Evolution vs Creation

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonofasailor:

​

I was hoping someone could help explain more on the origin of species and how it might have evolved through macroevolution. I read the talk origin thread on misconceptions of macro, but wish someone could be patient with me and explain in simple English.

---

Hi Erik, welcome to the boards J. I’ll try & help where I can.Firstly, it is thought that species don’t evolve by macroevolution. A possible exception may be polyploidy (where your entire complement of chromosomes double). The most commonly accepted definition of species is the BSC (biological species concept). It basically states that when two populations become reproductively isolated, they are different species. How may this come about? Well, there are several possibilities, almost all of which require barriers such as mountains, waterways, seas, huge distances etc. So, when population A of a species becomes isolated from other population B, no sharing of genes can take place. As a result, accumulated mutations in population A can never reach population B, & vice versa. As mutations accumulate, there comes a point where the two populations do not produce fertile young (infertile hybrid, such as a mule, from a crossing of a horse & donkey), or cannot produce live young at all. When this diverging process reaches the point when the best result of a cross of any member of populations A & B is an infertile hybrid, then the two populations can be said to be reproductively isolated, & therefore two separate species (under the BSC) in their own right. At this point there may be little physical difference between the two species, & they may be difficult to tell apart. As this diverging process continues they won’t even be able to produce hybrids at all.Since conditions on different sides of the barrier may be different, therefore different selective pressures act upon our new species forcing new adaptions & change, this process if continued long enough, may result in macroevolution. Furthermore, mutation is random (in the sense you cannot predict where the next one will occur), so species A may get a beneficial mutation that B never sees (remember genes can't be shared between populations now), or the mutation may not even be beneficial to species B because it's environment is different.Limbs become fins, fins become limbs etc. Note that macroevolution wasn’t involved in the actual speciation event, but was the result of much longer accumulation of mutations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonofasailor:

I often get the comment that evolution can’t be proven and if I believe in it, it must be only a faith. Personally, I would rather listen to scientists with empirical data and testing of evidence to draw conclusions over any propaganda about an invisible man in the sky.

---

No science can be proven with 100% accuracy. Gravity isn’t, the existence of electrons isn’t, nor is evolution.In fact, it is an absolute requirement of a scientific theory that it have potential falsifications. That is, certain predictions, which if borne out require the theory to be thrown out, or at the very least modified. It is for this reason that creation science isn’t science, you cannot falsify what you cannot observe, namely God. If you have a potential falsification, then it stands to reason that you can't be 100% sure of something. This may sound strange, science being the accumulation of knowledge, but has a tenet that says you can never have 100% accurate knowledge???!!! It simply ensures that all scientific theories are potentially subject to change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonofasailor:

Could someone help with the items below in common language?

​

1. Abiogenesis — How did it start and evolve?
2. Evolution — How did animals get upright, how did we go from the seas to land, how and why did we deviate into humans and chimps?
3. Evidence of an older earth - How can I contradict creationists and what formula is correct in determining it.
4. How do I know Radio carbon dating is accurate in its dating techniques?
5. How can I prove evolution?

​

I am asking help from all of you. I thank you for your time. Erik

---

I’ll have a quick stab at 2 & 5. Others are better qualified to answer the others.2/ This is a biggy, so I’ll try to answer simply. Not sure of your first point, define upright. Humans & chimps were thought to have diverged (I am a deviant, but that’s another story!) from a common ancestor with apes several million years ago. What made us walk upright? The world was undergoing a period of deforestation, so the forests were getting crowded. There is an obvious advantage to leave the forests rather than to face extinction. How did this occur? Probably chance got involved, & we just got lucky! Perhaps we already at that time foraged on the ground for much of the time, & this coincided with deforestation. If your habitat is disappearing & you already live for much of the time on the forest floor, it’s not so bad. There is, however, a significant advantage to being able to see for some distance over the grasslands, & so avoid predators, basically, we became the savannah ape.5/ You can’t prove evolution, see above. You can, however, look at the many evidences, & conclude that evolution occurred beyond reasonable doubt.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Sonofasailor,Don't have a great deal of time at the moment, the evolution of man from from single cells is probably running before you can walk!I can however recommend an excellent book, by Arthur N Strahler. Science & Earth History, The Evolution/Creation Controversy. I warn you now, it's a whopper, but will ground you in pretty much every aspect of the debate. It's a hardback, 500 pages, & cost about 30 quid (70-ish USD). It's what got me started, & I refer to it all the time.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
404 Not Found

​

I was more than glad to help!

​

May the storytelling begin!

---

Fred,http://EvC Forum: Scientists are Biased Against the Findings of CreationistsRegarding the fossil "illusion".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Blindprophet,1/ There IS NO LAW OF BIOGENESIS!!!!!!! Evolution & abiogenesis are separate entities.2/ Why does the non-inheritance of aquired characteristics need to be explained by evolution? An elementary knowledge of genetics will tell you why it is so.3/ Well what is the part of almost all physical variations that you have a problem with? Presumably there are some that aren’t reliant on mendelian genetics, then.4/ So why are we not seeing a trend for more & more offspring, then?Offspring & reproduction cost resources. Many organisms will be UNABLE to reproduce if they are under environmental stress, eg females will become temporarily unreceptive. Having huge broods/lots of seeds etc means the parent organisms have to provide resources to get those progeny into the open air in the first place, huge broods will simply kill the parents unless permanent times of plenty are experienced. This is why there is an optimum number of offspring for various organisms. It matches the reality of their environments.5/ Strawman. Who said a requirement of NS was to produce new genes? That would require mutation, non?6/ Patently wrong.http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htmThe ADDITION of a thymine changed the functionality of a gene to confer nylon digesting abilities.Evidence suggests that most mutations are neutral, or nearly so, with a large minority being harmful, & a small amount being beneficial.7/ See above. Beneficial mutations occur.8/ There are excellent reasons to believe evolution was responsible for complex structures. Fossil & molecular evidence provides strong support for common descent of major taxa. How could this happen without macroevolution.9/ Wrong AGAIN!!New Chinese fossils show dinosaurs, older than Archeopterix with a covering of filamentous, feather like fibres (Sinosauropteryx), later fossils (Caudipteryx) Has the same coat, but with stiffer feathers (recognisably so) on it’s hands & tail. I mention these two, but there are more.10/ We do see types blending in with other organisms, ever heard of hybridisation? The reason dogs & cats can’t hybridise is that they are too genetically dissimilar.11/ Nope, altruism is genetic, not organismal. Ie a trait that allows non-altruistic behaviour may very well be reinforced if it allows that same genetic material to be passed on, or to protect mates, progeny etc.12/ Show me an earth like planet, & you may have a point.13/ & 14/ I’ll leave to those better qualified than me.15/ Even if the original code were created, it doesn’t preclude evolution at all!http://bayes.colorado.edu/Papers/rewiring.pdfNote page 51. A phylogeny derived from coding differences in extant organisms. OMG!!!! It matches current ideas of descent?!?! How the devil could that happen?Why are their exceptions to the "universal" code at all?16/ Utterly, demonstrably wrong, I refer you to our nylon digesting bacteria, again. God didn’t grant the little critter the ability to digest nylon.

quote:

---

No isolated system has ever been observed to increase its information content significantly

---

No, but small Insignificant increases can amount to significant increase, non?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Servent, False.http://www.asa3.org/...ronomy-Cosmology/PSCF9-86VanTill.htmlThe sun oscillates with a periodicity of about 80 years. The error that is oft repeated by creationists has been falsified. Essentially an unwarranted extrapolation of the solar shrinkage stage of the cycle gave rise to the myth. The graph above clearly shows the dangers of extrapolation from limited data (the dashed line). The actual data shows a cycle of growth & shrinkage with a stable mean value. False.http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/earth.htmThe earth is slowing down but it amounts to a daytime difference of a few hours. If the earth slows 2.2 secs/100,000 years this roughly equates to a 21 hour day during the Cambrian explosion. It would mean a day length about 10 hours long when the first life appeared. At worst you'll weigh a couple of ounces less at the equator due to centrifugal forces. Because the solar system formed ~5 bya out of a concentration of gas & dust (& relatively regular concentrations of matter, ie .planets is what you would EXPECT), & the universe formed 15 bya.In other words they are unrelated.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Servent of the Cross, I am afraid it's a whole lot more insidious than that. Creationists get their information like "sun shrinkage" from websites that DELIBERATELY present a false view to their audience.We call it "lying", not very christian, is it?Mark

ServAnt,Although the occasional spelling error is made by everyone, you don't appear to have the foggiest notion of not just spelling, but basic syntax, either.It just makes a person look stupid when they make quite so many errors. Should read:"Um, are you guys really that dumb that you need to whine about my spelling? I mean, what the hell? Come on people, this is not a Friking (sic) English class. And tell me, I have a question; the Big Bang had to come from somewhere, right? Yes, well, where did it come from? And a certain law it says an object in motion stays in motion, but an object at rest stays at rest, so what got it moving?"That's twenty eight errors in a single paragraph, "friking", notwithstanding.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-20-2004 03:49 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't