Evolution or Creationism, Where does the evidence lead?

[evolution disbeliver]

I would think the rats would get there first also. Mainly because the humans are smarter and are able to use tools to their advantage to survive without the use of adaptation.

 

[Inquisitive Raven]

Transitions are made because populations get separated and genetic changes accumulate. The jumps in the fossil record appear abrupt because so few individuals fossilize, but if we could watch every generation, the transitions wouldn't seem abrupt at all.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And I understand that we are related to the apes on the DNA level, but since we are all from earth and comprised of the same elements shouldnt we(animals) all have similar DNA?

Not even close and for several reasons.

The DNA in us and the apes is a chain with billions of links. Each link comes in four different varieties. Those links are used in groups of three to code for amino acids used to build enzymes and proteins. The groups of three come in 64 varieties and are used to code for 21 different amino acids. 64 is larger than 21 so you'll note that this means the code is redundant meaning there is more than one way to do the same thing using the DNA code. In fact a LOT of ways. The number is beyond astronomical. At each and every point in your DNA there are at least two ways to change the molecule that would have absolutely no effect on you. So, no, being made of the same stuff doesn't even close to explaining our similarities. If we were each specially created from scratch the odds against us having the same code used for the same proteins would be virtually zero. Is .0000000000000000000000000000001% a small number? The number I'm talking about here would have a billion zeroes before the 1.

So, no, being made of the same stuff only suggests (it doesn't even guarantee it) that the building blocks are the same. There are a huge number of ways that DNA could have been different if we weren't related.

And not all plants and animals are equally similar or different. The pattern we find amongst all life on Earth is exactly the same as we find amongst families. You are most similar to your siblings and parents. You are then most similar to your aunts and cousins. More distant relatives are less similar. And we find that that pattern continues, without fail, between all species on Earth.

The proof of evolution begain 250 years ago with a guy named Linneaus. He was the person who started the taxonomic system we still use today (I'm talking about the system that gives us the name "homo sapiens" for example). If you're familiar with his system you'll know that it organizes all of life in to a chart that looks an awful lot like a family tree. He didn't set out with that in mind. In fact he was a Christian creationist who didn't want to believe that all life was related. But his chart sure was strong evidence for life being related. Based on a study of all traits, he found that all life on Earth fit on a family tree.

That's remarkable. You won't find that with most manufactured goods. If you look inside a Porsche you'll find parts that show up in Toyotas. Human designer mix and match components. Whatever "designed" us didn't, or couldn't mix and match. That's exactly what you'd expect if we're all related.

And the family tree that was started 250 years ago has been confirmed in many ways: It was confirmed by finding the fossils of transitional forms that agreed with the tree; It was confirmed by comparisons of proteins in the early 1900s; It was later confirmed again by DNA comparison. And BTW each of these three categories I've mentioned aren't single experiments or anything. They are typicals tens or hundreds of thousands of experiments all confirming each other.

 

[evolution disbeliver]

I guess to better word my question is how do the splits in the "tree" occur? What makes it happen? I wont accept a standard answer of changes in their environment. Because that is a trigger. I am asking how does it "know" (for lack of a better term) what changes will work & what wont. There has got to be a reason for it other than randomness, the chances of a random gene being duplicated and continually passed from generation to generation are way too high for me to think it is plausible. Unless there is an unknown connection between the environment and it's inhabitants. That is the only explanation that makes sense to me. Which leads us to an unscientific discussion which we agreed not to discuss here.
But I still havent got an answer on this yet. Which is what made evolution lose it's creditability for me. Coupled with the fact that it takes tens of thousands of generations to make the changes & the lack of fossil evidence that could have been wiped out in a world wide flood or other world wide catastrophes that many evolutionists deny happening because there is no evidence or is it that might be construed as a flaw in the theory. Which there is plenty of evidence for a world wide flood. Creation is starting to lose it's grip on my belief as well, but it still does have fewer flaws that I understand and at least attempts to bridge a few gaps between philosophy and science.
There are still parts of evolution & creation that I agree with but I dont see either one as having all the answers for everything and where either one can actually say without any doubt that it is fact. Evolution has gotten much more clearer than the last I was into it. And it is even pulling ahead in my mind. But it still fails to put the gas in the car for me so to speak. At least with creation I can say I believe there is gas in the car.
Sorry went philosophical again but that is how I think.

 

[evolution disbeliver]

You are then most similar to your aunts and cousins. More distant relatives are less similar. And we find that that pattern continues, without fail, between all species on Earth.

Thank god! I was beginning to worry that me and the wife was related! You know the whole Noah story and all. lol

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

There has got to be a reason for it other than randomness, the chances of a random gene being duplicated and continually passed from generation to generation are way too high for me to think it is plausible.

Mutations have been measured and found to be perfectly capable of explaining the variation we see. It's not only plausible, it's an observed fact.

Unless there is an unknown connection between the environment and it's inhabitants. That is the only explanation that makes sense to me.

The kind of connection you seem to be thinking of was proven wrong nearly two centuries ago. The environment does not control the genes, the environment selects amongst the available genes.

Which there is plenty of evidence for a world wide flood.

Not even close. The evidence is overwhelming that a world wide flood is impossible.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Thank god! I was beginning to worry that me and the wife was related! You know the whole Noah story and all. lol

And what do you think of the rest of my post?

 

[cyborg]

the chances of a random gene being duplicated and continually passed from generation to generation are way too high for me to think it is plausible.

Yet you have no problem with the notion that if nothing changes in the gene it will be duplicated and continually passed from generation to generation?

I don't quite think you grasp the notion of "copying" here: so why not give us a start-to-finish explanation of what you think happens.

 

[evolution disbeliver]

I thought the rest of your post was very informative. But I still dont understand how it answers my question. But...

Mutations have been measured and found to be perfectly capable of explaining the variation we see. It's not only plausible, it's an observed fact.

Those would be non random genes. If Random was as non random as you say wouldnt there be more people winning slot machines?

The kind of connection you seem to be thinking of was proven wrong nearly two centuries ago. The environment does not control the genes, the environment selects amongst the available genes.

How then does the DNA know when & what changes are made. I do not see how randomness is passed. If a Giraffe knows the best food is on the top of the tree he keeps stretching his neck a little bit further and those stretched neck muscles get passed over to the next generation? Once one has a longer neck then it would pass it along to next? But it's random so it may not happen ever again let alone tens of thousands of generations later? No way. Unbelievable for me. What is the average life span of an organisms. I'm not talking specifics, just average of all the different animals that have been on the planet all the way back to the time evolution says it started in the soup. Now that either would cut into the blocks or sections of time when the soup was cooking, or there has got be rather small life spans or this planet was very overcrowded really quick. In my own opinion.

Not even close. The evidence is overwhelming that a world wide flood is impossible.

Why does it not appear possible? Note I did not say when. I know you already know the arguments points, why do you say that their is no evidence? I've seen lots of evidence all over the globe. While I may not subscribe to the idea that it happened in Noah's time or so recently, but it is similar to the dragons story, nearly every culture around the world has a story that is similar. All part of a global mass hysteria? A conspiracy theory that goes back to the very foundations of human history? In evolution that would be a very, very long time. Why is it so easily and quickly discarded like the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot or living dinos & dragons? Why couldnt these creatures be remnants? We find living fossils quite regularly

 

[evolution disbeliver]

Cyborg sorry I missed your post. In case you didnt know I'm not an expert or claim to be. I am asking these questions mainly for my own knowledge.
If random mutations are as random as they truly are how can they be random?
If they are repeated, even once does that not then become non random?
Second part is if they arent random how does it know what mutation to implement to ensure the continuation of life? ie the branches on the tree of life.
One would think that as many generations it would takes to duplicate it even once per species the planet would become so over populated that nothing could survive.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Those would be non random genes. If Random was as non random as you say wouldnt there be more people winning slot machines?

That doesn't make sense. I have no idea what a random gene would be and I didn't say anything about random being non random.

How then does the DNA know when & what changes are made.

It doesn't. As I said in other words, the idea that the organism incorporates feedback in to it's genes was ruled out as the major driver of evolution nearly two centuries ago. Mutations are random.

I do not see how randomness is passed.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean passed on to future generations? Organisms have sex and pass down their genes in the process. Hopefully you meant something else.

If a Giraffe knows the best food is on the top of the tree he keeps stretching his neck a little bit further and those stretched neck muscles get passed over to the next generation?

No, that theory was proposed around 1800 and ruled out shortly thereafter.

Once one has a longer neck then it would pass it along to next?

Yes.

But it's random so it may not happen ever again let alone tens of thousands of generations later? No way.

In the first place, why would it need to happen again later? And in the second place it happens all the time. There are very very few traits present in any population that are completely uniform over the whole population. Can you name any trait present in humans that doesn't vary?

What is the average life span of an organisms. I'm not talking specifics, just average of all the different animals that have been on the planet all the way back to the time evolution says it started in the soup. Now that either would cut into the blocks or sections of time when the soup was cooking, or there has got be rather small life spans or this planet was very overcrowded really quick. In my own opinion.

Not sure what you're getting at here but 20 minutes would be a typical lifespan. A septillion organisms on Earth at any one time would probably be a good guess for the number of organisms.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Why does it not appear possible?

There isn't enough water.

... nearly every culture around the world has a story that is similar. All part of a global mass hysteria? A conspiracy theory that goes back to the very foundations of human history?

How about the obvious explanation that it's just a story? People write stories. No need to imagine they were crazy or in a conspiracy.

Why is it so easily and quickly discarded like the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot or living dinos & dragons? Why couldnt these creatures be remnants? We find living fossils quite regularly

Those are all different subjects with different degrees of evidence. A global flood is discarded because it's refuted by the evidence.

 

[cyborg]

If random mutations are as random as they truly are how can they be random?

Eh?

If they are repeated, even once does that not then become non random?

If I start off with gene ATCG and copy it and get ATCC then the change from G to C represents a random error in copying.

This change only needs to occur once to be copied many times. It does not need to be repeated for every copy made - which seems to be the mistake you are making here.

Second part is if they arent random how does it know what mutation to implement to ensure the continuation of life? ie the branches on the tree of life.

There is nothing that knows in any way how to ensure the continuation life and hence implement it.

That is why extinctions occur. That is why some species fail.

Maximising the amount of life is the only sure way to mitigate the possibility of all life being destroyed. Speciation maximises the number of forms it takes on.

One would think that as many generations it would takes to duplicate it even once per species the planet would become so over populated that nothing could survive.

Eh?

 

[evolution disbeliver]

Ok so I probably wont understand DNA. But the way I understood it was that it mutates. If a mutation is random (like a 2 headed cow) and it is somehow beneficial to the organism or gives it an edge over the others in the same generation, how is that then passed onto the next generation? Not to pick on midgets, but you dont see very many of them having midgets themselves. Or Siamese twins producing the same. I do understand the genes are passed on, but the chances of them being the dominate genes are still pretty low right? or are you saying that all mutations are "pre-programmed"? So the exact same mutations that give us a walrus also give us an alligator? They just happened at different times to bring about different species.

As far as not enough water, not even if you take into consideration the ice caps, the air and subterranean? We are worried about global warming melting the glaciers and ice caps and flooding the coasts. Could there not be enough subterranean water to tip it even further inland?

This one is just too funny to pass up..

Can you name any trait present in humans that doesn't vary?

Sense of humor in wives!

 

[evolution disbeliver]

Ok so I probably wont understand DNA. But the way I understood it was that it mutates. If a mutation is random (like a 2 headed cow) and it is somehow beneficial to the organism or gives it an edge over the others in the same generation, how is that then passed onto the next generation? Not to pick on midgets, but you dont see very many of them having midgets themselves. Or Siamese twins producing the same. I do understand the genes are passed on, but the chances of them being the dominate genes are still pretty low right? or are you saying that all mutations are "pre-programmed"? So the exact same mutations that give us a walrus also give us an alligator? They just happened at different times to bring about different species.

As far as not enough water, not even if you take into consideration the ice caps, the air and subterranean? We are worried about global warming melting the glaciers and ice caps and flooding the coasts. Could there not be enough subterranean water to tip it even further inland?

This one is just too funny to pass up..

Can you name any trait present in humans that doesn't vary?

Sense of humor in wives!

 

[evolution disbeliver]

How the hell did I do 2 posts? That was weird.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Ok so I probably wont understand DNA. But the way I understood it was that it mutates. If a mutation is random (like a 2 headed cow) and it is somehow beneficial to the organism or gives it an edge over the others in the same generation, how is that then passed onto the next generation? Not to pick on midgets, but you dont see very many of them having midgets themselves. Or Siamese twins producing the same.

Traits are passed on via sex and reproduction. Dwarfism is certainly heritable in some forms.

As far as not enough water, not even if you take into consideration the ice caps, the air and subterranean?

There is a chance, only a chance, that there is enough water inside the planet to cover the mountains in water. But how exactly would you imagine all that water rushing to the surface of the Earth at the same time and then all rushing back in to the Earth at about the same time?

We are worried about global warming melting the glaciers and ice caps and flooding the coasts. Could there not be enough subterranean water to tip it even further inland?

Further inland a bit sure. To the tops of the mountains? No.

Global warming isn't expected to affect any of the "subterranean" water I referred to earlier. If there is a lot of water inside the Earth it once survived an impact from a meteor the size of Mars. It's not going to move because of a few degrees assuming it's even there.

 

[sts60]

I thought I'd just offer an "attaboy" to everybody on this thread for conducting such a civil discussion with a lot of back-and-forth.

evolution disbeliever, I'd like to point out something I didn't see mentioned by anyone else:

...Gravity is what hold planets, stars & moons together. This is not done without rotation. ...

Gravitation does not require rotation. It's what holds the rotating bodies together, and binds moons to their primaries, and binds the planets to the Sun, etc. (Minor point in this conversation, I know.)

BTW, I am a Christian and accept that evolution occurs and that the Earth is several billion years old. God really does move in mysterious, subtle, and amazing ways; evolution is one of them, and "deep time" is an awe-inspiring and humbling concept.

 

[cyborg]

Ok so I probably wont understand DNA. But the way I understood it was that it mutates.

Hmm, I don't think these two statements are as compatable as you think.

If a mutation is random (like a 2 headed cow) and it is somehow beneficial to the organism or gives it an edge over the others in the same generation, how is that then passed onto the next generation?

Mutation occurs to DNA. DNA is what is passed on from one generation to the other. What's not to understand?

Not to pick on midgets, but you dont see very many of them having midgets themselves. Or Siamese twins producing the same.

1) There are varieties of dwarfism which are certainly heritable
2) Being a twin (Siamese or not) is NOT heritable for reasons that are obvious if you take a second to remember what a TWIN is...
3) Not every quality of an organism is expressed in DNA. You can't inherit the fact your mother lost a leg now can you?

I do understand the genes are passed on, but the chances of them being the dominate genes are still pretty low right?

That entirely depends.

or are you saying that all mutations are "pre-programmed"? So the exact same mutations that give us a walrus also give us an alligator? They just happened at different times to bring about different species.

Er no. I'm not sure at all where you're getting this.

As far as not enough water, not even if you take into consideration the ice caps, the air and subterranean? We are worried about global warming melting the glaciers and ice caps and flooding the coasts. Could there not be enough subterranean water to tip it even further inland?

This is another thread - I suggest you start one if you're interested in this. No need to derail this one.

 

[evolution disbeliver]

All excellent points cyborg. I will be more specific at a later time. Right now the kids are home & it's time for daddy to play with them.
I was referring to genetic mutations, that if evolution is based on random mutations in genes then are you saying that there are only so many mutations that can occur for all species? That would explain to me how something that is random is not actually random. And can be repeated in other species as well.
sts-60 thanks for the input. Good point as well!
RY About the flood, I did say purposely say that I didnt note when it occured. According to evolution and carbon dating the earth is very, very old. Which means that it's surface did not always look the same. With tectonic plates sliding all over the place and smashing and bumping around creating the mountains and valleys would you not think that maybe the earth was a lot flatter at some point in time? And the earth is constantly replenishing itself which is why it is able to maintain life, so would one not theorize that there is just as much water on the earth, in the earth & above the earth as there was so many millions of years ago when the earth was flatter? Would there not be sufficient water to flood the earth then? But if that is accepted then it could lend a certain realization that Noah's ark might actually be true, but in order for that to fit it would mean that man was around longer than we think. If the Gap Theory is true that could be possible.

For all the evolutionists please dont forget that the earth was very, very different than what we have today, so therefore many todays rules do not apply to millions & millions of years ago. It was a totally different environment than what it is today. Just look at your own evidence. The anatomy of a dino is a great example. Just about all of them had comparatively small nostrils when compared to the size of their bodies. Which is proof of a very different environment than todays. Even their sheer size lends one to thing something was goin on with the gravity as well. They should have been crushed under their own weight.

This is one thing that pisses me off about both sides, pick what you want to shoot down not the whole thing. No need to start another thread on the flood. We are discussing creation theory and evolution. The flood is claimed to be part of the creationists argument so therefore it does belong here. If you have read my posts both in the comments section on the corresponding skeptoid episode as well here you will see that I am trying to blow just as many holes in both theories, especially the one I so valiantly hold up!
We are doing very good by not ranting & raving like loonies, this proves we are evolving as a species. lol

Gotta go play, back later.
Cheers