Guest alexhorseman Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I've been reading through the pages on the forums and great reference keeps being made towards creationism vs. evolution. Creationists claim that evolution is false because of the holes... and "Evolutionists" claim that creationism is false because of all the supporting evidence towards evolution. Alright, without getting long winded (too late), here's what I'm after. I've heard repeatedly that there's no evidence that evolution can increase in complexity the way it has. For example, the increase in the chromosome count of species. Can evolution be explained from single cell organism right through to human beings, even if all there is is sound theory? Basically I'm trying to gather information for debates. I thank you for your help in advance. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Of course there are holes. There are always going to be holes in our understanding. If there weren't, then there'd be no new discoveries to be made. Every theory has "holes". Science is not dogmatic. It doesn't proclaim absolute certainty. A building in which all the people inside profess absolute 100% understanding is called a church. It's not a matter of just plugging them in for the sake of plugging them in. You have to fill the holes with new discoveries. The problem with creationists is that they want to plug in all the holes with God. That's simply not how science is done. The microbe-to-man thing is a common creationist fallacy. Evolution doesn't have to describe such a lineage to be a valid theory. The molecular evidence for evolution is so damning as it is, that biologists really don't have to immediately say which animal came from what. They can just point to two modern animals and say that these two species had a common ancestor, and then from there they can start saying what evolved from what, and so on. Such is the case with humans and chimps. Our DNA is so similar in not only positive traits, but negative ones as well. If two species carry the exact same copy of a damaged gene, then you have a smoking gun for evolution, and that's precisely what molecular biologists have found. If you want a fairly complete list of evidences for evolution, then you can start at Talk.Origins... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LloydDobler Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Alright, without getting long winded (too late), here's what I'm after. I've heard repeatedly that there's no evidence that evolution can increase in complexity the way it has. For example, the increase in the chromosome count of species. Can evolution be explained from single cell organism right through to human beings, even if all there is is sound theory?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> This I believe is the 2nd law argument phrased very loosely. Alex do people say 'cars in a junkyard don't come out running, they rust and decay!' and use that as a comparison to people and species? Or other similarly phrased arguments? This is very disingenuous for 2 reasons. 1 is it denies the life cycle completely. Cars would go from simple to complex if they were alive and had reproductive organs. 2 is that the argument is only valid for a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, we obtain energy from the sun. We also rob kinetic energy from the earth's rotation and orbit. We also rob kinetic energy from the moon. So if you close off the galaxy, yes you have a closed system where everything is decaying. But locally you can grow and reproduce because of these external inputs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antihero Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Luckily, scientists are allowed to change their ideas when reality gives them a kick in the arse. So, "Evolution!, Are there holes? Can they be filled?" Yes and yes. Creationists, on the other hand? Well, some people enjoy the certainty that comes from ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valgeir Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 The whole thing about the "holes" that you have to understand, though, is that they are things that we don't understand. However, we DO understand that evolution DOES happen, DID happen, and IS responsible for the species we see today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Of course there is evolution! Not to add a few sparks to the brew... but that is even in that "Book" you all don't like! If one reads into that "Book", (like none of you have ), you will see the whole book is about the evolution of man in learning to stand and walk upright. Even Adam, which I think is no more "A" man than the crowmagnum man... and probably IS the crowmagnum man. It represents a time where genders had no specific role, till a side of mankind was alotted to each gender. The fruit of good and evil is the ability to reason, hence the spark of civilization. Not to mention, man was made from the dust.... uhummm... I mean amino acids. Even Chxlub hitting the earth and distroying the dinosours is there! NO, I'M NOT CRAZY... THANK YOU! It is there my dear friends... and I'm disappointed 'cause I know you probably don't want to go there.... but I still enjoy your company immensely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Please cite the verses, Amanda. Anyways... Alright, without getting long winded (too late), here's what I'm after. I've heard repeatedly that there's no evidence that evolution can increase in complexity the way it has. For example, the increase in the chromosome count of species. Can evolution be explained from single cell organism right through to human beings, even if all there is is sound theory? Lies. Utter utter bollocks and lies. Not only is the genetic quality in flux due to mutations and such, but so is the genetic quantity. In nature you see all sorts of genetic events that result in increasing chromosome counts such as polyploidy, transposon migration, insertion mutations, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAm_Lucifer Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 A building in which all the people inside profess absolute 100% understanding is called a church. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The one and only Neil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been borg again Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Retrovirus Insertion in the genome is good evidence for Evo. Monkeys, apes and man, all share the same insertions in the places of the genome.. as do other species that are related .... thanks to a common ancestor that once aquired viruses in its lifetime, Imagine the odds of this happening by chance must be huge, But I suppose God created all the seperate animals with the same virus insertions in the same places to show us that he is an awesome God capable of doing amazing things. .. an impressive display of Gods Power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
been borg again Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 by the way AXLEHORSEMAN, If the topic of EVO is interesting to you, you need to google the username LUCASPA, a christian methodist evolutionist who has tens of thousands of posts on the internet debating creationists, even DR. DINO himself. Lucaspa is becoming sort of a celebrity within the Evo-Creationist debates, because he is relentless in the amount of posting he does. And he writes in a way thats readable and understandable, yet technical. Ive never met another who can explain evolution so well, and with so much evidence supporting Evolution he has collected over the years LUCASPA also happens to be a post doctorate Proffesor/Scientist at a famous ivy league school, and the wisest person youll ever meet on the internet regarding evolution. P.s. if you find Lucaspa, he will refuse to debate theology, apologetics, and his christian faith. So dont even bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invictus1967 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Both creationism and evolution require faith. Neither of them has ever been proven. One requires a faith in God. The other requires faith in a theory that doesn’t even address the core issue of where life came from to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Correction... One is a reasonable belief based on evidence, and the other is worthless conjecture based on blind faith. Parroting things you read on drdino.com isn't going to work around here, boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invictus1967 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Does evolution address the core issue of where life came from??? Trying to dodge the issues won't work around here boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 I'm not dodging anything, asshole! I've spent many tireless hours trying to explain to you why a theory about change doesn't have to address a theory about origins. ...in fact, when it's put that way, I can't figure out why it isn't blatantly obvious! Unless, of course, your entire objection to biological science is disingenuous. Does evolution address the core issue of where life came from??? Question: The core issue of what?! What is this entity or whatever of which you want us to address a core issue? I can only tell you what the core issue of evolution is, and that core issue is change in biology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Does evolution address the core issue of where life came from???Nope... and anyone who demands that it does is an idiot who doesn't know what evolution is about. Sounds like someone here, doesn't it? Trying to dodge the issues won't work around here boy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We know... that's why you're having such a hard time. If you stopped dodging the issue, if you stopped using strawmen, you might get somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alexhorseman Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Does evolution address the core issue of where life came from??? Nope... and anyone who demands that it does is an idiot who doesn't know what evolution is about. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alright... so then... if evolution does not address the core issue of where life came from... where DID life come from and according to whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alright... so then... if evolution does not address the core issue of where life came from... where DID life come from and according to whom? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Abiogenesis is probably the theory you are looking for. And in the words of Mr Spooky: 1) Simple chemicals produce organic chemicals (observed fact: Miller-Urey)2) Organic chemicals can polymerize to form self-replicating polymers (observed fact: crystals, clays, RNA) 3) Self-replicating polymers become protected by a lipid bilayer membrane to form probiont (intuited fact: lipid bilayer mechanism and simple mechanical foaming) 4) Probiont gradually evolves into bacterium (scientifically supported theoretical primordial mechanism) And thus, we have the gradual, step-by-step development of the first prokaryote: the first single-celled organism. Nothing magical, nothing special, nothing mysterious. The whole thing is elegantly and functionally explained by simple biochemistry: it’s that easy for life to form from non-life within a few million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Retrovirus Insertion in the genome is good evidence for Evo. Monkeys, apes and man, all share the same insertions in the places of the genome.. as do other species that are related .... thanks to a common ancestor that once aquired viruses in its lifetime, Imagine the odds of this happening by chance must be huge, But I suppose God created all the seperate animals with the same virus insertions in the same places to show us that he is an awesome God capable of doing amazing things. .. an impressive display of Gods Power. Correct, the only two plausible explanations are: 1. God does not exist, and evolution works or 2. God exists, and he's a cunning and deceiving bastard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 I feel so free from worldly problems! I gave Invictus the magnificent graduation gift to become the first one on my ignore list. And life is beautiful, and the air is easier to breathe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 by the way AXLEHORSEMAN,If the topic of EVO is interesting to you, you need to google the username LUCASPA, a christian methodist evolutionist who has tens of thousands of posts on the internet debating creationists, even DR. DINO himself. Lucaspa is becoming sort of a celebrity within the Evo-Creationist debates, because he is relentless in the amount of posting he does. And he writes in a way thats readable and understandable, yet technical. Ive never met another who can explain evolution so well, and with so much evidence supporting Evolution he has collected over the years LUCASPA also happens to be a post doctorate Proffesor/Scientist at a famous ivy league school, and the wisest person youll ever meet on the internet regarding evolution. P.s. if you find Lucaspa, he will refuse to debate theology, apologetics, and his christian faith. So dont even bother. That's a guy with the heart in the right place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Does evolution address the core issue of where life came from??? Nope... and anyone who demands that it does is an idiot who doesn't know what evolution is about. Sounds like someone here, doesn't it? CT, you've inspired me. I didn't have enough time to whip out the sketch pad and do a whole comic, so I recycled a couple of my old Hovind strips and threw them together into a single comic. I'm sure you'll enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Nope... and anyone who demands that it does is an idiot who doesn't know what evolution is about. Sounds like someone here, doesn't it? CT, you've inspired me. I didn't have enough time to whip out the sketch pad and do a whole comic, so I recycled a couple of my old Hovind strips and threw them together into a single comic. I'm sure you'll enjoy! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, I like! Would you mind if I distributed this to some friends? I know they'd love to plonk that down in the middle of a few debates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Go for it! Since you're going to do that, though, I went ahead and added my URL. Gotta self-promote, ya know! Especially with the anthology coming out this November... *rubbing his hands together* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 To add to the weight on this thread... If the claim is that evolution can't evolve something from lower level to higher level, how can we have more knowledge, higher intelligence and being more educated today then 1000 years ago? Shouldn't knowledge, understanding etc follow the same path, only downwards? If the explanation is that "culture and society has evolved", well then how can society and culture evolved so we can learn more and understand more today? Why can science find more and better tools and knowledge, when only downwards spirals can happen? My opinion is that the development of culture, science and society is the evidence that things can evolve up to better things, and not only down to worse things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Sooo... does the fact that we know almost nothing about physics before the Planck time mean that modern physics doesn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts