dukeofbaja
New Member
Rick's new name will be RockyIIWhite
Creation Vs Evolution
- Thread starter RickWhite
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What do you think you're doing? The exact same thing only opposite. Claiming that all the anthropology and paleontology is "extrapolation" and not real science, so that's all the theories are that are produced. How can anyone who makes that claim expect to be taken seriously?
You think it's "conjecture" to understand that homo-erectus came before us? There is proof of this stuff Rick, not just subjective proof that I interpreted in some super obscure way to make it look like it's proof, actual proof. Brain capacity increases, spines get straighter, walking upright increases, use of hands increases, etc. Tons of stuff.
What you want, which is obviously unreasonable, (and coming from you specifically I think it's pretty damn funny, as you're always the guy claiming "they always ask for proof, that's all they do, proof proof proof, source source source, they're just uneducated to the ways of reality...") is for us to witness with our own eyes human evolution taking place on some macro scale to conclude God wasn't behind it. Without that, and until then - he was!
Possibilities don't mean anything in science Rick. It's possible angels are responsible for the way gravity works. It's possible sin is responsible for all the bad things here on Earth. It's even possible that you were born a female, with working female parts, and never even knew about it! Who the fuck cares about possibilities?
I don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding this point. Possibilities are not proof of anything. You saying "hey, it's possible God did everything" is no different than me saying "hey, it's possible Thor did everything".
Speak for yourself.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Rick, before you respond in another non-committal way, I think it is a reasonable request for you to outline a proposal of how a creator/designer could intervene in a natural process like gene transference without leaving any tell-tale signs and everything still pointing directly to common ancestry? Either there's intervention somehow and we should be able to detect it, or this god made the information he created to APPEAR to correspond exactly with naturalistic explanations. In that case he is a deceitful god.
Now remember, YOU are the one that wanted to take this to the philosophical, so that's what I'm doing. Just as the historic philosophers looked to nature to support their case, I'm asking you to do the same. You say you studied genetics. Give me just one scenario to look for in gene sequences and proteins that can't be supported by common ancestry with chimpanzees and I'll input the variables into the program to search for such for it. Who knows, you could win the next Nobel (don't worry, I'll give you full credit for coming up with the hypothesis).
Remember, if god gave us our intelligent somehow, we still have to pass this genetic information on somehow, so god must have done something our DNA.
Now remember, YOU are the one that wanted to take this to the philosophical, so that's what I'm doing. Just as the historic philosophers looked to nature to support their case, I'm asking you to do the same. You say you studied genetics. Give me just one scenario to look for in gene sequences and proteins that can't be supported by common ancestry with chimpanzees and I'll input the variables into the program to search for such for it. Who knows, you could win the next Nobel (don't worry, I'll give you full credit for coming up with the hypothesis).
Remember, if god gave us our intelligent somehow, we still have to pass this genetic information on somehow, so god must have done something our DNA.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind, Rick's god probably diverted that asteroid that hit Chicxulub because he needed to kill off the dinosaurs to give his preference, mammals to emerge from their little underground tunnels, so that eventually primates could develop and of course us. BTW, did he also have a hand designing the chimps and other apes for which we share such similarities? I mean without the foundation of the basic primate structure, we wouldn't look like we do, which of of course the original goal, right?
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I raised two issues. One is that there is a great deal we can not explain about the evolution of humans. This is an ancillary issue and a matter of curiosity. I brought it up as food for thought. Nowhere did I attempt to argue that there is no evidence or that humans didn't evolve. I made that abundantly clear. You keep trying to twist what I am saying because you are so emotionally invested in your ideas and so certain of your self that you will do anything to prove your point even if it means arguing against a point the other person didn't make.
My main claim was that there could possibly be a creator who's hand guides evolution. What should be obvious and self evident, is that there is no way of proving or disproving this. Why you would spend so much trying is clearly a matter of your own personal issues. The only thing you have proven, is that you are irrationally dedicated to proving your own Atheist beliefs. Why is it so hard for you to accept that there are questions to which we will never know the answers? Why do you feel as if you even have a dog in the fight? I know I don't. Why are you so fearful to admit that you don't have all the answers?
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
This is a monumentally stupid question. Have you ever heard anyone discuss why God wouldn't make his existence obvious to us?
Little secret - it's the same question.
How about I just toss something out there to consider just for fun. I don't know maybe your evidence is found in the creation of life it self. Or maybe, in the fact that the Earth is the exact distance from the sun that it needs to be to support life.
Maybe God intentionally disguised his ways so that we might engage in scientific inquiry and better ourselves. Maybe, the Universe, everything in it, and our entire existence is one big Socratic puzzle.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
More proof of your burning desire to prove your own beliefs. But why would you post that? I already know we are primates and related to chimps. I can look at a chimp and see we are biologically similar without looking at DNA.
Again, you are debating claims I never made. Why don't you just admit that you are a committed Atheist and you are using this thread to post all the anti-God information you can regardless of what I am saying.
You don't get to reconstruct my argument so that it is the way you want it. But, I can see that you will not stop trying to do so. I can see that you insist on trying to saddle me with main stream creationist arguments so that you can refute them. Trouble is, those aren't my arguments no matter how much you wish they were.
dukeofbaja
New Member
This all comes down to a dude and his razor. Why invoke a creator in your explanation if it is not necessary to do so?
edit - I've been with you since post #1, there indeed COULD be a creator ALONG WITH evolution. I just don't see the need to posit the existence of one when everything can be explained without one.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Because you claim that there isn't much evidence that 'we' evolved. I'm pointing out just a few of the thousands of pieces of evidence.
No, I'm committed to science and not letting whackos like you make false claims about the extent of our knowledge.
How exactly am I reconstructing your argument? You invoke the possibility of a creator INTERVENING in naturalistic evolution. That intervention by definition removes human evolution from the realm of natural phenomena. This shouldn't be a difficult concept for you to understand. You seem unwilling or unable to provide any mechanism a deity could intervene unless as I said before he disguised it to look natural. That's a deceitful god. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but why invoke this kind of stretch of the imagination when there should be no a priori reason to consider such a being in our development?
Everyone here can see you are full of shit anyway. Claiming we don't understand you when it is clear you are making a god of the gaps argument.
Here's another example of your inability to comprehend MY argument:
Please explain how something can be naturalistic and have supernatural intervention at the same time. So no, it's not because I say so, it's because of how we define things here in the real world. If a being planned our entire existence, then everything is predetermined and there is no free will or accidents.
Of course if your proposition, as you point out is completely unprovable and can never be falsified, what's the point? It is a meaningless exercise to make such claims if there is never a way to disprove it. As we keep pointing out, this is no different than claiming angels are responsible for gravity. I have no problem with you proposing such a pointless and meaningless thought exercise but I do take issue with your lack of knowledge about how science works and the amount we DO know about human evolution.
Maybe you should talk to the FBI and ask them why they would use those pseudoscientist anthropologists at the Smithsonian to help them with cases.
dukeofbaja
New Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Are You Retarded?
"the Earth is the exact distance from the Sun that it needs to be to support life."
Wow.
Just...
Wow.
It's hilarious you don't know when you give shit away like this!
So you're one of those guys who thinks everything in our entire universe was put here for us humans, huh? You don't think life could evolve at a farther distance from a star? At a closer distance?
Your quote should read "the Earth is the exact distance from the Sun that it needs to be to support life as we know it.". Then it'd be correct and make much more sense.
We are a product of the circumstances of our reality, in other words, if that was too confusing for your enlightened mind, we are here because our Sun has been relatively constant for the entirety of life's existence. If whatever happened to start life on Earth happened on Mars, life would have developed there and we'd be arguing about whether or not life could develop on Earth. We adapt to our environment, our environment doesn't adapt to us. If something changes, life must adapt or die off.
And you keep bitching about the supposed absence of evidence regarding human evolution (which is another creationist claim) but how bout all the speculating you're doing in that second bit? "maybe" "could of" "what if" - again, that isn't science, that is speculation and "conjecture".
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Can anyone give a single fully understood and fully explained example of a situation in which a beneficial mutation in a higher life form caused it to be more fit for its environment?
Surely, if there are millions of these mutations it should be easy to point out a few that are fully understood and explained.
And please, no conjecture. I am looking for a specific mutation with a known genetic cause like Down Syndrome that has caused the type of marked beneficial mutation that would enable a higher organism to survive where others would not.
And please no examples of bacteria or yeast. I want an example of one in a higher organism. Also, describe and give proof of what conditions existed at the time that just so happened to combine with the mutation to create an evolutionary event.
Again, please no "this happened and it is presumed that the survivors were more fit" examples. I want a fully explained evolutionary event in a higher organism.
Surely, if there are millions of these mutations it should be easy to point out a few that are fully understood and explained.
And please, no conjecture. I am looking for a specific mutation with a known genetic cause like Down Syndrome that has caused the type of marked beneficial mutation that would enable a higher organism to survive where others would not.
And please no examples of bacteria or yeast. I want an example of one in a higher organism. Also, describe and give proof of what conditions existed at the time that just so happened to combine with the mutation to create an evolutionary event.
Again, please no "this happened and it is presumed that the survivors were more fit" examples. I want a fully explained evolutionary event in a higher organism.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
P. sicula gained attention in 2008 following the publication of a research study[5] that detailed distinct morphological and behavioral changes in a P. sicula population indicative of "rapid evolution".[6][7][8][9][10]
In 1971, ten adult P. sicula specimens from the island of Pod Kopite were transported 3.5 km east to the island of Pod Mrčaru (both Croatian islands lie in the Adriatic Sea near Lastovo), where they founded a new bottlenecked population.[5][11] The two islands have similar size, elevation, microclimate, and a general absence of terrestrial predators[11] and the P. sicula expanded for decades without human interference, even outcompeting the (now extinct[5]) local Podarcis melisellensis population.[6]
Following the war, scientists returned to Pod Mrčaru and found that the lizards currently occupying Pod Mrčaru differ greatly from those on Pod Kopite. While mitochondrial DNA analyses have verified that P. sicula currently on Pod Mrčaru are genetically indistinguishable from the Pod Kopite source population,[5] the new Pod Mrčaru population of P. sicula was described, in August 2007, as having a larger average size, shorter hind limbs, lower maximal sprint speed and altered response to simulated predatory attacks compared to the original Pod Kopite population.[11] These population changes in morphology and behavior were attributed to "relaxed predation intensity" and greater protection from vegetation on Pod Mrčaru.[11]
In 2008, further analysis revealed that the Pod Mrčaru population of P. sicula have significantly different head morphology (longer, wider, and taller heads) and increased bite force compared to the original Pod Kopite population.[5] This change in head shape corresponded with a shift in diet: Pod Kopite P. sicula are primarily insectivorous, but those on Pod Mrčaru eat substantially more plant matter.[5] The changes in foraging style may have contributed to a greater population density and decreased territorial behavior of the Pod Mrčaru population.[5]
The most surprising[7] difference found between the two populations was the discovery, in the Pod Mrčaru lizards, of cecal valves, which slow down food passage and provide fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to nutrients digestible by the lizards.[5] Additionally, the researchers discovered that nematodes were common in the guts of Pod Mrčaru lizards, but absent from Pod Kopite P. sicula, which do not have cecal valves. The cecal valves, which occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,[7] have been described as an "evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards".
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I quoted the question so you can re-read it. I'm looking for a specific known beneficial chromosomal mutation. Your post doesn't answer the question. What it does seem to do however, is demonstrate how easy it is for harmful mutations to make a population less fit as with your slower lizards. Those kids of mutations are common and we see numerous examples - cancer for one. By the way, those numbers refer to source material. You might want to post that info.
Usually, when scientists make such observations they publish their data so others can review it. Data like, how much shorter are their legs, how much larger were they, etc.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'd really like to know how you get "harmful mutations" from a mutation in a species of lizards that allows them to digest food. That is a beneficial mutation, and it enables the new population of wall lizards to survive by utilizing the new digestion technique that the original population can't. They are slower because there are no predators on the island that eat the lizards. Again, "fit" does not mean "bigger, stronger, faster" - it means better able to adapt to it's environment.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
Here's a list of a few beneficial human mutations.
Also, CCR5-delta32;
Moreover, this mutation can be advantageous to those individuals who carry it. The virus HIV normally enters a cell via its CCR5 receptors, especially in the initial stage of a person becoming infected.5 But in people with receptors crippled by the CCR5-delta32 mutation, entry of HIV by this means is blocked, providing immunity to AIDS for homozygous carriers and greatly slowing progress of the disease in heterozygous carriers.
http://creation.com/ccr5delta32-a-very-beneficial-mutation
There you have it.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
An immunity to HIV would certainly be beneficial although I'm not sure how this would cause much of a change to the population were the HIV resistant people the only ones to survive. Did you read your own source material? Do you know how many harmful mutations occur for every beneficial one?
You know what else greatly reduces the risk of contracting HIV? Circumcision, by 50% - isn't that odd? Guess where the practice came from?
Anyway, you have done a great job of finding some beneficial mutations on a cellular level. Can you give examples that involve more complex systems? What I'm looking for are things that might combine with the environment to produce some type of morphological change. After all, we are talking about crossing the species line so we need to get into stuff that causes significant changes.
We need at least these two things:
1) A beneficial mutation that can hold within a population.
2) An perfect environmental change that would make the mutants more fit but not kill them.
And we also need some kind of direction. The HIV example is a beneficial mutation but would not result in a change to the basic human form.
You know what else greatly reduces the risk of contracting HIV? Circumcision, by 50% - isn't that odd? Guess where the practice came from?
Anyway, you have done a great job of finding some beneficial mutations on a cellular level. Can you give examples that involve more complex systems? What I'm looking for are things that might combine with the environment to produce some type of morphological change. After all, we are talking about crossing the species line so we need to get into stuff that causes significant changes.
We need at least these two things:
1) A beneficial mutation that can hold within a population.
2) An perfect environmental change that would make the mutants more fit but not kill them.
And we also need some kind of direction. The HIV example is a beneficial mutation but would not result in a change to the basic human form.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
This is off topic, but I'd like to see a source for that quote.
I'd say the cecal valves in the wall lizards is a "morphological" change. What you are asking for, a significant "morphological" change, in most instances, would take a few dozen to a few hundred or even thousand generations, and no single mutation changes one species into another species. The separation of a species takes millions of years. Homo-sapiens, in our current form, have been around no more than 300,000 years, not enough time for "morphological" changes to occur.
Any environmental change, not a "perfect" one, is needed. Remember, the environment changes first, then organisms adapt to it.
But like I said, your request is invalid because not enough time has passed to identify a mutation that would cause some physical change in the human population.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
No, nature would have to produce a series of highly precise changes to produce evolution. Not enough change would cause nothing and too much would simply cause extinction. Relative to the radical changes that take place, this would be like threading a needle thousands of times. It would require the perfect beneficial mutation combined with the perfect change in environment.
And changes in the environment are largely physical - an area floods or dries up. For evolution to occur, it would require the requisite physical mutation. ie fish growing legs or a land animal growing fins. Suppose a lake dries up and we assume there are fish that grew legs. What mutations occur for this to happen? Does one just develop an extra appendage that allows it to walk? If there is a series of small mutations, how is each small mutation significant enough to make a difference?
And not just that. It would also require that there were not a bunch of other things mucking up the works. If we suppose one fish has slightly longer pectoral fins as our first mutation, it could also be the case that this mutation occurs in a weak fish that still fails to outcompete stronger ones without the mutation.
See, evolution requires an appreciable mutation that corresponds with an environmental change in a "perfect storm" scenario. And it requires one that is significant enough to overcome other chance occurances that would dilute or derail the process. A simple cellular mutation would more likely just be washed back out of the population than make a difference.
So, I want to see a clear explanation of how a given beneficial mutation has combined with perfect environmental conditions to bring about the type of macro mutation necessary for real world evolution.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It was a series of events. I remember reading that at one point, the human population may have been as low as 6,000 individuals, each of us is a direct descendant of one of them, 30% of Americans can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower.
The individuals that survived whatever environmental events that took place that may have killed off a lot of the population in the past passed on whatever mutations they had at the time, and we would be able to test them, which we do.
A. We don't. There are no significant physical changes within populations of species. Most humans look pretty much identical, and we're essentially clones on a genetic level. Mutations that allow organisms to adapt to their environment better increase the chances those organisms will reproduce and pass on the same mutation (and more) to the next generation, allowing future generations to adapt better.
B. Yes, that's exactly what happens. The environment changes and organisms find new ways to adapt or die.
C. Exactly, and in millions of years, if we came back to the same spot, chances are there wouldn't be any land dwelling creatures as there wouldn't be any land for them to evolve on, or adapt to.
Evolution doesn't have a direction, or a goal. Dawkins said it best "evolution only gets by". Think of the eye. The eye evolved by gradual steps, we've documented it and witnessed it 21 different times, 21 different eyes, 21 different animals, all the same way, gradual steps. Think of the wrist, exact same thing. The first amphibians used their primitive wrist bones to walk across the surface of the mud ponds. Eventually, as the ones that utilized the "walking technique" traversed a wider range, enabling them to seek out more food, they were the ones to successfully breed at a greater rate and survive at a greater rate. Future generations used the same techniques and a lot of gradual changes over a very long time changed a primitive wrist bones into full limbs with opposable thumbs.
I found a couple quotes while browsing that might give a little better insight;
Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution.
In true natural selection, if a body has what it takes to survive, its genes automatically survive because they are inside it. So the genes that survive tend to be, automatically, those genes that confer on bodies the qualities that assist them to survive.
Any environmental change, not a "perfect" one, is needed. Remember, the environment changes first, then organisms adapt to it.
But like I said, your request is invalid because not enough time has passed to identify a mutation that would cause some physical change in the human population.
Not at all. You are looking at it from a backwards perspective. You're looking at the end goal - humans (which is not the end of evolution) and asking "how could evolution have produced this?" instead of starting from the beginning. The environment would only need to change "precisely" if you wanted evolution to do something specific - selective breeding for instance, or genetic engineering. Something along those lines. Evolution happens every single time an organism is born, even if the environment remains constant.
Again, you're looking at it backwards with an end goal in mind.
Also, why does the environment have to change? Couldn't a species simply migrate to another area and adapt to that environment, thus initiating evolution?
What? This doesn't even make sense, of course a fish couldn't just decide to grow legs. If the lake took a long enough time for enough fish generations to be born and adapt to the new environment as it was changing, then yes, eventually you'd likely end up with an amphibian like creature that could walk on land and swim in water, it would just take a really long time. I don't think you're appreciating the incredible amounts of time involved in these processes.
Mutations work in combination with 5 other mechanisms for evolution to work in organisms. If the pectoral fins being longer increases in any way the species ability to survive, that trait will be passed on regardless if individuals who carry the mutation die off. If the mutation wasn't good enough to help the individual survive, future generations will not carry it.
Similar threads
