Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Liquidrage · 01-02-2002, 10:37 AM

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

Actually, creation says none of that.

Genesis 1:21
"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good"

This says nothing of mutation at all.
It doesn't limit nor allow anything.
You just except that mutations happen and stretch your view of the bible to fit what you cannot deny.
Please, if you're quoting another verse or translation let me know.

I agree, creation and evolution are different.

We agree here

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.

Evolution does not predict that a new kind will appear in only a few 100 years.

There are many here more versed then I in fossil records that would most likely be willing to share their evidence on a change of *kind*.

Would dog to dolphin count?
Or would dinosaur to bird?

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

But new information was added. As a whole it was not a loss therefor your original statement was poorly worded. No need to argue semantics, we both agree that mutations are a change.

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.

Evolution does not deal with the formation of life.
Where did you get that idea?
Evolution does not claim to figure that one out.
Evolution starts in after the fact.
And yes, there is evidence for that.
Why do you think so many Christians still believe in evolution? Because evolution by it self doesn't claim to know how it all started.

Evolution and creation are not even related.
Which is why I mentioned that at the start of my last post.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]

scigirl · 01-02-2002, 10:44 AM

<a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">Some more things</a>,

(This site is really great!)

Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas (a few beneficial mutations):

Quote:

Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light.

Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome (example of mutation producing abundant new information):

Quote:

Gene duplication is an important source of evolutionary novelty. Most duplications are of just a single gene, but Ohno proposed that whole-genome duplication (polyploidy) is an important evolutionary mechanism. Many duplicate genes have been found in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and these often seem to be phenotypically redundant. Here we show that the arrangement of duplicated genes in the S. cerevisiae genome is consistent with Ohno's hypothesis. We propose a model in which this species is a degenerate tetraploid resulting from a whole-genome duplication that occurred after the divergence of Saccharomyces from Kluyveromyces. Only a small fraction of the genes were subsequently retained in duplicate (most were deleted), and gene order was rearranged by many reciprocal translocations between chromosomes. Protein pairs derived from this duplication event make up 13% of all yeast proteins, and include pairs of transcription factors, protein kinases, myosins, cyclins and pheromones. Tetraploidy may have facilitated the evolution of anaerobic fermentation in Saccharomyces.

Evolution of a Unicellular Organism into a Multicellular Species

Quote:

Starting from single celled animals, each of which has the capability to reproduce there is no sex in the sense that we think of the term. Selective pressure has been observed to convert single-cellular forms into multicellular forms. A case was observed in which a single celled form changed to multicellularity. Boxhorn, a student of Boraas,writes: Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

If you bother to reply, I'll provide examples of beneficial mutations which create new information in humans in my next post.

scigirl

Daggah · 01-02-2002, 10:45 AM

All I have to add is this:

You Betcha, would you consider an ape a different kind than a human? If you do, then there you go, because, despite your denying it, the fact is that apes and humans have evolved from a common ancestor at some point.

Take the challenge. <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html" target="_blank">Compare ape skulls to human skulls, and tell us where the human skulls start and the ape skulls stop</a>. Simple request, right?

You Betcha · 01-02-2002, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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!

There is only one creation chronology in Genesis. Genesis 2 only gives more description as to the creation of the Garden of Eden and not another creation chronology.

As far as I know, Evolution claims life and matter originated naturally. Creation claims a superior intelligence created it. Science shows us that anything that has meaning or a specific complexity was done by an intelligent being. Therefore, Creation's explanation of origins is scientific and Evolution is not.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaina:
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?

I believe the wolf is a dog-kind.

A kind is a family of animals that could originally reproduce, but can become reproductively incompatible while still retaining the fundamental characteristics of the original animal, i.e. horses and mules, rabbits and other species of animals that cannot reproduce but still are the same kind of animal.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaina:
Is that marsupial that looks like a dog (sorry, forgot the name) a dog-kind?

A dog is not a marsupial.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaina:
Is the lion a separate kind from a tiger even though they can interbreed?

I believe lions, tigers, leopards, and cheetahs are the same kind of animal.

Daggah · 01-02-2002, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Science shows us that anything that has meaning or a specific complexity was done by an intelligent being.

No, it hasn't.

Liquidrage · 01-02-2002, 10:54 AM

"As far as I know, Evolution claims life and matter originated naturally. Creation claims a superior intelligence created it. Science shows us that anything that has meaning or a specific complexity was done by an intelligent being. Therefore, Creation's explanation of origins is scientific and Evolution is not."

Then let me be the first to politely tell you that what you know is wrong.

Evolution does not touch how life originated.
As I mentioned it picks up after life started.
How life started is a different debate that needs not include the word evolution.

You Betcha · 01-02-2002, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

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

You would also expect to have striking similarities if we were designed by the same creator. Why would God have to create them the way you want him to?

Sorry, I cannot speak for God as to why he did it that way.

Liquidrage · 01-02-2002, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:


You would also expect to have striking similarities if we were designed by the same creator. Why would God have to create them the way you want him to?

Sorry, I cannot speak for God as to why he did it that way.

Then we would expect to see the same similarities between humans and frogs and bacteria.
But we don't.

And actually, what I would expect to find if everything were made from a creator would be that all living things are made of dirt.

Funny how back then humans lacked the knowledge to know beyond earth,wind,fire and water and we get a divine book with humanity being dirt based.

Though years later we know better and the once literal is now metaphor and symbolism.
Anything to make the glove fit.

Logic Bot · 01-02-2002, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:


You would also expect to have striking similarities if we were designed by the same creator. Why would God have to create them the way you want him to?

Sorry, I cannot speak for God as to why he did it that way.

This sounds like a "sleight of hand" ad hoc explanation.

No matter what evidence is presented, no matter what counter-point is given out, you can always use this answer to weasel out of the debate.

The conclusion you draw is untestable, it might be ripe for the church, but we are debating scientific issues. This is apparent, you asked for the facts, we are giving them to you.

Logic Bot · 01-02-2002, 01:15 PM

Quote:

I'd like for all evolutionists to please list all of the facts that evolution is true.

"True" is an absolute statement. We can show you facts, data and observations that it is a permeable theory that explains the evidence, but we can never claim anything in the scientific realm with absolute certaintly.

With that out of the way, evolution is supported and backed by numerous observations. For starters, let's take a look at this page, it's a great page to look at the evidence supporting evolution, as well to streghten your general knowledge of evolution

<a href="http://gened.emc.maricopa.edu/bio/bio181/BIOBK/BioBookEVOLII.html" target="_blank">Click me</a>

If you have any questions feel free to ask me.

Quote:

No assumptions, please, just facts.

I smell an attempt to later move the goal posts. No matter what we provide, you can always claim "assumptions assumptions assumptions"

Are you being honest?

Quote:

Also, please try to stay on subject

You betcha.

Quote:

Which means I'm only looking for facts on evolution....no opinions on creation

I'll try my best

01-02-2002, 10:37 AM	#51
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Creation states animals can only produce the same type of animal, and that is what we see with mutations and natural selection Actually, creation says none of that. Genesis 1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good" This says nothing of mutation at all. It doesn't limit nor allow anything. You just except that mutations happen and stretch your view of the bible to fit what you cannot deny. Please, if you're quoting another verse or translation let me know. I agree, creation and evolution are different. We agree here 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. Evolution does not predict that a new kind will appear in only a few 100 years. There are many here more versed then I in fossil records that would most likely be willing to share their evidence on a change of kind. Would dog to dolphin count? Or would dinosaur to bird? That is the same difference. The information was changed and the old information is no longer there. Thus, the information was lost. But new information was added. As a whole it was not a loss therefor your original statement was poorly worded. No need to argue semantics, we both agree that mutations are a change. 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. Evolution does not deal with the formation of life. Where did you get that idea? Evolution does not claim to figure that one out. Evolution starts in after the fact. And yes, there is evidence for that. Why do you think so many Christians still believe in evolution? Because evolution by it self doesn't claim to know how it all started. Evolution and creation are not even related. Which is why I mentioned that at the start of my last post. [ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-02-2002, 10:45 AM	#53
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	All I have to add is this: You Betcha, would you consider an ape a different kind than a human? If you do, then there you go, because, despite your denying it, the fact is that apes and humans have evolved from a common ancestor at some point. Take the challenge. <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html" target="_blank">Compare ape skulls to human skulls, and tell us where the human skulls start and the ape skulls stop</a>. Simple request, right?

01-02-2002, 10:54 AM	#56
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	"As far as I know, Evolution claims life and matter originated naturally. Creation claims a superior intelligence created it. Science shows us that anything that has meaning or a specific complexity was done by an intelligent being. Therefore, Creation's explanation of origins is scientific and Evolution is not." Then let me be the first to politely tell you that what you know is wrong. Evolution does not touch how life originated. As I mentioned it picks up after life started. How life started is a different debate that needs not include the word evolution.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.