Liquidrage

bold posted by You Betcha:

Mutations and natural selection do not prove evolution. They prove creation as undeniably factual.
I would like to see the proof that mutations and natural selection point to creation.
You cannot claim with any validity that if evolution is wrong that creation is right.
They are not opposites, they are different.

Creation does not have a problem with animals changing through mutations and natural selection, but mutations and natural selection have never turned one kind of animal into another kind, and they do not increase information to form an eye or any other complex structure.

Kind is defined by man.
You must first define kind before I would know what observations of mutations might be good for you.
Some examples would be dog breeds that no longer can breed with each other, cows and chickens that have been breed to increase production of their milk and eggs.
Or even some naturally observed evolutions such as fruit flies that were cut off from the mainland in the English tunnel that are now considered a different species.

Mutations are a loss of genetic information.

That is incorrect. Mutations are not a loss but a change.

mu·ta·tion (my-tshn)
n.
The act or process of being altered or changed

That is from dictionary.com, far from a heathen instituion.

The fact is that the explanation for the origin of life and the universe by Creation is scientific and the one Evolution gives is not.

That is your opinion. Which you have not backed up in anyway. Everyone has an opinion, your's is not special.

What repeatable experiment has been performed to show that life and matter can form naturally?

This has nothing to due with the rest of the topic but none that I am aware of. Nor are their any experiments that show it could form unnaturally.

Though you used naturally poorly here.
What would be unnatural?
Would the forming of god be unnatural?

Say creationism was correct.
That god always was and always will be.
Then god knows how that is possible while we do not for god's understanding would be above humanity's capabilities.

If this is the case then god needs to be experimental proven to be possible to meet your claim.

First creation no matter when or how or on what would be the same either natural or unnatural depending on semantics. Though in reality it would fit the definition of either.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

You Betcha

Creation states animals can only produce the same type of animal, and that is what we see with mutations and natural selection.

I agree, creation and evolution are different.


A dog is a kind of animal. A dog will not produce another kind of animal. Maybe another breed of dog, but it is still a dog.


That is the same difference. The information was changed and the old information is no longer there. Thus, the information was lost.

My last two points go together as my argument for the Creation explanation being scientific and the Evolution explanation not.

I would say that if there are no experiments which show how life can form naturally, then that shows Evolution is not scientific.

wdog

Could I please get a copy of nightspawn's thermodynamic argument emailed to me? I can't open it with my antique computer. (nlo@angelfire.com) thanks thanks thanks

about this.... first of all again the creationists ignorance is displayed when they claim that the second law is a LAW and evolution is a mere theory. this is all meaningless semantics as a well accepted theory may just well be described as an elaborate law, and you might as well term thermodynamics a theory. Newton's second LAW will not hold as one increases velocity near the speed of light but Maxwell's electromagnetic THEORY is always accurate (with some mathematical changes to operators in the quantum limit). evolution is a well accepted theory, so it ranks right up there in terms of accuracy.

the second law is a statement about the quantity entropy. it is in fact more general than the familiar heat tranfer differential form dQ/T and has it's roots in statistical mechanics (so does all of thermo). There has been development of it in terms of information theory as well. Creationists again display their 'gift' for superficial understanding of science when they apply the second law to evolution. There can be local decreases in entropy that are offset by increases in entropy elsewhere as long as the system is not isolated, and clearly the biosphere is not isolated, it isn't even closed. Would someone please stop these people? They think they know something.

You Betcha

Optics Guy,

From my perspective, I believe entropy does not prohibit life from changing over time. However, I believe it prohibits life from naturally originating.

hezekiah jones

How can this be, since the latter is supported by observations of actual reality, while the former was dreamed up by a band of roving goatherders several thousand years ago. (Needless to say, you'll have to choose which creation myth you're referencing.)

Do you have any evidence to support your outrageous claim? Choosing a particular creation myth would be a good start. Genesis 1, or Genesis 2?

Liquidrage

From my perspective, I believe entropy does not prohibit life from changing over time. However, I believe it prohibits life from naturally originating.


No, it means it woudn't expect life to form naturally. The 2nd Law doesn't prohibit anything.

Kaina

Hi You Betcha

Would you be so kind as to give us an outline of the Theory of Creation? Please pay special attention to reconciling the two different chronologies in Genesis. Also please describe any real-world data that fits the Theory of Creation as well or better than the Theory of Evolution. Thanks very much!

Secondly, could you give a better description of "kind" please? You say: A dog is a kind of animal. A dog will not produce another kind of animal. Maybe another breed of dog, but it is still a dog. Are only animals that can interbreed a kind, or does it have to do more with how they look? Is a wolf a dog-kind? Is that marsupial that looks like a dog (sorry, forgot the name) a dog-kind? Is the lion a separate kind from a tiger even though they can interbreed? A detailed genetic definition of kind would be very helpful. Thanks!

scigirl

You Betcha:

Please explain to me how gene duplications, which occur during unequal crossover during meiosis, are not new information.

1 goes to 2. Seems like new and increased information to me!

scigirl

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by You Betcha:

A dog is a kind of animal. A dog will not produce another kind of animal. Maybe another breed of dog, but it is still a dog.

How about a Wolf, Fox, Coyote, Jackal, Hyena ... etc etc. Are they all of the "kind" Dog? How about Bears? Where is the dividing line between "Dog" and any other "kind"?

I would say that if there are no experiments which show how life can form naturally, then that shows Evolution is not scientific.

When in reality all it shows is that you do not understand the terms Evolution and Scientific, specifically that Evolution says absolutely nothing about the formation of life and Experiments are not the only things to make something scientific. We have never experimentally created gravity from scratch but that does not make the theory of relativity any less valid a description of reality.

Amen-Moses

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

scigirl

Oh and to You Betcha and Night spawn (Hey NS--are you familiar with Jeff K?),

Please explain how YEC explains (and how it predicted) this picture:



Human Chromosome 2 and its analogs in the apes from <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html" target="_blank">The Evolution Evidence Page</a>.

The evolution explanation: You would expect to see these striking similarities if we evolved from a common ancestor of these primates. Chimps have 48 chromosomes, we have only 46. If humans and chimps were 'created separately,' why the incredible coincidence of what looks like chromosome fusion? Why don't chimps have, say 32 chromosomes with their genes in a different order?

scigirl