GDG Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 The fossil record shows complete animals that can survive. The question is how did they get to be complete? Where are the transitional animals? ( please don't say everything is transitional ) The transitional ones are the ones that have partial bones, bit of teeth etc., all this kind of transition that evolution says should be there. None of this is found in the fossil record. "Transitional animals" are whole animals that can survive. In fact, evolution is all about the animals that survive the best (to oversimply things quite a bit). An animal that "cannot survive" obviously will not be having many offspring, and passing along its traits. As for what is found in the fossil record, you obviously have very little idea of what is known. See, e.g., Evolution of the horse for an example of how hooves evolved from toes. The entry on the dentary discusses how early tetrapods had jaws composed of several bones, and how 3 of these bones evolved into the bones of the inner ear (in mammals). As for DNA this is also against the idea of evolution, because this is where the information comes from to make all of these parts? How did this instruction get in the DNA in the first place? It is not just mixing chemicals. Because there is are no instructions in the DNA from just mixing chemicals. Here is a little illustration, with four tubes of paint you can paint all the pictures in the world, but the tubes of paint don't mean anything until intelligence does the painting. DNA are those four tubes of paint. Evolution does not explain abiogenesis, nor does it have to. As for how "instruction got into DNA in the first place", one theory is that DNA evolved from ribozymes, which are RNA molecules that have enzymatic activity (and which are known today). The activity depends on the particular sequence of bases. DNA is not "four tubes of paint", nor does it require an external intelligence. Your four tubes of paint are incapable of doing anything on their own: DNA demonstrably does. If your four tubes of paint replicated themselves (with occasional variation) and interacted with their environment, competing for scarce resources, they would probably evolve too. 1
Mr Skeptic Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 The first is that science doesn't know how life started!( I know this is not about evolution) That is irrelevant to evolution, so best to move on. Evolution makes no claims as to how life started, but obviously it did. This first cell with or without DNA, has to become all life we see including plants and animals. Yup, and given the process they must have a specific pattern of similarity ... which they do. Also the fact that complete systems of heart, lungs, muscles, veins, nerves, blood, and brain all have to be complete before anyone of the parts is useful. This is what is called an argument from ignorance, and is a logical fallacy. You don't know what use they might have, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they would have no use when partially formed. How do you intend to show that they don't have a use when partially formed? But what would you expect to find if things were created? Evidence of intelligent design. For example, an example of what you would expect to NOT find would be retroviruses embedded in your DNA that look very similar to retroviruses embedded in other primate's DNA, on the other hand, this is exactly the sort of thing you would expect from evolution. That is the sort of thing that proves beyond any doubt that there was evolution rather than intelligent design, at least in the creation of humans.
bascule Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 The first is that science doesn't know how life started!( I know this is not about evolution) But this is important. If science cannot prove that life started on it's own, then evolution as we know is a total myth. This is equivalent to claiming that because physicists don't know how the universe began, physics is a total myth. Would you agree with that statement?
dunsapy Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 "Transitional animals" are whole animals that can survive. In fact, evolution is all about the animals that survive the best (to oversimply things quite a bit). An animal that "cannot survive" obviously will not be having many offspring, and passing along its traits. As for what is found in the fossil record, you obviously have very little idea of what is known. See, e.g., Evolution of the horse for an example of how hooves evolved from toes. The entry on the dentary discusses how early tetrapods had jaws composed of several bones, and how 3 of these bones evolved into the bones of the inner ear (in mammals). Actually science uses the word transition in a wrong way here. Science assumes that one animal became another over time. Assumption should not be part of science. If you are going to create millions of creatures. One way of doing that is to create one then , make a little tweak, and then make another. That is why you see animals that are similar. But in the real world a dog is a dog and a cat a cat. That goes for plants as well. This is also the same with horses, we don't see one evolve into another type of animal, say a camel. But we do see completed animals that reproduce the same kind. The transitional ones are the ones that are incomplete. Like it might start out as a cell then produce some how a bit of bone material. But not in any shape we would recognize. It would not know how to make a leg, evolution has no direction to go. So this bone material would just be that. No ends to fit another bone, no tendons, no nerves, no muscles etc. This also would not be placed in the correct place, so you would have to have all the millions of transitions before you could ever get something complete if it ever did at all. None of this is in the fossil record. You realized also to be able to work legs, need all the nerves to be wired to the brain and then the brain would have to know how to work all these legs, you would also have to have the brain working with eye sight, so it is useful to get around with. So you have to ask yourself, how did all these parts come about all at once and working with some amazing gates these animals have. How did the skull form to fit the eye, to protect it. Did it do one side first then the other? How did evolution know where to place an eye? All this should be in the fossil record, but none is found. As for abiogenesis. When I first heard about this I thought , science is getting closer to creation all the time. This is from the dictionary. a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis /ˌeɪbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs, ˌæbioʊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA Use abiogenesis in a Sentence See web results for abiogenesis See images of abiogenesis –noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis is what is called an argument from ignorance, and is a logical fallacy. You don't know what use they might have, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they would have no use when partially formed. How do you intend to show that they don't have a use when partially formed? Thats OK not to know, but to base a theory and teach it then call it fact, when science doesn't even know how it works. Or if it could even happen at all. Science has to ignore the evidence that we do have, to come up with this. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis is equivalent to claiming that because physicists don't know how the universe began, physics is a total myth. Would you agree with that statement? No that is not what I am saying. The science is OK in most cases. It is the interpretation of the science that is in question. It is what you think a certain fossil means. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedEvidence of intelligent design. For example, an example of what you would expect to NOT find would be retroviruses embedded in your DNA that look very similar to retroviruses embedded in other primate's DNA, on the other hand, this is exactly the sort of thing you would expect from evolution. That is the sort of thing that proves beyond any doubt that there was evolution rather than intelligent design, at least in the creation of humans. Many of these types of viruses or retroviruses, served a purpose when animals became too plentiful, or populations increased to unhealthy levels. There are many safe guards like this. Now people are pushing the territory of wildlife, people use unsafe methods, of dealing with the slaughter and feeding of animals , now we have things like swine flu, mad cow, Bird flu etc. Also people live is slums,wars and weather changes, and people build large cities, where transmission of these kind of illness spread easily. People are not distributed the way they should be. All the people alive right now, could fit in the state of Texas. There is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, but half the world is undernourished.
Mokele Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 You do realize that, with minimal effort, we've managed to breed to grey wolf into a tiny, trembling, bug-eyed, stick-limbed, big-eared rat-thing, right? If you had no knowledge of their past, you'd say a wolf and a chihuahua aren't even in the same genus, let alone the same species separated by less than 10,000 years. That change is actually vastly greater than the change between similar species. 2
dunsapy Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 You do realize that, with minimal effort, we've managed to breed to grey wolf into a tiny, trembling, bug-eyed, stick-limbed, big-eared rat-thing, right? If you had no knowledge of their past, you'd say a wolf and a chihuahua aren't even in the same genus, let alone the same species separated by less than 10,000 years. That change is actually vastly greater than the change between similar species. It is one thing to play with DNA ( which already there). In time science will be able to do many amazing, things by playing with it. But you have to realize that you are using intelligence to do that. Also equipment, and years of research. None of that is happening on it's own. If you take this one step further, science is trying to see if they can make life happen, like it was supposed to do in the beginning. But science by doing the experiments can only show that science can create life in a lab. It doesn't show that it could happen on it's own. An example of this is, making bread. By getting all the ingredients together and baking it, you can ownly show that it took intelligence to make bread. You have not shown that it could happen on it's own.
dunsapy Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 iNow I watched the video. I have seen this sort of stuff over and over again, but they never answer the question. The simplest answer is this, science does not need to do the experiments. It should happen on it's own. If what science is saying is correct, and there has been billions of years we should be seeing this all over the place. Maybe even on other planets. But as the video says there are many intermediate steps that science doesn't know about, and this doesn't explain, the instructions in DNA. The myth is from science saying that life is nothing but a mixture of chemicals. An example of this is a person that is healthy but has be strangled to death. This person is no longer life, but all the chemicals are there. They even have made all the parts, everything is there for life. But even science can't make this person alive again. A baby survives because , the mother gives it life until everything is ready for the baby to survive on it's own. Life comes from life. So science with all it's explanations and stories, has nothing until they can show life coming from non life and have had nothing to do with it( such as an experiment). So they have find it some place else, and then prove it started on it's own.
iNow Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 So science with all it's explanations and stories, has nothing until they can show life coming from non life and have had nothing to do with it( such as an experiment). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment http://www.physorg.com/news171263002.html What have you got? God did it? For someone who claims evidence is so important, you sure don't seem to be applying the same standard to your own ideas. 1
dunsapy Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 What have you got? God did it? For someone who claims evidence is so important, you sure don't seem to be applying the same standard to your own ideas. The evidence supports creation. The design supports creation. Science has not shown that life can happen on it's own, and the fossils support creation. I go with the evidence. -1
iNow Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 I go with the evidence. Actually, you're doing the exact opposite, and basing your entire worldview on a misconception... but, if that helps you sleep at night, then have fun. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Kyrisch Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Creation by what means? Do you have evidence for this process? A theory is great but without a mechanism it is close to useless.
Mr Skeptic Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 The evidence supports creation. The design supports creation. Science has not shown that life can happen on it's own, and the fossils support creation. I go with the evidence. No you don't, you ignore all evidence that goes against your beliefs, such as this one: Evidence of intelligent design. For example, an example of what you would expect to NOT find would be retroviruses embedded in your DNA that look very similar to retroviruses embedded in other primate's DNA, on the other hand, this is exactly the sort of thing you would expect from evolution. So why then do we have viruses in our DNA?
Sisyphus Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 iNowThe simplest answer is this, science does not need to do the experiments. It should happen on it's own. If what science is saying is correct, and there has been billions of years we should be seeing this all over the place. Maybe even on other planets. But as the video says there are many intermediate steps that science doesn't know about, and this doesn't explain, the instructions in DNA. The myth is from science saying that life is nothing but a mixture of chemicals. The world is very different from what is was when life began. The hypothesized early life forms wouldn't be able to survive today. However, as has been said to you several times already in this thread, abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics. An example of this is a person that is healthy but has be strangled to death. This person is no longer life, but all the chemicals are there. They even have made all the parts, everything is there for life. This is not true. Cells, most relevantly the brain, need a constant supply of oxygen to function and survive. Cut that off, and soon enough those cellular processes will break down and stop, and the cells will be irreparably damaged. This is a physical change.
dunsapy Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Actually, you're doing the exact opposite, and basing your entire worldview on a misconception... but, if that helps you sleep at night, then have fun. But that isn't what the evidence shows. It science that has a mistaken view. So why then do we have viruses in our DNA? I already answered this in earlier post. The world is very different from what is was when life began. The hypothesized early life forms wouldn't be able to survive today. However, as has been said to you several times already in this thread, abiogenesis and evolution are two different topics. Yes I do know that these are two different, things. But they are connected, and it makes a difference how life did start. This is not true. Cells, most relevantly the brain, need a constant supply of oxygen to function and survive. Cut that off, and soon enough those cellular processes will break down and stop, and the cells will be irreparably damaged. This is a physical change. This is correct. That is why a baby needs a mother, to keep it alive until it can survive on it's own. That is life coming from life. That is also why a cell needs all of it's parts before it can live. Just having the chemicals there is not enough.
ydoaPs Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 But that isn't what the evidence shows. It science that has a mistaken view. I already answered this in earlier post. Yes I do know that these are two different, things. But they are connected, and it makes a difference how life did start. This is correct. That is why a baby needs a mother, to keep it alive until it can survive on it's own. That is life coming from life. That is also why a cell needs all of it's parts before it can live. Just having the chemicals there is not enough. What is the evidence, and how does it support the CDesign Proponentsists? When was this creation? What/who is the creator? Who created the creator?
Sisyphus Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 This is correct. That is why a baby needs a mother, to keep it alive until it can survive on it's own. That is life coming from life. That is also why a cell needs all of it's parts before it can live. Just having the chemicals there is not enough. Well of course "just having the chemicals there" is not enough. Do you really think that evolution says that if you put the right amounts of carbon, oxygen, etc. in a vat, you'd end up with a human? Because that is very, very different from what evolution says.
swansont Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 The fossil record shows complete animals that can survive. The question is how did they get to be complete? Where are the transitional animals? ( please don't say everything is transitional ) The transitional ones are the ones that have partial bones, bit of teeth etc., all this kind of transition that evolution says should be there. None of this is found in the fossil record. As for DNA this is also against the idea of evolution, because this is where the information comes from to make all of these parts? How did this instruction get in the DNA in the first place? It is not just mixing chemicals. Because there is are no instructions in the DNA from just mixing chemicals. Here is a little illustration, with four tubes of paint you can paint all the pictures in the world, but the tubes of paint don't mean anything until intelligence does the painting. DNA are those four tubes of paint. We generally frown upon the evolution-creation discussions because of the blatant strawmen that are invariably presented in the attempts to discredit evolution. You've already presented several. It needs to stop.
dunsapy Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 What is the evidence, and how does it support the CDesign Proponentsists? I have already mentioned the evidence, but beside the impossibility of life starting on it's own, there is amazing design, all the life we see. When was this creation? What/who is the creator? Who created the creator? Now these first two are religious questions. But there is no problem with the universe and earth, being millions or billions of years old. As for who is the creator, or for that matter what was the beginning? I have to accept that there is no beginning. A creator was always there. This supports life coming from life. It is no different for science. What was there before the universe? If it was energy , where did that come from? With no material in space, where does it begin where does it end? I don't understand 'no beginning'! I can understand no end. But science has the same problem.
Edtharan Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 This is very general, so bare with me while I say a few broad statements.The first is that science doesn't know how life started!( I know this is not about evolution) But this is important. Actually it is not that science does not know how life got started, it is that science doesn't know which way it got started. There are around 6 (AFAIK) ways that scientists think that life could have got started. Each one has been confirmed that it can produce the necessary components of living organisms and that these components once they exist do go on to produce living organisms. But, which of these was actually the way life got started here on Earth? That is the question being asked, not: "Could it have got started?" Think of it a bit like playing the game "Cludo" (or "Clue" in some countries). You know that the murder has occurred and you know that one of the suspects did it. But which suspect was it? If science cannot prove that life started on it's own, then evolution as we know is a total myth. No. Even if life was started by some Magic Man in the sky, Evolution would still be valid. Evolution is a process. In fact it is a special type of process called an "Algorithm". Algorithms are a set of mathematical instructions, and as such can be analysed mathematically. It has been mathematically shown that the Algorithm of Evolution works. So even if the Universe was created 5 seconds ago, Evolution would still be True. A guy called Allan Turing (a mathematician) described a theoretical (at the time) machine that would follow a set of mathematically defined set of instructions on a mathematically defined set of data. These instructions were called "Algorithms" and the Machine was called a Turing Machine. The thing is each set of instructions needed a new machine for it. Allan Turing when on to describe another type of Machine that was much more complex. This was a Turing Machine that was designed that if it followed a set of instructions, it would emulate any other Turing type machine. It was called a Universal Turing Machine and the device you are using to read this is an actual implementation of such a Universal Turning Machine. Yes, the very computer you are using is proof that Evolution works. If the mathematical processes that describe Evolution didn't work, then the mathematical processes that your computer uses to do anything would not work. If Evolution didn't work as described, then no computer would work either. Evolution is not a theory. It is an Algorithm. And yes, evolution has been implemented on computers and it is used in many industries from Air craft design to medicines to car design to computer design (and even in the design of canoes ). Evolution is no more a Myth than your Web browser. The reason is that , no matter, what was created, there is the question , how much life was created? All of it as in special creation of each type of animal, or just the start maybe as single cell? But then you have ask was all life pre programed in that first cell to create all the life we see. Life was not "programmed" in the first cell. Life is the process that the chemistry of a cell does. Have a look at this You Tube Video: . It explains it all alot better than I can here. So the start to life, is very important. Science can not say that life started on it's own.( so they can't disprove creation) Yes they can: See the video above. And if you look at what life is even as a single cell, there are many parts to a cell. So this evolution of a cell, the parts would have to evolve at the same time but in parallel to one another, in the same place, inside the cell, but these parts are needed to make a cell live. So that is a catch 22 situation, how can a cell live with out it's parts, but how can a cell evolve if it is not alive, because it needs completed parts to live. Again: See that video. You don't need a cell as complex as a modern one. A very simple type of cell can spontaneously form and exhibit all the necessary functions for it to be considered "Alive", and it is complex enough to execute the algorithm of Evolution. Also a cell doesn't know it has to survive, so how does it know how to divide, or reproduce? To "know" something requires a brain (or some other form of information processing structures). Single cells don't have this, so even modern single celled organisms can be said not to "know" that they have to survive. All that is needed is a situation where the Turing Machine for the Evolution Algorithm can operate and you will get evolution. You can get evolution with straws: 1) Get a lot of straws and some scissors (be careful with sharp scissors). 2) Cut around 10 of them to random lengths 3) Pick out 2 straws and discard the shortest one 4) With the straw you have left, cut another straw to a similar length (a bit shorter or longer or even the same length) 5) Return both of these straws back to your pile of 10 6) Repeat steps 3, 4 and 5 Over time you will see that the lengths of the straws will increase. And to show that this is not a fluke, do it again, but instead of discarding the shortest (in step 3) you keep the shortest and discard the longest. This time you will see that the straws become shorter over time. The straws don't know that they ahve to survive, they have no complex structures in them that can do that. You could automate this with a machine and remove the Human element and so remove any "knowledge" that the straws have to survive from that. But even then, you will still get the straws evolving. Evolution is a blind process (algorithm) and does not need any knowledge of survival. When you have a situation where you have something that replicates with variation, and there is some way that one can out replicate the others, then you will get evolution. What you are doping is putting something into the process of evolution that never existed in the process (you are making up your own version of evolution) and then you are showing that your fake version of evolution can't work. Well, that is no surprise. If you make up something that is designed not to work, and then show that it can't work, you really haven't shown anything of value. That kind of argument is called a: Strawman Argument ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ). This is why, if you are going to try and disprove evolution you have to understand what Evolution is, and then direct your arguments to that. But as Evolution has mathematically been proven to be true, you have to disprove that all maths is wrong - that is you have to prove that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. That is not a simple procedure. Science can only assume that it knew how to do this. Also the evidence that we know is that life comes from life there is nothing else, never has anyone seen anything different than that. Or found anything that would dispute that. Please watch that video. And remember, this is only ONE way that it could have started and it has been confirmed that this process does occur as stated. There are other ways and they too ahve been confirmed to work. The only question now is which one was the actual way life got started. Now , on evolution. If you forget all the evidence , on the start to life, evolution on it's own does not work. Yes it does. It is an algorithm and has been mathematically prove to work just as the algorithm that is your web browser has been proven to work (actually evolution is a LOT simpler than the algorithm of your web browser). The algorithm for evolution is simple: 1) Establish a population of data structures 2) Replicate the data structures with variation (note: this variation does not have to be random) 3) Remove the members of the population that don't match the selection criteria (Not: the selection criteria is not random, but it doesn't have to be a static criteria - it can change over time) 4) Repeat 2 and 3 It is that simple. If you can prove that that algorithm does not work (which is actually impossible as it has been mathematically proven to work already), then you can claim that evolution does not work. This first cell with or without DNA, has to become all life we see including plants and animals. No. See the video as it explains how a cell can spontainiously come into existacne. Actually, have you ever washed up dishes in the sink. You know how as you wash the dishes you agitate the water, and that water has detergent in it, well that detergent has similar properties to the lipids that the video talks about. What occurs with both is that they have one end that is attracted to water, and the other end that is repelled from it. The ends that are repelled from it end up being pushed together and the ends that are attracted to water move away from other lipids. This causes them to line up in a double line two molecules thick. And, as the attraction applies to ones next to it, it forms a membrane. The most stable state for this membrane to have when immersed in water is that of a sphere. The result is that you get soap bubbles. Yes. The soap bubble in your sink are similar to how life got started. In the fossil record there is no evidence of cells producing partial bits of bone, ( not completed bits, because that would take many tries to get something that is useful) Actually, there are several fossils that show the formation of structures that lead to a skeleton, and fossils with proto-skeletons that are not joined up. Ignorance is not evidence. Just because you haven't seen these does not mean that they don't exist. To assume that is hubris in the extreme. Also the fact that complete systems of heart, lungs, muscles, veins, nerves, blood, and brain all have to be complete before anyone of the parts is useful. No, not at all. I can see where you are trying to go here. Irreducible Complexity. Well Irreducible complexity does exist, but it can evolve. See this video (BTW: its by the same guy as did that last one): This is another catch22 situation. So if a heart started to form , why would that be kept if there is no blood , no muscles, etc, there to make these parts of any value? If anything you should see the millions of tries before any of these parts came about. But what you see in the fossil record is completed animals. ( with out the transitional ones) Actually every animal is a transitional animal. We are a transitional animal. To give you an idea why the fossil record is incomplete: About 1 in 1,000,000 animal that dies is fossilised. Over time many of those fossils get destroyed (it is only by extreme effort that the fossils we collect are able to survive). So for every animal that gets fossilised, perhaps millions (or even billions) get destroyed before we ever get to them (or haven't been exposed yet). Some parts of animals fossilise better (bones, teeth, shells, etc) and some animals don't have these parts. Not all animals are in environments that will produce fossils anyway. And many animals feed on the carcasses of dead animals (scavengers) and so they destroy the remains and it can't fossilise. The fact that we can get any fossils is amazing. It also means that there will be many gaps in the fossil record. One of the arguments that people who don't understand fossils or evolution use is that we don't see transitional forms. they expect some kind of Chimera, but what they forget is that each step the animal has to be able to survive in its environment and compete in that environment. The kinds of Chimeras that these people expect would not be successful and they usually design these chimeras to be that way to disprove evolution. As I stated before, this kind of arguing: making an argument against a position by creating something that is not their position and in such a way as to fail is called a Strawman Argument and does not disprove the other's position at all. Instead it only weakens your position because it means that you either don't know what you are talking about, or you don't actually have anything that disputes the other position (ie: there is no evidence against their argument - which in this case would mean that there is evidence for evolution in maths and there is no evidence against it). But what would you expect to find if things were created? Completed animals, with complete systems working. That is what there is evidence for. Yes and no. If some one (be it God or Aliens) created life, and had the intelligence to do so, why then were they so incompetent? There are thousands of changes that could be made even to humans that would improve us greatly. Why do we have to have cancer? Why do the telomere at the ends of our DNA get shorter when a cell replicates (in sperm and egg cells they don't, and we know the chemical that would allow us to prevent them form shortening - it is called Telomerase reverse transcriptase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase_reverse_transcriptase - the code for it is in our DNA already ). Why is our throat "designed" so that we eat and breath through the same passage? It causes many people to choke to death. It can be designed differently, so the only conclusion is that the designer is either incompetent or enjoys that we choke to death (not a nice guy if they do). Evolution explains this easily without the need for a designer (basically it is adaptation of existing structures and that it doesn't give us too much of a disadvantage for it to be selected against). Sudden appearances , of life, in a completed form. this is creationists Strawman Argument against evolution. they expect life to be created with a flash and it to be as complex as modern organisms. Well, it is only in the bible that anyone claims that kind of creation, so does their own argument disprove creationism then? If they are saying that life has to be created in whole, and there is no evidence that it was, does that not prove that creationism can't be true? Evolution says that life was created from simple structures and it then evolved (one it existed). This has been proven in the lab. We have seen evidence of this is the fossil record (there were no complex organisms early on in the history of life). So by the very argument you are using: Creationism can not have occurred. That means we are left with abiogenisis and evolution. The evidence supports creation it does not support evolution or non creation start to life. The evidence supports evolution with the fossil record (no complex forms early on with more complex forms developing later) lab experiments ahve confirmed around 6 different ways that life could have got started (which one it was we don't know but we know that there are at least 6 ways that it could), the algorithm of evolution has been mathematically prove to work and that the structures of cells and DNA is capable of running this algorithm. That pretty much clinches it. If cells are capable of running the algorithm for evolution and the algorithm for evolution has been mathematically proven, then it means that cells do evolve. It has also been proven that life does not need any external help to get started and it can spontaneously start from simple chemical and physical reactions that existed early in Earth history (at the time when we accept that life got started). So if structures that can execute the algorithm for evolution can (and do) spontaneously appear without any external help, then all of your arguments are disproven and the argument for Abiogenisis and Evolution are proven. There is variety in animals. DNA allows that. If basketball players were the only ones that had a good life, eventually, the tendency for tall children and adults, would happen. This happens now, with isolated tribes of people. We see pygmy's and Zulu warriors. Extremes on height. But they are still all human. This what we see today. Humans are we accept them have only existed for around 300,000 years. At an average generation time of 25 years, this gives us around 12,000 generations. That is not long enough to really diversify enough to speciate. In real life you need to look at around 20,000 generations or more to get speciation. We can do it in less time it if we apply a very strong pressure (or the populations are an optimal size) for it, but these don't usually (but can occasionally) occur naturally. IIRC, there is about 8 key genes that seem to directly effect human ability to interbreed. If these are changed, then interbreeding would be impossible. These genes don't seem to be used for anything but making sure we can interbreed, and couples that have mutations in these have been shown to be unable to have babies. SO it seems that Humans are capable of developing to the point where we can't interbreed with another group of humans. However, if these mutations occurred in a single person, they would not be able to breed with other humans. But, if several people had a recessive mutation in these, this new muation could spread through a population and eventually it would reach a saturation point and someone with this mutation would likely find another with the same mutation and so be able to breed. If there was then a selection pressure to prevent them form breeding with other groups of humans, then it is quite possible that humans could split into groups that could not interbreed (and be on the way to separate species). So what I am getting at is that Humans have evolved mechanisms that keep us as a single species (most organisms do), and it is only if an isolated group existed for around (500,000 years - depending on the population size) that we would likely see a speciation event for humans, but there is evidence that suggests that the mutations that were needed to kick-start this off were already appearing and if we didn't become a global species with the ability to move around quickly, it would have been likely that it could have occurred in a few tens of thousands years. 3
Mr Skeptic Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 I already answered this in earlier post. Oh you mean this? Many of these types of viruses or retroviruses, served a purpose when animals became too plentiful, or populations increased to unhealthy levels. There are many safe guards like this. Now people are pushing the territory of wildlife, people use unsafe methods, of dealing with the slaughter and feeding of animals , now we have things like swine flu, mad cow, Bird flu etc. Also people live is slums,wars and weather changes, and people build large cities, where transmission of these kind of illness spread easily. People are not distributed the way they should be. All the people alive right now, could fit in the state of Texas. There is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, but half the world is undernourished. However, the data shows that these viruses were inactivated before the creation of humanity, not as an afterthought. While a few of the inactivated viruses have bits shown to have useful parts, an intelligent designer would have put those bits in rather than simply putting various virus fragments. Evolution, on the other hand, would put the virus fragments rather than just the useful bits. And many of these have no useful bits at all, as they are completely inactivated. Also note that you have only suggested a rationalization for it rather than shown it to be a prediction of intelligent design. Without predictions, you have no hypothesis. 1
dunsapy Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Creation by what means? Do you have evidence for this process? A theory is great but without a mechanism it is close to useless. I think what you are getting at here is that ,you want the formula for creating life. We are not told how it was done. This is something science wanted to take on. Which is OK, ....we were given a brain that asks all these types of questions and to search for answers. This has nothing to do with survival. But it does make our lives interesting. This also fits the idea of creation. I am not really questioning the science that is found. It is the interpretation of the science. So all the things science has learned, is of value. Finding DNA was incredible, to try an figure out the coding in DNA , is also incredible. This tells you that these things didn't just happen, it was planed out. Science is reverse engineering DNA and life, but that doesn't mean it wasn't created in the first place. I mean it was done in some way, science is trying to find out how. Creation has no problem with that.
Mokele Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 I am not really questioning the science that is found. It is the interpretation of the science. So you accept that one species can evolve into another? Because we've actually watched it happen, both in the lab and in nature, many times.
dunsapy Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Also note that you have only suggested a rationalization for it rather than shown it to be a prediction of intelligent design. Without predictions, you have no hypothesis. The laws of the universe and of life can give predictive answers. The periodic table , is the same idea. Science knew from their findings that they should find, elements that they did not know how to detect yet. But because of the organized way these elements are set up, predictive elements could be counted on. Really evolution is not based on predictability. It is a haphazard idea. It is, try something, and if it doesn't kill the host, then it may keep it, but there is no idea with evolution that it need to make a leg with all it's parts. Science is using predictability of design, for evolution ,when evolution has no predictability at all. Science is going ahead of what they know. First they should find out how life started , and if it could start on it's own or not. Then find out from a single cell if evolution like science says could happen, before they build a whole theroy like evolution not knowing, if life could even happen at all without a designer. The fact that science has had trouble with this idea of the start to life with all of it's research and equipment, tells you that it is going to take more research and experiments to find this out. If they succeed it only shows that it took a lot of intelligence to create life. Unless of course , they just find it happening some place. All the evidence supports creation. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo you accept that one species can evolve into another? Because we've actually watched it happen, both in the lab and in nature, many times. The term species is a science derived term. It is not universal standard, and does it conform to the creation's word 'kinds'? Science themselves can not decide exactly what a species is. No one knows exactly how far 'kinds' goes when describing types of animals? So really what the question is, does all life as we see it, come from some single cell? That includes plants.
Recommended Posts