Evolution vs. Creationism

[Ondoher]

You are speaking about species fixity, an idea that creationists rejected years ago.

No I'm not. You said we cannot observe evolution, I countered by showing that we can observe exactly that amount of evolution we should be, given the time frame in which we've been watching. I actually said nothing against any creationist position.

All that has happened is a bridging between two existing species, there is no support or evidence for new genes,

Those were all examples of the origin of new species. You never asked for the origin of new genes, but I'll be happy to oblige. One of the ways evolution creates new genes is through the proces of duplication and divergence. This can be inferred to have happened in the past through analysis of gene families in different taxa. Here is the abstract of one paper that goes into this sort of detail:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15494476

Mammalian alpha-defensins constitute a family of cysteine-rich, cationic antimicrobial peptides produced by phagocytes and intestinal Paneth cells, playing an important role in innate host defense. Following comprehensive computational searches, here we report the discovery of complete repertoires of the alpha-defensin gene family in the human, chimpanzee, rat, and mouse with new genes identified in each species. The human genome was found to encode a cluster of 10 distinct alpha-defensin genes and pseudogenes expanding 132 kb continuously on chromosome 8p23. Such alpha-defensin loci are also conserved in the syntenic chromosomal regions of chimpanzee, rat, and mouse. Phylogenetic analyses showed formation of two distinct clusters with primate alpha-defensins forming one cluster and rodent enteric alpha-defensins forming the other cluster. Species-specific clustering of genes is evident in non-primate species, but not in the primates. Phylogenetically distinct subsets of alpha-defensins also exist in each species with most subsets containing multiple members. In addition, natural selection appears to have acted to diversify the functionally active mature defensin region but not signal or prosegment sequences. We concluded that mammalian alpha-defensin genes may have evolved from two separate ancestors originated from beta-defensins. The current repertoire of the alpha-defensin gene family in each species are primarily a result of repeated gene duplication and positive diversifying selection after divergence of mammalian species from each other, except for the primate genes, which were evolved prior to the separation of the primate species. We argue that the presence of multiple, divergent subsets of alpha-defensins in each species may help animals to better cope with different microbial challenges in the ecological niches which they inhabit.

​

let alone for biological diversification

The origin of new species is biological diversification.

or mega-evolution.

Is mega evolution macro evolution on steroids?

Having the same underlying genetic material any two species of created kinds SHOULD be able to hybridize with each other upon regaining contact unless subsequent mutations have prevented that potential.

Who said anything about hybridization. However, since you are now trying to make some predictions for creationism, let me give you an area to investigate. Why do all species form a natural, nested hierarchy?

They evolutionists push these points because they try to extrapolate this to mean that Mega-evolution (the origin of life and phyla separated by immense genetic differences (a reptile into a bird for instance)) is true.

Actually, birds evolved from a specific kind of reptile, the dinosaurs. In fact, cladistically, they are dinosaurs, just as cladistically humans are apes. But that's an entirely different conversation. Since we lack dinosaur DNA, your assertion that genetic difference between birds and dinosaurs is immense seems unsupportable.

This extrapolation cannot be made based on these cases, they are doing what they were created to do, reproducing, "each after its own kind".

Except that "kind" has no defined meaning, and genetic divergence of isolated populations can lead to large changes over a significant number of generation.

 

[Ondoher]

However, Mutational adaptation cannot explain diversity of Phyla.

Mutational adaptation doesn't appear to mean anything. However, the mechanisms of the modern synthesis seem more than able to explain common ancestry of all life.

There is no way that common ancestry could have produced the variety of life on earth.

Common ancestry is not a mechanism. It is the conlcusion that all life forms a single phylogeny that descends from one or a few ancestral populations.

 

[Ondoher]

CHARTER SCHOOLS ADVOCACY ALLIANCE:
The Eugenics Internationale

Here are a few quick quotes on the background of the alive and well Master Race concept of conspirators Helen Sanger (Planned Parenthood), Charles Darwin (Evolution), Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Malthusian Eugenics, Nazis, Rockefellers, Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, and numerous others and their plot to control population by 'weeding out' the "inferior" races.

For those interested the full read is HERE.

Evolutionists are evil racists and baby eaters. See, see, some bad people in the past said so.

How about we stick with arguing the veracity of evolution or creationism, and not the red herring of eugenics and racism.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Ondoher that was a nice paper to present. only a few problems in it all the assumptions like "MAY have evolved" "we argue" natural selection APPEARS to have" MAY help, I believe these phrases conclude an assumption on their part. and in all that technical stuff which may be true doesnt prove nothing but what they see happening, to use it to prove a theology is their interprtaion. and as i see in there word usesage not actually proven to show evolution.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Birds from a dinosuar is not likely Do to naturual selection as is used, any change in the dinosaure would create a problem of sreviving in its already adapted invironement. therefor this mutation would hinder its survival. time doesnt help because mutations are not herreditary.Mutations are defects. besides mutations are very rare whether you argue thay can be good or not. to actually be succesful they would have to happen in many areas at once which is not at all possible.

 

[Ondoher]

Ondoher that was a nice paper to present. only a few problems in it all the assumptions like "MAY have evolved" "we argue" natural selection APPEARS to have" MAY help, I believe these phrases conclude an assumption on their part. and in all that technical stuff which may be true doesnt prove nothing but what they see happening, to use it to prove a theology is their interprtaion. and as i see in there word usesage not actually proven to show evolution.

Yes, science uses careful language to separate what is certain (facts) from what is part of the conclusion (theory), along with the data used to reach the conclusion. Remember, all science is provisional. Pointing out the provisional nature of science does nothing to refute the conclusions reached. This is not an indication of an assumption, as an assumption is an a priori, non-tentative conclusion. An assumption would be, "since we know that the flood was real, then all this biostratification is due to the flood."

If you read the abstract carefully, you will see that there are no theological implications. It says something interesting about you, however, that you thought it did.

Of course, the whole point of that abstract was to support the position that science can infer that gene families are due to duplication and divergence of genes. I think that it served its purpose quite well.

 

[Ondoher]

Birds from a dinosuar is not likely Do to naturual selection as is used, any change in the dinosaure would create a problem of sreviving in its already adapted invironement.

Unless the environment changes, or a new niche becomes available. Feathers, for instance, seem to have evolved in dinosaurs as a form of insulation.

therefor this mutation would hinder its survival. time doesnt help because mutations are not herreditary.

That's an odd thing to say. You do know that genes are the basic unit of heredity, right. Any mutation in a gamete that leads to an offspring will be inherited by about half of the offspring's immediate descendents, and will continue to get passed down from there.

Mutations are defects.

Well, they are certainly variations from the ideal of perfect replication.

besides mutations are very rare whether you argue thay can be good or not.

I have heard estimates of 128-200 mutations per human zygote. In 3 billion bases, that's not a huge percentage, but it isn't exactly rare either.

to actually be succesful they would have to happen in many areas at once which is not at all possible.

No they wouldn't, they'd just have to confer a benefit to reproductive success.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Unless the environment changes, or a new niche becomes available. Feathers, for instance, seem to have evolved in dinosaurs as a form of insulation.

That's an odd thing to say. You do know that genes are the basic unit of heredity, right. Any mutation in a gamete that leads to an offspring will be inherited by about half of the offspring's immediate descendents, and will continue to get passed down from there.

Well, they are certainly variations from the ideal of perfect replication.

I have heard estimates of 128-200 mutations per human zygote. In 3 billion bases, that's not a huge percentage, but it isn't exactly rare either.

No they wouldn't, they'd just have to confer a benefit to reproductive success.

I read that only mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells are passed on to offspring-changes in other body cells are not transmitted. How do good and bad mutations counteract each other. they are all interrelated parts so they have to do it all together. so if i come out with a fifth finger my kids will have it also. why an how does the DNA get this info to tell it it needs feathers for insulation, seeing how feathers arent just for insulation in birds. DNA produce only what is incoded in them to produce. Chance mutations in this to accomidate for external invironments is tough to believe.

 

[Ondoher]

I read that only mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells are passed on to offspring-changes in other body cells are not transmitted.

Yes, that's what I just said.

How do good and bad mutations counteract each other.

Good mutations, by definition, increase reproductive success, so tend to get passed on, while bad ones decrease reproductive success so tend to get weeded out.

they are all interrelated parts so they have to do it all together.

Not really, no.

so if i come out with a fifth finger my kids will have it also. why an how does the DNA get this info to tell it it needs feathers for insulation, seeing how feathers arent just for insulation in birds.

Are you asking for a blow by blow description of the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs? I'm not sure we knwo that. But we do know that protofeathers and feathers are present in nonavian dinosaurs.

DNA produce only what is incoded in them to produce. Chance mutations in this to accomidate for external invironments is tough to believe.

No, the chance mutations happen. The ones that provide a benefit are retained.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

CHARTER SCHOOLS ADVOCACY ALLIANCE:
The Eugenics Internationale

Here are a few quick quotes on the background of the alive and well Master Race concept of conspirators Helen Sanger (Planned Parenthood), Charles Darwin (Evolution), Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Malthusian Eugenics, Nazis, Rockefellers, Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, and numerous others and their plot to control population by 'weeding out' the "inferior" races.

For those interested the full read is HERE.

How about we stick with arguing the veracity of evolution or creationism,

Ahh, but that IS mankind's evolution at its finest, or worst, depending on your viewpoint.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs : from the hut to the palace ; from the canoe to the ocean liner ; from the spade and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping, and binding, etc. But the birds build their nests to-day as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another. On the other hand, all God's works are perfect.-E.W. Bullinger

 

[UniversalAxis]

I still want to know when Noah dropped off the Hippopotamus in Africa; was that before or after he dropped off the Kowala in Australia?
I.E. how does the biblical flood account for the large number of indigenous species which are everywhere on the planet, and can Noah have really gotten two of each?

Let me remind you that we must assume that the flood would have killed anything not on the Ark, because the Bible says so:
Genesis 6:7 "So the Lord said, "I will wipe makind, whom I have created, from the face of the Earth - men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air, for I am greived that I have made them."

Also, the bible says that they will all come to Noah to be saved. Now, I have never seen a Spider, Kowala, Kangaroo, Buffalo, or any other animal build a boat of its own, and sail across the ocean to find a lonely Noah. How is this accounted for? Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Frye? Anyone?

 

[william jay schroeder]

I still want to know when Noah dropped off the Hippopotamus in Africa; was that before or after he dropped off the Kowala in Australia?
I.E. how does the biblical flood account for the large number of indigenous species which are everywhere on the planet, and can Noah have really gotten two of each?

Let me remind you that we must assume that the flood would have killed anything not on the Ark, because the Bible says so:
Genesis 6:7 "So the Lord said, "I will wipe makind, whom I have created, from the face of the Earth - men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air, for I am greived that I have made them."

Also, the bible says that they will all come to Noah to be saved. Now, I have never seen a Spider, Kowala, Kangaroo, Buffalo, or any other animal build a boat of its own, and sail across the ocean to find a lonely Noah. How is this accounted for? Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Frye? Anyone?

For one the animals werent afraid of man before the flood so this is possible And God said he but it in their minds to go. third your own belief states that it was all one land mass at one time, so they didnt need to go across water.

 

[UniversalAxis]

For one the animals werent afraid of man before the flood so this is possible And God said he but it in their minds to go. third your own belief states that it was all one land mass at one time, so they didnt need to go across water.

​

They don't need to fear man or whatever, that is not the issue. The issue is one of logistical impossibilty.
Moreover, yes, my beliefs in an old earth states that a some point many, many millions of years ago, the earth had a single continet known as Pangea; but yours dont support millions of years, nor the existence of the Earth in any shape but its present form. Plus, the geniologies which trace back to Noah are far too recent to have taken place on Pangea. Try Again.

 

[UniversalAxis]

P.S. there are no buffalo bones in Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Australia, etc. They are native to the Americas. Same thing with Kangaroos, Kowala Bears, Galapagos Turtles, and a great many other indigenous creatures which arose after Pangea split.

 

[FieryBalrog]

no i do not all this is a wast of time. its all rambling any ways, i thought i would give it a try but its just not my field. but your all still wrong and when you find the truth it will be to late. i hope this doesnt happen. enjoy your fun here. and dont think any of your post remotly makes me wonder. Science does not comfort my heart Christ does.

look here, everyone- the creationist position in a nutshell. This just says it all.

 

[william jay schroeder]

look here, everyone- the creationist position in a nutshell. This just says it all.

shows what evolutionist do here, tells us we are ignorant of science, no not ignorant just not convinced with all your assumptions, granted a whole lot of science is fact, but it doesnt prove evolution just science. this is about debating how ever poor it can be, not this.

 

[UniversalAxis]

If it assumptions you want to speak of, please compare your theory to Science, and see which one requires the greater degree of acceptence without evidence.

It seems to me that 7-day creation is almost identical to 'Rome being created in a day'.

It is the case of a few clitches versus a total lack of explaination apart from God did it.

"how does the Earth revolve around the Sun?"
YECist: "God did it that way"
Science: "all things in the universe exert an attractive force upon other things. We call this force gravity. If a thing is big enough it can exert a tremendous gravitational force. If an object is within this area of influence trying to move streight, the gravitational influence will cause the object's trajectory to curve. Sometimes, this curve will become a stable orbit, like the Earth."

Can anyone see which one requres more assumptions, and which one actually contributes to the body of human knowledge and and understanding of the phisical universe?

 

[william jay schroeder]

If it assumptions you want to speak of, please compare your theory to Science, and see which one requires the greater degree of acceptence without evidence.

It seems to me that 7-day creation is almost identical to 'Rome being created in a day'.

It is the case of a few clitches versus a total lack of explaination apart from God did it.

"how does the Earth revolve around the Sun?"
YECist: "God did it that way"
Science: "all things in the universe exert an attractive force upon other things. We call this force gravity. If a thing is big enough it can exert a tremendous gravitational force. If an object is within this area of influence trying to move streight, the gravitational influence will cause the object's trajectory to curve. Sometimes, this curve will become a stable orbit, like the Earth."

Can anyone see which one requres more assumptions, and which one actually contributes to the body of human knowledge and and understanding of the phisical universe?

i would say yours because it doesnt seem to explain how the forces got started. Science assumes something out of nothing. same as us. But we know God is this force that started it. what do you think did it, nothing, there is no space in nothing to create anything.

 

[Event Horizon]

i would say yours because it doesnt seem to explain how the forces got started. Science assumes something out of nothing. same as us. But we know God is this force that started it. what do you think did it, nothing, there is no space in nothing to create anything.

1) Evolution isn't incompatable with a god.
2) If something is unanswered then science doesn't just assume.
3) If the forces need a cause, why doesn't a god?

 

[UniversalAxis]

i would say yours because it doesnt seem to explain how the forces got started. Science assumes something out of nothing. same as us. But we know God is this force that started it. what do you think did it, nothing, there is no space in nothing to create anything.

As far as gravity is concerned, there are very few thoeries which go into the its origins, but I believe that Superstring Theory and Quantum Thoery have touched on the reasons. Something about the way that energy creates matter gives rise to an inherent attraction between molecules and atoms, the force of which grows as more and more atoms are together.

Either way, science gives MORE explaination of the phisical than the Bible. The Bible only concerns itself on matters concerning salvation and spirituality.

And when you can realize that Science has no intrest in the subject of salvation, and has advertized that Salvation is the job of religion, then we can let the ill-conceived notion of science as a religion die off.

Atheism is a religion, Science is art, and the two have nothing to do with one another until the existence of God and the eternal Soul are proven by imperical evidence, not just subjective faith.