Topic awaiting preservation: Evolution vs. Creationism (Page 6 of 13)

1.
With Science there is first an observation.
- Differences in similar species exist when separated by great distances.

With Creationism there is a "Fact"
- The bible says the earch was created in 7 days.

2.
With Science you now create a theory.
- Darwin creates a basic theory of evolution

With Creationism there is no theory you already have a fact.

3.
With Science you now repetitively attempt to prove the theory wrong and revise it, adding evidence to support the theory along the way.
- Notice that the origional theory doesn't exist anymore, this has been modified and changed over the many years of its existance.

With Creationism you only try to compile evidence to support you claim. You do not try to prove it wrong, or add theories to it.
- Dinosaur bones were planted by god
- Dinosaur bones are results of the great flood.

------

If you notice Creationism doesn't do the "Prove itself wrong" bit. This is what science is, and this is why creationism isn't science. If creationsim took on the idea, well we have this theory that god did earth in 7 days, and then worked from there to revise this to accomodate evidence to the contrary, this would be science (almost) but they don't. This is why it isn't science.

Your whole bullet thing is scewed completely. You can't do an experiement without taking time as a factor. That is just bad science, and on top of that stupid. If I had more time I would explain better, I don't so you will have to wait for someone else to explain.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Could you please explain to me how that is different, because for some reason I am just not getting it. It still sounds the same to me

---

No.

Why?

Because the reason you are "just not getting it" is because you have decided not to get it - in the same way that these yahoo's at 'answeersingenesis' have decided what the outcome of their "science" will be and therefore ignroe any actual outcome.

^And that is the situation here. Gideon (and YECs) believe (I take that back - they believe they know ) that god exists and that the earth is young because god says so. Thus, they bend the evidence to fit their "fact", and either "don't get" evidence to the contrary (because they don't want to) or leave it out, entirely ("It can't be true, because then my version of the truth would not be true!").

It is an easy exercise to bend existing information into a preconceived mold (as long as some of the information is changed, and some convienently forgotten, left out). Politicians have been doing this since time immortal (and so has Religion, for that matter).

Because we are human and make mistakes, we need a system that acknowledges that and has safeguards against it. Furthermore, as humans we are prone to fantasy - i.e. make-believe. Imaginination. Thus, a system designed to discover fact, truth and knowledge must take that into account.

This is Science.

It has a built in check and balance system. Does that mean it is faultless? NO. A system is only so good as those interpreting the results, and the tools and processes used to do so.

But when you start from the standpoint that god exists, and that the earth is young because god says so, and then start fitting the evidence according to that (and leaving information out, when it doesn't "fit") is not Science!

Okay, I'm going to respond to the posts on page 5, then 6, so that I make sure I don't miss anyone.

Silence:
As for the mind links, no. You are totally correct. The text had to be written in Hebrew (or whatever form of it Moses spoke back then). Thus, the text cannot explain in full detail what happened in the six days of creation.

For instance, there was no word for geological up-heavals. They had to be explain as best they could in thier language. The thing is that where it does touch on science, that can be trusted. Genesis is about the creation of the world. Revelation (another disputed book) is about the end of the known world. Things that happened in Heaven John couldn't explain in his language: there were no words to describe something that no one has ever seen before! He could have made up words, but what good would that do?

As for Genesis, sure there are very few, if any, details in that book. Possibly because a.) there wasn't enough space b.) they did not have words for those things yet. Both are plausible reasons why many details are not in that book.

The thing is that the word for those six days is the same word in the rest of Genesis. They cannot be anything but a normal 24 hour day, without severly messing up the rest of Genesis' days (day is used 63 times in Genesis, and Abraham would still be getting circumcised now if that day were translated as such *ouch*).

quote:

---

silence said:

I think that there is no way to prove whether the creation myth is literal truth
or not.

---

Well, there are ways to prove that in the Bible, those chapters are as literal as the crucifiction chapters (see above for just one example). Scientists are now trying to find evidence of the details that were left out of Genesis. The little nit picky things, not the big things, those are already proven in the Bible.

Okay DL, calm down. There is no need for curse words. I think I already said this before that the Evolutionary Scientists, to a degree, have a conclusion already mapped out before they try to prove it. Webshaman kindly showed me that.

Also, I am not talking in circles unless I need to backtrack to give someone some info that has already been given in previous posts. I am not ignorant either. You seem to forget that I used to be on the other side of this debate a few years ago. I know all about Evolution, Dinosaurs, Mass Extinction, etc. I got them rammed down my throat in Biology, with no explaination that they were just theories, that there were other interpreations of the same data out there. Talk about narrow minded brainwashing. I am not arguing that Creation is science, I am arguing that it is history. I just use science to prove that.

quote:

---

poi said:

By trying to reproduce them of course. And gather as much datas as possible on
those events.

---

Did you read my example after that poi? That is one reason why you can't experiment on things now like they were in the past. What if they changed?

quote:

---

poi said:

I wouldn't qualify of "educated guess" the gathering of prints and other
evidences ( may be other fossils, teeths, pieces of metal, sculpted stones,
pollens, ... ) nearby the said fossil, plus the dating of all these materials,
plus the confrontation of all these datas with the similar datas and knolewdge
gathered throughout the world.

---

I think you misread me. The gathering of fossils is facts. They are tangible and in the present. The point I was trying to make to Webshaman was that the stories behind those fossils are educated guesses.

Dating beyond written history is a best guess. Some people place written history some ten or twenty thousand years ago. I would disagree, but even if that history is 100,000 years ago, it is a far cry from 65 million years. Many things could have happened in that gap to produce a bad sample of dating.

quote:

---

poi said:

That's not what YEC's "scientist" do.

---

You are right. YEC's don't give up on their hypothesis that easily. It takes a lot of evidence to sway someone away from the Biblical Creation, and there doesn't seem to be any lack of evidence on either side of the argument.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

You can't do an experiement without taking time as a factor. That is just bad
science, and on top of that stupid.

---

Then why do scientists do that then?

Okay Warmage, I am going to pick apart your proof, I hope you don't mind.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

1.With Science there is first an observation.- Differences in similar
species exist when separated by great distances.
With Creationism there
is a "Fact"- The bible says the earch was created in 7 days.

---

Actually, with Creation there is a revelation. It is a little different than a fact, a little bit more hard core, I guess you could say. More concrete. But here is the first little tid bit I am confused about. Why did you chose two different subjects for examination? If you want days do days, if you want species do species. There is a difference. I guess it can slide for now, but I would really like some consistancy later please.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

2.With Science you now create a theory.- Darwin creates a basic theory
of evolution
With Creationism there is no theory you already have a
fact.

---

That is correct, Darwin created a theory on how those different types got to different parts, and why they changed. I think it is a good theory to a point. You do understand that the theory only starts to contradict the Bible when it starts saying that different species all came from a single celled organism (or something less exagerated)?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

3.With Science you now repetitively attempt to prove the theory wrong and
revise it, adding evidence to support the theory along the way.- Notice that
the origional theory doesn't exist anymore, this has been modified and changed
over the many years of its existance.
With Creationism you only try to
compile evidence to support you claim. You do not try to prove it wrong,
or add
theories to it.- Dinosaur bones were planted by god- Dinosaur bones are
results of the great flood.

---

This is also something that I disagree with. Evolutionists have accepted Darwin's theories as facts. They may be a bit revised now, but the essence stays the same. They don't try and disprove that theory anymore. They set their sights on new discoveries, right? The details right? Who was first, how did these people move around, etc. They aren't trying to disprove that part of the theory anymore (they do put up a fight against the Creation theory, though. Trying to disprove that and all).
As for the Creation bit, yes theories are added, and yes some are proved wrong while others hold their water under pressure (As for trying to disprove the essence of Creation, the Evolutionists are the ones having a crack at that. And a little tid bit of information is that many scientists who do that, end up switching sides of the argument!). And yes, Creationists do try to support thier claim, but Evolutionists do to. How is that different?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

Your whole bullet thing is scewed completely.

---

Aww, and I thought it did a good job of showing why you have to pay attention to time differences, and that things may have been different back then. Well, you are entitled to your own opinion.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

the reason you are "just not getting it" is because you have decided not
to get
it

---

No.
The reason I am "just not getting it" is because the evidence that is presented is faulty. It isn't that I don't understand the arguments, it is that they don't make sense.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

these yahoo's at 'answeersingenesis' have decided what the outcome
of their
"science" will be and therefore ignroe any actual outcome.

---

It is interesting you say that because many Evolutionist scientists do just that. I will also disagree that they decide on their outcome when a piece of evidence comes their way. They most likely pour over it before they just post their findings (I come to this conclusion from all the reasearch and thought put into the findings). I bet that if you confront them with any actual evidence that they can't shoot holes through then they would abandon all they have said in the past and come to your side. The only problem is that each piece of "evidence" found to contradict Creation has flaws in it. Just e-mail them sometime, and I am sure they would love to show you the flaw in a "piece of evidence" you have found.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Thus, they bend the evidence to fit their "fact",

---

Okay, I am sick of people saying that these scientists "bend" or manipulate facts. They don't. If you would read their findings maybe you would realize that.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that there are any evolutionists who bend facts? I am not implying that Creationists don't. Some do. That is why there is a disclaimer about some theories that do not work. I suggest you read the full page, it has some good points.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

we are human and make mistakes

---

Hmmm. That is interesting. We as humans make mistakes?

You know Webshaman, there is a really good quote on this page of the site that explains about why Creationists interpret facts the way they do. It is on the right side of the page. Read it all please, and then tell me who is covering up evidence.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

I think I already said this before that the Evolutionary Scientists, to a degree, have a conclusion already mapped out before they try to prove it. Webshaman kindly showed me that.

---

I never, ever said anything of the kind. Again, you shove words and ideas in my mouth, that are not true! STOP BEARING FALSE WITNESS!

quote:

---

No.
The reason I am "just not getting it" is because the evidence that is presented is faulty. It isn't that I don't understand the arguments, it is that they don't make sense.

---

They don't make sense to you. You have yet to show facts and proof that they are faulty. As such, your arguments are faulty and have no basis in fact.

quote:

---

Okay, I am sick of people saying that these scientists "bend" or manipulate facts. They don't. If you would read their findings maybe you would realize that.

---

Oh, you are starting to get emotional - why is that? If you would read their findings, and compare them with the evidence against their findins, you would realize that they are heavily manipulating facts and leaving massive amounts of material out (or denying it outright). I (and many, many others) have already read their "findings".

quote:

---

You know Webshaman, there is a really good quote on this page of the site that explains about why Creationists interpret facts the way they do. It is on the right side of the page. Read it all please, and then tell me who is covering up evidence.

---

And with that little gem, Gideon, you have outed yourself as a Conspiracist. Do you truly believe, that Science is a tool of the Devil, designed to "cover up" evidence and somehow lead people away from god?

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-23-2005 13:09)

Gideon: From your remarks on my previous post, it looks like you've never attended a science or math class in your whole life. Ever heard of geology, radioactivity, isotopes, statistics ... ? But I suppose all these domains of expertise are nothing less than some tools of the Devil.

I shouldn't bother, but I just need to point out:

Gideon, this has gotten to the point of *absolute* idiocy. The fact that you even try to respond with this "aha, I gotcha!" kind of outlook, and the fact that you think these reponses are even applicable to the conversation, nevermind that they might somehow "refute" what is being said to you.... it's just......plain madness.

the "arguments" you come back with....it's like me saying that the two feet of snow on the ground outside my door this morning isn't there because once I stick my head up my ass it's cozy and warm.

And I exagerate only slightly there, and I don't even mean it in jest at this point.

Your grasp of even the most basic of the scientific concepts being discussed here is completely missing.
Completely.

Until you can see how and why the articles on that site are completely devoid of any "science", it is completely pointless to discuss these things with you.
Any converation on issues of science in which you will respond by saying "but in this article on 'answersingenesis' they say..." is pretty much automatically null and void, and a waste of everyone's time.

We've proven that in many threads so far - it's just a shame you haven't noticed.

And with that, farewell, poor tortured thread...

quote:

---

Gideon said:
The point I was trying to make to
Webshaman was that the stories behind those fossils are educated
guesses.

---

Better than that they are educated statistical approximations.

A far more satisfactory approach than unedcuated guesswork which I'm afraid is all I'm reading from you and (to be fair to you and not so you think this is personal) virtually all Creationists.

quote:

---

Gideon said:
Dating beyond written history is a best guess. Some people place
written history some ten or twenty thousand years ago. I would
disagree, but even if that history is 100,000 years ago, it is a far
cry from 65 million years. Many things could have happened in that gap
to produce a bad sample of dating.

---

This just goes to prove poi's point - I would really recommend you get a grounding in archaeology, geology, etc. before you go making such statements as they really only just make you look silly.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Not that it will sway those who want to believe but some people will find it interesting.

As I said above (probably) whale evolution is one of the most impressive set of palaeontological evidence for evolution (and a counter to ID) and a lon time period for it to take place in. SJG's essay is a good one on this topic and it is online at the SJG Archives:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html

and new reports of fossils are helping confirm the DNA evidence -I hate talk of "missing links" (as you can consider no animal transitional or we all are) but:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6863348/

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

quote:

---

Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.

---

quote:

---

I confess that I have never quite grasped the creationists' point about inconceivability of transition?for a good structural (though admittedly not a phylogenetic) series of intermediate anatomies may be extracted from these groups. Otters have remarkable aquatic abilities, but retain fully functional limbs for land. Sea lions are clearly adapted for water, but can still flop about on land with sufficient dexterity to negotiate ice floes, breading grounds, and circus rings.

---

quote:

---

The embarrassment of past absence has been replaced by a bounty of new evidence?and by the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find. Truly we have met the enemy and he is now ours. Moreover, to add blessed insult to the creationists' injury, these discoveries have arrived in a gradual and sequential fashion?a little bit at a time, step by step, from a tentative hint fifteen years ago to a remarkable smoking gun early in 1994.

---

Pure gold! Puuurrre gold! Thanks for the links, Emps!

And to save Gideon time looking it up:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp

------------------
However, the SJG paper and this article address most of those points:

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/direpuppy/mindblocks.html

And (I know I shouldn't suggest actual paper reosurces) but for a good overviews see:

"At the Water's Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea" by Carl Zimmer
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684856239/

"The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618005838/

and I would recommend you do us the courtesy of reading those before making "yes but...." answers.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

[edit: Fixing typos - damn db's fat fingers ]

(Edited by Emperor on 01-25-2005 23:47)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

you shove words and ideas in my mouth, that are not true! STOP BEARING FALSE
WITNESS!

---

Thanks for keeping me on track Webshaman. You are right, I am sorry. You said nothing of the sort about conclusions. I guess there was a word shuffle going on in my mind and I switched hypothesis and conclusion around. I give you my apologies.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

They don't make sense to you. You have yet to show facts and proof that
they are faulty. As such, your arguments are faulty and have no basis in fact.

---

They don't make sense to me. I have shown many facts, but they have been dismissed. I can show more, but they will be dismissed. You see, facts from the Evolution Creation and the Creation of the Bible stem from the same evidence, but are interpreted in two very different lights. The light of God helps interpret one, and the absence of it the other. The reason it doesn't make sense is because now that I am looking through the light of God, I can see the holes in the Evolutionary stand point. I think the advantage I have over most Evolutionist Scientists is that I can see Creation and Evolution, but they can only see Evolution.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Oh, you are starting to get emotional - why is that?

---

Maybe it is becuase I am a dying human being and I get emotional sometimes. If you want me to stop, just ask and I will try to stop being a human being.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

they are heavily manipulating facts and leaving massive amounts of material out

---

No, they are reinterpreting the facts. The evidence is the same Webshaman.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Do you truly believe, that Science is a tool of the Devil, designed to "cover
up" evidence and somehow lead people away from god?

---

No, no, no, no. And if I seemed to say that I am sorry. I think that Science is an incredible tool for discovering things that have not been revealed to us. I love scientific accomplishments like space travel, medicine, computers, etc. I think that Science can bring man closer to God. What I do think is that the Atheistic approach to Science is a tool of the Devil, especially if it can be indoctrinated soon into young children's minds.

quote:

---

poi said:

it looks like you've never attended a science or math class in your whole life

---

Actually, it may appear that way. I am a junior in Highschool. So, in that respect I do not have a doctorite in Bio or Chem, but I am in the top of my class. I have taken 2 Bio classes, 1 Earth and Space, 1 Chem, and am taking 1 physics. i am far advanced in math and have taken everything up to Calc, and am taking some extra math classes too. But relatively speaking, no, I do not know a lot about Bio, chem, Geology, etc. I know most of the basics, but I don't have a PHD (come see me in 10 years when I am a doctor, then we can talk about the courses I have taken.) That is the reason why I go to AIG, because there are many PHDs, who work for it.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

What I do think is that the Atheistic approach to Science is a tool of the Devil, especially if it can be indoctrinated soon into young children's minds.

---

Ok, so let us put this straight - you believe, that without god in Science, that it is the tool of the devil?

quote:

---

I am a junior in Highschool.

---

Hooboy.

quote:

---

What I do think is that the Atheistic approach to Science is a tool of the Devil, especially if it can be indoctrinated soon into young children's minds.

---

As if religious education leading to the denying of facts and scientific approach is not indoctrination.

quote:

---

That is the reason why I go to AIG, because there are many PHDs, who work for it.

---

Let me suggest you to go to Nature or Science, there's a hell lot more PHD working there.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

That is the reason why I go to AIG, because there are many PHDs, who work for it.

---

Yes but that means nothing.

What were their PhDs in? Whats was their doctoral thesis? What institution issued them? etc., etc.?

Just having three letters after your name means very little - it has to be relevant, issued from somewhere "respectble", etc., etc.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

quote:

---

Gideon: But relatively speaking, no, I do not know a lot about Bio, chem, Geology, etc. I know most of the basics...

---

This is exactly why all of this "evidence" on AIG makes sense to you. You have the general principles of these subjects. This is as much as most people get. I have to echo Emperor - what are these PhDs that these people hold? If it is a PhD in theology - it's not going to hold much water in a geologic debate. It would be like someone who has a doctorate in astrophysics telling you how to perform brain surgery when you get your doctorate in Medicine.

To someone who only has the basics in earth science and biology - it is easy to "reveal" holes in theories. You need to go beyond the basics, Gideon in order to understand why you are receiving the responses you are. You say you love scientific accomplishments like space travel and computers? Think about this: you may be receiving electricity for your computer from power generated at a nuclear power plant. If we did not have an understanding of radioactive decay - precisely the principles employed in radiometric dating - those power plants would not function. If it works for generating electricity, how can the same principle not work for dating fossils? It can't. You have to think beyond the scope of "Creation" and "Evolution" when reading these articles. Look at what is being refuted in these articles think of the principles involved and how that refuted information would impact existing technology. It involves some critical thinking.

and a little off topic: what is so bad about the earth being 4.6 billion years old, anyway?!?

Because the bible only accounts for a human existance going back about 100,000 years.

Dan @ Code Town

I thought a literal interpretation allows for only around 20,000 years?

Could be...

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Emperor said:

Just having three letters after your name means very little

---

Oh, okay. So people who spend 8 or more years in school after highschool are just wasting thier time then?

quote:

---

poi said:

religious education leading to the denying of facts and scientific approach

---

No, it is an education leading to open-mindedness. If you just teach one side of an argument, you are very close-minded. How would you feel if the young people in school were only taught the Creation view, and not allowed to do projects on the Evolution stand point like back in the Middle ages, and the Catholic Church era?

quote:

---

Emperor said:

What were their PhDs in?

---

You name it and there is at least one scientist that has publically affirmed his stance for Creation. I have a list if you would like to see them.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Ok, so let us put this straight - you believe, that without god in Science, that
it is the tool of the devil?

---

If science is twisted to say that there is no God, and then used to try and "prove" that point, then yes.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

If it is a PhD in theology - it's not going to hold much water in a geologic
debate.

---

I realize that. That is why I went looking through some of them. Through the ones that I looked I did not find any theological PHDs. Granted it wasn't thorough, but I will look again. There are also many teachers who have spoken up about Creation. Do you not respect teachers either? Granted I know that most teachers don't have a PHD, but you might be suprised at how much a teacher knows about his/her subject.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

Look at what is being refuted in these articles think of the principles involved
and how that refuted information would impact existing technology. It involves
some critical thinking.

---

I do that. I look through and test the information that I have read by the things I have learned before I post anything.

As for the whole nuclear powerplants, sure, there is much that has been learned about the decomposition of the atom. Quite a lot actually. The thing is that those known facts are constantly changing. Just a couple hundred years ago we didn't even know they existed. There are theories that are being tossed around now that don't hold much water, but in the future might. Like the string theory (I have been trying to start a discussion about that, but obviously my time has been held up somewhere else).

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

a little off topic: what is so bad about the earth being 4.6 billion years old,
anyway?!?

---

No, it isn't off topic at all. That is a good question. WS and WM are right. It is becuase the age is not realistic. For Christians it doesn't line up with the Bible. For Scientists it doesn't line up with evidence that has been found.

Going back a little bit...

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

grasp of even the most basic of the scientific concepts being discussed here is
completely missing

---

Not really. I am not as highly learned as many of you, I understand that. But, but, I do listen to people who are more highly learned becuase I respect them. Anyone who can stand 8-12 years of school after Highschool has earned my respect. I respect and love doctors especially, that is one reason why I am striving to be one.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Any converation [sic.] on issues of science in which you will respond by saying "but in
this article on 'answersingenesis' they say..." is pretty much automatically
null and void, and a waste of everyone's time.

---

And why is that? What is the difference between these Doctors, Biologists, Chemiscists, Mathematicians, etc.? Please tell me, why do you call them "hooligans."

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

We've proven that in many threads so far

---

Well, I guess not too well, because I, a junior in highschool, am not convinced that the arguments that havae been brought to my attention were completely thought through. I find it interesting that if you take Darwin's reason for his theory as far as he does, it actually disproves itself. I might be wrong, but that is what it looks like at a surface glance. That is why I am looking deeper into it. But please DL, humor me and answer my question that I posed.

quote:

---

Emperor said:

educated statistical approximations

---

= educated guesses in more words.

quote:

---

Emperor said:

A far more satisfactory approach than unedcuated guesswork

---

So these PHDs for years in school, then for years of working in respected boards means that they are uneducated? Who is educated then?

quote:

---

Emperor said:

I would really recommend you get a grounding in archaeology, geology, etc.
before you go making such statements as they really only just make you look
silly.

---

Well, I am working on the groundings right now, but I wasn't aware that I had to be an expert in these things to discuss them in an open forum.

quote:

---

quote WebShaman posted said:

assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been
found

---

Or those that have been propsed to have been found. You all know that there is no such thing as a Brachiosaurus, right? Too bad, that was one of my friend's favorite dinosaur.

Hey, I got a question, when were dinosaurs invented?

I found something I thought was interesting. You know the scientific method that you keep on railing on me about? Do you know who was attributed with concieving it? Sir Francis Bacon. I remembered some things about him when I came across him in my web searchings. Guess who was a professing Creationist? You guessed it, Sir Franics Bacon.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

If science is twisted to say that there is no God, and then used to try and "prove" that point, then yes.

---

I don't know where you get that idea from. Science has neither proven or disproven the existence of god. It has soundly disproven a literal translation of the Bible and a young earth. But you are avoiding the issue, like a slippery eel. Evolution does not disprove the existence of god (nor does it pretend to). In fact, it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about god. All it does, is explain how life has come to be like it is now. It does not explain where life originally came from, nor does it explain how life was originally created. Now, there are theories on this - but that is what they are at present. And you show your bias, when you say "If science is twisted to say that there is no God" - you have already decided that there is a god. Science does soundly show that a literal bible and a young earth are not possible in light of the facts. That does not disprove that god exists. It might for you, because you believe in a young earth and a literal bible. Others who do not, do not feel threatened in their belief in god in the least by either Science, or Evolution.

quote:

---

For Scientists it doesn't line up with evidence that has been found.

---

For the overwhelming majority of Scientists around the Globe, yes, it does line up with the evidence that has been found.

quote:

---

But, but, I do listen to people who are more highly learned becuase I respect them.

---

Ok, but which ones are you listening too? The majority of them, or a fringe group?

quote:

---

And why is that? What is the difference between these Doctors, Biologists, Chemiscists, Mathematicians, etc.? Please tell me, why do you call them "hooligans."

---

The difference is, first of all, that they are in the minority with their views, secondly, that their views have been soundly disproven by the majority views (in the case of a literal bible and a young earth).

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-27-2005 16:16)

Gideon - no, I will not be answering any more of your questions on this subject, as it a complete waste of time and bandwidth.

As I said, your questions have been answered ad nauseum, your "evidence" and "science" been shot down in flames many times, and so on and so on.

As I've said before - if you choose to beleive such things, then fine. That's up to you, and is a personal matter.

But don't for a second think that what these places present is in any way sound science.

The fact that you choose to not accept the vast difference between what science is, and what YEC's call "science" does not nullify that vast difference.

(Edited by DL-44 on 01-27-2005 19:32)

Okay, WS, really quick your post on Ga.: The Theory of Evolution, if used in context of Darwin's findings, does try to say that there is no God, or at least on who was not involved in the Creation of the world. His findings suggest that we came to being just by natural selection. There is no God in that senario.

Evolution is a bad word to use for species that are changing, mainly for the fact that there is a net loss of genetic information. There is little or no increase. Even mutation involved (which is generally a loss of a genetic coding) there is not enough to make a net increase.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

soundly

---

Well, I'm still not convinced, because thus far I have seen no other argument otherwise. I know that we could go on and on, you finding something in scripture that you think disproves it, then me refuting it, you find something, I refute it. It could be an exausting process, so I would rather not do that. Some other way might be better, though... Let me think about it.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about god

---

There is the key WS, there is the key.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

in light of the facts.

---

Facts, or interpretations of certain evidence found?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

you have already decided that there is a god.

---

Not really, the idea just kinda smacked me in the face one day and wouldn't leave. It is nice that way. You know, there is a verse somewhere (I wish I had time to find it) that says something to the effect that men don't seek after God, but God seeks after men. I like that verse.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

It does not explain where life originally came from, nor does it explain
how life was originally created.

---

Not the absolute instant of creation, no. Evolution does try to explain how all the different forms of life came from a few or even just one first life form. That isn't the instance of creation, but that is everything else.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

For the overwhelming majority of Scientists around the Globe, yes, it does line
up with the evidence that has been found

---

For a majority, maybe, but if the world wanted 2+2 to equal 5 would it? No. Why? Because 2+2=4. That is a truth. Even if everyone else really wanted it to be five, the truth is that it is 4.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Ok, but which ones are you listening too? The majority of them, or a fringe
group?

---

I listen to all who I have the pleasure and honor of listening to. I don't skip things in books because I don't like them, I read them anyway. I don't turn my ears off when I hear something I don't like, I listen anyway. That doesn't mean I agree (you have to choose a side sometime), but I do listen.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The difference is, first of all, that they are in the minority with their views

---

I'm looking for a specific answer here, and this is on the right track.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

their views have been soundly disproven

---

You keep saying soundly, it isn't soundly if things are still shaky. Just like in court trials, you can't convict someone if you have a lot of evidence that you don't like them, you can only convict if things are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evolution Scientists have yet to do that.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

no, I will not be answering any more of your questions on this subject, as it a
complete waste of time and bandwidth.

---

Well, you can choose to answer them or not, that is your choice. The thing is that you still posted something directed at me. Yet you do not answer my questions, meerly push them aside as "irrevelant". This tells me that you either are too knowledgeable and high and mighty to answer someone else's questions, or that you don't know the answers. Well, I don't think it is the former, since you still posted something directed at me, so I guess it has to be the latter. So until you say something to the contrary, I will keep the mind set that you don't know.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As I said, your questions have been answered ad nauseum

---

Not really. It seems that I am posting replys to everyone, yet some of the questions I have asked have still not been answered. Like who decides morals if there is no God? That one has been left aside for a while. There are others, but that is just an example.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

your "evidence" and "science" been shot down in flames many times

---

Well, it seems to me like this is just a bunch of rhetorical fluff. I despise rhetorical fluff. You see, those things that I have brought up have not been shot down "in flames". At most they have been responded to an equal argument on the other side. The same evidence is there, yet the interpreter is different, and you say that this is shooting my evidence and science down?!

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As I've said before - if you choose to beleive such things, then fine. That's up
to you, and is a personal matter.But don't for a second think that what
these places present is in any way sound science.

---

First off, that is hypocracy. Second off, if that is not science, then what doctors, biologists, zoologists, etc. do is not science. Because they are certified doctors, biologists, zoologists, etc.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The fact that you choose to not accept the vast difference between what science
is, and what YEC's call "science" does not nullify that vast difference.

---

It's not what I choose, it is what scientists choose. I just choose to listen to what the scientists and teachers have to say.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Gideon, I think you may have missed my point. What I was trying to say with my analogy was that you cannot take a scientific principle like the rate of radioactive decay and say that it works in one arena and not in another. It's like saying that gravity works to keep your feet planted to the ground but it doesn't work for keeping the earth going around the sun because it doesn't fit some predefined set of beliefs.

I have great respect for teachers. I know that many teachers don't have PhDs. What does that have to do with anything? They are knowledgable in their chosen fields - but I would be disinclined to call them all experts in their fields. But that is neither here nor there. The point of contention here is not Creationists. It is young earth creationists that are in question. I can neither prove nor disprove that some higher power made this planet. I can however, dispute when that occured. The idea that said higher power would "plant evidence" so-to-speak to make his/her experiment think that the planet was older than it actually is - that is just absurd. If every single piece of evidence that has been uncovered about the age of the planet is just some giant deific hoax - I can assure you that I really want no part of that deity. Or is this the part where the evil demon comes in and plants this evidence?

Creation and Evolution can very peacefully co-exist with a metaphorical interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. Time was a very relative thing back then and comprehension of vast amounts of time was likely very limited. Keep this in mind though, Gideon: As long as you have chosen to only believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story, everything you see will be filtered through that interpretation. Regardless of how sound any evidence is that is presented to you that points to the contrary, you will be inclined to disbelieve and doubt it - despite your declarations of having an open mind.

quote:

---

Like who decides morals if there is no God?

---

Man is certaintly up to the task.
Paraphrase: Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anybody - that shall be the whole of the law.
If you want to know more about that phrase, look into objectivism and you will find various flavors and wordings of it. You might even be able to find what that phrase is based on.

quote:

---

For a majority, maybe, but if the world wanted 2+2 to equal 5 would it? No. Why? Because 2+2=4. That is a truth. Even if everyone else really wanted it to be five, the truth is that it is 4.

---

Finally, you come to a correct conclusion. Thank you for proving everything we have been talking about - and I don't mean you, or the YECs. You just lost all pretense with that one. The evidence and the facts all add up to 4 on the side of Science and Evolution! On the side of the YECs it all adds up to 5, 6, 7,8...in fact, it just doesn't add up at all. Finally. It was about time you opened your eyes. Too bad your mind is not connected.

quote:

---

Well, it seems to me like this is just a bunch of rhetorical fluff. I despise rhetorical fluff. You see, those things that I have brought up have not been shot down "in flames". At most they have been responded to an equal argument on the other side. The same evidence is there, yet the interpreter is different, and you say that this is shooting my evidence and science down?!

---

Typical response from someone who has nothing left to respond with. And yes, they not only have been shot down in flames, but have been ridiculed in doing so. You even admit it above. You come to the right conclusion. You just are confused about who has the right conclusion. Unfortunately, you still don't seem to be able to add. Poor kid.

quote:

---

Like who decides morals if there is no God?

---

Man and Nature. Because that is who has been doing it, all along. Learn to add.

quote:

---

The Theory of Evolution, if used in context of Darwin's findings, does try to say that there is no God, or at least on who was not involved in the Creation of the world. His findings suggest that we came to being just by natural selection. There is no God in that senario.

---

Been sniffing the paint thinner again? It nowhere says that there is a god, nor does it say there is not. Man, you really are one brainwashed child. Learn to add. Dwarwin's Theory of Evolution never says ANYTHING about the Creation of the world. That is the stupidest conclusion I have ever heard. That is 2+2=230! Learn to add. There is no god in that scenario, because it is a natural process. It doesn't however mean that there is no god. Learn to add. Oh, you think it is the work of the devil! After all, you say that anything that is Science that tries to "disprove god" is from the devil. I take back the paint thinner sniffing. Lay off the hard drugs.

quote:

---

Evolution is a bad word to use for species that are changing, mainly for the fact that there is a net loss of genetic information. There is little or no increase. Even mutation involved (which is generally a loss of a genetic coding) there is not enough to make a net increase.

---

Come again? A net loss of genetic information? Have you lost all your marbles? You are not talking about a mutation, you are talking about damage to the DNA stucture, where information then is lost. A mutation of the genetic structure does not mean that anything is "lost" - just changed. Learn to add. Go to Observed Instances of Speciation. Read it. If your head threatens to explode, then come back here and ask for explainations.

So, what have we learned? Gideon can't add. We have also learned, that Gideon thinks that Evolution is the work of the devil. Sad stuff.

What a waste of education.

Here, I took the liberty of digging this up from Talk:Origins

quote:

---

A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

* Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)


"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.


Conclusion

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.

---

Now get that in your head. Memorize it. Tattoo it on your forehead if you must. But learn it!

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-27-2005 23:56)

(Edited by WebShaman on 01-28-2005 00:05)

quote:

---

Yet you do not answer my questions, meerly push them aside as "irrevelant". This tells me that you either are too knowledgeable and high and mighty to answer someone else's questions, or that you don't know the answers.

---

And if we hadn't gone 'round this circle a good 20 times already, with you simply dismissing all of the scientific fact presented to you, you might have a point.

As it stands, your contributions to the issue at hand have been completely void of any scientific understanding, and completely void of any attempt to learn from sources other than the creation pseudo-scientists. You regurgitate what the creationists tell you rather than trying to verify what they say.

This is proven by your outright refusal to even consider the things that have been said to you beyond a simple comparison against what the creationists say. If you aren't willing to even consider your view to be wrong, there is no point in debate.


On the other hand, everyone here so far who has given you real and valid information, has also done research on the creation websites, and given them a fair shot.
Most of the time, the creation sites are very honestly laughable (albeit sad, and a little frightening) in regard to these issues.

It is also IMPERITIVE to understand this point: "evolutionists" are not a group of people who run around with the sole purpose of refuting creationsim, and are not people whose whole basis of life is the idea of evolution.

Just as atheism is not a religion, "evolutionism" isn't even....a thing. It's just a "Creationist" term to make it more convenient to argue.

To answer this appropriately

quote:

---

Evolution is a bad word to use for species that are changing, mainly for the fact that there is a net loss of genetic information. There is little or no increase. Even mutation involved (which is generally a loss of a genetic coding) there is not enough to make a net increase.

---

I dug this up from Talk : Origins.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

quote:

---

Mechanisms that Increase Genetic Variation

Mutation

The cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation.

Most mutations are thought to be neutral with regards to fitness. (Kimura defines neutral as |s| < 1/2Ne, where s is the selective coefficient and Ne is the effective population size.) Only a small portion of the genome of eukaryotes contains coding segments. And, although some non-coding DNA is involved in gene regulation or other cellular functions, it is probable that most base changes would have no fitness consequence.

Most mutations that have any phenotypic effect are deleterious. Mutations that result in amino acid substitutions can change the shape of a protein, potentially changing or eliminating its function. This can lead to inadequacies in biochemical pathways or interfere with the process of development. Organisms are sufficiently integrated that most random changes will not produce a fitness benefit. Only a very small percentage of mutations are beneficial. The ratio of neutral to deleterious to beneficial mutations is unknown and probably varies with respect to details of the locus in question and environment.

Mutation limits the rate of evolution. The rate of evolution can be expressed in terms of nucleotide substitutions in a lineage per generation. Substitution is the replacement of an allele by another in a population. This is a two step process: First a mutation occurs in an individual, creating a new allele. This allele subsequently increases in frequency to fixation in the population. The rate of evolution is k = 2Nvu (in diploids) where k is nucleotide substitutions, N is the effective population size, v is the rate of mutation and u is the proportion of mutants that eventually fix in the population.

Mutation need not be limiting over short time spans. The rate of evolution expressed above is given as a steady state equation; it assumes the system is at equilibrium. Given the time frames for a single mutant to fix, it is unclear if populations are ever at equilibrium. A change in environment can cause previously neutral alleles to have selective values; in the short term evolution can run on "stored" variation and thus is independent of mutation rate. Other mechanisms can also contribute selectable variation. Recombination creates new combinations of alleles (or new alleles) by joining sequences with separate microevolutionary histories within a population. Gene flow can also supply the gene pool with variants. Of course, the ultimate source of these variants is mutation.
The Fate of Mutant Alleles

Mutation creates new alleles. Each new allele enters the gene pool as a single copy amongst many. Most are lost from the gene pool, the organism carrying them fails to reproduce, or reproduces but does not pass on that particular allele. A mutant's fate is shared with the genetic background it appears in. A new allele will initially be linked to other loci in its genetic background, even loci on other chromosomes. If the allele increases in frequency in the population, initially it will be paired with other alleles at that locus -- the new allele will primarily be carried in individuals heterozygous for that locus. The chance of it being paired with itself is low until it reaches intermediate frequency. If the allele is recessive, its effect won't be seen in any individual until a homozygote is formed. The eventual fate of the allele depends on whether it is neutral, deleterious or beneficial.
Neutral alleles

Most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear. The average time (in generations) until loss of a neutral allele is 2(Ne/N) ln(2N) where N is the effective population size (the number of individuals contributing to the next generation's gene pool) and N is the total population size. Only a small percentage of alleles fix. Fixation is the process of an allele increasing to a frequency at or near one. The probability of a neutral allele fixing in a population is equal to its frequency. For a new mutant in a diploid population, this frequency is 1/2N.

If mutations are neutral with respect to fitness, the rate of substitution (k) is equal to the rate of mutation(v). This does not mean every new mutant eventually reaches fixation. Alleles are added to the gene pool by mutation at the same rate they are lost to drift. For neutral alleles that do fix, it takes an average of 4N generations to do so. However, at equilibrium there are multiple alleles segregating in the population. In small populations, few mutations appear each generation. The ones that fix do so quickly relative to large populations. In large populations, more mutants appear over the generations. But, the ones that fix take much longer to do so. Thus, the rate of neutral evolution (in substitutions per generation) is independent of population size.

The rate of mutation determines the level of heterozygosity at a locus according to the neutral theory. Heterozygosity is simply the proportion of the population that is heterozygous. Equilibrium heterozygosity is given as H = 4Nv/[4Nv+1] (for diploid populations). H can vary from a very small number to almost one. In small populations, H is small (because the equation is approximately a very small number divided by one). In (biologically unrealistically) large populations, heterozygosity approaches one (because the equation is approximately a large number divided by itself). Directly testing this model is difficult because N and v can only be estimated for most natural populations. But, heterozygosities are believed to be too low to be described by a strictly neutral model. Solutions offered by neutralists for this discrepancy include hypothesizing that natural populations may not be at equilibrium.

At equilibrium there should be a few alleles at intermediate frequency and many at very low frequencies. This is the Ewens- Watterson distribution. New alleles enter a population every generation, most remain at low frequency until they are lost. A few drift to intermediate frequencies, a very few drift all the way to fixation. In Drosophila pseudoobscura, the protein Xanthine dehydrogenase (Xdh) has many variants. In a single population, Keith, et. al., found that 59 of 96 proteins were of one type, two others were represented ten and nine times and nine other types were present singly or in low numbers.
Deleterious alleles

Deleterious mutants are selected against but remain at low frequency in the gene pool. In diploids, a deleterious recessive mutant may increase in frequency due to drift. Selection cannot see it when it is masked by a dominant allele. Many disease causing alleles remain at low frequency for this reason. People who are carriers do not suffer the negative effect of the allele. Unless they mate with another carrier, the allele may simply continue to be passed on. Deleterious alleles also remain in populations at a low frequency due to a balance between recurrent mutation and selection. This is called the mutation load.
Beneficial alleles

Most new mutants are lost, even beneficial ones. Wright calculated that the probability of fixation of a beneficial allele is 2s. (This assumes a large population size, a small fitness benefit, and that heterozygotes have an intermediate fitness. A benefit of 2s yields an overall rate of evolution: k=4Nvs where v is the mutation rate to beneficial alleles) An allele that conferred a one percent increase in fitness only has a two percent chance of fixing. The probability of fixation of beneficial type of mutant is boosted by recurrent mutation. The beneficial mutant may be lost several times, but eventually it will arise and stick in a population. (Recall that even deleterious mutants recur in a population.)

Directional selection depletes genetic variation at the selected locus as the fitter allele sweeps to fixation. Sequences linked to the selected allele also increase in frequency due to hitchhiking. The lower the rate of recombination, the larger the window of sequence that hitchhikes. Begun and Aquadro compared the level of nucleotide polymorphism within and between species with the rate of recombination at a locus. Low levels of nucleotide polymorphism within species coincided with low rates of recombination. This could be explained by molecular mechanisms if recombination itself was mutagenic. In this case, recombination with also be correlated with nucleotide divergence between species. But, the level of sequence divergence did not correlate with the rate of recombination. Thus, they inferred that selection was the cause. The correlation between recombination and nucleotide polymorphism leaves the conclusion that selective sweeps occur often enough to leave an imprint on the level of genetic variation in natural populations.

One example of a beneficial mutation comes from the mosquito Culex pipiens. In this organism, a gene that was involved with breaking down organophosphates - common insecticide ingredients -became duplicated. Progeny of the organism with this mutation quickly swept across the worldwide mosquito population. There are numerous examples of insects developing resistance to chemicals, especially DDT which was once heavily used in this country. And, most importantly, even though "good" mutations happen much less frequently than "bad" ones, organisms with "good" mutations thrive while organisms with "bad" ones die out.

If beneficial mutants arise infrequently, the only fitness differences in a population will be due to new deleterious mutants and the deleterious recessives. Selection will simply be weeding out unfit variants. Only occasionally will a beneficial allele be sweeping through a population. The general lack of large fitness differences segregating in natural populations argues that beneficial mutants do indeed arise infrequently. However, the impact of a beneficial mutant on the level of variation at a locus can be large and lasting. It takes many generations for a locus to regain appreciable levels of heterozygosity following a selective sweep.
Recombination

Each chromosome in our sperm or egg cells is a mixture of genes from our mother and our father. Recombination can be thought of as gene shuffling. Most organisms have linear chromosomes and their genes lie at specific location (loci) along them. Bacteria have circular chromosomes. In most sexually reproducing organisms, there are two of each chromosome type in every cell. For instance in humans, every chromosome is paired, one inherited from the mother, the other inherited from the father. When an organism produces gametes, the gametes end up with only one of each chromosome per cell. Haploid gametes are produced from diploid cells by a process called meiosis.

In meiosis, homologous chromosomes line up. The DNA of the chromosome is broken on both chromosomes in several places and rejoined with the other strand. Later, the two homologous chromosomes are split into two separate cells that divide and become gametes. But, because of recombination, both of the chromosomes are a mix of alleles from the mother and father.

Recombination creates new combinations of alleles. Alleles that arose at different times and different places can be brought together. Recombination can occur not only between genes, but within genes as well. Recombination within a gene can form a new allele. Recombination is a mechanism of evolution because it adds new alleles and combinations of alleles to the gene pool.
Gene Flow

New organisms may enter a population by migration from another population. If they mate within the population, they can bring new alleles to the local gene pool. This is called gene flow. In some closely related species, fertile hybrids can result from interspecific matings. These hybrids can vector genes from species to species.

Gene flow between more distantly related species occurs infrequently. This is called horizontal transfer. One interesting case of this involves genetic elements called P elements. Margaret Kidwell found that P elements were transferred from some species in the Drosophila willistoni group to Drosophila melanogaster. These two species of fruit flies are distantly related and hybrids do not form. Their ranges do, however, overlap. The P elements were vectored into D. melanogaster via a parasitic mite that targets both these species. This mite punctures the exoskeleton of the flies and feeds on the "juices". Material, including DNA, from one fly can be transferred to another when the mite feeds. Since P elements actively move in the genome (they are themselves parasites of DNA), one incorporated itself into the genome of a melanogaster fly and subsequently spread through the species. Laboratory stocks of melanogaster caught prior to the 1940's lack of P elements. All natural populations today harbor them.

---

That is the answer to your "point".

Gideon,
First, let me praise you for your intellectual explorations. I'm being absolutely serious, here. You are a Junior in HS (what is that...16, 17 years old?). When I was 16 and 17 years old I was playing RPGs, trying desperately to get a date (and failing miserably) and trying to rebuild a '67 Mustang (also, failing miserably...but that's a story for a different time...).

That you are seriously trying to sort out the world in front of you is admirable at any age, much more so at 16 or 17.

Now, in that same spirit, I'd like to address some of the things you've been writing. I think I may have said this to you before...to someone, for sure...I think it was you. I apologize for repeating myself, but I simply must.

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

There it is, every single word of his work, 6th edition, online.
Please read that book...at least skim through most of the pages...before arguing what evolution is or is not.
I challenge you to find one page, one paragraph, one sentence, that in any way alludes to some sort of notion that scientists are out to prove a god doesn't exist...find one sentence in that text that says scientists don't/can't believe in a god.

quote:

---

Evolution is a bad word to use for species that are changing, mainly for the fact that there is a net loss of genetic information. There is little or no increase. Even mutation involved (which is generally a loss of a genetic coding) there is not enough to make a net increase.

---

You assert here that "there is a net loss of genetic information..." Prove it. Show me some scientific data, some study, some paper anywhere that says there is a "loss of genetic information" with reproduction.

quote:

---

Like who decides morals if there is no God?

---

I don't want to be accused of not answering questions, so I'll take this one on.
Evolution has nothing to do with the existance or nonexistance of a god. There is simply no connection.
There are some people here who agree with the 100% (margin of error: .0001%) of the scientific community on the subject of evolution, and would argue against the existance of a god. There are also some people here who agree with the 100% of the scientific community on the subject of evolution, and who would argue for the existance of a god.
There is no connection.

So, the question serves no purpose in the realm of a discussion about evolution. That's your answer.

quote:

---

Just like in court trials, you can't convict someone if you have a lot of evidence that you don't like them, you can only convict if things are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evolution Scientists have yet to do that.

---

No, it doesn't have anything to do with "a shadow of a doubt". In a criminal case, it is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and in a civil case, the standard is "a preponderance of the evidence".
The real key to the first is "reasonable". Would a "reasonable" person doubt, in the face of the evidence. Reasonable, in a legal sense, is an often used word, and can roughly be translated as "average, normal, regular for the situation".
In the face of those definitions, "creation/young earth science" simply doesn't hold up.

There is far more physical evidence that points to the earth being (relatively speaking) very old, and there is far more physical evidence that points to evolution - gradual change in creatures, through mutations in reproduction - as the chief means by which species are created.
Furthermore, every single "reasonable" (read:average, normal, regular) geological and biological scientist says the earth is very old, and evolution exists and is the primary force of speciation.
This satisfies the requirements of "preponderance fo the evidence" *AND* "beyond a reasonable doubt", not to mention the rigid standards imposed by the scientific community, upon itself and its research.

Find for me one article in Nature, American Naturalist, Journal of Biology, Science, Genetics...find me one article in any peer-reviewed scientific journal (the standard of science, since ancient times) that affirms the earth is less than 20,000 years old and you can start calling AIG folks "scientists". Until then, they are quacks, plain and simple.

Well said, mobrul.

Thank you, Mobrul, for once again making my point better than I can seem to.

However - I must add that this *is not* the first, the second, the third, or even the fourth or fifth time all these points have come up.

And I'm sure it won't be the last time that they will be completely ignored.

Let's take a look at a Creationist's view on things : (from Answers in Genesis)

quote:

---

Debate terms

If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:

1.

?Facts? are neutral. However, there are no such things as ?brute facts?; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians? presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions ? see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ?The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom? (Psalm 111:10); ?The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge? (Proverbs 1:7). ?But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned? (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ?The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters? (Matthew 12:30); ?And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil? (John 3:19).

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible?s account of the universe?s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

---

One can see here, that there is absolutely no attempt at a scientific method - instead, the scientific method is to be avoided at all costs for debate purposes. The Creationist pretext is also based on the asumption that "presuppositions" are present on both sides of the arguement - which is not strickly true. The scientific method in and of itself is void of presuppositions. However, we see that the Creationist side is not only built on presuppositions, but depends on them. For that reason, it is not scientific.

Here is a very good example, of something that appears to be a good arguement from the Creationists, but actually says nothing at all :

quote:

---

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

---

As one can see, a question is posed. However, it is never answered! This is a very typical example of Creationist argumentation and "evidence".

quote:

---

?But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, ....

---

Clearly I am not a 'student' of the bible so maybe somebody can help me out with natural as used here because, as used, it leads me to conclude that those who do receive the things of the spirit of god are in fact, UNnatural.

..Hi...

<-----As You Can Ob. see Im New Here

Now Alow me 2 just add my 2 cents in and Ill be on my way (I dont Know where, so don't ask :-P)

now than...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me too, the only problem with that is that you can not entirely remove God from science and science from God, it is impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


let me rephrase that quote...2 see the words that has envoked me (if you will 2 post)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could use Up at least a Gig. on this word (I should make a post about such..but im not) so for now this quote shall do

"For with God, nothing shall be impossible."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you can not entirely remove God from science and science from God, it is impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There Is A Fine Line Between Genius and Insanity... I Have Erased this line

(Edited by INSANEdrive on 01-29-2005 07:27)

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

If every single piece of evidence that has been uncovered about the age of the
planet is just some giant deific hoax

---

Well, I don't know. I really doubt it, though. I have been reading up on Darwin, and some of his theories, how they arose, etc. They are remarkable that he could stand up against the Catholic Church like that! I haven't yet finished, but I do like it so far. Darwin's theories do not really disprove the Bible, he just thought they did from the close-minded perspective that the Church of that time period had. His theories actually make a ton of sense. The only time his theories really contradict what the Bible says about Creation is when it starts getting into the "kinds" melding together. As in humans and fish having a similar ancient ancestor.

quote:

---

God said in Genesis1:24-25:
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

---

So, everything was made after its own kind. Everything reproduces after its own kind. It doesn't say what these kinds are, just that they reproduce after their own. So a good question would be: What are the kinds? With tigers for instance, are Caspian, Siberian, Indonesian, forms of kinds as the Catholic Church decided? Or are Tigers in general a kind? Or are big cats a kind? Or are the felines a kind? If it is as far back as felines, then think of how many animals could stem from the kinds found on the Ark! But one thing is for certain: fish and humans do not descend from the same kind because they cannot reproduce and make children. That could be one deciding factor in finding the kinds.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

with a metaphorical interpretation of the creation story in Genesis

---

Possibly, but like I stated above, evolution and creation can co-exist peacefully with a literal interpretation of Gensis as well.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

As long as you have chosen to only believe in a literal interpretation of the
creation story, everything you see will be filtered through that interpretation.

---

I have chosen to believe the facts that have been shown to me through the evidence found. I used to believe whole heartedly in Evolution, from childhood through 7 months ago. I had some pretty amazing things happen in my life, so my view have changed. Obviously not everyone else has my same view point, but where I am going with this is as such:

I used to believe in Evolution, so don't give me anymore about not seeing that side of the argument. I used to argue in about the same fassion with some of my friends. Now I have seen the other side of the argument. I have decided which of the two is more believable, based on the facts that the arguments being posed have proven many points. The debate and rush for the end-all argument is on, and one side will come out victor, sometime. Actually, it will be sad and ironic in a few years, but I will not go into that, because it might make some people angry.

The point of the matter is simple, and you touched on it Moon Dancer:
The two theories both have plenty of arguments and counter arguments. They are both looking at the same evidence. They are both sides discarding some facts as wrong. Why? Belief bases. The young earth Creationists have a belief basis rooted in the young earth of the Bible. The old earth Evolutionists have a belief basis rooted in the old earth that evolution supposedly needs. Technically speaking, if evolution happened the entire way that Darwin hypothesied, then it would need many ages of time, and many millions of years. The fact of the matter that I have stumbled upon a while ago and tried to just push aside is that fact. In a sense both sides are looking at the same planet through different glasses. One through the Bible, one through Evolution.
All the points could be discussed ad nausem. Why not talk about the basis? Using arguments just don't seem to do the trick. Mutation is something I read skimming up to your post. It is proposed to be refuted by a doctor's pamphlet I read. One example. A young Earth, it is proposed to be refuted by the ring layers in a tree, or the Aborigines. Another example. It can go on forever.

Looking in hindsight WS, was this really a good thread to start up? It can go on ad infinitium.

As for an old Earth in Genesis, it doesn't fit, end of story. Even if it is taken as a metaphor, I sure hope God doesn't view death as good, because we are all then destined to go to the lake of fire out of God's love.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

because we are all then destined to go to the lake of fire out of God's love.

---

Nope.... only the beleivers. =)

Gideon:

quote:

---

Technically speaking, if evolution happened the entire way that Darwin hypothesied, then it would need many ages of time, and many millions of years.

---

Does is seem so unlikely since for evolutionnists the earth is ~5 billions years old ?

According to HHMI News: Human Brain Evolution Was a 'Special Event' & HHMI News: Gene May Be Key to Evolution of Larger Human Brain, the evolution of the human brain is highly due to a real hard selection and probably to the evolution/mutation of a certain gene coding the ASPM protein in the primate/human lineage.

Nojive: indeed. Unless I do the declaration to give my body to science and/or organs gifts before I die, my body will burn in some flames that have nothing to do with God but with a good old fossil gas.

quote:

---

Actually, it will be sad and ironic in a few years, but I will not go into that, because it might make some people angry.

---

You are setting yourself up to be bitterly disappointed, I am afraid. Such as what you believe has arose in every generation. And we are still here. The "end" hasn't come.

I used to believe, as a teenager, that there would be a nuclear war (back in the days when I was religious and the Cold War was still being waged). And all of what we know, would come to an end...etc, etc.

Guess what?

It didn't happen.

Have more faith in Mankind.

If there had really been a Devil, he would have certainly enjoyed a nuclear war. Look at all the benefits that he would have reaped.

quote:

---

I have chosen to believe the facts that have been shown to me through the evidence found.

---

No, you have chosen to believe a story in a book written thousands of years ago by people who had none of the evidence that we have today and had to come up with some kind of explanation of how we got here.