Questions about Evolutionism vs. Creationsim

[Minimalist]

At this point I'm like why do we even respond to these people when we know they aren't coming back... *sigh*

That's what I'm starting to think about these posts, too. I'm not on an atheist site to be some random theist's lab rat. Don't just poll us about our thoughts on your classwork and then disappear. Come and have a real conversation with us instead.

You ask much of those people.  Probably more than they have to give.

[Alex K]

Sure, but please note that I am a physicist by training, not a geologist or a biologist.

Now, many of the viruses you know such as the common cold, carry their genome in the form of RNA molecules. They therefore can't accidentally end up in your own genes, which are given as DNA. Some RNA viruses such as the Aids virus HIV, however, possess a mechanism to translate their RNA back into the DNA format - they are therefore called retroviruses. When you get infected by one, there is a small chance that its back-converted DNA will end up in your sperm cells or egg cells and be  passed on to your children as part of their genome in every single one of their cells, including THEIR sperm cells or egg cells. Over the generations, these so-called Endogenous Retroviruses or ERVs degrade because they get cut up and mutate, but usually scientists can still recognize their DNA remains as having belonged to  a retrovirus DNA many generations ago. This apparently happened to the common ancestors of chimps and humans, because there are many fragmentary ERVs in the corresponding places  in human and chimp DNA, and this is smoking gun evidence for a common ancestor (but only one line of evidence among many), documenting infection events in those common ancestors. Chimps are your distant cousins, get over it. I bet that, like me, you have some relatives in your extended family that are way worse than being a chimp's removed cousin.

If you ask specifically about which remainders - a large part of our so-called junk DNA is chopped-up retroviruses, so, a lot of different ones.

Thanks for the reply.

That's really interesting. (I'm a film major, so I could see using this in a sci-fi film at some point... I like fiction that builds off of real life).
But back to the science. Once a gene is mutated, doesn't it lose genetic information though? If we evolved from apes through RNA viruses such as HIV, wouldn't we have, well, died? AIDS weakens your immune system rather than strengthens it or changes you into something else.

I wouldn't say it "loses genetic information" because abstract information is difficult to define properly. Some of the information about its original state is lost for sure, but if it is little enough that the remains are recognizable that's ok. Imagine a deteriorated image of the Mona Lisa, with some dirt on it - you'd still recognize it as being the Mona Lisa unless an extreme degree of deterioration has set in.

The fact that the retrovirus gets chopped up is deadly *for the virus*, i.e. it isn't functional anymore, but the standard contents of human DNA which are necessary for survival have different properties - you always get equivalent copies from both parents for instance, which is why inbreeding is dangerous because the same bit of damaged DNA might be present on both sides. And whenever there is existential damage due to mutation, usually the foetus dies by itself very early in pregnancy, thus automatically removing the damaging mutation from the gene pool. Nature performs *a lot* of abortions in case you haven't noticed, and many women who have had a few pregnancies will have had that bad experience. And those are only the ones that were intact enough to even form a working sperm kr egg. On top of that, there are DNA repair mechanisms in place in our cells which constantly fix deviations.

[Minimalist]

1) Why do you believe primitive goat herders came up with the tales? (As opposed to modern liars, or advanced ancient races, etc.)

2) Could you explain radiometric dating a bit more? What was the scientist's basis for dating?

3) What was the ancestor?

4) Why do you believe it is a fairy tale?

Sadly, in reference to #1, your apparent knowledge of history/archaeology is such that we have no common frame of reference.  We can actually trace many of the OT stories back to Akkadian/Sumerian mythology - even YOU would consider the Epic of Gilgamesh mythological.  But when it is updated and put in an allegedly jewish context with the name switched to "Noah" you seem to think that makes it all real. 

This article, by noted Israeli archaeologist, Ze'ev Herzog, printed in Haaretz in 1999 lays out the modern archaeological findings.  I promise you that you will not like it.  But read and learn.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704190/posts

Re #2:  Here is an article by a physicist who happens to be a xtian.  In spite of that, he gives an honest appraisal of the techniques involved.  Something you will not get from your pals at AiG.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Re #3:  Right now, this seems to be a prime candidate.  Meet your great-great-great to the umpteenth power, grand daddy.  Let's call him Bernie, for convenience.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/huma...tchadensis

Unlike bibles, korans, and other assorted holy horseshit, science does not speak in absolutes.  It is always willing to learn.

#4  Probably for the same reason that you believe the Iliad and the Odyssey are mythological, or the labors of Hercules, or the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, or the Rig Veda, or the Avesta, etc., etc.  There is no evidence to sustain any of them.  The fact that someone chooses to believe in them counts for exactly zilch.

[GUBU]

1) How long were the days of Genesis 1 and why do you think so?
2) How old is the earth and why do you think so?
3) Do humans and apes share common ancestors and why do you think so?
4) Was Adam of Genesis 2 a real historical person and why do you think so?
 

1) Each day lasted from sunup to sundown, that is how the jews of c. 500 BCE understood the length of a day to be.
2) Approx 4.5bn years, based on an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of such a figure.
3) Yes, for the same reasons as 2)
4) No, Adam in Gen. 2 was both a biological impossibility and flat out contradicted the creation myth (untrue also) in Gen. 1.

Let me guess, you're going to start spouting creatard bullshit at me, right? If so hold your breath, firstly as part of the reality based community I'll disregard the shit you're trying to drag in (except to point and laugh at you), secondly as part of the reality based community, unlike you, I've actually read up on this so have a general grasp of what is behind the ideas you're laughingly trying to disprove, and thirdly if you hold your breath long enough you'll increase humanity's sum total of intelligence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Once a gene is mutated, doesn't it lose genetic information though?

There's no reason to think so. Polydactyly (extra fingers or toes) is the result of a mutated gene (in some cases, genes) and is a net increase of information - it takes more bits to describe six fingers than it does five.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, once a gene mutated, it loses information it carried, but adds new information that previously didn't exist. Information is not only lost or gained through mutation, it is also lost or gained through sexual reproduction.

Evolution is all about the loss, adulteration, or suppression of expression of existing genetic information, and the gaining of new randomly generated information and the filtering of that information through natural selection.

[ignoramus]

OP, in all seriousness, coming here may just be the smartest thing you have ever done.
It could be a life changer.

As much as I personally love to ponder aliens, ancient advanced races, etc, sadly they are just impossibilities....

Area 51? A UFO spanned hundreds of millions of miles to get here and crash landed at the last second? Seriously?
C'mon, you're smarter than that.... Become part of this forum and you will learn much young Jedi.

Lastly, you've heard of vestigial organs?
All living species are a complete form of life including us with our redundant organs.
The term Transitional is used only for categorising purposes when looking at the big picture spanning millenia.

In 100,000 years, we will be seen as a transitional form.

[Ravenshire]

1. 24 hours. That's how long a day is, give or take a few minutes.

2. Billions of years, according to radiometric dating and other evidences.

3. Of course we do. The evidence is fairly indisputable.

4. No, Adam was not a historical figure. He's a metaphor in a mythical tale.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

1. 24 hours or just nonexistent, if you believe it's a fake story?

2. Could you describe what radiometric dating was used as proof? I've been able to study it somewhat, and when measuring the half-lives of different substances, we find different results. Which specific elements were you referring to? And what other evidences?

3. The evidence is indisputable. Which evidence? Transitional fossils or something else?

4. How do you know he is a myth?

1. While fictional, the book describes a 24 hour day. Harry Potter is a "fake story" too. They deal with 24 hour days as well.

2. For fracks sake. I'm not your geology teacher. You do the research (instead of spouting regurgitated creationist BS) if you really want the answers.

3. For fraks sake. I'm not your biology teacher. You do the research (instead of spouting regurgitated creationist BS) if you really want the answers.

4. Because it's in a self-contradictory, demonstrably erroneous book that only makes sense as a book of myths and legends.

Theists like you are a dime a dozen around here. What ever you're fishing for, why don't you just skip the fishing and make your horrendous, repeatedly debunked claim already.

[downbeatplumb]

That's what I'm starting to think about these posts, too. I'm not on an atheist site to be some random theist's lab rat. Don't just poll us about our thoughts on your classwork and then disappear. Come and have a real conversation with us instead.

Actually, I would like to have a real conversation with you.

Could you explain with some more detail why the earth is billions of years old, and why radiometric dating proves that age? And why remainders of retroviruses prove our relationship to apes? Feel free to throw all the scientific terms at me that you wish, and I'll do my best to understand them.

The earths massive age is proved in many ways radiometric dating is one, radioactive decay is reliable over a large enough sample and reliable enough. But when possible it is corroborated by all available means. Scientist dont tend to slap their hands together and say "thats good enough", they drill down to obtain as much evidence as possible and base their findings on all the evidence, so they check radio dating against tree ring growth and if available records and anything else they can find. in fact all the relevant science agrees that the earth is very old.

In the UK there is a large swathe of the country that is made up of the eroded material of massive mountains, now worn away to nothing.We can see vast layers of sedimentary rocks that have been torn up and layed on the side due to plate tectonics.

But my favourite example is the zircon cycle.

Cubic zirconia is a very hard crystal that forms deep in the earths mantle.
as the earths plates move around they collide and form mountains and in the rocks in the mountain there will be cubic zircons.
Eventually the rocks will be eroded and taken to the sea where after more eons they will be subsumsed and then taken deep in to the ziron forming mantle where most rocks melt but not the zircon where another layer is added and then they are taken up in to mountains and eroded and the whole process starts again.

So we have zircons that build up with layers like onions, with each layer representing millions of years.

[Anomalocaris]

Once a gene is mutated, doesn't it lose genetic information though?

There's no reason to think so.  Polydactyly (extra fingers or toes) is the result of a mutated gene (in some cases, genes) and is a net increase of information - it takes more bits to describe six fingers than it does five.

Boru

Making more toes does not imply the genes needs more information. Think of a do loop regulated by a counter.  It doesn't necessarily take more information to change how many times the loop iterates before stopping. This is analogous to the digit forming process in embryo development.

There is one set of gene which describe the fundamentals of how to make digits for both the hands and feet, and a different set of genes which regulate the manner and frequency with which the digit forming genes are expressed in embryo development.   In most people t, the digit forming gene is allowed to be expressed 5 times on each limb, resulting in 5 fingers and toes at early stage in embryo development.   In some people, the regulating genes are mutated.   This can lead to the same digit forming genes being expressed a different number of times, leading to those born with fewer or more digits on their hand and feet than is normal.