[ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution

[Becki]

ok, thanks. =]

[Darwinian]

It seems to me quite odd that someone can accept micro evolution but then stop short of macro evolution. Macro evolution is simply the culmination of many micro evolutionary steps.

It's a bit like accepting that a few rain drops can create a puddle but then refusing to believe that many puddles can create a lake.

You have to remember that evolution does not have any particular goal in mind and it's only due to these tiny little mutations that give an animal or plant an advantage that one species can 'change' into another.

Also, there is no reason why the 'parent' species has to die out. Remember, that it's not the actual animal that changes but their offspring.

On a more philosophical point, surely if you believe there is a God and that he did indeed create all life on Earth then the best way to go about things is to investigate the natural world to see how he did it rather than to simply believe what was written down thousands of years ago by people who had no knowledge of biology, geology etc.

[Becki]

Ok, Adrian. It's Sunday and I don't have all the time in the world. So I researched the E. coli. It's all I have time for. One good link deserves another. Here ya go:

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

If I get a chance, I'll research it some more. If you just go to AIG home page, and type in E. coli, you'll get an amazing selection of articles. Cyl

[Ashlyn]

Adrian, as long as you are going to use our Bible against us, then we will fight back with the Bible.

God wants us to believe in Him. Place not our faith in men. ANYTHING that is "proven" by evolutionists now could easily be proven wrong in a couple of years. (if you don't believe me, go grab a science textbook from 10 or 20 years ago. Evolutionists state their theories as fact.)

Those men didn't write the Bible alone. God told them what to say. Therefore, the clueless men had an almighty, all knowing God to help them.

[Amanda]

Darwinian, can you help Hope? She can't get on her account for some reason. It brings her to a little box that says to enter the case sensitive code as it appears or something. But there's no code.

??

[Ashlyn]

Also, we disagree about your ideas of micro/macro evolution. Let me reword this.

Macro evolution is the theory of a species changing to another.

Micro evolution is small changes that DO NOT create a new species.

Kk?

[Hope]

thanks mandie but i got it.

---

O.O my dog just destroyed a book!!!!!!!!!

[Tiberius]

Adrian, as long as you are going to use our Bible against us, then we will fight back with the Bible.

When did I ever use the Bible against you?

God wants us to believe in Him. Place not our faith in men. ANYTHING that is "proven" by evolutionists now could easily be proven wrong in a couple of years. (if you don't believe me, go grab a science textbook from 10 or 20 years ago. Evolutionists state their theories as fact.)

The difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact needs to be distinguished. A scientific fact is something that has been observed. Gravity is a scientific fact for example; it can be observed. A scientific theory isn't just an idea, it is an explanation of a scientific fact. Newton's theories of gravity tried to explain the scientific fact of gravity. The theory of Evolution is a scientific theory (explanation) of the facts of Evolution. The scientific facts of Evolution are that organisms are mutating and passing on these genes, and that organisms that pass on better genes tend to survive more and "evolve" more. The theory of Evolution attempts to explain how and why this happens, and it postulates the mechanism of natural selection.

As for science textbooks, yes the explanations are probably out of date. Explanations change as we learn more about the processes surrounding them. Darwin's theory of Evolution has changed a lot since it was theorized, but the facts have not changed. The evidence has grown, and as we understood the processes surrounding the facts more, the theory "evolved" (excuse the pun). Unless you are reading a particularly bad textbook, none of the scientific facts will be wrong, only the explanations of those facts. It should further be noted that scientific textbooks are not the go-to guide to science. Peer-reviewed literature contains the absolute latest and most accurate information regarding science.

Those men didn't write the Bible alone. God told them what to say. Therefore, the clueless men had an almighty, all knowing God to help them.

Let's keep this debate to science shall we? Unless you can offer proof that God told them what to say, I don't see how it is relevant to what we are debating, which is about Evolution and Creation.

Also, we disagree about your ideas of micro/macro evolution. Let me reword this.

Macro evolution is the theory of a species changing to another.

Micro evolution is small changes that DO NOT create a new species.

Oh I understand your definitions, but the fact remains that the difference between one species and another is that they cannot produce fertile offspring. That is the standard definition of a species, and all it takes is a few changes in the genome for species not to be able to inbreed. Hence how "micro" evolution leads to "macro" evolution if you have a lot of it.

As for the link from Answers in Genesis, the author seems to be suggesting that E. coli already had the ability to absorb citrate, and so it wasn't an evolutionary step, but an adaptation. Firstly it should be noted that "adaptation" is the scientific word for what creationists refer to as "micro" evolution, so yes it was evolution. Secondly, some strains of E. coli are able to absorb citrate, but these strains all require a ring of DNA called a plasmid from another species of bacteria. Dr. Lenski was cautious enough to choose a strain of E. coli that did not have this plasmid, and there were no other species of bacteria in the flasks. The evolved strain of E. coli (the one that could absorb citrate) didn't have any DNA plasmids either, and so the conclusion was reached that the E. coli had evolved the ability to absorb citrate, an "increase in information" as creationists would put it.

Not only were the team able to find this, but they have observed that this was not all down to one mutation. Instead, they tried to re-run the evolution from an earlier frozen copy of the same strain (every 500 generations some E. coli are frozen to preserve a "fossil record"), and they found that after the population fluctuated, it rapidly increased, feeding on the citrate. Simply put, it was observed that an initial mutation enabled the E. coli to absorb citrate, but they were still overpopulated by the non-mutated variety. A further mutation increased their ability to feed off citrate, and their population exploded.

An explanation of this can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/...lution.php

[Hope]

Ashlyn's nuts. She meant darwinian.

---

Next, I agree. Fact and theory are totally different. However, there have been many theories which have been published as fact. True, textbooks may not be the best place to go. But it still is published by companies that SHOULD be reliable. (Ashlyn brings religion into stuff a lot. We'll try to balance her.)

---

Adrian, to your comment about keeping the debate on science, we agree. That's why we found it odd when your debate partner got off track, bringing up the topic. Ashlyn was just answering him. (darwinian's post.) Maybe, if you don't like this, as neither do we, you could talk to him about it and have him keep to the facts as we were trying to.

[Tiberius]

Next, I agree. Fact and theory are totally different. However, there have been many theories which have been published as fact. True, textbooks may not be the best place to go. But it still is published by companies that SHOULD be reliable. (Ashlyn brings religion into stuff a lot. We'll try to balance her.)

Can you name any theories that have been published in scientific literature as fact. By scientific literature I of course mean peer-reviewed journals. As I have previously stated, Evolution has place holders in both scientific fact and scientific theory. The facts of Evolution are the observations that genes mutate and are passed on, and that beneficial mutations often spread through the species faster. The theories of Evolution are the explanations scientists have come up with to explain the facts. The facts are not wrong, they have been observed. The theories might well be wrong, but so far there is no evidence that has contradicted what the theories state.

Adrian, to your comment about keeping the debate on science, we agree. That's why we found it odd when your debate partner got off track, bringing up the topic. Ashlyn was just answering him. (darwinian's post.) Maybe, if you don't like this, as neither do we, you could talk to him about it and have him keep to the facts as we were trying to.

My debate partner said 4 points on Evolution, and then one point saying:

On a more philosophical point, surely if you believe there is a God and that he did indeed create all life on Earth then the best way to go about things is to investigate the natural world to see how he did it rather than to simply believe what was written down thousands of years ago by people who had no knowledge of biology, geology etc.

He didn't attempt to "use [the bible] against [you]". He said that surely the best way to find out about the Earth is by looking at it, since even if you believe the Bible to be the truth, it cannot possibly contain all knowledge (it's far too small for that). I guess he was trying to appeal to your sense of reason, that if some parts of the Bible can be more metaphorical you must look at nature to find out what is real. I'm not saying that the Bible being a metaphorical book is even a bad thing. Before I lost my faith in Christianity I simply assumed that Genesis was a more metaphorical account, told by God in that way to not confuse early humans. Certainly if God had listed how everything was really formed (planetary motions, gravity, evolution, etc) then I doubt people would have found it as poetic and it wouldn't have been passed on very well.