• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Creation Versus Evolution

A

Anonymous

Guest
I was taught the 'accepted' theory of evolution as a kid and carried on believing it through my twenties and pitied people who were so 'close-minded' as to believe in creationism (I was actually chastised by a religious sister when she heard me explaining the Big Bang theory about the creation of the universe to my small son). However. I've just started dipping into this subject and the more I read the more cheated I feel. I thought evolution was an undisputed fact. It clearly isn't.

Have ANY intermediate species been found in the paleontological record?

And is it true that gene mutation (rather than design by cross-breeding for desired effects) is near-enough ALWAYS damaging to the cell rather than accidentally beneficial enough times to support the evolutionary theory?

I'm new to this subject so forgive me for sounding ignorant but I feel like I now need everyone's else's advice - books to read, papers to look up, etc. Cheers.;)
 
I thought evolution was an undisputed fact. It clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

I think evolution is an undisputed fact, what is in dispute is the question of whether it accounts for the full variety of life.

Personally I find it difficult to get to too excited about a theory where vast swathes of assumptions are made on the existence of a single vertebra, or a couple of lizard ribs. I'm not doubting that almost every fossil found supports the theory of evolution as the dominant force in shaping life, but to say this paltry collection of bones actually proves anything suggests that evolutionary theory demands a significantly lower level of proof than any other human discipline.
 
Dawin never said 'This is it. Period.' he acnowledged the short comings of his theory. It seems those over zealous scientists who are hell bent on disproving anything they cannot explain have failed to notice this fact.

What Darwin said (and others such as Dawkins support) is that his theory of evolution is possibly part of something much, much greater that we have not yet succeeded in understanding.
 
Creation Vs. Evolution?? Well judging by some of the acts of humanity my bet is with secretion.
 
While evolutionary theory is still debated, the genuine debates are centered around various mechanisms, various models, etc.

Creationism is NOT a science. Period.

While many of the things stated by creationists may seem plausible at a glance, if you actually delve into the contentions creationists make, you'll find that they're based on:

A.) Flawed understanding or willful misconstrual of facts (the most common, AiG etc.)

Or

B.) Only make sense if the basis for your examination of the facts is that the bible is incontrovertibly real and is a literal, factual document.

An example of A: intermediate forms.

The creationist argument that tends to fool most people is a rehash of Zeno's paradox. Basically (to assign arbitrary values to explain the argument), you have 0 and 1 (two totally different yet related animals). Now, between these two distinct forms, you'd expect to see some transitional state. And indeed, transitional fossils have been found (See talk origins).

Let us say the transitional form is 0.5, now creationists demand a transitional form between 0 and 0.5, and 0.5 and 1. And you know, transitional forms ARE found. So now you have 0 to 0.25, and .75 to 1. Now creationists demand a transitional form between these.

Now creationists keep on demanding intermediate forms between each of these intermediate forms. Can you see where the problem arises? I'll keep going...

Creationists now want to see 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0. Now, in some cases, a progression such as this IS found. Whales, for example.

Do the creationists admit that, okay, we've found a transitional fossil? No. Now they demand 0.05 to 0.1, 0.15 to 0.2, etc. etc. ad. nauseum. What the creationist demands is a flat impossibility and logically breaks down. Why? Well, how many numbers are there between 0 and 0.1? Infinite. Zeno's paradox. They can keep on demanding transitionals indefinitely, while there is, quite obvious, not an indefinite supply of real transitionals that once existed. So... to recap:

-only bones are preserved
-preservation of bones is very, very rare
-to appease creationists we'd have to have a defined progression including infinitessimally small changes between one form and another, which would require a massively huge progression, which will NEVER be found because A.) it never existed (evolution does not work in infinitessimally small variations), or b.) because invariably every single small step the creationists demand weren't preserved, or won't ever be found, or never existed and c.) creationists can always demand some form of transitional between transitional, and they can play that game until the earth is devoured by the sun forever solving the debate.

I hope the above made sense, heh.

B.) Only make sense if the basis for your examination of the facts is that the bible is incontrovertibly real and is a literal, factual document.

Microevolution versus macroevolution. This is an entirely arbitrary designation, and one that rests its entire bases in the bible.

Microevolution is small changes, like species to sub-species. Macro evolution is changes between "kinds", i.e. dinosaurs to birds.

But, wait, wouldn't the result of many, many steps of "microevolution" lead to "macroevolution"? Well, yes, yes it would.

Unless you believe the Earth is only 6 000 years old, or some magical force prevents "microevolution" from accruing into "macroevolution". It is, in essence, circular logic.

The bible is true, so this must also be true. This is true, so the bible is true. So on and so forth. There are other claims they make in regards to micro versus macro, but that's all answered at talk origins.

I hope I haven't muddied the waters, but even a layman (me), can, with some research, determine that creationism is not science, nor based in science fact. That most of the dogma is based on misconceptions or willful misinterpretations, or absolute belief in the bible's literal truth, so nothing else is possible.
 
creationist geology

One type of argument that a creationist would retort back with is that God, or the Creator, created the Earth already old. Created the glaciers ready with frozen pockets of fresh water for future need, created igneous and granite producing volcanoes because He knew without them the sea would eventually overcome the land, created sedimentary rocks underneath our current or present day layer because sedimentary rock would be the best bedrock for more sedimentary rock that He knew was to be formed in the future. During that creation the strata in the lower levels of the earth were tempered to support the growth of man, this gave them an ancient might which is now detectable with RCD.
The concept might be compared to a baby being born with a strain of DNA that is traceable to ancient times when in actuality the baby is still just a new born baby.

If one believes that God had or has the ability to create a spark that started the laws of physics and the whole universe then why couldn't He fool the comparatively dust spec size scientist?


At least that’s what they might say, not me I got my nose in my beer when that subject comes up, pass the nuts:)
 
Why is it creation V's evolution? As if all creationism has to do to be accepted as fact is disprove natural selection works.

When was it decided we were down to the last two?

I don't remember the qualifiers.

The cleverist trick theists have have pulled is giving the impression its evolution or them.

Instead of arguing with them they should be ignored on the grounds that, when the current theories fail, what they propose is unlikely to explain any evidence that needs explaining.
 
Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible

By E&P Staff

Published: March 08, 2006 10:15 AM ET

NEW YORK A Gallup report released today reveals that more than half of all Americans, rejecting evolution theory and scientific evidence, agree with the statement, "God created man exactly how Bible describes it."

Another 31% says that man did evolve, but "God guided." Only 12% back evolution and say "God had no part."

Gallup summarized it this way: "Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of evolution best explains where life came from." They are "not so quick to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The report was written by the director of the The Gallup Poll, Frank Newport.

Breaking down the numbers, Gallup finds that Republican backing for what it calls "God created human beings in present form" stands at 57% with Democrats at 44%.

Support for this Bible view rises steadily with age: from 43% for those 18 to 29, to 59% for those 65 and older. It declines steadily with education, dropping from 58% for those with high school degrees to a still-substantial 25% with postgraduate degrees.

Newport wraps it up: "Several characteristics correlate with belief in the biblical explanation for the origin of humans. Those with lower levels of education, those who attend church regularly, those who are 65 and older, and those who identify with the Republican Party are more likely to believe that God created humans 'as is,' than are those who do not share these characteristics."

Gallup has asked this question, in different forms, going back to 1982, but has consistently shown support at 45% or higher for the notion that "God created man in present form."

The most recent poll, last September, posed the question this way: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings." This produced the 53% who chose "God created man exactly how Bible describes it," the 31% who said man did evolve but "God guided," and the 12% who backed evolution with God playing "no part."
Click to expand...

www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/a ... 1002154704
 
Evolution Of Irreducible Complexity Explained

General Science : April 12, 2006


Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.

The research was led by Joe Thornton, assistant professor of biology at the University of Oregon's Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and was published in the April 7 issue of Science.

How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems – those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.

"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism," said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."

The scientists used state-of-the-art statistical and molecular methods to unravel the evolution of an elegant example of molecular complexity – the specific partnership of the hormone aldosterone, which regulates behavior and kidney function, along with the receptor protein that allows the body's cells to respond to the hormone. They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene – which existed more than 450 million years ago, before the first animals with bones appeared on Earth – and characterized its molecular functions. The experiments showed that the receptor had the capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before the hormone actually evolved.

Thornton's group then showed that the ancestral receptor also responded to a far more ancient hormone with a similar structure; this made it "preadapated" to be recruited into a new functional partnership when aldosterone later evolved. By recapitulating the evolution of the receptor's DNA sequence, the scientists showed that only two mutations were required to evolve the receptor's present-day functions in humans.

"The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution," Thornton said. "So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works. By reaching back to the ancestral forms of genes, we were able to show just how this crucial hormone-receptor pair evolved."

The study's other researchers include Jamie T. Bridgham, postdoctorate research associate in evolutionary biology and Sean M. Carroll, graduate research fellow in biology. The work was funded by National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health grants and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship recently awarded to Thornton.

---------
Copyright 2006 by Space Daily, Distributed United Press International
Click to expand...

www.physorg.com/news64046019.html
 
I have a hard time buying that 50% of Americans agree with the Bible's view of creationism. Half the people I know aren't even Christians, and I'm from the south, a bug republican and Christian area. The problem with statistics and polls is that you can really shape them however you want, and you can get the desired results that you want by simply asking a question in a certain way. And it's pretty easy to tell, especially when the news article itself seems to have a bias. And that goes for both conservative and liberal news.

Anyhow, you can be a Christian and believe in evolution. You can also be a Christian and believe that God did create humans and yet the earth is actually millions of years old. It's called the Gap Theory. I'm a Christian, but I don't necessarily believe that there was a litteral apple in a litteral garden and they were all scared of being naked after they ate it. I think it's a story to illustrate something that happened to us that made us who we are. So yes, some Christians will claim that the earth is 6,000 years old, but jeez, not everyone believes it. If there's one thing that's annoying is people always stereotyping Christians and our beliefs without realizing that we all have different views too. Anyhow, I do personally find macro evolution to be quite a weak argument, but completely agree with micro evolution, but I also do believe the earth is millions of years old and all of that jizz. So yeah, my two cents.
 
I am certainly on the Evolution side and as far as educating the young goes I feel it is safe to tell them that this is what "probably" happened just as you would with any accepted theoritical science such as the existance of Dark Matter. Call it "Theoretical Biology" at the very least.

As for teaching children religion. I feel this is wrong. Children should be encouraged to make their own judgements and should have access to religious reading material and support of all faiths but only if they request it. Let them find their own path rather than try to force them to be sheep (which was the impression I got at school).
 
Chant~ said:
"I've just started dipping into this subject and the more I read the more cheated I feel. I thought evolution was an undisputed fact. It clearly isn't."
Click to expand...

I think this is the reason most Forteans seem to be Evolutionists by default. We're sort of at least half-hoping that something better eventually comes along.

Evolution has become an ersatz religion where to be a full member, let alone a priest, you have to swear eternal allegience to "strict Darwinisrt evolution."

Guess what, I don't believe in "strict Darwinist evolution" for the same reason I don't believe in "strict Edisonian electronics."

Science is SUPPOSED to PROGRESS over 150 years.
 
Top scientist gives up on creationists

James Randerson, science correspondent

Tuesday May 30, 2006

A leading British scientist said yesterday that he had given up trying to persuade creationists that Darwin's theory is correct after repeatedly being misrepresented and, he said, branded a liar.

Speaking at the Guardian Hay festival at Hay-on-Wye, the evolutionary biologist Steve Jones spoke of his frustrations when trying to debate with religious opponents.

"I don't engage with creationists directly," he said, saying that, when he had, they had frequently quoted him out of context or accused him of lying. "If somebody has decided to believe something - whatever the evidence - then there is nothing you can do about it."

The University College London professor spoke to the provocative title, Why Creationism is Wrong and Evolution is Right. He pointed out that acceptance of Darwin's theory on a global scale was a "minority belief". According to polls, 100 million Americans believe in creationism.

His talk laid out some of the evidence for evolution, such as that of changes in the HIV virus after infecting people. He also hinted at a puzzle thrown up by the human genome project. Far from the hundreds of thousands of genes many geneticists expected, there seem to be around 30,000.

Another revelation was the notion that the chimpanzee genome project has shown that women are closer to chimps then men. Prof Jones explained that is because the X chromosome has changed less than the Y chromosome since we split from a common ancestor with chimps. Women have two X chromosomes compared with XY in men.

The most important difference between evolutionists and creationists, Prof Jones concluded, is that scientists are always prepared to say, "I don't know".

"If there weren't any unknown parts of evolution, bits we don't understand, it wouldn't be a science," he said, "That's one thing that believers never say, because it's all written down in a big book."

In 1997, Prof Jones was awarded the Royal Society's Michael Faraday prize, the UK's foremost award for communicating science to the public.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Click to expand...
 
OldTimeRadio said:
Chant~ said:
"I've just started dipping into this subject and the more I read the more cheated I feel. I thought evolution was an undisputed fact. It clearly isn't."
Click to expand...

I think this is the reason most Forteans seem to be Evolutionists by default. We're sort of at least half-hoping that something better eventually comes along.

Evolution has become an ersatz religion where to be a full member, let alone a priest, you have to swear eternal allegience to "strict Darwinisrt evolution."

Guess what, I don't believe in "strict Darwinist evolution" for the same reason I don't believe in "strict Edisonian electronics."

Science is SUPPOSED to PROGRESS over 150 years.
Click to expand...


Thing is, it is called the theory of evolution - so why would it be fact?
 
Thing is, it is called the theory of evolution - so why would it be fact?
Click to expand...

I think you should read the article in this months FT it will explain quite a bit more about why its called the theory of evolution. To be honest i sick of people saying it is a theory, so its not fact. I'm not looking for an argument here, but sciences view of a theory and the general view of a theory are two very differnt things. Before you have a go at me Cold read the article the relevent part of the piece is on pg 48.
 
"[T]he evolutionary biologist Steve Jones....University College London professor....pointed out that acceptance of Darwin's theory on a global scale was a 'minority belief'. According to polls, 100 million Americans believe in creationism."
Click to expand...

And just think, forty years ago one regularly heard the prediction that by the year 2000 Creationists would be as scarce as Flat Earthers.
 
OldTimeRadio said:
"[T]he evolutionary biologist Steve Jones....University College London professor....pointed out that acceptance of Darwin's theory on a global scale was a 'minority belief'. According to polls, 100 million Americans believe in creationism."
Click to expand...

And just think, forty years ago one regularly heard the prediction that by the year 2000 Creationists would be as scarce as Flat Earthers.
Click to expand...


Religion and belief are long lasting - I wonder what the longest lasting religion in history was? Not what is the oldest, but the longest lasting. How many thousands of years did it last?

I found this;

The Ottoman Empire was the one of the largest and longest lasting Empires in history.

It was an empire inspired and sustained by Islam, and Islamic institutions.

It replaced the Byzantine Empire as the major power in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Ottoman Empire reached its height under Suleiman the Magnificent (reigned 1520-66), when it expanded to cover the Balkans and Hungary, and reached the gates of Vienna.

The Empire began to decline after being defeated at the Battle of Lepanto (1571) and losing almost its entire navy. It declined further during the next centuries, and was effectively finished off by the First World War and the Balkan Wars.

One legacy of the Islamic Ottoman Empire is the robust secularism of modern Turkey.

At its peak it included:

* Turkey
* Egypt
* Greece
* Bulgaria
* Romania

* Macedonia
* Hungary
* Palestine
* Jordan
* Lebanon
* Syria
* Parts of Arabia
* Much of the coastal strip of North Africa
Click to expand...


BBC.co.uk article


If this is true then Islam may be one of the longest lasting religions by proxy.

Were there any others longer lasting?

Will creationism or intelligent design last for thousands of years more?
 
feen5 said:
Thing is, it is called the theory of evolution - so why would it be fact?
Click to expand...

I think you should read the article in this months FT it will explain quite a bit more about why its called the theory of evolution. To be honest i sick of people saying it is a theory, so its not fact. I'm not looking for an argument here, but sciences view of a theory and the general view of a theory are two very differnt things. Before you have a go at me Cold read the article the relevent part of the piece is on pg 48.
Click to expand...


I just think of the definition of theory.

I must admit though, the only stumbling block evolution has had is, IMO, how to explain consciousness - however I think I know how to explain that.

Consciousness (indeed life) may be matter combined with energy and stirred around in a big multi-dimensional bowl of chaos.

Before any of youse object - I have not said what matter and what energy, and some of this energy may not have yet been labelled by science yet (no not dark energy, ho hum).
 
I recon any religion that is self perpetuating will last. Meaning that if it tells you not believing will get you into serious trouble and that even doubting the religion is not believing then its like an old computer program [30 if 30 goto 10;etc], you have absolutely no choice.

The only way out is to take the plunge and a) educate yourself, b) grow a spine and c) get comfortable with the idea that no religious threats will have any effect on you.

Its harder than getting out of a cult.
But it does work so bloody well with most humans.
 
coldelephant said:
If this is true then Islam may be one of the longest lasting religions by proxy.

Were there any others longer lasting?
Click to expand...
Er, no, Islam is the youngest of the major world religions.

Judaism, Christianity, Bhuddism, Hinduism (and probably several others) are older by hundreds if not thousands of years.
 
rynner said:
coldelephant said:
If this is true then Islam may be one of the longest lasting religions by proxy.

Were there any others longer lasting?
Click to expand...
Er, no, Islam is the youngest of the major world religions.

Judaism, Christianity, Bhuddism, Hinduism (and probably several others) are older by hundreds if not thousands of years.
Click to expand...


Just did a Google and Hinduism and Voodoo seem like the oldest - but then there is Sumarian (inc references to Gilgamesh).


Yet seeing as how Stone Age Britain lasted around 24,000 years, surely they had a religion of sorts to rival the age of Hinduism or Sumarianism or Voodoo?
 
Dingo667 said:
I recon any religion that is self perpetuating will last. Meaning that if it tells you not believing will get you into serious trouble and that even doubting the religion is not believing then its like an old computer program [30 if 30 goto 10;etc], you have absolutely no choice.
Click to expand...


Absolutely - worship me or go to hell or face my wrath.

Worship only me and nobody else or go to hell or face my wrath.

Believe in everything I say and not anything else or go to hell or face my wrath.

Be of my choosing, or go to hell or face my wrath.
 
I don't think Voodoo is actually 'that old'. The more ancient African ancestor worship etc was very localised (no pan african culture I'm aware of). The latter forms are probably 17th century.

However, the neolithic celts may very easily have had a europe wide religion (or at least an agreement within boundaries).
 
GadaffiDuck said:
I don't think Voodoo is actually 'that old'. The more ancient African ancestor worship etc was very localised (no pan african culture I'm aware of). The latter forms are probably 17th century.

However, the neolithic celts may very easily have had a europe wide religion (or at least an agreement within boundaries).
Click to expand...

I agree - I was told that the Celts came from Galicia in Spain.

Did they?

I found this;

In short, A Galiza is a beautiful country seeking recognition of its Celtic heritage. Its folklore is very similar to that of other Celtic nations. There is a belief in spirits who dwell underground and who interact with humans. Magic is accepted. There is a feeling of a close relationship with the natural world. There are numerous archaeological remains of a Celtic nature including dolmans and other ancient stone monuments. The dance and music of A Galiza shows a strong Celtic influence and the bagpipes are played. The climate is also very similar to that of the other Celtic lands
Click to expand...

Link to A Galiza article
 
GadaffiDuck said:
I don't think Voodoo is actually 'that old'. The more ancient African ancestor worship etc was very localised (no pan african culture I'm aware of). The latter forms are probably 17th century.
Click to expand...

True to a point, but as Santeria and Voodoo were slave invented facades over an older religion from West Africa (Yoruba peoples from Nigeria in the case of Santeria) it's a more pertinent question ask how old the original West African religion(s) were.
 
Indeed. Probably only about 1000 years max earlier - if I understand population densities of w.african regions and 'development' of culture etc.

Prior to that point, definetely ancestor worship and earlier still, probably Egyptian influences - but, as sub saharan africa never had a 'developed' empire (and thus records) speculation is derived from quite scant evidence. However, it seems reasonable to suggest belief in spirits, animal deities and so forth. But, it does not seem reasonable to speculate any high correlation with what we understand as voodoo.
 
old religion and creationism

The oldest religion recorded so far is the moon/mother goddess religion which was the religion of neolithic homo sapiens and also amazingly Neanderthal man. All religion still has its roots in that religion and as we have seen recently with the Da Vini code it can look like a conspiracy if you trace them all back because they all include a mother/female aspect that has been hidden/removed (i.e. the Moon. Although Judaism, Islam and the Chinese religions still rely heavily on the moon).

As for the original topic of discussion, has anyone here read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins? i think Professor Dawkins puts across some good points for evolution being a reality.

Evolution obviously takes millions of years before something solid can take hold but we can see it occuring around us. Just look at the example of the Peppered Moths in Industrial era London.
These moths were predominantly light grey, allowing them to blend into the paint and stone work of the buildings of this time, occassionally a few dark grey ones were born - a result of minor genetic mutation - that were quickly captured and eaten by predators.
Gradually soot from the factories covered these buildings and more and more dark grey moths became able to blend into their surroundings than the light grey ones, who now became food for predators.
So we see an organism which adapted to its environment - as the environment changed - not through choice but through random mutations.
 
The peppered moth story is more complicated that it first seems, and the simplistic version has recently been challenged:
However, Majerus also discovered that many of Kettlewell's experiments didn't really test the elements of the story as well as they should have. For example, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature. He also records how well comoflaged the moths seemed to be by visual inspection. This might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but since his work it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camouflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird. In addition, neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside.
Click to expand...
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top