Creation vs Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
oh J, not you too!

The evidence for Evolution is not equivocal. Even if you think Satan put all those fossils in the ground to trick us, you still have to see that genetic science thrives and evolution is the basis for understanding that.
Click to expand...

Oh be nice. Of course me too. Most accepted theories fit the other side with minor changes. In a creation sequence, what is wrong with using causality and physical laws to mold a world? If God created the world in six days, could he not have done it by editing a "tape" of a couple of billion years of processes until he got it the way he wanted it, and then run it on fast forward in six days to mold the actual universe we see? This would mean that all the fossiles would have been there, with no recourse to Satan, but that the world was as "created" as any movie. The key is not the method, but the design.

J
 
Very Strong Anthropic for me: the universe is here because I am observing it, and will dissappear when I stop.
 
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
I have a stupid question:

Do mitochondria reproduce? Or are we going to someday run out of them as cells divide and split them up, and every human alive at that time will just keel over dead from the lack?

Follow-up stupid question:

If mitochondria do reproduce, how do they do it? Do they have little Star Trek replicators that always make them exactly the same, or little Star Wars cloning cylinders that make them exactly the same, or do they divide like all other life on earth, and occasionally suffer genetic modification via the transposing of base pairs during mRNA replication?

Stupid follow-up to my earlier stupid follow-up:
If the third method of mitochodrial reproduction is correct, then wouldn't the mitochondria in one CELL have different DNA, let alone the mitochondria in different organisms in the same species?

One last vastly ignorant stupid question:
Since everything we know about DNA and cell replication tells us that even 'identical' twins are different, genetically speaking, wouldn't it be the worst form of outright deception and disingenuity to even suggest that all human mitochondria would be the same if all humans could be traced back to one mother? I mean, wouldn't even bringing up such a thing in a public forum, as a means of trying to stifle the opposition in a debate be the worst sort of dishonest tactics and outright lying?
Click to expand...

Not stupid, very valid. And misguided.

1. Yes.

2. By a similar process to normal cell division or mitosis.

3. No. In "Follow-up stupid question" you used the key term "occasionally". During division there is a small chance of mutations happening - but we are talking a real small possibility, and if it does manage to occur at best it is only likely to be one base pair that is different. And remember that each cell, and each mitochindrion, has started from the same point, that is the contents of the mothers ovum. The odds are in fact more likely that all mitochondria in one cell would be the same, or very, very similar.

4. Evolution has created a very efficient mechanism in replication, if mutations happened too often then there would be no consistancy and life would likely have never got going, at least not at a complex level. In normal DNA replication there are built in mechanisms that look for mutations and rectify them - not 100% reliable, but over a short period of time extremely so. Mitochondria lack this extra level of protection from mutation so therefore, compared with mututions in the nucleus, the rate of mutations in the mitochondria are more rapid - but still more likely NOT to happen. The actual rate of mutations is also fairly consistance, so by measuring the relative similarity and differences in mitochondrial DNA between individuals it's possible to calculate an estimate of when those two individuals shared a common ancestor. But also because of this faster rate, mitochondrial DNA is not useful in comparing different species that have common ancestors back in time.

Why? Mitochondria are more resiliant to changes in the DNA - they can keep functioning with mutations. Other proteins like hemoglobin are much less tolerant of mutations and so changes are much slower over time and they become better indicators of older evolutionary paths.

Going back a step or two, remember that the origins of my wife's mitochondria are from her mother (largely - it is possible for sperm to carry a very few mitochondria), and hers from her mother, and so on. The key cells are obviously those of the ovaries. The cells are exposed to much less cell division because by the time the girl-child is born, the ovaries have formed and await puberty to begin producing ova, but from what is already there. Elsewhere, cells are constantly dividing. So it would be fair to say that my wife may well have skin cells that have an increased chance of differing from her ovary cells due to sheer numbers of divisions, however the mitochondria passed on to our daughter will be either exactly the same as the zygote that became my wonderful wife (I think she was quieter and less bossy then!!) or very similar, differing in maybe one base pair.

From this it should be clear that following the path back into our history that a path of genetic similarity can be formed with some accuracy. The key issue being that yes mitochondrial DNA does get exposed to genetic muatation, but at a measurable rate and the chances of it occuring is not great (just better than normal DNA).

Just on a couple of other points I noticed in this thread, evolution does not just spit out a rabbit from a pig - the mutations in genetic code are subtle, longer neck, more colourful feathers, large brain case. For the most part a variation in genetic code would be instantly fatal, but occasionally the change produces a slightly different individual, if this change increases the individuals chances or living, and therefore mating, the genetic change can be passed on. This is how, slowly over time, evolution creates new species, or just a shift in the genotype of existing species.

Lastly, this is a pretty hot topic, it very quickly denegrades to name calling (seen it on other forums). And from both sides of the debate. Let's keep it going if that is people's wish, but please keep it civil - let the debate be on points of discussion.

Ado
 
J I like that idea: six days of highlights from the creation of the world. I think you would have some trouble selling that one to either side though...

Ado- logical argument is over in this thread. Fearless never wanted to have it, the rest of us can't be bothered to "keep it civil" when it has got so far offbase.

Creationism like Flat Earth, Global Warming and the Missile Shield. Some people are sure it is case, everyone else can't believe they are so stoopid. The world goes on without it making a significant contribution regardless.

I'm done arguing this one.
 
I didn't bother to read this thread so I am sorry if someone has already said this. The fact of the matter is that humans were created, but not by god. We were made by aliens as pets but were too intellegent and individual for them so they banished us to the planet earth. These aliens actually evolved from the slime sludge that coats some moons. So you see both exlplanations are sort of right, evolution because the aliens evolved. And creation because we were made by the god like giant aliens.
 
If I personally believed that the universe was spawned by the Cosmic Sneeze and would end with the coming of the Great Divine Handkerchief, what would stop my religion from having exactly as much legitimacy as anyone else's?

What if it was a scientific theory? I'd need actual proof, wouldn't I? I couldn't just spew any strange, crazy, and/or ironic idea that came into my head? If we all agree on that, that science is a more rigorous testing ground for truth, then why don't we apply science and logic to religion and see what we end up with? That's already been done, you've seen the results...

Those who deny the Big Bang, what about Penzias and Wilson and their microwaves?
 
Originally posted by The Troquelet
If I personally believed that the universe was spawned by the Cosmic Sneeze and would end with the coming of the Great Divine Handkerchief, what would stop my religion from having exactly as much legitimacy as anyone else's?
Click to expand...
You stole that from the "Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy"!!! :lol:
 
Originally posted by col


I gave a lecture on Friday about the Cosmological Anthropic Principle. Look it up on the net - there are millions of sites. Half scientific, half deistic.
Click to expand...

Well I looked some stuff up and I'd say it's the closest thing to evidence I've seen that supports the idea of a Divine Creation. I have to admit most of the stuff I read flew over my head, but I plan to look more into it.
 
Originally posted by andrewgprv
Well I looked some stuff up and I'd say it's the closest thing to evidence I've seen that supports the idea of a Divine Creation. I have to admit most of the stuff I read flew over my head, but I plan to look more into it.
Click to expand...
As I see it, it really is up to intrepreation, one intrepation is a multiple universes theory which has evidence via quantum mechanics (I'd explian why but that would take away more time in my life than a civ-game.). Another being devine creation. The first being possibly proveable the second is not.
 
Originally posted by Ado
*SNIP*
4. *SNIP*the rate of mutations in the mitochondria are more rapid - but still more likely NOT to happen. *SNIP*From this it should be clear that following the path back into our history that a path of genetic similarity can be formed with some accuracy. The key issue being that yes mitochondrial DNA does get exposed to genetic muatation, but at a measurable rate and the chances of it occuring is not great (just better than normal DNA).
Click to expand...
Okay, some really good stuff there, and thank you for taking my questions seriously. It's good to know that someone is taking me seriously when I cry wolf. However, my original objection still stands. Mitochondrial DNA does mutate, and therefore there is no legitimate reason why we can't all have different mitoDNA.

If I'm not mistaken, some viral researchers noticed that all humans 'originally' came from four families, based on studies of mitoDNA that showed an ancestry path back to four classes of mitoDNA.

(Say kids, just for laughs, can anyone tell me how many families of humans got off the Ark? Bonus points if you can explain why the answer relates to this post.)

Of course, the researchers put the dates on these mitoDNA families at some millions of years ago. I wonder what those dates were based on, and I'd bet almost any sum that it was an underestimated rate of mutation of mitoDNA, and the actual age of those families was around 12,000 years, but I don't have proof, so I guess I'll shut up.

I would like to ask if anyone has managed to conclusively nail down the rate of mitoDNA mutation to a reliable fixed range, and if so, what they based that assumption on. I'm going to assume, given the amount of credulence they are shown, that they have sequenced every mitochondria in every cell in at least 1,000 generations of fruit flies or some other fast breeding species, and adjusted their rate based on the larger number of mitochondria in more complex organisms' cells, just in case mitochondria breed or somehow swap mitoDNA between each other.

Mind you, I think the actual answer to what the assumption was based on is probably dividing the number of presumed generations from us to them by the presumed amount of time passed. 'If' that is the actual case, then we can all see that this assumed rate is based on two other assumptions, neither of which is in anything remotely related to evidence. Naturally, this will not deter you in the slightest from treating these assumptions as cold hard indisputable facts, and you will consider me a cretin of the lowest order for even daring to question them, but that is to be expected, isn't it?
Originally posted by Ado
*SNIP* For the most part a variation in genetic code would be instantly fatal, but occasionally the change produces a slightly different individual, if this change increases the individuals chances or living, and therefore mating, the genetic change can be passed on. This is how, slowly over time, evolution creates new species, or just a shift in the genotype of existing species.
Click to expand...
Well, I'll freely grant you the second, but the first is not yet in evidence, so we'll have to agree to disagree on our conclusions. Variation within a species has been documented at length. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of supposedly new species that have been seen to have formed, and the differences 'twixt them and their parent species are few indeed.
Originally posted by Ado
Lastly, this is a pretty hot topic, it very quickly denegrades to name calling (seen it on other forums). And from both sides of the debate. Let's keep it going if that is people's wish, but please keep it civil - let the debate be on points of discussion.

Ado
Click to expand...
Well, I try to keep it civil, others prefer to try me. Sadly, I often take the bait.
 
Thanks for staying in and staying civil, FL2.

I see where you're going with the mutations in mtDNA, and over time there would be no reason that one persons mtDNA should be close to anothers. However they still have a role to play and if too many changes accumulate the actual function of the mitocondria could suffer. A cell unable to produce enough ATP would quickly die off - an entire organism similarly afflicted would suffer the same fate. Science is claiming that the divergence of our species is only recent therefore the differences between various groups of mitochondria are not yet sufficient enough to have no resemblance.

Most of the literature I have read points anywhere from 1 to 7 "groups" or "families" or even "individuals". Of these the greater proportion have the range at 5-7, but I'm happy enough with your 4. I'm honest enough to admit the science here is still developing.

No bite on the ark!! I've seen some pretty convincing arguments of the errors in the geophysics of a biblical flood, but as it's not my real interest I won't go into that (get's pretty heavy - and boring!).

In terms of Homo sapiens the time frame is not so large, something in the order of 200,000 years. The path leading to humans, back when the key split is thought to have happened between 5 and 8 million years ago (what's 3 million years between friends!!) with Australopithicus afarensis.

I have to say that I cannot find a definative rate of mtDNA mutation, other than it is around 10 times faster than normal DNA - which I also cannot find a rate for! But I will keep looking. I imagine that whatever these rates are said to be, there will have to be some degree of assumptions made, the level of confidence in those assumptions is a lagre part of what we're debating I guess. I can say that at least the human, mouse, toad, cow and fruit fly mitochondrial genome have been completely sequenced.

When investigating the causes of miscarriages and still births it has often been found that the genetic code was not intact, or had too many similar genes, etc. If they were the real cause, who can truly say. I will confess to being a bit simplistic with my answer here. Some changes may make absolutely no difference to an individual, some may still produce viable offsping, but hamper them in reaching reproductive age and therefore still being fatal, just not immediate. I think I also was a bit general about the process of speciation, but then that is a different topic to mutations in mtDNA (or even normal DNA), however closely related those issues are.

Are you talking recent new species, or throughout all of time? Speciation is not a rapid process and relies to a large degree on isolation of populations of a species that then diverge. It's not something you see everyday. And similarity between species is an argument for evolution, not against it!

I think we are kind of talking about two different issues as well. The mutations that pass on between generations are influenced by meiosis - the formation of sex cells. In one stage, Prophase I, the chromosomes are subject to a much greater chance of change, not through mutations in the replication of the DNA, but in crossing over between maternal and paternal chromosomes.

Ado
 
The flood, for one thing, is a myth, for sure. It just takes a teensy bit of basic math. For example, Mark Twain, in his retelling of Genesis, relates how it rained ten inches [something it nearly never does in North America IIRC] for forty days and nights - and covered every hill 400 feet high - which brings up a good point. Monsoons, I suppose, can rain hundreds of inches a day [or tens of feet]. To cover Mount Everest [29,035 ft.], rain would have had to fall at a rate of about a foot per MINUTE, 725 feet a DAY, for a month and a half. I doubt the atmosphere of the Earth can even hold that much moisture at any one time.
 
Ado,
Without going too far off topic, I'd like to point out that the Flood was a violent miracle, and not at all a natural occurrence. Therefore I find it curious that anyone would expect it (or any other miracle) to be explainable scientifically. I think the reason they are called miracles is because they CAN'T happen naturally...

But back to the matter at hand,
I have a feeling that no one will ever publish a definitive rate of mutation for any type of DNA, mitochondrial or otherwise, that any 6th grade science student couldn't drive a Mack truck full of hard questions through.

I am talking about speciation in recorded history. There have been two alleged events, both involving a weed in Kansas or some other Midwestern state. Apparently there's a new strain that has a different color flower or some such, and they're calling it a species. I wonder if it is still a weed? Speciation has always been the Achilles heel of the ToE, so much so that the definition of species changes every other week (or so it seems) to refute yet another attack by the ToE's detractors. It's gotten to the point where a schism has grown over what a species should constitute. One side wants to include every variant from the most distant ancestor to the latest variant as members of one species, while the other group wants to call anything that only breeds with its own kind a species. Do a Web search on Biological Species Concept for more information.

Your last paragraph looks like an unfinished thought. Does it need more time?
 
Without going too far off topic, I'd like to point out that the Flood was a violent miracle, and not at all a natural occurrence. Therefore I find it curious that anyone would expect it (or any other miracle) to be explainable scientifically. I think the reason they are called miracles is because they CAN'T happen naturally...
Click to expand...
So water suddenly materialized, flooded the Earth (or part of it) for a while, then dematerialized?

The Theory of Evolution is not rock solid, nor will it ever be. Just because it contains questionable ideas does not falsify it in its entirety. Even if ToE were bogus, its being so would not automatically verify Creationism.

I just cannot see how someone can, with this "faith" in hand, be more compelled to believe in an ancient book, than the recent and current think tanks who have produced many of the marvels of science and technology surrounding us today. And how do you interpret this book? With all the translations and trickeries of any language, who is to say the exact meaning of each paragraph?

From my perspective, this whole debate fringes mostly on the personal beliefs of the individual participants; beliefs so crucial to the architecture of their entire outlook on life that to shift them would send the whole structure tumbling down.

FL2, if you truly believe ToE to be bogus, you would do your cause a great service by thoroughly investigating both sides of the argument and presenting your ideas to their respective figureheads. This nitpicking has produced little but intellectual dead-ends and anger-driven spats.

I've read the arguments from both sides. Neither has pushed me any closer or further from where I stood before. I would be interested in hearing how others have been influenced by all this. To myself, I will continue to place my faith in the rigour and method of science. To others, I'll be buying into the social manipulation of the Intelligenstia. I almost wish there really was one...to know humans could form such coherent, secretive and succesful organizations would greatly boost my faith in human rationale.
 
Hmmm... I think you have hit it on the head. Because there is no way an event such as the flood could have occured, it's fable is passed off as a miracle so believers have something to fall back to. But I didn't want to do that one!!!

And I agree with the point that a published rate will be hard to find, most likely if existing it'll be a broader time frame. But as I've acknowledged previously, there is still work to be done in this field and I'm happy that things like this will become clearer. What I don't agree with you about is that the concept itself is flawed.

I think you are manipulating the truth to suit. The basic concept of a species is a group of individuals able to reproduce viable offspring. The issues you are trying to muddy the water with are those of geographic seperation - if a horse here in Australia cannot (without human intervention) successfully reproduce with a horse in the US of A, should it be considered a different species. Your example of the Kansas weed (I don't know the specifics) is more an example of this. That speciation occurs is a fact, and is supported by the fossil record. How different scientists try to interpret this is the conjecture. Fitting organisms into taxa is a human concern, nature is just doing it's job.

You claim god exists, and you have your particular flavour of belief. My argument against religion is not that it cannot exist because you view your god one way, someone else views god differently, and some people call him different names.

Yeah, that last paragraph does kinda look undone!! Basically I was trying to seperate the mechanisms of mtDNA replication and mutation from the mechanisms of genetic inheritance and it's variations as at the time we were onto mitochondria. If anything I think I managed to turn the discussion the wrong way. DOH!!

Ado
 
"Without going too far off topic, I'd like to point out that the Flood was a violent miracle, and not at all a natural occurrence. Therefore I find it curious that anyone would expect it (or any other miracle) to be explainable scientifically. I think the reason they are called miracles is because they CAN'T happen naturally..."

Oh REALLY. That seems kind of hypocritical compared to some of your posts in the Abortion thread:

"
All things in the universe are composed of either matter or energy, even ideas, for they are formed within minds composed of matter
that have energy moving through them. That means that everything in the universe, even ideas, must answer to physics, and
therefore to math. Math deals in absolutes. 2+2 always equals 4. It never equals 5, nor does it equal pi, the square root of -1, or any
other number but 4. 2+2=4 is an absolute. All of math is filled with such absolutes, and all of the universe answers to math in the
end. This cannot mean anything else but that the universe answers to absolutes, as does everything in it."

Talk about selective reasoning...
 
You have beaten me to saying it, Trouquelet, and beaten me again as you brought an actual example while i'd probably only expose the incoherence.

In her first post on this thread, FL2 suggested that evolutionists relies on double standards to support their theory.

Talk about double standards now...

-------

edit: spelling only.
 
One quick note on the flood. If you read the account in Genesis, monsoon would not even coverit. The sky opened and the fountains poured out. This is more than normal rainfull, even heavy tropical rainfall.

Also its the first mention of rain of any sort. Prior to that time there was a mist that watered the ground. Without trying to defend the science of the situation, it sounds on reading like an gaseous atmospheric layer condensed into liquid in a cascading action. The water then went into oceans which were noticably lower prior to that time and eventually into ground water.

J
 
Evolution is scientific fact.
Religion is human imagination.

The latter (and therefore creation) only exists within the context of human culture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Narz
Resentment
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Narz
Narz
Zardnaar
Bernie+AOC Rallies?
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
4K
Bestbank Tiger
B
P
Modern civilizations bet
9 10 11
Replies
204
Views
13K
Kankan
Kankan
GoodEnoughForMe
Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama
24 25 26
Replies
515
Views
21K
Crezth
Crezth
Zardnaar
Government Vs Private
Replies
17
Views
1K
Tee Kay
Tee Kay
Back
Top Bottom