Understanding Creationism: Definition and Relevance in Scientific Discourse

[Pattielli]

I have read some other thread in which this word was mentioned, I check it out on the net, and 20% figured out what it is about. Would you please tell me again what it really is ? And why do people have to take it into consideration ?

Thank you very much,

 

[chroot]

"Creationism" usually means the belief in a sentient being (a God) that created the Earth and the life on it in its current state. It is contrary to the scientific belief that the Earth was created 4.6 billion years ago through natural events, and and it and the life on it has evolved since through natural events.

- Warren

 

[Pattielli]

Thank you very much,
You think it will be worthy delving more into this subject if I would like to study about Earth history and its evolution ? Or just understand it as what You explained is enough ?

Thank you

[edit] It doesn't sound right, I reread and see it, I am so sorry about that[/edit]

 

[enigma]

Depends if you want to study science or US religious right propaganda

 

[Oochy]

Depends if you want to study science or US religious right propaganda

I think that was a little harsh, and uncalled for.

It is contrary to the scientific belief that the Earth was created 4.6 billion years ago through natural events, and and it and the life on it has evolved since through natural events.

Not true. Most creationist do, but there is a sect of scientist, who are progressive creationist. All we believe is that biological evolution is mathmaticly impossible and that God, after starting the big bang and helping the universe to evolve, and directing events to accomplish what He wanted, placed life on Earth, in a series of steps. It's very complexed, so I sugect you check out their web site, as I don't have enough time to explain it all. if you are interested, I suggest you by a book or two from them.

http://www.reasons.org


~Oochy

 

[jcsd]

Depends if you want to study science or US religious right propaganda

I think that was a little harsh, and uncalled for.

It is contrary to the scientific belief that the Earth was created 4.6 billion years ago through natural events, and and it and the life on it has evolved since through natural events.

Not true. Most creationist do, but there is a sect of scientist, who are progressive creationist. All we believe is that biological evolution is mathmaticly impossible and that God, after starting the big bang and helping the universe to evolve, and directing events to accomplish what He wanted, placed life on Earth, in a series of steps. It's very complexed, so I sugect you check out their web site, as I don't have enough time to explain it all. if you are interested, I suggest you by a book or two from them.

http://www.reasons.org


~Oochy

But the problem is it ain't science. There are some scinetists who are creationists, but in almost all cases they are speaking outside of their areas of expertise. There are also some pseudo-scientists who hold qualifications from non-accredited universities and publish in non-peer reviewed journals.

Coming from the UK where there is no real analogy to the US religous right, the whole thing baffles me; when I first heard about creationists I thought is was some sort of joke. As I said before you might as well argue over whether the moon is made of cheese or not.

 

[Phobos]

Oochy - Yes, there is certainly a broad spectrum of beliefs on the subject and one description won't fit all.

Pattielli - Check out these descriptions...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

Oftentimes, the term refers to Young Earth Creationists (YEC) who are perhaps the most vocal group...although Intelligent Design Creationists are in the news a lot lately.

YECs are usually fundamentalist Christians who interpret the Bible very literally and believe the universe is only a few thousand years old and that all "kinds" of species were created in their current form directly by God (i.e., no naturalistic evolution of one species into another).

Oochy's link is that of Dr. Hugh Ross whose beliefs seem to lie somewhere between the Day-Age Creationism and Theistic Evolution in the link I provide (I don't know his work that well). From what I've seen, he believes that the universe & life are too complicated to have formed without (the Christian) God. So, he interprets the Bible in a different, and less literal way. For example, the "days" of Genesis are interpreted as meaning long (cosmological) periods of time. The Flood was not just global, but a metaphor for a universal change. From what I've seen, he is more scientifically literate than the YECs. But overall, Dr. Ross is dedicated to seeing how scientific facts fit the Biblical model. Whereas, in science (as enigma suggested) you start with the observational facts and then build the model from that.

And why do people have to take it into consideration ?

It comes from religion. Most people are religious, so they must consider the teachings of their church vs. what science finds. It's so often discussed because Creationists are working hard to have their views taught in science classes alongside scientific theories. It's a big, long-time debate in the U.S. and there even have been Supreme Court cases about it.

 

[loseyourname]

That creationist site so badly misrepresents the actual position of evolutionary biologists that it's barely worth reading. It's nice to see these people genuinely try, but when they butcher so many basic facts, it's difficult to take them seriously.

 

[jcsd]

Dr. Hugh Ross is a case in point, he is a legitimate scientist and though I'm not 100% famliar with all his beliefs none of them seem to contradict the orthodoxy in his particular area of expertise. However he is completely unqualified to give an expert opinion on the likelihood of abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[Pattielli]

Oh well, it is truly unbelievable...and really against science...
Thank you everyone for your ideas,

 

[enigma]

Depends if you want to study science or US religious right propaganda

I think that was a little harsh, and uncalled for.

All we believe is that biological evolution is mathmaticly impossible

Harsh, yes. Uncalled for, I don't think so.

You can believe that evolution is mathematically impossible all you want. Until you start producing numbers to back up your assertions, you're making propaganda... not science.

You may not be aware that in the history of ID, there has not been a single submission to a peer-reviewed journal. That's not: "HAHA look at this silly nitwit... we're not going to publish this garbage"... that's none. nada. zip. zero. zilch. even submitted.

Sorry. If you can't even come up with an article, let alone one without drastic errors in thinking or research, you're not doing science.

 

[Oochy]

...he is completely unqualified to give an expert opinion on the likelihood of abiogenesis and evolution...

Yes, he admits that. That is why he has a fellow on his team by the name of Fazale Rana, a Ph.D biochemist from the university of Ohio.

Oochy's link is that of Dr. Hugh Ross whose beliefs seem to lie somewhere between the Day-Age Creationism and Theistic Evolution in the link I provide (I don't know his work that well). From what I've seen, he believes that the universe & life are too complicated to have formed without (the Christian) God. So, he interprets the Bible in a different, and less literal way. For example, the "days" of Genesis are interpreted as meaning long (cosmological) periods of time. The Flood was not just global, but a metaphor for a universal change. From what I've seen, he is more scientifically literate than the YECs. But overall, Dr. Ross is dedicated to seeing how scientific facts fit the Biblical model. Whereas, in science (as enigma suggested) you start with the observational facts and then build the model from that.

Correct, and he has begun to create a scientific model of his veiws of creation, which is a theory, not a "this-is-how-it-is-because-the-Bible-says-so", on how the universe began and life, and I believe he is submiting his research to some scientific journals.

You can believe that evolution is mathematically impossible all you want. Until you start producing numbers to back up your assertions, you're making propaganda... not science.

Now that I can do, my friend. Now this is from ICR, which is a YEC group, and I most disagree with almost everything they say, for as you all have said it is not science. But this is one of the bases of the argument against evolution, besides a lack of fossil evidance(Which I would need to see before I would accept evolution[theistic or natualistic]).


The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution

According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though anyone such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed Earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the Earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of anyone of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

There. I know it's alot, but I have checked over it and found nothing wrong or incorrect as far as I can tell.

 

[Janitor]

I am interested to see what sort of critique can be made of what Oochy posted about the impossibility of evolution. I can remember it being in vogue among creationists a decade ago to compare the evolution of life with a tornado blowing through a junk yard and whipping up a functioning 747 passenger jet.

The hazards of taking parts of the Bible seriously are pointed out in a humorous way in the lead post of this thread at PF:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2945[/URL]

 

[loseyourname]

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

There you go. There's your mistake right there, and this is why these are not sumbitted to peer-reviewed journals.

This calculation assume that there is only one possible way in which a 200-part organism might evolve successfully. Obviously we can see that is not the case. There are literally millions of species, all with the same number of parts. It is erroneous to say that 200 mutations in a row must be successful, as well. All that has to happen is that 1 of the millions of individuals of this species must have one favorable mutation (out of a myriad that might be favorable in some way). Then when a million individuals have adopted this mutation, there must be one more. This is hardly improbable. In fact, we have seen microbes in lab cultures mutate and adopt favorable mutations at ridiculous rates that make this critique downright silly. It takes longer for larger organism (both because they reproduce slower and because there are less individuals of a given species), but the process is the same.

 

[enigma]

There. I know it's alot, but I have checked over it and found nothing wrong or incorrect as far as I can tell.

I do not mean to sound bellicose, Oochy. Really I don't. The problem is that pseudoscience like creationism and ID are the single greatest threat to scientific education in the US and the world to date. Evolution has been proven true over the past 150 years of study. If there were any doubt among scientists, creationism/ID might actually be given credence. It isn't. It hasn't been for decades.

Now... to the essay.
There is plenty wrong, first off.
Second, it is not a scientific study. It is a thought experiment, at best. Count how many times he states something without backing it up with numbers. I'm not calling out all of them.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems,

Where are the numbers to back up this statement?
what is "order"?

nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them.

Where are the numbers to back up this statement?
Is a man with webbed toes suffering from a harmful mutation?
What about a man with excessive body hair?
An albino?
Are these mutations harmful?
How about a woman with 12 toes instead of 10?
What about a person with extremely long earlobes?
Harmful?

How about a tricky one: Sickle cell anemia.
Harmful? Sometimes...
Depends if malaria is prevalent in the region. If no, it's harmful (or at least painful). If yes, it's an advantage.

The problem with this argument, and honestly all creationist arguments about "most mutations are harmful" is that they think that the only mutations that are being considered are "extra leg growing out of the back" type mutations. They thoroughly ignore the little mutations which differentiate everyone and everything from others of the same species.

No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process.

This is an utter, total, and complete boldfaced LIE

Ever heard of anti-biotic resistant bacteria?

How about the strains of bacteria which can dissolve Nylon; a substance which has only been around for 50 years or so.

Where do you think that new diseases come from? They mutate from existing strains, possibly strains that previously could only have attacked a type of animal.

Sure, the mutations may not be beneficial to us, but the bacteria? Goldmine.

Why does it seem like I'm only listing bacteria? Because we've only been looking for 150 years or so. Evolution is a sloooooow process. Bacteria have lifespans in the days. That way we can watch them changing in our lifetimes.

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up.

Where are the numbers to back up this statement?

At each successive stage it only needs to be good enough to survive. If it is marginally better than the previous iteration, it'll eventually dominate. According to research, we evolved and the Neanderthals did not because we were marginally better at obtaining food. We wandered away from "home base" to obtain food, especially seasonal food like salmon or berries. Neanderthals stayed near their caves and made due. It has been determined (and unfortunately, I cannot find a link to it) that a mere 2% advantage in birthrates would have caused us to completely dominate the niche we were competing for in a rediculously low number of years. 60K is what's coming to mind, but I am quite probably misremembering.

A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system.

Numbers? Proof?

If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Numbers? Proof?

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely.

emphasis mine

Numbers? Proof?

Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare,

Uh? Lie.

and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

Numbers? Proof?

(fabrications...)

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half.

Numbers? Proof?

Why does it have to be either/or? The examples I've listed above are a short list of mutations which are present in our collective gene pool.

Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!

This is a gross oversimplification brought about by a complete lack of understanding of genetics. There is a change in the genetic code EVERY SINGLE TIME a new generation is born. If it's better than the rest, it continues. If it isn't, it dies out eventually. Doubt it? Look at children. Are they all exactly alike? Are some of them taller? Do some stand straighter? Can some run faster?

...

clip similar oversimplifications.

Look, it took less than 20,000 years of artificial selection to turn wolves into wienerdogs AND great danes. You are saying it is impossible for a wolf to turn naturally into ANYTHING without guidance in a million?

Speaking of that, take a look at the attachment. Can you honestly tell me you can't see a sequence there? Except for the first (modern chimp) and the last (modern human), you're looking, in chronological order, at 2.6My of human evolution. I'll guess that's somewhere near 100,000 generations.

 

[motai]

I found an article that elaborates on the reasonings that YEC's have about the universe (some of it is quite funny).

Here is an 'argument' about salt. "Another young-earth argument is that not enough salt or minerals are in the bottom of the oceans. Here young-earth creationists base their assumptions on the supposition that if the Earth was old, oceans would be 4.6 billion year-old stagnant basins. They ignore the universally-accepted documentation of sea floor spreading and plate tectonics that depict the Earth as a vibrant and living surface."

And also, "In 1857, Phillip Gosse wrote Omphalos (navel), a book advocating that God created false records in nature to date his recent creation artificially. Just as Adam must have been created an adult, Gosse argued, the Creator designed the Earth to look old. The Earth would be young, but would have the 'appearance of age.'" This sounds absurd in itself and is without motive. Why would god make the Earth look older?

http://www.orisol.com/chap04.html

 

[BoulderHead]

This sounds absurd in itself and is without motive. Why would god make the Earth look older?

He needed to a way to help populate Hell.

 

[Oochy]

This is an utter, total, and complete boldfaced LIE

Ever heard of anti-biotic resistant bacteria?

How about the strains of bacteria which can dissolve Nylon; a substance which has only been around for 50 years or so.

Where do you think that new diseases come from? They mutate from existing strains, possibly strains that previously could only have attacked a type of animal.

I should have edited this article and made it more acurate, and left out the fluff. You are correct, but I've never seen a fossil of a fish turning into a land animal or many other "missing links". You only have evidance for fungi changing, not animals. And even if you can prove evolution works, you have just begun the solve the problem. Your main problem will always be, life's beginings...

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though anyone such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed Earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the Earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of anyone of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

You, uh.. Skiped this part, why?


Look, it took less than 20,000 years of artificial selection to turn wolves into wienerdogs AND great danes. You are saying it is impossible for a wolf to turn naturally into ANYTHING without guidance in a million?

That's with in the canine genus, not a dog into a sheep or a goat.

...nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them.

They said NEARLY, not all.

This is a gross oversimplification brought about by a complete lack of understanding of genetics. There is a change in the genetic code EVERY SINGLE TIME a new generation is born. If it's better than the rest, it continues. If it isn't, it dies out eventually.

You failed to adress the subject, the mathematic impossility of evolution.

You kepted asking for "Where are the numbers to back up this statement?", then they gave them, and you changed the discussion. Now I ask you: Where are the numbers to back up your statements?

You never addresed the problem of the possibility of evolution.

 

[Dayle Record]

Creationism is religious belief, parading as science. American christians have managed to get their beliefs taught in public schools as a kind of co-science, since Darwinism counters the biblical story of creation. Some people believe that just by dangling their religious concepts in front of children, they have done their righteous duty on earth, and their God will be pleased with them, and not kick the holy poop out of them when he comes back to Earth and is really angry about how we behave, or the fact that we just don't fawn enough. I think that their system of belief, and thought, projected as an energy; is one of the most damaging forms of electromagnetic pollution, ever. I would never want a child of mine, exposed to this stuff.

 

[hitssquad]

The fossil as a test of humans

"In 1857, Phillip Gosse wrote Omphalos (navel), a book advocating that God created false records in nature to date his recent creation artificially. Just as Adam must have been created an adult, Gosse argued, the Creator designed the Earth to look old. The Earth would be young, but would have the 'appearance of age.'" This sounds absurd in itself and is without motive. Why would god make the Earth look http://www.orisol.com/chap04.html?

...Because we are "not [to] put the LORD ... God to the test." Fossil dating provides a means at hand for human testing of the Lord. The bait lies in wait as the Lord's test of His subjects.

 

[Phobos]

but I've never seen a fossil of a fish turning into a land animal or many other "missing links". You only have evidance for fungi changing, not animals.

A starting point for your consideration...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
in particular, this section...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

And even if you can prove evolution works, you have just begun the solve the problem. Your main problem will always be, life's beginings...

You are correct that the beginning of life is mystery, but evolution only claims to deal with the changes of life after that point. So, the theory of evolution should not be attacked on that point. Asking for a strong theory on abiogenesis is of course still an open question. Research goes on.

You, uh.. Skiped this part, why?

A question for enigma. But note that the paragraph again assumes a linear progression toward a particular goal. If the progression doesn't work, then it "starts over". That is not how evolution works. A population changes. There are variations in the populations (i.e., subpopulations). The subpopulations change and diverge. Beneficial changes tend to live on. Harmful changes tend to die out. Intermediate forms (something you can define only in hindsight*) can survive just fine.

* Each species in complete in its own right. You can only call something intermediate if you are comparing it relative to ancestors and descendents that you are choosing to think about.

Unless the author is talking about the beginning of life & is assuming that 200 is the minimum number of parts to have life (irreduceable complexity). Again, that is not evolution, but abiogenesis. There, my speculation would be that there were transitional molecules in between non-living and living (a gray area where a molecule can make copies of itself but doesn't quite fit other definitions of what we call alive).

That's with in the canine genus, not a dog into a sheep or a goat.

Obviously the point was that big changes can happen in short time frames** so, by extension, really big changes can happen in long time frames (as evidenced by fossils, genetics, etc.). Isolate a subpopulation and accumulate a few changes, and you have a speciation event. Accumulate a bunch of changes and you have to take the classification up a notch to the genus level. Etc.

** Another striking example is plant domestication (agriculture). For example, cabbage, kale, broccoli, cauliflower, & brussel sprouts all were derived from a single wild plant species.

For the original poster - - this is getting into the microevolution vs. macroevolution debate. Some creationists accept microevolution (Fish A becomes Fish B) but reject macroevolution (Fish A becomes Amphibian A). The distinction is mainly made by creationists, since evolutionary biologists say is all the same thing, just over longer time frames.

 

[jcsd]

...he is completely unqualified to give an expert opinion on the likelihood of abiogenesis and evolution...

Yes, he admits that. That is why he has a fellow on his team by the name of Fazale Rana, a Ph.D biochemist from the university of Ohio.

Again this typical of the intelectual dishonesty of cretaionists, he's actually a chemist and his main area of specialization is pharmaceuticals.

 

[loseyourname]

You, uh.. Skiped this part, why?

I addressed the problems with the probability calculation; well, one problem anyway. Is there a reason why you ignored it?

 

[enigma]

You are correct, but I've never seen a fossil of a fish turning into a land animal or many other "missing links".

Then you haven't been looking hard enough. Just because the creationists say they don't exist doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

Seriously... did you look at the attachment I posted last? Can you honestly say that you can't see a progression there?!?

http://www.mbc.qld.edu.au/students/qsite/team5/walking%20fish.jpg , a fish with enough strength in their "fins" to walk (or at least shimmy) on land and breathe. There are similar fish currently alive today, but I can't recall their name (someone help me out).

Whales have an incredibly detailed tree. Manatees even have fingernails!

Archeopteryx. Transition to archeopteryx? Did you know that the motion of a bird's flap is the exact same motion as a raptor's "grab the prey" motion? All it takes is one raptor to have extra skin on its arms so that it can jump a little farther by a differentially small "gliding" ability. One single raptor in the entire multi-million year history of raptors. Then add time and countless generations improving on the first one's "defect".

An observation... You're claiming to be "ID", yet your questions sound as if you're a plain old creationist. If you believe that evolution must have been "guided" (which is certainly possible, but not provable) because it is "mathematically impossible" (which either has not or cannot be shown using a realistic model of evolution), then you're more or less agreeing that evolution has occured. Look at the fossil records. The evidence is there! Saying it ain't don't make it so. Creationist websites are LYING.

And even if you can prove evolution works, you have just begun the solve the problem. Your main problem will always be, life's beginings...

That's is not, never was, and never will be evolution.

Still, all it takes is a single replicating molecule. Just one. It doesn't have to be DNA. It doesn't have to be RNA. All it takes is a single string of amino acids which attracts similar amino acids and then splits in two. Dawkins' The Selfish Gene goes into intricate detail on this.

You, uh.. Skiped this part, why?

Were you even reading my post? I stated just above there that the strawman he built up does not even come close to the complexities of evolutionary genetics, and therefore is worthless as a thought exercise. If it a worthless analogy, then the conclusions drawn from it are equally worthless. Phobos already elaborated on why it is worthless. If you need further explanation, I can supply it.

That's with in the canine genus, not a dog into a sheep or a goat.

You missed the point I was trying to make. Evolution is small accumulated changes over time. Noone is saying two wolves did it and out popped a sheep. Noone is even saying it happened over 100 or 1000 or probably even 10,000 or 100,000 generations! Small changes build up and build up and build up and build up for millions and millions of years. At what point do two different separated family trees diverge into species? Lions and Tigers look different, have different traits... they're two different species. They can http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm , though... although their offspring cannot. Anybody know how long ago their family split? I'd be shocked if it was more than between 10K and 100K years ago. Short timespans can create vastly different creatures... look at the hominid picture again. 2.5 Million years is what you're looking at. 2.5 Million years is a drop in the bucket of geological time. You seriously believe that it is IMpossible for almost a Billion years to produce further changes among four legged mammals, let alone among orders and classes.

...nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them.

They said NEARLY, not all.

But I gave a very brief list of 6 which aren't harmful. How many mutations can you think of that are harmful. I could go on for days, could you? Let's limit it to human mutations which have actually happened, K?

You failed to adress the subject, the mathematic impossility of evolution.

I was specifically talking about the subject, the mathematic impossibility of evolution. Every single claim that it is so (that I have seen) is a strawman of one sort or another. That nixes the "impossible" claims. Now... to the "possible" ones. Let's be extremely generous and say that a new generation of animal is born every 2 years. That's generous because many animals mate at least once per year. Now, it is my assertion that every single coupling produces slight differences from the parents. In any million year period, that means there have been 500,000 generations. That means there have been at least 500,000 cases of nature sifting out the most capable to survive. That means there have been at least 500,000 generations worth of the capability of a minor mutation which could start the creature down the path to another species. That's trillions and trillions of chances. Currently there will be an estimated PEAK of 20 to 60 trillion (with a T!... 12 zeros) cicadas on the east coast. All it takes is one creature to have an advantageous change... and time.

You kepted asking for "Where are the numbers to back up this statement?", then they gave them, and you changed the discussion. Now I ask you: Where are the numbers to back up your statements?

I didn't change the discussion... you simply missed the point.

 

[Phobos]

http://www.mbc.qld.edu.au/students/qsite/team5/walking%20fish.jpg , a fish with enough strength in their "fins" to walk (or at least shimmy) on land and breathe. There are similar fish currently alive today, but I can't recall their name (someone help me out).

mudskipper? http://members.ozemail.com.au/~thebobo/mud.htm

lungfish? http://mama.essortment.com/lungfish_rank.htm

 

[Janitor]

In another recent thread I told about hearing Christian Research Institute president Hank Hanegraaff claiming on his daily radio program that there is absolutely no evidence of transitions between kinds. Given what I am seeing in the links provided here, that is clearly not the case. Since Hank makes his living writing and speaking on Christian apologetics, he must spend a considerable amount of time educating himself on the creationism-vs.-evolution debate. So it would seem overwhelmingly likely that he has seen good evidence for transitional forms, possibly including the same ones linked to here. But that would mean he has chosen to deliberately lie to his readers and listeners. Is this an example of what they mean by a “pious lie”? Does Hank believe the Biblical God is pleased to see Hank bearing false witness, as long as the intent of the false witness is to bring nonbelievers into the fold of Christianity?

 

[Phobos]

An excellent question. If he says "there is absolutely no evidence", then that's a simple lie. If he disagrees with the interpretation of the evidence, then that's another matter that can be discussed. But with a daily radio program, he's not interested in a scientific discussion...he's preaching.

 

[Andre]

Well there are still transitional species alive today:

The walking fish (mudskipper):

periophthalmus barbarus[/url]

The platypus http://www.drellenrudolph.com/featureanimals/platypus.jpg A mammal? with a duckbill? laying eggs?

The Coelacanth, the fish with arms and legs.

 

[enigma]

Well there are still transitional species alive today:

Strictly speaking, of course:

Everything is a transitional species - Between what it was and what it will be.

Thanks for the links everyone!

I thought it was a mudskipper, but my 5 second google search was bringing up car parts.

 

[BoulderHead]

Strictly speaking, of course:

Everything is a transitional species - Between what it was and what it will be.

I think that's a very good point. Many, I believe, hold the view that man in his present state is the final end result of whatever the heck came before. I don't think it's wise to simply assuming such a thing to be true.

 

[Nereid]

Slightly OT, but it continues to puzzle me no end ...

As far as I can tell, this whole 'creationism' thing is primarily a phenomenon of (in?) US society, and has only an almost coincidental relationship with christianity or religion.

I mean, are there groups of Hindus, Buddhists, etc who are lining up to write YEC papers? Even within Christendom, do you hear sermons from the Russian or Greek Orthodox church on the Young Earth? How about more western branches (Catholicism, Anglicanism)?

Then out of the mainstream, do you find underground christians in China (for example) including references to YEC in their criticisms of the godless teaching in (Chinese) state schools?

So I concluded some time ago that this whole creationism thing is some kind of political movement, local to some parts of the USA, which takes some religious clothes for expediency.

When I read Janitor's post about "hearing Christian Research Institute president Hank Hanegraaff claiming on his daily radio program that there is absolutely no evidence of transitions between kinds", and Phobos saying that the anti-evolution branch distinguishes between microbes and large multi-cellular organisms - yet all claim to be christians (how does it go, re telling bald-faced lies?) - I count it as yet more data to support the hypothesis that it's a political movement, not a religious one.

Mind you, those wonderful 'tornado in a junkyard' claims are actually very good teaching material ... you know, 'now class, last week we looked at some of the mechanisms driving evolution and the creation of new species; today we'll look at a document {from YEC} and discuss it in terms of those driving mechanisms, with particular attention to analysing misunderstandings and misapplication of concepts.'

 

[Nereid]

Strictly speaking, of course:

Everything is a transitional species - Between what it was and what it will be.

With one very important exception: those which go extinct. Extinction is a vital part of evolution :surprise:

 

[Phobos]

As far as I can tell, this whole 'creationism' thing is primarily a phenomenon of (in?) US society, and has only an almost coincidental relationship with christianity or religion.

It does seem strongest in the U.S. Not sure why. Perhaps because other Christian countries (e.g., England) are more moderate in their views. Perhaps because other fundamentalist countries don't teach that much evolution in the first place so no one is getting worked up about it. In the U.S., we have strong secular and a strong religious sides in play at the same time (particularly in that public schools are secular).

I mean, are there groups of Hindus, Buddhists, etc who are lining up to write YEC papers?

I've only seen very few. (but then again, I have not been looking for them)

How about more western branches (Catholicism, Anglicanism)?

The Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution (God-directed).

Then out of the mainstream, do you find underground christians in China (for example) including references to YEC in their criticisms of the godless teaching in (Chinese) state schools?

It would be interesting given that China is a great place to find fossils.

So I concluded some time ago that this whole creationism thing is some kind of political movement, local to some parts of the USA, which takes some religious clothes for expediency.

My impression is that it grew out of debates about what to teach our kids in school. As science learned more about it, it entered public school mainstream more. There were then religious objections to it. Various laws were passed for and against evolution/creationism in schools. Now that it's a big deal in the courts & school boards in every state, it is a big political issue.

Phobos saying that the anti-evolution branch distinguishes between microbes and large multi-cellular organisms

re-read my previous post...they distinguish between adaptive variations within any species (accepted) and the development of whole new features (rejected)

 

[arildno]

"It does seem strongest in the U.S. Not sure why. Perhaps because other Christian countries (e.g., England) are more moderate in their views. Perhaps because other fundamentalist countries don't teach that much evolution in the first place so no one is getting worked up about it. In the U.S., we have strong secular and a strong religious sides in play at the same time (particularly in that public schools are secular)."

I believe the difference between the "prominence" of creationism (and other forms of biblical literalism) in US and the relative obscurity of these movements in Europe in large parts are attributable to the unique financial strength of the right-wing Christians in US, compared to Europe.
There exist absolutely no comparable, wealthy group of right-wing Christians in Europe to the many in US (that I know of).

Clearly, with a strong financial backing, any sort of group will be able to make an impact on the "public consciousness" in the country they are active.

 

[Janitor]

So I concluded some time ago that this whole creationism thing is some kind of political movement, local to some parts of the USA, which takes some religious clothes for expediency. - Nereid

I caught about three minutes of a program in progress on Christian radio today. I am 60% sure it was James Dobson's Focus on the Family. At any rate, the host of the program quoted somebody having written, "Darwin made evolutionists respectable," and then the host went on to talk about how horrible the evolutionist view is, and what sorts of other bad things evolutionists believe. He claims that nine of the Supreme Court Justices are evolutionists, and so he says it is no surprise that the U.S. has anti-prayer-in-school laws and pro-abortion laws. He worries that those godless nine will declare same-sex union legal in this country.

 

[Nereid]

some random comments on the 'c'

IIRC, there's a few pages in the Talk Origins website which present references to modern instances of new species ... in the 'hard' sense of inter-breeding being no longer possible. The best examples are some plants.

A curious aspect of many of the anti-evolution documents I've read is the focus on large animals. As we all know, the first 3 billion years (+/-) of life on Earth was dominated by bacteria; animals weren't invented then. Indeed, many would argue that we are still in the Age of Bacteria; the vast majority of the biomass on the Earth is comprised of bacteria, the greatest diversity is to be found in bacteria (esp if the Archaea are included), etc (IIRC Gould said something like this in one of his books). Eukaryotes are just a minor aberation

But even if we restrict ourselves to Eukaryotes, why ignore all the others which aren't animals? True, in terms of a fossil record, there's not much to argue about for fungi, slime moulds, etc; but why not look at the contemporary rise and fall of species in these complex life forms?

Then there are plants. If the anti-evolutionists reject the idea that 'whole new features' can arise through evolution, are they considering only animals? If a clear case of 'new features' could be found among plants, would that shake their stance?

In another thread a creationist quoted the Cambrian explosion as a good reason why the theory of evolution was suss - how could all those phyla suddenly spring into existence? We should be thankful for this, and several other questions; they point to areas of active research, and (if the reader is willing to listen ) to discuss some fascinating research (and findings) ... like the Ediacara biota, the fact that plant divisions (they're not called phyla in that kingdom) can be traced (through fossils) way back to various algae over 1 billion years ago (way, way before the Cambrian), Snowball Earth, and much much more ...

Lastly abiogenesis (1). Ian Smith, in the Biology sub-forum, posted a link to a recent paper by Wrose (sp?), on research findings on the evolution of the cell. It's a great read Doesn't address the origin of life itself, but it starts to get close; the origin of cells.

Abiogenesis (2). There are no Earth rocks yet found older than ~3.8 billion years (crystals yes, but not rocks). However there are clear signs that there was life on Earth contemporaneous with the oldest rocks. The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, but suffered several episodes of 'heavy bombardment' in the first few hundred million years of its existence (so say the craters of the Moon). Where did life come from? Maybe the panspermia idea should come in from the cold? Maybe life on Earth began on Mars, or Europa, or Titan? Maybe it began somewhere else in the Milky Way, 8 or 10 billion years ago?

Who wouldn't want to be among the teams which do the research to test these ideas! :surprise:

 

[Nereid]

It does seem strongest in the U.S. Not sure why. Perhaps because other Christian countries (e.g., England) are more moderate in their views. Perhaps because other fundamentalist countries don't teach that much evolution in the first place so no one is getting worked up about it. In the U.S., we have strong secular and a strong religious sides in play at the same time (particularly in that public schools are secular).

Maybe PF members in other countries could chime in here, esp if you have (or recently have had) a close association with the public (aka state) school system?
Apart from Iran, are there any countries where religious institutions play a major role in determining the curriculum of public/state (high/secondary) schools?

Of course there are schools run by religious bodies in a great many countries, and not a few of today's national leaders were students at such (or even teachers, e.g. Turkey's PM).

Maybe I should post a poll in Politics!

 

[TENYEARS]

Is anything all wrong? Is anything all right? There are only acts and consequnces unconciously performed. Go down the line and project...

If you do not see then the question is are you looking? Too much food today the bins were full.

 

[russ_watters]

As far as I can tell, this whole 'creationism' thing is primarily a phenomenon of (in?) US society, and has only an almost coincidental relationship with christianity or religion.

Creationists are, of course, religious, but since it appears mostly in the US (I didn't know that, btw), it may be more of a cultural phenomena. In the US, we seem to have an inherrent distrust of any authority figure (except of course, God). The Scopes Trial in 1925 directly challenged the Bible and the latent creationism we see today may simply be left-over from that.

When Darwin first published his book, how was it received in other countries?

 

[Andre]

Interesting question. Is creationism science, politics, or religion

Science: We have a hypothesis (Genesis I ). We test the hypothesis to all available evidence. If we find indeed that Earth is younger than 10000 or 6000 years then it strenghtens the hypothesis. If not we may have to adapt or discard the hypothesis.

Science? I doubt it.

Politics is the profession devoted to governing and controlling the domestics of a society. A direct offspring of politics is persuading the society that the politics are aimed on improving it. There is a balance between what the society needs implicitly (security) or explicitely (more money) and what the society wants or thinks that it wants. Encouraging or rejecting ideas and theories (Global warming, ice age coming, creationism) may be tools of politics to reach their objective.

Politics? Perhaps.

Religion is belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. For creationism the next definiton can be found:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/evolution/bldef_creationism.htm

Creationism is the religious doctrine, opposed to naturalistic evolution, that life on this planet was created by a special, unique act of God. Creationism goes beyond this traditional religious belief, however, in asserting that this belief can be proven empirically and scientifically.

A difference between science and religion is that science can be falsified. So as long as creationists are willing to adapt the Genesis hypothesis according to empirical evidence then it should not be a problem. However a rigid belief in the exact wordings of the hypothesis being true without accepting countering evidence is known either as pseudoscience or religion.

 

[Janitor]

Andre, thanks for the link. One thing it says is, "Unfortunately for creationists, science only deals with natural events which are repeatable..."

By that criterion, creationism is cast out of the realm of science. But isn't evolution also cast out? Is a mutation that helped two geographically-separated populations get started on the road to becoming two disctinct species 280 million years ago in any sense "repeatable?" I think not.

 

[Nereid]

Now let me see, 'to repeat the Big Bang ...' Perhaps we have one of those perennial scope/domain and 'meaning of terms' problems

 

[Janitor]

Yeah, I think the writer at that site went overboard in saying that science only deals with repeatable events.

 

[Andre]

The discussion is getting rather philosophical.

About the “repeatability of science”:

http://kosmoi.com/Science/Method/

Science depends heavily on the repeatability of experiments, and on their giving consistent (e.g. almost identical) results. This repeatability hinges on objective comparison of observations of different researchers studying the phenomenon.

Also recommended:

~ Note that we must define the "groups" of individuals or events in ways that other people can repeat our results, which implies that all criteria for grouping must be clearly specifiable and repeatable by competent people.

http://pluto.fss.buffalo.edu/classes/psy/jsawusch/psy250/1-Overview.pdf

The scientific method involves collecting the data (facts) under well defined, repeatable(public) conditions.

http://www.mssm.edu/msjournal/71/712134.shtml

Science involves the conception and construction of refutable hypotheses, and their testing by repeatable experiments

Is not the science itself that needs to be repeatable, but the experiments, the results, the conditions, etc, however some shrewd Creationist modified that idea slightly in an http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/article.asp?article=446

Evolution is not repeatable, observable, or refutable and is therefore not science.

Evolution (or the big bang) isn’t science indeed. It is (are) just a validated scientific theory, obtained by scientific methods.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, I think the writer at that site went overboard in saying that science only deals with repeatable events.

Not quite. I think Nereid was being a little tongue-in-cheek there. The Big Bang theory depends on repeatable experimentation/observation, but the Big Bang itself doesn't require it (its a single event, not a theory). Repeatable evidence for the BBT?: Hubble Deep Field and Hubble Deep Field South.

The same goes for individual events in evolution. The case you describe is Darwin's foundation for the theory (he examined birds that were geographically separated in the Galapagos islands). The repeatability comes from finding other species in other places that have undergone the same change. At the grand canyon, for example, you can find nearly identical species of rabbits on opposite sides of the canyon, whose evolution can be traced to when they were separated by the canyon. That's repeatability.

Repeatability is, in fact, one of the keys to the scientific method.

 

[Dayle Record]

The scientific community has had thousands of years to mull over creationism. It was rejected, and Science took its place. Creationism hasn't helped humans combat disease, or research the thread of life on this world, in order to maintain its health. Creationism, however gave humans some sort of carte blanch to trash this world, and everything on it in the name of our special relationship to God, who according to the bible, gave the descendants of Adam, absolute rule over all living things on this world. That was ever so convenient, for Adam and his descendants, but not for anyone or anything else. The statute of limitations has run out on whatever the original deal was; all our planet belongs to all of us now. The human genome project established that we evolved here, we didn't arrive here, we weren't made here. We contain DNA of the simplest and most singular of the life forms evident. This world printed the book that is us, the copyright is still up for grabs; we better get hold of that.

 

[Nereid]

anti-evolutionists, deeply hypocritical? or just confused?

Another curiosity about those folk who rail against 'evolution': do they realize how ironic their activity is? I mean, they use media such as radio, TV, the press; they have PCs with internet access; they may own and use cellphones; they eat highly processed foods (including genetically modified soy products); take modern medicines, and may have had advanced surgery; and so on. The very same processes and methods which are so helpful to giving them a comfortable, healthy and rich daily life also produce the soundly validated theory of evolution.

I don't doubt that few are overtly hypocritical - believe that science only works for things like cellphones and modern medicine, but not geology and biology - so perhaps the sad truth is that they simply don't understand what science is and how it works? Surely science education in those parts of the US isn't *that* bad?!?

 

[Phobos]

Another thing about "repeatability" - - Often the argument gets stuck on a particular event...a specific historical mutation or whatever. But that's kind of a strawman. We don't need to see each specific mutation between Species A and Species B for it to be science, so long as we have repeatable experimental evidences that genetic mutations do occur that can change a species. Knowing it can happen allows you to build a model which is then reinforced by fossil & genetic evidence. As I understand it, evolutionary biologists typically look for transitional features in the fossil/genetic record rather than trying to pin down the exact species-by-species history of branching. Of course, finding the specific species and the specific mutations in history is a very welcome discovery and it does happen. So you don't need to re-evolve a fish into an amphibian to prove the theory, but you do need to find a consistency (repeatability) in fossils and genetics to support the transitional model. Similarly, you don't need to recreate the Big Bang in the lab, but you do need repeatable results for the supporting evidence (e.g., measurements of the CBR, etc.).

Nereid - It's also interesting to see how some creationists feel there is a conspiracy among scientists to promote an atheistic viewpoint. To accept creationism, you can't only reject the theory of evolution, but also a lot of astronomy, geology, physics, etc. which provide independent lines of evidence that add up to the same world view.

 

[Ian]

To accept creationism, which in truth is merely the recognition that the Earth has a creator, does not mean you have to discard astronomy, geology, physics, etc. We do however discard the evolutionary theory even if only on the basis that Darwin was a total bigot with hitlerian beliefs.
We are also advised in the scriptures to 'avoid foolish oppositions of science so-called' because that is man's idea on the works of God just as religion is man's idea on the word of God. But yet we have faith.

 

[Nereid]

To accept creationism, which in truth is merely the recognition that the Earth has a creator, does not mean you have to discard astronomy, geology, physics, etc. We do however discard the evolutionary theory even if only on the basis that Darwin was a total bigot with hitlerian beliefs.
We are also advised in the scriptures to 'avoid foolish oppositions of science so-called' because that is man's idea on the works of God just as religion is man's idea on the word of God. But yet we have faith.

So help me out here Ian ... 'evolutionary theory' is two things:
1) 'evolution', a description of what happens in nature, like 'gravity'
2) 'theories of evolution' (note the plural), which are scientific theories that are consistent with a humungeous amount of observational and experimental data, including, but not limited to, 'evolution'.

As a scientific theory, anyone of the theories of evolution has faced, and continues to face, intense scrutiny by a global community of active scientists, in the same way that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity does, or the Standard Model in particle physics, and thousands of other scientific theories. The modern theories of evolution (which, incidentally, are different from what Darwin proposed, in a number of very important aspects) are among the most successful in science - they are consistent with observational and experimental data across a wide range of disciplines (geology, biology, ecology, ...), they make testable predictions, and so on.

These theories of evolution do not address the origin of the Universe, the Earth, or life; for modern theories on these, look to cosmology, astrophysics (esp the formation of stellar systems), and abiogenesis.

Here's my beef with 'creationists', and maybe with you:
1) is there a better way to do science? Probably; but let's debate the *whole of science*, as method/approach/etc; there's nothing special about theories of evolution
2) is there data from experiments and observations that are inconsistent with the theories of evolution? Probably, but let's examine that data and how the theories can (or cannot) account for it; this is a normal part of doing science
3) is there an alternative set of scientific theories about the origin of the Universe, the Earth, life, the evolution of homo sap? "Creationists" claim they have such, but any serious examination of any of these theories quickly shows massive inconsistencies with well established data, pretty much across the board - geology, physics, astronomy, biology, ... On top of which, no papers based on any of these theories have ever been published in peer reviewed journals (AFAIK).

To repeat, a rejection of the successful theories of evolution is a rejection of all modern science, or it is deeply cynical hypocrisy (or confusion or ignorance, but those who 'anti-evolutionists' rail publicly would wish us to believe that they're neither confused nor ignorant).