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

[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.

[Jaiket]

Comparitive biochemistry.

I'm not an expert, but I feel the comparable DNA stretches signify relation between organisms separated by significant leaps of speciation. That, for me, supports the concept of descent with modification.

[Halcyon]

How about just looking around you? Of the animals and plants alive today you can see a step-by-step progression of increasing adaptation and complexity, you don't even need the fossil record to see it.

Vertebrates;
Fish - -> Amphibians - -> Reptiles - -> Mammals - -> Primates - -> Man
- -> Birds
Plants;
Algae - -> Simple Plants - -> Vascular Plants - -> Ferns - -> Wind Pollinated Plants - -> Flowering Plants.

What makes you think there is more evidence for I.D? I know if I were God i'd have made all life totally different, 1. To make it more interesting and 2. So there would be no doubt life had been created not evolved. Seems to me that if God expects us to believe in creationism then he should have made it more obvious, its just common sense!

I guess if you studied biochemistry you would have been dealing with stuff like Krebbs cycle, electron transfer chain, g-proteins etc etc... They are all very ordered systems and at first glance look too perfectly organised to have occured by chance, but if you compare the biochemistry of say a paramecium and a human cell you can see it's quite simple in the prokaryote when compared to the complex functioning of the eukaryote cell, obvious progression.

[sandy whitelinger]

Halcyon, if just looking around were proof then why is the DNA of some one-celled organisms more complex than that of humans? For example, the single-celled ciliate Paramecium caudatum possesses a genome of 8.6 billion nucleotides, more than twice as big as the human genome. One of the largest known genomes, 670 billion nucleotides, is found in the single-celled Amoeba dubia.

[Ceridwen018]

Sandy, your post lacks a point.

As for the thread,

Vestigial organs and structure
Genetic drift
Gene flow
Homologous and analogous features
Convergent evolution
Microevolution
Macroevolution
Allopatric and Sympatric speciation
Polyploidy
Bottleneck and Founder effects
Development of prezygotic and postzygotic barriers

Do you disagree with any of these?

[painted wolf]

Sandy- biger isn't nessisarily 'better'

Size of the genome has little to do with the 'advancement' of the life form.
however if you compare the make up the DNA of the life forms you find some intersting things.. like humans share a tad over 2% of thier DNA with the Chicken.
And Fungi are closer genetically to animals than they are to plants.

If we are not related why are we so alike?
I have yet to hear ID adiquately cover this.

wa:do

[Halcyon]

Size of the genome has little to do with the 'advancement' of the life form.

Exactly, simpler life forms have fewer genes, the rest is junk DNA and can make the total amount of DNA massive.

if you compare the make up the DNA of the life forms you find some intersting things.. like humans share a tad over 2% of thier DNA with the Chicken.

Are you sure thats right, maybe a typo, 'cause we share 70% of our DNA with a cabbage.

And Fungi are closer genetically to animals than they are to plants.

Indeed, specifically insects - they both use chitin.

[michel]

I'm with halcyon on this one. I'm no expert on anything, so I'm probably the 'lowest common denominator' to voice an opinion; as far as I am concerned, there is not a shred of doubt. No offence to anyone; that just the way I feel.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

Sandy, your post lacks a point.

As for the thread,

Vestigial organs and structure
Genetic drift
Gene flow
Homologous and analogous features
Convergent evolution
Microevolution
Macroevolution
Allopatric and Sympatric speciation
Polyploidy
Bottleneck and Founder effects
Development of prezygotic and postzygotic barriers

Do you disagree with any of these?

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

"Vestigial organs and structure"

How does this show that we evolved rather then were created?
Even if you showed some good examples of Vestigial organs they dont show evolution but the oppisite - The various kinds were created complete and since than have lost there ability to use whatever the organ/structure thanks to degrading/distructive mutations.
If you want more info on what im trying to say this has plenty about it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...gialorgans.asp

"Polyploidy"

"However, informed evolutionists generally realize that photocopying a page adds no new information; it just duplicates it. " a snipet from

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...uplication.asp

"Microevolution"

"Sympatric speciation"

"Genetic drift"

"Founder effects"

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

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v...speciation.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...2/genetics.asp

"Macroevolution"

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

Some people may find this interesting.

"Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems." snippet taken from

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...15hox_hype.asp

or this refute to a professors claim about macroevolution

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4181.asp

[painted wolf]

How does a panda's thumb prove creation? Why wouldn't an 'intelligent' creator simply give a panda a working thumb with its existant five fingers? Why go through all the truble of makeing a pseudo-thumb out of a wrist bone?
It has been shown that the wings of flightless birds are unnessisary for ballance. The flightless bird with the largest 'wings' does not use them for ballance but for display. (ostrich)

too bad for ID that DNA doesn't get photocopied... it gets disected and reasembled using faulty chemical reactions Therefore the analogy is faulty and misleading.

Macroevolution is simply the result of accumulated microevolution... for creationists to support one they must support the other.

AGAIN I point out that none of the evidence supports 'ID' or creation. Pointing out 'flaws' in theory X does not prove theory Y. What evidence does Creationism have?
I have heard no supporting evidence of a designer, only problems with theory X
Where is the evidence for theory Y to counter theory X?

If all animals are the result of a single creation, why do we not find say elephants from the permian? Why do we not find birds in the Cambrian?

wa:do