Evolution vs. Creationism

[Herman Hedning]

and what is Twin nested hiarches?

Come on... I mean... Come on...

What? Do you mean that one actually should know something about that which one is arguing against? God forbid!

 

[DJ_Ghost]

if you want a clever word, the second statement is a corollary to the first

Tsk, now you are just showing off.

Ghost

 

[Christian_Victor]

Well, I go both ways.


I believe that God created humans, but the Bible NEVER said anything about God NOT using evolution.


So, He created a majority of things, but some things may have evolved.


And also, I don't think there's proof for Human Evolution. It's always "We have yet to find proof". We can look like anything all we want, but that doesn't mean we evolved from them.


I mean come one, look at our organs and stuff. Not just bones. If you notice, Ape's organs are different from ours (at least I THINK). So, if the organs look similar, and I mean VERY similar, we must've evolved from them.

But are they similar? No.

If you prove me wrong, I'll give in. But, that's personally what I believe.

 

[UniversalAxis]

What? Do you mean that one actually should know something about that which one is arguing against? God forbid!

He might have, according to some...

 

[Ondoher]

Well, I go both ways.

I believe that God created humans, but the Bible NEVER said anything about God NOT using evolution.

So, He created a majority of things, but some things may have evolved.

Okay, so lets look at that hypothesis scientifically: God created an initial set of "kinds" which underwent subsequent evolution and diversification. What would we expect to find, if that were true?

Well, one thing comes to mind: all species should form a series of unrelated nested hierarchies with each hierarchy being rooted by the original created kind. As each kind was created separately there would be no reason to suspect any relationship between the individual trees.

We can actually test this, and it fails. As it turns out, all species actually form a single nested hierarchy. This nested hierarchy has been known as far back as Carl Linnaeus who gave us modern taxonomy.

A single nested hierarchy, however, would be expected with common ancestry from a single ancestral population, which is what evolution predicts. Please note that humans have a place on this tree along with the other apes, being placed closest to chimpanzees.

And also, I don't think there's proof for Human Evolution. It's always "We have yet to find proof". We can look like anything all we want, but that doesn't mean we evolved from them.

No, the reason we are quite certain humans share common ancestry with the apes has to do with the nature of our similarity with them and all other species, specifically that of a nested hierarchy, as stated above. The neat thing about this is that the same hierarchy holds, whether from anatomical data or genetic data. For instance, the picture below shows a tree drawn from endogenous retrovirus data (a facinating bit of genetic evidence in itself, which we can save for a different conversation).

Notice that this tree agrees with the same tree drawn using anatomical data. This is strong, independant corroboration of this relationship.

I mean come one, look at our organs and stuff. Not just bones. If you notice, Ape's organs are different from ours (at least I THINK). So, if the organs look similar, and I mean VERY similar, we must've evolved from them.

But are they similar? No.

I'm not aware of any major differences in the internal organs of chimpanzees and humans that are not consistent with 7 million years of divergence.

If you prove me wrong, I'll give in. But, that's personally what I believe.

We can do that.

 

[Vance]

Yes, I think the AGREEMENT between the morphological nested heirarchies and the genetic nested heirarchies which is the clincher. Here we develop these heirarchies based on morphology starting 200 years ago, and have a basic agreement among the experts about what was related to what and how back they likely diverged from a common ancestor, etc. Then, we develop the ability to study the genetic diversity among these animals and guess what!? So far, that genetic diversity exactly matches the relations we developed based on morphology!

If you took two groups of scientists and gave one only the genetic information and the the other only the morphological information, and asked them to develop the nested heirarchies of the species based on their separate data, they would come up with the SAME HEIRARCHIES! This is exactly what the theory of evolution would predict, and it is what we have.

 

[Ondoher]

Yes, I think the AGREEMENT between the morphological nested heirarchies and the genetic nested heirarchies which is the clincher. Here we develop these heirarchies based on morphology starting 200 years ago, and have a basic agreement among the experts about what was related to what and how back they likely diverged from a common ancestor, etc. Then, we develop the ability to study the genetic diversity among these animals and guess what!? So far, that genetic diversity exactly matches the relations we developed based on morphology!

If you took two groups of scientists and gave one only the genetic information and the the other only the morphological information, and asked them to develop the nested heirarchies of the species based on their separate data, they would come up with the SAME HEIRARCHIES! This is exactly what the theory of evolution would predict, and it is what we have.

Even better, you can use the objective methodology of cladistic analysis, using only abstracted characters and abstracted species, and still build convergent trees, thereby removing all possibility of subjectivity. Ain't it grand?

 

[Vance]

Yes, it is.

In fact, the whole process of evolutionary development without God's constant tinkering is SO amazingly powerful that it simply reinforces my idea that God used the process of naturally occuring evolution rather than special creation or "guided" evolution.

What I mean is that if I had to choose the method which I found the most awe-inspiring and "God-like", it would be evolution over special creation hands down.

I see God within all the natural processes of this universe, from the creation of stars, to photosynthesis, to the birth of a baby, to evolution. I don't see how a Christian can claim to see God's power in the movement of the stars, the natural beauty of a rainbow or the creation of life within the womb, and then assert that the natural processes of evolutionary development are not "worthy" of God.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

No, the reason we are quite certain humans share common ancestry with the apes has to do with the nature of our similarity with them and all other species, specifically that of a nested hierarchy, as stated above. The neat thing about this is that the same hierarchy holds, whether from anatomical data or genetic data. For instance, the picture below shows a tree drawn from endogenous retrovirus data (a facinating bit of genetic evidence in itself, which we can save for a different conversation).

Notice that this tree agrees with the same tree drawn using anatomical data. This is strong, independant corroboration of this relationship.

You should probably explain how to read the tree.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

You should probably explain how to read the tree.

Bah, I was in a rush, can you please give the citation again for that tree?

 

[Ondoher]

Bah, I was in a rush, can you please give the citation again for that tree?

There are actually two, the first comes from t.o: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

And the second from the original peer reviewed paper here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

 

[william jay schroeder]

There are actually two, the first comes from t.o: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

And the second from the original peer reviewed paper here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

Does this endogenous retrovirus which is in apes and humans, and links us as ancestor, in other animals which are related to each other by ancestory. i was told dogs and bears were related, or does it have to be closer than that.

 

[Ondoher]

Does this endogenous retrovirus which is in apes and humans, and links us as ancestor, in other animals which are related to each other by ancestory.

Our DNA is full of these endogenous retroviruses, so I would not be surprised to find some that go as far back as the last common ancestor between humans and dogs. However, again, they would be expected to follow the same nested hierarchy.

i was told dogs and bears were related, or does it have to be closer than that.

Dogs and bears are, but we know this through the fossil record. However, I imagine an ERV survey would demonstrate this as well.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Our DNA is full of these endogenous retroviruses, so I would not be surprised to find some that go as far back as the last common ancestor between humans and dogs. However, again, they would be expected to follow the same nested hierarchy.

Dogs and bears are, but we know this through the fossil record. However, I imagine an ERV survey would demonstrate this as well.

please explain nested hierarchy. a fossil record or fossil records. is this as fact on one fossil remain or many with out the gaps. I dont see how you can say a relation by fossils when there is such big gaps in them. Or with just one or two close looking fossils and say all animals evolved see here is the proof with these two fossils, which seem to be a transitional. One fully formed dino and one fully formed bird, i dont know if you believe that dinos evolved into birds or not but if you do how did plants reproduce or have there seeds spread around. Birds are fairly important for most plants and or trees for reproduction as well as insects and other animals. other animals have to exsist with another or neither exsist insects to decay matter or waste and such birds to control the spead or growth of insects. As in the food chain of animals tree we all learn in school. if one chain is missing what happens to all the rest above it and below it.

 

[Vance]

Oh my gosh! Someone give him a book, please, before my head explodes!

 

[notto]

Or with just one or two close looking fossils and say all animals evolved see here is the proof with these two fossils, which seem to be a transitional.

The fossils are not just compared by looking at how much the fossils look like each other. In the diagram of the development of the ear, the fossils used (which are real fossils) are also in order by age and show a clear development over time from one to the other.

The genetics, the look of the fossil, and the age of the fossils, (along with several other indicators) all point to common decent.

 

[Ondoher]

please explain nested hierarchy.

A nested hierarchy is groups, within groups, within groups. For instance all apes are primates, are eutheria (placental mammals), are mammals, are therapsids, are synapsids, are amniotes, are tetrapods, are craniata, are vertebrates, are chordates, are deuterostomia, are bilaterals, are metazoans, are eukaryotes. The nested tree of life comes from the science of taxonomy, as originally conceived by Carl Linnaeus. Another way to look at a nested hierarchy is as a branching tree.

a fossil record or fossil records. is this as fact on one fossil remain or many with out the gaps. I dont see how you can say a relation by fossils when there is such big gaps in them.

All existing speces can be fit within the nested hierarchy of life. In addition, all extinct species for which we have fossils also fit within this tree, sometimes forming whole new branches that have left no modern descendents. If we were to find fossil species that appeared well before their apparent ancestors, or that could not be classified into the nested hierarchy, then evolution would have a serious challenge.

There are places in the tree where there is very little information. Sometimes, as with Romer's gap and the evolution of birds, these gaps are filled. Sometimes they remain scarce. However, no fossils ever contradict this nested hierarchy, nor are they found out of time.

Or with just one or two close looking fossils and say all animals evolved see here is the proof with these two fossils,

No, it is the fit of the entire fossil record within the nested hierarchy of species, not any two specific fossils.

which seem to be a transitional. One fully formed dino and one fully formed bird, i dont know if you believe that dinos evolved into birds or not

It is the best supported hypothesis for the evolution of birds, yes. Especially given all the recent feathered dinosaurs being found, even a basal tyrannosauroid.

but if you do how did plants reproduce or have there seeds spread around. Birds are fairly important for most plants and or trees for reproduction as well as insects and other animals.

Prior to using birds as vectors for seed dispersal, plants used other mechanisms, such as wind, or insects. This is called coevolution, were an initially weak relationship strengthens over time as both species evolve to become soley dependent on the other.

other animals have to exsist with another or neither exsist insects to decay matter or waste and such birds to control the spead or growth of insects. As in the food chain of animals tree we all learn in school. if one chain is missing what happens to all the rest above it and below it.

Such a complex interrelationship has evolved over time from more simple relationships. The original self replicators would have been chemotrophs, relying only on chemical reactions, such as photosynthesis, to power their metabolism.

 

[william jay schroeder]

So what was the first creature to evolve, was it a bacteria or cell to a invertabrate to a vertabret, to a skelton structure to ect. Do most bacteria and or cells need a host to move.

 

[cerad]

So what was the first creature to evolve, was it a bacteria or cell to a invertabrate to a vertabret, to a skelton structure to ect. Do most bacteria and or cells need a host to move.

You might want to take a look at this tree of life web site.
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=life
It not only explains the concept but allows you to browse through the tree. It's really quite amazing to see the amount of work involved.

 

[Tomk80]

So what was the first creature to evolve, was it a bacteria or cell to a invertabrate to a vertabret, to a skelton structure to ect. Do most bacteria and or cells need a host to move.

Well, I'd say that basically all the evidence points to a common ancestor. However, we cannot say exactly what this ancestor was. Most likely candidates are archaebacteria such as seen at hydrothermal vents.