Why " evolution vs creationism"

[sayak83]

So just to be clear, you are claiming that all you need is a few beneficial mutations (less than 50,000) in order to evolve a human from an ancient chimp-like ancestor? Is that your claim?

Not a claim. Simple fact.

 

[Salvador]

It is not suppose to be an argument for creationism; it is suppose to be an argument against evolution. (Darwinism) if the blind forces of nature like natural selection and random mutations cant account for all the diversity of life, then we should go and find a different theory…….I would suggests that the relevant key mutations are not random but intended.

Evolution is simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.

Of course, there's nothing totally random about the mechanisms that make evolution work by way of favorable genetic traits due to mutations more likely getting passed along to the next generation, natural selection, genetic drifting, or gene flow.

Most new mutations are going to become lost due to their rareness (even if the mutations are beneficial); however, very small effects on reproduction or survival may greatly impact the long-term rates at which various mutations accumulate in particular genes and at particular sites within genes. This results in a pattern of evolutionary change that appears nonrandom and is actually nonrandom; some sites rarely change, others change occasionally, while others change relatively more often

 

[Salvador]

so you start with a chimp-like ape, then you get a couple hundred mutations and vualah you end up with an intelligent, talking bipedal human, that can digest meat, be immune to several diseases, doesn’t have that much hair, doesn’t have thumbs in the feet, + all the other attributes that are unique to humans?.........if things where that simple it would be easy to create a talking chimp in a laboratory, apparently all you need is modify a few dozen genes, (it shouldn’t be hard to do it)

" New research indicates the answer may involve more than the presence of specialized vocal cords. Neurobiologist Genevieve Konopka and her lab group at the University of California--Los Angeles examined a gene called FOXP2, which is linked to human language. But FOXP2 is also found in other animals, and the human version of the gene produces proteins that differ from the chimp's in only two out of 715 locations. To determine the influence of these two mutations, Konopka's team first grew human brain cells in cultures, then injected some samples with human FOXP2 and others with chimp FOXP2. The human FOXP2 led to the expression of a set of different genes than the chimp FOXP2--proving that the two mutations have functional consequences. "This was completely unexpected," Konopka says. The discovery yields the first evidence that human-specific FOXP2 mutations have influence over speech. Interestingly, the mutations are believed to have occurred around the same time that human language first appeared. But activating a set of language genes isn't enough to create a talking chimp--the way genes influence the brain is too complex. For example, genes "turn on" at different times throughout human development to coordinate the formation of parts of the brain involved with language. "The next step is to look at the individual functions of this set of genes," ..."

Why Can't Monkeys and Apes Talk?

 

[Salvador]

But creation without physical mechanism is magic. Magic is the presumptive method God uses, according to creationists, to do all that He does.
"Creator" is the agent. Magic, the mechanism. You're attempting to conflate the two.

As I've mentioned in other discussions about Christianity, this religion is demonstrated as being false.

The Biblical account of creation, regarding the origin of homo sapiens is false; because as I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38) and Eve whom the Bible claims as the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20)

However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.

Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

Of course, the Bible is wrong; in fact, there were people prior to the 76th generation before Christ that allegedly was spawned by Adam and Eve.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ whom the Bible claims was spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological.

Based on genetic diversity, there's never been a human population bottleneck as low as one primordial couple.

Human genetic diversity is too great for there to have ever been a human population size that consisted of less than 10,000 individuals. Pairwise Sequentially Markovian Coalescent (PSMC) analysis confirms a population bottleneck in humans that consisted of no fewer than 10,000 individuals. Source: ( Li, Heng, and Durbin, Richard. ) "Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences". Nature International Weekly Journal of Science. 28 July 2001. PSMC estimate on simulated data. : Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

If there were the most severe population bottle-necking such as one breeding pair that is portrayed in the case of the Biblical Adam and Eve, then there would be a maximum of 4 alleles passed on by Adam and Eve to their children. Furthermore, the subsequent inbreeding would cause some loss of alleles due to genetic drifting. There would not have been genetic diversity in the small group of Adam, Eve and their children who would've had to commit incest among each other for the procreation of their inbred children. A lack of genetic diversity would have persisted for thousands of generations until genetic mutations could cause the genetic diversity of today's population. Based on the number of different alleles there are for the number of genes within the current population and the known rate of mutations per nucleotide sites in humans, geneticists can calculate the minimum number of people needed to create the current amount of genetic diversity. Numerous genetic studies suggest that there were several thousands of people more than two people during the most severe population bottleneck which ever occurred in human history.

DNA segments ( Alu repeats ) insert themselves at various chromosomal locations. There are various forms of Alu sequences and several thousand families of Alu. One well-studied family of Alu is called Ya5, which has been inserted into human chromosomes at 57 mapped locations. If we were to have descended from a single pair of ancestors such as Adam and Eve, then we all would have each of the 57 elements inserted at the same location points of our chromosomes. " However, the human population consists of groups of people who share some insertion points but not others. The multiple shared categories make it clear that although a human population bottleneck occurred, it was definitely never as small as two. In fact, this line of evidence also indicates that there were at least several thousand people when the population was at its smallest". Source: ( Venema, Dennis and Falk, Darrel ) " Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?". 5 April 2010. Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple? | The BioLogos Forum

Coalescence theory analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms and linkage disequilibrium indicates the mean effective population size for hominid lineage is 100,000 individuals over the course of the last 30 million years. The effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium is a minimum of 10,000 followed by an expansion in the last 20,000 years." Source: ( Tenesa, Albert, Navarro, Paul, Hayes, Ben J., Duffy, David L., Clarke,Geraldine, Goodard, Mike E. and Visscher, Peter M.) " Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium". Genome Research. 17 April 2007 Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium

 

[FearGod]

But creation without physical mechanism is magic. Magic is the presumptive method God uses, according to creationists, to do all that He does.
"Creator" is the agent. Magic, the mechanism. You're attempting to conflate the two.

You were created in your mother's womb, where;s the magic that God used?

 

[Valjean]

You were created in your mother's womb, where;s the magic that God used?

Not following. Why would a God be needed?
The reproductive biology is pretty well understood, isn't it?

 

[FearGod]

Not following. Why would a God be needed?
The reproductive biology is pretty well understood, isn't it?

Being understood doesn't mean that God wasn't the designer and the creator
except if you have an evidence that God didn't create the universe.

 

[Salvador]

Being understood doesn't mean that God wasn't the designer and the creator
except if you have an evidence that God didn't create the universe.

If there were a God who created life on Earth, it evidently wasn't the Biblical God.

Reference: Post #84

 

[Valjean]

Being understood doesn't mean that God wasn't the designer and the creator
except if you have an evidence that God didn't create the universe.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim of an extraneous agent. The ball's in your court.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sadly debates on this topic are typically based on semantic games, usually none of the sides present positive evidence for their case.

The evidence for evolution is robust. It is easy to find on Internet sites, and in science books and classrooms for those interested.

Reject the idea of natural selection and random mutations being the main cause of the diversity of life.

There is no other known or identified factor involved in biological evolution than genetic variation occurring over generations within populations subjected to natural selection.

Not to mention that creationists do provide examples of what they claim are “absolute barriers” that prevent any “bigger” change, Irreducibly complexity, genetic entropy, statistical improbabilities Haldane's dilemma etc. would be examples of such barriers.

None of these are accepted by evolutionary scientists, who tell us that the process that Darwin delineated is sufficient to account for the diversity and commonality seen in the tree of life without an intelligent designer. These are people with no other agenda apart from examining and describing how nature works.

Their chief critics are creationists with a religious agenda that depends on unseating evolution. This is a completely different mindset, one not conducive to doing good science. It's the problem that the ID people suffer from, and why what they do is called pseudoscience rather than science. If you look at nature expecting to see a god, you probably will like the ID people who repeatedly and mistakenly claimed to have found irreducible complexity in various biological systems.

YEC do provide testable and verifiable evidence, that may be proven to be ether correct or wrong.

I haven't seen any scientific evidence for creationism.

Imagine a primitive ape that lived 5M years ago, this ape suffered from a genetic point mutation that was so positive that in just 100 years this mutation became fixed and dominant in the population. Then another ape (descendant of the first ape) has another positive mutation and in just 100 years the mutation becomes fixed and dominant. Repeat this process for 5M years and you will end up having an ape with 50,000 positive mutations that were not present in the original ape. Ok, so Humans and chimps have 3 Billion base pairs in their genome, if we are suppose to share 99% of our genome with them, then we have a difference of 30,000,000 base pairs. But even under this unrealistic scenario (because we are assuming abundant “very positive mutations”) you can only account for 50,000 base pairs. You can account for less than the 0.002% of the changes that would be required in order to produce a human and an ape from a common ancestor who presumable lived 5M years ago and had a 1% genetic difference with relation to modern chimps and modern humans. To me things are simple, there is obviously more than just random mutations + natural selection, there are obviously other mechanisms that produce big, fast and nonrandom changes. This is an example of an absolute limit proposed by some creationists,

.

Why do you suppose that the scientific community is not moved by this argument for a barrier to naturalistic evolution?

is it more plausible to say that there are other mechanism apart from random mutations and natural selection that would produce larger changes in a small period of time?

You can hypothesize such mechanism, but unless you identify and demonstrate them, you've got nothing.

I would suggests that the relevant key mutations are not random but intended.

Maybe, but we have no evidence for that. People that believe that believe it by faith, not reason applied to evidence.

 

[Audie]

The evidence for evolution is robust. It is easy to find on Internet sites, and in science books and classrooms for those interested.



There is no other known or identified factor involved in biological evolution than genetic variation occurring over generations within populations subjected to natural selection.



None of these are accepted by evolutionary scientists, who tell us that the process that Darwin delineated is sufficient to account for the diversity and commonality seen in the tree of life without an intelligent designer. These are people with no other agenda apart from examining and describing how nature works.

Their chief critics are creationists with a religious agenda that depends on unseating evolution. This is a completely different mindset, one not conducive to doing good science. It's the problem that the ID people suffer from, and why what they do is called pseudoscience rather than science. If you look at nature expecting to see a god, you probably will like the ID people who repeatedly and mistakenly claimed to have found irreducible complexity in various biological systems.



I haven't seen any scientific evidence for creationism.

.

Why do you suppose that the scientific community is not moved by this argument for a barrier to naturalistic evolution?



You can hypothesize such mechanism, but unless you identify and demonstrate them, you've got nothing.



Maybe, but we have no evidence for that. People that believe that believe it by faith, not reason applied to evidence.

I think the summary of the mouse-position is this:

Either it is Darwinism-Evolutionism which allows only
for random chance mutations, natural selection and time
as the agents of evolution-and those are proven inadequate
by Creationists.

Or it is God.

A lot of chances for a Nobel in the list below.

Irreducibly complexity, genetic entropy, statistical improbabilities Haldane's dilemma etc.

Not just a Nobel, a shot at being hailed as the greatest
scientist of all time.

 

[leroy]

The evidence for evolution is robust. It is easy to find on Internet sites, and in science books and classrooms for those interested

It depends, what exactly do you mean by “evolution”?

There is no other known or identified factor involved in biological evolution than genetic variation occurring over generations within populations subjected to natural selection.

Sure, and my suggestion is that genetic changes are not always random, and that non random genetic changes play a major role in creating the diversity and the complexity of life, while random mutations play a minor role.

None of these are accepted by evolutionary scientists, who tell us that the process that Darwin delineated is sufficient to account for the diversity and commonality seen in the tree of life without an intelligent designer. These are people with no other agenda apart from examining and describing how nature works.

That is a naïve statement, there is a true controversy in the scientific community on whether if random genetic changes and natural selection are sufficient to explain the diversity of life. Most scientists won’t go as far as proclaiming YEC but they would argue that the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection are not sufficient to explain the diversity of life

Their chief critics are creationists with a religious agenda that depends on unseating evolution. This is a completely different mindset, one not conducive to doing good science. It's the problem that the ID people suffer from, and why what they do is called pseudoscience rather than science. If you look at nature expecting to see a god, you probably will like the ID people who repeatedly and mistakenly claimed to have found irreducible complexity in various biological systems.

Irreducible complexity is testable, IC is based upon testable premises. I agree that the burden proof is on the creationists and I agree that IC has not meet its burden yet, IC is a hypothesis that is currently being developed. It is unfair to call it pseudoscience. At worst it would be a wrong hypothesis.

I haven't seen any scientific evidence for creationism.

.
It depends on what you mean by creationism, and what do you mean by evidence.

Why do you suppose that the scientific community is not moved by this argument for a barrier to naturalistic evolution?

,
In fact this argument was proposed by an evolutionist. In fact some creation scientist (don’t remember his name) tried to publish a peer reviewed article on the basis of that argument but was rejected because he didn’t provided anything new, scientists where already aware of these problems.

You can hypothesize such mechanism, but unless you identify and demonstrate them, you've got nothing.

Yes I´ve got hypothesis that may or may not be true

We know that these mechanisms exist, we know that some genetic changes are not random and produce “small changes”, the only question is whether if these mechanisms can be extended and explain what one would call “big changes”

Maybe, but we have no evidence for that. People that believe that believe it by faith, not reason applied to evidence.

Again this is stupid and naïve, we know that non random mutations exist and there are pee reviewed articles suggesting mechanism that are not based on random mutations. This is not a “creationists thing”

 

[Audie]

It depends, what exactly do you mean by “evolution”?





Sure, and my suggestion is that genetic changes are not always random, and that non random genetic changes play a major role in creating the diversity and the complexity of life, while random mutations play a minor role.





That is a naïve statement, there is a true controversy in the scientific community on whether if random genetic changes and natural selection are sufficient to explain the diversity of life. Most scientists won’t go as far as proclaiming YEC but they would argue that the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection are not sufficient to explain the diversity of life



Irreducible complexity is testable, IC is based upon testable premises. I agree that the burden proof is on the creationists and I agree that IC has not meet its burden yet, IC is a hypothesis that is currently being developed. It is unfair to call it pseudoscience. At worst it would be a wrong hypothesis.





.
It depends on what you mean by creationism, and what do you mean by evidence.



,
In fact this argument was proposed by an evolutionist. In fact some creation scientist (don’t remember his name) tried to publish a peer reviewed article on the basis of that argument but was rejected because he didn’t provided anything new, scientists where already aware of these problems.





Yes I´ve got hypothesis that may or may not be true

We know that these mechanisms exist, we know that some genetic changes are not random and produce “small changes”, the only question is whether if these mechanisms can be extended and explain what one would call “big changes”





Again this is stupid and naïve, we know that non random mutations exist and there are pee reviewed articles suggesting mechanism that are not based on random mutations. This is not a “creationists thing”

Perhaps in the interest of avoiding yet more semantic games,
you would define for us what YOU mean by the
terms you are asking about?

Also

We all agree that there is more to evolution than
random mutations and natural selection.

Why do you find it necessary to bring magic into it?

As an explanation for observed phenomena, there is hardly
anything more stupid and naive than magic.

 

[Etritonakin]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

Mostly due to the idea that the earth is not very old (which isn't actually biblically accurate, either) -and the fact that wherever there is disagreement, both sides are usually partly wrong and partly right.

Many "believers" have simply assumed things they were taught -and, fortunately, have allowed those beliefs to be challenged by scientific discoveries. It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made -so that should not be a problem.

Some on the "science" side also assume things -and can be just as reluctant to admit it.

 

[leroy]

Perhaps in the interest of avoiding yet more semantic games,
you would define for us what YOU mean by the
terms you are asking about?

Also

We all agree that there is more to evolution than
random mutations and natural selection.

Why do you find it necessary to bring magic into it?

As an explanation for observed phenomena, there is hardly
anything more stupid and naive than magic.

With evolution I mean “the idea that the complexity and diversity of life was caused mainly by random mutations + natural selection.

Using this definition, evolution would be a controversial idea.

If we accept that the main mechanism is non random genetic changes, I would suggest only 2 possibilities (feel free to suggest a third option)

1 the mutations are guided by an agent

2 the mutations are guided by a complex natural mechanism

Up to this point, do you agree?

 

[Audie]

With evolution I mean “the idea that the complexity and diversity of life was caused mainly by random mutations + natural selection.

Using this definition, evolution would be a controversial idea.

If we accept that the main mechanism is non random genetic changes, I would suggest only 2 possibilities (feel free to suggest a third option)

1 the mutations are guided by an agent

2 the mutations are guided by a complex natural mechanism

Up to this point, do you agree?

The simple definition is, "Descent with modification".
You dont need to add more.

Evolution has been controversial from day one.
The real controversy is within the scientific community, disagreement such as continues today and
probably forever, about details.

The false controversy is from those religious folk
who think it has to be wrong, because (their reading
of) the bible says it cannot be correct.

Why on earth would I or anyone accept that
"non random"* mutations are the main mechanism?

You might want to say what you mean by an "agent".
And whether you feel ToE has to be wrong because
of what the bible says.

*some clarification of what "non random" means would be
in order of course.
Certain mutations are pretty common, like say trisomy 21
while others are rare, so that is not exactly random.
There would be other examples.

ETA How about this definition for "creationism":

The belief that magic is needed to explain certain aspects of life.

 

[leroy]

The simple definition is, "Descent with modification".
You dont need to add more.

Evolution has been controversial from day one.
The real controversy is within the scientific community, disagreement such as continues today and
probably forever, about details.

The false controversy is from those religious folk
who think it has to be wrong, because (their reading
of) the bible says it cannot be correct.

Why on earth would I or anyone accept that
"non random"* mutations are the main mechanism?

You might want to say what you mean by an "agent".
And whether you feel ToE has to be wrong because
of what the bible says.

*some clarification of what "non random" means would be
in order of course.
Certain mutations are pretty common, like say trisomy 21
while others are rare, so that is not exactly random.
There would be other examples.

ETA How about this definition for "creationism":

The belief that magic is needed to explain certain aspects of life.

Nobody would deny what you call evolution, even the most conservative YEC would grant what you call evolution.

Yes I accept you definition for creationism, and using your definitions I would consider myself both an evolutionists and a creationist.

With random I mean that a mutation is not more likely to occur just because the organism needs it, for example a mutation that would cause a better sight, is equally likely to occur in an organism that requires a better sight than to an organism that doesn’t really require a better sight.

With "non random" I simply mean that there is a bias, organisms that require a better sight are more likely to suffer from that mutation.

So with that said.

In your opinion; which mechanism is more relevant in explaining the diversity and complexity of life; random mutations or non random genetic changes?

Do you grant that there is a possibility (worthy of consideration) that maybe random mutations are more relevant?

With agent I mean an intelligent designer.

 

[Audie]

Nobody would deny what you call evolution, even the most conservative YEC would grant what you call evolution.

Yes I accept you definition for creationism, and using your definitions I would consider myself both an evolutionists and a creationist.

With random I mean that a mutation is not more likely to occur just because the organism needs it, for example a mutation that would cause a better sight, is equally likely to occur in an organism that requires a better sight than to an organism that doesn’t really require a better sight.

With "non random" I simply mean that there is a bias, organisms that require a better sight are more likely to suffer from that mutation.

So with that said.

In your opinion; which mechanism is more relevant in explaining the diversity and complexity of life; random mutations or non random genetic changes?

Do you grant that there is a possibility (worthy of consideration) that maybe random mutations are more relevant?

With agent I mean an intelligent designer.

Someone would need to demonstrate the existence
of such directed changes as you speak of, before
the idea is worth of very much attention.

So far we have an undetected phenomenon directed by
a undetected designer. We need more than so me
questionable stats, for that.

Those who think this is worthwhile are free to pursue it.

Meanwhile, you might want to tone down your
comments about it being "impossible" for it not to
be other than as you say, a matter of intelligent
design.

 

[Audie]

Nobody would deny what you call evolution, even the most conservative YEC would grant what you call evolution.

Where you and the other creationists go
off the rail is that you then start adding
unevidenced conditions to the definition.

Nothing wrong with conditions and details
as such, in fact,it is quite desirable.

Its just that you dont get to simply make
them up,and announce what is possible
and what is not.

You've no data for a your directed changes,
nor for the director thereof.

As a side note, I find it a bit peculiar that
for no evident reason, people such as
yourself want to set limits to what their
god is capable of doing.

You've no data showing that such is the case.

I'd think an omni sort of god would be
quite able and maybe inclined to set up
the universe is such a way that it can
bring forth all manner of wonders, without
"Him" having to poke and prod and tinker
with things to get them to run right.

As if he were mucking about with an old
British sports car.

Why is that?

 

[leroy]

Someone would need to demonstrate the existence
of such directed changes as you speak of, before
the idea is worth of very much attention.

.

That is not a problem “non random genetic changes” have been observed to occur, and cause “small changes” the only question is whether if these changes can add up and produce what you would call a “big change”

Take for example natural genetic engineering, this is a mechanism in which organism modify their DNA when there is selective pressure, and those changes are inherited by the next generations, it is a fact that this mechanism is real, it is a fact that it produce small changes (micro evolution) the only question is whether if this mechanism can account for big changes (macro evolution) and whether if it can account for a mayor part of the diversity and complexity that we observe. This is one of many known mechanisms or non random genetic changes.

Natural genetic engineering - Wikipedia


So once again I ask

In your opinion; which mechanism is more relevant in explaining the diversity and complexity of life; random mutations or non random genetic changes?

Do you grant that there is a possibility (worthy of consideration) that maybe non random genetic changes are more relevant?