Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments (creation, God)

[Halcyon]

When people put forward their arguments that they belive support evolution and refute Creation its often because they dont really understand the Creation model.

I think i understand it quite well, you believe Noah had all 'Kinds' of animals on his boat including dinosaurs, but they were all vegetarian back then so didn't eat each other, the theropods only had sharp cutting teeth and claws for display, right?
You believe in a great flood that wiped out all animals and birds (except for those on the ark), but have no explaination for the extinction for aquatic animals such as ammonites, pleiosaurs, ancient sharks etc.

Yuo believe in a perfect God who makes perfect creations, but then those creations are wiped out often through competition, how does that work???

"Polyploidy"

"However, informed evolutionists generally realize that photocopying a page adds no new information

Ploidy is no where near that simple, ploidy is the complete duplication of the genome, the second form often being altered over time while the first remains the same. Male bees are haploid (1 copy of genome) and hatch from unfertilised eggs, female bees are diploid (2 copies of the genome) and hatch form fertilised eggs, ploidy makes a massive difference to the life form concerned.

These things dont support evolution over creation as you seem to think.

These things are the the driving forces of evolution. How do they support creationism?

The fact is the church once thought earth was the centre of the universe and that the sun orbited the planet, they were wrong and eventually accepted it, why can't you accept you're also wrong in this case - there are plenty of other aspects of life and the universe where God may have a place, the forms of life on this planet isn't one of them.

[painted wolf]

oops... ment to add this in for you Halcyon.. rechecking its 2.5%
I got the numbers for the chicken genome from the paper published by Nature on dec 8, 2004
check out an online summery here: http://www.nature.com/news/2004/0412.../041206-8.html
and some more from the BBC here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4079283.stm

Do you have a source for the Cabbage numbers? I'm very curious about the high numbers involved with animal-plant similarities... especally human-plant numbers.

now back on topic.

one reason I don't understand the 'creation model' is that it has too many problems and gaps. Far more than the much lauded 'faults' in the evolutionary model.
To me 'god did it' isn't an adiquate scientific answer... if you want to be scientific as opposed to religious then you must do better.

wa:do

[Halcyon]

Do you have a source for the Cabbage numbers? I'm very curious about the high numbers involved with animal-plant similarities... especally human-plant numbers.

Sorry don't have any references for the numbers, they were told to me by my evolution lecturer, 40% same as a banana as well apparently.

I read you're sources and i think i see where the confusion lies, its 2.5% of the entire genome which is identical whereas i was talking about genes only, that's because the actual coding DNA in our genomes is only a very small percentage, the rest is junk DNA - and junk DNA varies a lot between species because mutation within it is not really controlled. If you looked at genes alone, many would be identical as there is only one way in which they will work, eg the gene for cytochrome c, other genes may not be identical, but may be very similar. This is because genes code for proteins, but only a certain part of the protein, the active site, actually does anything, the rest of it is just structural, so the DNA that codes for the structural protein can change and not make any difference.
So if you looked at genes alone, rather than the whole genome, you'd probably see a marked similarity.

one reason I don't understand the 'creation model' is that it has too many problems and gaps. Far more than the much lauded 'faults' in the evolutionary model.
To me 'god did it' isn't an adiquate scientific answer... if you want to be scientific as opposed to religious then you must do better.

Yeah, like what i said about them believing all animals on the ark were vegetarian, its totally true that they believe it, but it is simply ridiculous!
If you want to argue a scientific subject, you have to use science not a story most rational people believe to be ficticious!

[painted wolf]

ah, I think I see the point of confusion, thank you for clerifying.
I do find it the genome prodject interesting due to the more specific simalarities and differences that it finds between life forms. Such as the difference between the meccanisms that form the protiens for hair and feathers. It indicates that such genes evolved twice to do similer things.
But we both have the same genes that grow limbs and heads and so on.

again, it is wonderful evidence of the interrelatedness of all life and our shared ancestry.

back to 'creation theory' there is also the hurdle of having all living things decended from just two (or in the case of 'clean' animals four) animals that were on bord the ark. How many species went extinct simply becuse once off the boat the predators got hungry?
"oh, darn, there goes the male unicorn." Noah grumbles
"hey, the sabertooh tigers just ate the male mammoth" Said Noahs wife.
"Well, the wolves just ate the female sabertooth." answered Noah.
"hey, can anyone point me to Australia?" asked the kangaroo.

wa:do

[LISA63]

Originally Posted by Steve

When people put forward their arguments that they belive support evolution and refute Creation its often because they dont really understand the Creation model.
"Macroevolution"

Id like to know of your scientific evidece that supports Macroevolution.

Now this is what i'm talkin about.

let's see evidence not what you believe because of what you been taught. so far I have seen in this thread many beliefs but no evidence to support, so what about the evidence people?

You go Steve we want the evidence not the lip service.

[LISA63]

Ifind this quite funny

If you want to argue a scientific subject, you have to use science

you say to use science......
and then you bring an argument based on.......

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Sorry don't have any references for the numbers, "THEY WERE TOLD TO ME" by my evolution lecturer, 40% same as a banana as well apparently.

now should I believe you because you believed him?

[Pah]

Originally Posted by LISA63

I would like to see what evidences can be brought to back either evolution or i.d.. Please show any scientific evidence to back any statements for either argument.

I have spent three years in college studying bio-chemistry and I personally believe the evidence backs I.D. but there may be something that I havent seen that would change that view so lets see what carries the most strength.

I am truely amazed that some on this board with continue to start new threads and not finish the ones where they are seemingly being discreditied. At least kbc has made modifications to his premise and I can not say favorable things about others.

[LISA63]

If as many of you seem to believe that evbolution is a fact then explain why the apparent homology of some species don't carry the genes for the similar organs in the same place within the genome? Do you people think that nature can just rearrange the locations of these things without repercushion?
Can anyone bring evidence that doesn't rely on interpretation or inference? How about we get some replies that are in this format;

This evidence (actual tests or observable evidence) gives backing to the idea of Evolution or I.D.

This thread asks for evidence of an empirical nature not assumption or opinion, if you don't have any evidence then don't post.


Here is evidence and a conclusion to back I.D.

The known laws of chemistry aka - polymerization, law of mass action, lechateliers principle will not allow the upward building of chemicals into complex formations such as life no matter how long its allowed to react.

[LISA63]

Originally Posted by pah

I am truely amazed that some on this board with continue to start new threads and not finish the ones where they are seemingly being discreditied. At least kbc has made modifications to his premise and I can not say favorable things about others.

He has his issue and I have mine. KBC has a good argument in his thread but, I would prefer to deal with the evidence and not the wordings of premise. As anyone can see in that thread you argue everything but the evidence and then you now come to this thread to do what? are you dealing with the subject of the thread? NO! If you wish to argue the evidence then lets roll, if you want to argue something else then make a thread.
My interest is scientific, I do not wish to argue religion nor matters of linguistics. I am a non-theist so my idea's about beginnings are different from a theists idea of it.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by LISA63

Here is evidence and a conclusion to back I.D.

The known laws of chemistry aka - polymerization, law of mass action, lechateliers principle will not allow the upward building of chemicals into complex formations such as life no matter how long its allowed to react.

The fact is that chemicals did polymerise, amino acids did form peptides, simple sugars did form huge carbohydrates, and so on. The existence of these compounds in themselves is not evidence for anything.

Science does not understand how these polymers formed (to my knowledge), so we should therefore hypothesise unknown entities that could have started life in violation of these laws?

Entities who apparently are not subject to these laws, that are therefore not alive (as we understand it), and cannot possess intelligence (as I understand it).

This, I believe, is called arguing to ignorance.