***The Great Debate: Creation vs Evolution***

Physical, tangible proof for abiogenesis, or just a neat little theory?

 

Physical, tangible proof for abiogenesis, or just a neat little theory?

 

The first is true via fossil records, and second is neat too because we're starting to lose mysticism in our world.

 

JM201: I have apparently misinterpreted your position. Please outline specifically what empirical evidence you would need to see to accept evolutionary theory as the best possible explanation as to how life has managed its survival on this planet.

Keep in mind that a scientific theory doesn't claim to be anything other than the best possible explanation, given the empirical evidence supporting it.

Lastly, evolution itself is a fact, common descent is a fact... how evolution occurs is what evolutionary theory sets out to explain. That evolution occurs is not debated by the scientific community at large.

It's quite clear from even the Human Genome Experiment itself that evolution is, in fact, the sum total of observed genetic and environmental forces responsible for shaping the survival of life. If evolution didn't occur, nested hierarchies shouldn't exist in the phylogeny at all. If evolution didn't occur, what is the function of genetic mutation, genetic drift and natural selection? What are these factors doing if not causing life to evolve? If evolution didn't occur, why is there staggering evidence of common descent by modification through natural selection, genetic drift and mutation? If evolution didn't occur, why does the progressive acquisition of genetic morphological data predictably so routinely confirm previously gathered paleontological evidence of common descent?

In other words, if evolution didn't occur, what is the alternative explanation for all the evidence gathered at various times, in various scientific disciplines, through various methods, in repeated observation, that makes it appear precisely as though it did?

 

There are other explanations. What the theory of evolution doesn't take into account is that these various "proofs" weren't untouched for billions of years. They have been effected by many things, throughout time. Is it the best possible theory right now? Perhaps. Is it proven? No. Far from it.


Before this goes on any longer, I would like, one more time, for you to explain to me what exactly you are asserting. Use little words.


Please tell me in your own words what happened, and show me the evidence you look to for each point you assert. Then we can go on.

 

First of all, the statement that we use only "12 percent" of our brains is a popular urban legend that is completely untrue. If it were true, we'd all be brain dead. Look here for more info.

And secondly, I find it hard for people in this thread to still be claiming that evolution is simply a theory. As stated previously on numerous occasions, evolution is fact and has been observed to happen in nature. Things change over time. The theory lies in the way that it occurred.

I also find it hard to understand why so many seem to believe that in order to accept evolution, they must reject the presence of God in nature. If evolution seems like such an improbability, why couldn't God (an improbable idea as well, IMO) have set it in motion, or designed it in the first place. Hell, evolution could be God's will manifested in the physical universe. With all the unlikely things that are said to have happened within the Bible, why can't the "unlikely" event of evolution have happened as well?

 

We only use about 12% of our brain, and we think we have the answer to the million dollar question?

Oh PLEASE! Post proof, dear. Why is it that this myth is still around?

 

Few more question and them I'm out of here.

Do the "Evolution is a theory not a fact"-creationists here accept plate tectonics as a fact?
I.e. Were the continents once in the past together?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

I don't doubt evolution. Why CAN'T it be both.

Early man was made from the start of a single celled organism. Why not? He had millions of years to do so.
Then, something happend and everything died off.
Along came God and created man.
You have to except the fact that there is a "pause" in drawing a straight line from the first man to us now.

Is your brain SO closed minded that it can't except both?

 

n that are smarter than you or me say the odds are about 39887 times more than all the the atoms in the universe combined.

Our puny brains can't even comprehend how big that is.

This is cold hard logic, Vulcan style.

No, it's not. You are fond of quoting stats by I don't think you understand them and/or the science involved.

Let's take a difficult experiment; say we're talking about artificially creating H20. A scientist creates water in a test tube in an experiment. What exists is clearly water and the steps of the experiment clearly indicate the scientist create a synthesis of water. There is no doubt that this scientist made water; maybe it was witness by a dozen people and taped on several video machines.

By your logic, if a person could not replicat the experiment because the environmental conditions he had have a :1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of being replicated again, then the person did not make water. I submit that your reasoning is faulty.

Improbably merely means you've got a hard time making it happen again. Impossible means it couldn't happen again. Unless the odds can't be quantified because of certain loss; i.e. the odds that Superman existed in the 1950's, then you cannot claim it's impossible. Basic scientific reasoning should have taught you that it's only hard to repeat. Which, I think you'll agree from our world and the other planets we know of, is the case.

Discussing the origin of life is an entirely different matter from evolution

Brahma, that is what I've been asserting all along. And it conventiently gets ignored, doesn't it...

Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What orginated life?

And the most logical answer would be one that traces the development of life through evidence, right?

Did physical life orginate by chance in the universe or did a spirit being create it?

Then why argue that evolution does not work as a theory; it most certainly does explain things in a far clearer light than merely saying "It's <INSERT DEITY>'s will".

I'll agree openly that the origin of life on this planet, i.e. back all the way to single cell organisms, is one question we can't answer. I won't concede that evoution of the species is untenable.

No. The ripples are life. Our existence. The way things are now. God caused the ripples. You say he did it with a pebble (evolution).

The ripples start at the point of impact, right? And the movement of the first ripple generates the next ripple, and so on and so on. Brahma is asking whether evolution or God create those ripples. You missed the point, I think.

That is absolutely correct; however, the theory has not been proven to be fact.... yet.

Wrong, Che. I can prove that evolutionary theory works. I can't explain the origins of life, but if I took a virus and hit it with anti-biotic after anti-biotic, I would force the virus to evolve into a supervirus. How else would you explain that (anyone, since I asked before and it was ignored).

But I see no physical evidence for what most of them claim, including the theory of abiogenesis, which is what we were talking about a minute ago.

See above, or read more!

Along came God and created man.


So who created God?

E_S

 

There are many evidences for descent with modification from a common ancestor (the fact which the theory of evolution tries to explain). Most of them are very technical and require a degree of knowldge in fields of biology that most people don't have. We can provide links to sites explaning them, though, if you feel it's not enough the examples we give here.

One very good is that of vestigial limbs.

Why do many abyss fishes have eyes? Why do many cave dwelling animals also have? Their eyes are functionless, and serve no purpose even if the animal is exposed to light.

Ostriches have wings, but they have no function, even to lift the animal a bit from the ground (as they do in chickens).

Some snakes have vestigial, useless pelvic bones that have no purpose.

Why to create them?

One possible explanation is that fact that the species evolved form an ancestor where the organ or limb was once functional.

 

And what of the missing link between modern 'apes' and man?

We all know what the link is, but most of us are too closed minded to believe in it, citing it (and the majority of cryptozoology) as bogus.

But then, when were the mountain gorillas dicivered? (only in 1902) The once-though-extinct 400 million year-old coelacanth? (only in 1938). The loricifera? (only in 1983). The pygmy beaked whale? (only in 1991).

 

The common ancestor of man and other apes has not yet been found...

 

Forget the fossils, you can prove evolution biochemically and genetically (or so many scientists believe)....

Peace,

V-03

 

Daily quote time

"To avoid the issue of creation it would would be necessary for all the material of the universe to be infinitely old, and this cannot be...Hydrogen is being steadlily converted into helium and the other elements...How comes it then that the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter were infinitely old this would be quite impossible. So we see that the universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged"

Sir Fred Hoyle- The Nature of the Universe

So you see Intellectual Honesty is needed on this topic.


Ender Sai

There is a difference between adaptation and evolution.

Everybody is avioding the creation of DNA and RNA, how did that get done.

 

There are other explanations. What the theory of evolution doesn't take into account is that these various "proofs" weren't untouched for billions of years.

What various "proofs"? Mathematical proofs? Mathematical proofs do not involve empirical evidence.

They have been effected by many things, throughout time. Is it the best possible theory right now? Perhaps. Is it proven? No. Far from it.

Is there a reason you think the sum total experience of the scientific community since the 1500s amounts to a level of knowledge that somehow lacks this understanding that time may affect evidence? Is there any reason you think the people who conduct scientific experiments on a daily basis, for a living, know less than you do about the possible factors that can tamper with evidence? Is there a reason you think they don't take measures to rule them out?


Before this goes on any longer, I would like, one more time, for you to explain to me what exactly you are asserting. Use little words.

I am asserting that evolution is a fact.
I am asserting that The Theory of Evolution, which chiefly proposes descent with modification from a common ancestor, is the best possible explanation for how the evolution of life has occurred.
I am not asserting anything about the moment life began.


Please tell me in your own words what happened, and show me the evidence you look to for each point you assert. Then we can go on.

Read Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma. The problem here is that I cannot go into the degree of detail necessary to outline everything I've learned about evolution, through my own 25 years of research and study, on these boards without it taking up several hundred pages. Furthermore, no good scientist will ever assert anything as being "proven". Life could all be a dream, for all we know... but the "best possible explanation" for how a thing works is what science is about.

I think the entire exercise is entirely fruitless unless you have an interest in retaining an open mind... because what's the point of me doing all the work of explaining everything to you, only to find that you simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

Let me, however, elaborate upon one central concept, for starters, I think deserves further explanation:

Nested hierarchies... the way in which organisms appear to have common ancestors, based on paleontological (fossil), and genetic (DNA) evidence, branches out like a tree. Some branches have branches off themselves. These subgroups of groups are called nested hierarchies. Nested hierarchies of characteristics that make the up the various taxa (a taxonomic group, e.g. kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species...) do exist quite obviously.

For example: all vertebrates are characterized by having a vertebral column, and there are many varieties of organisms that all have vertebral columns. Chordates all have spinal chords. Some chordates are vertebrates. However, all vertebrates are chordates... that is, there isn't a single species with a vertebral column lacking a spinal chord.

Find me a vertebrate that isn't a chordate, or a bird with nipples, for that matter... and you'll prove that there are exceptions to nested hierarchies.

Find me a human without an endoskeleton... Find me a human that can produce vitamin C naturally in its own body.

If evolution didn't occur... why do we see such nested hierarchies in both living and fossilized creatures?

Why do some organisms possess vestigial (nonfunctional) structures that so closely resemble structures of another species in which they are functional? What purpose do they serve? If they don't serve a purpose, how did they get there? Might seacows and humans have a common ancestor?

What's more is... when we do find fossils, the places we find them tend to be consistent with their place in the nested hierarchies. This is precisely what we should expect to find... the layering of fossils should be chronologically consistent with th

 

The common ancestor of man and other apes has not yet been found...

... Oh, really? What makes you say this?

 

So you see Intellectual Honesty is needed on this topic.

We're not specifically discussing abiogenesis... but I did already point out that Ames Research Center is already studying this.

There is a difference between adaptation and evolution.

What is that difference, in your opinion?

The rest of the scientific world views adaptation as a component of evolution. Is there something you know that the world's scientists do not? Have you any peer-reviewed, published, scientific research papers on the subject that would make me consider you a field expert on the matter? i.e. Why should we take your opinion more seriously than theirs?

Why should I take an astronomer's opinion of abiogenesis more seriously than a geneticist, or biologist's? Do astronomers study life elsewhere in the universe? What about exobiologists?

Quotes are nice but I've already presented a counterargument for Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's research paper... one which you failed to read. End of discussion.

Everybody is avioding the creation of DNA and RNA, how did that get done.

You're inferring creation in your question. Very unscientific. A proper question would be: How did DNA and RNA arise?

The scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center, as stated by me several times before, are currently exploring the possibilities... and do not yet have enough evidence to confidently answer the question... but it seems that they have found reasonable evidence to propose how amino acids may have formed in interstellar space...

From there, all you have to do is read an introductory biology textbook to understand what scientists know about how DNA is formed from amino acids, and what occurs in the process of RNA transcription. As I've stated numerous times, Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma would be an excellent start. Once you've read that, discussions on abiogenesis such as this one at the Talk.Origins archive might actually be more meaningful to you. (references are cited in that link)

 

Snow dog's back, eh.

So much for boycotts.





Futuyma also included Haeckel's fraudulent embryological charts in his text. Fortunately a creationist pointed this out to him and Douglas had it removed from subsequent editions.

Perhaps, Futuyma should allow creationists to proof his texts?







"You're inferring creation in your question. Very unscientific. A proper question would be: How did DNA and RNA arise?"

It's only unscientific if you can demonstrate for us creation did not occur.

So, yes, specifically how did DNA and RNA arise?


Science is the investigation and study of the universe surrounding us regardless of it's origin. Any redefinition of science is then a political corruption of the intention of science. Are you listening Bruce Alberts?


That common descent is based on common design is unavoidable. The issue then is not that science is commenting on what is apparent (as there is and has been voluminous embarrassing "problematica" exhumed from the strata).


Everyone agrees rapid speciation, genetic diversity is observable, everyone does not agree upon the existence of the outward boundaries of speciation. The "evolutionist" believes there are none, but cannot verifiably demonstrate this to be the case. The creationist believes there are limitations which are observable, and within these confines are the multitude and multiplication of inherent diversity set to bound. This cannot be proven if one does not accept felines are always felines. What is actually observable is scientific. In this light, empirical observation being the basis of the scientific method, the creationist is favored by proper science, but not popular opinion.

 

Futuyma also included Haeckel's fraudulent embryological charts in his text. Fortunately a creationist pointed this out to him and Douglas had it removed from subsequent editions.

Futuyma also responded to that charge in Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution.

Is that, however, reason to resort to character assassination and discredit the whole of Futuyma's research?

Do you have a more widely accepted book you'd like to suggest?

Why should common descent infer common design? How would you go about substantiating this scientifically, by disproving evolution, or by setting out test for evidence of common design? If there's evidence of common design, then we must be able to point and say "Here's the designer"... in much the same way that Creationists challenge evolutionary biologists to point out "here's the common ancestor and its descendants." There is evidence of common ancestors of various nested hierarchies, and admittedly there are some hierarchies for which a common ancestor has yet to be found... However, there is no evidence of a common designer ever having existed.

This does not rule out the possibility that there may be one... but I'm not disputing whatever the origin of life may be. From that moment forward, evidence suggests life evolved. Your one suggestion is that creationists believe there are mechanisms that inhibit the degree of evolution that can occur... so where are these mechanisms that inhibit life from evolving only so far, and yet no farther? Where are the multitudes of research papers that support this claim?

Can you furnish a single scientific research paper, peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal, consisting of a creationist hypothesis specifically testing your claim of common design to demonstrate that such hypotheses are testable and pass the scrutiny of the scientific community at large. And, if you cannot provide such an example, why not just set out to scientifically demonstrate the evidence for common design yourself? Introduce us to empirical evidence of the designer's existence, before inferring what you call "common design"... and then you might have a starting point.

Even if you had a videotaped interview with god, testimony isn't a good substitute for scientific empirical evidence. I'd still like to see the scientific evidence that links the "hand of god" with life on earth, after having seen the scientific evidence that proves that said designer actually exists in the first place.

 

Things need to stay focused on the issues at hand. Making personal commentary is not acceptable.

 

Jedi_Master201:
Planetary Biology - Evolution History 2.

Keep in mind, I didn't really read this site or anything, just did a quick search to find a source.

Thank you for that link, it is very interesting. However, it does not really address the original point. If I may put it in context:

Blue_Jedi33:
Hey Peez are you claiming to to be smarter and more intelligent than Sir Isaac Newton,
because he believed in creation.

Ki-Adi Bundi:
Not to mention that Sir Newton probably never heard a word of Evolution (which incidentally happens to be a topic of this thread).

Fire Ice Death:
Another good point, evolution theory didn't even exist when Newton was alive.

Jedi_Master 201:
That's not entirely true. The Greeks had a theory similar to the theory of evolution we have today.

Peez:
Please provide a reference.

I concede that there were people before Newton who considered that some form of evolution might have occurred (and I do thank you for the information referenced), but according to the link it was not "similar to the theory of evolution we have today." If I may elaborate:

I realize that by "theory of evolution" you might be referring to the evolution of living forms by descent with modification from common ancestors (what I call the fact of evolution), and/or the scientific theory which explains the mechanisms by which this evolution occurred (the theory of evolution). I will address both. From the site linked:

Anaximander believed that fish dominated the early Earth when there was little land. As the continents appeared, some of the fish left the sea and changed to become more suited for a life on dry land. According to Anaximander, humans resided as quiescent parasites inside these land fish much like a modern day astronaut lives inside a space suit. Once the changing world could support them, humans awoke and cast off their fish skin.

There is no indication that this person was suggesting that fish evolved from anything, nor even that land animals evolved from fish in the Darwinian sense (though admittedly it does not specifically exclude a Darwinian process in that case). In the case of humans, it does specifically exclude a Darwinian process. There is no reference to common descent, or descent with modification, or any mechanism of evolution.

Empedocles... discovered the fundamental ideas of life that now support the modern theory of evolution ? 1) variety amongst individuals; 2) competition; and 3) reproduction and inheritance. Empedocles saw the diversity in modern animals as a consequence of differentially endowed individuals competing with one another, and passing their attributes to their offspring.

This was obviously very insightful, but as far as we can tell he did not put these observations together as Darwin did.

According to Empedocles, life went through a peculiar kind of evolution. He viewed life on Earth originally as a disorganized assemblage of unattached arms, heads and other body parts. Later, these free-floating parts became attached to each other in bizarre combinations ? for example, a human head on an ox body. Some of these freak animals died off, as they were unable to compete with other more richly endowed animals.[/b]

Again, a remarkably insightful idea, but not at all similar to Darwinian evolution.

Empedocles also understood the importance of reproduction and inheritance in the continuance and evolution of life. He remarked that, considering the difficulties of survival, the kinds of animals alive today must possess special courage or other features that help them survive and reproduce themselves. In so doing, each parent passes some of their own traits to their offspring.[/b]

This is getting close to the mechanism of evolution that we now think is the driving force behind the evolution of adaptations.

According to Aristotle's classification, humans were at the top of the hierarchy. Below humans, were othe

 

Blue_Jedi33:
Time for the daily quote again, I post these for poeple who haven't made up there minds yet on this topic, people like Peez have.

I haven't actually made up my mind about how life began, and I have made up my mind with regards to evolution only in as much as the scientific evidence so far is overwhelmingly in favour of life having evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors.

"If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life orginated [spontaneosly] on the earth, this simple calculation [the mathematical odds against it] wipes the idea entirely out of court."

-Astronomers Fred Hoyle and
N. C. Wickramasinghe

I recommend this site, which demonstrates how wrong Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are.

One of my favorite quotes because anybody who beleives in evolution hasn't checked the mathematical odds out.

This quote deals with the origin of life, not evolution. It is even wrong about the origin of life.

If you do check them out, and decide to bet on evolution, remember in the end you are gambling with your life, tough odds to lose on.

Being scared that evolution might be true is not evidence that it is not true. In addition, as has been explained, it is quite possible to accept evolution and be a devout Christian.

Because the Creator will expect you to acknowledge his existence to continue your existence longer than a normal life span of a human.

I know these statements will be disputed, debate away.

Not by me, as they are off-topic.

Peez

 

My major gripe in all of this is that people on both sides argue there case and act if only the otherside would be rational they would see the truth and convert. When the fact of the matter is that no one truely knows what happened, cause guess what nobody was there. What is happening is that two groups are taking the same experimentations and proper use of science and getting the same results, but haveing drastically different results. Why is this? simple as humans we want to find out that we are right. Scientists on both sides are drwaing conclusions that are based on there own presupposings, biases, and agenda. What scientists have agenda, i would have never guessed.

In the end evolution is still a theory,An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture, and creationist beliefs are still based on faith, Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

History is full of ideas, theories, and faiths that people have sworn to be true, with evidence to back in them up. THat have later been seen to be false. THe problem with this one is that there is no way to prove, which can only be doen by observation and replicationm, at least until their is time travel, or after we die. SO to me it takes faith to believe in either, and both sides are so stuck in there presuppositions to admit it.

Thats just my 2 cents,

 

Darth_Viper81:
So since you ran a search on the web and looked on the site, you now claim to know more about my school than I do?? Damn, that is arrogant.

I made no such claim, I merely pointed out that this was the only "Michael Nunley" that I could find listed as faculty on their website. Let's try to keep the tone down, shall we.

Anyways, all I know is that he mentioned having a degree in Anthropology (I'm sorry, but I don't know what Opthamology is).

It is a medical specialty (eyes). Sorry, we are obviously talking about different people.

And I am telling you straight up, for like the one thousandth time: IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT HE TAUGHT, THEN READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS AS MY MORE RECENT KNOWLEDGE OF EVOLUTION HAS COME FROM HIM.

I did, and I quoted the specific bit where he seems to have taught you that evolution does not address the origin of life.

Anyways, to the general public:

What's the deal with these quotes anyways, they don't prove anything.

Yup, I agree.

Also, I have a question: What does how old the quote is have to do anything with the validity of it???

It depends on what you mean by "validity." Is any quote valid evidence about evolution? As you have pointed out, no. Is a quote valid evidence of what a particular person thought at a particular time? It can be, as long as it is taken in context. Is a quote, or what a person thought, 50 years ago valid evidence for what people think today? No. Is expert opinion valid evidence? No, but of course one may give some credence to the opinion of an expert (especially if one is not an expert oneself). Is anyone who died 50 years ago an expert on what we now know about evolution? No.

I would really like someone to present any evidence against evolution, or any problem with the evidence for evolution, or any evidence for creationism, or even any way in which creationism could be scientifically tested.

Peez