Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
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.

actually they were saying that things go right and wrong all the time... but over billions of years the things that work tend to survive and the things that don't tend to die out

so after five billion years, it is not all that incredible to have complex and amazing organisms (some of which have found their niche by becoming less "complex")... not only that, but it explains better than any alternative why the organisims that exist today have so many faults along with so many neutral mutations

i read the mega-post

a true scientist does not have a vested interest (though individuals may)... they try to disprove their theories just as hard as they try to prove them... it is the nature of the profession

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
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...

Evolution. The word is evolution. *is bowing out before blood pressure threatens to pop*

Sorry Rian, I mean this in the nicest way, but what utter bollocks. I'm going to have to stop now, as I have a policy of not getting involved in these kinds of debates as it eats up too much of my RL (which I need for my studies!). Having said that, I found some literature to post, but unfortunately it's blocked because you have to had remote access to the University of Auckland to read it. *sigh* Maybe, if I have the time later, I'll paste a bit here.

[Lizra]

I agree.

My sister in law recently sent me one of those STUPID bogus "bible science" books.... "Creation, Remarkable Evidence of God's Design" by Grant R Jeffrey. I asked for a subscription to Discover Magazine for my birthday, and I get this heinous drivel! After I symbolically puked, I threw it in the trash. She signed the inside "Science proves faith!!!!" Boy.....wait till she askes me how I liked it. You think she's gonna get an earful?

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
[B]Evolution. The word is evolution. *is bowing out before blood pressure threatens to pop*

Creation. The word is creation And creationism is the whole bundle of ideas that go along with it, and evolutionism is the whole bundle of ideas that go along with evolution. The "ism" part designates that parts are just philosophical ideas, not proven scientific facts. ANd I will continue to use it, because I think it's very accurate, and saying things like "evolution is proven" is misleading, when actually, PARTS may be proven, but the whole philosophy is decidedly NOT

Sorry Rian, I mean this in the nicest way, but what utter bollocks. I'm going to have to stop now, as I have a policy of not getting involved in these kinds of debates as it eats up too much of my RL (which I need for my studies!). Having said that, I found some literature to post, but unfortunately it's blocked because you have to had remote access to the University of Auckland to read it. *sigh* Maybe, if I have the time later, I'll paste a bit here.

And what utter bollocks parts of evolution-ISM are, too Really, I wish people would just be more realistic and say "here's some ideas, and here's some indicators that the ideas might be right, but since it's in the past, unfortunately, we just really can't tell." And to be a little more accurate, it's often not the atual scientists that believe in evolutionism that are the culprits; it's the popular media and the schools. But the general populace doesn't get access to the actual scientists nor the actual scientific studies; they have access to textbooks and magazine articles that are just plain misleading in how they present evolutionISM, IMO.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
... I mean this in the nicest way...

I know ... thanks so much I appreciate your attitude, your knowledge and your friendship.

Would you be embarassed to be seen with me if I ever come to your uni?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
My sister in law recently sent me one of those STUPID bogus "bible science" books.... "Creation, Remarkable Evidence of God's Design" by Grant R Jeffrey. I asked for a subscription to Discover Magazine for my birthday, and I get this heinous drivel! After I symbolically puked, I threw it in the trash. She signed the inside "Science proves faith!!!!" Boy.....wait till she askes me how I liked it. You think she's gonna get an earful?

Sorry about that present I bet Discover Magazine is a v. nice magazine, and I hope it presents the different aspects of evolution accurately.

I don't think science "proves" faith, or at least Christian faith (or actually atheism, either - note the "ism" ) . In fact, I was going to start next week, but I think I'll try to start it today instead - a discussion on why people believe what they believe.

[Nurvingiel]

Many excellently written and well thought-out posts to repond to! I couldn't possibly do them all justice.

Before I start lurking again, I just want to point out that I am not trying to disprove or somehow invalidate Creationism in any way. I believe that Creationism and Evolutionism are both rational and valid theories, and that's all I was going for.

Cheers, Nurv

*fades into the shadows*

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
*fades into the shadows*

Oho! *yanks Nurv out of the shadows* No you don't! We wants you to explain the previous comment RE: mutations, we does.

Rian, you can come if you wear this pretty paper bag. Oh... forgot something... *smacks Rian with trout* Evolution! Evolution! Evolution! ... Or Theory of Evolution if it makes you feel better.

[Nurvingiel]

To BoP: You must cut down the largest tree in the forest with... a herring!

Mutations? You mean this action here? (Heh, shouldn't assume that everyone has taken first year biology at uni!)

Originally posted by 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.

Well, a mutation is when there's an error in copying a DNA sequence. DNA determines which proteins an organism will be made up of, and ultimately, it's form and organs etc.

The change in DNA (mutation) is beneficial to the organism about 10% of the time, but usually harmful.

For example, there's a species of moth, whose colour allows it to blend into tree bark. Occasionally, one would be born black. It would be spotted and eaten early in its life. Pollution increased in the area, and suddenly, only the black moths could blend in. The mutation in the wing colour was beneficial only when the event of pollution occured to the population. The rest of the time it was harmful. I forget where that anecdote is from, but I think it was in England during the Industrial Revolution.

The rest of the time, mutations don't affect the organism. In DNA, it takes a sequence of three base pairs (these pairs form the molecule of DNA) to make one amino acid. Changing one (of three) base pairs does not always change the amino acid. There are more than one combinations of base pairs to form an amino acid.

BTW, I'm not trying to prove evolutionism or anything, just outlining how it works, and why it's a valid theory.

[BeardofPants]

*giggle* I didn't mean a complete break-down of genetic mutations. Silly girl. See, my understanding of it is that 90% of mutations are neutral (at least that's what I covered in MY papers). They don't act upon the organism in either a harmful, or beneficial manner. Where do you get that harmful mutations outweigh neutral ones?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
For example, there's a species of moth, whose colour allows it to blend into tree bark. Occasionally, one would be born black. It would be spotted and eaten early in its life. Pollution increased in the area, and suddenly, only the black moths could blend in. The mutation in the wing colour was beneficial only when the event of pollution occured to the population. The rest of the time it was harmful. I forget where that anecdote is from, but I think it was in England during the Industrial Revolution.

Oh no, the English moth example again!

Seriously, and very respectfully ( I hope you didn't mind my teasing sentence above), ALL colorations of moths were PRE-EXISTING!! This is critical. This situation is ONLY an example of one PRE-EXISTING type being favored over another, which is no big news. This is NOT an example of a beneficial mutation by ANY stretch of the imagination. ALL types were in existence before the experiment. ALL. It supports concepts in creationism as much as in evolutionism - the creationism concept is that intelligent design allows variations to form to help species adapt to environmental changes, altho the type of animal does not change to another type.

The moth experiment is classic example of a seriously flawed experiment that is also being put forward to support something it does NOT support; namely, beneficial mutation. For example, these moths do NOT typically rest on tree trunks, nor are they day-fliers. Often, they were PLACED on tree trunks during the day; they typically rest in the tree canopies during the day and fly during the night. There are pictures in textbooks of moths that were DEAD and GLUED ONTO tree trunks. Now posed photographs are NO problem, if it says they're posed - but it doesn't (check your textbook, I bet I'm right), and it gives the impression that this is such a common place for this moth to be that it's easy to photograph. Also, in some other polluted areas, the number of white moths INCREASED. I may have posted some details in another post, you might want to do a search with my name and "moth".

[Rían]

I just read a bit of the coursework and it DOES say that most mutations are harmful .... perhaps they mean most NOTICEABLE mutations? I would agree with BOP's figures, pretty much.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Rian, you can come if you wear this pretty paper bag. Oh... forgot something... *smacks Rian with trout* Evolution! Evolution! Evolution! ... Or Theory of Evolution if it makes you feel better.

*ties a pretty ribbon around the paper bag*

EvolutionISM! EvolutionISM! *smacks BOP with a tuna*

[Drgnslyer]

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.

Very good perspective there Cirdan. I remember having a book when i was young titled "do animals dream?" The conclusive answer, yes, they do, and they have been known to sit and watch the sunset....so they must think amongst themselves about what is beyond...and dolphins are basically known to have advanced intelligence, like ourselves...so they must have a religious structure of some kind....

Food for thought...

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Again, interesting how the mutations are ALL non-beneficial, and the species is DECLINING ... makes one wonder about the claims of evolutionism ...

Hey, now just wait a minute.... Did you read my post?

First of all these frog-mutations are not ordinary mutations that happen all the time. They are mutations induced directly or indirectly through human behaviour. Heightened UV-radiation because of the thinner ozon layer, mutagene chemicals that get used in pest-control (e.g:atrazine), human introduction of foreign animals in another ecosystem, ect, ect...

Be careful, you're talking different types of mutation here. It's like saying thalidomide babies are natural mutations.

Normally about 5% of a normal frog population shows limb deforments, either through accidents or genetic mutation (or other cause). And these deformities greatly diminish the survival chances of the frogs in question which means that the number that succeeds in reproducing is very small on the whole population. That would be survival of the fittest, which is part of the evolution-theory.

Besides that, not all mutations in a living being are immediatly passed on to the next generation. (And that's a good thing)

The decline of frogs is the result of a negative combination of man-made factors not the result random natural mutations. So leave my frogs out of this. They're not the right example for what you're trying to say.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Drgnslyer
...Food for thought...

My dog watches TV sometimes.

The spiritual aspect of other species has been questioned even among hominids. There is debate as to whether neanderthalensis demonstrated any abstrct spiritual conceptualization as demonstrated by the cave painting, idols, etc of early homosapiens.

On the topic of "defect accummulation" I see no empirical evidence that suggests a rate of accumulation within any species population that is discordant with ToE. Certainly, it is possible that such a senario could occur over *some* period of time, in *some* particular species, and since the majority of species that have existed are extinct, it is clear that species success is not guaranteed. Certainly there must be some equillibrium between a species mutation rate, birth rate, viability and infant (pre-reproductive) mortality, and external adatation requirements. The fact that humans have become much more successful, for example, in terms of population, defies the idea that they are becoming genetically weaker and therefore less viable. In fact adaptations have allowed previously non-viable genetic configurations to survive(me). The same is true of other (currently) prolific species as well.

What is "defective" is also subjective with the primary example of the sickle cell condition increasing resistance to malaria.

Also the issue of "inbreeding" always being a bad thing is not neccessarily true except in extremely small populations. A recent study found that certain populations in small villages in Europe survived the outbreaks of the plague at extrodinarily high rates due to a closely shared genetic pool in which most everyone had the (adaptive) genetic resistence to the disease.

[Nurvingiel]

I respect you a lot RÃ*an, but it seems that you heartily do not wish to accept Evolutionism as a valid theory. Frogs are the exception to the rule, as Eärniel correctly pointed out. I just gave it as an example of a mutation, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove a theory, and the example does not prove or disprove any theory.

Creationism appears to be a simpler theory. (Simplicity isn't positive or negative necessarily.) Anytime there is possibly a weak point in the theory, Creationists can just say that God intended it that way. Evolutionists don't have that luxurey, but it's still a valid theory.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lizra
My sister in law recently sent me one of those STUPID bogus "bible science" books.... "Creation, Remarkable Evidence of God's Design" by Grant R Jeffrey. I asked for a subscription to Discover Magazine for my birthday, and I get this heinous drivel! After I symbolically puked, I threw it in the trash. She signed the inside "Science proves faith!!!!" Boy.....wait till she askes me how I liked it. You think she's gonna get an earful?

You should just send a reciprical gift of a subscription to Scientific American to her. With a little note saying "Hope this helps to balance out your perspective ". Better yet send it to her kids! And watch the feathers fly.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Also the issue of "inbreeding" always being a bad thing is not neccessarily true except in extremely small populations. A recent study found that certain populations in small villages in Europe survived the outbreaks of the plague at extrodinarily high rates due to a closely shared genetic pool in which most everyone had the (adaptive) genetic resistence to the disease.

That's one of the things I was trying to post from the journals, but couldn't. Do you have a source?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
That's one of the things I was trying to post from the journals, but couldn't. Do you have a source?

I think national geographic has a documentary on it. I remember seeing part of it. Can't remember the correct title though.