Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!

[Chris Pierce]

I know this is offtopic,like the few posts above, but as an Advice from a muslim: Never try to please creature by denying Part from the truth. Just Please the creator and You don't need to "apologize" For God.

I'm still trying to figure out what it is that God is telling me! Then I can work on doing what I'm told.

 

[recon1s14]

I doubt you are the minority man, I believe the same way, I think we are the unspoken group of people, the kind that doesn't force their beliefs on others but still accepts that everyone believes differently or has different points of view. Without judgment.

I tend to believe what makes sense the most, I believe the Bible, and I believe in Evolution, I believe neither one contradict themselves but both explain and support each other, and I think Science is the key to fill in the missing pieces that the Bible leaves out, Ephesians 3:9 "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Christ Jesus".

I can see that Adaptation in living things is evident even today, i.e. a Labrador is adapted to swim, and has webbed feet. And I think that this is the evidence that supports Evolution.

I think there's a whole lot of mystery out there, and I think God left it up to us to find the mysteries and reveal them, and I think it is fear that drives people to believe the Bible has all the answers, fear of the unknown. I like the mystery, and the thought of life after death being perfect, is IMO boring. And the thought that a supreme loving God would give the choice of either eternal life or eternal death to his children, then allow them to live in a world with both good and evil, makes no sense to me.

I think there's more to it and I'm gonna find out!

 

[Insipid Moniker]

I agree on the bolded part completely and want to know what is the evidence for darwinism that convince you ?

There's a bunch, but the fact that endogenous retroviruses are inherited in a manner completely consistent with Darwinian models is a good start.

 

[Modifier]

There's a bunch, but the fact that endogenous retroviruses are inherited in a manner completely consistent with Darwinian models is a good start.

There is no ERV, There is ERVS,named so because of similar repeats, which is different.
Read this:
http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740312-endogenous-retroviral-sequences-ervs-poof-of-evolution/

 

[Insipid Moniker]

There is no ERV, There is ERVS,named so because of similar repeats, which is different.
Read this:
http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740312-endogenous-retroviral-sequences-ervs-poof-of-evolution/

Yeah, I'm gonna trust the virologists and microbiologists on this one over your website, sorry.

 

[Chris Pierce]

Disease Germs

For numerous communicable diseases, the only known “reservoir” is man. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. Was it Adam or Eve who was created with gonorrhea? How about syphilis? The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, where the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every one of these diseases. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's Ark.

Note that the argument covers every disease germ or virus which can survive only in a specific host. But even if the Ark was a floating pesthouse, few of these diseases could have survived. In most cases, only two animals of each “kind” are supposed to have been on the Ark. Suppose the male of such a pair came down with such a disease shortly after the Ark embarked. He recovered, but passed the disease to his mate. She recovered, too, but had no other animal to pass the disease to, for the male was now immune. Every disease for which this cycle lasts less than a year should therefore have become extinct!

Creationists can't pin the blame for germs on Satan. If they do, the immediate question is: How do we know Satan didn't create the rest of the universe? That has frequently been proposed, and if Satan can create one thing, he can create another. If a creationist tries to claim germs are mutations of otherwise benign organisms (degenerate forms, of course), he will actually be arguing for evolution. Such hypothetical mutations could only be considered favorable, since only the mutated forms survived.

I posted this on page one, but I thought that I'd ask again since no one had responded.
I know that the author of this is obviously very biased against Creationism, and while I don't approve of his tone, he brings up a very good point. Will some one who believes in Creationism please explain to me how communicable diseases exist?

 

[Modifier]

Yeah, I'm gonna trust the virologists and microbiologists on this one over your website, sorry.

Reference for the given link above:
Conley, A.B., Piriyapongsa, J. and Jordan, I.K., "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics 24(14):1563, 2008. Back to text
"Ancient Retroviruses Spurred Evolution Of Gene Regulatory Networks In Humans And Other Primates," ScienceDaily, University of California - Santa Cruz, Nov. 15, 2007. http://www.physorg.com/news114266805.html Back to text
Conley, A.B., Piriyapongsa, J. and Jordan, I.K., Reference 1. Back to text
"Ancient Retroviruses Spurred Evolution Of Gene Regulatory Networks In Humans And Other Primates," ScienceDaily, University of California - Santa Cruz, Nov. 15, 2007. http://www.physorg.com/news114266805.html Back to text
Ting Wang, Jue Zeng, Craig B. Lowe, Robert G. Sellers, Sofie R. Salama, Min Yang, Shawn M. Burgess, Rainer K. Brachmann, and David Haussler, edited by Eric H. Davidson, "Species-specific endogenous retroviruses shape the transcriptional network of the human tumor suppressor protein p53," PNAS, November 20, 2007 vol. 104 no. 47 18613-18618. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/47/18613 Back to text
Wolfgang Seifarth, Oliver Frank, Udo Zeilfelder, Birgit Spiess, Alex D. Greenwood, Rüdiger Hehlmann, and Christine Leib-Mösch (author contributions), "Comprehensive Analysis of Human Endogenous Retrovirus Transcriptional Activity in Human Tissues with a Retrovirus-Specific Microarray," Journal of Virology, January 2005 vol. 79 no. 1 341-352. http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/341 Back to text
Mattick, J., cited in: Gibbs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk,” Scientific American, 289(5):26–33, November 2003; pp. 29–30. Back to text
Reproductive and Cardiovascular Disease Research Group. http://www.sgul.ac.uk/depts/immunology/~dash/apoptosis/ Back to text
Nature, May 27, 2004, pp. 382-388. Back to text
New Scientist News Service 23 September 2002. Back to text
The Washington Post, Monday, September 30, 2002, A7. Back to text
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1617120 Back to text
Gregory J. Baillie and Richard J. Wilkins, "Endogenous Type D Retrovirus in a Marsupial, the Common Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula)," Journal of Virology, March 2001 vol. 75 no. 5 2499-2507. http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/75/5/2499 Back to text
Robin A Weiss, "The discovery of endogenous retroviruses," Retrovirology, 2006; 3: 67. Published online 2006 October 3. doi: 10.1186/1742-4690-3-67. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1617120 Back to text
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/biot.2006.1.4.357 (The quote seems to have dissapeared since we first took it from this address. If anyone knows where it went, don't hesitate to contact us.) Back to text
Gimenez J, Mallet F., "ERVWE1 (Endogenous Retroviral family W, Env(C7), member 1)," Atlas Genet Cytogenet Oncol Haematol, September 2007. http://AtlasGeneticsOncology.org/Genes/ERVWE1ID40497ch7q21.html Back to text
Jennifer F. Hughes and John M. Coffin, "Human Endogenous Retroviral Elements as Indicators of Ectopic Recombination Events in the Primate Genome," Genetics, November 2005 vol. 171 no. 3 1183-1194. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/171/3/1183 Back to text
Hughes JF, Coffin JM, "Evidence for genomic rearrangements mediated by human endogenous retroviruses during primate evolution," Nature Genetics, 2001 Dec;29(4):487-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Back to text
C. Vitte and O. Panaud, "Formation of Solo-LTRs Through Unequal Homologous Recombination Counterbalances Amplifications of LTR Retrotransposons in Rice Oryza sativa L.," Molecular Biology and Evolution (2003) 20 (4): 528-540. First published online: March 5, 2003. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/4/528

 

[Modifier]

I posted this on page one, but I thought that I'd ask again since no one had responded.
I know that the author of this is obviously very biased against Creationism, and while I don't approve of his tone, he brings up a very good point. Will some one who believes in Creationism please explain to me how communicable diseases exist?

You brought this very imp. point to my attention. That mean that organisms for which human is an obligatory reservoir were created AFTER human ??!!

 

[RetiredGuns]

Which also brings up another question. One might ask why evolution has not kicked the common cold's ass by now? At this point we ought be be damn near perfect!

 

[stabman]

Which also brings up another question. One might ask why evolution has not kicked the common cold's ass by now? At this point we ought be be damn near perfect!

Evolutionarily/biologically it doesn't matter if you die once you've passed on your genes, which means most people could be dead by mid-30's with no issues.
Evolution is not a march to perfection. There is no guiding force...it just is.

By the way, I'm biologically irrelevant as both me and my wife have chosen to opt out of the breeding game. So there you go, no further evolution will be occurring due to me.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

It looks like significantly more than half of the articles you're citing do not support the main thesis of your link.

 

[stabman]

I also find the emphasis on belief to be quite telling. To me, belief is irrelevant. There is just that which is, and it persists whether I (or any of you) believe in it or not.

 

[RetiredGuns]

..Evolution is not a march to perfection. There is no guiding force...it just is.

But it is described as development and (usually) to a more complex or "better" form.

 

[stabman]

But it is described as development and (usually) to a more complex or "better" form.

It's described that way by some, but it is purely about breeding/survival success.

If an uglier, dumber animal somehow was more successful at producing viable offspring which also had breeding succes, then that's the way evolution would blindly select for.

 

[shunsui]

I'm still trying to figure out what it is that God is telling me! Then I can work on doing what I'm told.

If God wants us to do a thing, He should make his wishes sufficiently clear. Sensible people will wait till He has done this before paying much attention to Him.

Samuel Butler (1835-1902)

 

[Chris Pierce]

You brought this very imp. point to my attention. That mean that organisms for which human is an obligatory reservoir were created AFTER human ??!!

That's the only thing that makes sense. Just like the Earth was created before humans. The animals that need to live on humans were created after humans.

 

[Klok]

Artificial selection is usually a much easier concept for most people to swallow.
and is much harder to dispute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVSJNhUhV-4 Carl Sagan on artificial selection

if you can't tell I am something of a fan of Carl Sagon and hope others will at least give him a watch, in the same way I would recommend star wars, Code Geass r1 and the first two mass effects before EA took a mess on it.

 

[Chris Pierce]

Klok. That's a perfect example of selection. I don't think that anyone can disagree with it. It's the same way that we can start with wild dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc and end up with shih tzus, schnauzers etc etc.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

But it is described as development and (usually) to a more complex or "better" form.

One of the most serious problems we have in discussing Bible and science or creationism and evolution, is that so many people are using the comic book definitions. You cannot rely on two-dimensional thinking. Reality is complex.

Here's an example, from "punctuated equilibrium". Science sees stability in life forms over long periods of time. Suddenly new forums arise with no transitional forms in sight. How can this be?

Over the long period of time, the environment was stable, there was no pressure on life forms, so the existing forms continued to thrive. Except on the fringes, in corners of the overall environment where variants of the basic species encountered conditions to harsh to survive, except for a few with different characteristics that allowed them to thrive -- and to speciate.

They didn't speciate in the original environment because most variants were so close to the basic original form that the new genetic pattern couldn't overwhelm it. But in the odd corner, or over the mountain, or at the ocean's edge, only a variant found that its new genetic package was successful.

When the old stable environment began to change, the new variant might even be the best adapted. In any case, it had become so in a small area, leaving few transitional forms to be found, and only became numerous when a large nearby area opened up to it.

At no time was any individual life form adapting to changes in the environment. But variation arises in every population, and eventually a small change is appropriate and more successful under changing conditions.

Evolution is not a process of improvement. Most evolution is just different and the differences don't matter. When a difference arises that is more effective, it may replace the older standard. When a difference arises that is less effective, it may still replace or live alongside another variant as long as the environment is benign enough for it also to thrive.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

For those with time to read it, I offer a classic essay, Nonoverlapping Magisteria, by Stephen Jay Gould. I remember reading it in Natural History magazine in March 1997 and was happy to find it available online. It explores this very difficult confrontation between science and faith by pointing out why we do not need to see confrontation as conflict, or support one position by disparaging the other.

Gould's biography gives his background in science and culture, explaining some of the points in the essay.

He was one of my favorite writers. I read his column in Natural History as soon as my subscription arrived. Unfortunately, he only survived about 5 years after he wrote this. If you don't read the entire essay, you might scroll down to the postscript at the bottom, a tribute to his friend, Carl Sagan.

It makes me obscurely happy when I see or hear about someone reading Gould. I also really like the writing he did about baseball.