Does this website prove Creationism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2011, 02:34 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(19-07-2011 12:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  I noted BC used the terms "macro evolution" and "micro evolution". I've heard these phrases used a lot, usually by creationists who accept one and deny the other. That got me thinking: is there any real difference between the two? As I understand it, evolution is evolution. Creationists claim that one species can't turn into another but that changes within a species can obviously occur because we can see it. But, isn't this just really an issue of timing? Obviously a tree is not turning into a dog but no one has ever claimed that to be the case. The claim is that there is a common ancestor between the tree and the dog and, at some point, there was a divergence. The divergence at the time was a micro-evolution within a species. Over millions of years as the now two species continued to evolve on separate paths did one turn into a tree and one turn into a dog. But, they did this through the same process that creationists, and I guess Buddy Christ, call "micro evolution".

Maybe I'm wrong here but I just can't seem to wrap my head around the idea of degrees of natural selection. As I see it, the difference between macro and micro evolution is just the amount of time you've got to stand around and watch it happen.

I addressed them as separate terms because creationists insist on separating them and claiming one is possible and one is not.

I'm too jacked up on NyQuil to form coherent sentences, so here are some pics that have been posted before.

[Image: the+difference+between+micro+and+macro+evolution.jpg]


[Image: macro-vs-microevolution.jpg]

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2011, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2011 03:13 PM by angry_liberal.)
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
From the creationists I have spoken to, "micro-evolution" means a change of skin colour or a change in size or perhaps behaviour. Many creationists now accept those sort of things happen.

By "macro-evolution" they mean sprouting wings or the invention of kidneys. I guess this is why we like the panda's thumb - it shows how a "new organ" can evolve from "old organs"! I guess it would be cool to have a diagram of the human body and show the evolutionary history of every organ.

I seem to remember Dawkins debating with someone on this point (possibly on Revelation TV). He was trying to explain the evolution of the eye and if I remember the interviewer tried a switch: "Bacteria don't have kidneys. So how did kidneys evolve?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2011, 11:14 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(19-07-2011 12:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  I noted BC used the terms "macro evolution" and "micro evolution". I've heard these phrases used a lot, usually by creationists who accept one and deny the other. That got me thinking: is there any real difference between the two?
Microevolution is just another term for natural selection. Members of a species that are better suited for their environment survive and reproduce while others don't. Over time this process can produce individuals that differ greatly in appearance from their ancestors. You can see evidence of this in the different breeds of dogs that all came from a common ancestor. But the individuals who survive don't have any genetic information that wasn't in their ancestors.

Macroevolution is the belief that all life originated from a single celled organism. For this to happen it would be necessary for information not present in the original organism to be brought into existence. This kind of evolution has never been observed.

You can find a more detailed explanation of the differences here:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

God's invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2011, 11:30 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(20-07-2011 11:14 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(19-07-2011 12:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  I noted BC used the terms "macro evolution" and "micro evolution". I've heard these phrases used a lot, usually by creationists who accept one and deny the other. That got me thinking: is there any real difference between the two?
Microevolution is just another term for natural selection. Members of a species that are better suited for their environment survive and reproduce while others don't. Over time this process can produce individuals that differ greatly in appearance from their ancestors. You can see evidence of this in the different breeds of dogs that all came from a common ancestor. But the individuals who survive don't have any genetic information that wasn't in their ancestors.

Macroevolution is the belief that all life originated from a single celled organism. For this to happen it would be necessary for information not present in the original organism to be brought into existence. This kind of evolution has never been observed.

You can find a more detailed explanation of the differences here:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

This is what I find amusing about creationists, they think if they prove evolution wrong, then creationism must be right be default. Of course this is not the case, I use this analogy with creationists who work so hard to disprove evolution.

I have an object hidden in a box. There is no way for you to open the box. I tell you the object in the box is NOT orange. I then ask you to tell me the color of the object in the box. Obviously you cannot tell me it's red or purple or yellow, all you can say is that the object is not orange.

Anyways, don't give me that "I'm just being scientific is all... I just know there are problems with evolution...". Why are you so against that and not, let's say, gravity... god makes no mention of gravity in the bible, so why should you believe what scientists say about it?

I'm just totally sick of this irrational attack of a well documented and supported theory on the grounds it doesn't jive with your bible. Give me VIABLE and PEER REVIEWED evidence that evolution is not correct, and then I'll listen.

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2011, 11:48 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(20-07-2011 11:14 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(19-07-2011 12:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  I noted BC used the terms "macro evolution" and "micro evolution". I've heard these phrases used a lot, usually by creationists who accept one and deny the other. That got me thinking: is there any real difference between the two?
Microevolution is just another term for natural selection. Members of a species that are better suited for their environment survive and reproduce while others don't. Over time this process can produce individuals that differ greatly in appearance from their ancestors. You can see evidence of this in the different breeds of dogs that all came from a common ancestor. But the individuals who survive don't have any genetic information that wasn't in their ancestors.

Macroevolution is the belief that all life originated from a single celled organism. For this to happen it would be necessary for information not present in the original organism to be brought into existence. This kind of evolution has never been observed.

You can find a more detailed explanation of the differences here:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

If DNA can originate in the first place then I think evolution can increase the amount of codons in its sequence.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 11:19 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(20-07-2011 11:30 AM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  This is what I find amusing about creationists, they think if they prove evolution wrong, then creationism must be right be default. Of course this is not the case, I use this analogy with creationists who work so hard to disprove evolution.
Perhaps disproving evolution wouldn't prove that creation is true but it might make people willing to examine the evidence to see if it can be supported scientifically.

Quote:I'm just totally sick of this irrational attack of a well documented and supported theory on the grounds it doesn't jive with your bible. Give me VIABLE and PEER REVIEWED evidence that evolution is not correct, and then I'll listen.
Have you ever considered the possibilty that peer review can also act as a form of censorship? If all of those doing the reviewing believe in evolution they are in a position to suppress any evidence that would contradict their beliefs.

If you check the site I linked to in my previous post you will see that belief in the Bible isn't the only reason for rejecting evolution. There is scientific evidence against it as well. Why don't you examine the evidence for yourself instead of just believing what others tell you is true?

(20-07-2011 11:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If DNA can originate in the first place then I think evolution can increase the amount of codons in its sequence.
But can dna originate by itself? And is their any scientific evidence for your belief that the amount of codons can be increased by evolution?

God's invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 12:40 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
I actually did check your website, and it wasn't very good.

Here are some issues I noted that highlight an obvious misunderstanding of evolution

Quote:This new race of people will probably have other distinguishing characteristics that result from this ruthless selection process because one gene often has several effects, and other genes might be lost in the selection process, too. A new race of people will have evolved through the process of microevolution.

This is a poor example of micro evolution. 'Races' of people don't evolve, and a few generations of brown eyed people would not make a 'race' either. To be honest many anthropologists reject the idea of 'races' to begin with.

Quote:One can breed a race of blue-eyed people by removing all the brown-eye genes from the gene pool. One can't breed a race of blue-haired people, though, because there isn't any blue-hair gene already existing in the population. Acquiring a totally new feature, like blue hair, requires new genes. Since microevolution is the process of losing genes, it cannot produce any new features.

Micro evolution is not the process of losing genes, I'm not sure who gave them that idea but it's wrong. Also, it fails to mention such things like mutations, which is a driving force in evolution over a periods of millions of years. Take the frog for example. Suppose through a mutation a fish gets nubs for legs as well as fins, these leg nubs allow then to somewhat navigate on land allowing them to get more food, therefore a higher chance of survival. So this nub legged fish meets another fish with the same condition, their kids might inherent their traits, with mother nature continually favoring the fish that grew longer legs.

Micro evolution on a long long long long time scale leads to macro evolution, it not only has loads of evidence, but it's a naturally logical conclusion.

I don't even want to comment on the mutations section... it doesn't even pretend to be right, I will allow someone with more patience to open that can of worms.


Anyways, I'm just telling you I read your source, critically a few times, and I even fact checked it. What concerns me is there is no author, no evidence to back this up or even studies, it's all just speculation.

As for your comment about peer review... to me that sounds like you are grasping at straws, science thrives on new ideas and practices with new data and concepts constantly being added. Sure some studies may have bias, but to have an OVERWHELMING majority of scientists, who are biologists themselves, support this idea, I think it might have some credence.

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 01:13 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
TheBeardedDude Wrote:
"If DNA can originate in the first place then I think evolution can increase the amount of codons in its sequence."
Theophilus
"But can dna originate by itself? And is their any scientific evidence for your belief that the amount of codons can be increased by evolution?"

I should have been more explicit in my explanation but I am afraid it will all be wasted time. First we need to separate the two points in my original statement. The first is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. The second is the theory of evolution as it pertains to DNA and codons. Abiogenesis proposes several scenarios that life could have hypothetically originated from. My personal favorite is life originating in deep sea hydrothermal vents but others include Miller-Ureys hypothesis and the building blocks of life originating from a celestial object that crashed into Earth (a meteorite with amino acids and/or proteins). The last idea is not really a solution to the origin of life, just how it came to Earth. This seems less likely to me because these amino acids and proteins would have to survive the extreme heat generated by impact. Miller and Urey's experiments sought to produce simple amino acids in a hypothetical primordial soup. They did successfully create amino acids by introducing electrical currents in their "soup" (simulating lighting strikes). The problem is that they used ammonia as their source of nitrogen and most experts now agree that the "soup" they used is most likely not representative of early Earth conditions. My personal favorite of the possibilities is the formation of amino acids-proteins-self-replicating RNA-DNA in deep sea hydrothermal vents. In these conditions there is an abundance of nutrients and energy (the two key ingredients in producing the first amino acids). DNA is NOT the first thing produced nor is the first "life" on the planet DNA life. It is much more likely that the first instance of a self-replicating series of amino acids and proteins we would call the first life on Earth was more like a virus than anything else (meaning it is RNA life). Therefore in this scenario this RNA organism continues to replicate itself over...and over...and over...and as it does it will sometimes produce "mistakes" in replicating its RNA. These transcription errors will add or subtract information away from the overall strand of RNA. (ex. my original code is 12345 and I replicate this code 10 times. Most of the time I will produce the same code in the same order but sometimes I will produce 122354 or 1245. In doing so I have effectively increased the amount of codons in the sequence). Over BILLIONS of years this RNA lifeform will have evolved into DNA life with substantially more information and then HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS LATER the first Eukaryotic cell is produced (which is probably nothing more than a symbiotic relationship between bacteria but that is another topic). And then HUNDRES OF MILLIONS OF YEARS LATER we produce the first macroinvertebrates (like arthropods). All the while natural selection is weeding out the useless and the organisms that are better suited at survival reproduce more and more often perpetuating their genes throughout the population. So in short. "can dna originate by itself?" RNA could potentially originate from amino acids generated at deep sea hydrothermal vents giving rise to DNA. "And is their any scientific evidence for your belief that the amount of codons can be increased by evolution?" Yes. I have only given one example but viruses can insert portions of DNA into its host organism. Errors can occur during meiosis that increases the number of chromosomes. Mutations are extremely common at the DNA level.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 02:14 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
I looked at the site too and was hoping to find some actual science to back up their claims. I didn't see any, though. I saw a lot of speculation and attempts to poke holes in the evolution with some dimwitted arguments that can be fairly easily refuted but nothing that was actual science. No explanations for the fossil record, no explanations for the mutations that we see occur, etc. I would think a site claiming to be a scientific alternative would address the actual science of evidence and try to show why the conclusions were wrong. None of that was there, though, which, in my mind, makes the site fairly easy to dismiss.

BeardedDued - question for you. You said the following:

Quote:Miller and Urey's experiments sought to produce simple amino acids in a hypothetical primordial soup. They did successfully create amino acids by introducing electrical currents in their "soup" (simulating lighting strikes). The problem is that they used ammonia as their source of nitrogen and most experts now agree that the "soup" they used is most likely not representative of early Earth conditions.

Does it really matter if they did not replicate the exact conditions, though? Was the point of the experiment to recreate abiogenesis as it most likely occurred on Earth, but is that really necessary? Isn't the point that they were able to create life from non-life? I realize you want to get it as close to the original conditions as possible, but you can never say with exact certainty that you've done that, so you open the door to countless doubts and debates. I would think and correct me if I'm wrong here, that the point would be to prove you can create early primitive life where non-existed. The other way you just get into an argument equivalent to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Just curious as to why you need to try to recreate the exact conditions.

You said you work in a lab, are you a biologist?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2011, 02:41 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(21-07-2011 02:14 PM)BnW Wrote:  I looked at the site too and was hoping to find some actual science to back up their claims. I didn't see any, though. I saw a lot of speculation and attempts to poke holes in the evolution with some dimwitted arguments that can be fairly easily refuted but nothing that was actual science. No explanations for the fossil record, no explanations for the mutations that we see occur, etc. I would think a site claiming to be a scientific alternative would address the actual science of evidence and try to show why the conclusions were wrong. None of that was there, though, which, in my mind, makes the site fairly easy to dismiss.

BeardedDued - question for you. You said the following:

Quote:Miller and Urey's experiments sought to produce simple amino acids in a hypothetical primordial soup. They did successfully create amino acids by introducing electrical currents in their "soup" (simulating lighting strikes). The problem is that they used ammonia as their source of nitrogen and most experts now agree that the "soup" they used is most likely not representative of early Earth conditions.

Does it really matter if they did not replicate the exact conditions, though? Was the point of the experiment to recreate abiogenesis as it most likely occurred on Earth, but is that really necessary? Isn't the point that they were able to create life from non-life? I realize you want to get it as close to the original conditions as possible, but you can never say with exact certainty that you've done that, so you open the door to countless doubts and debates. I would think and correct me if I'm wrong here, that the point would be to prove you can create early primitive life where non-existed. The other way you just get into an argument equivalent to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Just curious as to why you need to try to recreate the exact conditions.

You said you work in a lab, are you a biologist?

In this case it is important because it changes the fundamental composition of the substance they were trying to produce amino acids in. They did not create life, only amino acids. The purpose of the ammonia was a nitrogen source but that no longer seems to be the most likely state that nitrogen was in. This is also important because it changes how the molecules act and react to external stimuli. Another key point about their experiment is that it was not able to be replicated. This has led to some serious speculation about its validity. So while it is important that they may have been able to form amino acids it is equally as important that conditions were not representative of the conditions we think existed at that time.

I am a graduate student doing research in paleontology/geochemistry.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: