Creationism vs Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
901

[quote]pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
http://www.icr.org/...ions-long-ages/

One interesting article on dating fossils.

Hey, look, a non-loony one: http://en.wikipedia.org/...i/Carbon_dating

But check the part titled “Controversy”.

Oops, there isn’t one. Darn, I was sure there was one. It must’ve rolled off the edge of the Earth of something.
[/quote]

Yeah push, I just don’t buy the “radiocarbon dating is incorrect” idea. The half-life math doesn’t lie, and the physics underlying that math are sound, and calibration takes care of a good deal of “background noise” or uncalibrated results.

That being said, pookie—if there was a selection bias in the sample pools used to create calibration curves for the process (as alleged by one of the articles push linked), then that WOULD severely hurt carbon dating. Severely. The presence of fluctuating age readings for objects of known archaeological age would in that case add another compound fracture to reliability. Maybe irreconcilable, as long as the biased curves were allowed to persist in widely accepted use.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
What’s with all the attention on Carbon dating? It’s not reliable over 60000 years. There are loads of other techniques used to date older things. Never could understand the creationist fascination with it.

Who cares about 60,000 years when your universe begins, at most, 10,000 years ago? What are you? Some kind of Word of God attacking heretic?![/quote]

There is a fascination with radiocarbon dating precisely BECAUSE the young earth universe is only 10,000 years old. If carbon dating is accurate and sound to ~60,000 years, then any reliable dates (ie–no sample contamination, etc) it gives older than 10,000 +/- some would be a killer blow to young earth creation thinking.

902

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That being said, pookie—if there was a selection bias in the sample pools used to create calibration curves for the process (as alleged by one of the articles push linked), then that WOULD severely hurt carbon dating. Severely. The presence of fluctuating age readings for objects of known archaeological age would in that case add another compound fracture to reliability. Maybe irreconcilable, as long as the biased curves were allowed to persist in widely accepted use.[/quote]

Yes, IF. And IF the current known laws of the universe were different in the past… and IF all the animals on the Ark went into hibernation for a year… and IF there used to be a water canopy above the Earth…

Science is well aware of the possible shortcomings of its methods. Tests and experiments can be devised to try to either improve the methods, or falsify them. Radiocarbon dating (and other dating methods) have been tested and retested to a point where we can have a high degree of confidence in the results.

That tactic - to try and instill doubt in a scientific method, beyond what is reasonable - is one of the favorite tactics of creationists. They’ll explain the method very summarily, often omitting details that aren’t favorable to their position and then try to seed doubt by making it seem as if a method was accepted after some random guy came up with it in his high school lab. As if the scientists themselves hadn’t asked those questions and devised various experiments to confirm or falsify whatever method they’re testing. Since their audience is generally uneducated about science, and gets both sides from the creationists, their arguments seem very convincing.

The problem is that they never offer any evidence for whatever speculation they propose. They hold science to a standard of proof that’s simply impossible to meet; there is never enough evidence. Yet, when they make a claim, then the simple possibility of it (even if extreme in nature, or never observed in recorded history) is all they need to claim perfect explanation.

Can 30,000 animals hibernate for a year? Is it remotely possible? Can carnivores be fed a vegetarian diet for a year? Does a couple of any animal represent enough diversity to repopulate the Earth? Could water move a continent halfway across the Globe in a year? Is a window sufficient to ventilate the Ark? Can you build a boat with sloping floors for “automated” urine and manure removal? Can you store food for a year without refrigeration? Can plants survive under water for a year? Can you reproduce known geological strata?

Creationists take all those questions and think about a solution, no matter how remote, as to how it could be done. Anything remotely plausible - we’re talking X-Files type plausibility here - is pounced upon as the definitive answer. Proof? Evidence? Tests? No need, it matches the Bible story, so it’s self-evidently true. Counter argument from science? Hah! How can science know if, 4,500 years ago Nature was as it is now?

Real scientists are aware of the limitations of their methods. They’ll try to figure out ways of improving the methods, or find completely novel methods that are more precise. Creation “scientists” bank on the limitations of scientific methods to torpedo them. They wouldn’t think of trying to invent a better method, knowing full well that anything that reveals a Natural truth will be one more thorn in their side.

903

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Eh PUSH

Do you believe in Noahs Ark ???

Surely you jest ?[/quote]

There need to be more people that say stuff like this. Arguing with creationists gives them the idea that somehow their beliefs are credible, logical and scientific.

904

[quote]pushharder wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Eh PUSH

Do you believe in Noahs Ark ???

Surely you jest ?

Eh 300

Do you believe that the universe created itself from nothing and then life spontaneously erupted and then developed through random processes to the what we have today?[/quote]

The trouble with trying to boil things down to simple statements of implausibility is that while it works for religious views, it doesn’t for scientific ones without twisting what’s actually thought. The logical opposite to “premeditated design by a creator” may be “completely random processes”, but it’s not a description of evolution.

The theory of natural (and sexual) selection leading to the evolution of all the lifeforms we see today is the exact opposite of a random process. Creatures were selected by their ability to survive and reproduce, not at random.

As for life spontaneously erupting, well life begins with the molecules that make up living organisms. Any molecule which can self-replicate, or be replicated by another molecule will accumulate. Natural selection works for molecules too.

As for the universe creating itself from nothing, that seems to be no less implausible than God creating himself from nothing.

905

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
You are the confused one, Jabby. I never said speciation didn’t happen.

“Know your enemy.” Read Sun Tzu carefully. You are maneuvering in ignorance. Don’t make me slap you around.

But I thought macroevolution doesn’t happen?

Thou stumbleth…again. Speciation is not macro-evolution. Look, Jab, you’ve put in a valiant effort here but you simply aint got the wherewithall to hang in here intelligently. You can still come to Kansas City though. Look forward to meeting you.

You know if you actually read the book properly you’d realise that physical conflict is the last resort of a commander who has no other option, and is usually down to bad leadership. You really shouldn’t invoke slaps and Sun Tzu in the same paragraph.

Well except for the fact that actually speciation is macro evolution. But I’ve explained this to you enough times in this thread, you can do your own research from now on.

No, it’s not. But I’ve explained this to you enough times in this thread, you can do your own research from now on.
[/quote]

Zing!

Or, not. Fine, I’ll do it for you, again;

"What is Macroevolution?

The process by which new species are produced from earlier species b[/b]. It also involves processes leading to the extinction of species.
Occurs at the level of the species or above.
Such changes often span long periods of time (but can also happen rapidly).
Examples of macroevolution include: the origin of eukaryotic life forms; the origin of humans; the origin of eukaryotic cells; and extinction of the dinosaurs.
In contrast, microevolution, involves evolutionary change at the level of the population, and is defined by changes in allele frequency within the population over time. Such changes take place over relatively short time periods.
Accumulated gradual changes in two populations that preclude their interbreeding may lead to the formation of a new species."

Taken from here; http://www.life.illinois.edu/bio100/lectures/f06lects/25f06-macro.html

The page provides examples of macroevolution and also the meanings of “theory” and “species” which I urge you to read because you struggled with the definitions earlier in the thread.

The page is a credible source; it is not creationist in bias or presupposition, it’s taken from a university lecture and is able to be cross referenced with the literature.

906

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

The trouble with trying to boil things down to simple statements of implausibility is that while it works for religious views, it doesn’t for scientific ones without twisting what’s actually thought. The logical opposite to “premeditated design by a creator” may be “completely random processes”, but it’s not a description of evolution.

The theory of natural (and sexual) selection leading to the evolution of all the lifeforms we see today is the exact opposite of a random process. Creatures were selected by their ability to survive and reproduce, not at random.

As for life spontaneously erupting, well life begins with the molecules that make up living organisms. Any molecule which can self-replicate, or be replicated by another molecule will accumulate. Natural selection works for molecules too.

As for the universe creating itself from nothing, that seems to be no less implausible than God creating himself from nothing.

[/quote]

Here is where I believe you are mistaken. First and most importantly, statements of implausibility DO work in science, and can be done without twisting what is thought. It has happened numerous times and will happen numerous times. Secondly, Evolution is by definition a random process–random mutations of DNA leads to random mutations of genes. The fact that only the successful ones are passed on does not take away from the randomness of the process. Basically it is just a filter for the random process. It has no bearing on how the mutations were developed in the first place; that is the entire point of evolution. The filter is the environment, not an intelligent being. Were it an intelligent being you could make the case that the filter was designed for a specific purpose, hence not random. However the environment is not sentient and thus the filter cannot be seen to have been deliberately fashioned. That is evolution.

Assign a random number algorithm to generate numbers between 1 and 1 000 000 000 000. Then apply a filter that deletes all numbers below a chosen ARBITRARY value. The process is random. The fact that some are filtered and dumped and some are retained in memory has no bearing on how the numbers were generated in the first place.

As for life spontaneously erupting, you completely underestimate the complexity of a “molecule” able to replicate. Technically speaking, our entire 2 billion base long DNA genome is “1 molecule”. It’s so complex that it needs an army of repair enzymes, histone cores, and at least 2 separate “code” mechanisms (1 for the histones that nobody understands yet, and one for the genes). Obviously I am not suggesting that the beginning molecules were as complex as our DNA genome. However, what you seem to take easily on a giant leap of faith is mindbogglingly more complex than you give it credit for.

As for the universe creating itself from nothing, there are viable holes in the Big Bang theory. There are a number of scientists unhappy with the theory, and you don’t have to look to creationism to find them either.

907

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:
The trouble with trying to boil things down to simple statements of implausibility is that while it works for religious views, it doesn’t for scientific ones without twisting what’s actually thought. The logical opposite to “premeditated design by a creator” may be “completely random processes”, but it’s not a description of evolution.

Here is where I believe you are mistaken. First and most importantly, statements of implausibility DO work in science, and can be done without twisting what is thought. It has happened numerous times and will happen numerous times.[/quote]

Example?

[quote]
The theory of natural (and sexual) selection leading to the evolution of all the lifeforms we see today is the exact opposite of a random process. Creatures were selected by their ability to survive and reproduce, not at random.

Secondly, Evolution is by definition a random process–random mutations of DNA leads to random mutations of genes.[/quote]

Evolution is by definition a directional process, which improves on what was there before. Random change goes in all directions.

Mutations aren’t completely random, but that’s not really the important part. Mutations simply create variation in DNA sequence, which may create variation in protein sequence, which may change the way the protein works, which may change something about the organism.

If the change makes it more successful then its genes will propagate. Organisms without the mutation who are in direct competition with the mutated organism will fail to reproduce to the same level, and the frequency of the non-mutated gene will start to decrease. Self-sustaining, directional change.

The process that’s random is whether or not a mutation occurs. What happens after a mutation depends on whether the mutation aids or hinders survival/reproduction and is therefore clearly not random.

[quote]
Assign a random number algorithm to generate numbers between 1 and 1 000 000 000 000. Then apply a filter that deletes all numbers below a chosen ARBITRARY value. The process is random. The fact that some are filtered and dumped and some are retained in memory has no bearing on how the numbers were generated in the first place. [/quote]

It’s not evolution if it’s arbitrary. It’s also not a random process if the cutoff number has been CHOSEN. Some sexual selection can appear to be arbitrary in its origins, but ultimately there is choice involved.

Survival is what matters and since the majority of random mutations in genes will produce deficient proteins, the majority of mutations will cause the death of the organism (often before birth). The set of random mutations therefore strongly overlaps the set of fatal mutations, but only slightly overlaps the set of advantageous mutations. It is therefore a biased, not random, process.

[quote]
As for life spontaneously erupting, well life begins with the molecules that make up living organisms. Any molecule which can self-replicate, or be replicated by another molecule will accumulate. Natural selection works for molecules too.

As for life spontaneously erupting, you completely underestimate the complexity of a “molecule” able to replicate. Technically speaking, our entire 2 billion base long DNA genome is “1 molecule”.[/quote]

Conceptually it may be, but technically it’s not. It’s chopped up into chromosomes - a far from insignificant difference. Humans and chimps can’t interbreed simply because we have a different number of chromosomes. Our genomes are extremely similar, but arranged in a way that means they can’t be merged by normal reproduction.

It’s not complex, though. It’s just a long string of four types of molecule. Bacterial DNA is no different to human DNA, as a molecule. Only the sequence of those four molecules makes the difference, because they code for proteins which actually “do stuff”. The stuff being done is indeed very complex, but DNA itself isn’t.

No faith required. The four building blocks of DNA (or RNA) aren’t especially complex and are just variations on a theme anyway. A single strand of DNA will spontaneously form a double-helix with another (complementary) piece of DNA (or RNA) thereby becoming more stable. Stability is a requirement for continued existence. I think someone else posted a link to an experiment where scientists had made some of the building blocks through simple spontaneous chemical processes.

[quote]
As for the universe creating itself from nothing, there are viable holes in the Big Bang theory. There are a number of scientists unhappy with the theory, and you don’t have to look to creationism to find them either. [/quote]

I wasn’t suggesting science had the origins of the universe explained, just that creating something from nothing is just as much of a problem for theology as science.

908

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

Secondly, Evolution is by definition a random process–random mutations of DNA leads to random mutations of genes.

Evolution is by definition a directional process, which improves on what was there before. Random change goes in all directions.

[/quote]

I would quibble with your use of directional here. I agree evolution is the exact opposite of a random process, but to say it’s a directional process which leads to improvements gives the impression that evolution is a progressive process which is most certainly is not. There is no end-goal and there is no one to set it. No creature is more or less evolved than any other.

909

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

Evolution is by definition a directional process, which improves on what was there before. Random change goes in all directions.
[/quote]

If you go with a post modern synthesis definition of evolution being a change in allele frequencies within a population over time and think about genetic drift, gene flow, or mutation as mechanisms of evolution then evolution is not necessarily a directional process which improves on what was there before. It can simply have a neutral effect. If you are discussing evolution by natural selection then there is improvement (in terms of ability to survive and reproduce) within a set of specific environmental parameters.

910

[quote]valiance. wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:

Secondly, Evolution is by definition a random process–random mutations of DNA leads to random mutations of genes.

Evolution is by definition a directional process, which improves on what was there before. Random change goes in all directions.

I would quibble with your use of directional here. I agree evolution is the exact opposite of a random process, but to say it’s a directional process which leads to improvements gives the impression that evolution is a progressive process which is most certainly is not. There is no end-goal and there is no one to set it.[/quote]

No, I’m definitely in the SJ Gould camp of there being no sense of progress towards a goal, just being a bit better than what’s there already.

Evolution is directional in time in the sense that a particular species can be said to have evolved from an ancestor species, by mutated individuals having an advantage over their competitors in the same species. Improvement is relative to the original species, rather than to completely different organisms or some abstract idea of “better”.

911

[quote]Gradstudent78 wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:
Evolution is by definition a directional process, which improves on what was there before. Random change goes in all directions.

If you go with a post modern synthesis definition of evolution being a change in allele frequencies within a population over time and think about genetic drift, gene flow, or mutation as mechanisms of evolution then evolution is not necessarily a directional process which improves on what was there before.[/quote]

I think I’d just call that diversification, or generation of the variation that evolution exploits. Changes in individuals within a population over time isn’t necessarily leading to evolution, but the appearance of a distinct, growing, sub-population could be.

This one.

912

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Yeah push, I just don’t buy the “radiocarbon dating is incorrect” idea. The half-life math doesn’t lie, and the physics underlying that math are sound, and calibration takes care of a good deal of “background noise” or uncalibrated results. [/quote]

Thanks Aragorn. Also, when I mentioned carbon dating, that was just one example, there’s several somewhat similar dating methods used, that some people have mentioned (sorry, you guys have been posting too much and it’s getting hard to keep up).

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
There is a fascination with radiocarbon dating precisely BECAUSE the young earth universe is only 10,000 years old. If carbon dating is accurate and sound to ~60,000 years, then any reliable dates (ie–no sample contamination, etc) it gives older than 10,000 +/- some would be a killer blow to young earth creation thinking.[/quote]

And thanks again Aragorn. That was pretty much my point. We can argue on how all these methods have flaws and everything, but there’s no way one could bend information far enough to come up with numbers even nearly compatible with a 10,000 years old earth.

[quote]
Google maps informs me that KC is a 21 hour drive. Getting back is another 21… add to that the probable 48 hours in jail for snapping your limps wrists. Doesn’t seem quite worth the time.

Hey, if pussy’s is the prize you’d be hard-pressed to snap my wrists, mon petit ami Caniche FranÃ??Ã?§ais. [/quote]

Pookie, while I am getting a crush on you because I picture you as a very intelligent big panda wearing a “Thank God I’m Atheist” shirt (really, what’s NOT to love about those 3 things?), push got this one right. It IS worth your time. Trust me. :stuck_out_tongue:

913

[quote]Mattlebee wrote:

It’s not complex, though. It’s just a long string of four types of molecule. Bacterial DNA is no different to human DNA, as a molecule. Only the sequence of those four molecules makes the difference, because they code for proteins which actually “do stuff”. The stuff being done is indeed very complex, but DNA itself isn’t.

However, what you seem to take easily on a giant leap of faith is mindbogglingly more complex than you give it credit for.

No faith required. The four building blocks of DNA (or RNA) aren’t especially complex and are just variations on a theme anyway. A single strand of DNA will spontaneously form a double-helix with another (complementary) piece of DNA (or RNA) thereby becoming more stable. Stability is a requirement for continued existence. I think someone else posted a link to an experiment where scientists had made some of the building blocks through simple spontaneous chemical processes.

[/quote]

I have to ask whether you hold a degree in a biochemistry or something related, because you have attempted to solve in 4-5 sentences something that baffles PhD’s regarding the origin of life. The stability of DNA is a major issue in primordial earth, and furthermore the chemical reactions leading to the synthesis of a chain of amino acids is extremely prohibitive without a catalyst. You really do not understand the issues involved here. You need much more than a few building blocks to generate life. Yes, I am aware of Dr. Sutherland’s work. It is highly interesting to me, as I said before, but it doesn’t prove anything.

I’m not going to touch the “it’s tot a random process” thing because it’s obvious we are using two different definitions of random process. In my mind everything starts at the DNA level. mutations at this level ARE random and occur in all “directions”, but only the ones that don’t lead to lethal changes in the organism or debilitating changes are passed on, by definition that the others kill the organism. But they DO occur.

As for statements of implausibility, they happen all the time. I’m not going to bother with specific examples because there are too many, but I really don’t feel like doing lit. research right now. Suffice to say that every time one of my professors’ grant proposals gets turned down it generally contains a statement of implausibility on the idea contained inside.

There are others that occur between competing theories in the literature. “It is improbable this can be explained by x in theory Y” or something similar.

914

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Pookie, while I am getting a crush on you because I picture you as a very intelligent big panda wearing a “Thank God I’m Atheist” shirt (really, what’s NOT to love about those 3 things?), push got this one right. It IS worth your time. Trust me. :P[/quote]

Flushy was bound to get something right eventually, if only by accident. Fitting that it should be when he’s thinking with his little brain.

Or, since he likes French so much: pousseplusfort poss[`e]de deux cerveaux: un petit et un gland.

[Edit] WTF is it with this site and diacritics? Shit guys, it’s 2009…

915

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Mattlebee wrote:

It’s not complex, though. It’s just a long string of four types of molecule. Bacterial DNA is no different to human DNA, as a molecule. Only the sequence of those four molecules makes the difference, because they code for proteins which actually “do stuff”. The stuff being done is indeed very complex, but DNA itself isn’t.

However, what you seem to take easily on a giant leap of faith is mindbogglingly more complex than you give it credit for.

No faith required. The four building blocks of DNA (or RNA) aren’t especially complex and are just variations on a theme anyway. A single strand of DNA will spontaneously form a double-helix with another (complementary) piece of DNA (or RNA) thereby becoming more stable. Stability is a requirement for continued existence. I think someone else posted a link to an experiment where scientists had made some of the building blocks through simple spontaneous chemical processes.

I have to ask whether you hold a degree in a biochemistry or something related, because you have attempted to solve in 4-5 sentences something that baffles PhD’s regarding the origin of life. The stability of DNA is a major issue in primordial earth, and furthermore the chemical reactions leading to the synthesis of a chain of amino acids is extremely prohibitive without a catalyst. You really do not understand the issues involved here. You need much more than a few building blocks to generate life. Yes, I am aware of Dr. Sutherland’s work. It is highly interesting to me, as I said before, but it doesn’t prove anything.

I’m not going to touch the “it’s tot a random process” thing because it’s obvious we are using two different definitions of random process. In my mind everything starts at the DNA level. mutations at this level ARE random and occur in all “directions”, but only the ones that don’t lead to lethal changes in the organism or debilitating changes are passed on, by definition that the others kill the organism. But they DO occur.

As for statements of implausibility, they happen all the time. I’m not going to bother with specific examples because there are too many, but I really don’t feel like doing lit. research right now. Suffice to say that every time one of my professors’ grant proposals gets turned down it generally contains a statement of implausibility on the idea contained inside.

There are others that occur between competing theories in the literature. “It is improbable this can be explained by x in theory Y” or something similar.
[/quote]

I think that it is next to impossible to start with a double helix.

However a primitive replicator does not need one.

Once you have an organic replicator it might develop a DNA.

917

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

The meaning of a word is derived from its continuous usage, and from internal concordance. There are about 8000 root words in the OT, and there are not distinctions that English may hold, say, “variety,” “kind,” “species,” “manner.” You have no basis for presuming another idiosyncratic definition. However Linnaeus may have felt about his distinctions, my definition of species is derived from empiric observations over 250 years, and is not tautologic. You lose this particular argument.

But I don’t. It is utterly stupid to claim the word “kind” which was penned in the original ancient Hebrew thousands of years ago can directly be linked to the English word, “species”, a word that was not even used and defined at all until relatively recent times. C’mon Doc, Moses used a word that he knew would fit Linnaaeus works? Please stop it. You lose this argument.

…
[/quote]

My most esteemed–or is it “steamed?” friend Push, I will concede only that I could have expressed the thought more clearly. With only 8000 root words, a single word does not express the nuances of English–kind, species, genus, manner of, a variety of, example, representation of–but the concept is derived from context and concordance, and occasionally, because the word has been in continuous use, as this particular example. A kind of a kind of, s’il vous plait.
Those Hebrews had many words for the different beasts–and only one for all fish–and there would be no question that they were different “kinds,” not examples of the same genera. And would not the evolution of the Ark’s genera be well, evolution, and not creation?

There is translation, then meaning, then understanding.

Now when you have worked out the question of Methuseleh, you will have the meaning of The Flood. Give it a try. It is so much more rewarding than calculating the speed of postdeluvian continental drift.

919

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Vicar Buddha-Pook, quand Mme. Berry se rend compte que votre petite tÃ?ªte est si petite elle ne sera pas impressionnÃ?©e avec votre athÃ?©isme ou votre uniformitarianism. C’est mes deux centimes sur la question.[/quote]

Not bad, man. But it should be “…se rendra compte…” “… PAR votre atheisme” not “avec”. It’s also “uniformitarisme” in french. And “my two cents” does not have a literal equivalent in french. Finally, we don’t have “centimes” in Quebec, but the same dollars and cents as Canada does. I’ll give you an A for effort, but B- overall.

As for BetaBerry, even though she is incredibly beautiful, my little head is forever reserved for my wife. I don’t really care if marriage is between a man and a woman, two men or two women; I do care about the fidelity and commitment part though. A meeting of the minds - sorry you can’t partake - is what we’ll keep enjoying.

920

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Uniformitarianism is dying…rapidly…[/quote]

“Rapidly,” in the context of Uniformitarianism, means it’ll be toast in a few billion years.