Let's end this Creationist v. Evolution debate right now!?

Question

It is so cool to see populations of organisms change in their genomes in response to selective pressures. Bacterial populations can pick up antibiotic resistance in a day. The scientific community has unfortunately watched the evolution of huge numbers of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains in the wild over the last decades. The SARS virus genome changed dramatically in the first human infections. The mutations occurred in the gene that encodes the protein that specifies binding of the virus to cells, presumably adapting to growth in humans. Because we can see large numbers of changes concentrated in certain areas and not in others, it suggests those changes were important for adaptation. We have over 100 SARS genomes sequenced and you can watch the changes (mutations) over time. HIV is currently evolving to be drug resistant; you can watch the genome changing. One of the most amazing things you can see in viral genomes is that they actually steal genes from the host organism

(e.g. human) and then adapt the gene to benefit virus survival. Viruses don't think or plan; all this is random accidental mutation and then selection of the fittest. It is so cool. Of course this is the reason we can't do anything about the H5N1 influenza threat right now, because we're all just waiting to see what it evolves into. We won't know until/unless it happens.
Microorganisms are easy to study in a short time frame because they replicate at very high rates, so you can watch evolution in real time.
With organisms that have slower replication rates, decades instead of hours, it takes much longer to evolve a population. In macro-biology you can see significant changes in species that are separated for longer periods. If you travel, you can see differences in various birds and plants between the east and west coast, or Hawaii, really any geographically distinct area. You can see that various populations adapt over time. Humans from Africa carry the sickle cell gene because

because it was advantageous against malaria in Africa. Humans from areas where malaria is not a threat, don't have that gene sequence etc. Over time, mutations accumulate until you can see real differences in the organisms. Rats evolved in Europe and squirrels in America. God made an amazing, adaptable, elegant system!

the SARS virus is CONSIDERED a coronavirus because it shares some core genes with other coronaviruses (about one third of its genome, the middle section). I was part of the group that DECIDED to classify it as a coronavirus. Taxonomy is the field that decides how to classify things, and it's not such an easy task. We argue these things all the time. We also change the classifications all the time. If you go to the ICTV website (so boring! I always have to go to check updates) you might see how the changes go over time. This isn't true just for viruses, but for all organisms and biologists. Scientists used to classify things based on shapes of bones etc and then we discovered DNA sequencing and that changed the classification system to DNA (a far better choice) and then lots of things got reassigned to different categories. I'm used to the 'truth' changing over time. We do the best we can with what technology we've got, but a lot of times it comes down to a judgment call.

It would have been possible that SARS was a combination of two different virus groups, in which case, we probably would have made a new group. It is possible for a virus to evolve out of its group. It gets to a point where it is so different, that we separate the groups. I think there are arguments about raccoons too, whether they are cat or dog family.
Rats are rats and squirrels are squirrels, but all the evidence suggests that they shared a common ancestor that evolved into rats in europe and squirrels in the americas, presumably when the continents separated. It's the same with the Chinese animals - there's a ferret badger and a raccoon dog- you can see that they are related to our american animals, but took a different route evolutionarily.As for evolution of the eye, there is pretty good evidence for that also. I think some microorganisms detect light (sorry this isn't quite my field of expertise)

and bugs have primitive eyes, just a grouping of photodetector cells that evolve into more organized networks with neurons for interpreting the data in the brain. God does an amazing job creating beings!
Oh, one more thing, there's a scientific belief that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' it means the development of an individual organism retraces the steps of development evolutionarily. For example, you can see stages in the human fetus with gills and with a tail. It seems pretty clear we used to have tails, some children are still occasionally born with them if I remember correctly (yep, according to the web, I'm right
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail
docs just remove them and it's not discussed much I guess because of embarrassment).

How can you deny something that you have observed? No microbiologist with a background in viruses or bacteria could ever deny evolutionary biology. Anyone who denies it, simply does not know what they are talking about.

Frankly, you're wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiL91PxeuuI&mode=related&search=

Rach3l,
You seem to be getting your information froma biased source. You obviously donot personally understand the dynamics ofthe fossil record:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RchtxTViaJA

(Not the best video,but it does, eventually illustrate the point.)

and DZE,
nice try... But there is tons of evidence for prehistory... Just because you do not have video clips from prehistory doesn't mean it doesn't exist:

There is ancient mitochondrial DNA evidence for prehistoric population movement: the numic expansion.

Astronomy and physics makes your lack of a pre-history impossible with basic evidence from the stars themselves:

To wit: If God created the stars and at the same time, all the laws of nature, then 1 or 2. The Bible's account in genesis is wrong, or God is lying about the age of stars because of the evidence of their age that HE PLACED SQUARE IN THE MIDDLE OF NATURAL LAW. In other words, if things are not what they appear, then God (if he were creator) would be a liar.

Scapula,
The laws of thermodynamics,if anything,support evolution.

The earth has the recipe for evolution... No matter needs to be created. Only time is needed. If you want to argue how a cognizant reflective ego evolves, all you have to do is look at your cat or dog. Do they have a personality? There is a good argument to be made that all life, perhaps all matter is connected in a 'science of the spirit.'

A property that connects all matter or all energy. Personally, this is the limits ofmy own faith, but I only believe, or claim to know those things that are verifiable and scientific. Beyond that, intellectual honesty kicks in.

Golden fairy,
You are not a reasonable person.

Nosey,
Why would you think that? It is a crude misunderstanding of mutation.

WHat you heard about carbon dating, potassium argon dating and uranium lead, etc. dating methods is apparently also wrong. The idea that a scientist manipulates the data to produce a desired result is a tired and widely used argument that is completely based on a HUGE lack of knowledge about dating methodology.

Rach's biased sources have been discredited over and over by the scientific community.

My sources are nothing more than plain science. If truth/fact/science/reason is biased, then let's make the most of it!

You belie your fundamental misunderstanding of DNA research.

And the law of thermodynamics? The universe is eternal - it has always been... A lot like your God, only we have physical evidence for our claims.

Your unicorn site only shows me that you did not listen to or quite comprehend my video. All your "problems" were answered.

Answer 1

yes .. disease organisms do seem to have the ability to develope resistance ... doesnt prove evolution to me .. heres my side of the argument .. One of the simplest and best proofs that evolution is a joke, is the FACT that there is NO recorded history prior to 4,000 B.C. The world's history is CLEARY defined by SIX world powers since time began: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Since Rome's fall in 476 A.D., there have been no world-powers (many super-powers; but, no world-powers). At the time of Moses, Egypt ruled the world. The Israelites were used as slave labor by Pharaoh to build the pyramids. Before Egypt, there is absolutely nothing recorded in history about a world-power. It is NO coincidence that Revelation 17:10 speaks of these world-powers, "...five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." At the writing of Revelation, Rome was still a world-power. The Apostle John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us that Rome is the 6th world-power, and there is one more to come. The 7th world-power will be the beast system, the kingdom of the antichrist. This diabolical New World Order is quickly forming now (i.e., a universal religious view, global centralized government, a one-world economic system, a cashless society, etc.)

Answer 2

All this actually does is widen the debate.

Is adaptive behavior and mutation EVOLUTION.

Evolution, in the traditional sense, is natural selection from a given set of choices.

Now, when you throw something into the mix is that truly evolution or is that a knee jerk reaction, followed by normal defense mechanisms.

Your model above can easily be equated to an inorignic chemistry model.

When the Big Bang happened random charges were released, positive and negative and immediately some of these began to meld together due to their natural adhesive properites into hydrogen.

We can easily see how many of the elements could form naturally this way.

But, U235 doesn't usually form naturally. It require human intervention and processing to render simple Uranium ore into other isotopes.

Now, is that TRULY EVOLUTION on an atomic level.

I mean NATURE is doing this, INTELLEGE DESIGN is.

Now, is the HIV going through all of this NATURALLY or is it facing an assault from an INTELLEGENCE out to take it apart, observe it, destroy it, neutralize it and is this ORGANIC life using natural DEFENSE mechanisms that WOULDN'T NORMALLY BE IN PLAY.

It's like putting a kidney into a person. The body defense start to reject it.

And if your thesis is correct, it is POSSIBLE that NATURAL SELECTION may eventually render things like Pollio innoclautions useless, by RESTORING the body to what it was before the invading entity started changing things.

Your thesis, which inview of the problems with Pennicline these days, may indeed be correct. BUT is that EVOLUTION or the body simply fighting back with the structure NATURE GAVE IT to survive.

Can we term that EVOLTUTION or is it really REVOLUTION or all out WAR.

Finally you have to get to Planck's thesis that just by observing something you change it.

Does that still make the process EVOLUTION or have you tainted things and INTRODUCED bias that wouldn't normally have occured!

I wonder if Evolution scientists would even embrace some of your thinking applied from a STRICTIST point of view.

The MOMENT intellegeces comes into play interacting with something of nature, can you call the results EVOLUTIONARY or did you CREATE those results with your interference.

For EVOLUTION to be the way the Randomists want it to be, there can be NO INTENTFUL BIASING, only NATURAL influences. Those that occur NATURALLY in the environment.

Nature does NOT evolve ALL spieces to become SELF PROTECTIVE against preditors, because NATURAL SELECTION works on a MACRO basis not a MICRO basis. Natural Selection takes the entire LIFE and FOOD CHAIN cycle into account when it makes the choices.

It does not give a little fish some protective device like spines hilly nilly (or does it!)

The choices nature makes starts with the WORLD as a whole, the REGION as require and the individual as necessary.

Of course, we're now starting to talk about nature as if it were an intellegent entity.

I suppose we could say, things can happen randomly, as well as through biasing, as well as through other needs.

But none of this attacks the root point of it all.

IS there an intellegence behind this or is this some automatic, perpectual motion device that works without a brain and a soul.

If the LATTER is true, we can EVENTUALLY CONQURE ANYTHING.

It is ONLY when some INTELLEGENCE is at play that the game goes from being 21 or dice or roulette to being CHESS.

The Religious view is we are involved in a game of Chess

The Ranomist view is this is just lotto being played over and over for no reason, purpose, etc. It's just a perpetual motion machine rolling those little balls

You can potentially win at chess if you are good enough or at least stalemate

In dice it's totally random.

In that case even if you find a cure for HIV it still becomes a dice throw.

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle

The electron is not where it normally is so the process fails

YOu can't predict where the electron will be at any given moment

There are no 20 moves ahead to look at

I guess what's more important than Einstein's saying GOD DOESN'T PLAY DICE is DOES GOD RIG THE TABLE

If God doesn't rig the table we can succeed

If God does, we're no closer to answers because the Randimist Planck/Heisenberg observations would be similar

OF course if GOD doesn't stack the deck, maybe Satan does.

The net results are the same.

Answer 3

A few things, I thought mutations were a loss of information not a gaining of new information.

..and I also heard that the fossil record and the geologic column were based on circular reasoning (date the fossils by the rock and vice versa) so how can that work..?

You also accuse Rach31 of citing a bias source, however the video you refer her to on Youtube seems to be just as bias in favor of evolution.

As for Mitochondrial DNA, all that proves is that there is a common source of DNA outside of the threads provided by a mother and father. Theres no way to tell where it originated or came from...

..and what about the law of thermodynamics that says energy cannot be created or destroyed. That is a proven fact that has been tested over and over again. If this is true how can the universe and life in it have come from nothing?

As for the guy in the video mentioning Unicorns and the fact that no Unicorn fossils have ever been found (was an interesting video btw) theres this to consider...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp

Answer 4

Out of chaos comes order. If we learn how to operate in such a matter we would have the understanding of everything that is. As it stands now we have only knowledge of effects, and hypothesis to these effects which cannot be tested. What is right?

Creation and evolution may be one in the same simply by stating that creation was designed with the intent of evolution.
Is this a right answer? No and yes, this is because it is the right answer for me, but cannot be tested either way. Scientifically it is wrong.

The assumption that God does not exist is also not testable by science, this means that any theory claimed by science that God does not exist is actually a hypothesis, and can crumble under its own logic by the simple statement that there is no truth about this.

Answer 5

it truly is a hoax. "yet in reality even as used contained in the context of a dogs generating yet another dogs as an party. it truly is been said in nature, and in laboratories that you'll produce more suitable breeds interior a species. That makes 'evolution' a truth." it truly is a form generating an identical type, which the Bible states because the organic order of issues. once you are able to grant irrefutable evidence of a dogs growing to be a cat, a reptile growing to be a chook, a whale growing to be a cow, or a primate growing to be a human, then you definately've floor to face on. it truly is of route no longer "elementary, incontrovertible truth", in the different case there does no longer be any argument over it. Gravity is a incontrovertible truth, we drop something, it hits the floor, time after time. it truly is been said, examined, retested and falsified. Evolution can't upward thrust up to any of those medical checks. Evolution is a philosophy, a concept equipment, a global view, resembling creationism. all of us have an identical evidence, it truly is an argument of the translation of that evidence. only screaming, "it truly is a truth!" does no longer make it so.

Answer 6

Actually, there is no debate. Evolution won before creationism was created.

The debate exists only in the minds of the ignorant and those who like to indulge the ignorant. Generally, scientists find it fun to smash the creationist base, and the creationists are the ignorant ones. You could quote more evidence than one can read in a life time (there is that much evidence in fact) but these fools would not listen. Your arguement is one of the most evident and visible ones:there are thousands more.

Wow dze is surprisingly foolish. I trust math a lot more than literature, and since science IS math, I'd trust (and I can prove) that the world is 4 billion years old. Oh, and the first town was formed around 6000 bc. Prior to that, humans had been existing in a transition phase between hunter gatherer/small farmer. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Your ignorance is bleeding through my screen.

Answer 7

Really it is quite simple .... Creationism ...now called scientific design ... is the message of Fundamentalists who ignore true science and all its hard evidence and make fundamentalist interpretations of the bible and other such texts.... What they preach is a religious philosophy ...and it is not very mainstream.... Religious beliefs have no place being taught in a science class or in any way effecting what is taught in a science class ....

Just as science is not something to be taught in a religion class...

the two are separate and must remain so..

Answer 8

Jesus, I wish it was that easy.

If anything, I would find a god who could create the mechanisms of evolution to be far more awe inspiring than one who could create animals with a wave of his magic wand. Unfortunately, many christians do not seem to think that way.

And, to answer rach3l_elizabeth, evolutionists do not try to exclude god, they try to exclude special creation. There are christians evolutionists who believe mutation is not totally random but that god has a hand in it and/or that selection is not totally natural but that god has a hand in it. These beliefs combine evolution and christianity very nicely if you are willing to view Genesis as a powerful myth rather than a literal truth.

Answer 9

IF we are to believe the creationist belief, we have to believe that all evolutionary intermediate species of whales existed at the same time. That in itself defies logic and fossil evidence. Further plate tectonics, Einstein's Theory, and Hubble's Law - proving the age of the universe and that it is expanding are convincing enough. How could galaxies be millions of light years away in an earth and universe that is 6000 years old.

Answer 10

All well and good. Also, statistics tell us that macroevolution is not possible in the time allotted. But did you notice that the atheists blame the Christians even when you DO come up with a logical, scientific proof that evolution NEEDS God? They simply refuse to open their eyes and LOOK at the evidence. That's why the debate will go on regardless.