Evolution or Creationism, Where does the evidence lead?

[dafydd]

I do remember that episode, he wouldnt go down. I'm not proposing that a carcass is more dense, just trying to get all claims as they are argued. Sorry about the long time between posts. I had been up since 10pm Thursday and had to get some sleep.
What about the claim of non random & random mutations. If I am to believe an organism evolves into another organism over several generations, how can random mutations do that and it be a better organism? If it is survival of the fittest would there not be an abundance of evidence showing the different changes of the organism until it got it right? We really dont have very many different dinos and if they were succesfull one would think there would be alot more evidnce of transitions to birds. For example when we do cloning, isnt it a very low ratio? I know cloning and evolution are apple to oranges.
On the other hand non-random I can grasp. Because it could be pre-determined in the DNA. But say an ice age occurrs. It creeps up slowly over a couple of hundred years, how does, on a DNA level, a species know to change in oder to survive the changing enviroment? Like grow fur, slow metabolic rate, shorten legs, longer tail, etc
That would seem like a very strong case for a creator for me.

You appear to have this by the wrong end of the stick.Read some books on evolution,begining with Darwin's "The Origin Of The Species"

Why would that be strong evidence?

 

[dafydd]

Thats perhaps the core of why I also dont find conflict in my faith and science. If we accept Gods involvement in the Universe, then we have accept that we are totally clueless to his great plan. I fear that for some that is too big a dent in their ego to handle.

God made us incredible curious, then gave us an amazing playground to exercise that curiosity in
Does giving innocent children terminal cancer have any part in "god's great plan"?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

God made us incredible curious, then gave us an amazing playground to exercise that curiosity in
Does giving innocent children terminal cancer have any part in "god's great plan"?

Ummm, the R&P subforum is over there. MG1962 is a Christian who accepts evolution and this thread is about the scientific evidence for Evolution or Creationism, so your "why is God evil" B.S. gambit is totally misplaced.

I'd also note that you should pay more attention to when messages were posted since your reply to evolutiondisbeliever was to one a year old or so.

Knee jerk reactions don't help.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I have little inclination or interest to be polite to blatant liars.

I really don't give a **** about your opinion of Creationists or Garry in particular. Whether they are blatant liars or not doesn't mean you need to jump all over them and attack them personally. Remember this forum has Rule 12 that you agreed to abide by when you signed up for it.

They are Creationists who are actively ignorant and can be educated. I've had much success with a bunch of them who after being educated will actually accept evolution or realize that not all the crap they are being told by their fellow fundementalists is true. These guys are honest if ignorant.

I've encountered a number of them during my years on-line debating Crevo. I've also encountered a number of Creationist intransigents. How is personally attacking the latter going to make even the slightest chink in their intellectual armor? Additionally, Garry was invited to discuss/debate here by Steve/smloeffelholz. If anything it was owed to him by us as hosts to challenge him politely rather than attack him with ad hominems.

Garry is an apologists. He has no interest in learning anything at all. He is trying out his little pile of apolegetics and seeing what lies and disinformation he can get away with before using it on his flock.

1. So you're claiming to be psychic now and able to read his mind?
2. You don't see any value to this discussion for lurkers? Did you miss where Garry mentioned students were reading this thread?

Using the nice guy approach does not accomplish anything except to drag out his nonsense into ten pages before he leaves in a huff and cries about the evil Darwinists.

Spare me the Articulette drama. He just didn't like you calling him an idiot.

I apologize if I find smugly ignorant people who are liars to be exceedingly vile.

Well forgive me if I find evolution advocates who go for the jugular and make personal attacks on YECs not helpful in encouraging dialogue and discussion.

 

[smloeffelholz]

Pax, I have to agree with UrS here, and I wish that I wasn't so busy lately. When I invited Garry to this forum, it was to avoid the character limit on the Skeptoid website and to get assistance from members who had previously contributed to the forum. It was not my intention to have him insulted until he got offended and left. This is laid out in the very first post of this thread, and although I admire your enthusiasm, your attitude is less than helpful. All you do is play right into the hand of creationists. By being insulting, rude, and arrogant you portray exactly what they think all evolutionists are.

If you cannot adhere to the rules of this thread and this forum, then I would ask you to please stop posting. I understand that it is frustrating when someone refuses to listen or admit mistakes, but getting angry and condescending is only hurting your cause. I am going to try to speak with Garry and bring him back to the forum. If Garry is reading this, this post applies equally to you. Names like Mr. SinnerMan and especially Mr. Maxipad are not appropriate. I would ask you to follow the rules that you expect others to follow.

 

[paximperium]

My apologies. I will attempt to be civil or keep my trap shut.

 

[smloeffelholz]

Steve, just for the record, if a mutation in Lenski’s E. coli occurred, please tell us what is was and how it occurred. What was the mutation? I cannot seem to find it in any documentation, but as Mr. Maxipad has suggested, I may not have the ability to comprehend it. But, neither did Lenski and friends!

This has been stated in previous replies, and I will say it again. They are currently working on that information. Even though they don't yet have the answer for this particular mutation, papers have been published that explain and give evidence supporting the creation of novel proteins. The paper linked below is a great example of this, and even briefly mentions the nylonase bacteria I previously spoke of.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WG1-4KJV32X-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8cbcef5e1865ac2864bf746e692fc4f7

As to your first point above: “the E-coli bacteria used in the experiment could not metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions at the beginning of the experiment. This point cannot be emphasized enough because that shows that the Cit+ bacteria developed a unique, beneficial mutation. It doesn't matter that other strains of bacteria already had that ability, this particular strain didn't. Using this logic, if a child who has never spoken before speaks, it is no big deal because other children can do it (not the greatest example because it does not involve generations and evolution but I hope you understand my point).” What kind of logic is this? Has it been shown that a normal child has the ability to speak? Yes. Has it been shown that E. coli can metabolise citrate? Yes.

Upon rereading my example, I didn't include a detail that is critical to the example. This is the problem with proofreading your own work. I meant to say, "if a 12 year old child who has never spoken before, finally speaks..." I hope that this clears up the message I was trying to make. In the example of the 12 year old child, people would think it was amazing (religious people would probably consider it a miracle) if the child suddenly began speaking. It would be hard to argue that an occurrence like that is mundane. Even though other children have the ability to speak, this specific child could not speak, and suddenly gained the ability to do so. Even though other bacteria can aerobically metabolize citrate, this bacteria could not, and suddenly gained the ability to do so.

Random mutation and natural selection cannot and never have produced changes in any organism. An organism simply reacts to the environment in which it exists. Mutation is a natural event in biological organisms and have no goal one way or the other. If the environment in which an organism resides is “user friendly” the organism can be “selected” to survive. If the environment is deleterious, the organism can be equally “selected” to perish, ending all possibility of further survival. So much for an accumulation of causal speciation events! (You did not cite what these were)

In response to the first statement, see the study linked to above, the Cit+ bacteria, or the nylonase bacteria. In response to the lack of speciation events, UrS provided a link to several examples of these several posts ago. The middle of that paragraph is a description of the very process that you said could not happen in the opening sentence. Was that juxtaposition meant to be ironic, or was it an accident?

When organisms are given continual un-natural selective opportunities at success within an artificial controlled environment, I would not be too excited about making a claim as to what is actually being witnesssed. “Beneficial changes” are guaranteed within a protected environment but not in the real world.

Both the Cit+ and especially the nylonase bacteria occurred in an environment without unnatural selection. The only thing out of the ordinary in both examples is the environment itself, but that is the point of evolution. Evolution works to change organisms so that they are more suited for life in a given environment.

You state that “I doubt that anyone would claim that arctic wolves or scorpions are poorly adapted to their environments, yet place a scorpion in the arctic and an arctic wolf in the desert and see how well they do.” I guarantee that I could keep an arctic wolf alive in the desert and a scorpion alive in the arctic with air conditioning and heat!

I hope you see why that makes no sense at all. You are using technological advances to give the animals an advantage that they wouldn't normally have. A man can be kept alive even though he is completely brain-dead, but that is hardly natural. The point that I made stands. Any trait that increases an animals fitness in one environment will decrease its fitness in some other environment. Come up with an example that contradicts that statement, and we have something to talk about.

 

[smloeffelholz]

My apologies. I will attempt to be civil or keep my trap shut.

Thank you Pax. I am currently trying to get in touch with Garry to get him to come back to the thread. Hopefully he will rejoin and everyone will be mature enough to forgive and forget.

 

[skbuncks]

Garry

snip.... I will not be posting here again .....snip

I hope you decide to come back. If you do then perhaps you would care to address the OP...

snip....This is intended to discuss the science behind evolution and creationism.....snip

...by presenting some of the evidence behind creationism/ID. Wowbagger's example would be a good place to start.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4518264&postcount=172


skb