Creation

[Wedjat]

Trying this again...

I think we see a lot of debates about evolution in here, but not many threads scrutinizing creation in the same way.

I'd like to try something here. This thread is going to be a one on one, which means the first creationist (using the standard definition, if you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry about it) who pops in here to state their case will be the one that I talk to. Everyone else can talk in non-participant commentaries, I don't want this thread getting cluttered.

Here is the conversation. You as the creationist state a case for creationism and/or intelligent design, I will argue against it. Both of us will stay away from talking about evolution as much as possible. For the purposes of this conversation, if your argument for creation is a criticism of evolution, it will not be considered valid, likewise if my argument against creation is an argument for evolution, it will not be considered valid. I want to keep evolution out of this as much as possible. I don't know how successful this will be, but I just want to try something new.
For the record, while it certainly isn't prohibited, I will not be very receptive to evidence given from holy texts, please keep that in mind.

So again, if you are not a creationist or come in after one has already posted, kindly defer to non-participent commentaries, otherwise fire away, I'm listening.

 

[Fire for God]

[FONT=&quot]Mr Atheist: Hi. Is there proof for creationism at all?
Mr Creationist: Nah. There isn’t.
Mr Atheist: So why do you believe in it.
Mr Creationist: Occam’s razor. I believe in God. Without adding any new assumptions, I immediately believe that creationism is true.
Mr Atheist: Doesn’t work for me.
Mr Creationist: Of course. You don’t believe in God.[/FONT]

 

[Naraoia]

Your point being...?

 

[USincognito]

[FONT=&quot]Mr Atheist: Hi. Is there proof for creationism at all?
Mr Creationist: Nah. There isn’t.
Mr Atheist: So why do you believe in it.
Mr Creationist: Occam’s razor. I believe in God. Without adding any new assumptions, I immediately believe that creationism is true.
Mr Atheist: Doesn’t work for me.
Mr Creationist: Of course. You don’t believe in God.[/FONT]

How does the conversation in your head go when Mr. Strawman meets a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Fire for God]

Mr. Strawman: *Suck*
Mr. Theistic Evolutionist: Stop that, it hurts.
Mr. Strawman: So does sitting on the fence.

@ Naraoia: If you were convinced by the evidence of creationism, will you come to God?

 

[pgp_protector]

Mr. Strawman: *Suck*
Mr. Theistic Evolutionist: Stop that, it hurts.
Mr. Strawman: So does sitting on the fence.

@ Naraoia: If you were convinced by the evidence of creationism, will you come to God?

If the choice was between creationism & Atheism, I'd choose Atheism.

 

[Naraoia]

Mr. Strawman: *Suck*
Mr. Theistic Evolutionist: Stop that, it hurts.
Mr. Strawman: So does sitting on the fence.

@ Naraoia: If you were convinced by the evidence of creationism, will you come to God?

If I were convinced by the evidence, I would have no choice as a scientist but to accept that.

Fat chance of that, based on the "evidence" I've seen in the past 2+ years...

 

[Fire for God]

@protector

Seems like you really have a low opinion of creationism.

@ Naraoia

What's the best evidence of creationism you've seen so far (despite the fact that you believe it is horrible on an absolute scale)?

 

[Naraoia]

@ Naraoia

What's the best evidence of creationism you've seen so far (despite the fact that you believe it is horrible on an absolute scale)?

Hah, that's a good question. First, you rarely see evidence for creationism. Most of the time, it's (or it's touted as) evidence against evolution, or an old earth, or whatever. Evidence against something is not necessarily evidence for an alternative.

Second, I can't remember a single argument off hand that was based on evidence. Gross misrepresentations of facts (I just came across a brilliant example from AiG in another thread), gross strawmen of all sorts of scientific ideas - those are common, but evidence is thin on the ground.

OK, after I thought about it a bit, I could remember one thing that puzzled me when I first read about it. I think my best evidence award goes to adaptive mutations - if they existed in the form the ISCID article suggests, they would be pretty hard to reconcile with our picture of how DNA and evolution works.

(Unfortunately, there's a whole herd of more conventional explanations for these initially strange observations, as I've just learned from a lengthy review of adaptive mutation.)

 

[Fire for God]

One thing I admire of some atheists and evolutionists is their mind. Sharp, incisive, full of knowledge.

I admit, I'm not a scientist, nor do I gravitate towards the sciences (most of what I know is in a very layman sort of way).

I'm sorry that I do not have the time, energy (and possibly capability) to go through the links you have given me, although I would appreciate it much if you explain it to me in simple terms.

From what I've heard of in other debates, I would tend to agree with you that most creationist tactics would be to argue against evolution (and then use holy texts to establish the alternative, that is creationism).

I'd like to ask another question: what kind of evidence (can be contrary to fact, I'd just like to get an idea from a biologist's pov) is necessary to point towards creationism?

 

[Naraoia]

One thing I admire of some atheists and evolutionists is their mind. Sharp, incisive, full of knowledge.

I'm sorry that I do not have the time, energy (and possibly capability) to go through the links you have given me, although I would appreciate it much if you explain it to me in simple terms.

The review is long and quite technical, and I didn't read it in detail either. I can sympathise . I'll admit that that's pretty much all I have read about adaptive mutations, so I might end up garbling the whole story...

The "modern" idea of adaptive mutations was based on an experiment in which bacteria whose ability to digest lactose was compromised (but not completely removed) by a simple mutation were forced to live in a culture which basically contained no other nutrient but lactose. The original bacteria were not supposed to divide under those conditions, but many mutants that could digest lactose appeared nonetheless - many more than could be explained by the small amount of cell division that did happen (most mutations happen during DNA replication).

(1) One possible explanation is that under a selective pressure, non-dividing bacteria could produce mutations that specifically improved the ability under pressure. That would be a tough nut to explain without intelligent intervention, because the effect of mutations is so context-dependent that you can't really make "programmable" rules that the cell's machinery could use to induce only the right mutations.

However, there are possible explanations that don't require any specificity.

(2) Stressed bacteria could simply start mutating more in general - e.g. by switching off DNA repair -, so there would also be more mutations that are adaptive. (And also more mutations that are not)

(3) Or they could produce more mutations only in certain regions of the genome - one of which happens to be the plasmid that contains the relevant gene. In both of these models, only the right mutations would survive in the long term, giving the appearance of specificity.

(4) Or, and this is the review authors' favourite explanation, some cells in the initial population accidentally contained more copies of the deficient genes, so they could start dividing, if slowly. The more gene copies, the better they could use lactose. So there would be a higher chance of the right mutations for two reasons: the cells could divide faster, and there would be more copies of the gene in which mutations could occur. In the end, mutants with a fully functional copy of the relevant gene would take over.

(There is little conclusive evidence regarding the true mechanism(s) underlying adaptive mutations in particular examples. The point is that there are at least three that don't require mysteriously specific mutations.)

I'd like to ask another question: what kind of evidence (can be contrary to fact, I'd just like to get an idea from a biologist's pov) is necessary to point towards creationism?

I think the biggest single clue would be if there were no tree of life. If organisms could be grouped in many equally sensible ways, there would be no reason to conclude common descent. Such a pattern - or lack of pattern - is more like something an intelligent entity with freedom to mix and match traits could create.

A fossil record that similarly lacked patterns - e.g. the haphazard appearance of dolphins wherever there were fish, regardless of time period, geography or the distribution of dolphin-like animals, without transitional forms of any kind, is conceptually similar.

But that's still (sort of) negative evidence. The best way for creationism to prove true would be if the lack of phylogenetic pattern existed AND we occasionally observed acts of divine creation.

 

[Naraoia]

oops, double post

 

[Naraoia]

oops... TRIPLE post :o

 

[Fire for God]

Haha hey Naraoia.

Dunno if you'll still come here but I hope you do. I'm aware this is a little late but I was busy the past week. School and stuff.

Thanks for the explanation, I feel a little smarter now haha

I liked the explanations about adaptive mutation, and the 3 explanations listed do seem to negate the necessity for divine intervention, but have you thought of the complexity of the cell and how it is extremely difficult for a cell, that complex, to come about via abiogenesis?

I also understand the argument about a strong visible pattern being seen that may point towards a common descent. However, I actually tend to think that the strong visible pattern may point towards an intelligent creator. Imagine you were tasked to create a functional, diverse, and interdependent world on a single planet that has characteristics that do not deviate too much (like relatively stable temperatures, humidity, water levels, with understandable deviation in different parts of the world)- chances are that you will create organisms that do not differ too greatly from each other on a whole. Nonetheless when we zoom in, we'll realize that the creatures you created probably exhibit differences from each other (e.g. the birds and the bees have vastly different physical structures ), and these differences can be grouped into branches (e.g. birds, reptiles, insects) and within these branches we can further subdivide them. This is mainly because 1) you enjoy variance, 2) there is a need for diversity due to different environmental conditions, and 3) there is a high level of interdependency that, with its whole host of complexities (food chain especially), will require deviations to compete with each other. The similarities between the branches, at the same time, could point more towards the need do be similar to survive than common descent (if something is too radically different it cannot adapt to the environment...I think ). Sorry I don't know if this is sounding very brainless (I realized I'm so poor at science haha) because it's just some airy theoretical offshoot but I hope you consider this point and rebut it or tell me if you can make something of it (because it's quite flimsily put together...)

About occasionally observed acts of creation, I think it can actually be seen in some undocumented cases of healing. I know this sounds off-on-a-tangent but if you look for testimonies, you'll find them. Blind can see, those with debilitating back disease healed completely, deformed body parts completely replaced with normal ones. It sounds quite airy-fairy and all because testimonies can be and are fabricated in some (or many well-known cases) but if you look hard, and find a minister who practices healing (Dr. Henry Wright, or Ian Andrews for instance) I think you might find occasional acts of creation in terms of created body parts.

Haha I don't know. I mean I'm suggesting for you to go check out those healing conferences and stuff, and maybe see something that you haven't (or have you already?) seen before. Still of course, I don't think there will be the creation of a new species before our very eyes anytime soon or ever So yea, maybe creationists can never convince evolutionists in a very convincing way. Sigh

Hope to see you soon Naraoia, triple poster

 

[Naraoia]

Haha hey Naraoia.

Dunno if you'll still come here but I hope you do. I'm aware this is a little late but I was busy the past week. School and stuff.

Don't worry, I've also been away. Granny-visiting, no internet.

Thanks for the explanation, I feel a little smarter now haha

Haha, good for you. I still feel a bit un-smart about that review myself

I liked the explanations about adaptive mutation, and the 3 explanations listed do seem to negate the necessity for divine intervention, but have you thought of the complexity of the cell and how it is extremely difficult for a cell, that complex, to come about via abiogenesis?

I have, and I think that argument works less and less as we learn more about things like ribozymes, protocells etc. (Do check out cdk007's "origin" videos on YouTube. The guy is pretty good at explaining cutting-edge research.)

I think an important thing to remember is that once you have a basic cell, one that can sustain a relatively large and stable genome (i.e. has DNA) and synthesise proteins, complexity can increase relatively simply by adding more of the same (more genes, more proteins - duplicate, tweak, rinse, repeat). There are also forces like endosymbiosis, which can marry the complexity of two complete organisms.

I also understand the argument about a strong visible pattern being seen that may point towards a common descent. However, I actually tend to think that the strong visible pattern may point towards an intelligent creator. Imagine you were tasked to create a functional, diverse, and interdependent world on a single planet that has characteristics that do not deviate too much (like relatively stable temperatures, humidity, water levels, with understandable deviation in different parts of the world)- chances are that you will create organisms that do not differ too greatly from each other on a whole. Nonetheless when we zoom in, we'll realize that the creatures you created probably exhibit differences from each other (e.g. the birds and the bees have vastly different physical structures ), and these differences can be grouped into branches (e.g. birds, reptiles, insects) and within these branches we can further subdivide them. This is mainly because 1) you enjoy variance, 2) there is a need for diversity due to different environmental conditions, and 3) there is a high level of interdependency that, with its whole host of complexities (food chain especially), will require deviations to compete with each other. The similarities between the branches, at the same time, could point more towards the need do be similar to survive than common descent (if something is too radically different it cannot adapt to the environment...I think ).

Of course, that's completely possible. But if I were a designer indulging my creativity on planet earth, would I respect "lineage" boundaries, or would I re-use my clever solutions? Why wouldn't I give whales gills, when some of them spend more time deep-diving than not? I would expect a lot more "cross-fertilisation" of ideas from different lineages if life were designed. And a lot fewer "out of place" creatures like air-breathing mammals in the ocean.

That, of course, is assuming that the designer's primary concern is functionality, which may not be a reasonable assumption (designer could be an artist ). But if we remove it, we are in a situation where any data could be explained by a designer. That doesn't necessarily make the design hypothesis false, but then we have no way of deciding whether it's correct.

Which leaves us with Occam's razor: why invoke another entity when it doesn't add anything to the already good explanation we have?

Sorry I don't know if this is sounding very brainless (I realized I'm so poor at science haha) because it's just some airy theoretical offshoot but I hope you consider this point and rebut it or tell me if you can make something of it (because it's quite flimsily put together...)

It doesn't sound brainless at all. You're not the first one to think of that, but that doesn't make it brainless.

About occasionally observed acts of creation, I think it can actually be seen in some undocumented cases of healing. I know this sounds off-on-a-tangent but if you look for testimonies, you'll find them. Blind can see, those with debilitating back disease healed completely, deformed body parts completely replaced with normal ones. It sounds quite airy-fairy and all because testimonies can be and are fabricated in some (or many well-known cases) but if you look hard, and find a minister who practices healing (Dr. Henry Wright, or Ian Andrews for instance) I think you might find occasional acts of creation in terms of created body parts.

Created body parts? Now, that would be more than interesting if a well-documented case existed. Documented by sceptical observers, if possible.

That's the problem with miracles, though: they don't come on demand, or they wouldn't be called miracles. So it's incredibly difficult to subject them to scientific investigation, and you're left with anecdotes.

Haha I don't know. I mean I'm suggesting for you to go check out those healing conferences and stuff, and maybe see something that you haven't (or have you already?) seen before. Still of course, I don't think there will be the creation of a new species before our very eyes anytime soon or ever So yea, maybe creationists can never convince evolutionists in a very convincing way. Sigh

Such a pity

Hope to see you soon Naraoia, triple poster

If only CF didn't have this tendency to pretend to die but still put up my posts...

 

[Maxwell511]

For individual species a fitness landscape may be constructed and which natural selection will drive the species towards a local peak. The construct of this landscape is due to environment and the interactions of the species with other species.

The fitness of a species (or its position on the fitness landscape) is dependent on its genes. If the species has N genes we can map this genotype to a position on the fitness landscape. The dependence of the fitness on the N genes is non-linear as it depends on K regulatory genes.

The contribution of the other species within the environment can be modelled as a contribution C of the genotype of the other species to the shape of the fitness landscape. This is the NK model.

The dynamics of the model or the evolution of a system are dependent on the relative value of K and C. If C is smaller than K the system evolves to a "solid" state rendering any further evolution impossible. If C is greater than K than the system evolves into a "gaseous" state which produces no interesting behaviour.

If C is fine tuned to K the system produces scale variant responses to perturbations. Or what is commonly called in evolutionary biology "Punctuated Equilibrium".

So as evidence of ID I present the entire history of life on this planet and need for fine tuning in the NK model to explain its patterns. Now abandon your atheistic evolutionist's ways and embrace the noodly appendage of the FSM.

 

[Zaius137]

No wonder you want to keep Evolution out of it.

 

[Zaius137]

A different point of view….

I might remind you that adaptation is a necessity of life, not disputed in the ID line of thought. There was one outstanding scientist who proposed that the forces of natural selection only reinforced the species boundary. I remind you also to Blyth’s credit no macro speciation event has ever been observed.

Loren Eiseley, Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, spent decades tracing the origins of the ideas attributed to Darwin. In a 1979 book, he claimed that

“the leading tenets of Darwin’s work “the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection” are all fully expressed in Blyth’s paper of 1835. He also cites a number of rare words, similarities of phrasing, and the use of similar examples, which he regards as evidence of Darwin’s debt to Blyth.

If Blyth were alive today would he revel in the findings of modern Genetics? Can he be the founding scientific advocate for Intelligent Design? Given the limitations of the time Blyth’s conclusions seem more relevant to modern discoveries.

Who was greater Blyth or Darwin?

 

[Astridhere]

A different point of view….

I might remind you that adaptation is a necessity of life, not disputed in the ID line of thought. There was one outstanding scientist who proposed that the forces of natural selection only reinforced the species boundary. I remind you also to Blyth’s credit no macro speciation event has ever been observed.

Loren Eiseley, Professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, spent decades tracing the origins of the ideas attributed to Darwin. In a 1979 book, he claimed that

“the leading tenets of Darwin’s work “the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection” are all fully expressed in Blyth’s paper of 1835. He also cites a number of rare words, similarities of phrasing, and the use of similar examples, which he regards as evidence of Darwin’s debt to Blyth.

If Blyth were alive today would he revel in the findings of modern Genetics? Can he be the founding scientific advocate for Intelligent Design? Given the limitations of the time Blyth’s conclusions seem more relevant to modern discoveries.

Who was greater Blyth or Darwin?

I do not know who was greater. I do know Darwins ideas were simplistic, inluding his ideas on panspermia.

Epigenetics is changing the face of biology and is yet another system assumed to have evolved, without any evidence of same.

Epigenetic features may play a role in short-term adaptation of species by allowing for reversible phenotype variability. The modification of epigenetic features associated with a region of DNA allows organisms, on a multigenerational time scale, to switch between phenotypes that express and repress that particular gene. When the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible.

Cell - Timescales of Genetic and Epigenetic Inheritance
Epigenetics and Inheritance

Yes, macroevolution has not been observed. However, there appears to now be evidence that variation can occur by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence. This explains how a kind can alter phenotype while remaining the same kind.


"The discovery of this process has serious implications for creation biology, given the fact that major phenotypic changes can occur without the Darwinian process of genetic mutation and natural selection."
Epigenetic inheritance - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

So with both HGT and epigenetic inheritance, Mendellian, vertical inheritance is not the only means to adaptation. Rather this research demonstrates how kinds can vary and adapt without any need for change or mutations in the undlerlying DNA.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes, macroevolution has not been observed.

Define "macroevolution".

However, there appears to now be evidence that variation can occur by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence. This explains how a kind can alter phenotype while remaining the same kind.

Define "kind".

"The discovery of this process has serious implications for creation biology, given the fact that major phenotypic changes can occur without the Darwinian process of genetic mutation and natural selection."

Define "major".

BTW, genetic mutation isn't really Darwinian, seeing as Darwin knew nothing about genes. In fact, if you go read Origin, you'll find that his view of inheritance had huge "Lamarckian" elements.

So with both HGT and epigenetic inheritance, Mendellian, vertical inheritance is not the only means to adaptation.

Who said it was?

Rather this research demonstrates how kinds can vary and adapt without any need for change or mutations in the undlerlying DNA.

Which doesn't change the fact that sequences do differ within "kinds", and sometimes, this can be directly related to adaptation. (The high-affinity haemoglobin of bar-headed geese springs to mind.)