Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Willow Oran
I must disagree with that. The only thing that is rock solid reality at this point is nothing. Quite a few people these days aren't even sure there is a reality, I'm sure I'm not. Too many things exist that disprove reality as we would like to know it. The world being one of them. Yes we can see, feel, hear, smell, taste and even believe in the world but if we try hard enough we can experience equal sensory belief in other worlds and therefore other possible realities.

Furthermore, the very complexity of this question of reality supports the idea that we were created. An incomprehensible being could easily create an incomprehensible set of possibilities, any one of which could become a reality of sorts to concious life forms as long as those lifeforms posessed the ability and the will to believe in that reality. This theory though opens the door for the question:
If our reality is shaped by our beliefs then is it not possible that creationism used to be true because more people believed in it and now that more people are believing in evolution creationism has become less true and evolutionism more so?
That, in fact, the nature of the world is shaped by what its inhabitants believe about it?

ok how many times have you seen the matrix? i think youve gone off the philosophical deep end on this which is cool but not at all necessary. it doesnt matter if the universe is an illusion that we will never be able to pierce. what we are talking about is does evolution happen. and it does. its the way things are done as far as our perception is concerned. the pieces are there. the evidence is there. the mechanisms are there. and we can play with them ourselves just to see how it all works. discounting evolution because the reality of existance is incomprehensible is nonsensical. see what youll have to do is first prove to me that YOU dont exist then we can talk about if evolution is an illusion.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Someone, who shall remain nameless, asked me to take a peek.

[selected quotes from RÃ*an's posts, with comments by Blackheart, follow]

Do you realize, Blackheart, that I am a woman, and will be unable to respond to any of your points on my posts until you satisfy my curiosity and 'fess up as to who asked you to take a peek....

[Lizra]

Ha ha ha! Very funny!

[Rían]

methinks perhaps it might have been .... Lizra?

[Blackheart]

"how would any of these things completey level the theory of evolution? how would any of them use other mechanisms other then those utilized by what science has observed when speaking of "evolutionary change"? you would have to show that everything we know of on a basic level is an illusion first. otherwise everything you just named there would be taking advantage of the VERY SAME mechanisms that we believe evolution uses."

Actually no. Viral speciation would imply an outside force directing change, not through mutation and selection, but by other means. The selection process suddenly become irrelevant. Which means that it isn't actually evolution.

The same thing with the other examples. If the process of selection for the "fittest genes" is rendered moot, the process is no longer a genetic algorythm, and thus not evolution.

I don't know how many times I have to tell people, the mechanisms don't make a damned bit of difference, we could be talking about self replicating von neuman machines, or gnomes with magic copying wands.... the important part is the process of selection, the "winnowing". The entropy part, so to speak....

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Do you realize, Blackheart, that I am a woman, and will be unable to respond to any of your points on my posts until you satisfy my curiosity and 'fess up as to who asked you to take a peek....

As a gentleman, even an evil gentleman (especially as an evil gentleman to whom form is more important than substance), I confess that it would be rude for me to say....

I'm afraid you must needs soldier on without that critical bit of information unless the party decides to reveal themself...

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Examples of things that could pop the bubble:

Discovery of a directed mechanism, such as a quantum link, that actually mandates favored mutations.

I don't see this as a problem unless it is the only factor. It would be no more of a twist than the idea of dominant and recessive genes. Molecular chirality already favors one confirguration predominantly over another. Any factor, even a quantum link, can be a driving force in selection. Evolution is not the objective search for the fittest genes. It is a description of the process by which speciation and genetic variation occurs. What causes the mutations occur is not a critical issue. A mandated mutation would still face selection forces if it was viable.

Discovery of species mutability, which would overide the concept of speciation. (in other words the idea that speciation is done or undone by viral repliction for example)...

I'm not sure that this isn't still random unless the virus is designed to create specific species, which would require evidence of the creation event. Species must be mutable under the ToE so a discovery of how it occurs would be a clarification, not a refutation. The resultant species still face selection vectors. Virii are known to alter genetic code.

Discovery of manipulation by outside forces at any level, from micro management to setting the matrix at the level of space and parameters...

Only if these forces caused extinctions, prevented undirected mutations, and micromanaged all possible selection criteria. Since this level of control would control human ability and perceptions, we would be into that "perception versus reality" fatalist conundrum which renders everything "unknowable" and equally pointless. Evolution would still describe how we interface with the micromanaged reality and would still be useful within our subjective experience and thus still represent what we are able to understand as truth. (metaphysical overdose )

Any of these would neccesitate a major reworking of our understanding of reality and how life forms change...

It doesn't appear that any of these scenarios requires a major reworking except in the degree of the role of randomness. It would , even in these examples, be infinitely difficult to prove that no speciation ever occured by a random process. Human interaction with selection in a directed manner (genetic manipulation) still selects and still evolves species and this directed activity in no way invalidates or "punches holes" in the ToE.

[afro-elf]

Wow, Cirdan and Blackheart my two favorites together again.

[Cirdan]

Hey, A-E!

Now if Wayfarer (BoP's been around) wanders by it will be a full scale reunion. Oh! The heady days of the Theist/Anti-Theist threads.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Now if Wayfarer (BoP's been around) wanders by it will be a full scale reunion. Oh! The heady days of the Theist/Anti-Theist threads.

Hey look: I've even got that special little wall that we used to bash our heads against.

A-E: I thought I was your favourite. Hmph!

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Again -



Lizra is the only one so far that has attempted to answer my question I asked the evolutionists, altho I wish she would have answered the strong point for creationism more seriously. For example, Lizra, your very good common sense must point out to you the simple fact that dogs remain dogs, etc., despite years of breeding. This is observable over and over, and is a strong point for creationism. And this is where evolutionism jumps over to conjecture and extrapolation when they claim that fish-type-thingys can develop into man. Nothing wrong with conjecture, but - the EVIDENCE supports creationism more.

I really, REALLY find it hard to believe that the evolutionists here cannot come up with even ONE point that seems to be in favor of creationism, or share even ONE point that seems to be a weak area of evolutionism. I shared my opinion on the subject; will the evolutionists here please share their opinions?

Sorry, Rian, hard for you to believe or not, here is one evolutionist who can't come up with one point in favour of creationism- or Flat Earthism, geocentrism, phlogiston etc.

Weak points for evolution? There are plenty of areas with problems and disagreements- P.E. being a notorious one, strict adaptationism another-witness the dispute between Eldridge /Gould and Dawkins et. al.

Group selection, origin of life, bird origins, the recent snowball/ slushball Earth controversy... and if another theory comes up to challenge
ToE and solves these questions and others more successfully, then it will replace evolution.

Actually I doubt that this is very likely- given the overwhelming evidence for ToE I think the most that could happen would be that neo-Darwinism would be fitted into a more encompassing theory.

As for "dogs are still dogs"- the agreed fact is that though we have seen enormous variation over the extent of human history, dogs are still one species.

Creationists says that according to their theory it is impossible for varieties ever to become separate species and cite dogs as evidence (who's extrapolating now?)

Evolutionists say that according to their theory the time-frame is too short for speciation to have occurred, but cite the varieties of dogs as evidence for the power of selection.

Since both theories agree that dogs should still be one species, how is this a strong point for creationism?

[afro-elf]

A-E: I thought I was your favourite. Hmph!

You are my favoUrite.

They are my favorites.

You get the non-USU.

[Willow Oran]

ok how many times have you seen the matrix? i think youve gone off the philosophical deep end on this which is cool but not at all necessary. it doesnt matter if the universe is an illusion that we will never be able to pierce. what we are talking about is does evolution happen. and it does. its the way things are done as far as our perception is concerned. the pieces are there. the evidence is there. the mechanisms are there. and we can play with them ourselves just to see how it all works. discounting evolution because the reality of existance is incomprehensible is nonsensical. see what youll have to do is first prove to me that YOU dont exist then we can talk about if evolution is an illusion.

My deepest apologies, obviously I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. I never, at any point said we should discount evolution simply because the reality of existance is incomprehensible. As a matter of fact, what I did say is very close to opposite of what you thought I said. I said that perhaps we shape our own realities and if we do then evolution is becoming reality. Such an occurence, as odd as it may be, would account for the gaps in the theories which we are discussing, that is, both theories are currently believed in and therefore reality is in a state of transition which makes impossible to fully prove or disprove either reality.

I hope that makes more sense, and to answer your first question; I have only seen the Matrix once, several years ago when it was newly out in video stores. You can in no way blame my outrageous philosophies on it, and I realize that they are outrageous philosophies, but sometimes the most outrageous ones are the truest.

[Blackheart]

"What causes the mutations occur is not a critical issue. A mandated mutation would still face selection forces if it was viable."

That was sort of my point, if you read down a bit. I probably didn't state it clearly. Mandated mutations would remove the necessity for selection, assuming it was a mutation mandated to fit inot a particular space. Like the speculation over rapid bacteria adaptation. If somehow they are taking a direct cue from the environment, and selectively mutating, it's not really evolution, but a different mechanism for adaptation.


"Species must be mutable under the ToE so a discovery of how it occurs would be a clarification, not a refutation. The resultant species still face selection vectors. Virii are known to alter genetic code."

Aye, but at that point the process for speciation is removed from evolutionary forces. Micro evolution is probably still present in shaping the populaiton. But to state that evolution is no longer a factor in speciation would merely be considered a clarification is rather... an understatement of the furor it would cause....


"Evolution would still describe how we interface with the micromanaged reality and would still be useful within our subjective experience and thus still represent what we are able to understand as truth. (metaphysical overdose )"

I disagree with the idea that artificially setting selection criteria wouldn't drastically change the fundemental ideas that underpin much of our current understanding of physics. Not to mention that it causes major problems with the idea of "undirected" or "non-directed" mutation, which is supposedly a core idea of the theory as it currently stands.

"It doesn't appear that any of these scenarios requires a major reworking except in the degree of the role of randomness. It would , even in these examples, be infinitely difficult to prove that no speciation ever occured by a random process. Human interaction with selection in a directed manner (genetic manipulation) still selects and still evolves species and this directed activity in no way invalidates or "punches holes" in the ToE."

Err.. I don't suppose you'd like to reconsider? The "process" of evolution is fairly straight forward. It's a simple genetic algorythm of selection. That's a mechanism though. It's most relevant to micro-evolution.

However most people, when they are discussing topics such as this, are really refering to macro-evolution and abiogenisis.... Which are quite different topics.

So perhaps I should just cut to the chase and ask if you think that any of the aforementioned scenarios would have a drastic effect on how we view those particular theories?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Mandated mutations would remove the necessity for selection, assuming it was a mutation mandated to fit inot a particular space. Like the speculation over rapid bacteria adaptation. If somehow they are taking a direct cue from the environment, and selectively mutating, it's not really evolution, but a different mechanism for adaptation.

Unless the directing mechanisms are being created by yet another coincident force with the environmental selection vector then they would have to be omnipresent (quite a coincidence!). That would cause the speciation to happen at an extremely high rate not observed in the fossil record. And unless it it proved the only mechanism and it's "directedness" is not just subjective assumption (it could still just be a case of "even more %^$# happens) is somehow quantified, it seems just a very implausible senario with dubious implications. Maybe you could explain how sub-atomic "directedness" could be recognized.

Aye, but at that point the process for speciation is removed from evolutionary forces. Micro evolution is probably still present in shaping the populaiton. But to state that evolution is no longer a factor in speciation would merely be considered a clarification is rather... an understatement of the furor it would cause....

I think I misunderstood what you were saying. Is it that these virii would be the only source of speciation? What would prevent the forces that cause micro-evolution to just keep going through to speciation? How would one prove that speciation could not occur at random without the help of these interlopers? And in taking it's cue is the species not adapting? What if some of the species develop a resistance to the virus (unless you're saying that the immunity from one virus is directed by another). Since mutation is always external to the species and not some internal driving mechanism to adapt (now that would alter the ToE) this would be similar to a symbiotic relationship. The virus editing the species DNA would have to have been created "magically" with some "preconizant timing" for this not to be evolution. Evolution is not about why the genomes come about, but how they are used. The furor would be why we didn't notice this sooner.

I disagree with the idea that artificially setting selection criteria wouldn't drastically change the fundemental ideas that underpin much of our current understanding of physics. Not to mention that it causes major problems with the idea of "undirected" or "non-directed" mutation, which is supposedly a core idea of the theory as it currently stands.

Well, I guess that gives me something to disagree with since I don't see randomness as critical. Obviously the selecting force for mutations isn't very successful since so many species are extinct. Some selection is still happening regardless of the directedness of the mutation. Are the failures intentional?

Err.. I don't suppose you'd like to reconsider?

Ummm... no.

So perhaps I should just cut to the chase and ask if you think that any of the aforementioned scenarios would have a drastic effect on how we view those particular theories?

Well, I find them a bit incomplete, but that is to be expected with hypotheticals. They require ignoring things we already know or limiting evolution to a very restricted definition. I think that there is possiblility here but they need a bit of work to wrap up some pragmatic problems like analytical fesability, process limits and isolation of control mechanisms, and finally that the idea of intent garrantees consequence while not allowing unintended consequences is problematic at inception.

[Blackheart]

"Unless the directing mechanisms are being created by yet another coincident force with the environmental selection vector then they would have to be omnipresent (quite a coincidence!). "

[spooky music] Quantum fields are everywhere! [spooky music off]

"Maybe you could explain how sub-atomic "directedness" could be recognized."

That is of course the tricky part. Even if you established a causal relaionship, the real difficulty is measuring the effect of an observer on the quantum states...

Of course, that does make for an interesting scenario. Feedback from observer states actually affecting selection, which in turn actually affects observer states....

"What would prevent the forces that cause micro-evolution to just keep going through to speciation? How would one prove that speciation could not occur at random without the help of these interlopers?"

Actually micro evolution hasn't been sufficiently supported (in my opinion) to speculate seriously that it will produce speciation all on it's own. Genetic drift yes, but when you get right down to it, it's awfully hard to tag speciation, when such diverse "species" such as equine, or bears, or canus can interbreed. These are examples of microevolution, but will they ever actually speciate and become sufficiently different enough to prohibit interbreeding?

But no, you can't actually prove a negative, as I'm sure you know... It's rather like asking you, how can you prove that virii never caused a speciation.... Or how can you prove that aliens never mutilated cattle...

You could however demonstrate that virii were a MORE LIKELY candidate for speciation...

"And in taking it's cue is the species not adapting? What if some of the species develop a resistance to the virus (unless you're saying that the immunity from one virus is directed by another). Since mutation is always external to the species and not some internal driving mechanism to adapt (now that would alter the ToE) this would be similar to a symbiotic relationship."

Symbiotic yes. However the sticky point is that the virii would be responding to evolutionary forces... and thus driving changes in the host. However, the host organisms are being driven by viral adaptation, and thus aren't directtly affected by evolution, but secondarily affected by it.... I guess you could say that car styles "evolve" over time also, but I find that a stretch...

"The virus editing the species DNA would have to have been created "magically" with some "preconizant timing" for this not to be evolution. Evolution is not about why the genomes come about, but how they are used. The furor would be why we didn't notice this sooner."

See above note. Note also the car styles.... Host organism adaptation driven by secondary effects of evolution would be a curious situation. They aren't actually "Evolving" yet they are adapted to best suit the needs of their "master"...

MAN I gots to start writing science fiction...

[I hate it when I go over limit- part 2 follows]

[Blackheart]

" Well, I guess that gives me something to disagree with since I don't see randomness as critical. Obviously the selecting force for mutations isn't very successful since so many species are extinct. Some selection is still happening regardless of the directedness of the mutation. Are the failures intentional?

You may not see the idea of randomness as critical, but a lot of people seem to base their life philosophy on it... I find people with life philosophies boring and stuffy however...

Actually, the idea of extiction doesn't neccesarily mean that a species wasn't succesful, as you probably know.... It's quite likely that many such species gave rise to other "descendant" species. But the selection criteria may not be actually be "survival of the fittest". There are of course dead ends. But it's sort of hard to speculate on any contribution such species made to their ecology. Of course, that assumes you take a view of evolution (or speciation) as an ecology wide phenomenon, and not just something that happens to individual species....

"Well, I find them a bit incomplete, but that is to be expected with hypotheticals. They require ignoring things we already know or limiting evolution to a very restricted definition. I think that there is possiblility here but they need a bit of work to wrap up some pragmatic problems like analytical fesability, process limits and isolation of control mechanisms, and finally that the idea of intent garrantees consequence while not allowing unintended consequences is problematic at inception."

I would request a clarification about what you mean by they require ignoring things we already know....? A rather difficult feat...

As for a restrictive definition, it's usually best to use restrictive definitions, otherwise things get indistinct... One could always change what we mean by evolution to suit the data, for example, but it's rather difficult to keep track if it changes in mid discussion...

As for intent.. I'm not absolutly sure that any of those scenarios actually implies intent.... Perhaps the quantum one comes close... But even if they did, I don't see a problem with unintended consequences either. None of those scenarios mandate omniscience, as far as I can see.... especially since I can't actually see that they mandate intent.... though I don't suppose they preclude it either....

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Actually micro evolution hasn't been sufficiently supported (in my opinion) to speculate seriously that it will produce speciation all on it's own. Genetic drift yes, but when you get right down to it, it's awfully hard to tag speciation, when such diverse "species" such as equine, or bears, or canus can interbreed. These are examples of microevolution, but will they ever actually speciate and become sufficiently different enough to prohibit interbreeding?

Interesting. I just finished watching the NOVA special of the evolution of tetrapods from fish and it looked astoundingly like evolution through a series of gradual stepwise changes. But I suppose the new species that were just like the earlier species but with minor changes could have started from scratch. *Laughs from mental picture of different species "interbreeding"*

Symbiotic yes. However the sticky point is that the virii would be responding to evolutionary forces... and thus driving changes in the host. However, the host organisms are being driven by viral adaptation, and thus aren't directtly affected by evolution, but secondarily affected by it.... I guess you could say that car styles "evolve" over time also, but I find that a stretch...

The stretch is the car analogy, since it is not actually the same as a living organism. An the hypothetical virii is hardly an automotive engineer. An intializing rqandom event, not to mention the random introduction of the virus, still leaves it up to chance. If the virus is just inserting code robotically how is it different han any other mutagen? I would accept the idea that homologous genetic code could be inserted, but the idea that the pre-existing code would just plug in and work, well... just as remote as the genesis story. I don't need a science fiction explanation to supplant a perfectly good fairy tale.

They aren't actually "Evolving" yet they are adapted to best suit the needs of their "master"...

Is there a new genotype? Is it somehow (by pleasing it's master) successfully improved in it's chance of continuing? Well my friend, that is evolution. It's been said that evolution doesn't have a stated goal. This does not logically exclude goal oriented behavior.

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

Nothing in there about random or directed, just whether genetic change that produces viable, inheretable characteristics improves species success.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
[BI find people with life philosophies boring and stuffy however...

[/b]

At last... something we agree on

I would request a clarification about what you mean by they require ignoring things we already know....? A rather difficult feat...

Just read the YEC ideas on the age of the earth. It can be done. Why species aren't being virally saved from extinction (or any of the other mechanisms). The "what if" tag asks suspension of disbelief as a means of avoiding too much analysis. What if the virii just showed up with the perfect DNA and a custom failsafe delivery system? What if pink unicorns stampeded through times square? I guess we would have to think about reality a bit differently... Would the new species be "evolved"? Of course.

[Blackheart]

"Interesting. I just finished watching the NOVA special of the evolution of tetrapods from fish and it looked astoundingly like evolution through a series of gradual stepwise changes. But I suppose the new species that were just like the earlier species but with minor changes could have started from scratch. *Laughs from mental picture of different species "interbreeding"*

It does happen however. Speciation is a fuzzy point. There are areas of overlap.

Well stepwise changes are already in the fossil record for whales, but I'm pretty much trying to argue a position I don't support....


Still....In order to get around it you pretty much have to set a limit in time. Did speciation occur? At what point did they become walking fish instead of fish? Was there actually a new species, or was it just the same one that changed over time? did the entire species change at once, or was there a branching?

Is there enough evidence to say that microevolution alone accounted for the change, or were there large jumps in the change?

Sure there's no current evidence, but a (hypothetical) viral agent would likely indicate that there were large changes. And if it was somehow (unlikely I admit) suported that the virus was the major agent in such changes, why would you need micro evolution as a factor in speciation?

"An intializing rqandom event, not to mention the random introduction of the virus, still leaves it up to chance. If the virus is just inserting code robotically how is it different han any other mutagen?"

Mutagens don't actually respond to their environment... Virii do. Of course that's begging the question. Since they of course are therefore undergoing some kind of adaptation.

"I would accept the idea that homologous genetic code could be inserted, but the idea that the pre-existing code would just plug in and work, well... just as remote as the genesis story. I don't need a science fiction explanation to supplant a perfectly good fairy tale."

Well, The only way I see it happeneing is if the entire DNA code were actually viral in it's makeup. At which point the package being inserted by the virus shouldn't actually be a problem, since it is in fact, merely a travelling peice of code.... And it needn't actually be that difficult. It might actually be modifications to the code that don't affect the phenotype directly, but affect some other nebulous unknown function, such as programing new viral carriers for other peices of code....

Hmm. I'm scaring myself...

"Is there a new genotype? Is it somehow (by pleasing it's master) successfully improved in it's chance of continuing? Well my friend, that is evolution. It's been said that evolution doesn't have a stated goal. This does not logically exclude goal oriented behavior."

Only if you posit that the virii are actually concerned with anything other than the existence of replication centers... which can be found in any existing cell.... It's possible all changes are actually a by product... And if a host becomes too "acceptable" it dies off due to massive viral infections.

Sure it's unlikely, but the original point was that there was nothing that could possibly ever overturn the theory of evolution. It's awfully hard to prove a negative, but all one needs to come up with is one possible case to point out that such an attitude is rather... obstinate.

"Nothing in there about random or directed, just whether genetic change that produces viable, inheretable characteristics improves species success."

"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual...The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next."

That's sort of broad, I think. Basically he's saying that because changes are heritable, evolution happens.... Clones inherit their traits, but that's not evolution. I don't actually see him mentioning greater capacity for replication (or species success), only heritable traits.... I find the idea of changes that increase the capacity for replication rather central to the idea of evolution....

For a long time the idea of random non directed change was dogmatic to evolution. While I find the definition rather broad, it's nice to see that some of those attitudes are changing. Still I think it could be narrowed a bit.