Evolution vs. Creation

Jan 6, 2011 Read more: Best of New Orleans 159,206
High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
wondering

Sunset, TX

#119920 Aug 11, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place the first life is not thought to have emerged from amino acids but from self-replicating RNA (the most prevalent hypothesis of abiogenesis -note - NOT evolution theory). RNA is not an amino acid.
this is not a major flaw here in this context but please stay tuned with what's ACTUALLY been said and - particularly - NOT what creationisms THINKS what has been said.
what did the RNA originate/emerge from? and what or how would you say they became programmed(so to speak) to code, decode and regulate genes?
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution does not show a progression to "better" suited organisms.
The only thong happening is that individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements will have better survival and reproduction chances and will pass on their genes to the next generation. Species change when the environmental conditions change and require different traits.
I could live with the adjective "more complex" because it is neutral and doesn't presuppose unnecessary judgements.
The complexness of life is caused by life itself.
Because other species around are ALSO part of the environmental conditions. For instances, species that are on the menu. Or predators. Or infectious parasites.
When the first diversification occurred, life became self-affecting.
"individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements" ----would that not be "better suited" for the environment? after all evolution over many many years build those traits up solely to insure the survival of those individuals right?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119921 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, C14 dating is not bogus. It is very well substantiated. Now like every tool it can be misused. You don't use a screwdriver as a hammer and then complain when the handle breaks. If you use radiometric tools inappropriately you will get bad result too. Instead of listening to bogus sources you should listen to people that can explain why and when you use or don't use radiometric dating.
.
Now you are saying the scientists who used the C14 method to date the fossils didn't know what they were doing!
You have a reference to which particular tests that took place and by whom, right?

(crickets)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#119922 Aug 11, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
wow you all have been busy here. I went back 10 pages and couldn't find where i loeft off so i will start here.
you say "a bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria".
using your word "kind", what "kind" of bacteria have we seen change into a new "kind" of bacteria"
1) what "kind" did it start as?
2) what changes happened?
3) how did the changes change it genetically?
4) how did the changes change it's classifications?
5) what "new kind" did the "starting kind" turn into?
Go ask the fundies to define their own non-science terms.

Then get back to us once you can provide a meaningful query based on OUR alleged errors, not based on apologetics that we're addressing that we don't even agree with anyway.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#119923 Aug 11, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask the fundies to define their own non-science terms.
Then get back to us once you can provide a meaningful query based on OUR alleged errors, not based on apologetics that we're addressing that we don't even agree with anyway.
oh look it is the "duh duh duh duh duh dude" with his normal meaningless posts.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119924 Aug 11, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Cambrian "explosion" lasted for 20 MILLION YEARS.
Where is the proof of this? This is just an assumption. I wonder if anyone ever did any C14 dating on this material?

C14, stupid (sorry, there is no other word for this utter ignorance), is not applied to fossils, for the following reasons:
1) C14 dating requires the original carbon of the dated organism to be still in place. Fossils are mineralizations where the original tissues are substituted by the minerals in the surrounding soil. No SINGLE scientist has applied and will ever apply C14 dating on fossils;
2) C14 is only used on specimen <50,000 years old. It is mainly used in archaeology. In palaeontology it is not used but for very young specimen. In palaeontology they use other dating methods.

The methods for dating the Cambrian fossils are: other radiometric techniques, biostratigraphy and the molecular clock. Look them up, it is too laborious to explain them here.

I was very merciful here: there are also many palaeontologists who think the Cambrian radiation (its correct name) took 30 million years or even 50-60 my. But I deliberately took the lower boundary within the current consensus to avoid overstatement in this debate.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of how long it lasted this is the last time period with a new phyla. Can you explain why we have had no new phlum in 500 million years?
The conventional view that all the phyla arose in the Cambrian has found to be flawed. The reason for this is the extending fossil evidence. While the phyla may have diversified in this time period, representatives of the crown-groups of many phyla do not appear until much later in the Phanerozoic. The phyla that form the basis of the Cambrian fossil record originated from the benthic zone (the community of organisms which live on, in, or near the seabed). This pertains a very concise part of total animal life. The fossil record is consistent with a Cambrian "explosion" that was limited to the benthos. The pelagic phyla evolved much later. The phyla were not found to emerge all at once together but in a rather orderly sequence of appearance.

Your idea of the Cambrian explosion is based on decades-old, obsolete ideas when there still was very little evidence from fossils and a lack of suitable dating methods.

As the fossil evidence of pre-Cambrian species - hence phyla - continues to accumulate, the origin of several phyla are shifting out of the Cambrian time-frame back into the pre-Cambrian.

Statistical analysis on trilobite variation revealed that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.

To explain the REAL current state of affairs, go to http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/meyer... and look at the pictures "Marshall 2006" and "K.J. Peterson et. al.". Note that, according to the current fossil evidence and dating, there were already 10 classes and orders present AT THE START of the Cambrian. Hence, the Cambrian radiation is not an "explosion" because it took too long to be an explosion, there was no simultaneous generation of all kind of phyla but a rather chronological, ordered sequence in the chronology.

Also read the summation 1-9 below those pictures (which summarizes the pictures).

It is impossible to explain this in just one Topix post.
The best is you pose more questions of your doubts or for better understanding.
From there I shall try to explain the scientific points of view.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Hemet, CA

#119925 Aug 11, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
oh look it is the "duh duh duh duh duh dude" with his normal meaningless posts.
You're a fine one to call anyone's post meaningless.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#119926 Aug 11, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
<quoted text>You're a fine one to call anyone's post meaningless.
i will give you one last response. you know how the discussion the other day was about hybrids? i think you are a hybrid of jimbo and shubee. nothing more needs to be said. end of story jack wagon!
KeepCalmNcarryON

Hemet, CA

#119927 Aug 11, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i will give you one last response. you know how the discussion the other day was about hybrids? i think you are a hybrid of jimbo and shubee. nothing more needs to be said. end of story jack wagon!
You're a non-fertile hybrid of your anterior and posterior.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119928 Aug 12, 2014
Messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
What you would call a regression is what I call a pattern of general deterioration in life.
Now, let's have a look on we OBSERVE, shall we?
In the geological record we observe stratification: if we dig into the ground (or go to places where erosion did that job, like the Grand Canyon), we observe thousands and thousands of layers. The deeper you go, the older, by very logic.

Each of these different earth layers has its own composition: kind of rock, chemical properties, physical properties and the types of fossils found in it.

Not all earth layers have the same fossil record.
The deepest, hence oldest, layers where we can find life, contain only single cellular life, starting with bacteria and LATER eukaryotes. Ascending in the geological record, thus more recent, we find the first, very primitive, multicellular life (Ediacara biota). A little bit later, the first worms. Then the first animals with (exo-)skeletons. then the first cnidaria. Then the first trilobites. to save place here, I shall now make bigger steps: in the Ordovician the first fish. After a while the first amphibians. then the first reptiles, then the first mammals.

In the meanwhile we ascended thousands of feet to the surface. Thus, what we see is a biostratification - each geological layer has its own distinct fossil record. AND this is a HIERARCHICAL stratification: life begins single cellular and ever becomes more diversified and more complex.

Now, explain this in the light of your "pattern of general deterioration in life".
I REALLY want an answer on this.

I shall elaborate a bit on the geological stratification.
In the Grand Canyon (and literally everywhere we dig) we see a great variety of layers. for instance, we observe former sea beds. How do we know that? Well, because we find fish fossils in it. If chemical analysis shows it is saline, we know it's a former sea floor. If not, it should have been a fresh water body.

In the same fashion we observe all kinds of geological layers and formations in the Grand Canyon record, each on top of the very previous one. There are coal layers (former forests) ON TOP of a former sea bed, ON TOP of a former desert floor, ON TOP of a semi-arid lowland, ON TOP of a mountain range, etc. etc. The Grand Canyon was MORE THAN ONCE a sea floor, MORE THAN ONE a desert, forests, lagoons, you name it, all on top of each other.

Now, I don't know of which branch of creationism you are, but this INEVITABLY implies long, long tome frames. The earth is old. Just to mention.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119929 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what did the RNA originate/emerge from? and what or how would you say they became programmed(so to speak) to code, decode and regulate genes?
<quoted text>
"individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements" ----would that not be "better suited" for the environment? after all evolution over many many years build those traits up solely to insure the survival of those individuals right?
Evolution does not "insure" not "builds up".
If an organism catches a mutation that makes it to retain water better, it would be an advantage when it lives in an arid environment. For organisms living in the sea, this might be a disadvantage. The advantage IMPLIES better survival and reproduction chances, the disadvantage lower. To insuring, no steering, no building up, nothing. Just mechanisms.

When you ask whether "to fit" equals "to suit better", it will be nothing but a language issue. Like anyone else, scientists are thrown on language as it is. Our language is blurry. The same words have a multitude of connotations. There are almost no words without different meaning and many words come with meaning and emotion. Nothing wrong with that of course, language meets more ends than science alone. Of course scientists developed a very special language that hasn't all those double meanings, emotions and connotations: mathematics. But you can't communicate with maths alone.

Hence you may set up a linguistic discussion about the meaning of "to fit" but science says evolution is driven by mechanisms and uses the verb "to fit" to capture that.

The RNA is a macromolecule that consists of ribose, a phosphate, 2 purines and 2 pyrimidines. The biochemical pathway from simple molecules to each of these components is already pretty much on its way, by a range of experiments. The gaps are not filled yet and a lot of work still to be done. But the results until now are very promising. There is no single reason to abandon this line of research. On the contrary.

And THIS is PRECISELY why we don't need creation to be invoked. At the very moment when creation is invoked, this line of research will be abandoned. And science will perish.

By "simple molecules" I mean the ones that we know by other experiments could have emerged spontaneously in pre-biotic conditions.

In their 2009 experiment, Joyce and Lincoln showed that RNA starts to self-replicate even when there are no proteins around. More interestingly, the different RNA strains stated to "compete" and some of them became dominant in the "population". they correctly concluded from their experiment that natural selection is ALREADY a a-biotic, PURE BIOCHEMICAL property of RNA molecules. Some RNA strains "fitted" that particulat biochemical environment better.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119930 Aug 12, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe by using something that is only expected to work on samples 50,000 years or less on samples expected to be out of its range would be pointless as the results would be unreliable no matter what showed up.
You're using a car to swim. Unless you're James Bond you've alread sunk.
Well, what they (creationists) did was using C14 dating on oil and coal.
They said: if we do that, there should be no C14 traces left in the specimen because "evolutionists say that oil and coal are a remnant of ancient life and the original organic carbon is still in it". And indeed they found substantial traces of C14. See? These samples aren't that old as evolutionist think. Hence the earth is not that old. Or, else, C14 dating is invalid and can't be trusted. And if C14 isn't valid, the old age of the earth is hereby refuted.

As follows:
- these invalid measurements yielded the oil and coal to be 40,000 years old, if I recall well. That's STILL older than 6,000 years, but gee, who cares. They just debunked their bible but there is always an apologist who finds some bible quotes to babble it away.
- "That's because C14 is invalid" some little bit smarter ones answered. But if C14 is invalid, the results on the coal and oil samples are AS WELL. But gee who cares about circular reasoning.
- C14 isn't used for dating the earth because of its methodological restraints. Its main appliance is in archaeology. In palaeontology it is only used for specimen of the Tarantian and Holocene. There must have been a creationist who once set his eyes on C14 dating and all misunderstood it to be used for dating the age of the earth. Since than all creationists think that. Hence they are busy debunking a dating technique pertaining a purpose that in reality isn't applied. How idiot idiocy can be. But, again, gee, who cares.
- C14 is formed in the atmosphere by bombardment of nitrogen isotopes by cosmic radiation. But C14 is also formed by bombardment of nitrogen by natural radioactivity in geological layers. Coal and oil layers mostly contain nitrogen. Mostly it is about a slightly 1%( http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac00298a0... ). There are oil and coal layers that contain considerable amounts of radioactivity. Sometimes its concentration urges to take protection measures especially for the on-site oil company workers. Hence, C14 will be formed in those oil and coal layers. But gee, who cares about ignorance.
- hence, if a palaeontologist applies C14 dating, he always will measure the natural background radiation at the site of the specimen. This will lead to corrections in the calculations or the specimen to be dated in other ways. But gee, who cares about a methodologically valid application of techniques.

-

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119931 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Bible is much more than that. We learn from the scriptures that the universe came to be what it is through the will of God. It tells us of our Creator and what pleases him as well as how He thinks and feels and reasons and judges.
A long ago decayed 3500 year old velum tells you what the (your) human-like creator of this entire time/space dimension thinks and feels... but you aren't delusional...?
To put it politely, it is/was only more than a scrap of animal skin because you are unduly and irrationally sentimental about it.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#119932 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
i would say that since the half-life of C14 is what 6500 years that you would not expect to find any C14. But to our surprise they have been C14 dating recent fossil finds and they are finding C14. To me this would suggest one of two things:
1. C14 dating is bogus
2. The fossils aren't 65 million years old.
polymath wrote
Again wrong. There is a background level in many places caused by local radioactivity. This background level is a further limitation to the accuracy of C14 for large ages.
.
How does this retard the decay of C14?
.
<quoted text>
No active looking is required: simply mutations that occasioally can take advantage of new niches.
.
But we have not seen a new body type in 500 million years, This doesn't seem like occasionally. Additionally evolution cannot stop a new body type from emerging even if only to die off later.
.
<quoted text>
No, actually, it doesn't show progression. It shows a lot of back and forth with an overal increase of complexity, but with many regressions.
.
The overall increase in complexity is what is supposedly shown from the fossil record and by other indicators. There is no escaping this.
.
<quoted text>
Yes, plenty. Blind fish in caves, for example. Any time an organ takes energy and is useless, it will deteriorate over time.
.
What you would call a regression is what I call a pattern of general deterioration in life.
There isn't a pattern of general deterioration in life. It isn't even regression, it is evolution, though I am sure that is what Polymath means anyway. The loss of structure or function in cave species or parasites provides them with an advantage that having the structures or functions wouldn't. You can claim it is deterioration, but those creatures have successfully evolved to fit the demands of their environments and reproduce generations. That doesn't sound like deterioration. Does that sound like deterioration to you? I bet it doesn't sound like deterioration to one of the millions suffering from malaria.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#119933 Aug 12, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
A long ago decayed 3500 year old velum tells you what the (your) human-like creator of this entire time/space dimension thinks and feels... but you aren't delusional...?
To put it politely, it is/was only more than a scrap of animal skin because you are unduly and irrationally sentimental about it.
It is humans that are like Him to a certain extent, and the scribes were pretty meticulous at writing what men of God told them.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#119934 Aug 12, 2014
wondering wrote:
"individuals that have traits that FIT the environmental requirements" ----would that not be "better suited" for the environment? after all evolution over many many years build those traits up solely to insure the survival of those individuals right?
Wrong. Not even close. You have the cause and effect completely reversed.

Evolution did NOT build up those traits to insure survival of those individuals.

Instead, those traits appear at random in various forms because of mutations. Whether a mutation appears has nothing to do with its survival value: it only has to do with which piece of DNA was affected by the mutation.

Now, those mutations that *happen* to provide traits that are more 'fitted' to their particular environment will survive and get reproduced. So survivability follows from the trait and the environment.

As the environment changes, the population changes along with it. But the survival value of previous stages may or may not have anything to do with survivability in the new environment. Those new mutations that *happen* to fit into the new environment survive and are reproduced.

Again, the traits are not 'put in' to insure survivability of individuals. The traits vary at random around a mean and those that are better suited to a particular environment survive and reproduce. Whether those traits are good for later generations is not relevant. And yes, it is quite possible for evolution to lead to 'dead ends' when th environment changes enough that no new mutations are enough to ensure survivability.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119935 Aug 12, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven;t a CLUE what you are saying here.
"Bacteria" is NOT the name of a SPECIES.
There are 8 main taxonomic ranks (in descending order):
domain
kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species (human beings, i.e. homo sapiens, are a species)
Bacteria is the name of one of the broadest possible classifications in biology -- it is one of the three Domains:
Archaea
Bacteria
Eukarya (Eukarya = ALL animals, plants, fungi)
Within their biological Domain of "Bacteria," bacterial species are as different from one another as a dog, a giraffe and an oak tree are different within THEIR Domain of Eukaryotes.
There are ZILLIONS of different species of bacteria, equivalent to (within THEIR domain of Eukaryotes) different species of animals, plants, fungi, etc.
So if we observe bacteria in the lab evolving into new SPECIES of bacteria, that is a strong demonstration of speciation, or what Christians mistakenly call "macro-evolution."
A bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria.
.
If you have been following my posts, my contention is that one kind cannot change into another kind. So a bacterium cannot change into anything else but a bacterium.
.
I would disagree with you as to your analogy that bacteria are as different as mammals.
.
<quoted text>
A bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria.
.
If a bacterium evolves only into another bacterium, we will not have the progression postulated by evolution. What is needed is from one kind to evolve into another kind to get the diversity and complexity we see in the world today.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119936 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It is humans that are like Him to a certain extent, and the scribes were pretty meticulous at writing what men of God told them.
Ancient humans created personalities for the mysterious bugaboos that weren't illuminated beyond the campfire and you still do. You are stuck in the delusion of guardian eyes blinking in the darkness and you are unwilling to release yourself from it because it feels good.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#119937 Aug 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Not even close. You have the cause and effect completely reversed.
Evolution did NOT build up those traits to insure survival of those individuals.
Instead, those traits appear at random in various forms because of mutations. Whether a mutation appears has nothing to do with its survival value: it only has to do with which piece of DNA was affected by the mutation.
Now, those mutations that *happen* to provide traits that are more 'fitted' to their particular environment will survive and get reproduced. So survivability follows from the trait and the environment.
As the environment changes, the population changes along with it. But the survival value of previous stages may or may not have anything to do with survivability in the new environment. Those new mutations that *happen* to fit into the new environment survive and are reproduced.
Again, the traits are not 'put in' to insure survivability of individuals. The traits vary at random around a mean and those that are better suited to a particular environment survive and reproduce. Whether those traits are good for later generations is not relevant. And yes, it is quite possible for evolution to lead to 'dead ends' when th environment changes enough that no new mutations are enough to ensure survivability.
In all reality the repair systems may be damaged at some point or time and then they are less efficient which causes damage to the bodies instructional patterns. When a physical or chemical agent damages a part somewhere, it changes the material and thereby increases the agent until.the system recognizes the threat through natural cycling and a corrective action is taken. This is what is happening, and it does this through natural circuits.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#119938 Aug 12, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It is humans that are like Him to a certain extent, and the scribes were pretty meticulous at writing what men of God told them.
You know the Muslims say the same thing.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#119939 Aug 12, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
If you have been following my posts, my contention is that one kind cannot change into another kind. So a bacterium cannot change into anything else but a bacterium.
.
I would disagree with you as to your analogy that bacteria are as different as mammals.
.
<quoted text>
A bacteria doesn't have to become a cat in order to demonstrate evolution. It just has to evolve into a new "kind" of bacteria.
.
If a bacterium evolves only into another bacterium, we will not have the progression postulated by evolution. What is needed is from one kind to evolve into another kind to get the diversity and complexity we see in the world today.
Think of a person from birth to death getting a photograph taken every day. That is the kind of change we are talking about on an evolutionary scale. It may take millions of years for some organisms or 15,000 for others, but the change happens and the evidence supports that. You may not like it, but the evidence doesn't care.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min Mychihuahuawillbite 309,581
News Ben Carson plans May 4 Detroit announcement 7 min Responsibility 107
News US senator says it's time to put a woman on the... 7 min xxxrayted 17
News Huckabee to reveal presidential plans on May 5 ... 8 min Mykro 1
News Race creeps into debate over stalled nomination... 13 min JCJ 5
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min Teaman 1,216,374
News Clinton health charity defends new donation rule 21 min Responsibility 2
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 46 min Ari son of Anarchy 178,087
News Poll: Hillary Clinton most admired woman 6 hr Quirky 495
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 hr Quirky 323,136
News Stop Hillary marketing victory: GOP generates $... 8 hr Shinichiro Takizawa 123
More from around the web