[ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution

[Becki]

Adrian, I pretty much flunk science and I have a horrible vocab, so I'm pretty much depending on my friends to interpret for me. But one point before I get back to researching is that even if . But the point I have, is, even if it WAS (which it is not) evolving, your odds of this actually happening in nature is a billion to one. And you believe this happened many, many times through history. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Even if you could prove it in a laboratory, with the right conditions and treatments. Also, you are proving, as far as I know, exactly what you are trying to DISprove. By attempting to do this, you are actually using intelligence to create a life-sustaining enviroment.

And in thinking as I wrote this, I thought of something else. (keeping in mind my science and vocab, excuse and correct me if this is completely off the wall and ridiculous.) How do you know that the "ancestors" of the E. coli didn't have whatever it was they needed to do whatever it was they did/are doing? (I desperately need to study this stuff more D=) I mean, couldn't it have been in their "blood," I guess, and they not had it, but their "offspring" did? Can scientists test for that?

---

Then, we believe that Genesis is a literal account. There would be many problems if it weren't. God doesn't care about poetry. The path of the Righteous doesn't look like the fun or easy path, by any means. It's the narrow, difficult path. But we have God to help us get through it. I love Pilgim's Progress. XD

So anyways, you're right. Not everything is in the Bible. But God tells us what we need to know. FOr example, He tells us all we need to know about what is NOT true, and he tells us about what...hm,... what... what his plan is, I guess. And he tells us certain facts, that we need to know to understand what really happened. But he leaves lots of blanks that we as believers have to fill in.

Now, back to SCIENCE. yuck.

---

Adrian, if you don't mind me asking, why did you turn from the Lord? Please don't be offended... I was just wondering...


Some of my friends get stumped on questions, and that makes them turn from God. I think that happens with a lot of people. But for me, it just makes my faith stronger. I love questions like; If God is everywhere, all the time, than how can he not be in an unbeliever's heart? And more humorous questions but that still get me thinking. Like; can God make a rock so huge that he can't lift it? They entertain me, not pull me away. They actually help me in my relationship with the Lord. Was it unanswered questions that pulled you away from Him?

[Tiberius]

But the point I have, is, even if it WAS (which it is not) evolving, your odds of this actually happening in nature is a billion to one. And you believe this happened many, many times through history. It's IMPOSSIBLE.

Have you any evidence to back up your assertion that the odds of this happening are "a billion to one". One of the fundamental flaws in the "creationist statistics" is that they never take into account natural selection, the fact that mutations are passed on (saved) and the more beneficial mutations are spread as the species reproduces. Yes, I agree with you that saying "single-cell -> human by simply having a load of random mutations" is impossible, but this has never been claimed by the theory of Evolution. Darwin never claimed this, and neither have any evolutionary biologists to date. The only people who claim this are creationists. Every mutation goes through the natural selection process, and if it is beneficial, it helps the species survive, and the mutation is passed on. Instead of the creationist view of "a load of random mutations in a row", it is really "mutation *SAVE* *SELECT* mutation *SAVE *SELECT*".

Even if you could prove it in a laboratory, with the right conditions and treatments. Also, you are proving, as far as I know, exactly what you are trying to DISprove. By attempting to do this, you are actually using intelligence to create a life-sustaining enviroment.

I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm simply trying to show you how the theory of Evolution is the theory that fits the facts best. I couldn't disprove the idea that the entire world was created last Thursday, with everyone's memories altered so they thought everything was older, since I find that exercise quite pointless.

Bear in mind that all the scientists did was keep the E. coli in jars, giving them small quantities of food. They let nature do the rest. There was no genetic manipulation, no human control over anything the E. coli did. By the same logic you use, you could say that using a man-made light source like a lightbulb in a physics experiment means the results of experiment won't be correct because of "intelligence" interfering. The reality is that visible light is visible light, and nature is nature. If you let nature do the experiment and simply watch (which is what Lenski and his team did) then it is nature at work.

And in thinking as I wrote this, I thought of something else. (keeping in mind my science and vocab, excuse and correct me if this is completely off the wall and ridiculous.) How do you know that the "ancestors" of the E. coli didn't have whatever it was they needed to do whatever it was they did/are doing? (I desperately need to study this stuff more D=) I mean, couldn't it have been in their "blood," I guess, and they not had it, but their "offspring" did? Can scientists test for that?

We have been able to sequence DNA (map out the base pairs) for almost 4 decades. This leads back to the original point I raised, which was the use of the word "information" by creationists. I'm not sure how much you know about DNA, but all it is is a long list of base pairs, denoted by 4 characters A,C,G,T.

A mutation happens when one or more of these characters aren't copied properly when the organism replicates. There are several different types of mutation, some are simple deletions (ACCT -> ACT), some are duplications (TAC -> TACC), some are inversions (TACG -> TCAG). A diagram of these and more is below:

What this means is that every single mutation changes the whole "information" of the DNA. Any one of these mutations could add something to the genome (even a deletion!) because the code has completely changed. I think if more creationists actually understood the genetics behind Evolution they wouldn't get so confused about the whole "information" issue.

[Tiberius]

Adrian, if you don't mind me asking, why did you turn from the Lord? Please don't be offended... I was just wondering...

A few reasons. I don't see any evidence for a God, and all current religions claim to be the "truth" but they contain things that we know are not true simply by looking around and investigating. That coupled with all religions preaching intolerance towards some people which makes me wonder if I'd actually want to worship a God that had less compassion than me.

Most of all, I simply don't see a reason for there being a God. The world seems to work perfectly well on its own, and if there was a God it doesn't look like it interferes in any thing we do. The other problem is that science has shown how we evolved, and that we are related to every single species on Earth, so we are no more special than the humble badger in the natural sense. We certainly aren't "chosen" people, but we are the product of billions of years of evolution; gradual improvements from single cells to everything we see today. I find that a more beautiful and startling image of the world than "God did it".

[Becki]

do you have any proof of macroevolution in nature?

---

and you pointed out some very good points in anwser of my question. "...we are no more special than the humble badger..." So we are just more evolved than a moth. What a sad way to think.Leads to some scary actions, too. It's no coincidence that Hitler was very intrigued by Darwin's writings. But thanks so much for answering me. I appreciate it. Usually I get snubbed.

---

Ashlyn will answer ur other post Wednesday.

[Tiberius]

do you have any proof of macroevolution in nature?

I already pointed to this website for observed instances of speciation (what scientists call "macro" evolution). As I have pointed out before, if you take "macro" evolution as you define it, the change of one species into another, then all you need to do is see that the difference between two species is the fact that they cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring. There don't need to be many mutations for that to take place.

and you pointed out some very good points in anwser of my question. "...we are no more special than the humble badger..." So we are just more evolved than a moth.

No, moths are at the end of another branch of the "tree of life". We share a common ancestor with them that goes way back in time. To say we are "more evolved" than a moth is to put some kind of goal on Evolution, which it doesn't have. Evolutionarily speaking (not sure if that phrase exists ) all animals are "equal", we are all products of evolution, we just took different paths.

What a sad way to think.Leads to some scary actions, too. It's no coincidence that Hitler was very intrigued by Darwin's writings. But thanks so much for answering me. I appreciate it. Usually I get snubbed.

Ah yes, the standard "Evolution leads to Hitler" argument, which fortunately isn't true. Hitler used the idea of a French count, Arthur de Gobineau, who invented the term "eugenics". He advocated "racial purity" by means of "social Darwinism". Darwin's theory proposed natural selection, keyword there is "natural". Hitler wanted to intervene and replace nature with humanity. Whilst it is true that Darwin was racist by today's standards, so was everyone else back then. You would be hard pushed to not find a wealthy English man who didn't think himself higher than other races.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue that science doesn't lead to some bad things. If you can claim Evolution led to the Holocaust, you can claim that gravity led to many deaths in World Wars. Without understanding gravity, we wouldn't know how to build planes, drop bombs, fire artillery accurately, etc. Science can be used for good and for bad, but scientific truths don't have any opinion themselves. Evolution tells us where we come from, not what to do about it.

Oh, and I hope you don't mind, but sangreal2999 is going to have to withdraw due to work she has to do at uni. Since she hasn't made any points yet, atrasicarius will be her replacement.

[atrasicarius]

Hey everybody. Just a little background, I'm a senior in highschool, and I've been an atheist pretty much all my life. I'm pretty new to this forum, but I've had a lot of experience debating this issue in other places. Alright, I think I'll go ahead and have a look at this article first.

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

The problem here is that the author doesnt really understand evolution. This line keyed me into it:

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.

This is similar to another common argument I've heard that goes, "If evolution were true, humans would have wings, because that would be an improvement." The thing is, evolution isnt about improvement so much as it's about survivability. It doesnt matter what's "better" in our view. What matters is what gives an organism an increased chance of survival. In the example above, ribose was not present in the bacteria's environment, so the ability to metabolize it wasnt an advantage. It may be true that a bacteria from that lab dropped into the wild would die quickly, but it's also true that a bacteria from the wild dropped into the lab would also die quickly. Polar bears and tigers are both well adapted to their respective environments, and they would both die if you switched them. Neither one is "better."

Got to go right now, more later.

---

Alright, let's keep going with this article.

Many evolutionists state that the bacteria are experiencing “adaptive evolution.” However, this is not evolution but rather adaptation. Molecules-to-man evolution requires an increase in information and functional systems. Instead, these bacteria are likely experiencing a loss of information and functional systems as has been observed in other mutant bacteria in Lenski’s lab. While these changes are beneficial in the lab environment, they do not lead to a net gain that moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction.

As I said before, the author doesnt really understand evolution. Adaption is evolution. Bacteria need to change their genetic code to be able to metabolize new food, therefore becoming new species, which is the definition of evolution. It's just harder to see in bacteria than it is in larger organisms. Also, note the use of the word "likely." To me, this implies that the author doesnt know, and probably chooses not to know, because the answers might undermine his point. Finally, as I said before, the whole point of evolution is an increase in survivability in the current environment. The increase in complexity over time is just a side effect.

Lenski states (based on calculated mutation rates in E. coli), “It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low . . . .”1 If developing the ability to utilize citrate under certain conditions using random mutations of a pre-existing citrate utilization system is so rare, then how even more improbable is it to believe that these same random mutations can lead to completely new information and functional systems that allow dinosaurs to turn into birds!

First of all, this mutation took less than two decades to occur, whereas dinosaurs have been evolving into birds for around 200 million years. This is consistent with the much longer reproductive cycle of animals. Secondly, just because bacteria are much smaller than animals doesnt mean that their mutations are less significant. Animal genomes are arranged so that changing certain genes has huge effects on physiology. The bacteria have been evolving for 44,000 generations. In human terms, that's about 900,000 years, or the difference between homo sapiens and homo erectus. Not a massive difference, compared to dinosaurs and birds, but still significant. To get the same degree of evolution in the experiment as between dinosaurs and birds, the experiment would have to be run for about 38,000 years, assuming a 3 year generation for birds/dinosaurs.

Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known “additive” mechanisms).

This is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#By..._structure

It is interesting that in spite of the clear evidence for the adaptation of E. coli, Lenski refers to his findings as evidence for bacteria developing a “key innovation” and a “new function” and a “fascinating case of evolution in action.”

Again, the author does not understand evolution. Adaption is evolution.

Obviously, presuppositions (human reason vs. God’s Word) play a major role in interpreting the evidence. Richard Lenski and I are looking at the same evidence but drawing different conclusions based on our source of truth—man’s ideas or God’s ideas. It is only possible to obtain truth about the past if we start with the only source of absolute truth in the present—the inerrant Word of God.

It seems to me that the author is presupposing god's existence. Do any of you have any evidence for that aside from a 2000 year old book of folk tales? I would say that this is very relevant, as the theory of Creation by definition requires a creator, just evolution requires mutation and natural selection. Mutation and natural selection are both very well documented. Can the same be said about a creator?

---

To all the creationists here, I suggest you take a look at this video:
[youtube]mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube]
It does an excellent job of explaining evolution through a metaphor, and also of correcting some common misconceptions about evolution.

[Demonaura]

(Finally got to sit down and make an attempt at keeping up with this thread)

One thing I think is worth mentioning, given that it was said earlier that the odds of specific things happening in nature were impossible. I beleive this is a misunderstanding of probability (the chance that something will happen). If we say the odds of a specific beneficial mutation occuring are 1000 to one, but we give it billions of years to happen, the odds become higher as time goes on. If we give it forever the odds are 1 in 1.

for example I could take 20 six sided dice, lets say that our desired mutation, perhaps the mutation that enabled us to begin developing the ability to breath oxygen through our mouths (early step needed to live on land) happens only if we roll all six. I roll the dice but, it's not very likely that they will all land on 6 and give me the mutation but, if I keep doing it forever it will eventually happen.

Becki, in response to your question of how do we know the e. coli ancestors did not have this trait. We are able to identify what traits the starting strands had from the beggining, what lines of genetic code were present. I am not particularly well versed in the methods used but, we have been able to observe genetic traits for a few years now if memory serves. On this however I will do some more research and will share the referances I find.

[Darwinian]

The point I was originally making was this.

If you believe that there is a god who created all life on Earth, surely it would be reasonable to accept that evolution itself was and is the method that he chose.

Also, just because evolution is a theory does not mean that it not a fact. The word theory is simply a scientific term describing a set of statements or principles used to describe a group of facts or observations. So while it is accurate to call evolution a theory it is also a proven fact that is supported by countless experiments, observations and predictions. And since the discovery and the ability to map genetics it is now beyond contestation.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about evolution. The first is normally that the process is somehow working its way towards an ultimate goal and as time goes by life gets more and more 'advanced' ultimately leading towards its finest creation, humanity. Well, a quick look at at the local bars and pubs at closing time will quickly tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that it simply favours those organisms who are best suited to pass their genetic code onto the next generation who then inherit this code and pass it on to their offspring, and so on. Now, this may sound very cold and impersonal and it may well be far more comforting to believe that a benevolent god has designed everything for a reason, but no matter how hard we try and how much we may want to believe there is simply not one ounce of evidence to support this theory.

Darwin himself was a deeply religious man when he first started his study of life but could not escape the fact that the explanation for the origin of life as dictated by genesis and the observations and conclusions that he drew from the world around him could not be reconciled.

This isn't to say that there isn't a god (we'll argue that one later) but instead to conclude that whoever wrote Genesis either simply got it very wrong or did not mean for it to be taken as literal truth.

[Tiberius]

One small point I'd like to discuss at some point in this debate (although please answer all previous comments by both myself and others first) is the "Noah's Ark" story. You say that you think Genesis is a literal account, and so therefore the Ark must have existed. Due to the size constraints of the ark, not all "species" of animal could have possibly been on board. Creationists have pointed out that the Bible talks about "kinds" of animals, and if you take only "kinds" on board (i.e. not all species) then everything works out.

For sake of argument, let's say that is accurate. How then do we get from all the "kinds" of animals on the ark to all the species we have today? If you don't accept "macro" evolution then there could be no speciation, and all the species alive today must have been on the ark (since they have only changed within their own species). This brings us back to the original problem, which is that you cannot fit all species of animal on the ark (even if you do take out all fish / animals that can survive on water).

It might help if you were to define what a "kind" is, or educate me on what the Bible teaches on the concept of a "kind".

[Amanda]

hey, we're back... as of right now. Becki is visiting her grandparents on the other side of the country. Hope is still down. And Ashlyn has not been able to post because she had an injury. She's in the hospital now, and it will probably be over a week before she is out. Maybe another couple months after she's out will she even be able to come back here. And me, I've just been busy balancing 6 different reports. And... There's a LOT of catching up. I'm going to a sleepover tonight, and I've still got ot get a gift and so I REALLY don't have time to look at much here but I didn't want you guys to think we deserted you.

---

No, Microevolution and Macroevoltuon are NOT the same. Not at ALL.

Microevolution is adaptation. Like the common example of the moths. They changed their color, but they did not actually gain ANY new information. Both colors were already in their genes. We see adaptation. Adaptation is a fact. What is NOT a fact, however, is macroevolution. One species can NOT change into another without gaining information. You can only lose so much. And even if you wanted to argue that it COULD, it would still contradict what you are saying. That would mean that each species gets more and more inferior. See?