Why " evolution vs creationism"

[BilliardsBall]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

I don't know, and hope to find out, soon!

 

[exchemist]

You have a point, evolution and creationism are umbrella terms with many different definitions, both sides should clarify their position and provide evidence for their view.

For example I personally

Accept the fact that organisms change and adapt

Accept the idea that we share a common assertor with other organisms, but I think hat the idea is controversial and there is room for reasonable doubt

Reject the idea of natural selection and random mutations being the main cause of the diversity of life.

Accept that the universe is billions of years old,

Reject natural biogenesis

Accept the big bang

Etc.

Should I label myself as an evolutionist or as a creationist?

Creationist.

 

[Audie]

you confirmed my point


Not to mention that creationists do provide examples of what they claim are “absolute barriers” that prevent any “bigger” change, Irreducibly complexity, genetic entropy, statistical improbabilities Haldane's dilemma etc. would be examples of such barriers.

You might argue that creationists are wrong and that such barriers do not exist, but YEC do provide testable and verifiable evidence, that may be proven to be ether correct or wrong.

You start the semantics game and then complain
if someone does not like it. Cool.

Statistical improbability is hardly a testable barrier
to evolutionary change. Nor is a moldy pratt like
"irreducible complexity".

If you think that there are limits (you did not take
back your falsehood about "no limits" btw)
could you give an example?

Like that a fish could never evolve into an
amphibian, or what?

If you have time, I'd love to hear about this-

creationists do provide testable and verifiable evidence,

 

[Audie]

Creationist.

Now now, no name calling.

 

[leroy]

take for example Haldane´s dilema:



Haldane's dilemma has not been solved - creation.com

You start the semantics game and then complain
if someone does not like it. Cool.

Statistical improbability is hardly a testable barrier
to evolutionary change. Nor is a moldy pratt like
"irreducible complexity".

If you think that there are limits (you did not take
back your falsehood about "no limits" btw)
could you give an example?

Like that a fish could never evolve into an
amphibian, or what?

If you have time, I'd love to hear about this-

creationists do provide testable and verifiable evidence,

I will paraphrase the dilemma with my own words,

Imagine a primitive ape that lived 5M years ago, this ape suffered from a genetic point mutation that was so positive that in just 100 years this mutation became fixed and dominant in the population. Then another ape (descendent of the first ape) has another positive mutation and in just 100 years the mutation becomes fixed and dominant.

Repeat this process for 5M years and you will end up having an ape with 50,000 positive mutations that were not present in the original ape.

Ok, so Humans and chimps have 3 Billion base pairs in their genome, if we are suppose to share 99% of our genome with them, then we have a difference of 30,000,000 base pairs.

But even under this unrealistic scenario (because we are assuming abundant “very positive mutations”) you can only account for 50,000 base pairs. You can account for less than the 0.002% of the changes that would be required in order to produce a human and an ape from a common ancestor who presumable lived 5M years ago and had a 1% genetic difference with relation to modern chimps and modern humans.

To me things are simple, there is obviously more than just random mutations + natural selection, there are obviously other mechanisms that produce big, fast and nonrandom changes.

This is an example of an absolute limit proposed by some creationists,

 

[viole]

Why is it called "evolution vs creationism"? This implies that creationists dont believe in passing on of traits, adaptation, a finches beak changing its shape across several generations depending on environment. But creationists DO accept these things. Wouldnt a better title be " creationism vs the belief that new traits/ things materialize out of nowhere"?

If you do not believe in common descent. Namely that we, gorillas, pigs, bananas, fungis, rats, trees, etc share a common ancestor, then you are VS.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Katzpur]

Just quickly looked at the replies. Hmmm. Could we define Creationism and Evolution? People are sometimes deliberately obtuse for their own snotty reasons. I've generally felt that Evolution is loosely correct with the caveat that an intelligence controlled it. It is likely that the Evolution process has gone on since the origin of the first living cell. And, it seems clear that Evolution is no accident, though perhaps not manipulated as much as some think?

All this must be more difficult than it seems. It is nothing like breeding Dogs is it? I just don't think that humans are even close to being done cooking in the cauldron.

It makes me sad that even putting the two terms in the same paper seems to be an open invitation for a drunken donnybrook, and a right good bashing at that.

Ellen, you just took the words out of my mouth. Every last one of them.

 

[sayak83]

take for example Haldane´s dilema:



Haldane's dilemma has not been solved - creation.com


I will paraphrase the dilemma with my own words,

Imagine a primitive ape that lived 5M years ago, this ape suffered from a genetic point mutation that was so positive that in just 100 years this mutation became fixed and dominant in the population. Then another ape (descendent of the first ape) has another positive mutation and in just 100 years the mutation becomes fixed and dominant.

Repeat this process for 5M years and you will end up having an ape with 50,000 positive mutations that were not present in the original ape.

Ok, so Humans and chimps have 3 Billion base pairs in their genome, if we are suppose to share 99% of our genome with them, then we have a difference of 30,000,000 base pairs.

But even under this unrealistic scenario (because we are assuming abundant “very positive mutations”) you can only account for 50,000 base pairs. You can account for less than the 0.002% of the changes that would be required in order to produce a human and an ape from a common ancestor who presumable lived 5M years ago and had a 1% genetic difference with relation to modern chimps and modern humans.

To me things are simple, there is obviously more than just random mutations + natural selection, there are obviously other mechanisms that produce big, fast and nonrandom changes.

This is an example of an absolute limit proposed by some creationists,

There are hundreds of mutations per generation, most have no positive or negative effect. Thus 99% of that 1% difference are neutral differences.
Next?

 

[Polymath257]

take for example Haldane´s dilema:



Haldane's dilemma has not been solved - creation.com


I will paraphrase the dilemma with my own words,

Imagine a primitive ape that lived 5M years ago, this ape suffered from a genetic point mutation that was so positive that in just 100 years this mutation became fixed and dominant in the population. Then another ape (descendent of the first ape) has another positive mutation and in just 100 years the mutation becomes fixed and dominant.

Repeat this process for 5M years and you will end up having an ape with 50,000 positive mutations that were not present in the original ape.

Ok, so Humans and chimps have 3 Billion base pairs in their genome, if we are suppose to share 99% of our genome with them, then we have a difference of 30,000,000 base pairs.

But even under this unrealistic scenario (because we are assuming abundant “very positive mutations”) you can only account for 50,000 base pairs. You can account for less than the 0.002% of the changes that would be required in order to produce a human and an ape from a common ancestor who presumable lived 5M years ago and had a 1% genetic difference with relation to modern chimps and modern humans.

To me things are simple, there is obviously more than just random mutations + natural selection, there are obviously other mechanisms that produce big, fast and nonrandom changes.

This is an example of an absolute limit proposed by some creationists,

First, why do you assume there is only one such mutation every hundred years? There is no reason to suspect that a new mutation has to wait until the last one is fully dominant before it appears.

Second, why do you at there is only one such mutation at a time?

Third, if the time for dominance of the different mutations overlap, then the length of time it takes for dominance can drastically increase.

Fourth, the 99% figure isn't based on the number of base pairs needing to be changed. There are other types of mutation that do not involve such changes (chromosomal rearrangement, for example).

Fifth, not all of the changes are dominant changes: most are neutral.

 

[Audie]

To me things are simple, there is obviously more than just random mutations + natural selection, there are obviously other mechanisms that produce big, fast and nonrandom changes.

This is an example of an absolute limit proposed by some creationists,

Absolute limit to what? (plus i do not see where "absolute" comes into it)

Others seem to have dealt or or dealing with the
sense or otherwise of your genetics.

I may have misunderstood what you mean by "limits'.

Usually as presented by creationists it is something like
"a dog will always be a dog, it cannot evolve into
some other species" (or genus, or anything else but
a dog)

You on the other hand seem to be talking about
possible limits to what can be achieved via mutation
and natural selection. Is that where you see limits?

I do not think anyone is saying that those two are
the only mechanisms involved.

Where does a creationist outlook even come into this?

 

[leroy]

There are hundreds of mutations per generation, most have no positive or negative effect. Thus 99% of that 1% difference are neutral differences.
Next?

Sure but most mutations do not become fixed and dominant in a population, most mutations get vanished by genetic drift. Only “very positive” mutations have a reasonable chance to overcome genetic drift.


The point remains the same, as Neo-Darwinist you are forced to accept the view that the important differences* between humans and “ancient chimp-like apes” where obtained by adding just a few thousand positive mutations, (neutral mutations are irrelevant)

With “important difference” I mean all the stuff that clearly distinguish us from other apes (intelligence, language, bipedalism, larger skulls, larger brains, digestive system, etc.) there are many important and tangible differences between humans and “ancient chimp-like apes” these differences would have to be achieved by beneficial mutations, are we to belive that just a few thousand mutations are required to produce such differences?....or is it more plausible to say that there are other mechanism apart from random mutations and natural selection that would produce larger changes in a small period of time?

 

[sayak83]

Sure but most mutations do not become fixed and dominant in a population, most mutations get vanished by genetic drift. Only “very positive” mutations have a reasonable chance to overcome genetic drift.


The point remains the same, as Neo-Darwinist you are forced to accept the view that the important differences* between humans and “ancient chimp-like apes” where obtained by adding just a few thousand positive mutations, (neutral mutations are irrelevant)

With “important difference” I mean all the stuff that clearly distinguish us from other apes (intelligence, language, bipedalism, larger skulls, larger brains, digestive system, etc.) there are many important and tangible differences between humans and “ancient chimp-like apes” these differences would have to be achieved by beneficial mutations, are we to belive that just a few thousand mutations are required to produce such differences?....or is it more plausible to say that there are other mechanism apart from random mutations and natural selection that would produce larger changes in a small period of time?

Yes. Very few beneficial mutations are there seperating chimpanzees and humans, who are not very different at all actually. The difference seem great to us due to subjective bias, nothing else.
Chimps Are More Evolved than Humans

 

[Audie]

Yes. Very few beneficial mutations are there seperating chimpanzees and humans, who are not very different at all actually. The difference seem great to us due to subjective bias, nothing else.

"large, small, short time" etc are all pretty vague and
subjective. No absolutes noted.

 

[leroy]

First, why do you assume there is only one such mutation every hundred years? There is no reason to suspect that a new mutation has to wait until the last one is fully dominant before it appears.

Second, why do you at there is only one such mutation at a time?

Third, if the time for dominance of the different mutations overlap, then the length of time it takes for dominance can drastically increase.

Fourth, the 99% figure isn't based on the number of base pairs needing to be changed. There are other types of mutation that do not involve such changes (chromosomal rearrangement, for example).

Fifth, not all of the changes are dominant changes: most are neutral.

1 seems a reasonable assumption given that such mutations has never been observed in any primate in the last 100+ years. 1 of these mutations every 100 years seems to be a big gift from my part.

2 and 3, again such things are theoretically possible, but we don’t observe them.

4 ok so point mutations are not a relevant source of change, agree?

5 neutral changes tend to filter out due to genetic drift.

But feel free to take the positive affirmation and prove to us that it is possible to evolve a human (from an ancient chimp-like creature) in 5M years.

 

[leroy]

You on the other hand seem to be talking about
possible limits to what can be achieved via mutation
and natural selection. Is that where you see limits?

I do not think anyone is saying that those two are
the only mechanisms involved.
?

If you agree on that this mechanism can only account for a small percentage of the diversity of life, then we both agree. But most evolutionists would hold that this is the main mechanism and that it can account for most of the changes involved to produce a human from and “ancient chimp-like creature”

Obviously YEC would disagree with me

 

[Audie]

If you agree on that this mechanism can only account for a small percentage of the diversity of life, then we both agree. But most evolutionists would hold that this is the main mechanism and that it can account for most of the changes involved to produce a human from and “ancient chimp-like creature”

Obviously YEC would disagree with me

We dont agree.

In the event, I dont know what you are getting at, what your point is with all this, since you have so far declined to
be very responsive.

Like, say, "limits on what?"

Is your idea that there is some sort of divine intervention in
evolution?

 

[leroy]

We dont agree.

In the event, I dont know what you are getting at, what your point is with all this, since you have so far declined to
be very responsive.

Like, say, "limits on what?"

Is your idea that there is some sort of divine intervention in
evolution?

Ohh, my main point was simply that creationists do provide explanations on why and how the mechanism of natural selection + random mutations is limited, you may agree or disagree with their proposed limits, but it is not like the simply claim limits arbitrarily.
And the claims are testable, and verifiable, furder knowledge on DNA would ether confirm or destroy creationists claims.



One of the many limits that they propose is the one that I explained earlier, (haldines dilemma) this has to do with the speed of evolution, and the point is that even under the best possible scenario, organisms with slow reproductive rates (primates for example) cant accumulate any relevant amount of “changes” even in 5M years.

 

[leroy]

Yes. Very few beneficial mutations are there seperating chimpanzees and humans, who are not very different at all actually. The difference seem great to us due to subjective bias, nothing else.
Chimps Are More Evolved than Humans

So just to be clear, you are claiming that all you need is a few beneficial mutations (less than 50,000) in order to evolve a human from an ancient chimp-like ancestor? Is that your claim?

 

[Polymath257]

So just to be clear, you are claiming that all you need is a few beneficial mutations (less than 50,000) in order to evolve a human from an ancient chimp-like ancestor? Is that your claim?

Far less. Probably no more than a couple of hundred.

 

[Audie]

Ohh, my main point was simply that creationists do provide explanations on why and how the mechanism of natural selection + random mutations is limited, you may agree or disagree with their proposed limits, but it is not like the simply claim limits arbitrarily.

And the claims are testable, and verifiable, furder knowledge on DNA would ether confirm or destroy creationists claims.



One of the many limits that they propose is the one that I explained earlier, (haldines dilemma) this has to do with the speed of evolution, and the point is that even under the best possible scenario, organisms with slow reproductive rates (primates for example) cant accumulate any relevant amount of “changes” even in 5M years.

You started out with this statement-
The difference is that evolutionists believe that changes are limitless, while creationists believe that there are limits.

This is really just not true, about "evolutionists".
Why would you even say such a thing?

So you missed on that non-point.

As for "creationists", an ill defined group, the
usual is that while a little adaptive variation is possible,
one species turning into another, let alone genus, cannot
happen because of some sort of built in limits.

but it is not like the simply claim limits arbitrarily.

That is exactly what creationists do.

I still do not see where "creationists" have contributed anything. Haldane was a creationist?

And re Haldane- his idea has of course not been proven.

But lets say that it is really-really so that random mutations
and selective pressure cannot alone account for
the speed of evolution.

What does that have to do with creationism?
I see no connection at all.

Prease exprain.