Evolution vs. Creationism

[Robert the Pilegrim]

roughly speaking. The Therapsids (mammal like reptiles) are a rather interesting bunch. one can see the evolution of the mammalian ear jaw quite clearly from the fossils, and at one stage they even have a mammalian and reptillian jaw at the same time.

Jaw joint.

 

[Crystal_Dawn]

Is any aspect of evolution anything more than a theory? I don't place much faith in theories myself. I want proof. And I have my own personal proof that God exists and the Bible is truth...so I have to go with creationism.

 

[Tomk80]

Is any aspect of evolution anything more than a theory? I don't place much faith in theories myself. I want proof. And I have my own personal proof that God exists and the Bible is truth...so I have to go with creationism.

So do you believe bacteria make you ill? It is a theory you know. Atoms? A theory. How does gravity work? A theory.
Science doesn't do proofs, unless the science is mathematics. A theory is far more than a wild guess, it is a logically coherent explanation of a phenomenon. You might want to read up on what scientists actually mean when they are talking about theories.

 

[Crystal_Dawn]

And that's all well and good....but how many different theories are there pertaining to evolution, creation, etc...I'm not banking on it when I have all the personal proof I need. I don't claim to be some "expert" at science or the definitions contain therein...and I don't have the interest to become one. I also am not one to be highly concerned with what makes the world "tick"...I am more interested in serving God and introducing those that nedd Jesus to a life of salvation.

 

[Event Horizon]

And that's all well and good....but how many different theories are there pertaining to evolution, creation, etc.

One. It is evolution. There are no other rivaling scientific theories.

..I'm not banking on it when I have all the personal proof I need. I don't claim to be some "expert" at science or the definitions contain therein...and I don't have the interest to become one. I also am not one to be highly concerned with what makes the world "tick"...I am more interested in serving God and introducing those that nedd Jesus to a life of salvation.

That is fine.

 

[TheUndeadFish]

Is any aspect of evolution anything more than a theory? I don't place much faith in theories myself. I want proof.

As already mentioned, a theory in science and a theory in laymans terms are different things. Scientific theories are backed up by observations, experiments, and tests. A scientific theory is a reasonable and consistent explanation for some set of facts. And really, since we don't know everything about everything in the universe, that's the best you can get.

And I have my own personal proof that God exists and the Bible is truth...so I have to go with creationism.

But evolution is not opposed to the existence of God. No science can prove that God does not exist (and, at least for now, none can prove that he does exist).

Also note that it's not necessarily a God-or-evolution situation. There are people (quite a lot, from what I hear) that accept God, the Bible, and evolution.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Is any aspect of evolution anything more than a theory? I don't place much faith in theories myself. I want proof. And I have my own personal proof that God exists and the Bible is truth...so I have to go with creationism.

Do you believe the Sun revolves about the Earth?

Do you understand that just because something contains truth does not necessarily mean that the story used to convey that truth is factual?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

...I have all the personal proof I need. I don't claim to be some "expert" at science or the definitions contain therein...and I don't have the interest to become one. I also am not one to be highly concerned with what makes the world "tick"...I am more interested in serving God and introducing those that nedd Jesus to a life of salvation.

Fine, and as long as you don't go around claiming that the physical evidence supports a literal reading of Genesis chapters 1-11, I don't see any problem.

 

[Novaknight1]

How about dino+human footprints?

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

 

[caravelair]

Is any aspect of evolution anything more than a theory?

well, it's a fact that evolution occurs, because we observe it. it's a fact that new species come about through evolution, because we have observed that too. it's also a fact that species have greatly changed over the course of the earth's history, and it's also a fact that species' are related by common ancestry. the theory of evolution is what explains these facts.

 

[Event Horizon]

How about dino+human footprints?

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

LOL. It starts out with the Paluxy River. There is the red flag.

 

[william jay schroeder]

well, it's a fact that evolution occurs, because we observe it. it's a fact that new species come about through evolution, because we have observed that too. it's also a fact that species have greatly changed over the course of the earth's history, and it's also a fact that species' are related by common ancestry. the theory of evolution is what explains these facts.

first part sort of true 2, false we cannot observe evolution if it takes millions of years, cell duplication and or gene splitting, bacteris resistence are not evolution. 3 True 4 very false 5 false. you are very mislead. Its hard to say their facts when many evolutionist continually state problems with it, and some disagree from which came which as in mammals to reptiles or vice verses. The definition of species isnt even agreed with between many areas of science. what exactly is the definition of a species your find i wide variety of them. Observed in labs and within a group species like birds(gull) that creates speciation but this doesnt prove evolution at all since a bird is a bird no matter what type of bird it is.

 

[Tomk80]

first part sort of true 2, false we cannot observe evolution if it takes millions of years, cell duplication and or gene splitting, bacteris resistence are not evolution. 3 True 4 very false 5 false. you are very mislead. Its hard to say their facts when many evolutionist continually state problems with it, and some disagree from which came which as in mammals to reptiles or vice verses. The definition of species isnt even agreed with between many areas of science. what exactly is the definition of a species your find i wide variety of them. Observed in labs and within a group species like birds(gull) that creates speciation but this doesnt prove evolution at all since a bird is a bird no matter what type of bird it is.

So from this I can derive that you have no trouble accepting a common ancestor for storks, ducks and gulls? They are all birds, aren't they?

 

[Ondoher]

first part sort of true 2, false we cannot observe evolution if it takes millions of years,

Evolution is any change in allele frequency of a population over time. This can certainly be observed directly.

cell duplication and or gene splitting, bacteris resistence are not evolution.

Bacterial drug resistence most certainly is evolution.

3 True 4 very false

Common ancestry is so well demonstrated that it is commonly referred to as the "fact of evolution." This is due to the great number of testable, and well tested predictions of common ancestry, such as the twin nested hierarchies.

5 false. you are very mislead.

No, you appear to be the one who is confused. We can help, however.

Its hard to say their facts when many evolutionist continually state problems with it,

Common ancestry is not in doubt in the scientific community. The only questions involce specifics of phylogeny and the relative merits of specific mechanisms.

and some disagree from which came which as in mammals to reptiles or vice verses.

Nobody has ever suggested that reptiles evolved from mammals.

The definition of species isnt even agreed with between many areas of science. what exactly is the definition of a species your find i wide variety of them.

Because of the gradual nature of evolution, drawing species distinctions can be difficult, see ring species for an example. This is expected.

Observed in labs and within a group species like birds(gull) that creates speciation but this doesnt prove evolution at all since a bird is a bird no matter what type of bird it is.

Speciation leads to reproductive isolation. Over time, this leads to divergence, such as that between dogs and bears which share a common ancestor.

What type of bird is this?

Actually, it isn't a bird, despite its feathers. It is a dinosaur. A dromeosaur, to be exact. Here is a nice closeup of its proto-feathers.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Evolution is any change in allele frequency of a population over time. This can certainly be observed directly.

Bacterial drug resistence most certainly is evolution.

Common ancestry is so well demonstrated that it is commonly referred to as the "fact of evolution." This is due to the great number of testable, and well tested predictions of common ancestry, such as the twin nested hierarchies.

No, you appear to be the one who is confused. We can help, however.

Common ancestry is not in doubt in the scientific community. The only questions involce specifics of phylogeny and the relative merits of specific mechanisms.

Nobody has ever suggested that reptiles evolved from mammals.

Because of the gradual nature of evolution, drawing species distinctions can be difficult, see ring species for an example. This is expected.

Speciation leads to reproductive isolation. Over time, this leads to divergence, such as that between dogs and bears which share a common ancestor.

What type of bird is this?

Actually, it isn't a bird, despite its feathers. It is a dinosaur. A dromeosaur, to be exact. Here is a nice closeup of its proto-feathers.

1 a very small snipit of it which doesnt prove or disprove anything 2,its still a bacteria, it didnt create new info it just lost some which made it resistant,prove how it created new info to have it resistant 3, dont have enough info on this post later. 4, not in doubt but have guestions, about the same i think 5, ive been told that here, so some one has. 6, expected but still a very abviouse proof of evolution, ring species create a variety which is all that is abserved, so that is all that can be stated, anything else is pure speculation on your part.7, reproductive isolation doesnt prove evolution, it proves they change a lot and then cant reproduce with the origanal species, doesnt mean they evolve to another type of animal, like a reptile to a mammal. and were is there proof of this common ancestor between the two dog and bear. 8, what does this got to do whith anything. like a duckbilled platypus, so what. ever heard of a Protoavis. A bird like a crow dicovered to be around the same time as dinosaurs, well before the archeo some thing or another always used. you have used the same things over and over and all the parts needed to make it fact are missing, we see this and conclude this even though it cant be proven one way or the other. no one has seen speciation create a new kingdom of animals ever. all the mutations of germs and such produce only germs and such, but with different traits or resistances. its still a bacteria.

 

[SODinOZ]

Here is a good read for creationists and evolutionists alike, it sits at the bleeding edge of current evolutionary theory and discusses the best possibilitis for finding proof of evolutionary theory. Whilst sucessfully drawing together theory and observation about the rapid evolutionary type changes that occur when organisms colonise a new geographical region, and that this supports the current thought that these will be the instances where trans-special boundaries are most likely to occur.
Likewise, it shows that proof of trans-special mutation is still being sought.
"Alien Species and Evolution" 1559630094 (paperback for creationists) or 1559630086 (hardback for evolutionists =P Both are available through the highly reputable CSIRO Publishing, as well as some other (less reputable?) booksellers.
SODinOZ

 

[DJ_Ghost]

2,its still a bacteria,.

So? Or is this the latest creationist tactic? to claim that evolution in bacteria does not count?

it didnt create new info it just lost some which made it resistant,prove how it created new info to have it resistant

Why are you asking him to prove it added information? You do know that evolution is the change in species and information does not need to be added, it only has to change?

no one has seen speciation create a new kingdom of animals ever. all the mutations of germs and such produce only germs and such, but with different traits or resistances. its still a bacteria.

Are they or are they not a new form of bacteria? If yes then you have seen evolution produce a new life form that did not previously exist.

So if I understand your argument then, evolution occurs, you only seem to doubt that everything evolved from the same source but you seem happy to accept that one form of mammal can evolve from another, one reptile from another and one bacteria from another, am I understanding you correctly so far?

Ghost

 

[william jay schroeder]

So? Or is this the latest creationist tactic? to claim that evolution in bacteria does not count?



Why are you asking him to prove it added information? You do know that evolution is the change in species and information does not need to be added, it only has to change?



Are they or are they not a new form of bacteria? If yes then you have seen evolution produce a new life form that did not previously exist.

So if I understand your argument then, evolution occurs, you only seem to doubt that everything evolved from the same source but you seem happy to accept that one form of mammal can evolve from another, one reptile from another and one bacteria from another, am I understanding you correctly so far?

Ghost

evolution on a small scale does exsist. It is not a new form just a form of the origanal that has less info then the first. A new life such as reproduction does? evolution occurs yes, in asense yes but that different forms of each kingdom changed to another such as in speciation or ring species. a dog to a dingo or a leapord or tiger or a hiena. or in reverse. God created like Kinds with a vast capability to create many like many varieties of this like kind. sort of like breeding dogs. a vast variety but still a dog. But not a sigulare mammal creating all of the mammals. this isnt going to happen. another is the hawk family or the duck family. a bunny family, a snake family, a whale family, a monkey family. these all created a vast variety within their kind.

 

[caravelair]

it didnt create new info it just lost some which made it resistant,prove how it created new info to have it resistant.

i have written about how information can be added in The Quiet Thread. if you dispute what i wrote, you can start a new thread about it.

 

[Ondoher]

1 a very small snipit of it which doesnt prove or disprove anything

It was a definition, not an attempt to prove anything. Evolution, under that definition can be directly observed.

2,its still a bacteria, it didnt create new info it just lost some which made it resistant,prove how it created new info to have it resistant

Mutation created novel genes which contributed to resistance, such as in this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15328099

We investigated mutations in the genes katG, inhA (regulatory and structural regions), and kasA and the oxyR-ahpC intergenic region of 97 isoniazid (INH)-resistant and 60 INH-susceptible Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates obtained in two states in Brazil: Sao Paulo and Parana. PCR-single-strand conformational polymorphism (PCR-SSCP) was evaluated for screening mutations in regions of prevalence, including codons 315 and 463 of katG, the regulatory region and codons 16 and 94 of inhA, kasA, and the oxyR-ahpC intergenic region. DNA sequencing of PCR amplicons was performed for all isolates with altered PCR-SSCP profiles. Mutations in katG were found in 83 (85.6%) of the 97 INH-resistant isolates, including mutations in codon 315 that occurred in 60 (61.9%) of the INH-resistant isolates and 23 previously unreported katG mutations. Mutations in the inhA promoter region occurred in 25 (25.8%) of the INH-resistant isolates; 6.2% of the isolates had inhA structural gene mutations, and 10.3% had mutations in the oxyR-ahpC intergenic region (one, nucleotide -48, previously unreported). Polymorphisms in the kasA gene occurred in both INH-resistant and INH-susceptible isolates. The most frequent polymorphism encoded a G(269)A substitution. Although KatG(315) substitutions are predominant, novel mutations also appear to be responsible for INH resistance in the two states in Brazil. Since ca. 90.7% of the INH-resistant isolates had mutations identified by SSCP electrophoresis, this method may be a useful genotypic screen for INH resistance.

​

3, dont have enough info on this post later. 4, not in doubt but have guestions, about the same i think

And again, no questions that it happened, just particulars of history and mechanisms.

5, ive been told that here, so some one has.

I don't really believe you. I'm not accusing you of lying, just misremembering or misunderstanding.

6, expected but still a very abviouse proof of evolution, ring species create a variety which is all that is abserved, so that is all that can be stated, anything else is pure speculation on your part.

Ring species demonstrate that geographic isolation can lead to reproductive isolation, and ultimately speciation.

7, reproductive isolation doesnt prove evolution, it proves they change a lot and then cant reproduce with the origanal species, doesnt mean they evolve to another type of animal, like a reptile to a mammal.

Speciation is requirement of evolution, and it does happen. Nobody would suggest we should observe a dog giving birth to a cat, in fact, such a thing would disprove evolution, not support it. We see exactly the amount of evolution we would expect to see given the time we have been watching. Note, that your word "type," is ambigous and not at all useful.

and were is there proof of this common ancestor between the two dog and bear.

That would be the Amphicyonids, such as this feller:

Daphoenodon notionastes

8, what does this got to do whith anything. like a duckbilled platypus, so what. ever heard of a Protoavis. A bird like a crow dicovered to be around the same time as dinosaurs, well before the archeo some thing or another always used.

Hmm, so we know that birds share many characteristics with dinosaurs, but finding dinosaurs with feathers, a typically bird specific trait doesn't mean anything? On the "bill" of the platypus, it bears little but a superficial similarity to the bill of a duck. In all respects, the platypus is a living transitional between therapsids and mammals.

Protoavis appears to be little more than a chimera, here is a good link on it: http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/The_Protoavis_controversy

you have used the same things over and over and all the parts needed to make it fact are missing, we see this and conclude this even though it cant be proven one way or the other.

However, evolution makes a whole lot of testable predictions that have never failed to confirm against mountains of data.

no one has seen speciation create a new kingdom of animals ever.

Nor would anybody expect that to happen.

all the mutations of germs and such produce only germs and such, but with different traits or resistances. its still a bacteria.

As it should be.