Creation vs. Evolution

[Sach]

That's because there's no need to explain irreducible complexity, since there is no such thing (in biology). Every example of "irreducible complexity" I know of, including immune systems, eyes and flagella, have all had explanations of how their component parts could have evolved separately.

I'd be interested in reading up on it, if you have any links to post.

 

[Touring Mars]

(Full lecture here)​

Here's a brief takedown of irreducible complexity by Ken Miller. Miller was an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial which upheld parent complaints regarding the school board, who were attempting to introduce creationist literature into the curriculum.

Regarding the question of how life arose from first principles, I think it is only fair (and wise) to realise what a monumental challenge it is to even begin to address the question, let alone to provide concrete answers at this stage. Origin of life science is a massive topic incorporating many disciplines, and we're talking about multiple, complex and interrelated (putative) events that occured over 4 billion years ago, and which didn't leave a great deal of evidence behind, other than the end product e.g. living things.

Despite that, huge advances are being made, but even so, it will be a long time yet until a complete picture can be claimed. However, scientists are definitely going about answering the question as to where and how life on Earth began.

 

[Dapper]

That guy is articulate!

 

[Sach]

Interesting video, TM. What I think that shows is that the I.D. guys need to rethink their theory... but I don't think that this evidence necessarily refutes irreducible complexity altogether, it just refutes the notion that

"40-any = non-functional".

A car can operate without a back set of brakes, just not as efficiently, for example. But whether brakes or other individual parts themselves are always useful for something else needs to be researched more, if they want to try to back up their claims again. This guy found an example where the missing parts do work for something else, but that does not mean that it's always so.



For one, he didn't reduce the model to just one part, or a different combination of parts, which I think is necessary to really disprove the ID supposition. I think that he has a strong argument for the selection of 10 parts that he did choose to work with, however I don't think the tests are exhaustive. That's all I'm saying. Just like he is trying to show that removing any one part and still having functionality is a rebuttal of their theory, I think that removing one or more parts and showing those parts to be completely useless is another way the ID guys could re-back up their claims.


So at this point I would not rule out that the proponents of irreducible complexity could do more research to come up with another model that would back up their claims. To me it seems like they jumped the gun, found something they thought was golden, and put all of their eggs into one basket, which is never advisable, especially with science. Now they're having to rethink it.


You know what I like about that guy though is that he's not cynical and condescending when he talks about this stuff. 👍



Again, I do not have issues with evolution. It does not conflict with my theistic beliefs.

 

[Touring Mars]

Interesting video, TM. What I think that shows is that the I.D. guys need to rethink their theory... but I don't think that this evidence necessarily refutes irreducible complexity altogether, it just refutes the notion that

"40-any = non-functional".

A car can operate without a back set of brakes, just not as efficiently, for example. But whether brakes or other individual parts themselves are always useful for something else needs to be researched more, if they want to try to back up their claims again.

For one, he didn't reduce the model to just one part, or a different combination of parts, which I think is necessary to really disprove the ID supposition. I think that he has a strong argument for the selection of 10 parts that he did choose to work with, however I don't think the tests are exhaustive. That's all I'm saying. Just like he is trying to show that removing any one part and still having functionality is a rebuttal of their theory, I think that removing one or more parts and showing those parts to be completely useless is another way they could re-back up their claims.

So at this point I would not rule out that the proponents of irreducible complexity could do more research to come up with another model that would back up their claims. To me it seems like they jumped the gun, found something they thought was golden, and put all of their eggs into one basket, which is never advisable, especially with science. Now they're having to rethink it.

It's not about refuting irreducible complexity altogether - it's about refuting the creationist claim that complex biomolecular structures are irreducibly complex and therefore could not possibly have evolved. That has been refuted completely.

Whether any individual component of any particular structure is non-functional outwith that structure wouldn't refute evolution theory at all anyway (although you'd have a very hard time establishing that any protein found in nature is completely 'useless' outwith its current setting, but I digress). There are infact complete organs that have no apparent function, but that is not evidence that they or their host organism couldn't have evolved - quite the opposite infact.

 

[BobK]

I'd be interested in reading up on it, if you have any links to post.

Surely.

Let's start with the Wikipedia article on irreducible complexity, particularly this section.

Then we have Irreducible Complexity Demystified and Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe (Behe originally came up with the term "irreducible complexity" in his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution). The latter article has links to further commentary, including a review of Behe's book.

Lastly I'm not really a proponent of "argument by Youtube" but if you want a video, check this one out (part of a series btw):

 

[Sach]

Whether any individual component of any particular structure is non-functional outwith that structure wouldn't refute evolution theory at all anyway

I seem to be a bit confused here - Is this what the ID guys are trying to do? Evolution is pretty undeniable, being that you can essentially reproduce it in a petri dish.

 

[dylansan]

Proponents of irreducible complexity are generally trying to refute evolution by giving what they think are examples of things that couldn't have evolved. However, for all of the systems proposed to be irreducibly complex so far, an explanation has been given for how they could have evolved (not necessarily how they did). The fact that it's possible for irreducibly complex systems to have evolved means irreducible complexity is not in itself a refutation of evolution, though perhaps if a system arose that really couldn't have evolved, that would refute the theory.

ID or intelligent design proponents are often the same people promoting irreducible complexity, but not always. As TM said, there are many scientists who accept evolution but also believe initial life was intelligently designed. Again, this is more about abiogenesis than evolution as a whole.

 

[BobK]

I seem to be a bit confused here - Is this what the ID guys are trying to do?

Basically, yes. If they can establish that something is too complex to have evolved then they've considerably weakened the whole theory.

One of their "irreducibly complex" things is the eye. It's kind of funny that they base this partly on a quote from Darwin in On the Origin of Species.

Paraphrasing, it goes something like this:

It may appear that the eye is too complex to evolve naturally. But that would be wrong, and here's why.

the eye is too complex to evolve naturally.

Evolution is pretty undeniable, being that you can essentially reproduce it in a petri dish.

That's why the creationists came up with this "microevolution" and "macroevolution" thing. They were getting their noses rubbed in too many irrefutable examples of evolution taking place, in the lab and in the wild, so they simply said oh, that's microevolution. Your other claims are macroevolution, which still never happened.

Note that it's only creationists who use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, never biologists except when refuting creationists.

 

[jtv90069]

In Australia there have been a few studies on the evolution of Cane Toads and the native predators like the Black Adder.
Toads that are found at the front of the Toad migration heading West(and a bit North) are found to be bigger, have longer legs, were very active and very directional in the movements compared to the more nomadic Queensland toads.
The Black Adders living in toad infested areas of Queensland were found to have more resistance to the Toad poison and have smaller heads(can not eat the larger toads) than the southern Black Adders in Victoria.
This has all happened in only 70 years since the introduction of the Cane Toad to Australia.

http://www.canetoadsinoz.com/toadevolution.html
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20112403-21987.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0215_060215_cane_toads.html

 

[TankAss95]

I think the title in itself is misleading.

Evolution is an objective fact. No objections. Animals change through mutation and natural selection. But the thing is, like everything else there are gaps in our current knowledge. The theory of evolution will be revised and adjusted over time.

The real question is wether we came from a common descent. As I said, our knowledge is incomplete, and progressive creationism is an action one can choose. The truth is though that I really can't take this idea seriously just yet - it seems like a major 'God of the gaps'. I oppose any types of creation science, because science should keep a methodological naturalistic worldview.

I would call myself a creationist because I believe in God, but I don't really see why that is incoherent with evolution at all. 'Creationism' and 'Evolution' are just too broad terms IMO.

 

[PeterJB]

I think the title in itself is misleading.

Evolution is an objective fact. No objections. Animals change through mutation and natural selection. But the thing is, like everything else there are gaps in our current knowledge. The theory of evolution will be revised and adjusted over time.

The real question is wether we came from a common descent. As I said, our knowledge is incomplete, and progressive creationism is an action one can choose. The truth is though that I really can't take this idea seriously just yet - it seems like a major 'God of the gaps'. I oppose any types of creation science, because science should keep a methodological naturalistic worldview.

I would call myself a creationist because I believe in God, but I don't really see why that is incoherent with evolution at all. 'Creationism' and 'Evolution' are just too broad terms IMO.

You sound like an evolutionary creationist, which is what I am.

 

[niky]

If not common descent, what?

All animal lines sprang whole from completely different bacterial lines? (With completely different mitochondria, to boot...)

How does a bacteria know what it wants to be when it grows up?

-

It's simple. If you accept Evolution but not common descent, you'd have to show how the genetic codes for different organisms are completely unrelated. Random permutation would make it so, if there were no genetic relation between species.

Which is... impossible... since there are many sequences shared between different species, and the degree of relatedness falls off for less... related... species. If there were Evolution but no Common Descent, then the degree of relatedness would be the same across all Animal and Plant kingdoms.

*Of course Creationists would argue about the degree of unrelatedness between Man and Chimp due to so-called "junk DNA" actually being very different between the species, and so-on-and-so-forth, but really, the fact that the structure of the DNA pairs themselves are virtually identical between the species show that they are more related to each other than either primate is to, say, horses. The vast difference in the functional "junk" is simply what speciates us and makes us human and chimps not.

 

[tlowr4]

Mind if I drop in my 10 cents?

I agree with TankAss, I'm a 'creationist', if that's what you will call it. I believe in God. However, the way God has created the world is to adapt to the changes it will face. That's the way I see it anyway. Not really much I can pull out of this to build a big wall of text.

 

[homeforsummer]

I oppose any types of creation science, because science should keep a methodological naturalistic worldview.

That's not what science is for. Science isn't about just keeping an open mind towards everything regardless of its ability to be proven, it's about testing hypotheses and eliminating impossible options.

Creationism is untestable. You can't test the hypothesis that God created the universe, or kick-started life on Earth. Science doesn't have to remain open-minded to the concept as it's impossible to verify and therefore irrelevant to science.

If you "oppose" creation science that's your own problem, not a failing in the ability of science to explain the concept.

You deny it, but what you're displaying is very much the "God of the gaps" approach. Hypothetically if science came along tomorrow and proved unequivocally how life started on Earth (certainly not impossible), that'd simply be another gap filled. Your argument would immediately be null and void, but your view wouldn't change - you'd just say "ah, but God still created the universe though".

And on, and on ad nauseum while humankind discovers more about the world in which it lives and less and less of it can be attributed to a mythical being.

I'll give you some credit - after several hundred pages you now appear to accept the concept of evolution. Another "gap" filled, it seems.

 

[Touring Mars]

The real question is wether we came from a common descent. As I said, our knowledge is incomplete, and progressive creationism is an action one can choose. The truth is though that I really can't take this idea seriously just yet - it seems like a major 'God of the gaps'. I oppose any types of creation science, because science should keep a methodological naturalistic worldview.

I would call myself a creationist because I believe in God, but I don't really see why that is incoherent with evolution at all. 'Creationism' and 'Evolution' are just too broad terms IMO.

👍

As is noted in this thread from time to time, there are various flavours/strengths of creationism, from the out-and-out refusal to accept anything other than the Book of Genesis as the absolute truth, to the complete acceptance of evolution theory coupled with the belief that the entire process is being guided by God.

All I'd say to that is this: 200 years ago, the idea that modern day species were created "as is" was widely accepted, because science had not yet uncovered evidence to the contrary. The absence of scientific knowledge and evidence left alot of room for alternative hypotheses, such as the hypothesis of Special Creation. With the overwhelming evidence available today, it's now clear that evolution is a reality, but big questions remain as to the origin of the process and to the origin of life itself. Again, there are plenty of hypotheses, but as yet there is not enough evidence to make a definitive call on the matter. In the meantime, remaining agnostic on the matter is perhaps the wisest option, or, if one does hold specific beliefs as to how life began on Earth in the first place, be prepared to have those beliefs challenged as and when the evidence does become available.

 

[Dotini]

👍

As is noted in this thread from time to time, there are various flavours/strengths of creationism, from the out-and-out refusal to accept anything other than the Book of Genesis as the absolute truth, to the complete acceptance of evolution theory coupled with the belief that the entire process is being guided by God.

All I'd say to that is this: 200 years ago, the idea that modern day species were created "as is" was widely accepted, because science had not yet uncovered evidence to the contrary. The absence of scientific knowledge and evidence left alot of room for alternative hypotheses, such as the hypothesis of Special Creation. With the overwhelming evidence available today, it's now clear that evolution is a reality, but big questions remain as to the origin of the process and to the origin of life itself. Again, there are plenty of hypotheses, but as yet there is not enough evidence to make a definitive call on the matter. In the meantime, remaining agnostic on the matter is perhaps the wisest option, or, if one does hold specific beliefs as to how life began on Earth in the first place, be prepared to have those beliefs challenged as and when the evidence does become available.

👍
Some very high quality posting is going on in this thread, just now. Thank you.

I am not overly well versed in chemistry, biology and the medical sciences, so I would like to ask a naive question (pardon my ignorance, please) to those that are.

Perhaps most or all of us have heard the phrase, "the spark of life". And I have some vague notion that electrical activity occurs in every cell of the living body, being particularly important in the synapses, or something. So, is electricity an essential element of life, was electricity always part of the evolution of life, and did it play a role in the creation of life?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[TankAss95]

👍

As is noted in this thread from time to time, there are various flavours/strengths of creationism, from the out-and-out refusal to accept anything other than the Book of Genesis as the absolute truth, to the complete acceptance of evolution theory coupled with the belief that the entire process is being guided by God.

All I'd say to that is this: 200 years ago, the idea that modern day species were created "as is" was widely accepted, because science had not yet uncovered evidence to the contrary. The absence of scientific knowledge and evidence left alot of room for alternative hypotheses, such as the hypothesis of Special Creation. With the overwhelming evidence available today, it's now clear that evolution is a reality, but big questions remain as to the origin of the process and to the origin of life itself. Again, there are plenty of hypotheses, but as yet there is not enough evidence to make a definitive call on the matter. In the meantime, remaining agnostic on the matter is perhaps the wisest option, or, if one does hold specific beliefs as to how life began on Earth in the first place, be prepared to have those beliefs challenged as and when the evidence does become available.

You're mixing up with you'r quotes. :ikred:

 

[Touring Mars]

Perhaps most or all of us have heard the phrase, "the spark of life". And I have some vague notion that electrical activity occurs in every cell of the living body, being particularly important in the synapses, or something. So, is electricity an essential element of life, was electricity always part of the evolution of life, and did it play a role in the creation of life?

Electricity is an essential (and unavoidable) part of life, given that chemical reactions involve a redistribution of electrons in one way or another. The structure and function of biomolecules can also depend on their net electrical charge. Certain cell types are electrically active, and hence entire organs (such as the heart and brain) or even entire organisms are electrically active to the point where such activity can be easily measured.

As such, electricity has always played a part in the evolution of life, since the raw materials of all living things are electronic in nature. I would venture as far to say that, even though the origin of life on Earth is not well understood as yet, from what we already know about the nature of matter and how matter interacts to form complexes (such as molecules) and how chemical reactions occur, I would have thought that electricity must have played a significant role in the creation of life in one way or another...

You're mixing up with you'r quotes. :ikred:

Oops, sorry about that!

 

[roamer2629]

Its hard to go through 381 pages of posts so sorry if this has already been said, but I think we are missing the point.
Beyond which might be the opinion we hold on creationism, the idea of a certain higher being guiding the process of life is always there, and higher beings are most surely not part of any biology study.
Believing in god, whatever name or face you might give to him, will always be a matter of faith and not reason.

 

[Dapper]

Concerning the specifics of evolution: Does anyone think evolution is not a process directed by natural selection?

 

[dylansan]

Evolution is clearly mainly driven by natural selection, but there seem to be other processes which cause slower evolution over time without natural selection. Genetic drift, for example.

 

[AlexGTV]

Evolution is clearly mainly driven by natural selection, but there seem to be other processes which cause slower evolution over time without natural selection. Genetic drift, for example.

Also mechanisms for rapid evolution.

My opinion is that evolution is accelerated by positive feedback in advanced organisms, like humans. People get taller because it provides economy of movement but it needs good, protein-rich, nutrition. This evolution is clearly not a process of chance but a positive feedback mechanism.

 

[Dapper]

Positive feedback to what??

And genetic drift is a result of natural disasters, like what happened to the dinosaurs, for example?

 

[AlexGTV]

Positive feedback to what??

In a sense an organism learning to adapt to its environment and that knowledge being transferred to descendants genetically.

 

[BobK]

Its hard to go through 381 pages of posts so sorry if this has already been said, but I think we are missing the point.
Beyond which might be the opinion we hold on creationism, the idea of a certain higher being guiding the process of life is always there, and higher beings are most surely not part of any biology study.
Believing in god, whatever name or face you might give to him, will always be a matter of faith and not reason.

This is the evolution-creationism thread. The God thread is thataway.

And genetic drift is a result of natural disasters, like what happened to the dinosaurs, for example?

Not really. Genetic drift is the random spread of different alleles within a population. When one group of a species is separated from another group, genetic drift takes the two groups in different directions. The separation may be the result of a natural disaster, but it doesn't have to be. Wikipedia has a good article on it here.

In a sense an organism learning to adapt to its environment and that knowledge being transferred to descendants genetically.

Actually that's Lamarckism, and that's not the way evolution works at all.

 

[AlexGTV]

Actually that's Lamarckism, and that's not the way evolution works at all.

Yes, that's the extreme case. But I believe a part of it. How do you explain people getting taller with better nutrition? Why shouldn't they not adapt to the better nutrition?

 

[roamer2629]

This is the evolution-creationism thread. The God thread is thataway.

I'm sorry Bob, It may seem I am off topic, but my point is that this discussion may not take place in rational terms, because one of both theories assumes the existence of a God, and therefore even after all scientific explanations are given to its supporters, they will still be able to justify all its shortcomings by invoking the magic hand of superior being (Which of course is beyond our human undestanding) pulling the strings
How can any evolutionary argument be made against creationism without touching that inescapable fact?
Evolution is a scientific theory made out of facts and careful research, Creationism is a belief rooted in religion: As such is pointless to compare them.

 

[wfooshee]

Being taller by being better nourished (or by whatever cause) is not a change in the genetic code, and therefore not a change in the species. Our genes give us the ability to accept whatever chemicals and minerals we can get through our diet, and build our bodies accordingly. Snatch a "short" kid from the 1500s and bring him here, he has every chance of being just as tall as one of us.

Confirming to conditions of the environment is not a change in the species, and it's not evolution.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Evolution is a scientific theory made out of facts and careful research, Creationism is a belief rooted in religion: As such is pointless to compare them.

That's the whole debate as there are many who disagree with it. Evolution (UCD) is not supported by the evidence (fossil record never supported it) but is also rooted in religion. There is even more evidence that is contradicting ToE like the growing number of ORFans genes.
Now if by evolution you mean just "change" then no one, including creationist, debate this.