Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
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

Yeah, how did Cain keep a herd of 100-foot-long 70-ton sauropods out of his cabbage patch?

Seriously, I've wondered why YECs say that dinosaurs and other extinct creatures must have died after the Flood- couldn't at least some of them have died between the Fall and the Flood?- it would give a little bit more of an expanded timeline to work with.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The human DNA is filled with useless strings of code which do no damage or good.

And dont forget that at any given time under specific environmental conditions any of those neutral changes could actually come in handy and allow the organism to better survive. what is useless now ISNT necessarily a detriment and COULD be beneficial in the future. creationists like ignoring that fact. and im truly experiencing deja vu here talking about this again. how is it we always seem to come back to the same arguments as if they were never made and disputed 10 pages ago?

[Nurvingiel]

We're covering genetics in Forest Plant Biology right now. We're not going into too much depth, but it's very interesting.

I asked my professor who studies genetics whether most mutations were beneficial, harmful, or neutral. She said about 10% are beneficial, and some are neutral. Though most mutations are actually harmful - the organism is less fit because of it, the organism isn't necessarily so unfit that it will die. If it is, those genes obviously will not be propogated anyway. Thanks for inspiring me to ask that guys, you made me look smart. (She also said that we'll go into this more in later lectures.)

This is possibly not relevant but I found it interesting. The amount of DNA an organism has (counted in basal pairs) is not related to its complexity. Humans have 3 billion, and trillium (a flower) has 100 billion. Bacteria have between 600'000 and 4 million - since they replicate so quickly, there would be selection around not copying useless genes. Anphibians have 65 billion.

The other interesting thing is that frog (and some other anphibian) eggs are highly susceptible to UV radiation, causing extreme mutations. There have been a surprising amount of two-headed frogs born, and even a three headed one. It seems that the frog population is declining. I think that the same radiation that causes the mutations also erodes the DNA and/or affects the frogs' ability to reproduce. (I can't imagine having an extra head or two would be useful either, it would probably be a hinderance. Three-headed giant from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" anyone? )


Here's our course homepage, you can read the genetics notes there if you want.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
The other interesting thing is that frog (and some other anphibian) eggs are highly susceptible to UV radiation, causing extreme mutations. There have been a surprising amount of two-headed frogs born, and even a three headed one. It seems that the frog population is declining. I think that the same radiation that causes the mutations also erodes the DNA and/or affects the frogs' ability to reproduce. (I can't imagine having an extra head or two would be useful either, it would probably be a hinderance. Three-headed giant from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" anyone? )

What a coincedence you would mention this! This is a part of the final essay/thesis I'm writing to graduate. Frogs breathe through their skin so their skin is very permeable and less resistant against UV radiation than ours for example. Their eggs are also vulnerable because they lack the hard, protective shell of bird eggs.

The most common mutations in frogs seen lately seems to be the growing of a multitude of legs or none at all. (Although the BBC website sported an interesting article about a three-headed frog just a few days ago I think) Yet this particular mutation [the leg deformities] has recently been linked more to infestation of a parasite than UV radiation alone. The same with the global dimishing of frog populations, UV radiation is probably only one of the factors that play here. Deseases like the cythrid fungi, agricultural and chemical pollution, habitat loss, and predation or competition by imported frogspecies also play a role.

Though, and that is of some importance IMO, I have not come across any evidence that these mutations would be passed along from parents to tadpoles.

[Rían]

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

yeah, I de-lurk myself, too TOo much good talk going on!

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 meant that it's not a PROOF of evolution - IOW, I could just as easily say "every 100 years a blue fairy touches people with her wand and all genetic mutations disappear - and the proof of that is that we're still alive today!"

And on genetic burden, here's a quote from the Institute of Creation Research website -

By elimination of the unfit, natural selection reduces the harmful effects of mutations on a population, but it cannot solve the evolutionists genetic burden problem entirely. Most mutations are recessive. That is, like the hemophilia ("bleeder's disease") gene in England's Queen Victoria, the mutant can be carried, undetected by selection, in a person (or plant or animal) with a dominant gene that masks the mutant's effect.

Time, the usual "hero of the plot" for evolutionists, only makes genetic burden worse. As time goes on, existing mutants build up to a complex equilibrium point, and new mutations are continually occurring. That is why marriage among close relatives (e.g. Cain and his sister) posed no problem early in human history, even though now, thanks to the increase in mutational load with time, such marriages are considered most unwise. Already, 1% of all children born will require some professional help with genetic problems, and that percentage doubles in first-cousin marriages.

Genetic burden, then, becomes a staggering problem for evolutionists trying to explain the enormous adaptive variation within species on the basis of mutations. For any conceivable favorable mutation, a species must pay the price or bear the burden of more than 1000 harmful mutations of that gene. Against such a background of "genetic decay," any hypothetical favorable mutant in one gene would invariably be coupled to harmful changes in other genes. As mutational load increases with time, the survival of the species will be threatened as matings produce a greater percentage of offspring carrying serious genetic defects.

I think it's too simplistic to say that animals with bad genes simply die out, when instead, from what I've read from all types of sources, the number of genetically-carried diseases is increasing. And that's just over a miniscule amount of time, compared to the amount of time that is REQUIRED by 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.

I've always said that, too - I just happen to think Creationism is better. And I just try to point out all the unproven parts of Evolutionism that people think are facts, but aren't.

Cheerio! Nurv

Cheerio to you, too

EDIT: What I'm saying in the first part is that negative genes do not tend to accumulate.

I think they do, tho ...

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.

And this would not "help" either theory.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
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.

I agree with you as far as Evolutionism goes - it's totally a matter of faith (because it's an unproven, underlying assumption), that there is no God, and therefore no intentional design, involved. IOW, yes, they look at evidence, but they interpret the evidence through the unproven assumption that there is no intentional design behind it. And Creationists have seen this scientific neglect, and have formulated their theories.

I so very much wish that both sides could get together and look at each bit of evidence together, in the light of both theories, and see what is the better fit. But both sides, and esp. the evolutionists, have too much vested in their theories (and I say "esp. the evolutionists", because as I said before, if evolution eventually becomes the more likely scenario, it would not destroy the evidences for the Christian faith; but if creationism (or intelligent design) becomes the more likely scenario, it CERTAINLY destroys the faiths of atheism and agnosticism ... )


And I never got into the whole idea of irreducible complexity, which is an important part of Creationism, and which is evidence against Evolutionism ... or did I? I don't remember - it's been awhile since I wrote that mega-post on evidences for Creationism ...

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
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"

I disagree - see quote.

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

I disagree - see evidence

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"

I have no use for the "is the world an illusion?" arguments - silly and a waste of time, IMO. What I DO think is important, tho, is to NOT confuse the truly scientific things - things that are observable, repeatable and measureable in the present - with the things that are in the PAST and are NOT observable, repeatable and measureable ... THAT'S the big error that evolutionism makes, IMO.

Yes, one COULD say that we've seen millions of demonstrations that on earth, acceleration is 32 ft/sec*sec, but the NEXT time, it might suddenly become 100 ft/sec*sec. But then you might as well just hang up your lab jacket and go home and do nothing. The accel. figure is a proven scientific fact - it's observable, repeatable, measureable.

But altho a fossil is in the present, the actual animal is NOT ... and this is important. The actual animal is just an educated guess. And in the case of humans, especially, it's more guess than educated, IMO - some reconstructions, down to hair on the head, are based on one fragment of a jawbone ... and this fact "somehow" manages to often get overlooked ...

So yes, make your best educated guesses based on what IS available, but please be sure to state what they're based on, and please do NOT misrepresent things as facts, that are NOT facts.

And again, I wish the huge amount of scientists that are assuming the underlying premises of evolutionism to be true, could also look at creationism ... but they won't, mostly because of peer pressure, IMO.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by 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.

Yes, we have to remember that well over 90% of all genetic mutations are neutral - they have NO effect upon the organism. IF the mutution is a negative (and harmful) one, the organism will either die, or be selected against; thus there can be no accumulation of directly harmful mutations. In other words, if a mutations is SO INCREDIBLY harmful that the organism can not live, then it will die, and the mutation is stopped right there dead in its tracks (no pun intended). If the mutation is not a killer-buzzard-from-hell, then the organism will likely live, and be selected against, again, stopping the mutation in its tracks. IF the mutation isn't selected against, or the organism does not die from it, then it can be considered that the mutation isn't that harmful upon the organism. In which case, it's a bit silly talking about genetic burdens of negative mutations, since the mutations don't have an overly direct effect upon the organism, isn't it?

[Rían]

No, see quote. I think the recessive factor is important. Also from what is observable, genetic flaws are accumulating ... and again, please remember the HUGE amounts of time required by evolutionism...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I asked my professor who studies genetics whether most mutations were beneficial, harmful, or neutral. She said about 10% are beneficial, and some are neutral. Though most mutations are actually harmful

Im amazed your professor told you that neutral mutations are less likely then others. I wonder if we are talking about the same thing here.

If you look at the sheer abundance of redundancy in the genetic code you have a massive field of essentially “sterile� genetic material that can be mutated to no effect to the organism. So point mutations in these protein encoding genes will not actually alter the amino acid sequence of the protein. Such synonymous mutations are therefore likely to be NEUTRAL not harmful. So think of it like this: a random mutation is much more likely to occur to a part of our genetic code that doesn’t matter anyway. These mutations are by definition neutral. Since they don’t effect the survivability of the organism one way or the other. Now SOMEtimes the mutation can occur in a part of our genetic code that IS utilized. But these are fewer. So I cant really get my head around the concept that most mutations are harmful to the organism when most mutations by definition don’t have any immediate impact on the organism one way or the other. Sometimes creationists ignore that fact that there is this redundancy built into the system. Its like saying whenever I throw a dart at a dart board I effect the bulls eye as long as the dart sticks. Well no you don’t effect the bulls eye. You still have to HIT the bulls eye. Most of the darts fall harmlessly into the surrounding region. Do we say that most of the throws are bulls eyes?

Now the confusion may be in how you classify a “neutral� mutation. Some people don’t count those made in “junk� DNA which may be as much as 90% of DNA. But the problem is theres a real gray area as to what is junk DNA and what isn’t. So you have to be real careful in how you measure it. And take into account things like neutral drift and stuff. It gets real hairy. But just keep in mind that neutral mutations serve as a bench mark for understanding evolutionary rates, and they lead to the notion of a molecular clock to describe genetic evolution.

Oh and also keep in mind that theres a monkey wrench in this discussion that we haven’t touched on yet I don’t think. Are people aware that mutations can occur in higher density on certain regions of a genome? “Hot spots� they call them. So natural selection may also operate at the level of gene location, relegating genes to different mutational genomic niches according to their function.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Yeah, how did Cain keep a herd of 100-foot-long 70-ton sauropods out of his cabbage patch?

Seriously, I've wondered why YECs say that dinosaurs and other extinct creatures must have died after the Flood- couldn't at least some of them have died between the Fall and the Flood?- it would give a little bit more of an expanded timeline to work with.

Do they really say it that strongly? I don't see why they would have to die after the Flood. I think it might be because if they're in the fossil record, it's because they were alive at the time of the flood - but I can't see any reason why some couldn't have died out before ...

I'll see if I can get that one in - I"m not sure what the format of the field trip is.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
And dont forget that at any given time under specific environmental conditions any of those neutral changes could actually come in handy and allow the organism to better survive. what is useless now ISNT necessarily a detriment and COULD be beneficial in the future. creationists like ignoring that fact. and im truly experiencing deja vu here talking about this again. how is it we always seem to come back to the same arguments as if they were never made and disputed 10 pages ago?

Did you somehow forget that the neutral changes could also suddenly become detrimental changes? Hmmm? Looks like evolutionists "like ignoring that fact" ... Whatcha say about that one?

ANd some new people joined up - I'm trying to mostly refer them to my mega-post, but am trying to quickly answer some of the questions. Go away if you don't like it, you pesky dinosaur! *swats IRex away with an industrial-sized fly swatter*

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(and I say "esp. the evolutionists", because as I said before, if evolution eventually becomes the more likely scenario, it would not destroy the evidences for the Christian faith; but if creationism (or intelligent design) becomes the more likely scenario, it CERTAINLY destroys the faiths of atheism and agnosticism ... )

if one finds evolution to be more likely it does not prove or disprove the existance of god (in fact, i think you may find that a majority of scientists do in fact believe in a higher being)... however, it does put serious doubts on literal, as opposed to allegorical, interpretations of the genesis story

if one finds intelligent design to be true, yet places it back as far as something like the big bang, it doesn't effect evolution at all

evolution can coexist with god, but it cannot coexist with the genesis story

so i'm not too sure who may have the greater vested interest here... the debate is not about the existance of god... it is about how mankind came about

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
[B]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.

No, it doesn't.

Additionally, it assumes that all mutations are negative when in fact most mutations are harmless.

No, it doesn't . The important fact, and one that is observably true, is that the number of negative mutations far outnumber the number of positive ones. Harmless mutations don't even come into the equation.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Did you somehow forget that the neutral changes could also suddenly become detrimental changes? Hmmm? Looks like evolutionists "like ignoring that fact" ... Whatcha say about that one?

I was just countering your "genetic burden" assumption that ALL non-beneficial mutations were bad. When in fact most are nuetral and even some of the nuetral ones lcan ater prove helpful. And those neutral ones that cause problems down the road will be selected against.

*swats IRex away with an industrial-sized fly swatter*

hey cut that out. or ill evolve some wings and fly out of reach of you.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I asked my professor who studies genetics whether most mutations were beneficial, harmful, or neutral. She said about 10% are beneficial, and some are neutral. Though most mutations are actually harmful - the organism is less fit because of it, the organism isn't necessarily so unfit that it will die. If it is, those genes obviously will not be propogated anyway. Thanks for inspiring me to ask that guys, you made me look smart. (She also said that we'll go into this more in later lectures.)

10% ? I've never heard anywhere near that claim, even from the most ardent evolutionists - that sounds like she's using some rather generous standards for "beneficial". Try asking her to name some beneficial mutations - usually the best people can come up with is the sickle cell anemia mutation, which makes the carriers immune to a form of anemia - but which could hardly be called beneficial to the species, since they are also carrying the deadly sickle cell mutation ....

This is possibly not relevant but I found it interesting. The amount of DNA an organism has (counted in basal pairs) is not related to its complexity. Humans have 3 billion, and trillium (a flower) has 100 billion. Bacteria have between 600'000 and 4 million - since they replicate so quickly, there would be selection around not copying useless genes. Anphibians have 65 billion.

Isn't that bizarre!?!

The other interesting thing is that frog (and some other anphibian) eggs are highly susceptible to UV radiation, causing extreme mutations. There have been a surprising amount of two-headed frogs born, and even a three headed one. It seems that the frog population is declining. I think that the same radiation that causes the mutations also erodes the DNA and/or affects the frogs' ability to reproduce. (I can't imagine having an extra head or two would be useful either, it would probably be a hinderance. Three-headed giant from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" anyone? )

Again, interesting how the mutations are ALL non-beneficial, and the species is DECLINING ... makes one wonder about the claims of evolutionism ...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I was just countering your "genetic burden" assumption that ALL non-beneficial mutations were bad.

Did I say that somewhere? If I did, it was a mistake, and I'll correct it.

hey cut that out. or ill evolve some wings and fly out of reach of you.

If you're counting on an accumulation of beneficial mutations to help you, you better start saying your prayers ... *gets out flyswatter*

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And again, I wish the huge amount of scientists that are assuming the underlying premises of evolutionism to be true, could also look at creationism ... but they won't, mostly because of peer pressure, IMO.

i have yet to see anything to "look at" as far as creationism goes... what do you mean? do you look for god's footprints? or a discarded fig leaf?

i'm kidding, but also serious... what is there to study about creationism?

all i see are people trying to debunk evolutionary theory (even when you refuse to answer my questions and point me to other posts )... which is a good thing btw... it is scientific method and helps to people to improve their theories

and how is the idea that god created two humans 6000 years ago any less silly than arguments about illusions?? both ideas are based on the same premise "we can't know how life came about"

the idea of science is to try to find out

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
if one finds evolution to be more likely it does not prove or disprove the existance of god (in fact, i think you may find that a majority of scientists do in fact believe in a higher being)... however, it does put serious doubts on literal, as opposed to allegorical, interpretations of the genesis story

I agree.

if one finds intelligent design to be true, yet places it back as far as something like the big bang, it doesn't effect evolution at all

What I'm talking about is the most common form of evolutionism - which is that there is NO intelligent being behind how we got here today, but rather it's all mindless, natural processes, and the most common form of creationism - which is that God intentionally and intelligently designed animals and people and plants, etc., basically how we see them today.

Altho if people complain about how did God get here, I complain about how did the raw material for evolution get here.

so i'm not too sure who may have the greater vested interest here... the debate is not about the existance of god... it is about how mankind came about

Do you think that evolutionists have a vested interest at all?

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i'm kidding, but also serious... what is there to study about creationism?

Did you ever read thru the mega post? It's basically things like irreducible complexity, and animals holding to type, and operations of natural, observable laws on things. Maybe I didn't make those parts clear.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
the idea of science is to try to find out

Absolutely! And the more we find out, the more incredible we see the world is, and the more we know, and the more we can help others and the environment, etc.

The human body is so amazingly complex - heck, even a single-celled animal is INCREDIBLY compex!!!! - and the balances required to keep things going are mind-blowing. A friend of mine, a nurse, has a friend that is probably now dead - she was perfectly healthy to look at, but something went wrong in her brain, and now she's on machines to live but is basically dead. ONE small thing went wrong, and she's dead.

And evolutionists ask us to believe that billions and billions and billions uncountable things "accidentally" went right, in complete coordination, while tossing out the even more things that went wrong?

I just don't think it's credible.