Creationism vs. Evolution

[Moontanman]

Most religious people I've talked to about this "delima" either don't care or refuse to accept anything that might lead to critical thinking, very sad...

[turionx2]

There is no scientific evidence for creationism, but there is scientific evidence for evolution.

 

I wouldn't call organizing information neatly in order as "evidence" for evolution because a creator could of created different creatures with similarities of DNA and none of us would of known the difference millions of years after the fact.

 

I'm not religious by the way and I will be waiting until real evidence is available.

[Moontanman]

 

I wouldn't call organizing information neatly in order as "evidence" for evolution because a creator could of created different creatures with similarities of DNA and none of us would of known the difference millions of years after the fact.

 

I'm not religious by the way and I will be waiting until real evidence is available.

 

 

Real evidence is available, the fossil record backed up with genetics is evidence of the highest order. All it would take is for someone to find a modern animal in the Cambrian but the fossils don't lie.. no bunny rabbits in the Cambrian...

[Phi for All]

I wouldn't call organizing information neatly in order as "evidence" for evolution because a creator could of created different creatures with similarities of DNA and none of us would of known the difference millions of years after the fact.

 

Millions of years? Or six thousand? Why not have the creator pop the universe into existence just as you were born, a few decades ago, complete with deceptive structure that mimics an ancient Earth with trillions of generations before you?

 

Compared to wishful thinking like that, I much prefer the neatly ordered and gathered evidence for evolution. If it's a counterfeit, it's a counterfeit worthy of admiration on its own.

[turionx2]

Real evidence is available, the fossil record backed up with genetics is evidence of the highest order. All it would take is for someone to find a modern animal in the Cambrian but the fossils don't lie.. no bunny rabbits in the Cambrian...

 

Fossils just indicate that there was life back then. Fossils are no evidence of how that life form came to be.

[Moontanman]

 

Fossils just indicate that there was life back then. Fossils are no evidence of how that life form came to be.

 

 

You are correct, evolution does not say how life started, only how it diversified after it developed... but we do have a pretty good handle on the evidence of how it formed as well but not as much as evolution

There is no doubt that evolution happened, We have not only fossils that shows that complex life diversified over several hundred million years and the genes show the same hierarchy as well, God did not just poof everything we see now out of nothing 6000 years ago...

[turionx2]

Millions of years? Or six thousand? Why not have the creator pop the universe into existence just as you were born, a few decades ago, complete with deceptive structure that mimics an ancient Earth with trillions of generations before you?

 

Compared to wishful thinking like that, I much prefer the neatly ordered and gathered evidence for evolution. If it's a counterfeit, it's a counterfeit worthy of admiration on its own.

Isn't it strange that so many generations of humans across the globe believe in (a) higher power(s)?

 

Isn't how evolution is laid out by evolutionary scientists, can be considered as wishful thinking?

 

You are correct, evolution does not say how life started, only how it diversified after it developed... but we do have a pretty good handle on the evidence of how it formed as well but not as much as evolution

 

How life diversified is very open to interpretation though. Like the religious books.

 

There is no doubt that evolution happened, We have not only fossils that shows that complex life diversified over several hundred million years and the genes show the same hierarchy as well, God did not just poof everything we see now out of nothing 6000 years ago...

 

I am not disputing whether evolution happened or not because it is obvious that it happened and that it is happening. I am saying that no one without knowing exactly how life began, the starting point, can know exactly how life diversified. Hence have any evidence.

Edited December 19, 2013 by turionx2

[BusaDave9]

Isn't how evolution is laid out can be considered as wishful thinking?

 

It is sad that there are adults that think ideas like evolution were made up by scientists that then wishfully looked for evidence to support the theory. Science is a constant debate on what the evidence shows. New evidence such as fossils help us form the details of evolution. The strides science has made just in the 20th century are amazing. And all the sciences fit together. To doubt evolution is to doubt entire branches of science such as geology. Evolution is a fact that can't be disputed. But it is disputed by people that say the bible (that was written thousands of years ago) says the universe was created in 7 days. And the Bible was written by God or prophets of god so it therefore proves the existence of god.

 

 

 

I am saying that no one without knowing exactly how life began, the starting point, can know exactly how life diversified. Hence have any evidence.

 

The beginning of life was nothing like what most of us consider life. The beginning was just a molecule that, if broken up will rejoin with similar atoms. The result is two molecules similar to the original. This is like a dna molecule but far simpler. It was almost a billion years before the first cell appeared. Then with two sexes, evolution sped up but it still takes a million years for a new species to appear.

Edited December 19, 2013 by BusaDave9

[Moontanman]

Isn't it strange that so many generations of humans across the globe believe in (a) higher power(s)?

The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with it's veracity...

 

Isn't how evolution is laid out by evolutionary scientists, can be considered as wishful thinking?

How is it wishful thinking, evolution has more evidence than virtually any other theory and nothing in biology makes sense except by applying the theory of evolution.

 

 

How life diversified is very open to interpretation though. Like the religious books.

The details are being worked out but to make the claim you're making is a falsehood...

 

 

I am not disputing whether evolution happened or not because it is obvious that it happened and that it is happening. I am saying that no one without knowing exactly how life began, the starting point, can know exactly how life diversified. Hence have any evidence.

Again, no, to figure out who committed a crime without does not require exact knowledge, the preponderance of the evidence points to evolution via natural selection and how life began is a different issue that has quite a bit of good evidence to support it but it is still not required to know exactly how life began to study how it evolved...

Edited December 19, 2013 by Moontanman

[Phi for All]

Isn't it strange that so many generations of humans across the globe believe in (a) higher power(s)?

 

Not at all. Imagination came with increased intelligence, and it's trivially easy to see how it was selected for. Imagining things you couldn't see but only suspected were there kept some early humans alive to pass along this increasing imagination. It may have started out as a way to protect the tribe from lions in the shadows, but imagination has a way of feeding on itself when there is a lack of hard evidence.

 

How could it be considered strange to perpetuate something that can't be supported that gives comfort and promises that when you die you really don't? It may not be rational, but it's easy to see why it's an easy thing to wish for.

 

Isn't how evolution is laid out by evolutionary scientists, can be considered as wishful thinking?

 

Far from it. Wishful thinking, hoping something is true, isn't supported by anything. I can stand by a default premise that there probably isn't a god(s) controlling the universe, but I can also wish that, somehow, despite nothing to support it, that the energy/memory/self that might make up what I call my "consciousness" lives on after my body dies. This differs from faith in that I don't really believe strongly in an afterlife; it's just a hope of mine.

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by hundreds of thousands of experiments, direct observation and a solid methodology that allows for tremendous predictive power. There's nothing wishful about it. People have tried to refute it unsuccessfully for over a century and the theory just keeps getting stronger because of it.

[iNow]

It is sad that there are adults that think ideas like evolution were made up by scientists that then wishfully looked for evidence to support the theory.

Indeed. While sad, it humors me to no end to think that in one breath they denounce evolution for lacking evidence and then in the next accept that a some cloud surfing sky pixie magically shat the universe into existence based on faith alone. "Evolution lacks evidence!!!! ... so I'm gonna accept this obvious unevidenced fiction as absolutely true."

 

 

To the OP title, there is no "creationism vs. evolution" any more than there is a "stork-theory of childbirth vs. reproductive science," or any more than there is a "gay sex causes earthquakes hypothesis vs. Seismology and techtonic geology."

[Phi for All]

To the OP title, there is no "creationism vs. evolution" any more than there is a "stork-theory of childbirth vs. reproductive science," or any more than there is a "gay sex causes earthquakes hypothesis vs. Seismology and techtonic geology."

 

And this is what makes me believe the whole Intelligent Design movement is purposely deceptive. They create a false controversy by claiming there is a "vs" involved here, that there actually is something to discuss. Then they claim it's the duty of educators to teach both sides in schools so the kids can decide for themselves. Pure deception.

 

Creationists removed the hipbones from the whale skeleton at the Creationist Museum. So, to them, controversy is obviously a one-way street.

[turionx2]

How is it wishful thinking, evolution has more evidence than virtually any other theory and nothing in biology makes sense except by applying the theory of evolution.

 

Do you know the definition of evidence?

 

The details are being worked out but to make the claim you're making is a falsehood...

 

Will see when the theory of evolution is able to see over the horizon.

 

Again, no, to figure out who committed a crime without does not require exact knowledge, the preponderance of the evidence points to evolution via natural selection and how life began is a different issue that has quite a bit of good evidence to support it but it is still not required to know exactly how life began to study how it evolved...

 

If you're trying to brainwash me and have me accept the half ass collected information, its not going to work.

 

And this is what makes me believe the whole Intelligent Design movement is purposely deceptive. They create a false controversy by claiming there is a "vs" involved here, that there actually is something to discuss. Then they claim it's the duty of educators to teach both sides in schools so the kids can decide for themselves. Pure deception.

 

Creationists removed the hipbones from the whale skeleton at the Creationist Museum. So, to them, controversy is obviously a one-way street.

The hipbones are to hold the sexual organs in place. To support the vagina and the penis during sexual intercourse.

 

I am astonished at the wrongful interpretation of the biology of these animals.

 

Even dolphins have hipbones...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Dolphin_anatomy.png/1280px-Dolphin_anatomy.png

[Moontanman]

Do you know the definition of evidence?

Evidently you do not, why would you deny evidence of evolution but accept creation when it has no evidence whatsoever..

 

Will see when the theory of evolution is able to see over the horizon.

Evolution has nothing to do with seeing over the horizon but science has allowed us to develop technology to do so...

 

 

If you're trying to brainwash me and have me accept the half ass collected information, its not going to work.

You are already obviously brainwashed by theology...

 

 

The hipbones are to hold the sexual organs in place. To support the vagina and the penis during sexual intercourse.

Evidence of this assertion please..

 

I am astonished at the wrongful interpretation of the biology of these animals.

Are you a marine biologist? Can you give us some evidence of the claim you make?

 

Even dolphins have hipbones...

So what?

[Phi for All]

The hipbones are to hold the sexual organs in place. To support the vagina and the penis during sexual intercourse.

 

I am astonished at the wrongful interpretation of the biology of these animals.

 

Even dolphins have hipbones...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Dolphin_anatomy.png/1280px-Dolphin_anatomy.png

 

I'm astonished that you managed to overlook another main feature of hip bones in mammals, to provide a socket for the top of a leg, bridging the connection from them to the axial skeleton. Whales had legs. So did dolphins. Awesome evolution, I never get tired of it.

[Ringer]

Do you know the definition of evidence?

A quick google search will tell you it's exactly what you don't think it is:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

Will see when the theory of evolution is able to see over the horizon.

You mean like making prediction? From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

And that's just me being too lazy to think of the multitude of other predictions evolutionary theory has correctly made.

 

If you're trying to brainwash me and have me accept the half ass collected information, its not going to work.

No, no brainwashing needed. Look at the evidence and it supports the idea. No brainwashing necessary.

 

The hipbones are to hold the sexual organs in place. To support the vagina and the penis during sexual intercourse.

Hip bones aren't necessary to hold sexual organs in place. They are supported by mesentery in the body cavity that extends much further anteriorly than the hip bones extend.

 

I am astonished at the wrongful interpretation of the biology of these animals.

 

Even dolphins have hipbones...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Dolphin_anatomy.png/1280px-Dolphin_anatomy.png

These two statements taken together are the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a while. Of course dolphins have hip bones (and axis and atlas cervical vertebra) because they evolved from terrestrial mammals. So all these statements show is that you are making a woefully ignorant argument. How did you think that this would support an argument against evolution?

[Arete]

Isn't how evolution is laid out by evolutionary scientists, can be considered as wishful thinking? ... I am not disputing whether evolution happened or not because it is obvious that it happened and that it is happening. I am saying that no one without knowing exactly how life began, the starting point, can know exactly how life diversified. Hence have any evidence

 

This post seems highly contradictory, and also at odds with scientific observation. There is no logical reason that knowledge of abiogenesis is required in order to understand how organisms diversify. There are many multiple lines of independent evidence which corroborate evolutionary theory. Apologies for the copypasta, but it saves retyping:

 

 

... the major shortcoming of the fossil record is its imcompleteness. It is woefully incomplete. Imagine it's a jigsaw puzzle, from which you have lost most of the pieces - the picture you can see is far from complete, but of what we see of it, it fits evolutionary theory extraordinarily well. Fortunately , it is also far from the only "jigsaw" of information we have:

 

- We have direct observational evidence, like the Lenski experiment which has evolved E. coli populations for 25 years and shown how through evolutionary processes, they can develop new phenotypic traits. We also have instances where a population of organisms has diverged into two species during historical tiime, like the apple maggot fly and the yellow fever mosquito.

 

- We have biogeographical evidence that organisms share common ancestry. For example, many of the organisms which are found on the former continents which made up Gondwana are more related to each other than the places they are near to now, providing evidence of common ancestry.

 

- We have macro-morphological evidence, like vestigial organs like tail bones in humans and leg bones in whales, which support common ancestry with animals with tails and legs, respectively.

 

- On the cellular level, the evidence for common ancestry becomes even more compelling. Despite the obvious differences between say an dandelion and a horse, when you look at the the structural components of the cells, they are largely the same. This suggests that, despite the massive differences in external morphology you see today, they share common ancestry.

 

- Prehaps the most elegant (or maybe I'm just biased by working in genetics) evidence comes from genetics. All organisms on earth share the same basic structure and code for their blueprint. The study of genetics provides a comprehensive understanding of the mechanism by which phenotypic traits are inherited, how they can change, and provide the co-ordinates required to map the evolution of life.

 

This is not an exhaustive list of the lines of evidence we have for evolution - but when you "overlay" each of these "jigsaws" with each other, you can put together a more complete picture of the overall evidence, and the image we get is overwhelmingly consistent with evolutionary theory. As we look more, get more pieces fo each puzzle, learn how to reshuffle the pieces we have more accurately, we get a better overall picture, and it only keeps looking more and more like evolution is the right fit for the data.

 

Also this comment is rather comprehensively false.

 

The hipbones are to hold the sexual organs in place. To support the vagina and the penis during sexual intercourse.

 

I am astonished at the wrongful interpretation of the biology of these animals.

 

There is a substantial diversity of organisms which do not have vaginal or penile reproductive organs, but do have hipbones, such as birds and amphibians. Also, a phenomenal diversity of organisms which do, but have no hipbones (in fact some with no skeletal structures at all) including, flatworms, sea slugs, orb spiders and barnacles to name a few.

 

The recognized primary anatomical function of hip bones was to articulate the pelvic fin in fishes (which do not generally have penises), and subsequently the lower limbs in tetrapods. http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/342notes5.htm http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-1847-1_2#page-1

Edited December 19, 2013 by Arete

[turionx2]

The hipbone in birds and amphibians has a different purpose because they aren't large animals. Remove the hip bone from a bird and let me know if it is able to fly without control of the rear feather, and remove the hip bones from a frog and let me know if it is able to jump those long distances.

 

Everything is open to interpretation.

 

I can't wait for the inevitable train wreck of evolution theory.

[iNow]

I can't wait for the inevitable train wreck of evolution theory.

Many believers more than 150 years ago said the same thing. They're still waiting, too (or, more likely, dead).

[Arete]

The hipbone in birds and amphibians has a different purpose because they aren't large animals.

 

And you have another case of special pleading for 6.7m (22ft) 2,000kg (4,400lb) crocodiles (no penis, hipbones) and 2.8m (9.2ft) 156kg (345lb) ostriches (no penis, can't fly, hipbones)? Or Why do a bunch of invertebrates with penises as cited before not require hipbones? In fact, the organism with the longest penis relative to body size is the barnacle (no hipbones, in fact no endo-skeleton at all). According to your speculation, wouldn't it logically have the greatest requirement for a stabilizing hip bone? Why do salamanders, who don't jump have hip bones?

 

Why do comparative anatomists say that hipbones evolved once in the fish and carried on throughout the vertebrates? What evidence do you have for multiple independent evolution of the hipbone in organisms with and without external genitalia?

 

Also, would it be possible for you to back up the assertion that the primary role of hipbones in organisms with penises is reproductive - as Ringer points out this defies basic anatomy, that in Aves it's flight stabilization and in Anura for jumping?

 

I hate to have to say it but it kind of does sound like you're making it up as you go along, and contradicting yourself as you do it -

 

I am not disputing whether evolution happened or not because it is obvious that it happened and that it is happening.

I can't wait for the inevitable train wreck of evolution theory.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Arete

[Ringer]

The hipbone in birds and amphibians has a different purpose because they aren't large animals. Remove the hip bone from a bird and let me know if it is able to fly without control of the rear feather, and remove the hip bones from a frog and let me know if it is able to jump those long distances.

You state they have a different purpose without even the slightest evidence backing your first statement. Hell, if the hip supports the penis, why do so many mammals have penis bones? The only slight argument you could make for pelvis supporting any sort of intromittent organ is the shark's claspers, but even that is a stretch because its role is to support the pelvic fins that just happen to have that modification.

 

Everything is open to interpretation.

You can only interpret if you understand the information. You don't even seem to have knowledge of the information you are attempting to interpret.

 

I can't wait for the inevitable train wreck of evolution theory.

Well, you will have to wait until the end of all life, because that's when evolution will not be true.

[BusaDave9]

I can't wait for the inevitable train wreck of evolution theory.

Darwin's theory of evolution is over 150 years old. Scientists are constantly finding evidence and even changing their theories. But these changes are details such as how the ear developed in reptiles. No one is saying "maybe birds didn't evolve from reptiles". The fact that birds evolved from reptiles is undisputed (to be more specific birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs) Although scientists are constantly debating the findings and theories, no one has put forth any evidence that may have us saying "wow, it looks like evolution is wrong". The only ones saying such things are lay people that haven't even taken the time to understand the evidence and theory.

 

So tell us what do you believe?

The bible says the universe was created a few thousand years ago in 7 days.

Science says the earth has been here for about 4.5 billion years and life has been here for about 3.5 billion years. So for someone to say "science is wrong about evolution" it's hard to address that without knowing what your beliefs are. People that doubt evolution have all kinds of beliefs from a literal interpretation of the bible to thinking God was behind evolution. That later belief could be believable. If someone sees all the evidence and says god was behind evolution, it's hard to argue with that. But evolution is incontrovertible. There was a gradual changing of the species. First very simple life forms. Then fish. Later reptiles, birds, mammals. But I really don't know how to debate with someone that won't even look at the facts or tries to bring their own "facts".

So what do you believe?

[John Cuthber]

 

I can't wait for the inevitable train wreck of evolution theory.

I have heard someone say that evolutionary theory is not a theory, but a tautology.

Those that are fittest have most children: "fittest" is defined as having the most children.

 

or

Those that survive, survive.

 

I can't see that failing to be true. Can you explain how you think it might do so?

[Phi for All]

I can't wait for the inevitable train wreck of evolution theory.

 

Trains require a conductor. Evolution doesn't have one.

 

Your conductor seems busy deceiving people with faked fossils.

[turionx2]

I have heard someone say that evolutionary theory is not a theory, but a tautology.

Those that are fittest have most children: "fittest" is defined as having the most children.

 

or

Those that survive, survive.

 

I can't see that failing to be true. Can you explain how you think it might do so?

 

Which tautology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology

 

The bold does apply to animals in nature. I highly doubt it can be applied to current humans since it is pretty easy for anyone to have children.

Regarding evolution; someone can believe in evolution as in all life originating from different independent cells and evolving independently of each other, and not believe in evolutionary theory as in all life originating from a single cell. -- We know that DNA is the blueprint for life. Evolutionary theory is basically overlapping a blueprint with another blueprint to try to fit them together and fails to provide the evidence of how the blueprint came to be in the first place. Anyone who tries to fit a blueprint together without knowing if all life originated from a single cell or multiple independent cells is basically doing a lot guess work that will eventually look like there is missing pieces in the master puzzle.

Edited December 20, 2013 by turionx2