Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

reply to post by Maslo


Yes, there may be an addition of some information sometimes but is it "the right" information? Thankfully its very rare, particuly for humans where the insertion of an extra chromosome can cause Downs syndrome, or kleinfelter syndrome... Not good..... Both over time, if allowed to reproduce, would destroy human kind....

[edit on 093131p://f46Sunday by Selahobed]

Originally posted by Selahobed
reply to post by john124

 

Well copied and pasted... Saves time I suppose, even if it lacks imagination lol.. Only ribbing ya lol.. But if you are using scientific methods to prove your theory then is that not in fact science and not psuedo science?

Why would I waste time writing out a point that I have already made on other threads, when I can copy and paste a source that explains it perfectly.

There has not been one scientific method used to prove the flood theory.


[edit on 31-1-2010 by john124]

Originally posted by Selahobed
reply to post by Maslo

 

Yes, there may be an addition of some information sometimes but is it "the right" information? Thankfully its very rare, particuly for humans where the insertion of an extra chromosome can cause Downs syndrome, or kleinfelter syndrome... Not good..... Both over time, if allowed to reproduce, would destroy human kind....

[edit on 093131p://f46Sunday by Selahobed]

Most mutations are not "right" or "wrong", but neutral, having no noticeable effect on the survival or fitness.

Some are "wrong" - harmful mutations, but those are quickly removed from the population, because they almost never reproduce.

"right" mutations - beneficial are rare, but they do happen, and spread quite quickly.

And I doubt that people with Downs and similar syndromes would destroy humankind if allowed to reproduce - they depend on us, so they would destroy themselves then, because they cannot survive in nature - harmful mutations are quickly removed.

Originally posted by Selahobed
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

When has a mutation ever been benificial?

I'm not a biologist so I can't make scientific arguments in detail or answer a question like that. The best I could say, and this would be completely in line with mainstream evolutionary thought, would be the cases of viruses that mutate and become drug resistant. Of course there is the question of whether viruses are life forms. Has that been decided upon?

It just seems to me that if random alterations in the genetic make up of critters of all sorts are expected to account for the evolution of species we should see both evolving and devolving branches on the evolutionary tree.

In addition, the mere fact that some species are said (accurately I presume) to have reached evolutionary perfection, hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, again, argues for a non random engine for evolution. Otherwise these species would continue to evolve despite their contentment and ability to thrive in their environment.

If a truly random process like cosmic rays is responsible for genetic mutations, should that not in fact require that all species continue to evolve, regardless of their environmental situation?

If environment comes into evolution in any way which is not strictly mechanical as in cosmic rays, radiation or chemical pollution, then I'm suspecting some kind of conscious response by the individual that in some way triggers genetic change and hence evolution.

I might add that if that conscious response to environmental factors were the main engine of evolution, it would account for cases of the happy critters who despite millions of years of bombardment by cosmic rays, etc., do not evolve. They like things the way they are and don't want to evolve, so they don't evolve.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by rnaa


I appreciate your reply and yes, I'm not trying to disprove Darwin's theory or the progress that the biology community has made since he proposed his theory. I do feel that this question should be brought up though so that it can be debated and an answer can eventually be found. The point I was making in my post, was that during the now, throughout all of mankind's history, we do the same thing over and over again with our beliefs. It's very hard for people to accept that something is wrong and change their beliefs. If tomorrow comes and somebody comes to me with irrefutable evidence that the theory of evolution does explain the Cambrian explosion and can show me it, I will gladly accept it and keep it as a stepping stone. I'm a futurist in a way. I don't like to stay stagnant in my beliefs and only hold what I believe today to be the complete truth. I know that new information is going to come forward in the future, so why should I stay in the past and then viciously defend a belief. I definitely will use the current beliefs as markers to record progress, but I don't see the need to dismiss things because they don't conform to somebody's belief. I see that as being hypocritical on people's part. I truly believe that the universe is full of some of the most beautiful and awe-inspiring things that we can't even imagine at this point. Sure, the theory of evolution now does answer many questions that we have asked through the years, and brings up more questions, and doesn't answer others. What I'm saying is it's still an extremely limited perspective that we have because of how small this planet it compared to what we know about the universe. I don't believe we have even made it to the surface to even start scratching it yet when it comes to the universe, and you have two groups, Creationists and Scientists, trying to categorize everything we know into those two categories, and keeping them separated. What about a new theory that we haven't even thought of yet because we don't have enough information. I see it as a puzzle that we're working on and we have two pieces right now, science and creationism, but there are still 998 other pieces on the table. Instead of sitting there debating endless which of these two pieces fits in to this next slot on the mystery of the universe, maybe we should look for a different piece that fits better instead of twisting and deforming these two pieces so that they might fit in the spot. I see this every day here on ATS. People attacking others for not believing what they do. It's really quite sad that people have to stoop low enough to attack others characters (most of whom, they've never met or know nothing about except the less than 4000 character responses that these people make) instead of looking at the theories and civilly debating and sifting through the information. I don't believe the internet and this website was meant to call someone a crazy religious nutjob or some Social Darwin genocidal maniac because they don't agree with each others opinions. We're here to discuss a plethora of topics and try to discern the truth. It just seems that the more and more I look on here, there's less and less denying ignorance because people can't shed their ego. I really am not trying to offend anybody here, but this is what I'm observing here. I hope this gives you a little more of an idea of where I'm coming from, but like I just said this is only a less than 4000 character response and I don't believe I can sum myself up in that little of a space.

reply to post by Selahobed


There is no evidence of a global flood. This idea is a joke on so many levels.

Trees .. Care too explain how we can date trees back past 6000 years by just counting there rings ? No need for fancy science that creationist would just deny.

I could go on and on, but this is just silly

Part 2
Making fun of the boat.

Animals eat meat
Carnivores, one of two things would need to happen on this boat.
1. Lions would starve to death.
2. I think you know what number 2 is.

I am trying to just use the most basic examples of these stories being stupid. Showing you are wrong. The earth is billions of years old, some great flood does NOT prove we are dating it wrong.

THERE WAS NO GREAT FLOOD!

Where did the water come from ?

[edit on 31-1-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by nophun


Ok... The water came from subteranean sources "the fountains of the deep" and the evidence of this can still be seen today by juvenile water coming from the earths interior.. There is approximatly 5 oceans worth of water under our very feet, some trapped in crystals that gets released by volcanic activity...
My supposition is that during the time of the flood, the earths geological processes went into overdrive with this opening of the fountains of the deep bringing not only chaos, but a speeding up of plate movements.. This can be seen all over the planet in the strata that does not conform to the classical geological column with strata beds being upside down, twisted and not uniform, all dating from around the same time.. The massive amounts of alluvial deposits consistant with a massive flood... The geological activity along with the heat and steam would also explain the massive amounts of chalk and chert deposits localised in various places, usually on the top of a large magmatic intrusion called a batholith.. Those poor cocoliths got boiled alive... More evidence for a global tectonic event can be seen in the youngest mountain chain in the world; the Himalayas that rises by about a meter a year with the asiatic and indian plates clashing into each other.. If you reverse time by a meter a year you will see that they have been formed very rapidly over th last 5000 years which meets with the biblical chronology... There is many other thing i can say but Im off to bed and will finish tomorow...

reply to post by Selahobed

You're right it is a supposition not a theory because nothing backs what you are saying.

I am completely confused by "he Himalayas that rises by about a meter a year".

You might be right if they did rise 1m a year, the could very well match times with the bible ...

The problem is those numbers are just a wee bit off ... to the point you are disproving a world flood.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Indo-Australian plate is still moving at 67 mm per year, and over the next 10 million years it will travel about 1,500 km into Asia. About 20 mm per year of the India-Asia convergence is absorbed by thrusting along the Himalaya southern front. This leads to the Himalayas rising by about 5 mm per year, making them geologically active. The movement of the Indian plate into the Asian plate also makes this region seismically active, leading to earthquakes from time to time.

This started around 70 million years ago ... again showing you are wrong when you assume the world is not "billions or millions" of years old.

The fastest rise rate I have found on any legitimate source is 10 mm/yr and this is along Nanga Parbat only.

Did I completely read what you are saying wrong ? (serious question)

Where does 1m/yr come from ? this is your field of work not mine so maybe I missed something or am just wrong.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Strictly speaking, this is incorrect.

I'm afraid we will have to disagree on that.

OK. I am apparantly closer to the Dawkins 'Gene-centered' view of evolution and you are closer to the Gould's view. Its mostly a philosophical difference at this point in my opinion.

Never-the-less, survival of the organism is the impetus for evolution. Whether we measure survival at the nucleic acid lever, or the cellular level, or the organism level, or the population level, survival is is the point, mutation is the enabler, natural selection is the arbitrator.

That is not blather as you put it. If you don't understand the roles the concepts play in evolutionary processes, then you cannot understand the theory, and your conclusions will be flawed. Even calling the current theory "Moden Darwinism" reveals your bias and lack of understanding. The theory is called "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" and is the result of many people's life work. Darwin is just one of many who contributed to MES, which is as far beyond Darwin as Quantum Mechanics is beyond Newton.

The real impetus for evolution is survival and propagation of DNA. Mutation gives us options.

You are introducing mental factors here, as I do at the end of the post you are responding to.

No I'm not. Even Gould defended Dawkins against similar accusations. "Gould acknowledged that Dawkins was not imputing conscious action to genes, but simply using shorthand metaphor commonly found in evolutionary writings." (quoted from the widipedia article "Gene-centered view of evolution". Better wording would be "Mutation gives natural selection options", but you would find equal fault with that, as below.

Natural Selection decides which options work best at the current time.

Please don't anthropomorphise the process or I'm going to start thinking that you are some sort of pantheist. Surely you are not.

No. There is nothing anthropomorphic about it. Again it is just common shorthand metaphor.

Which is just another way of stating that evolution proceeds by genetic mutation. Right? The point I made earlier, which was, in your words "Strictly speaking . . . incorrect."

Again not strictly correct. A vague approximation, maybe. I hope I made it clear above. Evolution proceeds by natural selection. Selection options are provided by mutation. The impetus is survival.

We are talking about evolution, remember, usually thought of as happening over billions of years?

Absolutely NOT. The planet is only about 4 billion years old. Plants have only been around for a few hundred million years. I think you must have meant millions.

Evolution happens over generations. Sometimes a remarkably few number of generations. Large changes can take hundreds of thousands of years, even millions if they are driven mainly by genetic drift, that is if the environmental niche is stable for long periods and there is no immediate reason for change. But sometimes the environmental niche changes rapidly and large changes occur quite quickly as described by Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory.

Science has witnessed a new species of Finch in the Galapagos that has evolved in the last 50 to 75 years or so.

I am aware of a so called "evolutionary tree" portraying the evolution of man. This is done for numerous sorts, if not all living things so far as I know, but what I wanted to ask is, does a comparable "devolutionary tree" form a part of the study of evolution and if not, why not? I've never heard of devolutionary branches on any of the trees.

Shouldn't they exist if the most important mechanism of evolution is genetic mutation?

Understand these are teaching tools, not necessarily perfect stories. The teaching tools used to visualize the atoms don't actually describe the nature of the atom either. An atom is not at all like the Bohr model, a nucleus with electrons in orbit around it, nor is it the de Broglie-Schrodinger probability cloud, but these tools are useful to describe certain aspects of the atomic theory. Bohr is sufficient for most Chemists, while de Broglie-Schrodinger is more useful to Quantum Mechanics.

That said, the evolutionary tree has difficulties too, there is ongoing debate about specific classification details from one end to the other and constant revisions as more data is gathered. The part relating to the descent of Man is no exception.

See Early Human Phylogeny where there is a discussion about the current state of the debate.

I'm not sure what you mean by "devolutionary tree" but I can guess at two possibilities:

1. you may mean one where we have predicted the existence of ancestors before the fossil record located it? That is going backwards from today. The answer to that is yes. Many times. Especially using DNA evidence to indicate the time-frame that certain characteristics must have appeared or species splits must have occurred, then going looking in appropriately aged formation to see if the prediction is validated. And it has been many times.
   
   
2. or you might mean have we found where a species has retrogressed, or devolved into something more primitive. This question is a non-sequitur. There is no goal that species evolve toward, they are what they are, when they are. When they change they change. The whale isn't a fish that evolved to a mammal and then devolved to a fish again. Mutations occurred that allowed a population of organisms to successfully occupy an ecological niche better than other candidates or relatives. There is no 'more primitive' in the sense of "less sophisticated", there is just different. In biology, "more primitive" means "originally appeared earlier" nothing more than that. A jellyfish is just as sophisticated in terms of adaptation for its environment as mankind.
   
   
   If you mean something else, please explain.

reply to post by Selahobed

When has a mutation ever been benificial?

Most mutations are neutral. Some are harmful. Some are beneficial.

Neutral mutations accumulate in the gene pool over time. Environmental pressures may, at some future time, expose those neutral mutations as useful to the organisim or harmful as the case may be. It is this accumulated store of neutral mutations that provide the genetic pool of 'options' for Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium'.

Bad mutations don't stick around in the gene pool. They either kill the organism before reproductive age, or subject it to higher predation, or render it unattractive to the opposite sex, or what ever.

An animal born with a fifth leg or a bulging eye or what ever, is a birth defect. The birth defect may well be the result of a mutation, but could also be something toxic in the environment. Very few 'harmful' mutations are so dramatic.

Beneficial mutations do stick around in the gene pool. Such a mutation is not likely to be manifested as dramatically as, say, a rat suddenly sprouting wings and becoming a bat.

An example of a beneficial mutation in humans: the sickle cell mutation found in populations in equatorial regions where malaria is present. The mutation provides a measure of protection against malaria (not perfect, but advantageous). Of course this particular mutation also has a down side. If both parents have the mutation their children may get sickle cell anemia which is fatal without modern medical treatment.

Definition of neutral mutation from Wikipedia:

In genetics, a neutral mutation is a mutation that occurs in an amino acid codon (presumably within an mRNA molecule) which results in the use of a different (but often chemically similar) amino acid that has a negligible effect on fitness. This is similar to a silent mutation, where a codon mutation may encode the same amino acid (see Wobble Hypothesis); for example, a change from AUU to AUC will still encode leucine, so no discernible change occurs (a silent mutation).

A neutral mutation may or may not affect the resulting protein. For example, if the codon AAA is mutated to AGA, arginine would be used in the resulting protein instead of lysine. These amino acids are chemically very similar and may not have any appreciable effect on the protein or its function; alternately, a mutation may in fact be lethal, or prevent the protein from functioning correctly or at all (in this case, it would become a missense mutation).

If the mutation changes the original amino acid codon to a stop codon, it would be termed a nonsense mutation. Among humans, roughly 95% of all mutations can be classified as neutral mutations, with roughly 5% being missense mutations.

Definition of harmful from Wikipedia :

Changes in DNA caused by mutation can cause errors in protein sequence, creating partially or completely non-functional proteins. To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to function in the right places at the right times. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, a medical condition can result. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder. Some mutations alter a gene's DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene. Studies of the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[33] However, studies in yeast have shown that only 7% of mutations that are not in genes are harmful.[34]

If a mutation is present in a germ cell, it can give rise to offspring that carries the mutation in all of its cells. This is the case in hereditary diseases. On the other hand, a mutation may occur in a somatic cell of an organism. Such mutations will be present in all descendants of this cell within the same organism, and certain mutations can cause the cell to become malignant, and thus cause cancer[35].

Often, gene mutations that could cause a genetic disorder are repaired by the DNA repair system of the cell. Each cell has a number of pathways through which enzymes recognize and repair mistakes in DNA. Because DNA can be damaged or mutated in many ways, the process of DNA repair is an important way in which the body protects itself from disease.

Definition of beneficial from Wikipedia:

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are harmful, some mutations have a positive effect on an organism. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[36] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[37] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[38

Remember: individuals mutate, populations evolve


[edit on 31/1/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 31/1/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 31/1/2010 by rnaa]

I only read the first page of posts, so this may have already been said, but...

I have an engineering degree, and I am religious. I firmly believe that creationism should be kept in the religious and philosophy departments, and evolution and other scientific theories should be kept in the scientific departments.

As a religious person, I believe in creationism, though I see no reason why life could not have evolved since then. I do think the theory of evolution has problems, but in scientific classes we should be discussing alternative scientific theories, not religious theories. (at least, unless someone manages to prove creationism scientifically, which I doubt)

And as for writing on a test 'God made it that way' or something like that, that's just a way of the test writer saying 'I'm an idiot', even if God really did make it that way. It demonstrates that the student is not willing to study and learn current theories. (which may or may not be correct, but are important to know and understand if you are to succeed in the field)

I'm all for challenging current scientific theories, but it should be done in the proper ways, by experimentation, discussion, and so on, and not by simply filling in a protest on one's exam.

reply to post by DragonsDemesne


Oh no you don't.

I see what you are doing.

This thread is a commonsense free zone.

I say it's time for - creationists - evolutionists - and any other ists out there to admit that we have NO IDEA where we came from or WHAT WE ARE.
We know nothing.
Let's admit that first.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by spinkyboo]

reply to post by spinkyboo


But we do!
Evolution is real, has never been proven false. Why is this still questioned ?

You know who admits evolution is fact ?

The Vatican, They just try to twist it that it matches there bedtime stories. Enter "intelligent design".. Anyone with a working brain can see how this is just plain stupidity at its finest.

Complete morons are the ones who outright deny evolution, not even the Pope is this nuts.

edit:

Evolution and the Catholic Church - worth the laugh
en.wikipedia.org...

Up there with Galileo Galilei's house arrest/ JPII showing regret for how it was handled

[edit on 31-1-2010 by nophun]

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

Never-the-less, survival of the organism is the impetus for evolution.

When you tell me that survival is the impetus for evolution, I feel that you are introducing a mental component into the evolutionary process. To me, mention of survival as a factor implies a causal role for "awareness", either on the part of the living entities themselves or on a creator who designed these enties that way.

As I understand the mechanisms of evolution put forward in a strictly materialist framework, "survival" is irrelevant. The mechanics of evolution proceed randomly by genetic mutation, over which the living entities have no control and by natural selection, which again is a factor devoid of a mental component which removes, i.e., subtracts living entities unfit for the rigors of their environment.

If you include "survival" as a component of the mechanics of evolution in a materialistic framework, you have to "substantiate" or "materialize" that factor and illustrate it's effects in specific chains of cause and effect. Otherwise I feel you are just cluttering up your analysis of evolution with a notion that you haven't actually tied to the process in a material way.

As I understand it, these two processes, genetic mutation and natural selection are, in the materialist framework, sufficient and complete to explain the evidence seen by Darwin and subsequent evolutionists.

Introducing the notion of "survival" can only be done if . . . one is willing to admit the possibility of mental factors in the process, as I do in my own layman's speculations on the subject.

I think survival and possibly many other less important desires could well be factors in the evolutionary process and might be much more important than the random mutation of genes.

Such a situation would go a long way to explain things like the lack of devolutionary branches on evolutionary trees (with the possible exception of the human branch where there seems to be a concerted and consciously decided upon attempt to work our way back down the evolutionary ladder, lol).

or you might mean have we found where a species has retrogressed, or devolved into something more primitive. This question is a non-sequitur.

Yes, this is what I am talking about. I don't believe it is a non-sequitor.

There is no goal that species evolve toward, . . .

That is the question. I'm not sure that is the case, but even if it were, how can one speak of a process which includes complexification as well as specialization with no reference to simplification, if a truly random process is what is being observed.

If you start bringing in notions of "survival" and even more whims and fantasies on a mental level, then we are into a whole new ballgame with evolution, and that is what I believe will emerge and may well be starting to emerge in genetics as an expansion of the evolutionary paradigm.


[edit on 31-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

So what you're saying is there's a new crop of student who are smart enough to know B.S. when they here it, and not be led around by the
nose.
How could this be?

The Vatican, They just try to twist it that it matches there bedtime stories. Enter "intelligent design".. Anyone with a working brain can see how this is just plain stupidity at its finest.

Thank God somebody as smart as you finally came along to tell us all
about it.

You actually think you can use the perverted pagan papacy in comparison
to anything ?
Sure you're not out of your league? pee wee

[edit on 31-1-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


What are you trying to say ?
New crop of student,perverted pagan and Pee wee. .. wtf does any of this got to do will evolution or intelligent design.

Are you trying to disagree with what I said ?
English please.

So what you're saying is there's a new crop of student who are smart enough to know B.S. when they here it, and not be led around by the
nose.

Maybe I am completely retarded but I have no idea what your point is.

[edit on 31-1-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by nophun


Just because Evolution hasn't been proven false doesn't mean it is right. It still needs to be proven. That is why it is still called the THEORY of evolution and has not been deemed a fact.

After all, it hasn't been proven that there isn't a God either, but you are very quick to dismiss it without proof.

There is room to teach both theories, people like you just need to get over yourselves to see that there really isn't any harm in exploring all avenues to try and get the answer to a question that nobody is able to answer yet(you hard headed people aren't even close).

As the old saying goes "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

reply to post by Berserker01


You are what is wrong in the world.
NO there is no place to teach the bible in school, because it is bull#.
If you deny the facts that show this, there is nothing I can ever do to change your mind, but stop trying to spreed your lies in public schools.

EVOLUTION IS FACT !! ffs!

www.talkorigins.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
wiki.answers.com...

This is the stupidest BS ever.
Creationists do not know anything about science, god damn it !

[edit on 1-2-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by john124

We all have imaginations and wonder what else is yet to be discovered. There's a difference between a good scientist who may have personal religious opinions that do not affect his/her evidence-based critical thinking attributes. But for a scientist to use his/her faith as a replacement, then that would make a poor scientist.

That's pretty much the point I was making. It needn't prevent someone from being successful in science. Although I'm in no way religious, I respect how someone like the astrophysicist can sustain a belief in God despite all the contrary (or non-supporting) evidence.

I usually argue the atheist perspective and it's possible to do so without laughing in the faces of others. Nophup was misconstruing the scientific field and using it to beat believers with. The point I was failing to make with the guy was basically, stop acting like an ###hole. Having read his latest posts, I was probably asking too much.