Evolution versus Creationism

[peter grimes]

It makes no difference whether the prediction is made before or after the fact exists: rather, that it makes a prediction that a fact confirms once it is known. The most popular (and scary!) example of this is the current problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I don't need to spell out the details, since there's so much available on Google about this.

But consider the predictions that Natural Selection makes concerning isolated species - geographically isolate, as on an island; or genetically isolated, as with 2 genetically similar populations that, for whatever reason, tend not to interbreed. The predictions of natural selection (and sexual selection) are verified wherever we look! From Pygmy Elephants on Malta to Giant Predators in the ancient America - the theory makes predictions that are confirmed by the literal mountain of evidence that continue to come in with further examination of the fossil record.

 

[Smidlee]

It makes no difference whether the prediction is made before or after the fact exists: rather, that it makes a prediction that a fact confirms once it is known. The most popular (and scary!) example of this is the current problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I don't need to spell out the details, since there's so much available on Google about this.

antibiotics has to attach itself to the bacteria. All bacteria has to do is to "break" this hold and it becomes resistant. It's a lot easy to break something than to create it. That's because there are a lot way to break something.
As far as I know no one has a problem with evolution when it comes to breaking something, like a bacteria breaking an antibiotic hold. Some parts of evolution has been shown as fact yet a lot of it is still just story telling.

But consider the predictions that Natural Selection makes concerning isolated species - geographically isolate, as on an island; or genetically isolated, as with 2 genetically similar populations that, for whatever reason, tend not to interbreed. The predictions of natural selection (and sexual selection) are verified wherever we look! From Pygmy Elephants on Malta to Giant Predators in the ancient America - the theory makes predictions that are confirmed by the literal mountain of evidence that continue to come in with further examination of the fossil record.

There is still debate just how much NS has in nature. It seems that even plain dumb luck has about as much effect on nature.
Using the fossil record as evidence has become a joke as fossils can be interpret in so many different ways.

*************
Here is an example of someone's humorous prediction about evolution story telling

Now the experts are telling us that Tiktaalik lived in shallow fresh water and had fins strong enough to push its head out of water. It was just last December when scientists were telling us that Acanthostega was the missing link between fish and tetrapods. At that time we said,

"A few years from now, evolutionists will no doubt replace this fairytale with a new one."

We admit it. We were wrong. It was just four months, not a few years.

 

[Truronian]

There is still debate just how much NS has in nature.

Not among scientists. It is the foundation that modern biology is built upon.

It seems that even plain dumb luck has about as much effect on nature.

No-one says it didn't. The dinosaurs were unlucky to get wiped out by a meteor, while natural selection is the mechanism lucky animals exploit their lucky mutations/good genes without getting eaten or trod on by a giraffe.

Using the fossil record as evidence has become a joke as fossils can be interpret in so many different ways.

Not really. ToE is the only consistant and plausible theory that the fossil record points towards.

 

[Ammar]

antibiotics has to attach itself to the bacteria. All bacteria has to do is to "break" this hold and it becomes resistant. It's a lot easy to break something than to create it. That's because there are a lot way to break something.
As far as I know no one has a problem with evolution when it comes to breaking something, like a bacteria breaking an antibiotic hold. Some parts of evolution has been shown as fact yet a lot of it is still just story telling.

You don't know what you are talking about. There are mechanism involved with resistant bacteria that don't just change a few superficial things and make it hard for the antibioticum to "attach" themselves. There are many occurences where the bacteria actually produce special proteins which attack the antibiotics or transport it from the inside of the cell to the outside, rendering it harmless.

 

[AngryZealot]

Universal genetic code was evidence of universal common descent until they found out some life forms had a different code. This didn't touch their faith in UCD.

That's because the variation in the genetic code matches the predictions of evolution. That is, variation in the genetic code falls into a nested hierarchy that matches the hierarchies of countless other independent traits. Evolution is the only theory that predicts this pattern. The nested hierarchy of traits is the single most powerful piece of evidence for evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

You don't know what you are talking about. There are mechanism involved with resistant bacteria that don't just change a few superficial things and make it hard for the antibioticum to "attach" themselves. There are many occurences where the bacteria actually produce special proteins which attack the antibiotics or transport it from the inside of the cell to the outside, rendering it harmless.

Like I wrote there are a lot of ways to break something. The reason we focus so much on discovering antibiotics is we want something to break/destroy the bacteria without doing the same to our own cells.

 

[Smidlee]

That's because the variation in the genetic code matches the predictions of evolution. That is, variation in the genetic code falls into a nested hierarchy that matches the hierarchies of countless other independent traits. Evolution is the only theory that predicts this pattern. The nested hierarchy of traits is the single most powerful piece of evidence for evolution.

Nested hierarchy itself is not a prediction of evolution. Now it can try to explain why we see these traits.

Who predicted that there was more than one genetic code? This gives those who support UCD more problems. It's like have both Mac and PC which runs on totally different software.

 

[Ammar]

Like I wrote there is a lot of ways to break something. The reason we focus so much on discovering antibiotics is we want something to break/destroy the bacteria without doing the same to our own cells.

Yes, and trying to kill the bacteria causes a change in evolutionary pressure, therefore making it likely that mutations will create new genetic material which makes the bacteria resistant. And in some case those new genetic material changes the bacteria on a level that would be comparable with us forming a new sort of organ, so the process is quite involved.

 

[Ammar]

It's like have both Mac and PC which runs on totally different software.

That analogy is more apt than you think. Macs and PC share the same hardware - as do all living beings on Earth in the form of DNA. The information is handled in the same way. It's the software i.e. the actual content that varies.

 

[AngryZealot]

Nested hierarchy itself is not a prediction of evolution.

Of course it is. My offspring are expected to have the same traits as me with minor differences. The cumulative differences of my offspring's offspring and my offspring's offspring's offsprings, etc., will produce a nested tree of differences. Nested hierarchies are a direct prediction of evolution and descent from common ancestry.

Make a tested tree of eye morphology. Now do it for different bones. Now do it for the hemoglobin genetic sequence. Now do it for 16S RNA. You will get nearly identical nested hierarchies for each of these completely independent features. Common descent is the only naturalistic explanation that can explain and predict this fact of life.

Who predicted that there was more than one genetic code?

Lots of people did after they discovered mitochondria had a slightly different codon table. And then they found it in bacteria because they were looking for it, because they suspected that mitochondria had a bacterial origin.

 

[Smidlee]

Lots of people did after they discovered mitochondria had a slightly different codon table. And then they found it in bacteria because they were looking for it, because they suspected that mitochondria had a bacterial origin.

I also predicted that UNC would win over Mich. State at half time (NCAA basketball) with the score 55-34. Are you impress?

 

[AngryZealot]

The point isn't that people predicted there would be variation in the genetic code. The point is that the variations in the genetic code map to the same nested hierarchies established by independent traits. If the genetic code were randomly distributed then it would be evidence against evolution, but it's not. It's correlated to previously established hierarchies and conforms to all the predictions of evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

a quote about nested hiearchies I agree with

It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory. To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution. (Hunter, 108.)

There are a few creatures that is hard to put into man's classifications.

 

[warpus]

yes, but that assumes that God started with an outside environment.

Most people that I know that are religious believe that God created everything (space, time, ect.) and therefore he would be outside the laws.

Well, that's an assumption right there.

Being outside of a system you're creating doesn't even imply that you get to create all the rules for whatever you're creating.

When I write a computer program, I am outside of the computer hardware itself, but am limited by certain rules.

edit: reading the above exchange is giving me a headache

 

[AngryZealot]

a quote about nested hiearchies I agree with
There are a few creatures that is hard to put into man's classifications.

I don't know how to say it politely, so I'll be blunt: that quote is ignorant. It's misleading. It's wrong. It's a lie. It has no basis in modern evolutionary thought. Worse, it's a quote mine.

However, in private correspondence, Hunter has vociferously objected to my interpretation of his comments given above. Hunter claims that he was simply pointing out that alternative "theories" can explain the observed nested hierarchy. For such a point to be valid, the alternate "theories" would need to be of equal scientific rank as the theory of common descent.

More specifically,

so, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern.

Of course the law of natural selection does not predict the pattern. Descent from common ancestry does. Divergence is a direct consequence of descent from common ancestry and mutation. You would still see a nested hierarchy of traits in the absense of natural selection, but it would still be evolution. A random distribution of traits would be evidence against evolution, but that is not what is observed.

You are fighting the theory of evolution as it was 100 years ago, not as it is today.

 

[Smidlee]

....
You are fighting the theory of evolution as it was 100 years ago, not as it is today.

The TOE is a 19th century theory trying to address what we know in the 21th century and it's really showing it's age.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Yeah well creationism is a 150,000 year old theory that is really showing its age.

 

[AngryZealot]

The TOE is a 19th century theory trying to address what we know in the 21th century and it's really showing it's age.

When I say the Theory of Evolution, I mean a very different thing than what you imagine. I think of the modern theory. You think of the 19th century theory. They are two completely different things.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nope, I read books. Basicly, I take this guy to be like Roger Penrose, knows some kinda related crap, makes up a bunch of weird arguments that have gaping flaws, don't ground this in experiment.

The best policy is to not listen to idiots until they prove themselves non-idiots. Believing every idiotic idiot idea would lead to idiotic idiocy idiotizing your brain leaving you idiotized as an idiotic idiot yourself.

Yes, clearly Dr. Robert Lanza is an idiot.

 

[Perfection]

Yes, clearly Dr. Robert Lanza is an idiot.

A whackjob with a phd is still whackjob. Perfection just has very good whackjob detecting skills.