Evolution verses Creationism? Why?

[FunctionalAtheist]

I don't think I've ever truly seen a debat regarding evolution verses creationism. Everytime someone says they are debating it, invariable they are defending or attacking evolution, with the notion that if evolution is false then creationism must be correct. I seldom see any supposed evidence for creationism other than attacks on evolution; nothing supporting creationism in its own right.

Why is this? Evolution by natural selection is the only real candidate for explaining the diversity of life on Earth. But there have been many other hypothises of evolution prior to Darwin, and since Darwin the theory has developed well beyond his contributions. Science has progressed and continues to do so.

So where is the evidence for creationism? Is there any?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Creationism is a nonsense word. The counterposition is between evolution and biblical literalism.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Creationism is a nonsense word. The counterposition is between evolution and biblical literalism.

Ok. I was attempting to use the terms as I understand are used by the proponents. Are you saying there is a real counterposition between the two? Or is the literal position that proving evolution wrong equates to proving literalism correct?

 

[Skwim]

I don't think I've ever truly seen a debat regarding evolution verses creationism. Everytime someone says they are debating it, invariable they are defending or attacking evolution, with the notion that if evolution is false then creationism must be correct. I seldom see any supposed evidence for creationism other than attacks on evolution; nothing supporting creationism in its own right.
Why is this?

That's because the evidence for creationism is faith based, which has no standing among those convinced by the evidence of science. Science has so well established it's reliability that it's often a major adversary to other approaches of explanation. So, in order to mount a defense of creationism the creationists has to cross the tracks and venture into the arena of science. Once there, their only option is to attack evolution, because science certainly doesn't support creationism. Hence we never have "Creationism is correct because . . . , " but "Evolution is wrong because . . . ." Of course, even if evolution was proven wrong it doesn't mean creationism would be right, it would only remove the biggest thorn in the creationists side: an ever present source of doubt about the veracity of their religious belief.

Operationally, the creationist attitude pretty much always boils down to

So where is the evidence for creationism? Is there any?

Certainly there's evidence for creationism, it's the interpretation of Biblical scripture. However, as explained, it falls so short of the evidence amassed by science that it's meaningless.
I believe most creationists argue their position more to keep themselves convinced of the veracity of their interpretation of the Bible than to convince others----other than those into creationism for the money, and who knows what they really believe.



BTW, "creationism" and "creationist" are valid terms that are contextually meaningful when used in discussions involving evolution.

 

[Man of Faith]

Evolution by natural selection is the only real candidate for explaining the diversity of life on Earth.

With this statement you just proved evolution false and creation true. Evolution is not merely by natural selection, yet people think that it is. The reason for that is because natural selection is observable and people want something observable to hang their hat on and call it science. Evolution is by random mutation and natural selection. It’s the random mutation part that isn’t observable so evolutionists leave it off as if it is assumed to be true and point to the observable natural selection. Natural selection can only happen if the genes are already in the creature to be selected. Where did they come from? Either they randomly mutated or a designer put them there. Seeing how it is unobservable that random mutations introduce changes that are selected to change the morphology of creatures going forward then they must have been put there by a designer. Have a great day.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

With this statement you just proved evolution false and creation true. Evolution is not merely by natural selection, yet people think that it is. The reason for that is because natural selection is observable and people want something observable to hang their hat on and call it science. Evolution is by random mutation and natural selection. It’s the random mutation part that isn’t observable so evolutionists leave it off as if it is assumed to be true and point to the observable natural selection. Natural selection can only happen if the genes are already in the creature to be selected. Where did they come from? Either they randomly mutated or a designer put them there. Seeing how it is unobservable that random mutations introduce changes that are selected to change the morphology of creatures going forward then they must have been put there by a designer. Have a great day.

1. They aren't random

2. Mutations are seen quite a bit actually so they are observable.

3. There is more to evolution than random mutation and natural selection. And again it's not random.

While I understand why you would say it makes sense for a designer to put them there, be aware that said designer does not necessarily mean the Abrahamic God.

 

[johnhanks]

Evolution is not merely by natural selection...

That may be the truest sentence you've ever typed on this forum.

... yet people think that it is.

Not, I think, people who understand the process. But possibly in the sources you read.

The reason for that is because natural selection is observable and people want something observable to hang their hat on and call it science ... It’s the random mutation part that isn’t observable...

Well, the accuracy was nice while it lasted. Random mutation is readily observable.

... so evolutionists leave it off ...

They do what? Random mutation is cited as a component of evolutionary mechanisms in every textbook I know.

Elsewhere in this forum you've complained about non-biologists being excluded from debating evolution: that's untrue, but you might acquire at least some acquaintance with reality before you jump in.

 

[Ouroboros]

It’s the random mutation part that isn’t observable so evolutionists

Wrong. It's well established since the invention of the DNA sequencer.

leave it off as if it is assumed to be true and point to the observable natural selection. Natural selection can only happen if the genes are already in the creature to be selected. Where did they come from?

From mutations, like copy-errors of the type of deletion, insertion, or just synonymous changes in the codon, or through viral infection, and more. There's a whole science called genetics. You think they just sit around and fart? They know stuff. Stuff that you don't know.

Either they randomly mutated or a designer put them there.

Random mutations are documented facts. Statistically, about every second person in this world has a unique mutation, mostly harmless through synonymous codons. Also, statistically, when you go to the bathroom and do a #2, there's some thousands new mutated bacteria in your ... stuff. (Don't ask me why someone actually went through the trouble of analyzing or research such a thing... yuk!)

Seeing how it is unobservable that random mutations introduce changes that are selected to change the morphology of creatures going forward then they must have been put there by a designer. Have a great day.

You can fix this by following these steps:
1. Buy a good book about evolution, a scientific book, not an apologetics book
2. Pick it up
3. Read it

And by the way, yes, there is a designer behind it all, it's called Nature.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

With this statement you just proved evolution false and creation true.

Wow! I have done what no other person has ever done? Both proven evolution false and proven creation true? LMAO!

The reason I say by Natural Selection, is that while there are 4 basic components in Darwin's theory, natural selection is by far the focus of his theory. The title of his book isOn
"The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Heredity is not unique to Darwin's theory. It is a primary component in Lamarkism and Oxygenation (see Erasmus Darwin). Neither was competition for limited resources or exponential reproductive capacity. And neither was mutation, random or otherwise. What Darwin introduced, and what is central to his theme, is natural selection. While Darwin listed all the components he say as necessary, it was natural selection, survival of the fittest, that remains the cornerstone of his contribution to science.

 

[Parsimony]

It’s the random mutation part that isn’t observable so evolutionists leave it off as if it is assumed to be true and point to the observable natural selection.

Have you ever heard of sickle-cell anemia? Or AZT-resistance in HIV? Or aerobic citrate metabolism in E.coli? Or the nylonases? Or white blood cell hypermutation? All down to mutations. It is all observed.

 

[Man of Faith]

Wow! I have done what no other person has ever done? Both proven evolution false and proven creation true? LMAO!

The reason I say by Natural Selection, is that while there are 4 basic components in Darwin's theory, natural selection is by far the focus of his theory. The title of his book isOn
"The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Heredity is not unique to Darwin's theory. It is a primary component in Lamarkism and Oxygenation (see Erasmus Darwin). Neither was competition for limited resources or exponential reproductive capacity. And neither was mutation, random or otherwise. What Darwin introduced, and what is central to his theme, is natural selection. While Darwin listed all the components he say as necessary, it was natural selection, survival of the fittest, that remains the cornerstone of his contribution to science.

I’m not sure you get my point yet, so I’ll try again. Natural selection validates special creation, not evolution. You can’t select something that isn’t there and if it is there, then how did it get there? If dogs came from wolves, based on selective breeding which is intelligent selection, not natural selection, but the concept is the same, where did the genes come from to select or breed with? If we have a short legged dog, where did the short legged genes come from? Without observable and verifiable scientific evidence that the genes to go from frog to man came from mutations, then evolution is merely a model based on presupposition and philosophy, which it is. However in a special creation scenario the creator could have put the genes in the original kinds or families of organisms for them to change and adapt to their surroundings through natural selection. Now that makes sense. That is what we observe. We observe natural selection based on the genes already in the organism.

 

[Iti oj]

I’m not sure you get my point yet, so I’ll try again. Natural selection validates special creation, not evolution. You can’t select something that isn’t there and if it is there, then how did it get there? If dogs came from wolves, based on selective breeding which is intelligent selection, not natural selection, but the concept is the same, where did the genes come from to select or breed with? If we have a short legged dog, where did the short legged genes come from? Without observable and verifiable scientific evidence that the genes to go from frog to man came from mutations, then evolution is merely a model based on presupposition and philosophy, which it is. However in a special creation scenario the creator could have put the genes in the original kinds or families of organisms for them to change and adapt to their surroundings through natural selection. Now that makes sense. That is what we observe. We observe natural selection based on the genes already in the organism.

and slowly that pool of genes change from genration to generation.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I’m not sure you get my point yet, so I’ll try again. Natural selection validates special creation, not evolution. You can’t select something that isn’t there and if it is there, then how did it get there? If dogs came from wolves, based on selective breeding which is intelligent selection, not natural selection, but the concept is the same, where did the genes come from to select or breed with? If we have a short legged dog, where did the short legged genes come from? Without observable and verifiable scientific evidence that the genes to go from frog to man came from mutations, then evolution is merely a model based on presupposition and philosophy, which it is. However in a special creation scenario the creator could have put the genes in the original kinds or families of organisms for them to change and adapt to their surroundings through natural selection. Now that makes sense. That is what we observe. We observe natural selection based on the genes already in the organism.

My apologies. I had no idea you were this uneducated regarding the subject. Genetic crossover is quite observable under an electron microscope. This happens in every single animal and plant on earth today. You can not make a baby without random genetic crossover, which makes new alleles (mutations) of our genes. Every single person alive has a at least 45 alleles that neither parent had (females have 46). AND YOU CAN WATCH IT HAPPEN WHEN THE EGG IS FERTILIZED. Most of these mutation are harmless and occur in areas of the chromosomes that don't seem to code for any proteins, thus having no effect. Most of the ones that do have an effect are detrimental.

This is how 'mutation's arise.

Now, as far as selection; again I apologize if this is beyond your educational level. A 'gene' is not a sequence of DNA. It is a place holder or slot, kind of like a drive bay, on the chromosome. Each gene can have dozens or even hundred of alleles, which are the actual sequences of DNA that code for a given protein. A 'gene' for eye color can have a brown, blue, green, black allele. Selection does not depend on mutation. For instance, there is a moth in London that has a white form and a black form. In the early 20th century the white form was the common form and the black moths were somewhat rare. Sometime in the 60s it was noted that white moths were very hard to find, and the black form was very common.

It was shown that during this time trees had been darkened due to industrial pollution. Previously, black moths had stood out on the trunks of trees, but now it's the white moths that stick out. Birds eat the moths that stick out.

Evolution, as defined in my text book, is the change in frequency of gene alleles in a population. This meets the definition, and evolution, by definition, has occurred, even without mutation. Realize that 'evolution' and the origin of a species, and the origin of life, and the origin of the universe, are different things.

Next, what on earth makes you think 'not seeing' mutation would be 'proof' of creationism?

 

[LuisDantas]

I’m not sure you get my point yet, so I’ll try again. Natural selection validates special creation, not evolution.

It may or may not validate special creation, depending on how you define it.

But it does not "fail to validate" evolution, since after it is is one of its main components.

You can’t select something that isn’t there and if it is there, then how did it get there? If dogs came from wolves, based on selective breeding which is intelligent selection, not natural selection,

Dogs no more came from modern wolves than humans came from modern apes.

In both cases there are common ancestors for both branches.

And unless you are aware of something quite unknown for the public at large, the differentiation between dogs and wolves has indeed happened by natural selection, not selective breeding or intelligent selection.

but the concept is the same, where did the genes come from to select or breed with? If we have a short legged dog, where did the short legged genes come from?

From random variation. It is no different from human height variation, really.

Without observable and verifiable scientific evidence that the genes to go from frog to man came from mutations, then evolution is merely a model based on presupposition and philosophy, which it is.

Except that the evidence for evolution exists and is in fact undeniable. Your insistence does not change that.

However in a special creation scenario the creator could have put the genes in the original kinds or families of organisms for them to change and adapt to their surroundings through natural selection. Now that makes sense. That is what we observe. We observe natural selection based on the genes already in the organism.

You may easily reconcile actual facts with the existence of a creator God, sure.

 

[Man of Faith]

and slowly that pool of genes change from genration to generation.

In a way yes, however change doesn't mean add. If we look at the dogs again, mans best friend, what we see is as the different breeds get selected the genes get less, they loose information. In other words if dogs came from wolves, through breeding and selection, can you go backwards to the wolf? No, you can't take two poodles and breed them until you get a wolf. Hence they lost gene information. However under a random mutation scenario, we should be able to eventually get back to a wolf from anything really. Not readily apparent.

 

[Iti oj]

In a way yes, however change doesn't mean add. If we look at the dogs again, mans best friend, what we see is as the different breeds get selected the genes get less, they loose information. In other words if dogs came from wolves, through breeding and selection, can you go backwards to the wolf? No, you can't take two poodles and breed them until you get a wolf. Hence they lost gene information.

Change doesn't not mean add. It means add subtract, change etc. split fuse together alter etc etc. Well their is no reverse evolution , only evolution.
That being said I a would not be surprised if we could over several generations turn puddles into wolfs. Would that prove evolution to you?
and why do we not see Poodles turning into wolves, lack of selection pressure.

also it would take several generations.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no clear direction from dogs to wolves or vice-versa. One is not "more evolved" than the other, nor has "more" genetic information than the other.

Even if they did, that would probably have no significant relation to their characteristics, since so much of genetic information is redundant and even defective.

I fear you are not really informed about how genetics work.

 

[Parsimony]

In a way yes, however change doesn't mean add.

Yet we know that new genes can be formed. Back to the nylonase enzymes of Flavobacterium again.

-The nylonases could not have been designed in from the beginning because the substance that they work on (6-aminohexanoate) is a man-made chemical that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.

-If the nylonases were designed in from the beginning, they would have been mutated out of functionality because they would have been useless until the year 1935. A useless gene has no selection pressure acting on it to keep it functional and therefore can accumulate loss-of-function mutations.

-The nylonases only work on nylon byproducts.

-The process has been replicated. Scientists have observed the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa evolving the ability to break down nylon byproducts in the laboratory.

So here you have an example of an organism evolving an ability that it did not have before. That refutes the idea that evolution can only use abilities and genetic information that were present from the beginning.

 

[InChrist]

Have you ever heard of sickle-cell anemia? Or AZT-resistance in HIV? Or aerobic citrate metabolism in E.coli? Or the nylonases? Or white blood cell hypermutation? All down to mutations. It is all observed.

You've listed so few! There are literally thousands of genetic mutations linked to human diseases. The question is are these mutations positive and do they show improvement and support evolution or do they reveal the opposite: the degeneration of the human genome?

 

[Iti oj]

You've listed so few! There are literally thousands of genetic mutations linked to human diseases. The question is are these mutations positive and do they show improvement and support evolution or do they reveal the opposite: the degeneration of the human genome?

Well sickle cell., can be bad, it protects people from malaria. So you tell me good or bad,