Creation vs. Evolution

[Danoff]

You keep saying key words like 'result' and 'following' which implies some sort of time-line and a logical order in which things must happen. Maybe this is where my confusion is.

"Result" as in "result of a derivation"
"Follows" as in "follows in the derivation"

Not in time, but in proof.

 

[dylansan]

In think I see what you're saying. You mean that is is impossible for nothing to have ever existed? Well gee, you sure as hell didn't explain that very well at the beginning. Or maybe I just wasn't paying attention...

 

[Danoff]

In think I see what you're saying. You mean that is is impossible for nothing to have ever existed? Well gee, you sure as hell didn't explain that very well at the beginning. Or maybe I just wasn't paying attention...

Let me go back to my very first detailed post on the subject.

Yes, it has to be nothing. As in... in the beginning, there was nothing, not even God. If that is not the premise, then it begs the question "why was there anything to begin with?". And the answer must be, because that naturally follows from nothingness (via some physical law we haven't discovered yet).

That first sentence is misleading. But I quickly follow it up by calling it a "premise". A "premise" is not the same thing as what actually happened. It's what must be assumed at the start of the derivation. Notice also that I answer the question "why was there anything there to begin with"? Meaning, I am (at least mentally, if not in written form) allowing for the possibility that something existed in the beginning. And it existed because it "naturally follows" (that's derivation speak again, not temporal association) from nothingness.

More from the same post...

So if you say, in the beginning, there was a big ball of matter - well that's not the beginning then is it? Because how did the big ball of matter get there? You might say, it got there as the previous instance of the universe collapsed in on itself folding time and space and matter into a point. I'd say, how did the previous instance of the universe get there. You might say, from a big ball of matter, on and on for all time.

Notice how I allow for the possibility that it has no beginning...

At which point I'd say, why does anything exist at all? And you'd be forced to come up with an explanation that says that if you start from nothing - the universe happens naturally. It exists because it must exist for some as yet undiscovered reason.

This is the part that's misleading. But again I'm trying to point out the notion that nothing somehow implies the origins of the universe. Notice the wording "must exist". As in, if nothing exists, something must exist -> thereby preventing nothing from ever existing.

Same post...

Some thing holds for religion. If you say, in the beginning, there was God, I say, where did God come from? You say, nowhere, he has always been there on and on for all time.

Notice how I allow for the possibility that God has no beginning.

At which point I'd say, why does god exist at all? And you'd be forced to come up with an explanation that says that if you start from nothing - God happens naturally. He exists because he must exist for some yet undiscovered reason.

Very similar to the above. But I'm using the terminology "start from nothing" as part of a set of assumptions rather than what actually physically happened. I can see how this was confusing, but there are clues as to what I meant.

The answer, in either case, is nothing.

That is... the premise must be nothing.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

what must be assumed at the start of the derivation.

Why must we assume anything? You're a critic to those who say we must assume God was the beginning, but you yourself make an assumption for the beginning..... And also say it's the only way, by saying we must assume it.

Either the beginning had nothing, or it is possible for something to always have existed. Neither would truely disprove either side of the debate.
As you may realize, if there was nothing, and then a God was created first, and he created everything around us, then he would believe he always existed, thereby placing it in the bible that he always was.

 

[Danoff]

Why must we assume anything?

I'm saying we can't assume anything. Because nothing is warranted.

You're a critic to those who say we must assume God was the beginning, but you yourself make an assumption for the beginning.....

Not necessarily the beginning of reality, the beginning of the derivation of the universe on paper. And I'm not making an assumption. I'm reasoning that no deviation from "nothing" can be tolerated in an explanation that leaves no questions.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

I'm saying we can't assume anything. Because nothing is warranted.

How is nothing warranted? We have nothing to compare it to.

Not necessarily the beginning of reality, the beginning of the derivation of the universe on paper. And I'm not making an assumption. I'm reasoning that no deviation from "nothing" can be tolerated in an explanation that leaves no questions.

But I just asked a question, so how does it have no questions left? What are you comparing it to? Everything you've ever seen, and know, and ever heard or read, has come from something else. Why must it stop? why must it begin? Have you seen something comparable to say, "it has to" on anything?

 

[Danoff]

How is nothing warranted? We have nothing to compare it to.

To quote Famine: "The huh?"

But I just asked a question, so how does it have no questions left? What are you comparing it to? Everything you've ever seen, and know, and ever heard or read, has come from something else. Why must it stop? why must it begin?

It doesn't. But to justify why it doesn't, you can't rely on the existence of anything - because to do so opens more questions.

I'm not saying that at some point there was nothing. I'm saying that in order to show that God/Universe is eternal, you must show that you can derive it from nothing. I'm not quite sure how to clarify, and I don't know why you think we need to find a comparison point.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

To quote Famine: "The huh?"

In the beginning, we must assume there was nothing

It doesn't. But to justify why it doesn't, you can't rely on the existence of anything - because to do so opens more questions.

I'm not saying that at some point there was nothing. I'm saying that in order to show that God/Universe is eternal, you must show that you can derive it from nothing. I'm not quite sure how to clarify, and I don't know why you think we need to find a comparison point.

I didn't say that there must always have been something, you said that we must assume at some point, there was nothing.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't say that there must always have been something, you said that we must assume at some point, there was nothing.

Yea, we're getting crossed up on language again. For the 10th time, I'm not saying that at some point in reality nothing existed. I'm saying that when you go to explain why God/Universe exists, you have to start with nothing on paper.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

Yea, we're getting crossed up on language again. For the 10th time, I'm not saying that at some point in reality nothing existed. I'm saying that when you go to explain why God/Universe exists, you have to start with nothing on paper.

Yes, it has to be nothing. As in... in the beginning, there was nothing, not even God. If that is not the premise, then it begs the question "why was there anything to begin with?". And the answer must be, because that naturally follows from nothingness (via some physical law we haven't discovered yet).

Nope.

 

[Famine]

Nope.

Now read the rest of the text you quoted:

If that is not the premise, then it begs the question "why was there anything to begin with?". And the answer must be, because that naturally follows from nothingness (via some physical law we haven't discovered yet).

 

[Touring Mars]

A stunning example of evolutionary theory in action... published last week in the journal Science, scientists based at North Carolina State University and Harvard have directly compared protein extracted from fossilized T. rex bone with the same type of protein found in 21 living species.

Their results show (for the first time) that collagen taken from Tyrannosaurus rex is more similar to collagen found in present day chickens and ostriches (birds) than other extant species, including present day alligators (reptiles). This result is the first time such a comparison has been made on the biomolecular level, and it ties in nicely with previous observations (comparisons of bone structure) that strongly suggested that certain dinosaurs share a more recent common ancestry with modern day birds than with other groups of species.

The key point here (relative to this debate) is not just that "some similarity" has been found or has even been quantified (which ID proponents could easily dismiss as being supportive of a mechanism of common descent), but that observations from an independent field of research (palaeontology) led to correct predictions about which existing species would show the highest level of biomolecular similarity to a long-extinct species if and when the data ever became accessible to analytical methods, as they are now. The observed similarity in protein sequences could not have happened by chance, a view endorsed by both the Intelligent Design hypothesis and by Evolutionary theory - but only the latter can claim to have accurately predicted the outcome of this landmark experiment. According to the ID hypothesis, there is no reason whatsoever to expect T. rex collagen to be any more or less similar to chicken collagen than to any other extant species. But Evolutionary theory, based as it is on prior evidence, not only predicted that some similarity should exist, but also correctly identified which extant species would be most similar on a biomolecular level than the others in the analysis.

This result is a prime example of a validation of a scientific theory, and a resounding endorsement of the scientific method in general... and perhaps we'll all have a little more to think about the next time we go to KFC!

 

[Sureboss]

I don't think they are going to jump out of the fryer and give you a wedgie, TM.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

A stunning example of evolutionary theory in action... published last week in the journal Science, scientists based at North Carolina State University and Harvard have directly compared protein extracted from fossilized T. rex bone with the same type of protein found in 21 living species.

Their results show (for the first time) that collagen taken from Tyrannosaurus rex is more similar to collagen found in present day chickens and ostriches (birds) than other extant species, including present day alligators (reptiles). This result is the first time such a comparison has been made on the biomolecular level, and it ties in nicely with previous observations (comparisons of bone structure) that strongly suggested that certain dinosaurs share a more recent common ancestry with modern day birds than with other groups of species.

The key point here (relative to this debate) is not just that "some similarity" has been found or has even been quantified (which ID proponents could easily dismiss as being supportive of a mechanism of common descent), but that observations from an independent field of research (palaeontology) led to correct predictions about which existing species would show the highest level of biomolecular similarity to a long-extinct species if and when the data ever became accessible to analytical methods, as they are now. The observed similarity in protein sequences could not have happened by chance, a view endorsed by both the Intelligent Design hypothesis and by Evolutionary theory - but only the latter can claim to have accurately predicted the outcome of this landmark experiment. According to the ID hypothesis, there is no reason whatsoever to expect T. rex collagen to be any more or less similar to chicken collagen than to any other extant species. But Evolutionary theory, based as it is on prior evidence, not only predicted that some similarity should exist, but also correctly identified which extant species would be most similar on a biomolecular level than the others in the analysis.

This result is a prime example of a validation of a scientific theory, and a resounding endorsement of the scientific method in general... and perhaps we'll all have a little more to think about the next time we go to KFC!

So, long story short.... dinosaurs were more similar to birds, than anything else we've found? But they were reptiles... weren't they?
Regardless, what exactly does this show?

 

[Touring Mars]

So, long story short.... dinosaurs were more similar to birds, than anything else we've found? But they were reptiles... weren't they?

Pretty much... 👍 As a point of fact, it says that the present-day species Gallus gallus (chicken) is more closely related to T. rex than anything else currently alive today (and known to science)...

Regardless, what exactly does this show?

On a broader level, this new data confirms the degree of relatedness hypothesised previously on the strength of independent data (and hence by Evolutionary Theory). Take a look at this ... this is from the Tree of Life website which shows the evolutionary relationships between species and groups of species... on any one page, click a blue link to go forward, and the little arrow on the left to go back. This page is the point where reptiles and amphibians diverged... click "Amniota" and you'll see where Synapsida (which includes us) and Reptilia (which includes all dinosaurs and birds) diverge... click "Diapsida" and follow the links to see where birds diverge from Dinosaurs...

What should be clear from this is that, yes, dinosaurs are a member of the class Reptilia, but then again, so are birds... the difference being that modern day birds appear much later, and are no longer 'reptiles' as we would call them today... This "tree of life" is built mainly from morphological and palaeontological observations - physical similarities between species (extant and extinct), but increasingly more modern techniques (such as genetics) are either confirming or disconfirming these relationships... in this case, what we are seeing is the first biomolecular evidence to confirm the relatedness of a specific species of dinosaur, Tyrannosaurus rex, with present day species...

That's what this new data really means.. The evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and birds was already well-known through inferences from morphological observations (similarities between bone structures etc.) and as a result, evolutionary theory predicted that dinosaurs and birds should show greater biomolecular similarities than say between a dinosaur and a modern day mammal (e.g. a human). This new data confirmed that prediction, by showing that T. rex does indeed shares a higher degree of sequence homology (i.e. more of the same amino acids in the same proteins) with modern day birds (e.g. chickens and ostriches) than they do with animals from other branches of the evolutionary tree.

 

[dylansan]

Just to simplify, it means that a prediction was made based on evolution, and a biological study proved it. Therefore, Evolution predicted something that, according to intelligent design, shouldn't have been predictable. But it was.

 

[Touring Mars]

Nail. Head.

I wish I had said it like that 👍

 

[dylansan]

That's pretty much how you said it in the first post, just a little longer.

According to the ID hypothesis, there is no reason whatsoever to expect T. rex collagen to be any more or less similar to chicken collagen than to any other extant species. But Evolutionary theory, based as it is on prior evidence, not only predicted that some similarity should exist, but also correctly identified which extant species would be most similar on a biomolecular level than the others in the analysis.

 

[Sureboss]

My Science teacher said that given the size of some of the dinosaurs for them to have been reptiles, thus cold-blooded, trying to heat themselves up would've taken too long to be productive?

I think I've worded that to make sense.

 

[dylansan]

I've always thought dinosaurs look as much like reptiles as chickens do. They aren't scaly, don't slither or walk like most reptiles, and most virtual appearances of dinosaurs seem to display them walking, and even roaring like a gigantic bird. If you imagine a dinosaur with feathers, it's very similar to a bird. With scales? I don't see a whole lot of reptile in there.

 

[Grand Prix]

Although this does make sense to me that T-Rex and other dinosaurs may have had feathers, I just can't imagine one with feathers. For Creationists and the average person, I am sure it is even more difficult for them to imagine a feathered dinosaur.

How will we overcome this obstacle? The idea of dinosaurs being scaly and slow and cold blooded has been ingrained into the publics' conscious for well over a century. It's almost as radical as suggesting the Earth revolves around the Sun, and although nobody is killing each other over this, like in previous discoverys, it will be difficult to change people's minds. I don't think the public will ever accept feathered dinosaurs until at least two generations of being taught about them. By that point we might discover something more radical still. Knowledge is fascinating.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

Just to simplify, it means that a prediction was made based on evolution, and a biological study proved it. Therefore, Evolution predicted something that, according to intelligent design, shouldn't have been predictable. But it was.

how is it not predictable according to ID?

Although this does make sense to me that T-Rex and other dinosaurs may have had feathers, I just can't imagine one with feathers. For Creationists and the average person, I am sure it is even more difficult for them to imagine a feathered dinosaur.

How will we overcome this obstacle? The idea of dinosaurs being scaly and slow and cold blooded has been ingrained into the publics' conscious for well over a century. It's almost as radical as suggesting the Earth revolves around the Sun, and although nobody is killing each other over this, like in previous discoverys, it will be difficult to change people's minds. I don't think the public will ever accept feathered dinosaurs until at least two generations of being taught about them. By that point we might discover something more radical still. Knowledge is fascinating.

Why would it be harder for a creationist to accept feathered dinosaurs?
Who even said dinosaurs were feathered? most feathered creatures fly, most dinosaurs didn't, I wouldn't expect them to have feathers.
You know they say pigs have more similar internal organs to humans than any other animal, but that wouldn't make me assume people roll around in their own excrement.

 

[Joey D]

Who even said dinosaurs were feathered?

The fossil record. The Archaeopteryx fossils show feather imprints on them.

And here is an article talking about how T-Rex's predecessor might have been feathered as well. I hope NPR is a reputable enough source.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4074377

 

[Touring Mars]

how is it not predictable according to ID?

Because ID doesn't make predictions - ID "theory" says that no matter what a living thing is made of, or what it is composed of, or how similar or different this is to that, it was "designed" and that is all there is to it. Never once in the history of human endeavour has ID "theory" ever shown itself to be just that - a real, scientific theory. A real scientific theory can make predictions - arguably that is the whole purpose/meaning of theories in the first place...

The point here is that evolution theory can and does (as this example neatly illustrates) make predictions that can be tested by experiment. According to ID, however, chicken collagen is more similar to dinosaur collagen because God made it that way. That's it. What it categorically did not do was predict that dinosaur collagen would turn out to be more similar to chicken collagen than any other type of collagen. ID can only comment on the fact that the two types of collagen are similar after the observation has been made - no part of ID theory is able to make predictions... and indeed, ID is not about predictions, hence it is not a scientific theory. It's akin to placing a bet once the game is finished...

@ JoeyD - I worked at UCL (University College London) for a bit and was based (funnily enough) in The Darwin Building, and they had a mould of that fossil in their public museum. I was blown away by it, stupidly thinking it was the real thing and not a mould... oh well... it was impressive anyway, knowing that at some point in the process, something physical had been in contact with the real imprint of such a rare find!

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

but isn't this just another time supposed exact science "corrects" itself? 20 years ago, dinosaurs were reptiles, and did not have feathers, now some of them did, they say. or all of them did, nobody's really clarified if it's just a few feathered dinosaurs, or all of them. either way, science is changing the very things that were argued "scientifically sound" just a few years ago.
And yet it was treated as treason when I said they're constantly correcting everything scientific that does not actually meet the requirements to be scientific fact.

 

[FoolKiller]

Am I the only person in here, that isn't a scientist or studying science, to watch/read Jurassic Park?

Quote: "It is no wonder they learned how to fly."
"It looks like a giant turkey."
"The root of velociraptor, raptor, bird of prey."

This stuff is far from news and was even pointed out by Michael Crichton more than 15 years ago.


The only difference is that we are now finding genetic evidence to point out what open-minded paleontologists have been saying for decades.


Not that this has anything to do with the CvsE discussion, but for those of you that are finding the dinosaur to bird relationship to be a new thing, you are extremely behind. I remember reading Jurassic Park and thinking that sounded crazy, so I did some research on where Micheal Crichton pulled that from and found that it was actually a theory that was gaining in popularity.

Or maybe I was the only 14-year-old that thought I could call BS on Hollywood at the time?

 

[Touring Mars]

but isn't this just another time supposed exact science "corrects" itself? 20 years ago, dinosaurs were reptiles, and did not have feathers, now some of them did, they say. or all of them did, nobody's really clarified if it's just a few feathered dinosaurs, or all of them. either way, science is changing the very things that were argued "scientifically sound" just a few years ago.

If anything, I'd say that the article I discussed earlier is an excellent example of the exact opposite - scientific experiment corroborating an existing hypothesis rather than correcting it. There are plenty examples of science 'correcting' itself, however, but that said, if it is wrong, would you rather it stayed wrong?

20 years ago, scientific understanding of the evidence that links modern day birds to dinosaurs wasn't as strong as it is today - and now, we have developed techniques that can start to address many unresolved issues in science - like the extent to which dinosaurs (like T. rex) are genetically linked to modern day animals (like birds). You're right to point out that our understanding of such issues is changing all the time, but I don't see that as being too much of a problem... the conclusions made 20 years ago were scientifically sound - judged against the available evidence at the time. Since then, more evidence has come to light that has changed/enhanced our understanding of such issues...

We now know that feathered creatures - birds - that live today, are more closely related to dinosaurs than other living species. Does that mean dinosaurs had feathers? No. It means that the ones that survived the mass-extinction event which occured ~65 million years ago, included some which either already had feathers or had the propensity (future ability) to produce them... Plenty of other things we know/knew 20 years ago about T. rex haven't changed though - like their size, shape etc. Facts are facts, and theories postulate what future facts we can expect to find... sometimes theories make wrong predictions, and sometimes (in this case) they get it bang on. The stuff that is proven by experiment to be correct is kept - and considered as fact - the hypotheses that turn out to be incorrect get dropped...

It's mighty ironic, given the point that you are trying to make about science being wrong all the time, that being wrong is essential for the progress of a robust theory. Doubly ironic, then, that ID "theory" is never, and can never be, "wrong". Pardon the pun, but as a scientific theory, ID suffers from a fundamental design flaw!

Am I the only person in here, that isn't a scientist or studying science, to watch/read Jurassic Park?

Quote: "It is no wonder they learned how to fly."
"It looks like a giant turkey."
"The root of velociraptor, raptor, bird of prey."

This stuff is far from news and was even pointed out by Michael Crichton more than 15 years ago.


The only difference is that we are now finding genetic evidence to point out what open-minded paleontologists have been saying for decades.


Not that this has anything to do with the CvsE discussion, but for those of you that are finding the dinosaur to bird relationship to be a new thing, you are extremely behind. I remember reading Jurassic Park and thinking that sounded crazy, so I did some research on where Micheal Crichton pulled that from and found that it was actually a theory that was gaining in popularity.

Or maybe I was the only 14-year-old that thought I could call BS on Hollywood at the time?

👍

Certainly, the link between dinos and birds was made pretty unequivocally a long time ago, but it's significant to note that science has now advanced to the point from where Jurassic Park took it's lead - the extraction of biomolecular information from dinosaur remains... the fact that the results also provide proof to the evolutionary hypothesis, though, serves as a useful (and devastating) counterpoint to the whole ID argument... It's truly amazing that proteinaceous material can survive for 68 million years, just waiting on another species to come along and figure out how to study it...

 

[Grand Prix]

Am I the only person in here, that isn't a scientist or studying science, to watch/read Jurassic Park?

Quote: "It is no wonder they learned how to fly."
"It looks like a giant turkey."
"The root of velociraptor, raptor, bird of prey."

This stuff is far from news and was even pointed out by Michael Crichton more than 15 years ago.


The only difference is that we are now finding genetic evidence to point out what open-minded paleontologists have been saying for decades.


Not that this has anything to do with the CvsE discussion, but for those of you that are finding the dinosaur to bird relationship to be a new thing, you are extremely behind. I remember reading Jurassic Park and thinking that sounded crazy, so I did some research on where Micheal Crichton pulled that from and found that it was actually a theory that was gaining in popularity.

Or maybe I was the only 14-year-old that thought I could call BS on Hollywood at the time?

Not at all. I have been looking at birds ever since the book and movie came out and thought to myself "so that's pretty similar to how they moved then." However, many films like King Kong etc. have also imposed the idea of a stereotypical 19th century, ultra-reptilian dinosaur on the public conscious. That is why we find it hard to imagine T-Rex with feathers, not because it doesn't make sense from scientific evidence, but because we have all imagined, as a child, being with a scary-looking, scaly, crocodile type of T-Rex as opposed to a funny-looking giant turkey. I bet T-Rex breasts were delicious, if a bit gamey.

I do admit being frightened by some birds in my life though.

 

[dylansan]

Science does constantly change, but rarely, if ever, does it change to an idea that is more incorrect than before. That's the biggest thing here. Scientists don't usually agree on an idea, only to later decide that an older theory was better.

 

[Joey D]

@ JoeyD - I worked at UCL (University College London) for a bit and was based (funnily enough) in The Darwin Building, and they had a mould of that fossil in their public museum. I was blown away by it, stupidly thinking it was the real thing and not a mould... oh well... it was impressive anyway, knowing that at some point in the process, something physical had been in contact with the real imprint of such a rare find!

They had a mould of it at the Natural History Museum in Oxford as well. Like you I had the similar feel of being impressed by the whole thing as well. I still think the model of Lucy at the British Museum though was the highlight of my museum experience in the UK though.