, or 'pokemon' evolved all the time, and sometimes it was forced evolution, but it was still evolution.

oh well

[Cirdan]

Many animal species actively select qualities in the species they predate upon. Unless humans are an un-natural species their activites should qualify. It may not, however, fit the original intent of the formal idea of natural selection, but I don't see how human activity can be excluded.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Just so I get this absolutely clear, IRex, are you really saying that the example of Indians developing corn proves evolution? (the entire theory of evolution, not just changes at species level.) Even the "one-celled thingy to man" part of the theory of evolution?

The transition of one thing to another thing by genetic means proves that the mechanism behind evolution works. Didn’t you read my post at all where I pointed out that humans can use the natural tools already in effect to cause change in living organisms? This is evolution RÃ*an. Since evolution is the same in all species then bingo you have your answer. This is really quite a simple concept here. The humans didn’t magically change the plants. They used what nature had already been doing for millions of years to effect change to their advantage.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But that is NOT natural selection; are you claiming it is? And natural selection is a crucial part of the theory of evolution.

are you saying humans aren’t natural? Is bacteria natural? Are rabbits that root up particular plants causing other plants to adapt to that niche natural? How bout slugs that ooze a deterent slime layer that only a specialized fungus has evolved to resist therefore making them highly successful in their nasty slug-slime environment? How about is nitrogen natural? Millions (literally) of organisms have been directly effected by changes in nitrogen in their environment. Some have died off. Others have evolved and adapted and proved successful. I could go on for days with a list of things RÃ*an. Saying humans aren’t natural because we have a certain level of intelligence is just silly. Its all one big living reaction. Evolution doesn’t occur in a vacuum ever. And anyway its about the MECHANISM. If humans can effect change in a living organism by means of their genes then this shows that the tools that allows evolution to work are verified. Its really very simple here. I don’t understand the confusion.

[GrayMouser]

Just want to chip in saying that I totally agree with Insidious Rex.

So nice when somebody else does all the hard work (and does it so well- gravity analogy is excellent!) and all you have to do is say "me too!"

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
and who said anything about proving all of evolution???
IR just said that it was an example of it!

He also said "prove" several times.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Just want to chip in saying that I totally agree with Insidious Rex.

About the whole Indians developing corn idea?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
The transition of one thing to another thing by genetic means proves that the mechanism behind evolution works.

No, Irex, only ONE of the mechanisms of evolution, and that only at species level, not one-celled-thingy to man level.

Genetic change produces the raw material for NATURAL SELECTION, another integral part of evolutionism, which is by definition a filter WITHOUT GOAL that allows the fittest organism to survive. The Indians had a GOAL, and the intermediate steps from the original grass (which I would bet a large amount of money was NOT a type of grass like you see in a nice lawn, but rather the type of grass I can see right in my back yard if I peek my head around a corner - tall and stalk-y with heads) did not have survival value instrinsic in themselves, or else .... the Indians wouldn't have had to cultivate them!

Here's a link from a site I see used a lot by the evolutionists here (and IMO is quite a nice site!) - natural selection. It says, among other things, "Another conclusion to be drawn is that there is no set goal to selection."

The Indians had a goal. Do you deny it? Now of course the goal was not "let's make corn, guys!" - that's silly! - but it was something along the lines of "hey, let's only pick the ones we like the best and keep crossing them!" That's GOAL-directed selection, IRex, that was NOT natural selection.

Didn’t you read my post at all where I pointed out that humans can use the natural tools already in effect to cause change in living organisms? This is evolution RÃ*an.

YES, I read your post (I read all of your posts that I'm aware of ), and NO, this is NOT evolution, because evolution includes natural selection, and people developing things with a goal in mind is NOT natural selection.

BTW, I read your comment about symbiosis, too. Yes, that occurs, but NO, it is not a part of evolutionism, at least that I've ever seen. Would you please provide a link or some info if you would like to continue to make that claim?

And BTW, speaking of symbiosis, things like cleaning symbiosis are a real problem for evolutionism, aren't they? Like the predatory fish that go over to a cleaning fish "station" to get their teeth cleaned - the predator opens its mouth and the little cleaner fish clean those sharp teeth, and then .... swim back out, uneaten! while the predator goes off to eat some other fish. Again, an improbable mutation could theoretically explain the cleaner fish wanting to feed on teeth crud, but it's wildly improbable, don't you think, that the predator fish also just happened to get a mutation that prevented him from eating those particular fish at the same time? They HAD to be at roughly the same time, or else the predator fish would have just eaten the cleaner fish!

are you saying humans aren’t natural? ..... Saying humans aren’t natural because we have a certain level of intelligence is just silly.

Of course it's silly, and I didn't say it!! What I DID say is that goal-oriented intelligent human breeding is NOT natural selection. There's a HUGE difference there!! Please check the link I provided for a definition of natural selection, or provide a link for us if you see one you like better

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
huh? It proves the mechanisms for evolution are real and functional. That’s what it proves. And that’s all you need to prove. Who cares when it takes place.

That's NOT all you need to prove, because it doesn't show natural selection

this is a bogus distinction. Do you also find a fundamental difference between micro-gravity and macro-gravity?

Yes, the fundamental difference is that I HAVE seen terms like micro-evolution and macro-evolution defined and used by evolutionist scientists . I have NEVER seen terms like micro- and macro-gravity used at all until you used them. Could you please provide a link showing me where physicists have defined and used these terms? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've certainly never heard those terms.

well of course not because there is no need to distinguish HOW the evolution took place. Its simply evolution whether its directed by bacteria or pigs or tidal waves or carbon monoxide or ultraviolet light or super intelligent aliens we think are gods…

Please re-check your definition of evolution. The one I'm aware of claims natural selection as a mechanism. And natural selection is NOT "directed".

have you ever seen human-directed acceleration of a falling object in ANY definition of gravity?

Irrelevant; see above.

of course it does and using avoidive terms like “development� and “evolutionism� isn’t gonna make it not so. The very fact that evolution CAN occur when humans happen to be the ones utilizing the NATURAL GENETIC tools necessary for it to take place proves that well... it can take place!

evolution is genetic mutations AND natural selection. Natural selection is NOT intelligently-guided, goal-oriented development, right? Again, please check your definitions.

no dear.

(I just love it when he calls me "dear"! )

Its not like saying that. Computers aren’t natural elements found in nature. Its much more like saying that humans can take advantage of the force of gravity (to stay with our theme here) by packing a snow ball and rolling it down a mountain covered with a thick accumulation of ice and snow and loose rock and this can ultimately lead to an avalanche. But this does NOT mean that avalanches don’t occur in nature withOUT human guidance. It fact it proves that its possible because the human was simply using the “toolsâ€� required in nature to make such an event take place (in this case gravity). And if you have enough avalanches (caused by one snow flake originally) then ultimately you can, as stated before, change entire continents by bringing down mountains and changing the course of rivers and effecting weather that alters landscapes for thousands of miles. In nature things are linked to each other RÃ*an. Enormous changes don’t occur in one big gigantic event. They occur in linked small events using natural laws like gravity and… *drum roll * evolution!

As far as the human-guided factor, see above about checking definitions. As far as the avalanche - *sigh* - did the snow remain snow (or water, which is what snow is when it's cold outside ). YES. Case closed. (same with GrayMouser's sandpile analogy - the pile of sand remained ... A PILE OF SAND.)

[Insidious Rex]

Ok lets preface this sillyness with some scientific definitions of EVOLUTION (since apparently we like to play the “just give me definitions. Don’t want to hear any common sense� game here. Which is completely unnecessary but nevermind…

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

so there you go. Theres a few good definitions of evolution. Youll notice no where in there does it say anything about that it cant be evolution of humans are involved in any part of the process. And since yer so big into links (since my knowledge on this is apparently so suspect) then here is where I got that.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
No, Irex, only ONE of the mechanisms of evolution, and that only at species level, not one-celled-thingy to man level.

it IS evolution. Look at the definitions above. And we aren’t talking about the same species here. I can guarantee you you couldn’t germinate modern corn with the ancestor plant that the Indians started with thousands of years ago. Therefore by definition we have a new species.

…NATURAL SELECTION, another integral part of evolutionism, which is by definition a filter WITHOUT GOAL that allows the fittest organism to survive. The Indians had a GOAL…

so once again yer saying that simply because humans are intelligent and wanted to get better yield that it cant be evolution because there was some kind of vague goal involved? Don’t you see its independent of goals. That’s a human term. This is a much broader issue. This is simply about genetic change leading to change in living organisms. That’s what happened to the grasses. And that’s what happened to every other living thing on earth to allow it to EVOLVE.

Here's a link from a site I see used a lot by the evolutionists here (and IMO is quite a nice site!) - natural selection. It says, among other things, "Another conclusion to be drawn is that there is no set goal to selection."

and heres some other things it said there:

“This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique, about which no laws may be formulated, is fundamentally flawed, for all that it reappears in a number of influential works on evolution. Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve better or worse understood mechanisms that are very far from random…�

and…

“Natural selection is not random: it is the determinate result of sorting processes according to relative fitness.�

And…

“Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.�

Wow theres everything in a nut shell Id have to say. That pretty much deflates yer argument right there. I wont add anything else.

The Indians had a goal. Do you deny it? Now of course the goal was not "let's make corn, guys!" - that's silly! - but it was something along the lines of "hey, let's only pick the ones we like the best and keep crossing them!" That's GOAL-directed selection, IRex, that was NOT natural selection.

well since goal directed selection is not explicitly excluded from evolution according to the definitions above that you had me hunt up then this point is really moot. And once again it doesn’t matter if there is a “goal� or not. All that matters is did change take place. All that matters is the science involved. Not the philosophy.

NO, this is NOT evolution, because evolution includes natural selection, and people developing things with a goal in mind is NOT natural selection.

oh that’s right because people aren’t natural… I keep forgetting…

[Insidious Rex]

BTW, I read your comment about symbiosis, too. Yes, that occurs, but NO, it is not a part of evolutionism, at least that I've ever seen. Would you please provide a link or some info if you would like to continue to make that claim?

once again my dozens of examples aren’t good enough for RÃ*an… *sniff*

well since you don’t believe me then here you go:

http://www.brh.co.jp/en/experience/r..._yosikawa.html
http://www.zi.ku.dk/cses/pages/SES.html
oh and heres the mack daddy of symbiosis & evolution links entitled fittingly enough HOW SYMBIOSIS CAN GUIDE EVOLUTION. Now what more do you need then that? You will need adobe reader however. So download it if you don’t already have it so you can read that excellent paper.

peaking of symbiosis, things like cleaning symbiosis are a real problem for evolutionism, aren't they? Like the predatory fish that go over to a cleaning fish "station" to get their teeth cleaned - the predator opens its mouth and the little cleaner fish clean those sharp teeth, and then .... swim back out, uneaten! while the predator goes off to eat some other fish. Again, an improbable mutation could theoretically explain the cleaner fish wanting to feed on teeth crud, but it's wildly improbable, don't you think, that the predator fish also just happened to get a mutation that prevented him from eating those particular fish at the same time? They HAD to be at roughly the same time, or else the predator fish would have just eaten the cleaner fish!

ive seen this example before made by creationists. Must be in the propaganda guide book somewhere. the cleaner fish could have evolved to eat crud of less harmful things long ago. It didn’t go from eating grilled cheese and then one mutation later to eating guts out of a sharks mouth. In fact you underestimate the importance of the cleaner fish in its environment. What it does is not just eat the crud out of the teeth of the bigger fish but it eats the parasites that could otherwise prove extremely deadly to the host fish. So the choice for the big fish? Have this little guy clean me up so that I don’t have to worry about parasites killing me which is likely in this environment OR eat this ¼ ounce fish and get very little as far as benefit from it nutritionally. Hmmm…. So we eat him. And a month later we die from disease OR we die cause we get stressed out because the parasites are bothering us OR our teeth rot out so we cant eat anymore and we die OR we never breed because our attraction to mates is determined by how many cleaner fish we keep in our territory and if we are eating them all well…. Meanwhile that other big fish who had a genetic propensity NOT to eat a cleaner fish (which by the way can easily develop the same way other animals determine by color what NOT to eat because it may be harmful to eat) is fat and happy because he doesn’t have to worry about parasites or stressing out and chicks dig him cause he has dozens of cleaner fish in his territory. See mutulism is easy to explain on an evolutionary level. Oh and don’t forget the possibility that cleaner fish may actually taste like crap to the big fish.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, the fundamental difference is that I HAVE seen terms like micro-evolution and macro-evolution defined and used by evolutionist scientists . I have NEVER seen terms like micro- and macro-gravity used at all until you used them. Could you please provide a link showing me where physicists have defined and used these terms? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've certainly never heard those terms.

well you know what micro means and you know what macro means and you know what gravity means so you’ve pretty much got the idea. Major gravity (planets, suns, galaxies, globular clusters) and minor gravity (gravity on small objects in deep space, gravity on extremely small objects). Heres a better quote for explaining that:

“When most people talk about micro- and macro-gravity, they are making a distinction between conditions where gravitational forces are influential (such on Earth where it keeps things on the ground, or around stars, planets, black holes, etc.) and effectively weightless conditions where gravity is not influential.�

And heres the link since im being tested on all this…

But hey the whole point was ITS ALL GRAVITY!

Please re-check your definition of evolution. The one I'm aware of claims natural selection as a mechanism. And natural selection is NOT "directed".

ok all done. See way above. Now get rid of the semantic song and dance approach to arguing and put on your common sense hat and open up to whats fairly clear and right in front of your face. I always know Ive got the advantage when people start giving me technical definition hair splitting evasions like you have been doing in spades here.

As far as the avalanche - *sigh* - did the snow remain snow (or water, which is what snow is when it's cold outside ). YES. Case closed.

uh what has that got to do with an avalanche. I thought that was a pretty damn good analogy actually. The point was change (made by gravity in this case) can be measured in small little steps. But it can also cause extraordinary changes on a scale much larger then the apparent some of its parts. So if you look at the snow flake and then step back and a million years later look at the change in the continent because of the accumulation of that snow causing an avalanche which causes lands to change and weather to change and erosion to occur and jungles to grow where desserts used to be well you could hardly imagine that one could be connected to the other. No no! Much to massive of a change. Snow flakes to jungles?! Cant happen! God did it! If the steps are too big to follow then god did it!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
So nice when somebody else does all the hard work (and does it so well- gravity analogy is excellent!) and all you have to do is say "me too!"

ok so when do i get my turn

*exhausted*

[Lizra]

Thank you IR! That made perfect, logical, lovely sense. I feel so peaceful now....

[Rían]

IREX -

I'm very sorry that you seem to have been offended by my posts - I meant no offence at all.

I am using my common sense, and I only resorted to definitions because we seem to disagree at the definition level of things. I am not nitpicking at all, I"m just trying to back up and find some common ground that we agree on that we can build from, because we seem to be just not understanding each other at all, and we seem to be using words that mean one thing to you and another to me, and people can't have conversations that make sense if that is the case.

I'll have to answer your posts in detail tomorrow, because I"m heading off to bed now. I hope you will believe me that I meant no offense, and that I am using my common sense and sincerely thinking, and I'm not trying to "test" you. I just strongly disagree with you, and I'm trying to explain why, and why I disagree with your analogies. I'm not offended that you don't like my analogies, please don't be offended if I don't like yours - I just really think that they are inappropriate analogies. Perhaps we should drop it at this point, I'm not sure...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
.... No no! Much to massive of a change. Snow flakes to jungles?! Cant happen! God did it! If the steps are too big to follow then god did it!

That's pretty sarcastic, IRex That's certainly not what I believe.


Well, I'm up to 11 pages on my creationism summary. I'll try to trim it down a little more and then post it here and then I think I'm done here. I've never ever been interested in alienating anyone, only discussing things with intelligent people.