Can we talk Creationism?

[hubs97xj]

Something I've not seen anyone mention yet, which falls into this same discussion, I think- which god or gods you believe in depends largely on where you're born, and to whom (and when, I suppose), while evolution is pretty much the same round the world. So even among creationists, there would seem to be some disagreement with regards to who that intelligent designer is. It seems most folks here are Judeo-Christian, but a Muslim, Hindu, etc might have a different perspective, even if he also considered himself a creationist. Some folks convert from one faith to another as one set of beliefs is favored more than a previous set, which only complicates things further- there's still nothing in the way of (empirical, perhaps is the correct word?) evidence, as it boils down to a faith that can be very fluid depending upon the individual. Evolution though, you do have physical evidence, and you either believe it, or you don't- there aren't really parallel theories, at least that I'm familiar with.

That point has been made in atheism/monotheism/polytheism discussions (simplified, which god(s) is(are) the one true god(s)?), but that just clicked watching another clip of Dawkins during a lecture, as I realized I'd read that not so long ago as well.

Similar discussions among other groups that I've participated in haven't been nearly this civilized after the first few minutes- I'm pleasantly surprised at this one.

 

[Rod Knee]

My dominant gene discourse is simplified, but the basic is, Brown eyes dominant. Or put another way, my two Jack Russels had pups, female white with black spots, male white with brown spots, all of the pups were white with brown spots. Enough pups and it's likely there would be one white with black spots, because the two dogs come from a likely similar linage.
My analogy with the 727 (which isn't mine) is just to illustrate the likelihood of any mutation as being beneficial. Mutations are much more likely to be terminal.
My point being DNA "is the plan" and much if any deviation is more likely to be negative (or benign) than positive. I have an acquaintance with double thick skin and no sweat glands. She has six kids all with normal skin. What are the chances of her condition being a mutation, her father has the same thing, and being dominant (nobody on her mothers side has this condition) (brown spots) accidentally, her father was born a thousand miles from her mother? Just about the same odds as being born with no cell walls and looking like a jelly fish. Obviously a recessive or recent (where did it come from?) anomaly, that is less frequent in the population than average skin thickness and sweat glands. Unless her children or children's children interbreed, what are the odds of this condition showing up again, where did it come from in the first place?
Research animal husbandry a bit, the main reason they clone desirable animals, is because beneficial traits require many generations to breed true (repeat themselves with any regularity), even under controlled conditions.

Nothing much there for me to dispute. I will point out though that deleterious recessive genes have a way of persisting in the gene pool because they can be carried by indivduals without phenotypical (physical) expresion, and are therefore not vigorously selected against. That relationship may apply to the description you've given there. Also, I think I'd refer to DNA as genetic raw material rather than a plan.

 

[relyt]

I'm extremely surprised at how civil this discussion has been. I've seen many similar topics on many different types of internet forums, and they all end with a couple people calling each other names that I'd not repeat in front of my parents. For that, I have to commend my fellow XJers.

 

[GoSlowGetStuck]

I'm extremely surprised at how civil this discussion has been. I've seen many similar topics on many different types of internet forums, and they all end with a couple people calling each other names that I'd not repeat in front of my parents. For that, I have to commend my fellow XJers.

I was just getting ready to write something similar. Most civil discussion ever. This is blazing a new path for discussion on Internet forums. Maybe we are evolving.

 

[kdailey4315]

Science isn't trying to take your religion. Science is only trying to say that Creationism isn't based on science, it's based on theology. That's part of the issue with teaching it in school. It doesn't hold to the same scientific principles that evolution does. Plus, it's solely religious in nature. Separation of religion and state and all that.

I never said that evolutionist are taking my religion. All I was pointing out is that I don't understand why there is such zealousness in disproving the existence of God. It is a faith and by definition faith is belief in something that can not be proven thus the very belief in faith is admitting that your God can not be proven. I'm ok with that and I understand that there are people who believe the exact opposite of me. I see it in church every Sunday and honestly I despise people that thrust my religion in other people's faces and proclaim it's the "only" way to live and the only thing to believe in. I never see evolutionist as taking my religion but as merely an opposing view point.

 

[8Mud]

Nothing much there for me to dispute. I will point out though that deleterious recessive genes have a way of persisting in the gene pool because they can be carried by indivduals without phenotypical (physical) expresion, and are therefore not vigorously selected against. That relationship may apply to the description you've given there. Also, I think I'd refer to DNA as genetic raw material rather than a plan.

I've never done the math, but it seems plausible deleterious genes and hybrid vigor would cancel each other out? If we are talking pure chance or even change due to external influences.
The results IMO almost have to be skewed towards success in general or the whole exercise is self eliminating or the sum is stagnant.
As a mental exercise, go back to my 727 analogy, not only would the change have to be survivable, for it to be even a marginal improvement, the improvement would almost have to be from a stock of parts available (predisposed) for improvement, parts from a previous model are unlikely to fit or be an improvement. Random might be a stick from an apple tree, built into the landing gear or on a more subtle level, hydraulic fluid with a lower flash point.
IMO there are just to many things to go wrong for random to be an improvement on a complex structure, especially one that takes more than a decade to mature and reproduce.
The mass extinction event of 65 million years ago, using rough math would equate to roughly one body process change every 65 years in a human evolutionary example. Package changes, requiring many body processes to be changed would likely require many more years to manifest. For this to be a random process seems unlikely to me.
The math says to me, there would have to be multiple process changes happening in parallel, lowering the chances of success or even survivability. Unless DNA is a package with a plan and is programmed for success or at the very minimum has the parts already available for the abilities to adapt and thrive.

 

[bigalpha]

I've never done the math, but it seems plausible deleterious genes and hybrid vigor would cancel each other out? If we are talking pure chance or even change due to external influences.
The results IMO almost have to be skewed towards success in general or the whole exercise is self eliminating or the sum is stagnant.
As a mental exercise, go back to my 727 analogy, not only would the change have to be survivable, for it to be even a marginal improvement, the improvement would almost have to be from a stock of parts available (predisposed) for improvement, parts from a previous model are unlikely to fit or be an improvement. Random might be a stick from an apple tree, built into the landing gear or on a more subtle level, hydraulic fluid with a lower flash point.
IMO there are just to many things to go wrong for random to be an improvement on a complex structure, especially one that takes more than a decade to mature and reproduce.
The mass extinction event of 65 million years ago, using rough math would equate to roughly one body process change every 65 years in a human evolutionary example. Package changes, requiring many body processes to be changed would likely require many more years to manifest. For this to be a random process seems unlikely to me.
The math says to me, there would have to be multiple process changes happening in parallel, lowering the chances of success or even survivability. Unless DNA is a package with a plan and is programmed for success or at the very minimum has the parts already available for the abilities to adapt and thrive.

Let's say, humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor. Let's say that common ancestor was a small mammal. Now, that mammal has already evolved to have a brain, body parts, to function, etc. The biggest change that had to happen would be the changing of the physical structure. Bipedalism as opposed to walking on four legs (quadalism?).

It's very possible that due to environmental factors (berries in a tree), that ancestor would have needed to gain some height, and they did that by rearing up on two legs. Eventually, that creature would evolve (by various mechanisms) to eventually walk upright to get those berries.

Eventually, our brains evolved to reason and think; I think this is the main factor in humans evolving fairly quickly. This allowed us to live longer, be safer, acquire food faster/easier, etc. This brain essentially allowed us to be #1 in the world's food chain.

Don't forget that there were more than one population of humans scattered throughout the world. This would allow many more types of evolutionary steps to take place.

I agree, it's an incredible task. It's incredible to think that life (I believe we did) has evolved from a simple organism. Of course, there's no definitive proof of where the first 'life' came from. Some experiments have shown that given the correct combination (like what earth supposedly had in the beginning), basic 'life' can form spontaneously.

Also, regarding your comments about animal husbandry. If you have one parent who has a beneficial gene (let's say it's to make the coat brown); and that parent has 10 puppies, 2 of which have that gene. Then, those two have puppies, who have that gene. Later on down the line, one of those puppies meets a real nice puppy-ette with that gene, all their puppies will have brown coats. More non-brown dogs will die than brown dogs (due to the beneficial brown coat) and there will be more brown and less non-brown. More and more dogs would continue to have brown coats. There are, of course, many factors that influence this.

 

[Rod Knee]

Yes 8mud, improvements to an airplane would have to come from a predesigned part. No argument there. Airplanes don't have DNA, so mutation and selection in the Darwinian sense do not apply to your 747. However, with organisms darwinian evolution does apply and once again, the selection of beneficial mutations for retention in the gene pool that occurs is by definition non-random. Selection and random determination are opposites.

You can use all the math you want to model evolution but all you have to really do to document its tempo is to look at the fossil record. Mammal evolution/radiation occurring since the extinction event of 65 mya you referenced is very well calibrated by numerous volcanic ash layers that can be radiometrically dated to provide absolute age constraints on the fossil bearing strata that lie between them. Do you have a mathematical formula to address the extensive radiation of the mammals as they filled niches vacated by the extinctions that occurred when the dinosaurs where wiped out? How about an integration accounting for the effect of deforestation on human evolution? No? Then just use the fossil record like paleontologists do. Math is for accountants.

 

[bajabit]

You can't say evolution is a lie because finches don't turn into cows. That's not any sort of logic at all.

Exactly! That is what evolution is telling us. We came from monkeys, dinosours became birds, and everything came from a fish that walked out of the ocean? No logic at all. One species can't evolve from another. A species can adapt to changing conditions or mutate but not become another species.

 

[Darky]

Hmmm. I didn't even look before I responded. Talkorigins reason for existing is to debunk creationism!!!

Wow, well talk about not reading your sources...

The likelihood of everything evolving and getting us to where we are is still too small for me to consider.
Also, for the Intelligent Design that should be taught in schools, it's not concerned with who the Creator is, just that there is one. There are indeed non-religious types who believe in a creator, but aren't tied to any particular religion. I'd have to search to find them, but I've read of some of them and they're arguments. I.D. doesn't even necessarily have to preclude your evolution, but it sure would provide a highly logical explanation for where the nothing came from that exploded for no reason to cause all of this.

I had something else to say, but forgot. I'll let you know if I remember...

 

[Rod Knee]

Talkorigins was not my source. It was someone elses....yours.

I can't remember what I walked into a room for half the time, let alone what I was going to say, so don't feel like the lone stranger.

 

[bigalpha]

Wow, well talk about not reading your sources...

The likelihood of everything evolving and getting us to where we are is still too small for me to consider.
Also, for the Intelligent Design that should be taught in schools, it's not concerned with who the Creator is, just that there is one. There are indeed non-religious types who believe in a creator, but aren't tied to any particular religion. I'd have to search to find them, but I've read of some of them and they're arguments. I.D. doesn't even necessarily have to preclude your evolution, but it sure would provide a highly logical explanation for where the nothing came from that exploded for no reason to cause all of this.

I had something else to say, but forgot. I'll let you know if I remember...

The problem with teaching ID is that there is no scientific basis for it. There's no testable hypothesis. With evolution, there is. ID is not science, so it doesn't belong in science class.

 

[Rod Knee]

One species can't evolve from another.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[8Mud]

The problem with teaching ID is that there is no scientific basis for it. There's no testable hypothesis. With evolution, there is. ID is not science, so it doesn't belong in science class.

I still say ID can be proved with math and using a simple "what are the odds" structure.
I also say the ability to mutate, with natural selection as the mitigating force is a non starter. The odds start at one in three for any kind of improvement at the very beginning and decline from there. Way to many variables for evolution to be an accident.
People use skin color as an example, break it down into it's component parts, it is a process and not a single gene. One process to produce the pigment, another process to deal with the by products of producing the pigment, another process to guarantee it reaches the hair or even the epidermis (why not all the way through the body?) likely a hundred different steps (processes) just for hair color, maybe thousands. OK so it's a package deal, a hold over from previous models. How did the package of processes stay viable (stable, deleterious genes have been mentioned) until needed and what activated it? How is the package compatible with the current model?
Thousands of questions still remain in my mind, there are around a million active processes in a human. And people say natural selection is the answer. In my mind it will likely always remain very, very long odds, unless somebody actually does the math with enough information to make the results relevant, I find it almost impossible to wrap my mind around evolution as being the sole driving force.
Using math, I could likely make a case for the original model as being almost perfect, with a set of probably useful alternatives already programed in to deal with likely environmental changes (or other catastrophes) and everything has pretty much run downhill from there.
Or maybe more likely, a base model with enough alternatives programmed in, to improve over time and adapt.
The time line for negative influences or even positive influences to account for the changes in the human animal (from lower forms) just doesn't compute, unless a viable set of alternatives already existed. And even if a viable set of alternative genes already existed hidden away in the DNA, why not regression instead of more complexity? Neoteny is a proved survival mechanism, why mutate to the more complex and not the simpler?.
Random mutation (just one), no matter how beneficial, to be disseminated in a wide enough area and by enough individuals to incorporate it into the base model, seems unlikely, if not mathematically impossible.
Otzi the ice man frozen in a glacier 3300 BC (best case scenario 700 generations ago) is pretty much the same as you and I. Sixty five million years ago was the mass extinction event and mammals likely started out very far from a Chimpanzee or a human in complexity.

 

[Rod Knee]

What is the probability that you exist? Factor in all the atoms that had to come together in just the right arrangement.

See, I can have fun with math too!

 

[Rod Knee]

Complexity? By what measure are humans more complex than the mammals that existed just after the 65 mya extinction event, and more importantly why do you think increased complexity is a necessity of evolution? Evo theory says that species adapt, not that they must become more complex.

The base plan of the vertebrate tetrapod was already established well before the Tertiary mammal radiation. So where is the great physiological obstacle to mammalian evolution?

 

[Darky]

Talkorigins was not my source. It was someone elses....yours.

I can't remember what I walked into a room for half the time, let alone what I was going to say, so don't feel like the lone stranger.

Actually, I was referring to myself. I didn't click the links on the page...and hence posted something completely contrary to my own position...

 

[hubs97xj]

By what measure? Man's ego.

 

[JNickel101]

Man's ego.

Hey, that's the same thing that drives the Theory of Climate Change!!!!

 

[8Mud]

What is the probability that you exist? Factor in all the atoms that had to come together in just the right arrangement.

See, I can have fun with math too!

My point exactly.