[ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution

[Darwinian]

Monkeys don't come from Humans and Humans don't come from Monkeys.

This is a common mistake that no doubt really irritated Darwin. The simple fact is that all Primates living today, including us, have a single common ancestor several million years ago.

[Tiberius]

We did not say CREATION was a proven fact. (What we find definately fits with what the Bible says, but it can not really be proven. For a FACT. It's all faith. Evolution too. The unbias thing would be to accept whatever best fits the facts.) What we were saying was mutations, and such.

Ok, but you haven't provided any evidence that supports creation. Present your evidence for creation and we'll take a look.

And I'm not sure if you have gotten this link yet, but here is one.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...in-the-eye

I read the article and it seems to be using the same misinformation that the other one did (someone posted another earlier in the thread). For instance this paragraph:

While the fitness of the bacteria has increased (as compared to the starting bacteria), it has come at a cost. For example, all the lines have lost the ability to catabolize ribose (a sugar).3 Some lines have lost the ability to repair DNA.4 These bacteria may indeed be more fit in a lab setting, but if put in competition with their wild-type (normal) counterparts in a natural setting, they would not stand a chance.

The whole point is that Evolution makes organisms more suited to their environment, a change in environment provokes changes in the organism, because it must evolve to survive. In the lab environment, there was no need to catabolize ribose, so a mutation that removes that function would be passed on without a problem. As the article admits, they are more fit for the lab setting! What it then says is that if we took the organisms and placed them back into their natural environment, they would be killed off. This is perfectly true, but the same thing happens when you take a human and place it in the middle of the pacific. Change the environment and the organism will have to adapt (evolve) to survive. Of course, with a massive environmental change, most organisms are wiped out because evolution takes a lot of time (especially in larger organisms that don't reproduce quickly). The thing about natural environments is that they do not suddenly change often, and so evolution can take place easily. A massive change in the environment is what scientists think killed off the dinosaurs, but the Coelacanth is an example of an organism that has been living in a non-changing environment for millions of years. It has only changed in a few ways, because it never needed to evolve to suit its environment.

And your next segment. - - Right, but the things that have been previously proven have never been an increase in information.

Like I said in my previous response, your view of increasing information is something like a new acid base being added to DNA. I agree, this doesn't happen, and has never been claimed to happen by any scientist. What genetic information is is a long string of code, made up of acid bases A, C, G, and T. Depending on the order and position of these base pairs, you get different organisms. Mutations that occur when copying DNA change parts of the code, which leads to different organisms. Just like mutating the word "Steam" to become "Stem" changes the meaning of the word, a mutation in a DNA sequence changes the organism.

About the fossils proving evolution: since that's such a wide category that it would be hard for me to scratch the surface of, give me one example of this, and I'll look into it.

You can't just have one fossil that proves evolution. That would be like using one footprint to estimate where a person had travelled. You need to look at the fossil record to see how organisms have changed over time.

Here is a nice record of horse evolution: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/...lution.htm

Ohhh, I see. So you believe That monkeys came from humans? I thought it was the other way around. :3

Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. Neither came from the other, but rather we both evolved from a previous organism that is described as "ape-like". Gorillas and humans also have a common ancestor, although it is a different common ancestor than the one we share with monkeys.

But seriously, don't you believe that everything came from one single, simple cell, basically?

The first form of life was most probably a simple cell since it would have been a collection of chemical reactions. All that happened after that was mutations that led to the various branches of the tree of life. Evolution doesn't argue "simple to complex", it argues that if a more complex organism develops and is better suited to the environment, then it will procreate more. Similarly, if a less complex organism is better suited to the environment that a complex one, it will procreate more.

[Demonaura]

If you are saying that it is literally all faith and all you have to go on is the bible then please hold on while I find my D&D books so I can propose a hypothesis equal to creationisim involving Bahamut's battle with Tiamat over who gets to rule the dragons. I am not trying to poke fun at you but, from my perspective you just told me you have no reason to beleive anything your saying except that the bible says so.

I also do not consider anything from answersingenesis.com to be worth anything, the site is used to demonstrate how bias distorts facts and is no longer useful to anyone except the writer.

I need to be clear, what specifically is information, a new acid base forming? a new trait? if we've shown anything in the last few posts it's that this concept of information is flawed completely so, if you are going to continue using the word please tell me exactly what constitutes a gain or loss of information, what information specifically is on a physical level.

Every fossil supports evolution (is a part of the bigger picturem, they all come together in the end though), you can look up just about any species you want and see the transitional phases, is there one you would prefer we find for you?

No monkeys did not come from humans, NOR did humans ever come from monkeys. Humans and apes share a common ancestor, neither of us existed at that point and this common ancestor has some of it's members evolve towards the path of humans and some evolved towards the path of apes, eventually speciation occured and the two could no longer breed. Thus humanity existed for the first time.

No I don't beleive that everything came from one single, simple cell. I accept the fact that all of our current species are a result of quadrillions of these cells became multicelled organisims, that eventually began to take on traits that increased their ability to survive and became different species based on their environment.

And complexity, even if it was reletive, only the ammount would be so. But, it isn't relative. Like 'information' I'd like to know exactly what you think is our measureing stick for complexity.

So please, before we move on please explain these two words from your definition. I'm far too used to both words being twisted and losing all meaning from people trying to create propaganda and I'm starting to think that's how you were taught to use them. No offence intended I'm only speaking from my perspective.

[atrasicarius]

Sorry for not posting, I havnt checked this debate in a while and I didnt realize it was going again.

I'm working on the E. COli thing. I have some good links that I'm looking at but I have to go for tonight. BUt I just wanted to add that I'm not an expert either, but I do know that What we are explaining is a proven fact. THAT is science. What you are explaining has never (or since we haven't proven it yet, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and saying that only ONCE in BILLIONS of years) ever been proven. Darwin himself said that if his theory was correct, that the proof would be all over, in fossil records and such. He basically disproved his own theory!!

And Evolution is primarily the idea that things go from simple to more complex, is it not? That is what my friend was saying.

First of all, what kind of proof would you expect to see for evolution? Understand that fossils are actually fairly rare. Only a tiny percentage of the species for any given time period get preserved in the fossil record. Even with gaps of tens of millions of years between fossil records, though, it's quite easy to see how one species evolves into another. Look at distinctive traits that carry over from one species to the next, such as the talons birds share with dinosaurs or the five fingered hand structure shared by all mammals. Furthermore, DNA behaves exactly as evolution predicts it should. The more related two species are, the better their DNA matches up. It's possible to trace the history of mutations by comparing the DNA of two species and seeing where they differ, and what series of mutations could have made that difference.

Also, as I said before, increasing complexity is just a side effect of evolution. The primary idea of evolution is that the better adapted a species is to its environment, the more likely it is to survive.

[Becki]

You guys are doing exactly what we don't like. There's like, close to a whole entire page of thing you have all put, and so it's going to take us a long time to get through it.

And Biblically, I'm not even sure if we should really be here. So I'm going to have to think and pray about it but if I don't ever come back, you'll know why. I think that Ashlyn is debating, too. We'll see what happens.

[Demonaura]

Theres been a lot of points to cover I guess, sorry but it's not like evolution is some two sentence idea we cooked up over taco's.


I don't recall any parts of the bible that say being near non-beleivers is dangerous but, you do your thing. Let us know if you plan on actually replying to any of the points we've been making.

[Ashlyn]

Yes, I am. And I think I've pretty much decided. I mean, we're supposed to give warnings, and instruction, and guidance, I think like 2 or 3 times. But after that, when they have been fairly warned and advised, we're supposed to forget them. So that's what I'm going to do, one last time. (I've never done THIS, actually, so I feel I should before I leave.)Even though this is a debate forum.


GOd sent His son to die on the cross for our sins. To get to heaven, you have to believe that you are a sinner, and ask Him to forgive you. I'm sure you've all heard it.... That's the ONLY way to heaven. Now you've been fairly warned, so if you don't believe it, I'm casting my pearls before swine. But if you actually want to know more, check out AIG. It's actually a better site than you might think.

Are replacements allowed? Because there are still so many untouched, better topics it'd be a shame to completely end here. And a couple of our members are staying.

---

Nobody said you're dangerous. QUITE the opposite, friend. quite.

---

And she's leaving, btw.

[Tiberius]

You guys are doing exactly what we don't like. There's like, close to a whole entire page of thing you have all put, and so it's going to take us a long time to get through it.

I'm sorry, but we were under the impression you wanted some evidence behind our assertions. The whole point of having teams of 4 people each was so that different people could tackle different points. We've managed to tackle all your points so far as a team.

And Biblically, I'm not even sure if we should really be here. So I'm going to have to think and pray about it but if I don't ever come back, you'll know why. I think that Ashlyn is debating, too. We'll see what happens.

Well you challenged us to the debate, so you'll understand how we all see this as admitting your view is flawed and you wanting to duck out of the debate early before you've even presented any evidence for creation.

Yes, I am. And I think I've pretty much decided. I mean, we're supposed to give warnings, and instruction, and guidance, I think like 2 or 3 times. But after that, when they have been fairly warned and advised, we're supposed to forget them. So that's what I'm going to do, one last time. (I've never done THIS, actually, so I feel I should before I leave.)Even though this is a debate forum.

No, you are supposed to present your view in a debate. You haven't done that, you've simply attempted to refute things we've said by demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge in the subjects you were discussing. Your view of Evolution is a straw man, taught to you by websites like AIG who don't actually know anything about the evolutionary process at all. It's easy to knock down a straw man argument for Evolution, because it doesn't correspond to the actual argument as evidenced by reality. If you want to leave the debate that's fine, but you haven't given us any evidence for creation and all your refutations have failed.

[Demonaura]

I'm sorry but, I'm done if your going to start speaking from the soap box. And I've been to AIG, found nothing of value.
You may not know this but, I got into religion trying to prove god real. I just didn't have to look at nothing for long to realise what it was I was looking at.


If people are staying and want to talk of another topic, I am fine with that but, they will need to drop the attitude of being in a position to warn me about something I see no reason to beleive exists. You are just a member of one religion, of millions and you have no more bearing on me than any of them.

So from my perspective you have just preached at us, used a metaphor in which you are flawless and we are pigs then told us to visit a propaganda site. No thanks.

[atrasicarius]

Sigh. Oh well, I'm not entirely surprised.