creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

being that i did not read every post on all 23 pages of this epic discussion.
Was it brought up that it could be a little of both? that life could have been created followed by life evolving? just wondering. It is atleast what I would like to believe.

Originally posted by thetruthhurts78
being that i did not read every post on all 23 pages of this epic discussion.
Was it brought up that it could be a little of both? that life could have been created followed by life evolving? just wondering. It is atleast what I would like to believe.

Yes it has. Many religious people (not just Christians) are theistic evolutionists. They believe God started the process and guides it with great involvement.

Originally posted by thetruthhurts78
being that i did not read every post on all 23 pages of this epic discussion.
Was it brought up that it could be a little of both? that life could have been created followed by life evolving? just wondering. It is atleast what I would like to believe.

I would think to have a good number of intelligent species there would need to be some kind of intelligent design. That intelligent design just might be a race that evolved a few billion years before us and seeded many places, or it might be god for all we know. If not and evolution is just happen stance then we might not be unique but we are few and far in between.

I think humans have actually had a bunch of bad mutations due to our intelligence and that would be interesting to figure out. Some bad ones have basically caused us to be totally helpless for over a decade after birth, we have almost no instinctual skills other than language. Outside of our controlled environments we would parish quickly. About the best we can do is look for grubs and berries with just about everything else outside our capabilities without intelligence that is mostly all learned.

Another bad mutation example is the bacteria that are resistance to antibacterial drugs. Researchers have found that the older strain will over power the strain that is resistant because the mutation made it a weaker form even though we can’t kill it. So doctors introduce the older bacteria and once it takes over they then kill it with penicillin.

Attraction and repulsion at the atomic level have no need to know, they simply obey the laws God has set in place. All things have a negative, nuetral, and positive charge. So even if a "cell" primative and simple should spontaniously develope or "happen", it would need a basic "knowledge" that it should "do" something in order to continue to be, a "cell" and to exist, and with that very simplistic "knowledge" there should be an "instinct" to "desire to, to want to, to need to" survive at all possible cost. Without all this that "spontanious" first time cell would just sit there without doing anything and eventually stop functioning and convert back to basic earthly elements. This is where God comes in. God says in Genesis,

"Let the Earth bring forth the living creature, each after it's own kind.."

First: God "let" the Earth bring forth the living creaature.

Second: God "let" the "bringing forth" be diversified and happen independantly at the same time.

What I understand is that God applied to the process the "knowledge and instinct" that whatever came out of the Earth would need to have survive, that is the "...each after it's own kind" part. So without some tiny bit of basic knowledge nothing could survive, not even at the most primative level.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by GT100FV
Could you cite an example in say a Mammal, Reptile, Fish, Bird, etc.. where a mutation has been a good thing?

I just did.

Here's another:

High Bone Density Due to a Mutation in LDL-Receptor–Related Protein 5

Lynn M. Boyden, Ph.D., Junhao Mao, Ph.D., Joseph Belsky, M.D., Lyle Mitzner, M.D., Anita Farhi, R.N., Mary A. Mitnick, Ph.D., Dianqing Wu, Ph.D., Karl Insogna, M.D., and Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Osteoporosis is a major public health problem of largely unknown cause. Loss-of-function mutations in the gene for low-density lipoprotein receptor–related protein 5 (LRP5), which acts in the Wnt signaling pathway, have been shown to cause osteoporosis–pseudoglioma.

Methods We performed genetic and biochemical analyses of a kindred with an autosomal dominant syndrome characterized by high bone density, a wide and deep mandible, and torus palatinus.

Results Genetic analysis revealed linkage of the syndrome to chromosome 11q12–13 (odds of linkage, >1 million to 1), an interval that contains LRP5. Affected members of the kindred had a mutation in this gene, with valine substituted for glycine at codon 171 (LRP5V171). This mutation segregated with the trait in the family and was absent in control subjects. The normal glycine lies in a so-called propeller motif that is highly conserved from fruit flies to humans. Markers of bone resorption were normal in the affected subjects, whereas markers of bone formation such as osteocalcin were markedly elevated. Levels of fibronectin, a known target of signaling by Wnt, a developmental protein, were also elevated. In vitro studies showed that the normal inhibition of Wnt signaling by another protein, Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1), was defective in the presence of LRP5V171 and that this resulted in increased signaling due to unopposed Wnt activity.

Conclusions The LRP5V171 mutation causes high bone density, with a thickened mandible and torus palatinus, by impairing the action of a normal antagonist of the Wnt pathway and thus increasing Wnt signaling. These findings demonstrate the role of altered LRP5 function in high bone mass and point to Dkk as a potential target for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis.

content.nejm.org...

ABE: and just to consolidate the point, here's another:

Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567.

PAI-1 plasma levels in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis: relation to environmental and genetic determinants.

Margaglione M, Cappucci G, d'Addedda M, Colaizzo D, Giuliani N, Vecchione G, Mascolo G, Grandone E, Di Minno G; Unita' di Trombosi e Aterosclerosi, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.

Abstract:

Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) plasma levels have been consistently related to a polymorphism (4G/5G) of the PAI-1 gene. The renin-angiotensin pathway plays a role in the regulation of PAI-1 plasma levels. An insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been related to plasma and cellular ACE levels. In 1032 employees (446 men and 586 women; 22 to 66 years old) of a hospital in southern Italy, we investigated the association between PAI-1 4G/5G and the ACE I/D gene variants and plasma PAI-1 antigen levels. None of the individuals enrolled had clinical evidence of atherosclerosis. In univariate analysis, PAI-1 levels were significantly higher in men (P

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by melatonin

 

we really, really need to get you an official badge or something for stamping out quotmining

 

anyway, as has been said, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the creationist hypothesis.

I can agree with this statement to a point...however...evolution is a fatally flawed theory. Not to beat a dead horse, but there is no mechanism to explain gaining information or decreasing entropy, nor any examples of such occurring in the universe. It could be that it all came about from natural causes...however, there is no reason for anyone to believe that other than a disbelief in the supernatural. So, faith is faith, be it in nature or god.

The reason for the furor over evolution vs creationism in the US is because the "faith" of evolution is being taught under the guise of hard science. One goal of the founding fathers of the US was to have a country of free religion, and the teaching of the faith of evolution is impinging on the right of those who believe in some form of creation to free practice their beliefs. Yes, evolution is the best explanation scientists have to put forth; that does not make it a good or provable or even rational explanation.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
The problem with these is one involves alleles, which doesnt add new genetic information, just uses the available genes differently, and a mutation that removed information, which again, doesn't add information. So you're talking natural selection, aka microevolution. That doesnt lead to new species.

Oh hai! You made it here.

So what would you consider new information then? Maybe you could define what information is first. So, for example, just to get a hold on where you're coming from, which of these has the most information:

1. aahskdllh

2. blingbling

3. sssllfiwmmhdj

I don't see why 'microevolution' can't lead to new species. Why wouldn't it? First, maybe you could define microevolution and macroevolution, and we'll go from there.

Also, natural selection is a major part of evolution. But it's not a case of microevolution = natural selection.

ok, there are two schools of thought on the definition of microevolution and macroevolution, so lets just skip the terms and talk processes. The processes listed in the one involve the loss of information in the genes. That is a reductive mutation. The other is alleles, which is just the rise of a certain gene variant due to environmental stress. The point is, neither adds new genes, IE, new information. For a definition of information as it applies here, click here. That helps define information in regards to information theory.

In a more practical sense, information is organized data that has meaning. For example, take two blank floppy disks. On one, load a word file. On the other, run a magnet across it randomly. Disk one contains information, disk two contains none.

Another way to think of it, that you might be familiar with, is signal to noise ratio. Information is the same as the signal. Noise is the random variations of whatever medium you are using, that has no meaning or organization. Never will noise turn into signal. You don't tune your radio to an empty band and have the static suddenly organize itself into music.

It relates to thermodynamics, really. Information requires work to create it. Work requires heat (energy.) Heat does not randomly appear, nor does heat randomly do work. The more we understand information, the more we understand that it is impossible for genetic information to come into being without an organizing force, and, as we know, information, like heat, moves to equilibrium (entropy.) Does that help?

And, to state again..."microevolution," which, in this sentence, means variation due to any number of processes that affect gene frequency and the function of existing genes (reductive mutation) can't turn into macroevolution, which, in this sentence, is referring to speciation and the like, because speciation requires new genetic information (ie, if an organism doesnt have the genetic information to grow arms, it cannot just add the information out of thin air, though any process, to suddenly grow arms. That requires information from noise, aka heat moving against the laws of thermodynamics, ie, against entropy.)

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
ok, there are two schools of thought on the definition of microevolution and macroevolution, so lets just skip the terms and talk processes.

Are those two schools the scientific one and the pseudoscientific one?

Think this defining issue is important actually, it ensures we are talking about the same thing.

The processes listed in the one involve the loss of information in the genes. That is a reductive mutation. The other is alleles, which is just the rise of a certain gene variant due to environmental stress. The point is, neither adds new genes, IE, new information.

I don't understand this really, it's quite opaque. 'The processes listed in the one' what?

So, if I read you correctly, what you are saying is that this:

AAGT ---> AAG is a reductive mutation?

or AAGT ---> AAGG?

and I assume you mean a formation of a new allele? So, say we have 3 alleles for a particular gene, producing a novel allele is what? We just went from 3 alleles in an organism's population to 4. Environmental stress isn't actually required for new alleles, mutation just happens anyway. But environmental stress can increase the rate of mutation.

For a definition of information as it applies here, click here. That helps define information in regards to information theory.

I actually don't need it, I just wanted to know what you think it is.

In a more practical sense, information is organized data that has meaning. For example, take two blank floppy disks. On one, load a word file. On the other, run a magnet across it randomly. Disk one contains information, disk two contains none.

But information doesn't need to have meaning in information theory. If I fill the disk with random characters, it contains information.

'agajajakl' has the same amount of information as 'redundant'.

Which has the most information here:

'hwylfawr' or 'goodbye!'

Another way to think of it, that you might be familiar with, is signal to noise ratio. Information is the same as the signal. Noise is the random variations of whatever medium you are using, that has no meaning or organization. Never will noise turn into signal. You don't tune your radio to an empty band and have the static suddenly organize itself into music.

OK, I know about noise and signal, cool. In information theory, noise is information. Never will noise turn into a signal? I suppose it depends on what acts on it.

It relates to thermodynamics, really. Information requires work to create it. Work requires heat (energy.) Heat does not randomly appear, nor does heat randomly do work. The more we understand information, the more we understand that it is impossible for genetic information to come into being without an organizing force, and, as we know, information, like heat, moves to equilibrium (entropy.) Does that help?

It doesn't actually relate to thermodynamics at all, people (i.e. Shannon) in information theory just liked the word 'entropy', it has some similarities, but it's not the same thing. 'Genetic information doesn't come into being without an organising force'? Again, possibly true, but evolution does have an organising 'force'. Selection and chemistry.

And, to state again..."microevolution," which, in this sentence, means variation due to any number of processes that affect gene frequency and the function of existing genes (reductive mutation) can't turn into macroevolution, which, in this sentence, is referring to speciation and the like, because speciation requires new genetic information (ie, if an organism doesnt have the genetic information to grow arms, it cannot just add the information out of thin air, though any process, to suddenly grow arms. That requires information from noise, aka heat moving against the laws of thermodynamics, ie, against entropy.)

Noise is information.

OK, so now you are defining microevolution as 'reductive mutation'? This seems to be a mess, really.

Microevolution is a change in the frequency of alleles. Or simply evolution within species.

Macroevolution is a change at or above the level of species.

Is that clearer? Indeed, macroevolution will require microevolution.

'Information' wouldn't be added out of thin air, it would be added by mutations and selection, and even drift.

I love the 'grow arms' bit. Do you think that when tetrapods evolved from fishy ancestors, they sort of like sprouted arms? Evolution doesn't really predict that, just that changes happen to existing structures and that new structures can be formed. Thus, a fin becomes less fin-like and more leg-like.

OK, what would be new information for you?

Say I have:

AAGTAGTC

What would you consider new information?

[edit on 3-2-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Austin9599945
Isnt bacterial mutations a positive thing? They become far more resistent to drugs and then reproduce..continuing the resisitence.

Originally posted by SilverSmith
When was bacteria anything but bacteria? Bacteria can become resistant to something but does this then indicate it has mutated into another species or it is still bacteria? It would be something if that bacteria evolved into a more complex thingy, eh?

This might sound like I'm splitting hairs but anyone is welcome to answer this:

Couldn't a mutation simply be an "adaption." Does this mutation actually mean an organism has become "superior" or that it simply adapted?

Example: Nordics in the north stereotypically have pale skin, light hair, and light eyes. Africans living around the equator stereotypically have dark sin, dark hair, and dark eyes. They both are adapted to their climates. But we cannot say one "adapted race" is "superior" because that would sound racist. They are both humans who simply adapted to their environment.

Example: A child gets the chicken pox around the age of eight. Their body has now built up antibodies and they are now immune from the chicken pox. Did this adaptation make this child superior?

Getting back to the bacteria. It is still bacteria. Unless it sprouts facial features, limbs, and a complex brain, it is still bacteria. All it did was adapt to an environment that was hostile.

I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Couldn't a mutation simply be an "adaption." Does this mutation actually mean an organism has become "superior" or that it simply adapted?

A mutation is just a change in genetic structure. It can be neutral, detrimental, or beneficial.

The environment also plays a big part as to the impact of many mutations. This relates to the next bit.

Example: Nordics in the north stereotypically have pale skin, light hair, and light eyes. Africans living around the equator stereotypically have dark sin, dark hair, and dark eyes. They both are adapted to their climates. But we cannot say one "adapted race" is "superior" because that would sound racist. They are both humans who simply adapted to their environment.

Yup, each is most adapted to own environment. Thus, Black people are better adapted to particular environments. White people to particular environments. So what is good in one region, is not so good in another. A good example is the sickle cell issue.

For people in regions of africa, the genes underpinning this condition can actually have beneficial protective impacts on health in this particular environment (i.e., malaria infested regions). Thus, even though a few people will get the negative impact (full blown sickle cell disease), the positives to the majority outweight this negative effect in those few.

However, in areas where malaria is not an issue. The negative impact is most salient.

This is where the natural selection issue is most relevant. Those most adapted are generally most reproductively successful. Superior is very subjective really when we apply it.

We might think we are superior to a group of Bonobo apes in the jungle. But are we? I think time will tell if a massive neocortex and opposable thumbs is a good thing.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Hello all, again, may I jump in?

melatonin, if I may expand on what you wrote regarding skin tones varying by latitude -- I have heard/read that one way Vitamin D, one of the essential 'alphabet' vitamins, is produced in the human body is by absorption of sunlight through the skin. Too much, or too little, is not healthy. Hence, in simplest of terms, since those at more equatorial regions get more sunlight, and those nearer the poles get less sunlight, therefore the skin melatonin adjusts accordingly to modulate the need of the body.

There are other factors that come into play, such as local diets and such, but the diversity of human appearance can, in one way, be explained in this way...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hello all, again, may I jump in?

Anytime.

Although, I think it's melanin, rather than melatonin for skin colour in humans. But otherwise what you said is my understanding.

Melatonin is a hormone mainly involved in the circadian rhythm in humans; also an obscure track by my fave band, radiohead; and some scoundrel on the intertubz.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Lauging out loud!!

Golly, you are right...that's what I get for watching TV while I type!

Melanin...melanoma...(see, I have light skin, and worry about skin cancer)...at least I had the prefix correct!

(adding...'intertubz'!! More funny stuff, thanks. Which political candidate of late [USA] recently referred to the web as 'the internets'? McCain, I believe?).

[edit on 3-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Not sure if everyone got what I was trying to imply. And that is, does the adaptations actually make one "superior" or simply "suited" for their environment? We can't say black people are superior or white people are superior. They just became better suited to the extremes of their environment. So did this bacteria actually become "superior" or did it "adapt?" That's all I was trying to say.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Not sure if everyone got what I was trying to imply. And that is, does the adaptations actually make one "superior" or simply "suited" for their environment? We can't say black people are superior or white people are superior. They just became better suited to the extremes of their environment. So did this bacteria actually become "superior" or did it "adapt?" That's all I was trying to say.

Greetings Ashley D,

No, 'superior' is not a word of choice in the instance you refer to, in my opinion. Your use of the word 'adaptation' was closer to reality, I think.

It comes back to the concept 'survival of the fittest', which, in a purely anatomical sense, implies that the organisms that are best suited to the EXISTING environmental conditions at the time will live, or even prosper, but in any event they will survive and thusly conceive progeny that will be better able to survive as well.

What has, probably, been lost in the discussion is the difference between...lifespans of 'complex' organisms, such as ourselves, other mammals as well, and the lifespans of the microscopic, from our point of view. Bacteria are microscopic, reproduce quickly, compared to us, and thusly find ways to adapt...for instance, to anti-biotics that WE create!

But, this happens on the order of quite a few years...within the lifetime of one human, of course...but how many generations of the bacterium in question that adapts and evolves to be resililient?? (sorry, no spell-check)

Every living thing on this planet has a different life-cycle, and there is an inter-dependency between all living things, in each microcosm or midcosm or macrocosm...but there are 'pockets' of geographically isolated places within our own biosphere where Nature finds a balance. If you introduce an 'alien' entity into that delicate balance, then it disrupts the cycles and a new balance will eventually emerge.

The Island of Guam, for example. Guam was a Paradise for multiple species of birds, as you would expect in the Tropics. Humans come along, and unwittingly introduce a predator...the Brown Snake...a creature that was not brought to the Island on purpose, but by accident...it happens to be an incredible predator that never existed before on Guam. It eats eggs out of the nests...there is no 'natural' predator on the Island to keep the Brown Snake population in check. Yeah, people see them in their homes, kill them. They get run over by cars....but, you see, with no natural predator in the ecosystem they are running rampant in, they, well....run rampant!

Result...most native bird species on Guam are gone. And this is just one example, there are many, many others.

Problem is, Nature works in mysterious ways...Oh, I know, I will get heat for that comment, but it is true, in as much as...something in Nature that takes tens of years, hundreds of years, thousands of years...or even [gasp!] millions or billions of years makes it increasingly difficult for we humans, who live mostly in the present, to comprehend at first glance.

I'm trying to point out that, Nature is changing all around us, all the time. Always has, always will. A quick glance won't be obvious...a lifetime (a human's lifetime) might, in the right discipline, show something that his/her PEERS...building on the previous work, can then continue. That is why scientists study mice...mice have 97% match with human chromosomes. But, of course, mice have shorter lifespans, so results can be extrapolated.

So, science marches on, little by little.

In the time of Galileo, it was considered heresy to pronounce that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Even though Copernicus had theorisied it a century or so before....

I am still waiting for the 'Theory' of Gravity to be proven....until then, I will hold my tongue in cheek......

A lot of people like to point to natural selection as a means of creation, when the only product of natural selection is destruction. If humans evntually created robots that that become self aware and wiped out humans, how long do you think it would be before the robots came up with a theory to dispute the fact they were created by the very being they do their best to be rid of?

Robot A: Weren't we created by Humans?

Robot B: No, don't be silly, we evolved from a primodial electronic scrap heap!

Robot A: But who created the scrap heap?

Robot B: Nobody, it just came to be by complete and utter accident....

And how much more complex are we than or greatest creation, yet people believe this all came together by fluke???!!!!! If all the worlds greatest minds got together and succeed in finally creating synthetic life, evolutionist would say "AHAA! SEE! Life can evolve from nothing!" completely missing the fact that what they are pointing at is simply a product of intelligence, and a copy at that.

There's an old saying about man creating life from dirt and saying to God "look God, we can do it too!", meanwhile God laughs and says, "now try doing it using your own dirt, that dirt that's mine...."

You want evidence of creation, pinch yourself, then take a look out your window.

[edit on 3/2/08 by doctorex]

reply to post by doctorex


Welcome, doctorex

Yes, we've heard that joke before. The better punchline is the god saying to the man 'Get your own dirt.'

See, that's much funnier!

But, jokes aside, this is serious business...and I challenge you to show us where anything says the Universe was created out of dirt...really, please!

The discussion is really about faith versus science...but that's not entirely correct because...to understand science, you have to have faith...FAITH in your ability to undertake the study and the discipline to understand the disparate aspects that come together to build a comprehension of the complexities that are, in fact, the natural world.

You see, just saying 'GOD DID IT!' is a cop-out. Too easy.

I am not proseletyzing here, I do not purport to know all of the anwers, but wouldn't it be better for a god, if there was one, to have put everything in place billions of years ago, set it into motion, and then sit back and watch it all play out? Isn't it more incredible to discover that we CAN discover? Are we not to use our brains for discovery? Or, do we have a tremondously incredible brain, capable of great things, just to blindly follow a shephard, as if we were sheep?

I think not.

With an open mind, one can realize the incredible scope of the Universe. It is not just a vast playground for humans. To think that it is, is self-limiting, in my view.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


If everyone on both sides uses the BIBLE there must be a reason why?
It's truly on faith.

Welcome, doctorex

Yes, we've heard that joke before. The better punchline is the god saying to the man 'Get your own dirt.'

See, that's much funnier!

Thanks for the welcome. Been a while since I heard the joke, so your version is probably the correct one anyways...

But, jokes aside, this is serious business...and I challenge you to show us where anything says the Universe was created out of dirt...really, please!

I wasn't talking about the universe, I was talking about mankind.

You see, just saying 'GOD DID IT!' is a cop-out. Too easy.

Not if that is actually how it was. Sometimes the easiest answer is the correct one.

I am not proseletyzing here, I do not purport to know all of the anwers, but wouldn't it be better for a god, if there was one, to have put everything in place billions of years ago, set it into motion, and then sit back and watch it all play out? Isn't it more incredible to discover that we CAN discover? Are we not to use our brains for discovery? Or, do we have a tremondously incredible brain, capable of great things, just to blindly follow a shephard, as if we were sheep?

I think not

Mankind was given freedom of choice, so in essence that is God seeing how it all plays out, though being beyond time and space, he aleady knows the outcome. Two paths were laid out, a path to life, and a path to death. Which path do you think mankind is on? If ALL of mankind followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, do you think the world would be better off today, or worse? There would be no adultery, no greed, no stealing, open cooperation instead of secret competition, equality, no war thus no need for ridiculous military budgets, I could go on. Would you rather this by blindly following a shepard as sheep, as you put it, or would you rather every man for himself on our way to our own destruction, as things seem to be heading?

With an open mind, one can realize the incredible scope of the Universe. It is not just a vast playground for humans. To think that it is, is self-limiting, in my view.

To think that creation has nothing to do with you and you are merely a insignificant fluke is more self-limiting, in my view.