The battle of evolution vs creationism

[mycorrhiza]

Oh really? And I maintain that there is no way evolutionists can build this cockamamie theory of evolution unless it can be proven that life can come from non-life. The whole theory hinges upon life being able to come from non-life, and if it can't, then there is no evolution because evolution DEPENDS upon preexisting life. So far, sciences are stuck like chuck when it comes to abiogenesis, and if you can't prove that life can come from nonlife, then this (evolution) is clearly the cart before the horse fallacy.

If we can't explain how gravity first started to exist, then we can't explain how gravity works, and thus gravity must be false.

Evolution would still be a valid scientific theory even if it was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that the first living being was intelligently created.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I said cats produce cats. A lion and a tiger producing offspring is two cats producing a cat.

No no no no. But a LION is not TYGER! Checkmate.

Fish produce fish.

But the fish lay eggs. Everyone knows god is allergic to eggs man! He couldn't have made them.

Apparently, that is what the whole theory is based on.

Actually it is.

I say it is evidence for Creationism.

I say your deluded and wrong

Whether or not you ever seen the Garden of Eden is not based on the methods of science now is it?

And neither is creationism. Or your view towards evolution.

Dogs produce dogs Monk. Have you EVER seen anything contrary to this. If you have, enlighten me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm RF's resident housekeeper; I just go about, cleaning up the false claims and non-sequiturs other posters spill all over the place.

And I am an Christian apologists warrior here to do the will of God by defending the faith against those that oppose Almighty and his Son Jesus Christ.

Well, I'd say that actually observing speciation in the lab is pretty good evidence. As is the fossil record. As is the genetic evidence. And so on.

So which one would you like to tackle first?

A complete non-sequitur, for one thing; if humans had a lifespan of several centuries, then perhaps this would be the case, but we do not. And so far as it goes, we have been able to create alot of wacky animals

It shouldn't take long if we know how it is done, which was/is my point.

- look at the variety of dog breeds we have created through artificial selection.

Any breed of animal is limited to its own kind, which is exactly what I said, variation within the kind. That is microevolution. That is science. We can observe it. We can test it. I wish it stopped there, but unfortunately it doesn't.

A. the process is not "blind", per se- natural selection is not random or blind, but the exact opposite.

It doesn't know nor can it see what it is doing, yet it is doing a lot of cool things.

B. we have done it, to the extent that the circumstances allow.

And circumstances will only allow on the microlevel.

You can hold that, but it won't amount to much, since this is an irrelevant argument. The theory of evolution doesn't even attempt to address the origin of life- that is not what the theory is about.

That wasn't the argument. The argument is, if you don't know how life can come from non-life to assume evolution is naïve and premature. Evolution cannot be a fact is it is not yet known how life can come from non-life. Evolution depends on the theory that life can come from nonlife. If that assumption has not been proven to be factual, then evolution cannot be said to be true.

Saying that the ToE fails unless it can explain the origin of life, something it was never intended to explain in the first place, is like saying that QM fails unless it can explain why they decided to make 3 Hobbit movies instead of just one.

I understand that you would have loved it if that was the point that I was making, but it isn't.

How silly, since theology answers no questions but merely begs them;

Science doesn't answer questions either, at least the ones that I have.

 

[outhouse]

WE understand you dont want to learn or accept the truth.


But you bring nothing at all to the table to discount the facts of evolution.

 

[Windwalker]

Question: Why would I care about a "Babylonian myth of creation" when I have historicity based on the life, death, Resurrection, and post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ...which correlates with the biblical creation account?

Can you tell me why?

Certainly. Knowledge. It helps inform your understanding of even your symbols of faith to a deeper level. Burying your head in the sand on the other hand, limits the value of your faith and even thwarts it altogether. I prefer allowing information to enrich my life, as opposed to feeling threatened by it.

 

[Parsimony]

So, Call_of_the_Wild, I see that you have still failed to refute any of the points of evidence that I have brought up. I think it's safe for me to conclude that you therefore cannot challenge it, yes? I consider that a victory for me.

On another note, you guys remember when I predicted that, if evolution were true, then we should find the genes for teeth in baleen whales? Turns out that it has been confirmed: How baleen whales lost a gene and their teeth.

If any of you creationists are bold enough to step up, I will list my challenges again (with some new additions):

-Why do dolphins have olfaction genes when they cannot smell?
-Why do many male mammals have nipples?
-Why was a dolphin found that had hind flippers?
-Why do humans have body hair with attached piloerectile muscles?
-Why do baleen whales have the genes for enamel-coated teeth when they have no enamel-coated teeth?
-Why do humans have the genes for tails when we have no tails?
-Why do manatees have fingernails?
-If humans and chimpanzees do not have a common ancestor, then why is it that the 90,000+ endogenous retroviruses in human and chimpanzee DNA are more than 99.9% similar?
-If beneficial mutations are not possible, then why have Flavobacterium, E.coli, HIV and even the human immune system been able to acquire new abilities which can be traced back to mutations?
-If new traits cannot come into existence through evolution, then how did Italian wall lizards manage to generate a new gut structure (cecal valves) when a small population of that species was moved to a new island?
-If evolution cannot produce improvements in existing traits, then why is it that the Italian wall lizards mentioned before were able to grow larger and stronger jaws than their ancestors?
-If all living things became susceptible to death at the same time (that is, when "The Fall" occurred), then why are there many kinds of animals which don't show up at all in the earliest parts of the fossil record (particularly vertebrates like reptiles, mammals and birds)?
-If animals are specially-designed, then why do pandas have to rely on a modified wrist bone to act as a thumb instead of being equipped with a real thumb?

All of the above questions can be answered easily with the theory of evolution, but are potentially quite problematic for creationism as it currently exists.

I would strongly advise the creationists here to familiarize themselves with this website: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And I am an Christian apologists warrior here to do the will of God by defending the faith against those that oppose Almighty and his Son Jesus Christ.

And what does it say then that God's Holy Champion needs someone to clean up the logical mess he's making of things?

So which one would you like to tackle first?

Take your pick. You've got quite a task ahead if you plan to explain away all the evidence in favor of evolutionary theory; we may be here a while.

It shouldn't take long if we know how it is done, which was/is my point.

And you're still missing the point. If evolution, in the vast majority of cases, takes many, many human lifetimes, how is it that "knowing how it is done" should allow us to skip over this inconvenient limitation?

Or does "knowing how evolution works" imply knowing how to become immortal, or at least exponentially extend the human life expectancy? Does evolutionary theory have to cure mortality, as well as account for abiogenesis (and probably provide a Theory of Everything for physics while its at it) before delusional creationists finally concede defeat? (since late is better than never)

Any breed of animal is limited to its own kind, which is exactly what I said, variation within the kind.

Again, missing the point. You asked why humans can't manipulate evolution; and yet, that's exactly what we've done with dogs (artificial natural selection, basically) and other species besides.

And this-

That is microevolution. That is science. We can observe it. We can test it. I wish it stopped there, but unfortunately it doesn't.

is a silly creationist canard. We've observed speciation- not microevolution, but speciation.

And circumstances will only allow on the microlevel.

Closing your eyes doesn't make the world disappear- it only makes it so you can't see it. Google "observed instances of speciation".

That wasn't the argument. The argument is, if you don't know how life can come from non-life to assume evolution is naïve and premature. Evolution cannot be a fact is it is not yet known how life can come from non-life.

And that's completely non-sequitur- A. evolution is not assumed, it has been established on the basis of empirical corroboration and predictive power B. evolution doesn't stand or fall with abiogenesis- logically, either one could be true and the other false. Evolution is a theory about the diversity about biological life- since it makes no claims about the origin of life, it has no commitment to any particular theory regarding the origin of life. Abiogenesis could be false- God could have farted out the first single-celled organism, and evolution could still be true.

If that assumption has not been proven to be factual, then evolution cannot be said to be true.

Aside from the fact that this is clearly false, since evolution and abiogenesis are distinct claims that do not logically entail one another, you haven't actually backed up this claim by saying why evolution should depend on abiogenesis in the first place.

Science doesn't answer questions either, at least the ones that I have.

Not answering the questions you have isn't the same as not answering questions- and science answers questions, whether they're ones you're interested in or not. Theology, on the other hand, answers no questions (only begs them).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Very nice.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So, Call_of_the_Wild, I see that you have still failed to refute any of the points of evidence that I have brought up. I think it's safe for me to conclude that you therefore cannot challenge it, yes? I consider that a victory for me.

On another note, you guys remember when I predicted that, if evolution were true, then we should find the genes for teeth in baleen whales? Turns out that it has been confirmed: How baleen whales lost a gene and their teeth.

If any of you creationists are bold enough to step up, I will list my challenges again:

-Why do dolphins have olfaction genes when they cannot smell?
-Why do many male mammals have nipples?
-Why was a dolphin found that had hind flippers?
-Why do humans have body hair with attached piloerectile muscles?
-Why do baleen whales have the genes for enamel-coated teeth when they have no enamel-coated teeth?
-Why do humans have the genes for tails when we have no tails?
-Why do manatees have fingernails?
-If humans and chimpanzees do not have a common ancestor, then why is it that the 90,000+ endogenous retroviruses in human and chimpanzee DNA are more than 99.9% similar?
-If beneficial mutations are not possible, then why have Flavobacterium, E.coli, HIV and even the human immune system been able to acquire new abilities which can be traced back to mutations?
-If new traits cannot come into existence through evolution, then how did Italian wall lizards manage to generate a new gut structure (cecal valves) when a small population of that species was moved to a new island?
-If evolution cannot produce improvements in existing traits, then why is it that the Italian wall lizards mentioned before were able to grow larger and stronger jaws than their ancestors?
-If all living things became susceptible to death at the same time (that is, when "The Fall" occurred), then why are there many kinds of animals which don't show up at all in the earliest parts of the fossil record (particularly vertebrates like reptiles, mammals and birds)?

All of the above questions can be answered easily with the theory of evolution, but are potentially quite problematic for creationism as it currently exists.

Yeah, you probably just scared him away. He tends to disappear when posed with difficult questions and counter-arguments.

I would strongly advise the creationists here to familiarize themselves with this website: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Good call, and this one too-

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[outhouse]

he isn't having any of that bio babble man!


He don't do no education, its all a conspiracy man!

 

[McBell]

Dogs produce dogs, Mest. What reasons do we have for going beyond this except for the fact that evolution is the only game in town once you take away the God hypothesis?

The evidence.
Cause if we include the evidence you ignore....
Of course, if you have to ignore evidence in order to protect your beliefs...

Now comes the denial.

 

[johnhanks]

Any breed of animal is limited to its own kind, which is exactly what I said, variation within the kind.

Call keeps trotting out that mantra, but never gets round to addressing this point:

The only difference between a cat zygote and a dog zygote that makes one develop into a feline body and the other into a canine one is the genetic code they contain in their nucleus, made up in each case of the same A,C,T,G bases but in a different arrangement. Neither you nor any other creationist has ever come up with a mechanism that would prevent one arrangement being changed, over a long period, into the other.

So how exactly is this kind-restriction enforced, Call?

 

[Parsimony]

Neither you nor any other creationist has ever come up with a mechanism that would prevent one arrangement being changed, over a long period, into the other.

I did actually have a creationist explain to me what mechanism limits evolution (in their mind, at least). It was basically a denial of beneficial mutations and that "new information" could not be created within genomes. Without the ability to generate new traits, any descendants of a given population would only be capable of mixing-and-matching already existing alleles which they would have to use to adapt to the environment. If an allele is lost, then the number of alleles in that population is permanently reduced. Thus, the only direction that evolution could ultimately take would be degenerative.

If it was true that beneficial mutations did not exist, then the creationists would have a point. That is, of course, completely false. I've already pointed out beneficial mutations in my previous post as well as evolution of a new trait (cecal valves in Italian wall lizards).

Despite the fact that the creationist I heard this from had done much more research into evolution than most, he still had a particularly bizarre argument against beneficial mutations: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes it impossible to predict that beneficial mutations can occur...

 

[Mycroft]

The evidence.
Cause if we include the evidence you ignore....
Of course, if you have to ignore evidence in order to protect your beliefs...

Now comes the denial.

But many claim these sorts of things to be put there by God to test us. Things like Richard Dawkins and fossils. And facts.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The evidence.
Cause if we include the evidence you ignore....
Of course, if you have to ignore evidence in order to protect your beliefs...

Now comes the denial.

If there is any evidence in favor of dogs producing non-dogs, I certainly haven't seen it yet.

 

[metis]

If there is any evidence in favor of dogs producing non-dogs, I certainly haven't seen it yet.

Given enough time, that certainly might be possible (depending of course on how one might define "dogs"), but what can be shown through the fossil record is that there is a time whereas no dogs of any type show up, and this time includes the vast majority of the time Earth has existed. If what you believe in were true, we should find dogs at all different levels of strata, but we don't.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The only difference between a cat zygote and a dog zygote that makes one develop into a feline body and the other into a canine one is the genetic code they contain in their nucleus, made up in each case of the same A,C,T,G bases but in a different arrangement. Neither you nor any other creationist has ever come up with a mechanism that would prevent one arrangement being changed, over a long period, into the other.

Apparently that "only" difference is a huge difference considering that we've never observed any animal produce something different than what it is. There is no "my parents are aliens, but I am a human" type of deal. There is only dogs producing dogs, etc.

As far as "a mechanism that would prevent one arrangement being changed over a long period, into the other". Look, that is pure speculation. That is the presupposition, that isn't the science. Science is based on repeated experiment and observation, right? Well, dogs have repeatedly produced dogs throughout the history of mankind...and that is all that has been observed. Anything beyond this is voodoo science.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Given enough time

That is the answer to why we can't see it.....is time. Time, time, time. Give it enough time. Its like; "Hey, no one has ever seen it happen, and no one will EVER see it happen, but it happens."

If you don't see the scam in that, I don't know what to tell you.

, that certainly might be possible (depending of course on how one might define "dogs"), but what can be shown through the fossil record is that there is a time whereas no dogs of any type show up, and this time includes the vast majority of the time Earth has existed. If what you believe in were true, we should find dogs at all different levels of strata, but we don't.

Well, you don't have transitional fossils either. If there was a point at which dogs didn't exist, we should find dozens of the transitional fossils that lead up to not only the dog kind, but the many other kinds of animals. Remember, it isn't enough to just explain just one, you have to explain them all. The problem is, you can't even EXPLAIN ONE.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No no no no. But a LION is not TYGER! Checkmate.

Um, monk. I said cats will only produce cats. A lion is a cat. A tiger is a cat. Together, they will produce a cat, thus; cats will only produce cats.

But the fish lay eggs. Everyone knows god is allergic to eggs man! He couldn't have made them.

I don't recall that in the bible. Maybe I missed that chapter.

I say your deluded and wrong

The feeling is mutual

And neither is creationism. Or your view towards evolution.

But I am not the one claiming that my belief is that of science, you are. So based on that, I expect to see repeated observation. I don't, and neither do you.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If we can't explain how gravity first started to exist, then we can't explain how gravity works, and thus gravity must be false.

Gravity came in to being right along with the universe. As a Creationist, I can explain how the universe began to exist.