Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
[B]What do Creationist theories say about hybrids?

I would think that Creationists would say that hybreds exist After all, Creationists are very practical, and look at things that are ACTUALLY there, as opposed to trying to stuff observations into a pre-existing agenda, like I've seen some scientists on the evolutionism side do. (and to be fair, there's some scientists that do this on the Creationism side, but I think there's a smaller percentage.)

It seems like you're inferring that hybreds are a problem for Creationism, but I don't see any problem that they cause. Am I missing something?

Hybrids lead to evolution in plants, and we've actually seen the progress. (It's more concrete than the dinosaur theory.)

Have plants turned into animals or something? Or was it just a case of combining PRE-EXISTING characteristics? I think it was probably the latter, which is NOT macro-evolution by any means, and this poses NO problem to creationism.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
After all, Creationists are very practical, and look at things that are ACTUALLY there, as opposed to trying to stuff observations into a pre-existing agenda, like I've seen some scientists on the evolutionism side do. (and to be fair, there's some scientists that do this on the Creationism side, but I think there's a smaller percentage.)

and what are some of the "ACTUAL" things that point to creationism exactly?

not things that you believe disprove evolution... but things that prove creationism

[Rían]

Please go to the first post of this thread and look near the bottom - I added a link to my summary posts I made somewhere in this thread

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
It seems like you're inferring that hybreds are a problem for Creationism, but I don't see any problem that they cause. Am I missing something?

I was infering that it might cause a problem, because hybridization can lead to evolution - likely at odds with at least part of the Creationist theories.

Have plants turned into animals or something? Or was it just a case of combining PRE-EXISTING characteristics? I think it was probably the latter, which is NOT macro-evolution by any means, and this poses NO problem to creationism.

In my example, plants have not turned into animals. Now that I think about my post, I was actually including two ideas in one.

Idea 1: Plants can hybridize, and through genetic mutation produce fertile offspring.

Idea 2: Genetic mutations arise by chance, and can give organisms qualities that make them better fit to their environment.
Genetic mutations are completely new, it's not a recombination of pre-existing characteristics (unlike hybridization).

However, these two ideas can occur in the same organism.

Is the only evolutionary theory Creationists do not subscribe to all life evolving from single-celled organisms? Do you believe in other forms of evolution, such as anphibians evolving from fish for example?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I was infering that it might cause a problem, because hybridization can lead to evolution - likely at odds with at least part of the Creationist theories.

Well, I still don't see a problem, because we continue to see NO evidence of macro-evolution, which is a critical and necessary part of the th. of ev., and the hybridization we DO see is not inconsistent at all with creationism.

In my example, plants have not turned into animals. Now that I think about my post, I was actually including two ideas in one.

Idea 1: Plants can hybridize, and through genetic mutation produce fertile offspring.

Idea 2: Genetic mutations arise by chance, and can give organisms qualities that make them better fit to their environment.
Genetic mutations are completely new, it's not a recombination of pre-existing characteristics (unlike hybridization).

However, these two ideas can occur in the same organism.

see above

Is the only evolutionary theory Creationists do not subscribe to all life evolving from single-celled organisms? Do you believe in other forms of evolution, such as anphibians evolving from fish for example?

The part (or one part; there are several) that creationists object to in the theory of ev. is the macroevolution part. One part of the macroevolution idea is that basically all life came from one-celled thingys, as I affectionately call them. Another part of the unproven idea of macroevolution would be the unproven, unobserved THEORY that amphibians came from fish.

Creationism says that God basically made unique, designed types, with variation abilities built in - but the types do not change to other types. And this is what we CONSTANTLY, over and over, actually SEE in real life - you start with a dog, you end up with a dog, altho you can breed for selected characteristics (and btw, the variability decreases when you do this, and eventually the viability of the resulting animal decreases - that's why overbred purebreds have so many problems, and why mongrels are usually a whole lot healthier).

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Well, I still don't see a problem, because we continue to see NO evidence of macro-evolution, which is a critical and necessary part of the th. of ev., and the hybridization we DO see is not inconsistent at all with creationism.

I wouldn't say no evidence. I don't happen to have any (unless I dig out last years Biology notes, and I just might... you wait... ), but I'm a 2nd year Forestry student, not a genetecist. Completely disproving the th. of ev. on the basis that we aren't currently observing it is like saying a crow can't fly because it happens to be sitting in a tree at the moment. To God, our entire existence might appear as a moment.
There is no hard core evidence for Creationism either. Just because the current state of affairs is a certain way, does not prove that it has always been this way. There is room for doubt, that's why it's a theory.

The part (or one part; there are several) that creationists object to in the theory of ev. is the macroevolution part. One part of the macroevolution idea is that basically all life came from one-celled thingys, as I affectionately call them. Another part of the unproven idea of macroevolution would be the unproven, unobserved THEORY that amphibians came from fish.

Of course it's not proven, neither is Creationism. I'm just saying both are valid theories, though I personally favour the th. of ev. for a lot of things. (One celled thingys, I like it. )
Here's another example: the theory that snakes came from a vertebrate with legs. Losing limbs is a big evolutionary step. If snakes did not evolve from legged animals, why do they have vestigal hip bones?

God: I'm going to make snakes... with hip bones.
Adam: Why the hip bones?
God: No reason. So pipe down you, or I won't make you another rib.
Adam:

Creationism says that God basically made unique, designed types, with variation abilities built in - but the types do not change to other types. And this is what we CONSTANTLY, over and over, actually SEE in real life - you start with a dog, you end up with a dog, altho you can breed for selected characteristics (and btw, the variability decreases when you do this, and eventually the viability of the resulting animal decreases - that's why overbred purebreds have so many problems, and why mongrels are usually a whole lot healthier).

I don't know a lot about dog pedigree, but I do think that humans are lousy at playing God. IOW, when we're trying to evolve something, we're not good at it like God is.
All dogs (according to th. of ev. obviously) are descended from wolves. Why else would a (large enough) dog be able to successfully breed with a wolf? (Half wolves are illegal as pets here, but they do exist.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Please go to the first post of this thread and look near the bottom - I added a link to my summary posts I made somewhere in this thread

i was kind lookin for the cliff notes version

[Nurvingiel]

They're really good Brownie, you'll get into them. Okay, I admit I skimmed a little bit, but only a little bit.

I should post the Urey-Miller experiment. That's going on the to do list.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i was kind lookin for the cliff notes version

Sorry, Brownie, you know me ... Lizra called me the "most soporific poster"

(and when one is in the minority position, one needs to write a little more carefully and thoroughly)

But a brief summary is that they are both not strictly theories in the scientific sense of the word, but rather (oh rats, I can't remember the word I used...) oh, I suppose almost philosophies - containing both theories and intelligent deductions, because of the obvious fact that we're talking about things in the past, and one can't perform repeatable, measurable experiments on things in the past. Given the observable evidence, both theories have good and bad points, IMO, but in the majority of the areas I looked at, creationism is the strongest. To me, one of the strongest areas is the genetics area - again, we observe over and over that types stay types, and mutations are neutral or harmful, and as the animal changes within its pre-existing variability possibilities, one ALWAYS hits a wall as far as possible changes - ALWAYS! - and viability DECREASES, and genetic info DECREASES.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
They're really good Brownie, you'll get into them.

Aw, shucks ... Really, they were nothing ...

Okay, I admit I skimmed a little bit, but only a little bit.

What? WHAT!?!? My brilliant writing?
(j/k!!)

I should post the Urey-Miller experiment. That's going on the to do list.

Oh, please do - I'd love to comment on that!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
the animal changes within its pre-existing variability possibilities, one ALWAYS hits a wall as far as possible changes - ALWAYS! - and viability DECREASES, and genetic info DECREASES.

what does this mean exactly? are you saying that theres no evidence of evolution leading to an infinite number of variations? how exactly would you determine the "pre-existing variability possibilities" for any given species? is their a formulae? and if viabiliy decreases why are there like 900 types of finches? and how does genetic information decrease?

[brownjenkins]

ok... i'll do some reading and check back

what about non-biological evolution that has been observed (i.e. stellar evolution... the formation of stars, planets and such)... do you buy these observations?

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
... do you buy these observations?

*checks her wallet*



later, guys - don't want to leave the kiddos at school after hours ...

[Nurvingiel]

I actually didn't find any notes on the Urey-Miller theory, but I found some great stuff on Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

I don't think Creationist Theories (CTs) would run into difficulties with Darwin's studies of Galapagos Finches. From the notes of Biology 121, Prof: Dr. Robert Blake: (Comments in parantheses.)

Darwin and Adaptation

Much experimentation in this context was to see if local birds/rodents were edible, for practical reasons. Darwin did study a lot too. (Darwin got a job as a naturalist on an exploration ship that went around South America or something like that.)

Galapagos Finches:

Darwin wasn't sure if the bird types were different varieties of the same species, or different species.
Upon his return to England (1836) and ornithologist declared them different.
In 1837 he began a notebook on the origin of species. View formation of new species and adaptation as closely debated processes.
For example, two populations of a species could be isolated in different environments and diverge as each one adapted to local conditions. (Observed.)
Over many generations, the two populations could become dissimilar enough to be designated separate species. So, the different beaks of the Galapagos finches can be viewed as adaptations to specific foods available on different islands.
By early 1840s, Darwin had formed his theory of Natural Selection - developped by reflective scholarship, as the mechanism of adaptive evolution.

The the notes go on about an essay he published on Natural Selection.

It's important to note that Darwin's theories were only combined with Mendelevium genetics in the 1930s.

[Falagar]

Which reminds me, though completely off-topic: I heard some scientists had claimed to have found Darwin's boat not long ago.

[Rían]

OK, guys - I'm going to visit the Institute of Creation Research on Wednesday with my son's 7th grade science class (please, no snide comments ) - does anyone have any questions for me to ask them? I'll see what I can do

And genetic burden is, to put it simply and quickly, the very sensible concept of how the accumulation of the negative mutations in a species will by FAR overpower the accumulation of any beneficial mutations, so for the amount of time REQUIRED by the th. of evolution, the species would not survive the negative mutations.

And please don't say "well, we're here, so we must have survived them!" I hope you can see that that line is certainly NOT proof of anything, except proof of the fact we're here.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for explaining what the genetic burden was. I seem to have delurked myself in a couple of threads.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And please don't say "well, we're here, so we must have survived them!" I hope you can see that that line is certainly NOT proof of anything, except proof of the fact we're here.

Why couldn't we say this? It is a valid statement because unfit individuals die and/or fail to propogate their genes, so the genetic burden doesn't necessarily disprove evolutionism.

I'm not saying that Creationism is definitely wrong, and I'm not saying that this proves Evolutionism either. All I'm saying is that Evolutionism is a valid and sensible theory.

Cheerio! Nurv

EDIT: What I'm saying in the first part is that negative genes do not tend to accumulate.
Also, I think that many mutations would be neutral genes. Organisms do carry a lot of redundant or useless genetic material (that may at one time have been useful), that neither helps nor harms the organism.

[Drgnslyer]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Thanks for explaining what the genetic burden was. I seem to have delurked myself in a couple of threads.



Why couldn't we say this? It is a valid statement because unfit individuals die and/or fail to propogate their genes, so the genetic burden doesn't necessarily disprove evolutionism.

I'm not saying that Creationism is definitely wrong, and I'm not saying that this proves Evolutionism either. All I'm saying is that Evolutionism is a valid and sensible theory.

Cheerio! Nurv

I'm still standing by my belief that Evolutionism vs. Creationism really boils down to each individual and their own particular faith, there is hardly any way you can disprove either one.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And genetic burden is, to put it simply and quickly, the very sensible concept of how the accumulation of the negative mutations in a species will by FAR overpower the accumulation of any beneficial mutations, so for the amount of time REQUIRED by the th. of evolution, the species would not survive the negative mutations.

in evolutionary theory it is already assumed that many negative mutations occur (and also many that are neither positive or negative)... if bad enough, these variants die off before they can reproduce... so they do not "accumulate"

evolution btw is provable (as far as anything really is)... the fossil record shows that life on earth has changed drastically over time and short of divine intervention evolution explains things pretty well

we may one day observe another animal whose brain develops enough to consider it at the same level of self-conciousness as humans (and i wonder what their "religions" might be )

we also might find life on other planets at various stages of evolutionary development that are similar to what we expect in our own history

in the end, you can argue that absolutely nothing is provable (i.e. does the world really exist, or is it just a persistant hallucination?)... so the question should be "what is most likely" not "what is true"

[Cirdan]

The flaw of "genetic burden" is that it assumes that every single member of a species inevitably must experience simultaneous fatal negative mutations leading to extinction. Additionally, it assumes that all mutations are negative when in fact most mutations are harmless. The human DNA is filled with useless strings of code which do no damage or good.