Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#141 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 October 2011 - 08:09 PM

People want these mystical things to happen to convince them, but ignore the miracles that surround them. They say "God is magic, I don't believe in magic".We are alive right now, this reality is very revealing to me to be "magic" or a miracle. I suppose we ignore the "magic" because we're used to it. Imagine prior to your existence here on earth you were told about this place with billowing clouds that seem to float upon nothing with and invisible source feeding your every breath. Or streaks of penetrating light that smash the ground with an amazing crash of heat and awe-inspiring concusion. Or this amazingly beautifull clear liquid that quenches your thirst that covers much of our lush beautifull planet. A planet full of living plants that flourish under this huge burning ball of fire that seems to be burning on an unquenchable fuel. Im sorry God hasn't given you the evidence you desire, or should I say the "magic" you desire.

#142 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 October 2011 - 07:16 PM

Personally i'd need to observe creation happening, and then see a series of repeatable experiments under varying conditions to understand its intricacies.

All depends what 'part' of creation you mean though.. origin of universe, life, species... etc

Just like i see natural selection working when weaker or maladapted individuals are selected out of a population by predators or disease, and those better
suited to current conditions survive and reproduce...

s

#143 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 October 2011 - 07:37 PM

So basically, you guys want more evidence then even evolution can produce? Oh I forget, to athiests micro and macro-evolution are one in the same. Or in other words adaption is the same thing as one species turning into an entirely new one.

#144 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 October 2011 - 07:59 PM

Personally i'd need to observe creation happening, and then see a series of repeatable experiments under varying conditions to understand its intricacies.

All depends what 'part' of creation you mean though.. origin of universe, life, species... etc

Just like i see natural selection working when weaker or maladapted individuals are selected out of a population by predators or disease, and those better
suited to current conditions survive and reproduce...

s


Yet, you have never observed a beneficial mutation in one individual replace an entire species (antibiotic resistance is an adaptation that involves amino acid substitution, which isn't the proposed mechanism of ToE). But, I can make predictions about creation and can confirm that those predictions are still valid after thousands of years of research. According to "Occams Razor" creation is the most likely to be true since it accounts for all of the available data and is making less assumptions by unanswered gaps.



Enjoy.

#145 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 October 2011 - 05:35 AM

Yet, you have never observed a beneficial mutation in one individual replace an entire species (antibiotic resistance is an adaptation that involves amino acid substitution, which isn't the proposed mechanism of ToE). But, I can make predictions about creation and can confirm that those predictions are still valid after thousands of years of research. According to "Occams Razor" creation is the most likely to be true since it accounts for all of the available data and is making less assumptions by unanswered gaps.



Enjoy.


Very true :D The only assumption made is that there is a creator. Thats it.

With the naturalistic version we need to assume

1) that the universe formed under a wholly naturalistic mechanism.... One that doesn't defy the laws of Physics
2) that all the elements formed under a wholly naturalistic mechanism
3) that planets and suns formed under a wholly naturalistic mechanism
4) that life formed under a wholly naturalistic mechanism
5) that life undergoes evolution from one species to another

This is skipping all the assumption that make-up these generalized assumptions but I guess you guys get the idea ;)

#146 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 October 2011 - 03:35 PM

If we are going with occams razor being something useful to help us choose between competing theories then i'd say

Whether we prefer the naturalistic or theistic version, these are five observations that need explaining..the assumption of
each is in the brackets. Equal number whether you facour naturalistic or theistic.. five facts, five assumptions.

1) that the universe formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
2) that all the elements formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
3) that planets and suns formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
4) that life formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
5) that life undergoes evolution from one species to another (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
giving 5 things i'd call observable facts (each with its own candidate assumptions in the brackets)

PLUS the all important 6th standalone assumption for theists is that there is a God,
...etc
maybe 7th assumption that 'he' is wanted to do each of these
maybe 8th assumption that 'he' actually did all of these.

So....
I prefer my naturalistic version with fewer assumptions then ... as per occams razor.

#147 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 October 2011 - 04:18 PM

@ supamk3speed

So basically, you guys want more evidence then even evolution can produce? Oh I forget, to athiests micro and macro-evolution are one in the same. Or in other words adaption is the same thing as one species turning into an entirely new one.


?you guys? I can only speak for myself.. yes. Partly as the word used Creation to start this thread has so many potential meanings. First, its totally wrong to equate evolutionists to athiests, there a many respected evolutionary biologists of all religious denominations, plus agnostics, athiests, pastafarians etc. But, yes, many evolutionary biologists now equate micro and macro evolution as one of the same, which are quite simply changes that selection can act upon, shortest term micro evolution, towards bigger changes that could be called macro evolution, but like many i'd say that its a spectrum of changes from small to massive, not either micro OR macro. In many cases adaption can indeed by the same thing as a species turning into another, when a subset of the population has limited genetic interchange with other members of the population elsewhere, and influenced by a selective pressure - populations can 'bud off', and as differences accumulate in that isolated group over time, that can give rise to a new species that we'd recognise if it is behaviourally or ecologically different. Yes. But, adaptation can also happen without any speciation, thats just adaption without speciation...

@jason777

Yet, you have never observed a beneficial mutation in one individual replace an entire species (antibiotic resistance is an adaptation that involves amino acid substitution, which isn't the proposed mechanism of ToE). But, I can make predictions about creation and can confirm that those predictions are still valid after thousands of years of research. According to "Occams Razor" creation is the most likely to be true since it accounts for all of the available data and is making less assumptions by unanswered gaps.


First i have no idea what ToE s, you'll have to explain. ?Theory of everything? Im also really uncertain what you mean by 'replace an entire species'? The de novo origin of beneficial mutation in one individual and its spread through many more individuals or even an entire population is exactly the mechanism by which genetic variation is generated, and some give rise to fixed differences among populations or between species. Beneficial mutations spread through populations. BUt, the key thing here, is that this spreading of beneficial mutation occurs through many many generations... not one generation. An individual with a beneficial mutation might have more offspring than competitors without the mutation, then the offspring of the offspring with the beneficial mutation have more offspring than competitors without the beneficial mutation... until there are few or none or those without the beneficial mutation, and we can possibly call it an adaptation in the species rather than a polymorphism at earlier stages or a novelty in a subset at the earliest stages of spreading.

I'm sure you can make predictions about creation. But what confirms those predictions? There's never anything new that provides extra reinforcement, unless we're taking about the pseudoscience which often badly misinterprets scientific data or methods to fit a pre-conceived agenda that hasnt changed since biblical chapters were written. What confirms those predictions to you i guess is what you read in the bible, and that hasnt changed since the earliest authorities decided what was canonical and their scribes took it down. Your predictions are the exact same as others gave a couple of thousand years ago. Nothing new since except conjecture, disagrement and opinion - and really no new opinions that i've seen.

Sorry, but i need to have continued addition of new data or experimental results that influence my views on reality. To me, those new sources of data and evidence keep pointing towards no need for an additional creator at any stage... so yes, simplest explanation, without the need of the additional creator to me. I have considered Creation in all its varient forms, i hope there isnt a free-thinking intelligent human that hasnt considered Creation. From what i've seen, heard and learnt, I just consider the need for a creator totally unnecessary.

#148 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 17 October 2011 - 05:43 PM

@ supamk3speed


?you guys? I can only speak for myself.. yes. Partly as the word used Creation to start this thread has so many potential meanings. First, its totally wrong to equate evolutionists to athiests, there a many respected evolutionary biologists of all religious denominations, plus agnostics, athiests, pastafarians etc.

"All" is wrong. Just like it's wrong to assume all evos (no disrepect--it's easier to say evo--lol) are atheists, it's wrong to assume all denominations are accepting of evolution. Try preaching theistic evolution in the Assemblies of God, Southern Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Church of Christ, Church of God, Pentecostal Holiness, Disciples of Christ, Full Gospel, Four Square, or Evangelical Free, and see how long you keep your ordination.

Most of these denominations are open to the moving of the Holy Spirit, to varying degrees. There are extremes, and fads, but most of these denominations place their faith in Christ as a sole means of salvation, and believe in the inerrancy of scripture. Most will interpret Genesis as it sits, and not try to water it down or ignore it.

But, yes, many evolutionary biologists now equate micro and macro evolution as one of the same, which are quite simply changes that selection can act upon, shortest term micro evolution, towards bigger changes that could be called macro evolution, but like many i'd say that its a spectrum of changes from small to massive, not either micro OR macro.


So what experimentation do you submit, besides statistical nucleotide matches in DNA, and "similar" (i.e. whales to "doglike" species) phenotypes, none of which can prove common descent.

There are many papers on bacteria, but last time I checked, eukaryotes are not prokaryotes. They aren't single celled, they don't use plasmids, and they don't change phenotypes by horizontal gene transfer. So apples to oranges comparison (and by the way, they haven't reached fixation in the lactose to citrate e.coli) are not going to be a serious argument.

In many cases adaption can indeed by the same thing as a species turning into another, when a subset of the population has limited genetic interchange with other members of the population elsewhere, and influenced by a selective pressure - populations can 'bud off',

Yes, they are called clades. It's micro evolution. You can do the same thing with beagles, or frogs. You can do the same thing with corn, until you isolate, and multiply a trait. But that trait can be cross-pollinated to other clades of corn. It all still stays corn, and the bean fields across the fence row don't pollinate, nor influence the corn. I worked at a seed company. You don't need to be an evolutionary biologist to know these things. You just need to live in the country, where people breed/hybridize things. You can infer what's going on without a PhD.



@jason777


First i have no idea what ToE s, you'll have to explain. ?Theory of everything? Im also really uncertain what you mean by 'replace an entire species'? The de novo origin of beneficial mutation in one individual and its spread through many more individuals or even an entire population is exactly the mechanism by which genetic variation is generated, and some give rise to fixed differences among populations or between species. Beneficial mutations spread through populations. But, the key thing here, is that this spreading of beneficial mutation occurs through many many generations... not one generation.

I'm really resisting sarcasm, and taking into account that you've been told that creationists are so stupid they think evolution is supposed to happen in one generation. You're no the first to report this fact to us, so it must be coming from somewhere. We read journal papers, and we take courses.

Beneficial mutation--please give me an example of one beneficial mutation in eukaryotes that doesn't have fitness cost. Or wouldn't require ecological specialization. IN other words, the general fitness doesn't decrease from wild type fitness, and so require that the given ecology remain through the "many many generations."

An individual with a beneficial mutation might have more offspring than competitors without the mutation, then the offspring of the offspring with the beneficial mutation have more offspring than competitors without the beneficial mutation... until there are few or none or those without the beneficial mutation, and we can possibly call it an adaptation in the species rather than a polymorphism at earlier stages or a novelty in a subset at the earliest stages of spreading.

Instead of giving us general predictions, why don't you give us an example, where we can evaluate this?

I'm sure you can make predictions about creation. But what confirms those predictions? There's never anything new that provides extra reinforcement, unless we're taking about the pseudoscience which often badly misinterprets scientific data or methods to fit a pre-conceived agenda that hasnt changed since biblical chapters were written.

How about day 1 necessity against the minimum of life. In other words, there's a complete minimum of life required that is empirically necessary. Life must be self sufficient in energy, growth, self defense, and reproduction. Each one of these areas requires combinations of macromolecules, devices, chemical signaling, molecular communication, and metabolic pathways--not ever changing mish mash.

Multiple interdependent, plieotropic, systems are required for even prokaryotes. No matter what the geniuses tell you, it was required that all these systems be in place at the same time for life to be. There is absolutely no way around this. You can say whatever, but it comes down to whether a person wants to come to grips with this one fact. And this necessity also necessitates creation. Because no matter how many primordial mud puddles you have, you have to have one with a continual chemical supply of the the right stuff for a long time (whatever it is, they never found it by random mixture) just to make one protein. The problem is you got to have another mud puddle really nearby that makes a corresponding protein, so they bind, with just the right stuff. It's really stupid.

So I wouldn't be smug about creation. Guidance for design is a universally observed phenomenon.

#149 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 October 2011 - 06:23 PM

If we are going with occams razor being something useful to help us choose between competing theories then i'd say

Whether we prefer the naturalistic or theistic version, these are five observations that need explaining..the assumption of
each is in the brackets. Equal number whether you facour naturalistic or theistic.. five facts, five assumptions.

1) that the universe formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
2) that all the elements formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
3) that planets and suns formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
4) that life formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
5) that life undergoes evolution from one species to another (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
giving 5 things i'd call observable facts (each with its own candidate assumptions in the brackets)

PLUS the all important 6th standalone assumption for theists is that there is a God,
...etc
maybe 7th assumption that 'he' is wanted to do each of these
maybe 8th assumption that 'he' actually did all of these.

So....
I prefer my naturalistic version with fewer assumptions then ... as per occams razor.

Nope, when you assume a divine creator the ability to do all this stuff is a part of the one assumption... Since how can we claim it to be a creator if it cannot.

Hence there is just one fundamental assumption for creationism whereby naturalism uses different (hypothetical) mechanisms for each of these instances hence there are more assumptions, (since they are separate from each other... abiogenesis does nothing for the creation of the universe etc)

#150 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 October 2011 - 06:28 PM

How about day 1 necessity against the minimum of life. In other words, there's a complete minimum of life required that is empirically necessary. Life must be self sufficient in energy, growth, self defense, and reproduction. Each one of these areas requires combinations of macromolecules, devices, chemical signaling, molecular communication, and metabolic pathways--not ever changing mish mash.

Multiple interdependent, plieotropic, systems are required for even prokaryotes. No matter what the geniuses tell you, it was required that all these systems be in place at the same time for life to be. There is absolutely no way around this. You can say whatever, but it comes down to whether a person wants to come to grips with this one fact. And this necessity also necessitates creation. Because no matter how many primordial mud puddles you have, you have to have one with a continual chemical supply of the the right stuff for a long time (whatever it is, they never found it by random mixture) just to make one protein. The problem is you got to have another mud puddle really nearby that makes a corresponding protein, so they bind, with just the right stuff. It's really stupid.

So I wouldn't be smug about creation. Guidance for design is a universally observed phenomenon.

+1

#151 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 October 2011 - 09:11 PM

Wow. wish i knew how to merge my reply onto that last

sjl197, on 18 October 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:
@ supamk3speed


?you guys? I can only speak for myself.. yes. Partly as the word used Creation to start this thread has so many potential meanings. First, its totally wrong to equate evolutionists to athiests, there a many respected evolutionary biologists of all religious denominations, plus agnostics, athiests, pastafarians etc.


"All" is wrong. Just like it's wrong to assume all evos (no disrepect--it's easier to say evo--lol) are atheists, it's wrong to assume all denominations are accepting of evolution. Try preaching theistic evolution in the Assemblies of God, Southern Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Church of Christ, Church of God, Pentecostal Holiness, Disciples of Christ, Full Gospel, Four Square, or Evangelical Free, and see how long you keep your ordination.

Most of these denominations are open to the moving of the Holy Spirit, to varying degrees. There are extremes, and fads, but most of these denominations place their faith in Christ as a sole means of salvation, and believe in the inerrancy of scripture. Most will interpret Genesis as it sits, and not try to water it down or ignore it.

>>NEW >>> No problem being called an evo. Very nice reply. Amen to that. Shame there is so much discord among the christian church. Seems rather like speciation/cladogenesis to me btw.


But, yes, many evolutionary biologists now equate micro and macro evolution as one of the same, which are quite simply changes that selection can act upon, shortest term micro evolution, towards bigger changes that could be called macro evolution, but like many i'd say that its a spectrum of changes from small to massive, not either micro OR macro.


So what experimentation do you submit, besides statistical nucleotide matches in DNA, and "similar" (i.e. whales to "doglike" species) phenotypes, none of which can prove common descent.

There are many papers on bacteria, but last time I checked, eukaryotes are not prokaryotes. They aren't single celled, they don't use plasmids, and they don't change phenotypes by horizontal gene transfer. So apples to oranges comparison (and by the way, they haven't reached fixation in the lactose to citrate e.coli) are not going to be a serious argument.

>>NEW >>> Im not sure there is a need for proof of common decent. There are theories stemming from Wallace/Darwin and all the subsequent workers on the topic, and the accumulated wealth of evidence fits with the theory, so to me and many others shared ancestry and decent with modification has become a mainstream principle in biology. Like many things, it is unprovable. But, if you want experiments, i'd put small populations of a species onto an island with slightly different conditions to the mainland, and see how the island forms become different over time until eventually are some combination of behaviourally, ecologically and/or reproductively isolated from the mainland ancestral population. This experiment has been repeated by nature so so many time over. With all the species humans have accidentally or deliberately transported over the globe to foreign climes or islands, i betting there are soon going to be plenty of examples of this, plants, animals, insects, etc etc. hopefully enough to satisfy you.

>>NEW >>> ?Lenski experiment? I thought that was pretty cool actually. didnt know citrate usage wasn't fixed in the population, but as far as i know the experiment is still running. I'd also love to see more permutation on that, using samples in different temperatures, or fluctuating conditions. More like reality, more dynamic, not static conditions. there are many papers on bacteria as these rapidly go through many generations. Similar experiments with fruitflies are underway, but the generation time is much slower. To me apples and oranges are both life forms either both divinely created or both naturally by modification with decent. To me you show something happens in one species (be it an apple or a bacteria), it shows it can happen in the other (be it an orange or any other eukaryote). I fear if they show evolution in bacteria, creationists will say 'cant happen in eukaryotes'. Then they show it in a basal eukaryote like amoeba, and you guys will say cant happen in animals.. they show it in a fruitfly, you'll likely say cant happen in humans! How do we escape such deadlock ? Humans have a very slow generation time! We can only use rapidly reproducing organisms as models to study, and the fastest we have now are bacterial. Theyre still a subset of life, either divinely created or naturalistically evolved.



In many cases adaption can indeed by the same thing as a species turning into another, when a subset of the population has limited genetic interchange with other members of the population elsewhere, and influenced by a selective pressure - populations can 'bud off',

Yes, they are called clades. It's micro evolution. You can do the same thing with beagles, or frogs. You can do the same thing with corn, until you isolate, and multiply a trait. But that trait can be cross-pollinated to other clades of corn. It all still stays corn, and the bean fields across the fence row don't pollinate, nor influence the corn. I worked at a seed company. You don't need to be an evolutionary biologist to know these things. You just need to live in the country, where people breed/hybridize things. You can infer what's going on without a PhD.

>>NEW >>> Ok, im happy you seem nicely informed and intelligent AFJ, and so was Darwin informed by the insights of plant breeders, dog breeder and pigeon fanciers. Its a great stepping stone to understanding the mechanism of evolution and speciation. Right so by clade you mean groups of life which can interbreed, ie 'kinds' that i see elsewhere? This is where the possibility of an old earth and great geological time is really needed to be considered, if just for a few seconds. So with dogs, corn, whatever, you select a trait and breed it true, i think we agree here. What if you breed for several traits, colour, height etc etc, all together, and you breed true for many hundred or thousands of generations, over a LONG time period. You get isolating mechanisms. Lets see with plants. Different flower shapes - honey bee can pollinate one, only a small wasp the other. Those are isolated. Now, what if they remain isolated for many many generations. Then we call such things different species or different genera. Depends how many differences we observe. Ok, maybe after a few generations of dog breeding you have small chiuahuas and large great danes. Right, prezygotic isolation. They cant mate. But here, the crux is the need to not have the intermediates, no middle sized dogs. Natural selection often acts to remove intermediates, not in this case but its contrived and hypothetical. Imagine intermediate breeds of dog and mongrals all die out. Two very different decentdants of dogs called great dane and chiuahua. We already recognise differences so we humans give them different names. Wait a few x1000 years without them interbreeding and other genetic and physical differences will gradually accumulate. then theyre going to be called distinct species. Yes, no need for a phd to understand, i grasped this and many related points about niche partitioning, selective adaptation, historical divergence, influence of neutral and nearly neutral mutations and more in high school.


I'm tired !

@jason777
First i have no idea what ToE s, you'll have to explain. ?Theory of everything? Im also really uncertain what you mean by 'replace an entire species'? The de novo origin of beneficial mutation in one individual and its spread through many more individuals or even an entire population is exactly the mechanism by which genetic variation is generated, and some give rise to fixed differences among populations or between species. Beneficial mutations spread through populations. But, the key thing here, is that this spreading of beneficial mutation occurs through many many generations... not one generation.


I'm really resisting sarcasm, and taking into account that you've been told that creationists are so stupid they think evolution is supposed to happen in one generation. You're no the first to report this fact to us, so it must be coming from somewhere. We read journal papers, and we take courses.

Beneficial mutation--please give me an example of one beneficial mutation in eukaryotes that doesn't have fitness cost. Or wouldn't require ecological specialization. IN other words, the general fitness doesn't decrease from wild type fitness, and so require that the given ecology remain through the "many many generations."

>>NEW >>> No need for sarcasm i think. Im really glad AFJ that you seem intelligent and well informed like i said. I expect that some creationists think evolution is supposed to happen in one generation. If it did of course, or we called each occurrence of a spontaneous beneficial mutation or harmful mutation 'evolution', it would be easy for me to give examples. But we call beneficial mutations more simply beneficial mutations. Ok... but your question is phrased so i have a problem .. you say "give me an example of one beneficial mutation in eukaryotes that doesn't have fitness cost" . I cant because the mutations are beneficial, and saying its beneficial MEANS to has a positive fitness cost ... we can detect theyre potentially or definately beneficial. Beneficial mutations can increase the productivity of an enzyme the binding of two proteins together, the rate or fidelity of gene transcritpion, etc etc. Actual examples?, fine type 'point mutation positive selection" into google and you will get a ton of empirical studies, like this study on rice http://www.ncbi.nlm....es/PMC1400573/. - Perhaps you want an example of any mutation that doesnt have a fitness cost. Fine... many of the nonsynonymous mutation that occur in protein coding genes have no appreciable fitness costs. Those are called neutral or nearly neutral mutations and theyre common in eukaryotes.


An individual with a beneficial mutation might have more offspring than competitors without the mutation, then the offspring of the offspring with the beneficial mutation have more offspring than competitors without the beneficial mutation... until there are few or none or those without the beneficial mutation, and we can possibly call it an adaptation in the species rather than a polymorphism at earlier stages or a novelty in a subset at the earliest stages of spreading.


Instead of giving us general predictions, why don't you give us an example, where we can evaluate this?

>>NEW >>> Im was giving a hypothetical example within the theory as few people on this forum seem to understand the overview evolutionary theory. Not sure why you want more than just the pure theory, as little in creation research that i see is more than pure theory, or rather wild speculation. If you do great. You might be interested to know that molecular evolutionary biology is only just beginning to understand the genetic basis or many divergent physical traits that seem to be good examples of those traits which have evolving during speciation, and this link between moelcules and phenotypic modification is the core of the very modern field of evo devo research. This article is quite good start to where you can evaluate these, like http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21690125 or http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/17492956., or more interestingly perhaps look into new research on how birds beaks appear to have transitioned from jaws with teeth http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21978465


Quote
I'm sure you can make predictions about creation. But what confirms those predictions? There's never anything new that provides extra reinforcement, unless we're taking about the pseudoscience which often badly misinterprets scientific data or methods to fit a pre-conceived agenda that hasnt changed since biblical chapters were written.


How about day 1 necessity against the minimum of life. In other words, there's a complete minimum of life required that is empirically necessary. Life must be self sufficient in energy, growth, self defense, and reproduction. Each one of these areas requires combinations of macromolecules, devices, chemical signaling, molecular communication, and metabolic pathways--not ever changing mish mash.

Multiple interdependent, plieotropic, systems are required for even prokaryotes. No matter what the geniuses tell you, it was required that all these systems be in place at the same time for life to be. There is absolutely no way around this. You can say whatever, but it comes down to whether a person wants to come to grips with this one fact. And this necessity also necessitates creation. Because no matter how many primordial mud puddles you have, you have to have one with a continual chemical supply of the the right stuff for a long time (whatever it is, they never found it by random mixture) just to make one protein. The problem is you got to have another mud puddle really nearby that makes a corresponding protein, so they bind, with just the right stuff. It's really stupid.

So I wouldn't be smug about creation. Guidance for design is a universally observed phenomenon.

>>NEW >>> Ok, so basically you are saying life is amazingly complex, an intelligent designer must be involved? Hmm. If you are going to read any reference i suggest, please take a look at the book by Nick Lane (2009), Life Ascending. The ten great innovations of evolution. by Profile books.
www.goodreads.com/book/show/6429264-life-ascending
Its very well written and by a well educated biochemist. Particularly nice where he looks into the possible mechanisms for transition of early pure chemistry to biochemistry to the cellular biochemistry we call life. And according to him and his sources it was seeping alkali hydrothermal vents where the early life party was at, not a muddy puddle. No the different systems dont need to all be around at the same time, some earlier than others, just one time when the core components of all these systems were bundled into the same cellular bag. I would hazard a guess that some other complex biochemical systems around at the time were not taken up by early cells and lost to the primordal world. And you are wrong, polymers of amino acids that we call proteins are easy to synthesise from just the amino acid building blocks without life being involved. And no long time required, but i expect it helped.



FINALLY @ gilbo12345

Yes, fine. . by your good logic points 1 to 5 if created by God MUST have required 6,7,and8 together, so really only extra assumption 6 stands. Fine. Agreed. To me though, still one extra assumption than my naturalistic view, where points 1 to 5 DONT require this single extra superfluous and unfounded assumption. The mechanism for each of 1 to 5 is in brackets after each number, for each is either God or naturalistic or something we havent considered. Those are the assumptions of each. Its a completely pointless discussion to me. Why is the number of assumptions any indicator of why view is correct? Occams Razor? Why would the view with less assumptions necessarily be the one to prefer?

#152 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 October 2011 - 02:22 AM

Personally i'd need to observe creation happening, and then see a series of repeatable experiments under varying conditions to understand its intricacies.


Did you see evolution happening to the degree claimed? I am always amazed at how atheist require a higher standard from others that they cannot reach themselves.

#153 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 October 2011 - 09:50 AM

FINALLY @ gilbo12345

Yes, fine. . by your good logic points 1 to 5 if created by God MUST have required 6,7,and8 together, so really only extra assumption 6 stands. Fine. Agreed. To me though, still one extra assumption than my naturalistic view, where points 1 to 5 DONT require this single extra superfluous and unfounded assumption. The mechanism for each of 1 to 5 is in brackets after each number, for each is either God or naturalistic or something we havent considered. Those are the assumptions of each. Its a completely pointless discussion to me. Why is the number of assumptions any indicator of why view is correct? Occams Razor? Why would the view with less assumptions necessarily be the one to prefer?


No as I explained it is ONE assumption that a creationist needs to make... that there is a divine creator capable of creating what we think it created. Thats it.

Occams Razor claims that the simplest explanation with the least assumptions made is the most probable. Based on that assumptions required give rise to the level of faith needed in that explanation, less assumptions means less faith required that the assumptions did come to pass. Basically it is a "risk assessment", in that the explanation with the least faith needed is the most probable.

Under this definition evolution requires ALOT more faith than any religion.

It is amusing that when you've been shown to be wrong on the amount of assumptions required, (believe me I haven't even begun with the small details of evolution etc), that you seek to claim that it is not important. Such after-the-fact admissions is a statement of your own level of faith of your own worldview and is telling of your own bias...

#154 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 October 2011 - 11:30 AM

Did you see evolution happening to the degree claimed? I am always amazed at how atheist require a higher standard from others that they cannot reach themselves.


I see examples of the recent patterns and processes that are happening now, have happened in my lifetime and others have demonstrated as happening within the 150 or so years since
evolutionary theory was proposed to the world. So yes.

I personally like the goal to aim for higher standards, its provides a selective pressure that drives what i see to be useful and beneficial adaptation and innovation, or progress as we might call it.

But no ... neither evolution / nor evolutionary biology = atheism. I am atheist and an evolutionary biologists, thats me. Not so for all the other non-atheist evolutionary biologists.


No as I explained it is ONE assumption that a creationist needs to make... that there is a divine creator capable of creating what we think it created. Thats it.

Occams Razor claims that the simplest explanation with the least assumptions made is the most probable. Based on that assumptions required give rise to the level of faith needed in that explanation, less assumptions means less faith required that the assumptions did come to pass. Basically it is a "risk assessment", in that the explanation with the least faith needed is the most probable.

Under this definition evolution requires ALOT more faith than any religion.

It is amusing that when you've been shown to be wrong on the amount of assumptions required, (believe me I haven't even begun with the small details of evolution etc), that you seek to claim that it is not important. Such after-the-fact admissions is a statement of your own level of faith of your own worldview and is telling of your own bias...


Ok, why do you assume that occams razor is the best way to decide among two competing theories? I dont assume it is. I apply it and see the result. I then might apply other methods of arbitration and compare results to the conclusion of occams razor. Both might be correct, nether might be. But i might favor results when multiple different methods of arbitration all agree.

Firstly, nothing actually proves that occams razor is useful to decide which theory is correct. Is just something you can be applied to competing theories as a way to choose them..all its asking is which is preferred if you apply occams razor. Any of us could prefer that having more assumptions is actually the best way to decide which of two competing theories is to be preferred. No need for faith in this. Only application of a given method to arbitrate.

We can argue ad infinitum if its one assumption or many... i can interpret your text as saying that "there is a[n assumed] divine creator [assumed to be] capable of creating what we [assume or] think it created" I've agree that as eveything exists your prefered creator MUST have been capable. Fine. But, to me you are assuming he MUST have been responsible for (and capable of) every one of the 5x steps (points 1 to 5) that happened. Why not naturalistic explainations for some, theistic explainations for others. Its you that are assuming God is responsible for all 5 observed 'events'... those are your assumptions. You still require the extra assumption to me that God exists.

I do have what you might call 'belief' and 'faith' in evolution. Fine thats why i teach it with confidence - all my experience and all the evidence i see suggests it is the best appoximation of reality. You i expect have faith in God and gravity (one is religious doctrine, the other physical science). The reason why science like evolutionary biology is not practically considered a faith or belief, is that scientific views are potentially reproducibile and/or falsifiabile, and consequently modifiable. No one needs to blindly accept the scientific word or opinion. Clearly you dont. you can independently evaluate scientific methods, experiments or theories, as you do. Religious faith cant be independently evaluated in the same way, you either accept the dogma or not. If you dont 'quite agree', maybe you set up your own church or even your own religion.

Both theisic and naturalistic explanations require exactly the same number of steps for the observed world. Each change over time, be it something massive for a whole multicelled animal, an much smaller change within a cell, or each tiny change for an atom, each change over time requires either a naturalistic expaination OR theistic one OR another explanation. Same. You still require the extra existence of God - especially for the big changes you cant understand as culmination of many smaller previous changes.

#155 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 October 2011 - 11:50 AM

Under this definition evolution requires ALOT more faith than any religion.



Happy to hear that. I hope for me, it stimulates greater capacity of the respectable quality of perseverance.

James 1:3 "because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."

#156 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 20 October 2011 - 07:06 AM

[quote] name='sjl197' timestamp='1318817813' post='75810']
Personally i'd need to observe creation happening, and then see a series of repeatable experiments under varying conditions to understand its intricacies.[/quote]

I must pooint out that you are being inconsistent. You believe in evolution; yet you have never seen it happen?

[quote]All depends what 'part' of creation you mean though.. origin of universe, life, species... etc[/quote]

If you saw God create something from nothing, you would still not believe. This would simply prove you wrong. People do not love you when you prove them wrong. The cities in which Jesus did most of miracles totally rejected Him.

[quote]Just like i see natural selection working when weaker or maladapted individuals are selected out of a population by predators or disease, and those better suited to current conditions survive and reproduce...[/quote]

This is not evidence for evolution. Yet you believe in evolution?

TeeJay

#157 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 20 October 2011 - 07:15 AM

[quote] name='gilbo12345' timestamp='1318854948' post='75831']
Very true :D The only assumption made is that there is a creator. Thats it.

With the naturalistic version we need to assume

1) that the universe formed under a wholly naturalistic mechanism.... One that doesn't defy the laws of Physics
2) that all the elements formed under a wholly naturalistic mechanism
3) that planets and suns formed under a wholly naturalistic mechanism
4) that life formed under a wholly naturalistic mechanism
5) that life undergoes evolution from one species to another

This is skipping all the assumption that make-up these generalized assumptions but I guess you guys get the idea ;)
[/quote]

Gilbo,

Where did you get the "laws of physics"?

TeeJay

#158 OmneVivumExVivo

OmneVivumExVivo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Immunology, microbiology, biochemistry... Biology in general, really.
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Wisconsin

Posted 20 October 2011 - 06:23 PM

If we are going with occams razor being something useful to help us choose between competing theories then i'd say

Whether we prefer the naturalistic or theistic version, these are five observations that need explaining..the assumption of
each is in the brackets. Equal number whether you facour naturalistic or theistic.. five facts, five assumptions.

1) that the universe formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
2) that all the elements formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
3) that planets and suns formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
4) that life formed (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
5) that life undergoes evolution from one species to another (whether naturalistic or by Gods work)
giving 5 things i'd call observable facts (each with its own candidate assumptions in the brackets)

PLUS the all important 6th standalone assumption for theists is that there is a God,
...etc
maybe 7th assumption that 'he' is wanted to do each of these
maybe 8th assumption that 'he' actually did all of these.

So....
I prefer my naturalistic version with fewer assumptions then ... as per occams razor.


The problem with that is this: the naturalistic mechanism that caused the big bang, if there is one, couldn't be the same as the naturalistic mechanism by which the first life developed, if there was one. Which means that you are proposing FIVE SEPARATE UNCONFIRMED causes for the universe, while creationists propose ONLY ONE UNCONFIRMED cause for the universe.

Hence, you (atheists) are multiplying causes beyond necessity, while we are not. :D

As for the sixth, it is really part of the assumption going into the five observations.

As to the seventh, if we assume that the universe is the result of a deity, it's rather necessary that He "wanted" to create us. Again, part and parcel of the first five.

As to the eighth, that he actually did so goes with attributing the five observations to supernatural causes. As with the other "additional" assumptions, it's not an additional one at all.

And the final tally is...
(drumroll, please...)
:drums:

Creationist Assumptions: 5

Atheist Assumptions: 5

Creationist Unverifiable Causes: 1

Atheist Unverifiable Causes: 5

I rest my case. B)



Happy to hear that. I hope for me, it stimulates greater capacity of the respectable quality of perseverance.

James 1:3 "because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."


Glad to see you familiarize yourself at least somewhat with the Bible. I'm personally working through "Origin of the Species" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" right now. I'm really trying to get a feel for both sides of the argument. The problem is that I'm also reading Dembski's "Design of Life" at the moment, so I'm worried I'll get things confused. So if I say that Darwin was the person who coined the name "designoid," that Dembski sailed on the Beagle and observed finches, or that Dawkins came up with the argument from specified complexity, you'll know why. :P

#159 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 20 October 2011 - 06:35 PM

Belief in God, belief that they are not gods themselves, belief that the Bible is true and can be trusted in everything that it says, even if you dont agree with it. Evolution is believed in not because of evidence but because of its philosophical appeal. Man doesnt want God to exist.

#160 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 October 2011 - 04:56 AM


Personally i'd need to observe creation happening, and then see a series of repeatable experiments under varying conditions to understand its intricacies.

Did you see evolution happening to the degree claimed? I am always amazed at how atheist require a higher standard from others that they cannot reach themselves.


Hence, the contrarian and hypocritical stance of the materialistic atheistic evolutionist Ike. It’s okay to question the theistic claim of creation by demanding empirical evidence to support it, and yet they’ll totally ignore the fact that they have ABSOLUTELY NO empirical evidence to support their ‘faith statements’ concerning materialistic evolutionary origins. They actually run from it so hard that they even attempt to divorce themselves from it by saying that “origins has no part on evolutionary biology (etc…)”.

All of the above begs the question of the materialistic atheistic evolutionist: Where have you observed "MACRO" evolution happening?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users