The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[ironduck]

Would it be new information if a species changes pigmentation? What if its digestive system adapts to process new food sources? The concept of 'new' seems entirely arbitrary..

 

[thescaryworker]

The species never underwent any change. (they never had any time to reproduce) One type died off, and the other survived. If I have red and blue coins, and someone steals all the red ones (they don't like the color blue), the blue ones are left (duh!). That just means the blue type of gene will be more common later (say, I split all the coins in two every once in a while). The gene already existed, heck, it even existed in the form it was needed.

What I'm saying is that the article only proves natural selection, not macro-evolution. No new kinds of animals were created in the process of the experiment.

(In response to, but not directed at El Machinae) Exlpain ANY controlled experiment where a new organ, with a function initially unavailable to the organism was developed.

El Machinae, all that has to happen is that the DNA 'code lines' where the body is told to construct the flippers is 'read' twice. It would be very hard to tell whether it was a new gene or a flaw in the 'dna reader', so one cannot assume it is one for sure (though it must be one of the two, or one we have not thought of).

 

[Souron]

The species never underwent any change. (they never had any time to reproduce) One type died off, and the other survived. If I have red and blue coins, and someone steals all the red ones (they don't like the color blue), the blue ones are left (duh!). That just means the blue type of gene will be more common later (say, I split all the coins in two every once in a while). The gene already existed, heck, it even existed in the form it was needed.

First of all, chances are the colors are not red and blue, but varrying shades of both. Infact initially they might all have been different shades of red. But if there are evolutionary pressures on the coins to be more blue, then the really bright red ones would die, but the darkest ones will survive. Each generation would be closer to the presumably optimal dark blue.

Also important is that usually evolution occurs slowly. Animals live in a state or relitive equalibrium untill a change occurs. When a mutation or abnormality in an animal occurs, it that mutation either makes the animal more or less fit for it's enviroment. If less, after a few generation it will die away. If more, it will prove an advantage to the sepeices and the animals with the mutated gene will dominate over the older less fit animals.

Other changes that occur are in the form of changes of the enviroment. when the enviroment changes, there are new standards of fitness for the animal, resulting in evolutionary pressures in a new direction, away from previous equalibrium.

 

[El_Machinae]

Would it be new information if a species changes pigmentation? What if its digestive system adapts to process new food sources? The concept of 'new' seems entirely arbitrary..

Well, it would probably depend on why the pigmentation colour changed. If a colour was removed, because one of the producing genes was knocked out, then probably not. If colour was added, because a gene mutated to provide a novel protein ... well, I don't know (but I'm guessing not). However, if the pigmentation gene was copied and then the copy mutated to produce a novel protein that was sometimes expressed ... I can't see how that's anything other than new information.

To use this analogy:

If I have red and blue coins, and someone steals all the red ones (they don't like the color blue), the blue ones are left (duh!). That just means the blue type of gene will be more common later (say, I split all the coins in two every once in a while). The gene already existed, heck, it even existed in the form it was needed.

"New information" would be the appearance of a yellow coin, and then the yellow coin propagating its line successfully. This type of 'information addition' happens all the time. The yellow gene never existed, and then exists from mutation. If it 'replaced' a blue or red gene, then we have a bit of a semantic debate (lol). But if it did not replace the red or blue genes, but merely dominated them (so they were still expressed) ... then you have new information and the beginnings of speciation.

Exlpain ANY controlled experiment where a new organ, with a function initially unavailable to the organism was developed.

Asking for a new organ is a bit of a red herring. No evolutionary theory purports that the selection occurs at a rate that can be measured, if you measure it via the 'organ test'. New biology, though, has been exhibited (with the nylon-eating bacteria); these proteins appeared via mutation and then survived because they could out-perform regular bacteria.

 

[Perfection]

I've always found it a rather silly thing when someone posts some evolution related discovery in the news and says "eat that, Creationists". While they indeed are good examples of the utility of evolutionary theory they aren't some magic fact needed to bring down creationism. Posting a recent find in such manner leads to sensationalizing of the find and trivializes evolution to being significantly less supported before this find. When supporting evolution I try to go by the textbook rather then newspaper. Save those "eat that, Creationists" moments for when they lose court cases.

 

[thescaryworker]

The case is not stating that creation cannot be taught, it cannot be required to be taught. 'We' lost the same case we have been fighting for for many years (search for an Arkansas one a few years ago, and you'll see what I mean). Both cases lost because the creationists wanted intelligent design to be required in the curriculum, not because the US government does not recognize creationism as somthing that can be taught to school children. (It CAN and IS taught in my high school)

Read deeper into the lines, and you'll see that the prosecuters wanted intelligent design to be required.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

How is Creationism taught in your school? In science class? If so, that's sad.

 

[Perfection]

thescaryworker, who are you adressing with your post?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The previous poster?

Or are you talking to someone else?

 

[Perfection]

Ah, the joys of ninja editing and crossposting

 

[Babbler]

I've always found it a rather silly thing when someone posts some evolution related discovery in the news and says "eat that, Creationists". While they indeed are good examples of the utility of evolutionary theory aren't some magic fact needed to bring down creationism. It leads to sensationalizing of the find and the trivializes evolution to being significantly less supported before this find. When supporting evolution I try to go by the textbook rather then newspaper. Save those "eat that, Creationists" moments for when they lose court cases.

Well put.

When you have a castle in the sky, no shift in the ground can bother you.

 

[Phlegmak]

By the way:

Moderator Action: Warned for spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Bumped for possible coverage of beingofone's recent argument in this thread.

Here's my claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim
Note: When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism. I am not refering to evolutionary creationism.

As always I'll start wtih a little topic starter:
This thread I'll give an additional challange to the creationists. I would like to first hear thier accounting of living things came to be what they are now. I would then like them to present some of thier evidence indicating that. I'd like to see a more through investigation of creationism then general nitpick of evolution, abiogenesis, and various theories that call for an "Old Earth".

 

[ironduck]

I just skimmed his posts in that thread.. what arguments? He doesn't understand the basic tenets of evolution and as a result grossly misrepresents them.. what else is new?

 

[Lord Parkin]

Creation science is an oxymoron.

 

[thescaryworker]

Creation science is an oxymoron.

Isn't evolution science also? (macro-evolution)

Both are based on ideas that cannot be scientifically proved. (or disproved)

 

[Lord Parkin]

Isn't evolution science also? (macro-evolution)

Both are based on ideas that cannot be scientifically proved. (or disproved)

No. Science and "creation science" (or pseudoscience) are completely different things.

Science begins with observation. We note what we see, and we hypothesize reasons for why we might see those things. We then rigorously test these hypotheses, and debate them from all angles to see whether they hold true. Finally, with science, the whole point is that the theories are tentative, and not rigidly fact - it's always possible that in future, a better explanation could render a previous theory obsolete.

"Creation science" (pseudoscience) is not even slightly related to this process. It begins with a work of fiction. Then it moves to a select bunch of individuals asserting, insisting, and twisting facts by whatever means necessary to try desperately make the increasingly contradictory observations conform with the work of fiction. "Creation science" does not change, cannot be questioned, and is completely rigid - not tentative.

"Creation science" is not science, not the slightest form of it. It is religion. Religion also has a place in this world, but it is in the church - not in the science laboratory.

 

[Perfection]

Isn't evolution science also? (macro-evolution)

Both are based on ideas that cannot be scientifically proved. (or disproved)

Evolution has been scientifically proved as much as any other theory.

 

[beingofone]

Bumped for possible coverage of beingofone's recent argument in this thread.

Can we stick to the points and not the person?

I just skimmed his posts in that thread.. what arguments? He doesn't understand the basic tenets of evolution and as a result grossly misrepresents them.. what else is new?

Here we go again - I say you do not understand evolution, it is exactly why you believe in it. I did post my three points of which only one person responded to, everyone else attacked me and not the argument.

Here is the argument against it being a sound theory:

The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material. Years of heavily financed effort by thousands of scientists all over the world to create even the most basic elemental life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero.

“Here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience.”
-- Dawson

Contrary to what we experience and observe is a "theory"? Experience is what you have left when all the grand concepts have evaporated.

The second fallacy is the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. One deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. The animal never, in its simplest forms, assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, this theory, is again, appealing to something other than common sense .

A rose, is a rose, is a rose. A=A.

Third, between any species of animal or plant and any other species. No case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.

Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity:
“Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species.”

Every scientist in related fields is well aware of this fact, but few have the intestinal fortitude to address it in public.

The Piltdown man and Haeckel’s drawings notwithstanding - it shows that the theory of Darwin will eventually, die of extinction; because fraud is the best floater of this "theory".

When all is said and done; there is nothing left to test, as far as macro - or - do you want supersized french fries with that?

Three points - address them and not my 'ignorance of evolution'.

No. Science and "creation science" (or pseudoscience) are completely different things.

Science begins with observation. We note what we see, and we hypothesize reasons for why we might see those things. We then rigorously test these hypotheses, and debate them from all angles to see whether they hold true. Finally, with science, the whole point is that the theories are tentative, and not rigidly fact - it's always possible that in future, a better explanation could render a previous theory obsolete.

No; science begins with an assumption, that is how a hypothesis is formed. What I think is nonsense is the concept that there is 'only' the material when our very experience of life itself demonstrates otherwise.

"Creation science" (pseudoscience) is not even slightly related to this process. It begins with a work of fiction. Then it moves to a select bunch of individuals asserting, insisting, and twisting facts by whatever means necessary to try desperately make the increasingly contradictory observations conform with the work of fiction. "Creation science" does not change, cannot be questioned, and is completely rigid - not tentative.

Like macroevolution - it begins with a work of fiction ie: abiogenesis. Then it moves to a select bunch of individuals asserting, insisting, and twisting facts by whatever means necessary to try desperately make the increasingly contradictory observations conform with the work of fiction. Macroevolution and abiogenesis does not change, cannot be questioned, and is completely rigid - not tentative.

"Creation science" is not science, not the slightest form of it. It is religion. Religion also has a place in this world, but it is in the church - not in the science laboratory.

Oh yes; ID is just as credible if not more so than the postulate of macroevolution. ID can clearly demonstrate intelligence and design as properties of the universe and therefore, has predictive power.

That means it is science, Intelligent Design can be used for predictive power and can be tested.

For example: Is DNA designed or is it random?

 

[brennan]

beingofone: For a start you make the same (almost traditional) mistake as many many other Creationists; with your first objection you make the mistake of suggesting that evolution cares where life came from. Evolution requires life, nothing more, whether that life was created or came about through abiogenesis is irrelevant. (Remember: Darwin was a Creationist)

The gap between animal and plant life was explained to you before, did you fail to understand the explanation or do you choose the traditional creationist method of ignoring evidence and explanation? Early single-celled organisms (neither plant nor animal) evolved into either plant or animal type cells, one did not evolve into the other, so of course we would not expect to see any organism suddenly cross this 'gap' - it never existed.

If you mean 'there has been no recorded speciation event' then you are flat out wrong (check the talkorigins website for a list of observed speciation events). However I suspect that you mean something more along the lines of 'a cat has never evolved into a dog' - in which case you show an appalling lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Such an event would disprove evolution.