[ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution

[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.