Creation vs. Evolution

[Sureboss]

An example of natural selection that I will always remember from my Science lessons was the study of peppered moths in Britain through the advancement of the Industrial Revolution. The white coloured peppered moth which would be perfectly camouflaged against lichen on a tree, was suddenly "losing out" to the black moth which wouldn't stand out against the blackened back grounds.

Natural selection is one of the most obvious things around us. We just don't see it. It happens within our own species all the time but refuse (in general) to admit it because it is considered taboo. Look at people who are unlucky enough to have suffered heart problems through genetics. We all inherit things genetically. I've got Dad's health (barring my own stupidity in my youth), I just don't get ill. My brother has picked up my Mum's Asthma.

The very way that sexual reproduction works means that natural selection is inevitable and an undeniable fact.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Rubbish. On the contrary, there is a veritable mountain of facts that support the theory of common descent. It is neither a matter of opinion nor conjecture that humans and chimpanzees are genetically related, and very closely at that - it is a plain fact. It is also a plain fact that the human genome shares a high degree of sequence homology with all other mammals, and (to differing extents) all other lifeforms. Given that the "coincidence" concept is refuted by creationists and evolutionists alike, there remains only two possible explanations for the degree of homology between the human genome and those of other species - common descent and special creation. The fact is that the evidence (fossil, anatomical and genetic) supports the common descent hypothesis completely. Whether it also supports the special creation hypothesis too is a moot point, not least because there is no way to falsify the special creation hypothesis. Conversely, the common descent hypothesis is easily falsifiable - so easy infact that it would only take one individual of one single species to do it, and yet, guess what, we're still waiting. Indeed, evolutionary biology and comparative genomics reveals the fundamental and irrefutable fact that all lifeforms yet discovered share common characteristics - cells, genomes, gene sequences, proteins etc. This is in total agreement with the common descent hypothesis. The factual evidence available in the form of the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and now also comparative genomics, has confirmed the common descent hypothesis at every turn. It is merely your opinion that this amounts to "pure opininated, conjectural theory", so pardon me for disagreeing.

Well we're getting closer. Theories are theories and opinions are opinions whether they come from the Creation side or the evolution side. Neither has basis in unrefutible physical proof or fact.
Unlike you I'm willing to admit that.
However, I would claim that of the two there is more scientific basis for a claim of truth on the creation side than the other.

While it is perfectly legitimate to ask the question, it is not legitimate to then answer your own question with stuff you just pull out of thin air, and pretend that it is a legitimate answer when it is infact not. It is a plain fact that the book you mention is misleading - it is my opinion that this is being done on purpose.

It was not out of thin air, it again points out, that in the fossil record, now some 250,000 or more, wherein you would certainly expect to find proof for the evolutional theory, is absolutely void of such.
Debatebly the method used may not be the best, but it does not discount the principle fact of the matter, therefore it is genuinely not misleading.

There is definitive proof of common descent - it is written in the genome of every living creature. The genetic similarities observed across the living world prove beyond doubt that the mechanism of common descent is a valid one. On the contrary, there is not a single living creature whose genome is not consistent with the theory of common descent. As I said before, it would only take one individual of one species to do so, and yet....

Common descent if anything in combination with other "known facts", not unproven hypothesis, favor Creation not Evolution.

There is also ample proof that two genetically distinct populations of animal can arise from the same common ancestral population - not only is the evidence all around us, this has actually been tested and observed in a single human lifetime. Furthermore, it has been shown - beyond doubt - that new characteristics and abilities can arise in a descendant population from an ancestral population that did not have them before. This has been observed many, many times.

This only proves the obvious complex depth, of genetic code and life itself.
It does not prove the capability was not there all along, only that it had not observably manifest itself previously. Also these changes are only possible within the bounds of the original species. Again people begat people, monkees begat monkees, cows begat cows, etc., etc., etc. Past, present, and as far as can be seen future, this is the truth in fact.

As for 'natural selection', once again this is a case of a hypothesis that has yet to be disproven. The biological machinery that every living thing is endowed with specifically allows it to happen - but yet, that needn't be the case. You have to ask, if all living things were 'specially created', why have they been created in such a way as to make them look like they evolved?? Why are they endowed with the ability to create new individuals that are genetically distinct from their direct ancestors i.e. through sexual reproduction, like we are, and not simply asexually reproduced clones of each other (which, of course, also happens in nature)? This ability to create new mixtures of genes i.e. to create new genomes, coupled with the proven ability of DNA sequences to mutate (this has been proven beyond all doubt, and yes it can be done artificially too), may not "prove" that natural selection occurs - but it does prove that natural selection can occur. Again, why would a creator design a system with the ability to do this, but intend for it not to happen??

Again only within the species.
Man' attempts to manipulate a breed must be continued indefinately to achieve or maintain the desired result. Otherwise to my knowledge the species will from sterility die out, revert back to, the original pattern, or in other cases, the grab-bag of possibilities.
This is clearly not indicative of evolution.
If direct intervention by manipultion is severly limited as to result and again must be continued, how to you contend no intervention will provide results way above and beyond any bounds of reality in truth and fact.

As I mention above, "not alterable even with intervention" is simply not true - indeed, "descent with modification" is a natural fact, and can be observed in the genes of every newborn baby. Given that evolution - or "descent with modification" - occurs over many, many generations, it is perhaps easy to understand how the illusion of the immutability of species comes about. But it is a bit like saying that a city has been exactly the way it is now since time began, simply because you have never seen it any differently - and you are not able (because of the absence of time machines) to go back in time and see how different the city was long ago. Simply put, we haven't been watching for anywhere near long enough to be able to claim that we have witnessed macroevolution (or speciation) first-hand in most cases, but that does not mean to say that it cannot be (or indeed, has not been) observed in principle, nor does it detract from the vast amount of evidence all around us that allows us to infer, beyond all reasonable doubt, that we do indeed have a long and complex ancestry that betrays the myth that humans have 'always been' the way we are today.

I can agree we may not have always been the way we are today, however according to what facts are actually known, we have always been people.

If you chose to look at the facts - the real facts, and not the distorted garbage that you present as facts - then you would know that evolution theory is very far from "theoretical fantasy", but the plain and simple, elegant and beautiful truth.

"Theoretical fantasy", may not be the best descriptive term, but it is closer to reality than "plain and simple, elegant and beautiful truth."

 

[wfooshee]

Theories are theories and opinions are opinions whether they come from the Creation side or the evolution side. Neither has basis in unrefutible physical proof or fact.
Unlike you I'm willing to admit that.

That's because, unlike you, he knows what a theory is. You're using the word in a meaning that doesn't even qualify as "hypothesis."

It was not out of thin air, it again points out, that in the fossil record, now some 250,000 or more, wherein you would certainly expect to find proof for the evolutional theory, is absolutely void of such.

Misuse of terms again. Do not confuse proof with evidence.
The relationships between current species and fossil species is well understood. The entire theory of evolution, and natural selection as its mechanism, is based on what is found in the fossil record. That record gives ample evidence to the relationships between species, and the development from one to another.
If you need a transitional species, search this very thread for lungfish.

. . . monkees begat monkees. . . .

'Cause they have Mommas and Poppas? As long as it's not Brother John and Sister Sledge; that would be wrong.

Man' attempts to manipulate a breed must be continued indefinately to achieve or maintain the desired result. Otherwise to my knowledge the species will from sterility die out, revert back to, the original pattern, or in other cases, the grab-bag of possibilities.

Breeds are not species, nor are we trying to make them such. Nobody's trying to make an entirely new kind of animal if they cross a poodle with a collie. It's still a dog.

Breeding is not evolution.

I can agree we may not have always been the way we are today, however according to what facts are actually known, we have always been people.

Several species of people, actually. Homo Sapiens is just the latest. Homo Habilus would be the earliest currently known. Ooh, fossil record facts, again. Damned inconvenient facts.

 

[Danisfast]

6000 posts?! That must be a record..?

 

[Touring Mars]

That's because, unlike you, he knows what a theory is

Indeed - creationists have a very different interpretation of some important terms, "theory", "facts", "proof" and "evidence" being key among them. That's not to say that I don't understand what SCJ is implying when using these words on his terms, but it is clear that we are talking at cross purposes at times, especially when it comes to the word "theory"...

Well we're getting closer. Theories are theories and opinions are opinions whether they come from the Creation side or the evolution side. Neither has basis in unrefutible physical proof or fact. Unlike you I'm willing to admit that. However, I would claim that of the two there is more scientific basis for a claim of truth on the creation side than the other.

Both concepts - special creation and evolution/common descent - are just two different ways of explaining the same set of observable facts. However, the key difference is that one is a scientific theory and the other is not. Why? Because of falsifiability. No fact or piece of evidence contradicts the special creation hypothesis - creationists take succour from this, but it actually means that special creation cannot be and is not considered a scientific theory. Find a piece of evidence that supports evolution? No matter, it was simply created to look like that. Find a piece of evidence that contradicts your view that the world is 6000 years old? No matter, it was created that way to test your faith.... and so on, and so forth. Special creation makes no predictions and comes to only one, unalterable conclusion - that things are the way they are because that's the way they were made!

Evolution theory, on the other hand, attempts to explain why observable facts of the natural world came to be the way they are, and that explanation must be consistent with all the available evidence, past, present and future. Find a piece of evidence that contradicts your theory of common descent? Then your theory is dead. Observe one species giving birth to an entirely different species? Then the entire theory of evolution is dead. In other words, live scientific theories are only as good as the next discovery because of falsifiability. For this reason alone, evolution theory is scientifically far superior to creationism.

Another key measure of the validity of evolution as a bona fide scientific theory is in its predictive power - have any hypotheses originating from evolution theory been subsequently confirmed? Yes - the entire field of genetics provides spectacular confirmation that Darwin and Wallace's original concepts were fundamentally correct. Indeed, evolution theory even predicted the field of genetics itself. Although Darwin was unaware of the biomolecular basis of heredity, or the biological mechanisms that facilitate the process of natural selection, he correctly predicted that such things must exist if evolution is true. Evolution theory may have been borne out of the fossil record and comparative anatomy, but genetics has come along and provided a massive amount of new information that supports the original hypotheses of common ancestry and descent with modification.

The key point is that observational data could so easily have shown such evolutionary hypotheses to be completely wrong, and yet they haven't - far from it infact. Before the field of genetics existed, we could only presume or predict what we might expect to find when we did finally start looking at the genomes of living things - evolution theory faced a collosal and unavoidable test. There were any number of ways that the theory of common descent could have been destroyed in the blink of an eye, and yet, the actual results have consistently returned in favour of the common descent hypothesis, time and time again. There were literally infinite possible outcomes that would have shown that the common descent hypothesis was false. But guess what?... The pattern and extent of genetic similarity between supposedly "unrelated" species - now known in spectacular detail - is the only outcome that supports the common descent hypothesis, but yet it is precisely what we see. To claim otherwise is simply fraudulent.

It was not out of thin air, it again points out, that in the fossil record, now some 250,000 or more, wherein you would certainly expect to find proof for the evolutional theory, is absolutely void of such. Debatebly the method used may not be the best, but it does not discount the principle fact of the matter, therefore it is genuinely not misleading.

To cite an example of one present day species evolving into another present day species is misleading, because it doesn't happen. The type of intermediates Werner categorically states "should" be present if evolution were true should, in reality, not be found at all. But not content with mere errors (such as his erroneous interpretation of what evolution "should" do), Werner is also guilty of massive errors of omission. For example, he focuses on a specific area - bat evolution - where a lack of fossil evidence is/was a known issue. But the fact that bat evolution is now much more fully understood - not from the fossil record, but from comparative genomics - is not even mentioned. This is hardly a surprise.

people begat people, monkees begat monkees, cows begat cows, etc., etc., etc. Past, present, and as far as can be seen future, this is the truth in fact.

Indeed it is the truth, but it is only part of the truth - and the part I have underlined is where our views diverge. While the creationist view (the immutability of species) may appear true throughout recorded history, two critically important facts remain and demand consideration if one is to get the full picture.

1) Recorded history is incredibly short relative to the full history of life on the planet, therefore recorded history is clearly not the whole story. In other words, the term "Past" used in the context of the above only actually means "very recent past" as opposed to our "entire past". By the same token, "future", as in the context of the firsthand human experience, only truly refers to our immediate future, and certainly not "all eternity". Indeed, by understanding the various processes by which genetic information may be altered over time, and examining the rate at which this can occur in a variety of species (including our own), it is very far from established that the human species will remain recognisably human for all time (and this can be applied to any species, of course). There is no such a thing as an inherent quality called humanness, let alone that this quality is permanent and unalterable, no matter how long a time period you give it. When one considers the true depth of geological time, it becomes apparent that the idea of species permanence is merely an artefact created by our limited observational history.​

2) Detailed comparisons of modern day species reveals unequivocal patterns of relatedness that are not self-evident by merely eyeballing various lifeforms superficially over a short period of time (such as what we would call 'recorded history'). The immutability of species hypothesis - "confirmed" as it is by common sense and firsthand experience - is seriously challenged by a vast swathe of genetic (and other) evidence.​

I can agree we may not have always been the way we are today, however according to what facts are actually known, we have always been people.

Vestigial organs (i.e. our vestigial tail bone, the appendix etc.) as well redundant enzymes, "junk" DNA etc., are all evidence that strongly support the view that our ancestors were once very different from ourselves. There are also many clear examples of "oddities" within many other modern-day species that clearly demonstrate that they too once looked very different (i.e. whale digits). Furthermore, these superfluous and/or redundant features - abundant throughout the living world - completely defy the design hypothesis, but fit nicely with the view that these features are vestigial remains from once very different forms.

In the light of all that I've said above, it is far from established that "we have always been people". In view of all the contradictory evidence, the question has to be "How do you know?"

 

[Danoff]

SCJ,

Take a step back and think about what TM is saying for a moment.

- Fossils show new species branching from old ones over time (this is demonstrated visually in this very thread).
- Natural selection is an observable phenomenon throughout the animal kingdom including in Humans. I can give you examples in my life where I have exhibited behavior that supports natural selection. You could as well.
- Genetic inheritance is verified every year by high schoolers taking biology messing around with fruit flies.

Quite frankly, you don't even need the first one once you have the second two. Natural Selection (which we all exhibit) and Genetic Inheritance (which we all exhibit) is sufficient to establish evolution as a logical imperative.

You have two choices.
1) Assume god created evolution and shoehorn it into the bible.
2) Question the bible altogether.

Those are the only two outcomes permissible by the evidence at hand. It's up to you to decide which way to go, but those are your options. Rejecting evolution is not an option.

 

[orimarc]

*very big wall of text*

In view of all the contradictory evidence, the question has to be "How do you know?"

Holy 🤬, TM. You get my "Official Seal of Awesomeness".

 

[Duke]

That said, Duke has managed to brilliantly sum up the whole issue in a single sentence...

Sum up, yes; answer, no. Well done, TM.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Indeed - creationists have a very different interpretation of some important terms, "theory", "facts", "proof" and "evidence" being key among them. That's not to say that I don't understand what SCJ is implying when using these words on his terms, but it is clear that we are talking at cross purposes at times, especially when it comes to the word "theory"...

There is no special interpretation of terms. In fact some in this thread have stated it as such in the "Do you believe in God" thread. A scientific fact is a replicatable experiment that will yield a repeatable consistant result.
(BTW I find it interesting some who cling vehemently to that over there, seem to have abandoned it over here.)
All other claims outside of that category are in the realm of theory, speculation, hypothetical, hypothesis, possibility, probability, etc. and in short are unprovable by the above standard. Regaurdless of the "basis for" or "claimed evidentiary', all of these terms in the final analysis are, untested ideas and opinions. That is the ultimate destination for all things relative or unprovable. Likewise, all things of that category are not, as yet factual or can be legitimately considered as such.

Both concepts - special creation and evolution/common descent - are just two different ways of explaining the same set of observable facts. However, the key difference is that one is a scientific theory and the other is not. Why? Because of falsifiability. No fact or piece of evidence contradicts the special creation hypothesis - creationists take succour from this, but it actually means that special creation cannot be and is not considered a scientific theory. Find a piece of evidence that supports evolution? No matter, it was simply created to look like that. Find a piece of evidence that contradicts your view that the world is 6000 years old? No matter, it was created that way to test your faith.... and so on, and so forth. Special creation makes no predictions and comes to only one, unalterable conclusion - that things are the way they are because that's the way they were made!

Evolution theory, on the other hand, attempts to explain why observable facts of the natural world came to be the way they are, and that explanation must be consistent with all the available evidence, past, present and future. Find a piece of evidence that contradicts your theory of common descent? Then your theory is dead. Observe one species giving birth to an entirely different species? Then the entire theory of evolution is dead. In other words, live scientific theories are only as good as the next discovery because of falsifiability. For this reason alone, evolution theory is scientifically far superior to creationism.

That depends on what your idea of scientific is. Evolution is no where near any scientific basis in fact. Theories while possibly fascinating for some to consider, are subject to any number of error possibilities, even if considered scientific. For that reason I believe your use of the word "superior" is in fact a considerable exaggeration.

Another key measure of the validity of evolution as a bona fide scientific theory is in its predictive power - have any hypotheses originating from evolution theory been subsequently confirmed? Yes - the entire field of genetics provides spectacular confirmation that Darwin and Wallace's original concepts were fundamentally correct. Indeed, evolution theory even predicted the field of genetics itself. Although Darwin was unaware of the biomolecular basis of heredity, or the biological mechanisms that facilitate the process of natural selection, he correctly predicted that such things must exist if evolution is true. Evolution theory may have been borne out of the fossil record and comparative anatomy, but genetics has come along and provided a massive amount of new information that supports the original hypotheses of common ancestry and descent with modification.

Sorry but no dice. The only thing the field of genetics confirm as pointed out already is commonality and changes within species can and do occur. They do not lend any validity to natural selection or adaptation, much less evolution. At best they are totally random, upredictable and follow no established pattern. There is a immeasurable intellectual chasm by any classification between Common ancestry and descent with modification, and evolution.

The key point is that observational data could so easily have shown such evolutionary hypotheses to be completely wrong, and yet they haven't - far from it infact. Before the field of genetics existed, we could only presume or predict what we might expect to find when we did finally start looking at the genomes of living things - evolution theory faced a collosal and unavoidable test. There were any number of ways that the theory of common descent could have been destroyed in the blink of an eye, and yet, the actual results have consistently returned in favour of the common descent hypothesis, time and time again. There were literally infinite possible outcomes that would have shown that the common descent hypothesis was false. But guess what?... The pattern and extent of genetic similarity between supposedly "unrelated" species - now known in spectacular detail - is the only outcome that supports the common descent hypothesis, but yet it is precisely what we see. To claim otherwise is simply fraudulent.

It truly fascinates me how you can interpret a blank possibility into a reality.
How you can strap a rocket of predispositional belief on your intellect and attempt to traverse that obvious chasm is beyond me.
The only thing that fascinates me more is your opposite reaction to the exsistance of a Creator.

To cite an example of one present day species evolving into another present day species is misleading, because it doesn't happen. The type of intermediates Werner categorically states "should" be present if evolution were true should, in reality, not be found at all. But not content with mere errors (such as his erroneous interpretation of what evolution "should" do), Werner is also guilty of massive errors of omission. For example, he focuses on a specific area - bat evolution - where a lack of fossil evidence is/was a known issue. But the fact that bat evolution is now much more fully understood - not from the fossil record, but from comparative genomics - is not even mentioned. This is hardly a surprise.

Quite frankly when you are talking about a, and I'll change my term for the sake of your sensibility, Theoritical possibility, on the scale of evolution, the territory is pretty wide open for comment.

Indeed it is the truth, but it is only part of the truth - and the part I have underlined is where our views diverge. While the creationist view (the immutability of species) may appear true throughout recorded history, two critically important facts remain and demand consideration if one is to get the full picture.

1) Recorded history is incredibly short relative to the full history of life on the planet, therefore recorded history is clearly not the whole story. In other words, the term "Past" used in the context of the above only actually means "very recent past" as opposed to our "entire past". By the same token, "future", as in the context of the firsthand human experience, only truly refers to our immediate future, and certainly not "all eternity". Indeed, by understanding the various processes by which genetic information may be altered over time, and examining the rate at which this can occur in a variety of species (including our own), it is very far from established that the human species will remain recognisably human for all time (and this can be applied to any species, of course). There is no such a thing as an inherent quality called humanness, let alone that this quality is permanent and unalterable, no matter how long a time period you give it. When one considers the true depth of geological time, it becomes apparent that the idea of species permanence is merely an artefact created by our limited observational history.​

I would add to that our true limitations and imaginative tendencies with reguard to what is observable and what it may represent, particularly concerning the fossil record.

2) Detailed comparisons of modern day species reveals unequivocal patterns of relatedness that are not self-evident by merely eyeballing various lifeforms superficially over a short period of time (such as what we would call 'recorded history'). The immutability of species hypothesis - "confirmed" as it is by common sense and firsthand experience - is seriously challenged by a vast swathe of genetic (and other) evidence.​

Thats still a long, long way from fact.

Vestigial organs (i.e. our vestigial tail bone, the appendix etc.) as well redundant enzymes, "junk" DNA etc., are all evidence that strongly support the view that our ancestors were once very different from ourselves. There are also many clear examples of "oddities" within many other modern-day species that clearly demonstrate that they too once looked very different (i.e. whale digits). Furthermore, these superfluous and/or redundant features - abundant throughout the living world - completely defy the design hypothesis, but fit nicely with the view that these features are vestigial remains from once very different forms.

Again all of that is highly speculative, and inconclusive.

In the light of all that I've said above, it is far from established that "we have always been people". In view of all the contradictory evidence, the question has to be "How do you know?"

From what is factually known, you do. From what is strictly a possibility you don't. Considering the two, like most everything else, one will probably gravitate by way of belief inclination.

 

[niky]

There is no special interpretation of terms. In fact some in this thread have stated it as such in the "Do you believe in God" thread. A scientific fact is a replicatable experiment that will yield a repeatable consistant result.

A fact is either observable or replicable by experiment. A theory is a description of the mechanisms that lead to the observable facts. They are not of the same order. Gravitation is "theory"... and yet you see evidence of it everywhere.

(BTW I find it interesting some who cling vehemently to that over there, seem to have abandoned it over here.)
All other claims outside of that category are in the realm of theory, speculation, hypothetical, hypothesis, possibility, probability, etc. and in short are unprovable by the above standard. Regaurdless of the "basis for" or "claimed evidentiary', all of these terms in the final analysis are, untested ideas and opinions. That is the ultimate destination for all things relative or unprovable. Likewise, all things of that category are not, as yet factual or can be legitimately considered as such.

You're still confusing what facts are. Facts are empirical evidence. A scientific "theory" is a framework which fits the facts. A scientific theory will never become a fact, because they are terms that apply to different things... something which TM is going to great pains to explain yet which you seem to refuse to understand.

That depends on what your idea of scientific is. Evolution is no where near any scientific basis in fact. Theories while possibly fascinating for some to consider, are subject to any number of error possibilities, even if considered scientific. For that reason I believe your use of the word "superior" is in fact a considerable exaggeration.

I'd like to know what your idea of science is... because you still don't seem to understand the difference between a hypothesis, a theorem and a fact.

Sorry but no dice. The only thing the field of genetics confirm as pointed out already is commonality and changes within species can and do occur. They do not lend any validity to natural selection or adaptation, much less evolution. At best they are totally random, upredictable and follow no established pattern. There is a immeasurable intellectual chasm by any classification between Common ancestry and descent with modification, and evolution.

Define "species". They show more commonality between related species than unrelated species. Of course... without evolution, you would have to explain why species are related and how.

It truly fascinates me how you can interpret a blank possibility into a reality.
How you can strap a rocket of predispositional belief on your intellect and attempt to traverse that obvious chasm is beyond me.
The only thing that fascinates me more is your opposite reaction to the exsistance of a Creator.

So... what facts support the existence of a Creator? And what predispositional belief is there that leads to evolution? The acceptance of the theory of evolution is merely the acceptance of the theory and how it describes the relationship and interaction of available evidence. If you've got a better explanation for how the available evidence came to be, I'd like to hear it.

I would add to that our true limitations and imaginative tendencies with reguard to what is observable and what it may represent, particularly concerning the fossil record.

So... we're imagining fossils, now? Never been to a museum, eh?

Thats still a long, long way from fact.

Scientific evidence is fact. The idea of immutability of species is "hypothesis". Evolution is "theory" in that it is a "hypothesis" supported by "fact". Different order concepts. Again... misinterpretation.

Again all of that is highly speculative, and inconclusive.

So... I suppose we're imagining appendices and goosebumps, too, then? Neither serve any function on a modern human. If you study even one term of medicine, you'll see a lot of vestigial organs on humans. And fetal development reveals a lot about our origins. It is not highly speculative to say that these organs have no uses. It is not highly speculative to say that these organs are the same or similar to organs in other creatures that do have uses.

What's inconclusive about saying that they are likely related? You can throw up all the red herrings you want, but scientific debate is based on evidence and proper interpretation. You're going the traditional "intelligent design" route of argumentation... simply say "it's debateable"... "it's opinion"... "it's theory, not fact"... withoiut offering a valid counter-argument that matches the evidence that's there for anybody with two eyes and a pair of hands to find.

From what is factually known, you do. From what is strictly a possibility you don't. Considering the two, like most everything else, one will probably gravitate by way of belief inclination.

Creationists gravitate that way by way of belief inclination. Sad to say... some scientists do, too... whichever side they pick. People who actually study the field accept that Evolution Theory is valid.

Even if the mechanism of change is random genetic mutation, Evolution Theory will still hold true. Whichever variant is more successful or more survivable will survive to reproduce.

 

[Keef]

There is no special interpretation of terms. In fact some in this thread have stated it as such in the "Do you believe in God" thread. A scientific fact is a replicatable experiment that will yield a repeatable consistant result.
(BTW I find it interesting some who cling vehemently to that over there, seem to have abandoned it over here.)
All other claims outside of that category are in the realm of theory, speculation, hypothetical, hypothesis, possibility, probability, etc. and in short are unprovable by the above standard. Regaurdless of the "basis for" or "claimed evidentiary', all of these terms in the final analysis are, untested ideas and opinions. That is the ultimate destination for all things relative or unprovable. Likewise, all things of that category are not, as yet factual or can be legitimately considered as such.

That depends on what your idea of scientific is. Evolution is no where near any scientific basis in fact. Theories while possibly fascinating for some to consider, are subject to any number of error possibilities, even if considered scientific. For that reason I believe your use of the word "superior" is in fact a considerable exaggeration.

Sorry but no dice. The only thing the field of genetics confirm as pointed out already is commonality and changes within species can and do occur. They do not lend any validity to natural selection or adaptation, much less evolution. At best they are totally random, upredictable and follow no established pattern. There is a immeasurable intellectual chasm by any classification between Common ancestry and descent with modification, and evolution.

It truly fascinates me how you can interpret a blank possibility into a reality.
How you can strap a rocket of predispositional belief on your intellect and attempt to traverse that obvious chasm is beyond me.
The only thing that fascinates me more is your opposite reaction to the exsistance of a Creator.

Quite frankly when you are talking about a, and I'll change my term for the sake of your sensibility, Theoritical possibility, on the scale of evolution, the territory is pretty wide open for comment.

I would add to that our true limitations and imaginative tendencies with reguard to what is observable and what it may represent, particularly concerning the fossil record.

Thats still a long, long way from fact.

Again all of that is highly speculative, and inconclusive.

From what is factually known, you do. From what is strictly a possibility you don't. Considering the two, like most everything else, one will probably gravitate by way of belief inclination.

It appears you've got no argument against anything Touring Mars stated in his post. Instead you've simply...dissected his grammar. Or something.

Speaking of grammar, the word is "regard".

Oh drat, I've just done the same thing you did. I guess this supports my theory that I'm a hypocrite.

 

[PureAwesomeness]

I have no intention of getting involved in this debate. I did just finish reading this article though. Quite interesting.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/ardi-2/

 

[Touring Mars]

Sorry but no dice. The only thing the field of genetics confirm as pointed out already is commonality and changes within species can and do occur. They do not lend any validity to natural selection or adaptation, much less evolution. At best they are totally random, upredictable and follow no established pattern.

Schematic representation of chromosomes of man, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, arranged from left to right.
Adapted from Yunis & Prakash, "The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy", Science, 215, 19 March 1982 Article (Subscription required)​

Random. Yes. Totally Random.

I simply cannot understand the logic required to be able to look at the type of data shown above and say with a straight face that it doesn't support the hypothesis that these species share common ancestry. It's frankly absurd. Of course, this comparison of the chromosomal bands of humans and great apes, published in 1982, is just the tip of the iceberg. Since then, vast swathes of high-resolution data has been obtained across the entire spectrum of life on Earth - all of it consistent with the common descent hypothesis. You may think whatever you like about what the data means in terms of the relatedness of species. But if your conclusion is that humans are not related to other species via common descent, then you are plain and simply wrong.

This image also illustrates another, key piece of evidence that supports the common descent hypothesis very strongly indeed - human chromosome 2. Whereas humans have 23 sets of chromosomes, all other hominids have 24. If we are so closely related to other hominids, we could expect to atleast have the same number of chromosomes. But as you can hopefully see above, one of our chromosomes - human chromosome 2 - is infact highly homologous to two chromosomes from each of the other species. Not only that, but our chromosome 2 also contains the remnants of chromosomal structures (centromeres, telomeres etc.) that clearly indicate that our chromosome 2 has formed as the result of the relatively recent fusion of two smaller chromosomes...

 

[Duke]

Random. Yes. Totally Random.

I simply cannot understand the logic required to be able to look at the type of data shown above and say with a straight face that it doesn't support the hypothesis that these species share common ancestry.

But, see, God MADE them look the same. To confuse us. Or something.

 

[Joey D]

But, see, God MADE them look the same. To confuse us. Or something.

That crafty so-in-so!

====

I still don't understand how anyone can deny evolution, the evidence exist to give a pretty good indication that it has happened over time. I mean I guess the debate should now be with what the driving force behind evolution is. I suppose you could argue that a supernatural being did it, but lets put Occam's Razor into effect here, what's a simpler explanation? A being that you can't see, hear, or touch magically produced a complex eco-system of life on a rock somewhere in a big body of stars in a massive body of dark matter? Or it all happened though a very effective process of weeding out the poorly adapted species as our planet's conditions changed?

===

With regards to Ardipithecus ramidus, a friend of mine is actually studying right now at Kent State with C. Owen Lovejoy. I'm extremely jealous of her.

 

[Denur]

It is nice to see that graph again, the one a few posts above, with the schematic representation of chromosomes of man, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan. Just imagine that we had discovered the genome before we had any notion of evolution. And that we were still living in a world where (almost) everyone still believes in a devine being, or Creator if you will. In that case the species genome would have been seen as proof of the Creator's genius: He used a common platform (in stead of ancestry) to create all life and just needed some tweaks here and there to make different species. One could call him also lazy of course.
The genome discovery does not proof evolution in my humble opinion, not by itself. But on the other hand, had the genome been totaly random across the various species, than it would have disproved evolution.

 

[Touring Mars]

If every genome in the living world was created by an intelligent designer, then one of the specifications of their design must have been: to create biological entities from whose structure it is possible to infer common ancestry. Given that we can and do infer common ancestry from the structure and appearance of biological entities, this criteria has certainly been fulfilled - atleast for some of us anyway. The rest - who are content with the simple idea that biological entities are intelligently designed at all - are left scratching their heads and at a loss to explain why the designer included such a troublesome 'design feature' at all. Of course, another explanation would be that this 'design feature' is purely accidental and unintended... but would an intelligent designer make such a blunder? Perhaps the designer does not wish us to know that we are designed, and is trying to cover his tracks? Or perhaps the designer wants us to believe that we are not designed for some other reason, destined to remain forever mysterious?

To recap, the options are:

Life is designed and the appearance of relatedness is purposefully misleading
Life is designed but the appearance of relatedness is accidental
Life isn't designed at all

 

[Denur]

If every genome in the living world was created by an intelligent designer, then one of the specifications of their design must have been: to create biological entities from whose structure it is possible to infer common ancestry.

Not nescessarily. It could have been: to create biological entities based on a common structure. And maybe, at the time, there was a wiseass in the room who asked: "and what if they later on infer a common ancestry from all this?", the answer could have been: "Well, that will lead to some very nice discussions. But who cares? We (I) did our job as specified."

It reminds me a bit of how God created the heavens and the Earth and put some lights in the sky. And the specification was quite simple: Make a light for the day and one for the night. Nowhere it said that the sun had to circle the earth. So God made the earth spin and he got it right. There was light during the day. But for man it seemed (and it still does) that the sun circles the earth. Maybe a side effect He hadn't thought about, but does it matter?

Now where did I put that book "The Devil's Advocate"?

 

[Danoff]

Not nescessarily. It could have been: to create biological entities based on a common structure.

Nope, not sufficient. Common structure would not be enough to indicate ancestry. It has to be common structure with permutations coming in the right order in the fossil record.

 

[Denur]

Nope, not sufficient. Common structure would not be enough to indicate ancestry. It has to be common structure with permutations coming in the right order in the fossil record.

Nice one. 👍

One cannot but wonder what purpose that would serve.....

 

[Duke]

One cannot but wonder what purpose that would serve.....

A purpose which, of course, our puny limited human minds are incapable of understanding.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Speaking of grammar, the word is "regard".

Oh drat, I've just done the same thing you did. I guess this supports my theory that I'm a hypocrite.

Thanks for the tip, and welcome to the club.

If every genome in the living world was created by an intelligent designer, then one of the specifications of their design must have been: to create biological entities from whose structure it is possible to infer common ancestry. Given that we can and do infer common ancestry from the structure and appearance of biological entities, this criteria has certainly been fulfilled - atleast for some of us anyway. The rest - who are content with the simple idea that biological entities are intelligently designed at all - are left scratching their heads and at a loss to explain why the designer included such a troublesome 'design feature' at all. Of course, another explanation would be that this 'design feature' is purely accidental and unintended... but would an intelligent designer make such a blunder? Perhaps the designer does not wish us to know that we are designed, and is trying to cover his tracks? Or perhaps the designer wants us to believe that we are not designed for some other reason, destined to remain forever mysterious?

To recap, the options are:

Life is designed and the appearance of relatedness is purposefully misleading
Life is designed but the appearance of relatedness is accidental
Life isn't designed at all

Or life is designed and there are similarities amoung its groups because they share the same designer. The same as examination of man's designs.

Also if the designer has chosen another venue for identification it makes sense to confuse the issue on this plane.

 

[mindwise]

I thought i'd find this thread in roughly the same spot as where i left it months ago

Or life is designed and there are similarities among its groups because they share the same designer. The same as examination of man's designs.

Sure, that's of course a good try, like Hovind pointed out.
However, that means you overlook little leftovers in our genes called HERV's.

HERV's are leftovers from retro-viri, and it so happens we share more with our closest relatives (people of different races) and less and less the further we branch away (chimps/bonobo's, then gorillas, then orang utang, then other apes/monkeys, primates, mammels etc.). That is not just true for H(uman) ERV's but for every animal that can be infected by ERV's.
("share" is not to be taken lightly here, please do not say "chance" without doing some research into these "things", i'd look to Spencer Wells to get an expert view from someone who is a proclaimed Christian.)

IF that is by design, then it seems to be a deliberate design to make us think we evolved.

If that's the case, i'd say accepting evolution is part of a divine plan.

 

[niky]

Or life is designed and there are similarities amoung its groups because they share the same designer. The same as examination of man's designs.

Why?

You're assuming a similarity that is functional, or is akin to the similarity amongst the works in an artist's portfolio.

But it's simply not that way.

You have species with very similar structures brought about by convergent evolution... yet they have more genetic differences than species that are wildly different from each other.

A designer would show an aesthetic preference for certain features and layouts... one which is belied by the great diversity in structure and appearance of various organisms.

Also if the designer has chosen another venue for identification it makes sense to confuse the issue on this plane.

What other venue? If I were the designer, I'd have left my signature written all over the place... or at least something like "Designed by Slartibartfast" written all over those lovely fjords in Norway.

And despite people looking all over the place... we haven't found any hidden Mickeys, Kilroys or even something akin to Sagan's fictional hidden message in Pi to tell us that some entity has "designed" our Universe.

If you believe in a single entity who has created the Universe... one who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent... (and omnipotence means there's only one of him... if there's another being of the same power... then you're not omnipotent)... what other audience does he have besides us?

Of course... this straw man argument completely ignores one of the more interesting ideas about the "creation" of the Universe.

Q: What's the easiest way to make a bed look slept in?

A: Sleep in it.

Thus:

Q: What's the easiest way to make it seem like organisms have evolved, and to place fossils in the ground?

A: To allow organisms to evolve and to allow millions upon millions of years of life to flourish on the planet.

-

So... who says God had to have created the world exactly as it is? Why can he not have created the primordial cosmos in some sort of... I don't know... Big Bang... giving it the mathematical and physical properties he knew would eventually lead to life... and us?

-

Unlike Creationists... who desperately seek to find ways to discredit evolution to further their own pet theories about how mankind came to be... Much as conspiracy theorists ignore evidence to the contrary in the pursuit of proving an extremely complicated and convoluted plot.

Scientists take what evidence is available and try to find the simplest explanation that fits the facts. You start with the evidence first, with no preconceptions, then try to find some way to make that evidence make sense. That is the scientific method.

 

[Denur]

Or life is designed and there are similarities amoung its groups because they share the same designer.

Does it say so in the Bible? I don't think so. Which means that you are starting to guess and that is a very slippery path to take.

A former colleague of mine also knows that everything written in the Bible to be true (like you do, I presume). At one point we were talking about the age of the universe and he agrees that our data is correct, or rather our measuring techniques are correct. But, he said, but the Lord must have made the rocks and the universe in such a way, that when man measures their age, that it comes that way (very old, that is).
When I asked why he would do such a thing, why would he want to fool us? His answer was: "Huh, I don't know, He must have reasons we will never know, but because the Bible states that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, than it can be only that".
I couldn't help but laugh.

 

[niky]

Which Bible? The Christian Bible? Or the Jewish Torah? Because it also quite clearly says that everyone is Jewish... as we are all descended from Adam... with a clear, all-inclusive line of descent from him to Abraham. And I don't know about you (looks in mirror at distinctly Japanese/Malay features), but I don't feel Jewish.

Ignoring that... you'll also consider that after the Great Flood... wherein everyone else in the world drowned... we'd all have to be descended from Noah. (Looks back in mirror). I still don't feel Jewish.

Of course... this is one part of Genesis that many Caucasian (note... not Jewish) Creationists choose to ignore... as it is so obviously "myth". Not like the very first part of the book.

 

[Exorcet]

I recall in the Bible, a book called Revelations. And a big theme in the Bible is God revealing himself to people.

So I ask, when did he say that these Revelations would end, and why evolution couldn't be one of them.

In all honesty, unless God came down and dictated the Word down to the letter to whoever was on the typewriter that day, the Bible has errors in the form of converting ideas to language and subjective interpretation of the writer. The Bible evolved over a period of 1000's of years. When did God suddenly stop talking? Why?

 

[Touring Mars]

Obviously, there are alot of people who have a major problem with the concept of Biblical inerrancy.... The very idea that it is possible to write something that is and will remain forever perfectly correct is odd, particularly when you try to reconcile that concept with our ability to observe and discover the universe for ourselves.

The idea that God would create a universe or a planet with the illusion of great antiquity is quite discomfiting - as is the idea that God would create lifeforms with the illusion of relatedness. But even more discomfiting is the possibility that God gave Mankind the faculties required to contemplate and understand the universe, but renders them redundant by the presence of his own "inerrant word" - i.e. that everything that we have come to know can only be correct if it is consistent with the inerrant word of a centuries-old document that we've had all along! I can't understand why God would do any of this.

To quote Galileo via ledhed's signature (again):

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I thought i'd find this thread in roughly the same spot as where i left it months ago

Sure, that's of course a good try, like Hovind pointed out.
However, that means you overlook little leftovers in our genes called HERV's.

HERV's are leftovers from retro-viri, and it so happens we share more with our closest relatives (people of different races) and less and less the further we branch away (chimps/bonobo's, then gorillas, then orang utang, then other apes/monkeys, primates, mammels etc.). That is not just true for H(uman) ERV's but for every animal that can be infected by ERV's.
("share" is not to be taken lightly here, please do not say "chance" without doing some research into these "things", i'd look to Spencer Wells to get an expert view from someone who is a proclaimed Christian.)

IF that is by design, then it seems to be a deliberate design to make us think we evolved.

If that's the case, i'd say accepting evolution is part of a divine plan.

We've been through this probably multiple times before but I will briefly revisit it. The plausibility of the Earth being flat was once believed as a fact. However as we know now it isn't.
This is in similar category although personally I think much more of a stretch.
At any rate, as TM points out, since it is theoritical it is subject to future discovery, analysis, observance, and opinion of such.
Likewise that tells you that at some point, it could certainly be less plausible or outright incorrect.

In the same vein, a underlying problem here is with man's inability to resist proclaimation of a correct answer to a complex and truly unknown physiological question. Once that is done, he has put himself in the unenviable position of trying to prove his point of view, and the only thing equally resistable with so much now on the line, is his inability to admit he could be incorrect. Unlike some I have no illusions about the scientific community's infallability to unprejudicially present any evidence for or against, having biased themselves to one conviction, before the fact. This has already been shown to be true on more than one occasion. In short, people is people and they generally will act accordingly.
This is also the reality within the camp, that if anyone breaks rank, they are immediately denounced, berated, discredited, and excommunicated.

Since again this is a unproven theory, complete objectivity should win the day.

Why?
You're assuming a similarity that is functional, or is akin to the similarity amongst the works in an artist's portfolio.
But it's simply not that way.

Why not? I don't see any difference from a Intellegent design stantpoint.

You have species with very similar structures brought about by convergent evolution... yet they have more genetic differences than species that are wildly different from each other.

A designer would show an aesthetic preference for certain features and layouts... one which is belied by the great diversity in structure and appearance of various organisms.

Precisely, thats why there are similarities.

What other venue? If I were the designer, I'd have left my signature written all over the place... or at least something like "Designed by Slartibartfast" written all over those lovely fjords in Norway.

And despite people looking all over the place... we haven't found any hidden Mickeys, Kilroys or even something akin to Sagan's fictional hidden message in Pi to tell us that some entity has "designed" our Universe.

Maybe GOD is not as vain as you are?

If you believe in a single entity who has created the Universe... one who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent... (and omnipotence means there's only one of him... if there's another being of the same power... then you're not omnipotent)... what other audience does he have besides us?

Good question, who knows?

Of course... this straw man argument completely ignores one of the more interesting ideas about the "creation" of the Universe.

Q: What's the easiest way to make a bed look slept in?

A: Sleep in it.

Thus:

Q: What's the easiest way to make it seem like organisms have evolved, and to place fossils in the ground?

A: To allow organisms to evolve and to allow millions upon millions of years of life to flourish on the planet.
-
So... who says God had to have created the world exactly as it is? Why can he not have created the primordial cosmos in some sort of... I don't know... Big Bang... giving it the mathematical and physical properties he knew would eventually lead to life... and us?
-
Unlike Creationists... who desperately seek to find ways to discredit evolution to further their own pet theories about how mankind came to be... Much as conspiracy theorists ignore evidence to the contrary in the pursuit of proving an extremely complicated and convoluted plot.

Scientists take what evidence is available and try to find the simplest explanation that fits the facts. You start with the evidence first, with no preconceptions, then try to find some way to make that evidence make sense. That is the scientific method.

The nuts and bolts of it all are certainly still a mystery.

Proverbs 25:2 (Amplified Bible)
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the glory of kings is to search out a thing.

To quote Galileo via ledhed's signature (again):

Quote:
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use)

Excellent quote, so is this one:

Dirty Harry:
A man has got to know his limitations.

 

[Touring Mars]

that tells you that at some point, it could certainly be less plausible or outright incorrect.

Of course, and that is exactly what the scientific method does - provides a mechanism by which hypotheses are tested and theories are challenged. But a theory need only be dispensed with when evidence is found to contradict it - obviously, some hypotheses derived from theory could easily be incorrect, but your implication that all scientific theories will sooner or later be shown incorrect simply does not stand.

In the same vein, a underlying problem here is with man's inability to resist proclaimation of a correct answer to a complex and truly unknown physiological question. Once that is done, he has put himself in the unenviable position of trying to prove his point of view, and the only thing equally resistable with so much now on the line, is his inability to admit he could be incorrect.

You do have a deep misunderstanding of the scientific method... "inability to admit he could be incorrect"?!? This is so far from the truth it is frankly laughable. It has been spelled out in this thread time and time again that a real scientific theory such as the theory of common descent could be shown false in a second, so long as the appropriate evidence was found. If this were remotely true, then why do real scientific theories have abundant "potential falsifications" - see this for some examples.

The assertion that evolutionists are right about the origins of our own species comes with a caveat - we are right insomuch as the evidence available at the present time supports our view completely. There is also another more general caveat which also applies to any scientific knowledge - that if any of the possible falsifications were to be unequivocally demonstrated, then the assertion of correctness should be (and would be) retracted immediately. This happens in science all the time - it always has and it always will. To insinuate that this doesn't happen is deeply misleading and simply untrue, and is an unjust and unwarranted accusation on your part.

Unlike some I have no illusions about the scientific community's infallability to unprejudicially present any evidence for or against, having biased themselves to one conviction, before the fact.

I'm sorry, but this is a thoroughly disgraceful thing to say. You have, infact, got it totally backwards. To accuse scientists like myself of being like this is a huge insult, and once again proves that you simply do not understand what the scientific method is or how it works. Speaking for myself here, my views on evolution are informed by the evidence - NOT the other way around... bloody hell, I grew up learning about God, Noah's Ark, The Bible, Adam and Eve and Jesus Christ like every other child in my school. I never even studied biology at high school, so I'm not sure how I could be accused of having either atheistic or Darwinian "bias" before I became a scientist and read the literature for myself. Although you don't accuse me personally, I would be very careful making such outrageous statements like that.