[ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution

[Ashlyn]

I can't get to anything else today, sry.

[Demonaura]

It seems that the concept of gaining information is a lot like the crocoduck argument. Genetics dont create new acid bases, they do not need too. Because like atoms forming together to make molecules, and letters forming together to make words it is the new thing that is created by their coming together, not the building blocks are determine what it is and does.

No problem if you do not have a lot of time, being a forum theres no reason to rush, and it would be bad on both sides to ask for hurried or hastily written responces. We are all trying to learn and discuss here, not put each other on the spot and 'win'.

[Tiberius]

Yep. One example is how long after it was a proven fact that cells were exremely complex, and even our best machines can't duplicate the mpst simple cell we find, it was still put in text books as a fact saying that cells were simple.

THEORY is ok to put in a textbook. And that theory can later be proven wrong. But what is unexceptable is when THEORY is put in textbooks AS A FACT. It should be clear that it is only a theory. ANd NEVER should information be put into it when it has been proven wrong already. ESPECIALLY when it's stated as fact.

---

You are making a bad comparison, comparing biological organisms to man-made machines. This is not what the textbook meant (I would assume), but the fact that multi-celled organisms are much more complex than single-celled organisms. It is ridiculous to compare biological life forms to machine "life", especially in terms of complexity.

I'm sure if I looked, there would be TONS of proof, yes. I have heard that on scientific vids, and read it places as well. If you would like, I can get you some references. But since it has already been disproven, I won't take the time now, since as far as I can see, we were right about that.

Yes, I'd like the references please. You had better take the time now, because if you think that debates are about you making an assertion and then refusing to back it up because you claim "as far as I can see, we were right about that" then you don't know a thing about debates. You cannot just make an assertion without backing it up. We have backed up all our points with the relevant research, so please honour the debate and do the same.

[Becki]

Adrian:


I don't understand much about this stuff, but I do know this. When a changes are observed, they do one of two things. THey either change order, or leave part of the sequence out. So. That means that they either don't lose anything, or they lose some information. If it goes from STEAM to STEM, please explain how no info was lost. Unless, of course, it is still there, and just isn't appearing. idk. It HAS to be one of those 2. ANd then either way, it fits with the next step.


I'll find you another link when I get the chance. I have to go for now. But how do you knwo that that isn't true? I'll google the sentence later... Come up with a source you can't argue with, hopefully. bb

[Demonaura]

That is what I was trying to cover, the number of letters means nothing to the sequence, it has to be looked at from start to finish to have meaning. So ST is not half of STEM, it won't have half the effect, it will be it's own new sequence. we could even have a duplication occur later and end up with STEEM and it would still be a new sequence with it's own properties.

Just like how we can arrange hydrogen and oxygen to create both air and water just by changing the ammounts of each.

[Tiberius]

I don't understand much about this stuff, but I do know this. When a changes are observed, they do one of two things. THey either change order, or leave part of the sequence out.

Well you are correct when you say you don't know much about this stuff. The mutations aren't "one of two things". Here is a list of types of observed mutations (with handy pictures to explain them):

That means that they either don't lose anything, or they lose some information.

And I've explained to you how this view of "information" is completely wrong in the genome. Losing a acid base is not equivalent to losing a piece of information. Information in the genome is denoted by specific pieces of genetic code. Taking out one acid base from a part of a DNA sequence doesn't mean that the information is lost, but it may be changed. That acid base may have meant nothing to the specific sequence it was in (junk DNA) so removing it through a mutation may not have any effect. It may have been restricting another part of the sequence, and so removing it altered the sequence to unleash it's full potential. And yes, if that acid base was a vital part of the sequence, it may cause damage to the organism, but natural selection does a handy job of removing bad mutations from the environment.

If it goes from STEAM to STEM, please explain how no info was lost. Unless, of course, it is still there, and just isn't appearing. idk. It HAS to be one of those 2. ANd then either way, it fits with the next step.

As stated above, information in genetics can only really be metaphorical for strands of DNA, not individual acid bases. In this case, an acid base was lost, but information wasn't (it was changed to another word).

But how do you knwo that that isn't true?

All current scientific research supports my arguments. If it didn't I wouldn't argue them. There is a reason why science has a consensus opinion that Evolution happens, and that the theory of Evolution is the best way of explaining this Evolution.

[Hope]

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.

[Tiberius]

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.

Ok, well if it is proven fact you should be able to give some evidence to support it. What evidence do you have that supports creationism?

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.

Not proven no, but all the evidence currently supports it. Certain things have been proven (the fact that organisms evolve by mutation for example).

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!!

Darwin did say this, and the fossil record has given us a mountain of fossils that support evolution. He didn't disprove his theory, his theory was supported by the fossil record and that was the main reason it gained popularity amongst scientists before the genetic code was discovered. Once the genetic code was discovered, it also fitted perfectly with the evolution model. I can only assume you haven't looked at the fossil record at all if you think Evolution is disproven by it.

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

No. Evolution is the fact that all organisms replicate, and that sometimes their genes mutate whilst replicating. The theory of Evolution states that the mutations that benefit the organism are selected through nature to survive (due to that organism being more likely to survive and reproduce). An organism could easily become less complex if the environment changed in such a way. It all depends on the environment the organism is in.

[Demonaura]

Complexity would also have to be defined. If by complex you simply mean it goes from having fewer cells to having more cells in total it's not really valid, it's just size which CAN be a disadvantage to survival. Theres creatures that appear quite simple compared to us humans but, in reality have many times more genetic sequences. Example are given in the video I posted above by AronRa. No point is saying it again when it's already in the thread.

Adrian however already stated, and it's correct that evolution is not all about gaining complexity. It explains the diverse number of species on earth and how current species came about. This of course includes humans as we have traced our history back via fossil and genetic records. I beleive this was shown earlier as well when we spoke of fossil records.

[Ashlyn]

Taking the first half of Adrian's post.


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

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


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

---

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.

---

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


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

---

Complex is relative in this case, i think.