Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[tumbleweed41]

evolution-for-beginners:cover:

 

[Autodidact]

Nice cite, tumble.

 

[emiliano]

Yup. All this goes without saying. Now, specifically, what Biologists have learned about that is that ToE explains the diversity and appearance of life on earth. You agree?

Yes, micro-evolution accounts for the creation’s diversity, now macro-evolution is another thing; apes turning into humans and the like are something that science will never be able to prove. In the end I stay with the purposeful creation and the ID theory of creation, I am thrilled that you understand that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, science made us realize this, but it will never prove that there is not God/creator, I hope that this makes my position clear, evolution is true and it is exactly what God will it to be like, as He ordain it to be.

 

[themadhair]

Yes, micro-evolution accounts for the creation’s diversity, now macro-evolution is another thing;

Can you explain the barrier that prevents micro from becoming macro? Until you do you are drawing a distinction without any grounds for doing so.

apes turning into humans and the like are something that science will never be able to prove.

Actually science has proven that with two independent lines of evidence.

Firstly, we have the fossils which show the change from an ape-like ancestor to modern humans:

Secondly, we have sequenced the human and chimpanzee genomes. Comparing the two leads to many evidences proving our common ancestry. The fusion in human chromosome number 2, the prevalence of identical endogenous retro-viruses, the deactivated olfactory genes still present in human DNA, the presence of deactivated vitamin-C genes in both, etc. etc.

In the end I stay with the purposeful creation and the ID theory of creation, I am thrilled that you understand that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, science made us realize this, but it will never prove that there is not God/creator, I hope that this makes my position clear, evolution is true and it is exactly what God will it to be like, as He ordain it to be.

This is simply horse-manure. You can’t claim to acknowledge the bible isn’t a scientific treatise while using that same bible to deny scientific findings. And that is precisely what you did when you questioned macroevolution ( a term that is pretty meaningless in this ‘debate’ – this video is a great explanation of why YouTube - Micro vs. Macro Growth ). You can’t have it both ways emiliano.

 

[painted wolf]

All "macro" is... is the build up of "micro" steps.

wa:do

ps... I hate to say it... but ID isn't simply about having God involved in the process... if it were people, like Ken Miller and myself would support it.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, micro-evolution accounts for the creation’s diversity, now macro-evolution is another thing; apes turning into humans and the like are something that science will never be able to prove. In the end I stay with the purposeful creation and the ID theory of creation, I am thrilled that you understand that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, science made us realize this, but it will never prove that there is not God/creator, I hope that this makes my position clear, evolution is true and it is exactly what God will it to be like, as He ordain it to be.

Due to your lack of knowledge of the subject, your post is unfortunately gibberish. It's roughly equivalent to saying something like: "Yes, fruit grown on trees, but orchards is another thing; picking apples off trees is something that science will never be able to prove." It doesn't make any sense. I'll try to correct a few of your errors, but unless you take the time to learn the basic theory, it's hard to discuss intelligently.

First, what on earth do you mean by "macro" vs. "micro" evolution. When you have micro-evolution over a long period, you get macro. If you have micro, it follows as the night the day that you will get macro; it's impossible not to. If you count slowly by ones, you eventually get to a million. If you allow for counting by one, and there is no obstacle, and enough time goes by, you get to a million. In the same way, if you agree that there is micro-evolution, and a lot of time, you get macro-evolution.

Second, humans are apes, and science has demonstrated this beyond question. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species of ape. Period. No "turning into" is required. That's simply a fact. Sorry to pop your bubble.

None of this conflicts with a purposeful theory of creation, and I don't know why fundamentalists cannot grasp this simple fact.

ID is nothing but a set of lies and unless you want to join in with the liars, I suggest you run as far away as possible. ID asserts that science is about God, which is simply wrong.

No, your position is not clear, because it makes no sense. If you want to develop a position regarding evolution, your first step would be to understand what it is.

Of course the Bible is not a scientific treatise, so why do you treat it as one?

Did you notice that you flatly contradicted yourself? You said that something called "macro-evolution" doesn't happen, and that evolution is true. These statements are the exact opposite of each other. So no, you did not make your position clear. You can't, until you first have a clear position.

 

[themadhair]

If anyone is wondering why some people here hold ID in more contempt than creationism then reading the full decision from the Kitzmiller V Dover school board will go a long way to explaining it.

I strongly recommend the above as reading material, because all to often I see folks stepping up to support ID without having the faintest clue what it is they are actually supporting.

 

[BrainDissolve]

What about unintelligent design (UD)?

This theory is age-old but has recently been acknowledged as bridging the gap between creationism and evolution. A strong scientific community has already embraced UD as can be seen here:
www [dot] venganza [dot] org/evidence/

If this theory proves correct, discrepancies in both evolution and ID would been explained:
- The apparent age of the universe is explained by our creator intervening in all scientific observations and results and modifying their outcome to test our faith
- The sheer stupidity of creationists is explained by them being made in the image of their creator

RAmen

 

[emiliano]

Themadhair,
For the record I did not use the bible to disbelieve evolution as I do believe that creatures that we see today are not any thing as their ancestor, ID is a theory, the fossil record of humans is proof of micro-evolutions diversity), human all throughout the record are human and nothing but humans, apes have always been apes, they are a different species, the grouping of species by similarities in their genome is speculative and arbitrary and it does no disprove creationism.

 

[Tristesse]

Themadhair,
For the record I did not use the bible to disbelieve evolution as I do believe that creatures that we see today are not any thing as their ancestor, ID is a theory, the fossil record of humans is proof of micro-evolutions diversity), human all throughout the record are human and nothing but humans, apes have always been apes, they are a different species, the grouping of species by similarities in their genome is speculative and arbitrary and it does no disprove creationism.

For creationism to work, you need to supply your own evidence, you can't rely on the failure of some other evidence. Because If evolution were proven false tomorrow, that doesn't prove creation. That just means evolution wasn't the correct process, Oh and btw you don't need the fossils to confirm common ancestry, dna alone confirms it. The fossils are just a neat little bonus. I love how creationists like to look at the evolutionary chain of humans, and say everything on this side is ape and everything on that side is human, but none of them can agree on which ones are apes or which ones are humans.

 

[painted wolf]

Themadhair,
For the record I did not use the bible to disbelieve evolution as I do believe that creatures that we see today are not any thing as their ancestor, ID is a theory, the fossil record of humans is proof of micro-evolutions diversity), human all throughout the record are human and nothing but humans, apes have always been apes, they are a different species, the grouping of species by similarities in their genome is speculative and arbitrary and it does no disprove creationism.

Perhaps you could tell me which of the skulls in the above posts are human and which are ape?
Where do you draw the line between human and ape?

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

ID is a theory

Read the Kitzmiller V Dover school board link I gave previously. For it to be a theory, in a scientific sense, then you should be able to point to the peer-reviewed research that has been carried out on it.
ID is not a scientific theory, and this was painfully demonstrated during the Dover trial.

the fossil record of humans is proof of micro-evolutions diversity

Demonstrate the genetic barrier that prevents ‘micro’ from becoming ‘macro’. If you do I’m pretty sure you’d win the Nobel prize.

human all throughout the record are human and nothing but humans, apes have always been apes, they are a different species

Two points here:
Firstly, humans are apes.
Secondly, the argument doesn’t hold because speciation has been repeatedly observed. The fossils skulls I posted show skulls which are snapshots in time of hominid evolution. You are different from your parents, and your parents different from their parents, etc. – these gradual changes add up. Those skulls show some of that change in our ancestors.

the grouping of species by similarities in their genome is speculative and arbitrary and it does no disprove creationism.

Actually it does, at least the idea that species were separately created. The argument isn’t that the genomes and morphologies are similar – the argument is that thousands upon thousands of creatures all conform to a nested hierarchy consistent with common descent. Thousands of genomes, phylogenys, bacteriological trees, etc etc and NOT ONE SINGLE violation of the nested hierarchy of common descent.

 

[Autodidact]

Themadhair,
For the record I did not use the bible to disbelieve evolution as I do believe that creatures that we see today are not any thing as their ancestor, ID is a theory, the fossil record of humans is proof of micro-evolutions diversity), human all throughout the record are human and nothing but humans, apes have always been apes, they are a different species, the grouping of species by similarities in their genome is speculative and arbitrary and it does no disprove creationism.

Nope. ID is not a theory; it is a collection of lies. So you're saying that you can tell a human skull from an ape skull? Go for it. Tell us which of these are human, and which not:

We are not trying to disprove creationism, in the sense that God created all things. However, the fossil record utterly demolishes classic, literal Genesis, Young Earth Creationism, which I will abbreviate YEC to save keystrokes. The grouping of species by genome is the only one that makes sense, if you know what a genome is. After all, that's what makes a species a species. It also happens to match up with homology. Do you see any similarity between these two skeletons?

 

[themadhair]

[/size][/font]
Perhaps you could tell me which of the skulls in the above posts are human and which are ape?
Where do you draw the line between human and ape?

^ Also this

 

[emiliano]

Due to your lack of knowledge of the subject, your post is unfortunately gibberish. It's roughly equivalent to saying something like: "Yes, fruit grown on trees, but orchards is another thing; picking apples off trees is something that science will never be able to prove." It doesn't make any sense. I'll try to correct a few of your errors, but unless you take the time to learn the basic theory, it's hard to discuss intelligently.

First, what on earth do you mean by "macro" vs. "micro" evolution. When you have micro-evolution over a long period, you get macro. If you have micro, it follows as the night the day that you will get macro; it's impossible not to. If you count slowly by ones, you eventually get to a million. If you allow for counting by one, and there is no obstacle, and enough time goes by, you get to a million. In the same way, if you agree that there is micro-evolution, and a lot of time, you get macro-evolution.

Second, humans are apes, and science has demonstrated this beyond question. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species of ape. Period. No "turning into" is required. That's simply a fact. Sorry to pop your bubble.

None of this conflicts with a purposeful theory of creation, and I don't know why fundamentalists cannot grasp this simple fact.

ID is nothing but a set of lies and unless you want to join in with the liars, I suggest you run as far away as possible. ID asserts that science is about God, which is simply wrong.

No, your position is not clear, because it makes no sense. If you want to develop a position regarding evolution, your first step would be to understand what it is.

Of course the Bible is not a scientific treatise, so why do you treat it as one?

Did you notice that you flatly contradicted yourself? You said that something called "macro-evolution" doesn't happen, and that evolution is true. These statements are the exact opposite of each other. So no, you did not make your position clear. You can't, until you first have a clear position.

I don’t understand your compulsion to replay to my posts, anyway I am about to believe that some human are apes, and that the apes in out zoo are just waiting to match them, if evolution gave humans an advantage, why do we still have apes? These poor creatures don’t have a fossil record. And I must tell ID is not in scripture is a theory. BTW this is what I wrote “now macro-evolution is another thing; apes turning into humans and the like are something that science will never be able to prove”
The Teleogical Case for God

Pioneered by philosopher William Paley, this theory holds that the complexity of the universe demands the presence of an Intelligent Desiger. Paley provided the example of a watch. If one walks through a field and comes across a watch, he naturally concludes that there had to be a watchmaker. The watch didn't just invent itself.
Paley's theory has some weaknesses, many of them pointed out by philosopher David Hume. However, no one has been able to conclusively and objectively prove the spontaneous generation of a complex entity. Absent such evidence, Paley's theory, since it is backed by common sense and observable phenomena, carries considerable weight.
Read more: "Reasons to Believe in God: Weighing the Preponderance of the Evidence | Suite101.com" - http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/reasons_to_believe_in_god#ixzz0FJDvmVQT&A
Another thing I am getting tired of your personal attacks I realize that this is due to discussion that we have had and that I view you life style as objectionable, so this is a good time as any to cut loose as I won’t change my mind

 

[emiliano]

[/size][/font]
Perhaps you could tell me which of the skulls in the above posts are human and which are ape?
Where do you draw the line between human and ape?
wa:do

The one on the right hand side of the photo belongs to Quasimodo the Notradame hunch man.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually the spontaneous generation of a complex entity would totally disprove evolution.

Some more on Paley you might find interesting.. Natural Theology of Paley
Fallacies of Paley's Argument

Sadly the watchmaker argument is one of the worst ones ever brought forth against evolution.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

sorry.. I was talking about this picture:

wa:do

ps. in the image with the two skeletons side by side...the one on the right... was a chimpanzee.

 

[themadhair]

if evolution gave humans an advantage, why do we still have apes?

If Americans came from Europeans, why do we still have Europeans?

These poor creatures don’t have a fossil record.

Are you ******* blind??? That picture of fossil skulls….did you miss that???

Paley's theory has some weaknesses, many of them pointed out by philosopher David Hume.

If by ‘pointed out’ you mean ‘utterly destroyed’ then we agree.

However, no one has been able to conclusively and objectively prove the spontaneous generation of a complex entity.

Abiogenesis isn’t evolution. Evolution assumes the existence of creatures to begin with.

Absent such evidence, Paley's theory, since it is backed by common sense and observable phenomena, carries considerable weight.

You really should read the Dover decision you know. This argument, when applied to biological systems, got a total smackdown by the scientists.

Another thing I am getting tired of your personal attacks I realize that this is due to discussion that we have had and that I view you life style as objectionable, so this is a good time as any to cut loose as I won’t change my mind

No offence, but your understanding of science is clearly crap yet you are still content to present claims of a scientific nature. You don’t even have the good grace to research what it is you are rejecting (if you had you wouldn’t be displaying such monumental ignorance of the subject). I am truly sorry that you regard accepting the story of the world as told by physical evidence to be “objectionable”.

[FONT=&quot] The one on the right hand side of the photo belongs to Quasimodo the Notradame hunch man.[/FONT]

This comment reflects very badly on your intellectual honesty.

 

[Tristesse]

I don’t understand your compulsion to replay to my posts, anyway I am about to believe that some human are apes, and that the apes in out zoo are just waiting to match them, if evolution gave humans an advantage, why do we still have apes? These poor creatures don’t have a fossil record. And I must tell ID is not in scripture is a theory. BTW this is what I wrote “now macro-evolution is another thing; apes turning into humans and the like are something that science will never be able to prove”
The Teleogical Case for God

Pioneered by philosopher William Paley, this theory holds that the complexity of the universe demands the presence of an Intelligent Desiger. Paley provided the example of a watch. If one walks through a field and comes across a watch, he naturally concludes that there had to be a watchmaker. The watch didn't just invent itself.
Paley's theory has some weaknesses, many of them pointed out by philosopher David Hume. However, no one has been able to conclusively and objectively prove the spontaneous generation of a complex entity. Absent such evidence, Paley's theory, since it is backed by common sense and observable phenomena, carries considerable weight.
Read more: "Reasons to Believe in God: Weighing the Preponderance of the Evidence | Suite101.com" - http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/reasons_to_believe_in_god#ixzz0FJDvmVQT&A
Another thing I am getting tired of your personal attacks I realize that this is due to discussion that we have had and that I view you life style as objectionable, so this is a good time as any to cut loose as I won’t change my mind

The watchmaker argument is possibly one of the worst arguments, not to mention it doesn't qualify as evidence, it's what you call a logical fallacy. You notice the watch is designed because you have numerous copies of designed watches, in fact your only encounter with a watch is one of design. Natural processes occur differently than a watch or a building, if a building or a watch occurred naturally you might have a case.