Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

[Esav Benyamin]

It's an example of devolution/loss, not evolution,
Read this:
http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740302-bacterial-antibiotic-resistence-example-of-evolution/

Evolution is a process of change. It is not directed. It is sufficiently random that your example even begins ...

BACTERIAL VARIATION

Any change in the genotype of a bacterium or its phenotype is known as variation. Genotypic variation can occur as a result of changes in the genes by way of mutation, loss or acquisition of new genetic elements.

The genes change by mutation or loss or acquisition of new genetic elements.

Evolution -- not Darwinism, or neo-darwinism -- is change. That change can lead to a bigger, faster, smarter creature, or it can lead to a smaller, sturdier, calmer creature. Blind cave fish are the product of evolution -- not devolution -- dispensing with an adaptation no longer worth the energy of growing or using.

 

[Modifier]

I edited the previous post. Return to it.
You said:

The genes change by mutation or loss or acquisition of new genetic elements.

If you mean insertion & deletions, they are types of mutations.

Evolution -- not Darwinism, or neo-darwinism -- is change.

See my other link for fallacy of equivocation commonly used here. My objection is to use this examples of "change" to support "microbe to man transformation=neo-darwinism=Modern evolutionary synthesis"

 

[Klok]

Honestly as much as I loved gen 1 pokemon as a kid, the trope of using random english words and giving them more flashy meaning may have harmed evolution.

Little red fire lizard instantly becoming slightly more menacing fire lizard is not evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBqkMj2STQw

edit I will repost this here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo as I think a Pokemon reference with this is priceless. (I admittedly have a terrible sense of humor)

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I am not christian nor atheist (muslim).
Regarding evolution, i found people on internet talking about it as a fact, so i made this to put what i found relevant.
http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/
The problem:
Fallacy of equivocation:

etc.

http://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/

Examination of the fossil record shows that conditions able to support human life have only existed for the last few million years. The same applies to all other living things. Each living group emerged when the appropriate conditions for it had been arrived at—in other words, "when the time was right."
Darwinists make an enormous contradiction in the face of that fact, trying to explain it as if these appropriate conditions themselves had created living things, whereas the coming about of "appropriate conditions" only meant that the right time had come. Living things can only emerge with a conscious intervention—in other words, a supernatural creation.

Evolutionists (not Darwinists) do not explain appropriate conditions as having created living things. Appropriate conditions allow some changes (mutations) to succeed and others to fail. The continued success of lifeforms whose random mutations are not deleterious is what gives us the fossil record we see. Mutations that are unhelpful but not deleterious may remain in the DNA, and might even be found helpful when conditions change again.

It is not true that each set of conditions need a creator to place an appropriate lifeform in them. These lifeforms show developmental and genetic precursors in previous periods lifeforms.

 

[sideways]

AronRa has done a lot of footwork on the topic of Creationism. His series on the "foundational falsehoods of creationism" should prove educational. The first myth he debunks is "the idea that accepting evolution is tantamount to declaring atheism, or that one need be creationist to be Christian".

[video=youtube;KnJX68ELbAY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC[/video]

 

[Modifier]

AronRa has done a lot of footwork on the topic of Creationism. His series on the "foundational falsehoods of creationism" should prove educational. The first myth he debunks is "the idea that accepting evolution is tantamount to declaring atheism, or that one need be creationist to be Christian".

[video=youtube;KnJX68ELbAY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC[/video]

Dawkins debunk the first Myth which was debunked :
[video=youtube;BAbpfn9QgGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BAbpfn9QgGA[/video]

 

[Modifier]

Evolutionists (not Darwinists) do not explain appropriate conditions as having created living things. Appropriate conditions allow some changes (mutations) to succeed and others to fail. The continued success of lifeforms whose random mutations are not deleterious is what gives us the fossil record we see. Mutations that are unhelpful but not deleterious may remain in the DNA, and might even be found helpful when conditions change again.

It is not true that each set of conditions need a creator to place an appropriate lifeform in them. These lifeforms show developmental and genetic precursors in previous periods lifeforms.

I agree on some but disagree with other points e.g: Fossil record is not proof for anything ( http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740277-fossils-proof-of-evolution/?p=1270775)
And unhelpful mutations would be eliminated by natural selection (Evolution basics)

 

[dryhands]

What makes you think god is greater than we could understand, or that he wouldn't provide us with a method to understand what he has done? How do you know he is infinite

Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

why do you think it doesn't make sense for him to do something in a finite way - couldn't he chose to do whatever he wanted (making sense to us isn't a criteria in his methodology).

I don't mean to say that he wouldn't; only that out of infinity it's improbable he would use an explicable means. Not impossible, but improbable.

 

[liamstrain]

I agree on some but disagree with other points e.g: Fossil record is not proof for anything ( http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740277-fossils-proof-of-evolution/?p=1270775)
And unhelpful mutations would be eliminated by natural selection (Evolution basics)

Fossils alone are not proof. But when combined with modern observations, geologic data, historical records (where appropriate), dna/genetic data and other evidences - the sum and abundance of consistent and testable evidence is proof. No one part.

Unhelpful mutations but that are not harmful, would be ignored by natural selection pressures.

 

[liamstrain]

Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

So, somebody (Probably a 6th century BC babylonian, not Isaiah - who wrote 40-55) wrote something about god, supposedly told by god. Where is the test to know if it is true? Note: You cannot use the bible to support the truth of statements in the bible. Circular reasoning. With that said, thank you for trying to answer the question better. You believe what you believe because the bible says so, or some variation of that, yes?

I don't mean to say that he wouldn't; only that out of infinity it's improbable he would use an explicable means. Not impossible, but improbable.

You stated that you think it is beyond our ability to understand anything about god. Given that, I don't think you can ascribe any probability to anything about the methods he might chose. I would like to think that he'd provide his favorite species with the tools to understand the world they live in, for their benefit and to his glory ... but that's just me.

 

[Modifier]

Fossils alone are not proof. But when combined with modern observations, geologic data, historical records (where appropriate), dna/genetic data and other evidences - the sum and abundance of consistent and testable evidence is proof. No one part.

Unhelpful mutations but that are not harmful, would be ignored by natural selection pressures.

1- Modern observations has nothing to do with darwinism, but"change in frequencies of alleles" which we agree upon .
2- the creature with unhelpful/harmful mutations is not the fittest (basics)

 

[Klok]

I agree on some but disagree with other points e.g: Fossil record is not proof for anything ( http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740277-fossils-proof-of-evolution/?p=1270775)
And unhelpful mutations would be eliminated by natural selection (Evolution basics)

Am I messing something in the link? I see a weak strawman "The argument from similarity as evidence for relatedness is a dead end"
or how about this
"No real evolutionist, whether gradualistic or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution over special creation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

*lets add in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA

 

[sideways]

Dawkins debunk the first Myth which was debunked :
[video]

Let me translate that for you.

AronRa said: God and Evolution are compatible. Many religious people see evolution as gods handiwork.

Dawkins says: The incompatibility lies between Christianity and evolution. *NOT God and Evolution

 

[liamstrain]

1- Modern observations has nothing to do with darwinism, but"change in frequencies of alleles" which we agree upon .
2- the creature with unhelpful/harmful mutations is not the fittest (basics)

unhelpful =/= harmful. Unhelpful means no advantage, not a disadvantage. If it does not interfere with the odds of reproduction, it is not a factor in evolution.

Modern observations do have something to do with evolution. There are ring species we can observe now that demonstrate change in speciation, and Italian wall lizards evolving entirely different digestive systems (and no longer able to breed with their grandparents, and other contemporary wall lizards) they are so changed, even within a 30 year span. These are examples of so called "macro" evolution in process, observable and testable.

If you mean something else by "darwinism", you'll have to explain what you mean. Speciation (a change beyond mere "in-kind") has commonly been the bar to demonstrate, and that is easily and frequently done. If you are expecting to see a bird mutate into a crocodile for your demonstrations of intermediate forms, you are misunderstanding ... well... everything.

 

[stabman]

1- Modern observations has nothing to do with darwinism, but"change in frequencies of alleles" which we agree upon .
2- the creature with unhelpful/harmful mutations is not the fittest (basics)

1) Quit using the "Darwinist" label; it is not a religion, and he is not the god of evolution.
2) It is not about "fittest" (get that concept out of your head and stomp it to death); it is about reproductive success. Viable offspring that breed themselves. That...is...it.

 

[Chris Pierce]

I agree on some but disagree with other points e.g: Fossil record is not proof for anything ( http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740277-fossils-proof-of-evolution/?p=1270775)
And unhelpful mutations would be eliminated by natural selection (Evolution basics)

I have to argue this as well. Unhelpful is not hurtful. If an attribute is neutral there is no "pressure" for for it to change.



On another note, can some one explain different ethnic groups of people to me? If Adam and Eve were the first (and only?) people then how do we end up with all of these different ethnic groups?

I guess it's besides the point anyway, since the Bible (if taken literally) actually describes two "creation of man" stories. One where Elohim creates man and woman, and another where Jehovah creates Adam and the Eve. Who is to say that when Elohim created man and woman, it wasn't vast groups of them in every different ethnic group? And Adam and Eve were created as some sort of special people to be tested?


But than again, I don't think that the Bible (especially Genesis) is to be taken literally. And science has proven that it should not be. Not to say that the story is useless.

 

[Modifier]

unhelpful =/= harmful. Unhelpful means no advantage, not a disadvantage. If it does not interfere with the odds of reproduction, it is not a factor in evolution.

Modern observations do have something to do with evolution. There are ring species we can observe now that demonstrate change in speciation, and Italian wall lizards evolving entirely different digestive systems (and no longer able to breed with their grandparents, and other contemporary wall lizards) they are so changed, even within a 30 year span. These are examples of so called "macro" evolution in process, observable and testable.

If you mean something else by "darwinism", you'll have to explain what you mean. Speciation (a change beyond mere "in-kind") has commonly been the bar to demonstrate, and that is easily and frequently done. If you are expecting to see a bird mutate into a crocodile for your demonstrations of intermediate forms, you are misunderstanding ... well... everything.

I have no problem with speciation. My problem is the use undeniable examples of 'change over time' to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

 

[liamstrain]

So, how far back do you accept? A common ancestor with other apes (speciation through arti and lucy up to modern man)? What about back to other mammals? the rRNA Phylogenetic tree is pretty well supported. Unless god wanted to just make it LOOK like we have a common ancestor with every living thing, it's pretty strong evidence.

 

[Klok]

So, how far back do you accept? A common ancestor with other apes (speciation through arti and lucy up to modern man)? What about back to other mammals? the rRNA Phylogenetic tree is pretty well supported. Unless god wanted to just make it LOOK like we have a common ancestor with every living thing, it's pretty strong evidence.

Aronra being Aronra
[youtube]_r0zpk0lPFU[/youtube]

[youtube]ANtpsunRYIs[/youtube]

 

[dryhands]

You believe what you believe because the bible says so, or some variation of that, yes?

I believe the bible as a whole is true. 2 timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" I suppose you want my reasoning for believing the bible?

You stated that you think it is beyond our ability to understand anything about god. Given that, I don't think you can ascribe any probability to anything about the methods he might chose. I would like to think that he'd provide his favorite species with the tools to understand the world they live in, for their benefit and to his glory ... but that's just me.

I don't think it's beyond our ability to understand anything about God. I believe that some things he reveals and some just like 9/11 we simply cannot understand; there is a purpose behind why that and other bad things happen or God, because he is absolutely just, would stop them. I'm not saying we cannot know specifically how he made us but that he might choose to show us he might not.