Defending all creationists!?

Question

The debate on this site between creationists and evolutionists is getting nowhere. What us as creationists are trying to prove is not that evolution does not happen, only that there are very few evolutionists on this site really knowing what evolution is. The message we are trying to propagate is that believing in evolution (all excl. micro evolution) is a religion the same as Christianity is a religion, the same as Buddhism, Islam etc.
Evolutionists have absolutely no facts to substantiate there theory, many commonly believed facts or evidence simply don’t exist or has been proven wrong on numerous occasions. Many believe in evolution on common perception and hearsay alone, if this is an important matter to any of you (creationist and evolutionist) please go and research the facts. As a creationist we realize that when reaching bottom line facts we cannot “prove” that God created everything in 6 literal 24-hour days, but not anymore than evolutionists can “prove” it was millions of years, hence why we say “believing” in evolution is a religion. If for example a pastor in a Christian church told me that Jesus had a brother I would go and search the scriptures to find the truth for myself, that’s what believing my religion is all about – finding the truth. The same can be said for evolutionists who read in science journals or watch national geographic, for example that vestigial organs like the human appendix serves no purpose - go and investigate the facts, science recently discovered that man needs this organ; it is not useless after all. It helps protect you from gastrointestinal problems in the lower ascending colon. The appendix is now known to be an important part of what is called the reticulo-endothelial system of the body. Like the tonsils, the appendix fights infection. According to *Science News, March 20, 1971, both the tonsils and appendix are now believed to guard us against Hodgkin’s disease. Anyway, if the appendix truly is “proof” for evolution then we ought to be able to trace our ancestors through the appendix in a direct line! In addition to man, which animals have an appendix? Here they are: rabbits, apes, wombats, and opossums! Take your pick: all four are totally different from each other. Which one descended from which? Oh, the evolutionist will say, we descended from the ape. Well, did it descend from the wombat?
Evolutionists rely on fossil records to explain the past; they use circular reasoning in that they use the strata to date the fossils and the fossils to date the strata, using the imaginary geological column which does not physically exist, again, just a theory.
Theories for current evolution events rely on natural selection and mutations. Natural selection within a species may work fine,—but you have to have the traits to begin with! These traits may adapt (and adapting traits to new situations is not evolution), but the traits had to be there to start with. Although it occurs all the time within species, natural selection does not explain the origin of species or traits, but only their preservation and more careful use. You cannot select what is not there. If the trait is not already in the genes it cannot be selected for use or adaptation. Selecting which trait will be used (which is natural selection) is not evolution, for the trait was already at hand.
Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance occurrence: totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and other small creatures. Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution.
In closing, a basic principle of evolution for over a century has been the theory of uniformitarianism, which teaches that "all things continue as they were from the beginning", for you that believe this I suggest reading 2 Peter 3:3-7.

Answer 1

You say: " The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and other small creatures. "

Yet you're wrong. We have, indeed, produced NEW SPECIES of fruit flies.

From
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

"5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster
Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster
Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster
Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.

5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.

5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species
In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.

5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster
Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.

5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila
The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below."

Answer 2

The theory of evolution is based on 150 years of scientific research and the fossil record. The creation story is based on a single book filled with inaccuracies and contradictions and is not even accepted by all Christians.

Answer 3

Yes, I agree. If there is proof of macro-evolution, I'm sure someone will post a link to the evidence below this so that all can be enlightened.

But I'm not holding my breath. ;-)

So, how about it? Where is the common ancestor between the insect, the reptile, the mammal, the bird and the fish? Got a link or a link?

Answer 4

Couldn't be bothered to read all of that. However, to suggest that the proof we do have (fossil records, etc) is not eligible is nonsense. Made more nonsensicle by the fact that creationists have no proof whatsoever. Only a book and a belief system created by man.

Answer 5

I guess there was a question in there somewhere. I just love it when you guys site data that is 30 years old. Of course your usually siting data that is 2000 years old so I would suppose that science form the 1970's is cutting edge to you guys.
Fossil record...who cares. Its very complete, but its not really that important. DNA is much more reliable.
Reading christian pseudo-science spewed by organizations like The Discovery Institute only make you sound stupid.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

Answer 6

wow, ok... way too long first of all. Secondly, if you wish for us to look at these facts you speak of give us references. What books or websites are you getting your "facts" from. I'm willing to bet they have no scientific basis and/or are highly biased.

Secondly, evolution is science, not religion. One does not "believe in" evolution. It has happened and it continues to happen. As long as there is life on earth it will continue to evolve. You can either accept it or choose not to, belief doesn't even factor.

Answer 7

You should move on to the made part of created & made things; But not be "made one proselyte", rather be "made perfect", as Christ is our peace, not our division. For God didn't say let us create man; God said let us "make" man. And "us" thereof is neither a creationist nor an evolutionist, but rather above such law law.

The God of all grace MAKE you(of ye/you):
perfect, strengthened, stablished, settled;
after ye(do err) suffer awhile: 1Peter 5:10

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ WITH YOU ALL. AMEN.

Answer 8

I'm an evolutionist, NOT a scientist. I don't HAVE to have all the answers. You don't have to know about medicine to have an operation performed on you. You just rely on the doctor. I don't have to be a scientist to accept scientific theories. I rely on scientists.

Answer 9

Well put....except for your argument that God did not create the Earth in 7 days?

Why couldn't he? If he is the all-knowing and all-powerful God that we know from the bible, then isn't it within his ability to create the Earth in as much time or as little time as he desired?

Answer 10

first of all to long, second of all the belief in evolution isn't a religion look up the definition of religion then look up the definition of belief they are to different things

Answer 11

Just send me the article you copied and pasted from. I know I've read most of that before