Jump to content
japan rocks/andromeda

evolution or creation?

Recommended Posts

is this a trick question?

 

I know about small changes in animals through time working usually in deterioration of the animal and beneficial in a restricted environment. I know about breeding and I know about Speciation, I also know about cell adaptation to many antibiotics in a restricted environment and in a deterioration sort of way. I have been studying science for over 4 years now and i am a firm believer in the scientific theory.

 

I trust many of the Creation Scientists arguments AS WELL as many of the Evolutionists arguments. but at the same time, I believe this question is highly misleading because it states that you cannot believe in evolution and be religious at the same time. so i hope to clear up some things here.

 

  • First of all, I label what you are referring to as "Common Ancestry", or the fundamental belief that all organic beings on this earth came from a single common ancestor. although I believe that all beings HAD a common ancestors, no one disagrees that the house-cat descended from the lion, but I do not hold the belief that humans and chimps are related for example, or that cats may be related to fish. A huge lack of fossil evidence for inter-type connections forces me to not be able to believe that the cat and the fish ever had a common ancestor, or even humans and apes had a common ancestor.

  • Second, there is a big difference between small scales changes in animals, or just pure change over time, and ancestry between all animals from the beginning of life. please make sure to distinguish between them. that way you do not confuse the people on this thread.

  • "Creation" represents solely religious implications, not letting anyone know the actual data and the scientific inquiry that creation scientists go through and actually bring up very goods points and well as HIGHLY accurate scientific facts. yes, I have seen some facts that are false, I see them with creation scientists, i see them with evolutionists. for the most part please cross-reference your sources and do not take information from biased sites like Talkorigins and Dr dino. the best sources are the original data from sites like national geographic and dailyscience.com, and no, not the scientists interpretation of the data in the article, no quotes, quotes prove nothing but hearsay, but the original data from the articles.

But just please make sure you do not confuse your readers with bias. A better Title would be "Common Ancestry, or Creation Science?". that way it is less biased, and more professional.

 

 

YES! All of the Links on this reply are from articles posted by me. There is nothing wrong with quoting yourself, unless you can give me a viable logical reason how it IS wrong... if you are interested in reading more of my articles on science, click HERE

Edited by Iceveela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • First of all, I label what you are referring to as "Common Ancestry", or the fundamental belief that all organic beings on this earth came from a single common ancestor. although I believe that all beings HAD a common ancestors, no one disagrees that the house-cat descended from the lion, but I do not hold the belief that humans and chimps are related for example, or that cats may be related to fish. A huge lack of fossil evidence for inter-type connections forces me to not be able to believe that the cat and the fish ever had a common ancestor, or even humans and apes had a common ancestor.

 

 

One very good argument, I think, that reinforces the idea that Life descended from a single common ancestor is ALL terrestrial organisms can only metabolise the right-handed isomer of glucose and only produce the left-handed isomers of amino acids. If the ancestry of Life had multiple sources, which would support your argument, I would have thought it probable we would expect to see utilisation of both versions of each type of chemical in different organisms in some variation between them but it doesn't.

 

.Scroll down to page10 for an explanation of mirror or optical isomers:

 

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:tcVC_d9OR3kJ:www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Life_Universe.pdf+all+life+metabolises+right+hand+glucose&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiqrMZAkOrOifrpozfKiqjjYumeax5z1U-_A2oiUji__KB667Q3x0lUJgDPJO5tJ5tYS4hTINvWUF6y4o5-E9GWmHFMAQx-2SpQJl1uCcGmwb7-WqxKJYpd3QMvIfNKrY7Iqgjp&sig=AHIEtbTIRHznjg62546q8VirygRPhek_aA

 

Why left-hand amino acids? Nasa's working on it:

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/left_hand_aminoacids.html

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the ancestry of Life had multiple sources we would expect to see utilisation of both versions of each chemical in different organisms in some variation but it doesn't

Is it possible that DNA emerged in a global situation where life evolved from lifelessness in a variety of ways, which only slowly developed to the point of being species-restricted as far as reproduction went? In other words, couldn't the earliest life-forms have basically sexually reproduced by consuming each other until they developed a level of complexity that caused them to reproduce asexually with some degree of genetic continuity between parent and daughter cells/viruses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe God did create the earth and all in it, but just because the Bible says it's 6 days doesn't mean it in the literal sense, necessarily. The time frame thousands of years ago was very different from our meaning of a "day". A day back then could have taken place over thousands of years. So, that said, I am a creationist. Also, I believe in evolution, in the sense that living organisms will change to adapt to the changing environment. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

This is not the religion forum. Don't go there

My bad. I was trying to point out the fallacy of first cause present in creation (which is part of the topic). But I'll save that for when I get 30 posts. :)

 

To rephrase; I don't see the loop in the scientific theories, since there seems to be a starting point and a straight line going up to present time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Creation 6000 years ago, was not when the universe physically appeared in reality, but when it conceptually became reality, for the human mind."

Interesting speculation. But what did the humans who were around more than 6000 years ago think?

Did they think that they hadn't been created?

(I realise that any answer to that would be total guesswork; that's the point I'm making)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is this a trick question?

 

I know about small changes in animals through time working usually in deterioration of the animal and beneficial in a restricted environment. I know about breeding and I know about Speciation, I also know about cell adaptation to many antibiotics in a restricted environment and in a deterioration sort of way. I have been studying science for over 4 years now and i am a firm believer in the scientific theory.

 

I trust many of the Creation Scientists arguments AS WELL as many of the Evolutionists arguments. but at the same time, I believe this question is highly misleading because it states that you cannot believe in evolution and be religious at the same time. so i hope to clear up some things here.

 

  • First of all, I label what you are referring to as "Common Ancestry", or the fundamental belief that all organic beings on this earth came from a single common ancestor. although I believe that all beings HAD a common ancestors, no one disagrees that the house-cat descended from the lion, but I do not hold the belief that humans and chimps are related for example, or that cats may be related to fish. A huge lack of fossil evidence for inter-type connections forces me to not be able to believe that the cat and the fish ever had a common ancestor, or even humans and apes had a common ancestor.

  • Second, there is a big difference between small scales changes in animals, or just pure change over time, and ancestry between all animals from the beginning of life. please make sure to distinguish between them. that way you do not confuse the people on this thread.

  • "Creation" represents solely religious implications, not letting anyone know the actual data and the scientific inquiry that creation scientists go through and actually bring up very goods points and well as HIGHLY accurate scientific facts. yes, I have seen some facts that are false, I see them with creation scientists, i see them with evolutionists. for the most part please cross-reference your sources and do not take information from biased sites like Talkorigins and Dr dino. the best sources are the original data from sites like national geographic and dailyscience.com, and no, not the scientists interpretation of the data in the article, no quotes, quotes prove nothing but hearsay, but the original data from the articles.

 

First of all, what? In a deterioration sort of way? Please elaborate.

 

Second of all, luckily science does not depend on belief, but facts. And there is a swathe of genetic and paleontological evidence (hard, scientific evidence) which indicates what you believe about organismal relationships to be wrong.

 

 

Is it possible that DNA emerged in a global situation where life evolved from lifelessness in a variety of ways, which only slowly developed to the point of being species-restricted as far as reproduction went? In other words, couldn't the earliest life-forms have basically sexually reproduced by consuming each other until they developed a level of complexity that caused them to reproduce asexually with some degree of genetic continuity between parent and daughter cells/viruses?

 

Currently the most viable theory as to the 'origin of life' is the RNA world hypothesis. Which is to say that somewhere along the line in the primordial soup scenario you had the appearance of auto-catalytic RNA molecules that could self-replicate. Also asexual reproduction predates sexual reproduction. I suppose the main source of variation came from the inaccuracy of the DNA/RNA polymerases of that time.

Sexual reproduction by consuming each other? Are you rather referring to something like the endosymbiont theory (mitochondria/chloroplasts)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lemur

 

I should have said: "If Life had survived from multiple sources we would expect to see...". The other possible sources of existing Life's ancestry would have been selected out by the version that was initially the most prevalent and fostered by the most favourable conditions at the time. Sorry about that.

 

I was just trying to show two common features found by scientists in the field that links all organisms and hence their likely common heritage. Iceveela was talking about lack of fossil evidence but you can look at the molecular level to find links.

 

Asexual reproduction came first...sexual reproduction is higher up the Evolutionary ladder as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iceveela, when evaluating what others say regarding scientific topics I have learned to be biased against someone who tells me a "fact" that I know to be wrong, and to completely ignore anyone who presents a "fact" that is very wrong. You say (I have bolded the first factual statement in your first bulleted point):

 

  • First of all, I label what you are referring to as "Common Ancestry", or the fundamental belief that all organic beings on this earth came from a single common ancestor. although I believe that all beings HAD a common ancestors, no one disagrees that the house-cat descended from the lion, but I do not hold the belief that humans and chimps are related for example, or that cats may be related to fish. A huge lack of fossil evidence for inter-type connections forces me to not be able to believe that the cat and the fish ever had a common ancestor, or even humans and apes had a common ancestor.

 

Your first statement is extravagantly incorrect and this indicates that you have little knowledge regarding the evolutionary process. SM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know about small changes in animals through time working usually in deterioration of the animal and beneficial in a restricted environment. I know about breeding and I know about Speciation, I also know about cell adaptation to many antibiotics in a restricted environment and in a deterioration sort of way. I have been studying science for over 4 years now and i am a firm believer in the scientific theory.

 

Why would it be restricted to deterioration of animals?

 

I trust many of the Creation Scientists arguments AS WELL as many of the Evolutionists arguments. but at the same time, I believe this question is highly misleading because it states that you cannot believe in evolution and be religious at the same time. so i hope to clear up some things here.

 

Trust shouldn't need to be involved, look at the evidence behind the arguments. All creationist arguments that I have heard are flimsy at best, blatantly false in many instances.

 

 

  • First of all, I label what you are referring to as "Common Ancestry", or the fundamental belief that all organic beings on this earth came from a single common ancestor. although I believe that all beings HAD a common ancestors, no one disagrees that the house-cat descended from the lion, but I do not hold the belief that humans and chimps are related for example, or that cats may be related to fish. A huge lack of fossil evidence for inter-type connections forces me to not be able to believe that the cat and the fish ever had a common ancestor, or even humans and apes had a common ancestor.

I don't think anyone agrees that a house cat descended from a lion. You probably give reasons for your 'beliefs' instead of just stating them. One thing to always remember when trying to think scientifically, your beliefs mean nothing in light of evidence.

  • Second, there is a big difference between small scales changes in animals, or just pure change over time, and ancestry between all animals from the beginning of life. please make sure to distinguish between them. that way you do not confuse the people on this thread.

Of course they are different, they are different concepts. I don't think anyone here has gotten them confused so far as I can see.

  • "Creation" represents solely religious implications, not letting anyone know the actual data and the scientific inquiry that creation scientists go through and actually bring up very goods points and well as HIGHLY accurate scientific facts. yes, I have seen some facts that are false, I see them with creation scientists, i see them with evolutionists. for the most part please cross-reference your sources and do not take information from biased sites like Talkorigins and Dr dino. the best sources are the original data from sites like national geographic and dailyscience.com, and no, not the scientists interpretation of the data in the article, no quotes, quotes prove nothing but hearsay, but the original data from the articles.

Do you really think that National Geographic and dailyscience are the original sites from where scientific papers are published? If so maybe you should look into finding some actual scientific journals.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man always tries to equate, reduce , things to a level which is in the realm of his anthropomorphic self.. That is,,,,,, We just dont know. however, if scientific data is reliable, and Im sure we all know it is, then , the question of Creation , VS Evolution is in a sense, answered.

 

If you subscribe to the Big Bang and the recurrence of inward and outward movements of the universe until a crisis or return in intertia occurs , then , creation makes sense.

 

I think the Creationists did not have any idea,,so they equated it back to a time frame that the common man could understand. (remember also that few people in those days could read, and the religous heirarchy maintained its power from that simple packet of control).

 

It is ridiculous to consider either as an absolute. And it is also ridiculous to consider one without the other.

 

 

One of my lecturers , years and years ago, when I found a muscle (while dissecting a cadaver) called plantaris. This muscle is only present in quadripeds. Some humans have it.

 

The teacher said to me ,, "it is god and his amazing work called evolution"

 

My mind was at rest and has been for 30 years based on that commment.

 

 

Forrest GUMP had it all sewn up ........ " You Know Bubba ,. I think it is both , happening at the same time "

 

 

DH

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure whether or not to reply anymore... I see very little science being mentioned in the criticisms of my comments...

 

YAWN!!! i will just sit here and see how it goes. I hate it when everyone fights on a message forum over something so stupid as personal beliefs... common ancestry vs creation science... if you want to debate religious science, as least E-mail each other...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iceveela. You said that "no one disagrees that the house-cat descended from the lion" and I contested this. If you want to talk science, please support your assertion. This is the way that science discussion proceeds when there is a disagreement. Now it is your turn and sitting back and yawning shows that you are not serious. SM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure whether or not to reply anymore... I see very little science being mentioned in the criticisms of my comments...

 

YAWN!!! i will just sit here and see how it goes. I hate it when everyone fights on a message forum over something so stupid as personal beliefs... common ancestry vs creation science... if you want to debate religious science, as least E-mail each other...

 

What's not scientific about my saying if you can't find the evidence in fossils look for it in molecules of which I gave a couple?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ SMF: I rate we don't give in to iceveela. I've seen the type before, they are the religious type who lord their basic understanding of science over the rest of us in attempt to discredit us or our assertions. When one proceeds to ask uncomfortable questions one is then met with the "YAWN" attitude. They make hypothetical assertions that are somehow mystically proven yet won't show the proof and when challenged on a hypothetical ground they suddenly demand proof and if one isn't immediately forthcoming with the proof you get the "LIAR LIAR WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE NOW!" response.

 

After speaking with a friend I realised that this thread rests upon a false dichotomy. What if there were other processes at work? Processes as yet unknown? Also creation implies the origin of life, a question which evolution can not fully answer. One can only speculate about the origin of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iceveela. You said that "no one disagrees that the house-cat descended from the lion" and I contested this. If you want to talk science, please support your assertion. This is the way that science discussion proceeds when there is a disagreement. Now it is your turn and sitting back and yawning shows that you are not serious. SM

 

against people in a message forum, why should i be serious? its not like me being serious will change anyone life. everything posted on here is pointless.

 

and that "contesting" you did. the fact still remains that you didn't. but of course, argueing with you would be useless, because apparently people on your own profile page also seem to be arguing with you, so i will not waste my time.

 

 

 

PS. oh, by the way, what are Axons? according to one of your commenters he is contesting you on Axons in grey matter being non-existant, and to be truthful I do not see any sources for axons in grey matter either.

 

@ SMF: I rate we don't give in to iceveela. I've seen the type before, they are the religious type who lord their basic understanding of science over the rest of us in attempt to discredit us or our assertions. When one proceeds to ask uncomfortable questions one is then met with the "YAWN" attitude. They make hypothetical assertions that are somehow mystically proven yet won't show the proof and when challenged on a hypothetical ground they suddenly demand proof and if one isn't immediately forthcoming with the proof you get the "LIAR LIAR WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE NOW!" response.

 

After speaking with a friend I realised that this thread rests upon a false dichotomy. What if there were other processes at work? Processes as yet unknown? Also creation implies the origin of life, a question which evolution can not fully answer. One can only speculate about the origin of life.

 

???????

 

I am sorry, but i fail to see neither knowledge or fact in anything that you just wrote... besides a few, one is that this thread ID based n false dichotomy, and also that one can only speculate on the origin of life. i would love for you to explain how exactly I am religious...

 

this reminds me... why are we all debating about biology in the earth science section?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PS. oh, by the way, what are Axons? according to one of your commenters he is contesting you on Axons in grey matter being non-existant, and to be truthful I do not see any sources for axons in grey matter either.

 

Did you really just ask what something is the say that you don't see the evidence for their existence in grey matter?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS. oh, by the way, what are Axons? according to one of your commenters he is contesting you on Axons in grey matter being non-existant, and to be truthful I do not see any sources for axons in grey matter either.

Here:

Wikipedia article on the Axon

 

this reminds me... why are we all debating about biology in the earth science section?
Eh. Report it and a mod will likely move it. They're pretty good about dat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see creationism in a way, which is easier for me to explain with an analogy. The planet pluto has been around for since the beginning of the solar system; 5-6 billion years. However, the planet pluto did not come into full human awareness, until the 1930's, although it has been postulated to exist back in the 1840's.

 

Creationism is connected to when humans developed the first documented theories of the universe as a evolving process. Creation 6000 years ago, was not when the universe physically appeared in reality, but when it conceptually became reality, for the human mind.

 

When I read Creationism, I look at it in the context of the times. The authors had to start from scratch, without any precedent. They did not have the internet, books or teachers to tell them. They were witness to a creative process, where the universe and evolution was first contemplated as an integrated series of events. Those who came later had this evolutionary gist, taught to them or written down to read, so they could ponder. Through the centuries, many contemplated from this and in the modern times the biological parts became modern evolution.

 

Maybe another analogy is the first computer. It was very primitive, huge with only small functionality by modern standards. If we compared the modern supercomputer to this, it looks like a child built the first one. From the point of view of historical context, this original prototype, although simple and crude by modern standards, was the critical seed that made all the future of computers possible.

 

 

Seeing how "The Beginning", etc. was not really dreamt up and codified until 500 to 1,000 BC, it really makes it extremely difficult to give it any serious credibility.

Edited by Realitycheck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here:

Wikipedia article on the Axon

 

Eh. Report it and a mod will likely move it. They're pretty good about dat.

 

LOVE the article, has no mention of grey matter though.

 

Did you really just ask what something is the say that you don't see the evidence for their existence in grey matter?

 

 

 

 

what?

 

did i really just ask what something is.... i could not understand the rest. I do not think "what something is the say that you" is correctly written.

 

 

"Did you really just ask what something is just to say that you don't see the evidence for their existence in grey matter?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this will satisfy:

Enchanted Learning: Brain Cells

 

that one also does not mention anything...

 

But I did find a source that does combine axons with gray matter!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_matter

 

"Grey matter (or Gray matter) is a major component of the central nervous system, consisting of neuronal cell bodies, neuropil (dendrites and both unmyelinated axons and myelinated axons)"

 

of course, it still does not mention much at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason the previous sources did not mention it is likely that the term 'grey matter' is very infrequently used in the field. its a colloquial rather than proper name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iceveela:

 

You are not willing to defend your cat-lion statement, or to discuss any science at all. Your statement says it all-

 

against people in a message forum, why should i be serious? its not like me being serious will change anyone life. everything posted on here is pointless.

 

As you say, everything you have posted here is pointless, so I am wondering why you are here at all. I think that it is pointless for me to respond to pointless comments, and will not respond to you further. I advise others to do the same. SM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iceveela:

 

You are not willing to defend your cat-lion statement, or to discuss any science at all. Your statement says it all-

 

 

 

As you say, everything you have posted here is pointless, so I am wondering why you are here at all. I think that it is pointless for me to respond to pointless comments, and will not respond to you further. I advise others to do the same. SM

 

yep, as well as everything you have posted, and everything everyone else has posted. why am i here? well, why are you here? and you will respond to me. i know the psychology of trolls, they can never stay away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.