Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[leomarley]

Some reviewers of Icons of Evolution have said the Wells misquoted experts cited as sources and took minor issues out of context, basing his argument on a flawed syllogism.[6][8] Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community.[4][5][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)

common trait of creationists/anti-evolution "scientists".

[dpogs]

asan na ang mga fossils ng sinasabing common ancestors... ?

[heisenbergman]

the magic of creationism: for evolution, there are a lot of data and observations to support, thus there are a lot of things to challenge. for creationism, there is barely anything to support, thus there is barely anything to challenge.

which is why it's funny that most evolution vs creation discussions really just boil down to proving or disproving evolution alone

[Tempter]

the magic of creationism: for evolution, there are a lot of data and observations to support, thus there are a lot of things to challenge. for creationism, there is barely anything to support, thus there is barely anything to challenge.

which is why it's funny that most evolution vs creation discussions really just boil down to proving or disproving evolution alone

The best post ever in this thread...

[Tempter]

asan na ang mga fossils ng sinasabing common ancestors... ?

Nasa ilalim ng lupa hindi pa nahuhukay...

[dpogs]

creation: out from nowhere...
evolution: nowhere to be found...

[heisenbergman]

evolution: nowhere to be found...

lol. all around you, actually.

RU9's infographics from the previous page alone contain a wealth of information.

[docelmo]

Nasa ilalim ng lupa hindi pa nahuhukay...

Keep digging! Mahahanap din yan!

[docelmo]

common trait of creationists/anti-evolution "scientists".

Typical reaction, dismiss outright any findings that seems to contradict your point of view...
What you should do instead is to have an open mind....look at the validity of his piece based on the data
he presented...

Here is that data, take note that the author's also point out that their work also show the flaws  on a noted creationist work. But look at the result on how long it would take in humans to have just 2 mutations...

Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution.
Durrett R1, Schmidt D.
Author information

    1Department of Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA. [email protected]

Abstract

Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.

[heisenbergman]

Do creationists actually have any support for creationism besides faith and outside of disproving evolution?

Instead of saying: "No, evolution is wrong because... *stuff* ...therefore I shun evolution and embrace creationism," do creationists ever go "Here is proof that creationism is true: <reasons>" <<< and when I say reasons, I am pertaining to data and information.

It seems like a self-defeating question since my understanding is that creationists purely base their beliefs on faith, but it would be refreshing if creationists argued their side of the discussion by actually supporting creationism and not just citing the shortcomings of the evolution theory.

Like I said earlier, creation vs. evolution basically boils down to proving or disproving evolution almost all the time.

[docelmo]

Do creationists actually have any support for creationism besides faith and outside of disproving evolution?

Instead of saying: "No, evolution is wrong because... *stuff* ...therefore I shun evolution and embrace creationism," do creationists ever go "Here is proof that creationism is true: <reasons>" <<< and when I say reasons, I am pertaining to data and information.

It seems like a self-defeating question since my understanding is that creationists purely base their beliefs on faith, but it would be refreshing if creationists argued their side of the discussion by actually supporting creationism and not just citing the shortcomings of the evolution theory.

Like I said earlier, creation vs. evolution basically boils down to proving or disproving evolution almost all the time.

By default Evolution is the prevailing world view on the emergence of life. The mechanism that it has presented that of natural selection on random mutations. Is the one being assessed, tested by scientists in such a diverse field.
You're correct though that since the mechanism given has not yet explained what is observed in nature, the search goes on until they can find a mechanism that will fit all the evidence......until then this thread will go on and on and on...

[Nelson de Leon]

until then this thread will go on and on and on...

Evolving thread? 

[docelmo]

Behe's reply......they are actually in agreement pala that will a very long time to have just two mutations! 


Waiting Longer for Two Mutations
Michael J. Behe
Genetics 181: 819-820, (2009)

 Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 1020. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 1020 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years).

[leomarley]

By default Evolution is the prevailing world view on the emergence of life. The mechanism that it has presented that of natural selection on random mutations. Is the one being assessed, tested by scientists in such a diverse field.
You're correct though that since the mechanism given has not yet explained what is observed in nature, the search goes on until they can find a mechanism that will fit all the evidence......until then this thread will go on and on and on...

this is exactly what I've been saying since a few pages ago. Evolution is a fact. How we evolved, in this case "By Natural Selection", is the theory. the one being tested is the theory that we evolved "By Natural Selection" but since there are no other theories that comes close to "By Natural Selection", it is the widely accepted theory.

And yes, Evolution itself is both fact and theory. It's considered a theory because it answers the question of "How did we get here?".

[docelmo]

Evolving thread? 

Correction bro! this thread was in fact created, and will only have variations( like holographic 3D environment) but it will remain a thread!

[docelmo]

To the evolutionists
How do you reconcile research like these on genetics that goes against the notion of natural selection on random mutations?
Take note that the research is not even talking about producing new functional body plans but in fact talking about cancer as the the result of mutation.
Since we are in agreement that for a theory to be considered as true all evidence should fit.

[leomarley]

in my point of view, it doesn't necessarily go against natural selection on random mutations because it only talks about how long it will take for the organism to evolve. the worst that it will do is to change the model to fit the evidence. i'll admit that natural selection is incomplete and finding new evidence will change and modify the theory but that's how science works.

[docelmo]

in my point of view, it doesn't necessarily go against natural selection on random mutations because it only talks about how long it will take for the organism to evolve. the worst that it will do is to change the model to fit the evidence. i'll admit that natural selection is incomplete and finding new evidence will change and modify the theory but that's how science works.

Well ok, however if these research are accurate, and we have a fair of knowledge of the age emergence of life. At the very least it puts in doubt the mechanism of natural selection on random mutations to produce complex life forms. Then you need a new mechanism for evolution...

[leomarley]

Well ok, however if these research are accurate, and we have a fair of knowledge of the age emergence of life. At the very least it puts in doubt the mechanism of natural selection on random mutations to produce complex life forms. Then you need a new mechanism for evolution...

yes but as i've said, that's just how science works. if the old model doesn't hold, scientist will think of another theory that would fit the new evidence. just like what happened with Newton's theory on how gravity works. Einstein's Theory of Relativity debunked Newton's theory on gravity but that didn't make gravity much less than a fact. same with Evolution. the theory on how it happened may be changed but doesn't make Evolution false.

[leomarley]

Evolution is not a fact?

Florida lizards seen evolving in just 15 years

Sci­en­tists have doc­u­mented the ev­o­lu­tion of a na­tive Flor­i­da liz­ard spe­cies in as lit­tle as 15 years as a re­sult of pres­sure from an in­vad­ing liz­ard.

Since Dar­win’s time, bi­ol­o­gists as­sumed that ev­o­lu­tion takes cen­turies, or long­er, but re­cent find­ings have be­gun to change that view.



The left hind foot of Ano­lis car­o­li­nen­sis, or green anole. (Cred­it: Yoel Stu­art)

In Flor­i­da, re­search­ers found that af­ter con­tact with the in­va­sive spe­cies, the na­tive liz­ards be­gan perch­ing high­er in trees. Then, genera­t­ion af­ter genera­t­ion, their feet evolved to be­come bet­ter at grip­ping the thin­ner, smooth­er branches found high­er up.

Ev­o­lu­tion oc­curs when ec­o­log­i­cal con­di­tions fa­vor the sur­viv­al and re­pro­duc­tion of or­gan­isms with some traits, over those with oth­er traits. This leads the fa­vored traits to spread through a popula­t­ion over genera­t­ions. Given enough time, a whole spe­cies can change dramatically, or branch off into mul­tiple new species.

In the liz­ards, the sci­en­tists found that change oc­curred at an as­ton­ish­ing pa­ce: With­in a few months, na­tive liz­ards had be­gun shift­ing to high­er perch­es, and over 15 years and 20 genera­t­ions, their toe pads had be­come larg­er, with stickier scales on the feet.

“We did pre­dict that we’d see a change, but the de­gree and quick­ness with which they evolved was sur­pris­ing,” said Yoel Stu­art, a post­doc­tor­al re­search­er at The Uni­vers­ity of Tex­as at Aus­tin and lead au­thor of the study ap­pear­ing in the Oct. 24 edi­tion of the jour­nal Sci­ence.

“To put this shift in per­spec­tive, if hu­man height were evolv­ing as fast as these liz­ards’ toes, the height of an av­er­age Amer­i­can man would in­crease from about 5 foot 9 inches to­day to about 6 foot 4 inches with­in 20 genera­t­ion­s—an in­crease that would make the av­er­age U.S. male the height of an NBA shoot­ing guard,” said Stu­art. “Although hu­ma­ns live long­er than liz­ards, this rate of change would still be rap­id in ev­o­lu­tion­ary terms.”



Green anoles (left) and brown anoles (right). (Cre­dit: Todd Camp­bell and Adam Al­gar)

The na­tive liz­ards stud­ied, known as Car­o­li­na anoles or green anoles, are com­mon in the south­east­ern U.S. The in­va­sive spe­cies, Cu­ban anoles or brown anoles, are na­tive to Cu­ba and the Ba­ha­mas. Brown anoles first ap­peared in South Flor­i­da in the 1950s, pos­sibly as stow­aways in ag­ri­cul­tur­al ship­ments, and have since spread across the south­east­ern U.S. and have even jumped to Ha­waii.

This lat­est study is one of only a few well-doc­u­mented ex­am­ples of what ev­o­lu­tion­ary bi­ol­o­gists call “char­ac­ter dis­place­men­t,” in which si­m­i­lar spe­cies com­pet­ing with each oth­er evolve dif­fer­ences to take ad­van­tage of dif­fer­ent ec­o­log­i­cal niches. A clas­sic ex­am­ple comes from the finches stud­ied by Charles Dar­win. Two spe­cies of finch in the Galá­pa­gos Is­lands di­verged in beak shape as they adapted to dif­fer­ent food sources.

The re­search­ers spec­u­late that the com­pe­ti­tion be­tween brown and green anoles for the same food and spa­ce may be driv­ing the adapta­t­ions of the green anoles. Stu­art al­so not­ed that the adults of both spe­cies are known to eat the hatch­lings of the oth­er spe­cies. “So it may be that if you’re a hatch­ling, you need to move up in­to the trees quickly or you’ll get eat­en,” said Stu­art. “Maybe if you have big­ger toe pads, you’ll do that bet­ter than if you don’t.”

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/141023_anoles.htm

[barrister]

Evolution is not a fact?

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/141023_anoles.htm

Wala pa rin yan.
 
It's still a lizard, right?  Sana naging ibon, puwede pa... 

[leomarley]

Wala pa rin yan.
 
It's still a lizard, right?  Sana naging ibon, puwede pa... 

Almost everything creationists say or write about evolution is ultimately some sort of misrepresentation of science, but there is a special grouping of misrepresentations dealing with microevolution and macroevolution specifically. This is because questions about microevolution and macroevolution lie at the heart of creationist arguments against evolution today. Only the most foolhardy creationist denies the reality of microevolution, but they try to deny that this is "real" evolution. They insist that only macroevolution is real evolution and that there is some essential difference in how microevolution and microevolution occur.

• If we can't see it occurring, then it's not real
The most basic creationist misrepresentation of macroevolution is that we can't observe macroevolution occurring and if we can't observe it, then it's not science and isn't real. This is an ironic position to take because Christian apologists misrepresent atheists as arguing "we can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist." Apologists "respond" to this falsehood by pointing out that there is nevertheless evidence of God. Creationist Christians, though, won't accept such reasoning with macroevolution. It is wrong that science can only study phenomena we directly and personally observe. They are also very wrong to argue that if we haven't directly observed something then it can't be true or real. They key is the presence of real, reliable, and consistent evidence — and we have an overwhelming amount of such evidence for macroevolution.

• Macroevolution has never been observed
As bad as it is to make the invalid argument that some phenomenon has to be directly observed to be treated as real, it's also an argument based on a false premise: macroevolution has been observed. Most aspects of macroevolution take place over thousands and millions of years, far too long for any one human to observe over their lifetime. The most basic aspect of macroevolution, though, is speciation: the development of a new species. This too can take a long time but it has nevertheless been observed. Some creationists respond by simply denying against all evidence that speciation has been observed; others react by denying that speciation really is an example of macroevolution.

• Macroevolution is cats turning into dogs
Creationists who try to deny that speciation is an example of macroevolution and thus of evolution itself try to argue that macroevolution only occurs on some undefined, mysterious level above species which they label "kind." Sometimes "kind" seems synonymous with species but other times it seem equated with family or genus. Rarely do creationists try to explain what "kind" is in any scientific sense because it's a concept they get from the book of Genesis in the Bible; it has no scientific basis whatsoever. Instead, they just keep repeating slogans like "cats don't turn into dogs," as if the only legitimate example of macroevolution would be a cat evolving into a dog or a fish evolving into a zebra. No scientist uses "macroevolution" this way and that's why it's a blatant misrepresentation.

• Biblical "kinds" never change to another kind
It is difficult to underestimate the importance of the concept of "kind" to creationism - even to forms of creationism like Intelligent Design which deliberately avoid any explicit references to biblical concepts like this. Because the idea of "kind" is purely religious, lacking any scientific basis whatsoever, the appearance of this term is an immediate demonstration that a person's argument is ultimately unscientific. It is not possible to make a legitimately scientific argument against or about macroevolution or microevolution with unscientific, biblical concepts like "kinds." Believers are free to make theological arguments with such concepts, but once they introduce them to scientific debates they cannot avoid misrepresenting and misunderstanding the science.

• Microevolution is mere adaptation to the environment
Creationist efforts to deny macroevolution frequently depend on pretending that there is some fundamental difference between macroevolution and microevolution. This goal is advanced by misrepresenting just how important microevolution really is. Creationists effectively denigrate it as "mere adaptation" to the environment, as if it weren't a remarkable event with great power to alter a species over time. The key thing to remember is that adaptations don't happen in retrospect — individuals don't encounter a new environment and then change to fit it. Instead, mutations occur all the time and, with a bit of luck, some of those mutations help individuals survive an environment newly encountered.

• Microevolution isn't real evolution
Creationists want to deny evolution but they can't deny the obvious fact that animals can and do change. Their "solution" is to deny that microevolution is "real" evolution — but this is little more than a lie. Evolution is defined in biology as the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Thus even something as simple as a change in the frequency of blue eyes qualifies as evolution — and it is indeed "real" evolution. When creationists insist that it's only evolution if the changes are great enough to produce a new species, they are blatantly misrepresenting science, biology, and evolution.

• Macroevolution is new information; microevolution is shuffling genes around
There are a lot of misunderstandings and misrepresentations packed into this short statement. First, moving genes around can produce macroevolution if it produces a new species: individuals that can't mate with their ancestors and produce fertile offspring. Second, "information" is left deliberately vague here. Is information in the presence of a single gene, or how multiple genes are ordered? If the latter, then then introduction of a new gene is only "information" because of the new sequence of genes produced and this means that a new sequence produced by shuffled genes is also new information. Third, we don't need the supernatural to explain the introduction of new genes: we know it happens when bacteria and viruses insert their own genes into the DNA of a host.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/tp/Creationist-Misrepresentations-Of-Macroevolution-And-Microevolution.htm

[dpogs]

is natural selection explains how new species evolve how new species exist? or just another assumption needed to be test?

generally... natural selection produce the same species... nothing more nothing less... is it observable? (well... it took time of couse... around billion of years)... so well just wait another billion of years to prove this? but for the meantime we need to accept this as a fact because there is no other theories that makes more sense that this... for the evidence... hmmm well... we still need to dig more... maybe its just around the corner... don't worry this is a fact... me and my fellow "bright and genius" scientist" accepted this... so this is a fact...

[heisenbergman]

^ yup. it's at least a far better alternative than relying on a baseless "magic" of creationism.

[RU9]

is natural selection explains how new species evolve how new species exist? or just another assumption needed to be test?

generally... natural selection produce the same species... nothing more nothing less... is it observable? (well... it took time of couse... around billion of years)... so well just wait another billion of years to prove this? but for the meantime we need to accept this as a fact because there is no other theories that makes more sense that this... for the evidence... hmmm well... we still need to dig more... maybe its just around the corner... don't worry this is a fact... me and my fellow "bright and genius" scientist" accepted this... so this is a fact...

What's the alternative?

Sorry, walang evidence, Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan. Wait for the end of time for proof.

[docelmo]

^ yup. it's at least a far better alternative than relying on a baseless "magic" of creationism.

Ah so, emergence of life by creation is baseless magic. Even though man has been "creating" things himself from cave drawings, houses, cars, airplanes,computers, jets, microscopes, manipulating chemicals in experimentation, etc. etc.

When all these combine pales in comparison to the complexity of life we see today and what we see in the fossil evidence....

In addition we fail to realize that the very simple "taken for granted" act of posting in this thread is an act of creation.....without an intelligent mind....the posts would be gibberish!

[docelmo]

What's the alternative?

Sorry, walang evidence, Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan. Wait for the end of time for proof.

To put it in a practical sense. I believe and it is by faith that you sir (RU9) exist because, i have seen, read and understood your post. Without this then you are a figment of my imagination.

[barrister]

 

^ yup. it's at least a far better alternative than relying on a baseless "magic" of creationism.

Why this insistence that there should be an "alternative"?

If evolution is speculation, admit that it's speculation.  If you do not believe in creation, that's OK.
 
Just because you don't believe in creation, it doesn't automatically mean that evolution is a fact, "because there is no other alternative."

 

What's the alternative?

Sorry, walang evidence, Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan. Wait for the end of time for proof.

Again this insistence on an "alternative."

"Sorry, walang evidence" - Ok yon, aminin mong walang evidence, imbis na sabihin mong sa evolution tayo dapat, kasi wala nang alternative.

"Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan." - Wag mo nang pakialaman ang religion.  Basta patunayan mo na lang ang evolution. 
 
You reason that if evidence for creation is weak, then evolution must be correct.

Hindi ganon yon.  If evolution is a fact, then prove it.
 

=======================================

Ganito na lang ang gawin natin:

Science is saying that there is overwhelming evidence proving that evolution is a fact.  If so, then must be really easy to prove that reptiles evolved into birds. 
 
Present evidence that reptiles evolved into birds, and let's discuss it.

[leomarley]

 
Why this insistence that there should be an "alternative"?

If evolution is speculation, admit that it's speculation.  If you do not believe in creation, that's OK.
 
Just because you don't believe in creation, it doesn't automatically mean that evolution is a fact, "because there is no other alternative."

 

Again this insistence on an "alternative."

"Sorry, walang evidence" - Ok yon, aminin mong walang evidence, imbis na sabihin mong sa evolution tayo dapat, kasi wala nang alternative.

"Pero sigurado ako--faith lang iyan." - Wag mo nang pakialaman ang religion.  Basta patunayan mo na lang ang evolution. 
 
You reason that if evidence for creation is weak, then evolution must be correct.

Hindi ganon yon.  If evolution is a fact, then prove it.

Evidence for Evolution is all around you. You just dismiss it because it doesn't go with your belief in creationism.

[barrister]

Evidence for Evolution is all around you. You just dismiss it because it doesn't go with your belief in creationism.

No, I don't care if you believe in creation or not.  You can verify that from my previous posts.
 
What I do care about is that when you say something is a fact, you'd better be prepared to prove it.
 
You keep making general statements that there is evidence for evolution, yet when challenged to point out a specific piece of proof, all you can come up with is a lizard that stayed a lizard.