Creationism or Evolution?

Post by **silencertalk** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:04 am

doubloon · Post by **doubloon** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:09 am

undecided as a causation of origin but regardless of how it all started evolution is occurring all around.

Post by **silencertalk** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:20 am

I feel the same way. It could be both.

bakerjw · Post by **bakerjw** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:26 am

Generally I find evolution to be a tricky subject because there isn't a lot in the large fossil record to show a crossover from one species to another. Take ceratopsids (triceratops) as an example. There are many different types of them but not enough to show a gradual change from one species to another. It could be that many of the recovered "different" fossils are in fact the same species but we've only gotten a snapshot along the evolutionary chain.
As an example going from ceratopsid aa to ceratopsids ff.
<aa> ... <ab> ... <bb> ... <bc> ... <cc> ... <cd> ... <dd> ... <de> ... <ee> ... <ef> ... <ff>
If the only fossils that we've recovered are aa, cd and ff, then we'd see 3 different species but they could all be the same.

As a side note. How many T-Rex fossils have ever been found? It i something like 6 or so. They are very rare.

This could very well be the same going from Homo heidelbergensis to Homo neanderthalensis to Homo sapiens although the time scales are much shorter than the tens of millions of years that are presented with the dinosaurs. If we could get a good genetic record of some of the early races, we might be able to see how the genomes match. Gradual changes could have occurred, but I believe that there was a lynchpin moment where a major evolutionary change was injected. In the case of Adam and Eve, one of these moments could have occurred causing a neanderthal jump to homo sapiens. If that occurred, was a result of pure luck of genetics? God stepping in and making an executive decision? An extra terrestrial poking around on purpose or accidentally?

I lean toward the latter. People from a century or two ago would never believe that we'd have the technology that we currently have at our disposal. Imagine the things that we might have in another 200 years. FTL travel, which we can not comprehend, might certainly be a possibility.

These are the kinds of conversations that are best had among friends with a glass of wine next to a fire in the fireplace.

JacksonBrowne · Post by **JacksonBrowne** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:18 pm

There is a great deal of evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record. Vestigial limbs on ancient whale species (as they were land-dwelling mammals which returned to the sea), raptors (as in, velociraptors) with feathers, wishbones, hollow bone structure, and beaks which were clear progenitors of modern avian species, etc. It is actually overwhelming - especially considering the extremely rare circumstances for fossil formation and preservation, then discovery and recovery.

I'm not sure what you mean by "crossover in the fossil record". We get snapshots which are millions of years apart (if lucky) and must rely on detailed comparison to define the jumps to which you allude. In fact, "jump" is a poor descriptor since they are usually anything but.

http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc ... _life.html

Combined with DNA and mitochondrial DNA evidence, the case for gradual transition via random variation over millions and millions of years is not only highly probable but almost irrefutable. Plus, it just makes perfect sense when you understand the genetic and environmental mechanisms (and huge amount of time) involved. We can already create simple self-replicating organic compounds in the lab. Once the mechanism for genesis is found we'll have the whole kit and caboodle.

http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_u ... _life.html

doubloon · Post by **doubloon** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:38 pm

Personally I believe evolutionary change is indisputable.

By cross-over I think he's referring to man evolving from ape or man evolving from anything at all other than a man.

Birds didn't evolve from lizards.

Lizards didn't evolve from fish.

etc.

Basically all the critters that swim, crawl, creep, walk or fly were created spontaneously in their current form or not too far from the current form.

bakerjw · Post by **bakerjw** » Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:41 am

I used the ceratopsids as my example because they seem to be one of the more common dinosaur types that are found and their horn and plate structures are very distinct as shown in the embedded image.

If you were to start with the earliest species of ceratopsid (in a specific region) and proceed to the oldest (in the same region) with a fossil recovered every 100,000 years in between, you might be able to demonstrate minor evolutionary changes compounding along the progression to the final result. There wouldn't really be any new species from start to finish. Just the original species evolving slowly.

If you were to go with the same scenario but were to find stark differences between one sample and the next one from 100,000 years later, then you would have encountered a genetic mutation of some form which would be what I termed a crossover species.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I just find old fossil record to be fascinating.

I do know that they have recently been able to find some DNA in fossilized bones lately but I've not heard of any sequencing efforts. I would expect that those efforts would be dealing with a lot of broken strands of DNA which would be like trying to tell what a shattered stained glass window looked like based on a handful of shards.

MJF1911 · Post by **MJF1911** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:50 am

I suppose if you don't know anything about evolution its a perfectly logical thought process.

bakerjw · Post by **bakerjw** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:58 am

Please explain. What don't I know about evolution? It is a well founded scientific theory.

MJF1911 · Post by **MJF1911** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:58 am

The picture you posted is a good example of specialization, not evolution. Evolution by definition is the succession of species, or in effect, one species is stronger and replaces another.

bakerjw · Post by **bakerjw** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:51 am

I'll have to disagree with your definition of evolution per http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them See also natural selection.

It is true that a stronger species will overtake a weaker one, e.g. humans over neanderthals, but that is not evolution. Evolution deals with survival of the fittest through natural selection. i.e. certain characteristics advantages in a species can allow a better chance at survival for some members over others. A study once showed that in years of drought, certain characteristics, width of the bill I believe, allowed certain birds to be able to get seeds from the birds primary food source. If enough time has passed under drought conditions, the species of bird will trend toward narrower bills because of the higher survival rates.
In the Galapagos there is a species of tortoise that has a higher ridge behind the neck allowing the tortoise to reach higher foliage on bushes and shrubs. This genetic trait likely developed over many hundreds of years as tortoises that could reach the higher vegetation had higher survival rates than those that did not.

doubloon · Post by **doubloon** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:45 am

Do you disagree with the definition at the free dictionary because of the phrase "accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them".

Webster says "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory ".

Google says "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth".

Neither says anything about the creation of life, only the diversification of the species.

Both of these definitions seem to fit your Galapagos tortoise situation.

Is anyone going to be watching Roma Downy's mini-series on bible? With 10 two hour episodes it seems more like a mega series.

acg1911 · Post by **acg1911** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:40 pm

Both? I am a creationist who also believes in science.

As I see it, the creationist and the evolutionist both hit the same brick wall.. Ask a creationist where God came from? There is no answer. Ask an evolutionist where sub-atomic particles or even nothingness came from? There is no answer.

Science serves to reinforce my spiritual beliefs, as the cosmos seems too complex to be random. Big Bang? I'm sure it was loud either way.

doubloon · Post by **doubloon** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:17 pm

For the base argument that is the linchpin of most disagreements in this area being a creationist who believes in science isn't "both". No fence sitting unless you're undecided.

As for "science" it simply cannot be denied, it's reproducible. Saying you believe in science is like saying you believe in breathing.

If you are a creationist you believe god or some supernatural force like god created man, earth, the universe and everything from nothing.

If you are a evolutionist you believe some as yet unexplained phenomenon randomly created the universe and everything in it including the building blocks of life by complete chance and man along with the rest of the creatures crawling around on this rock evolved from some primordial ooze of acids which spontaneously formed on or near the surface of this dirty little orb.

While it is possible to be a creationist who believes all of god's creations are capable of changing to adapt to new environments, like turtles getting ridges on their backs, people didn't evolve from apes and platypi aren't the result of some kind of duck-beaver orgy. Basically all the critters crawling on the earth are in the same basic form as they were created by god with a few variations for climate and local.

acg1911 · Post by **acg1911** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:47 pm

Then, by that absolutist definition, I am not an evolutionist. As far as "believing " in science, I simply meant that science and creationism are not mutually exclusive. I don't see it as fence sitting.

I believe God created everything, and environmental conditions and time can permit those things to evolve. My Bible doesn't explain billions of years of the universe. Sharks have gills, dolphins have lungs. I don't know why. However, I do not believe my ancestors were catfish..maybe a humanoid with more hair.

doubloon · Post by **doubloon** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:31 pm

That sounds like an oddly conflicted set of beliefs, just my perspective.

You believe god created everything but man's ancestors may have been humanoid and more hairy.

Where does that leave Adam and Eve?

Libertarian_Geek · Post by **Libertarian_Geek** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:17 pm

I'm one of those oddities that believes that God created evolution. Adam and Eve are parables. Think about how one would have been received by attempting to describe evolution thousands of years ago. People then (and some now) need metaphor to grasp the message. Sometimes the lesson plan needs to take on a different form in order to be self-replicating and spread.

I don't believe that God is a figment of our imagination. I believe that we are possibly figments of his.
Is it so strange to think that a god-like intellect could create an entire universe within his own mind?
Maybe we're just here to model a scenario in that vast intelligence; maybe we're just a fleeting thought to him. Each individual, just a partitioned aspect of his own personality playing a role ultimately defined and written by an original state of the universe combined with the gift of free-will imagined as quantum fluctuations.

Once you reverse the role of imagination, anything is possible (God, religion, miracles). We just need to learn the framework(science).

bakerjw · Post by **bakerjw** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:42 pm

God's creation doesn't exist outside of the boundaries of nature. There is a natural ebb and flow to almost everything. Mountains push up and mountains erode. The sun puts out more energy in some parts of it's cycle than in others contributing to various ice ages through the millennia. Plants and animals have to adapt to survive and by adapting they change. It's all fascinating to study.

acg1911 · Post by **acg1911** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:05 pm

doubloon wrote:That sounds like an oddly conflicted set of beliefs, just my perspective.re

You believe god created everything but man's ancestors may have been humanoid and more hairy.

Where does that leave Adam and Eve?

More hairy? ......Really, I'm not sure. I believe Adam and Eve existed, sure. I just think maybe the story was presented in a way that was relatable to the people of that day. I don't mean to be a heretic here. I just don't interpret some of the Bible stories literally. That kind of faith is a blessing I do not have. And I do believe it is a blessing.

There is scientific evidence that the earth is much older than a few thousand years, but a literal interpreation of the Bible does not support it.

doubloon · Post by **doubloon** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:36 pm

Just paraphrasing your words ...

acg1911 wrote:... I do not believe my ancestors were catfish..maybe a humanoid with more hair.

It's not that I'm trying to pick a fight with you or anything but your thoughts don't make much sense to me the way you phrase them. You seem to contradict yourself so maybe your expression of your thoughts is incomplete.

You say you believe Adam and Eve existed but that you may have evolved from hairy humanoids. Were Adam and Eve a different species from you?

As far as the age of the earth goes maybe god made the earth from stuff that was just lying around. If I build a house out of stone does that mean my house it millions of years old or that I have a new house made with stuff millions of years old?

acg1911 · Post by **acg1911** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:29 pm

doubloon wrote:Just paraphrasing your words ...
acg1911 wrote:... I do not believe my ancestors were catfish..maybe a humanoid with more hair.
It's not that I'm trying to pick a fight with you or anything but your thoughts don't make much sense to me the way you phrase them. You seem to contradict yourself so maybe your expression of your thoughts is incomplete.

You say you believe Adam and Eve existed but that you may have evolved from hairy humanoids. Were Adam and Eve a different species from you?

As far as the age of the earth goes maybe god made the earth from stuff that was just lying around. If I build a house out of stone does that mean my house it millions of years old or that I have a new house made with stuff millions of years old?

I don't feel like you're picking a fight, at all. I don't need to agree with someone to enjoy a conversation. And I always enjoy your input.

First of all, I am neither a religous scholar nor an evolutionary bioligist. My opinions are based mostly on introspect, and life's experience with religous teachings with a layman study of science. I was brought up Pentecostal (everything but the snakes) until I was in my early teens. A person with my perspective would have been exorcised at the church I attended then. No, really they would.

Many people have the opinion that it is either/or when it comes to this subject. Your house analogy is a good one. Let me use a similar example...God, being omnipotent could have created a single cell organism (or several) and started a rapid aging process where the solar systems were put on fast-forward. A process that, to us, is Billions of years. But to the Alpha and Omega, it was the blink of an eye. As the fast forward slowed to time as we know it now, God revealed himself to humankind and made them spiritual beings (Genesis). God, knowing that people then (and now) would have a hard time understanding this, revealed himself in parables and tales so future generations could glean lessons and guidelines to live by. An all-powerful God could definitely do this.

I'm not saying this is what happened. I am simply saying it is possible. When people say it is not possible, I say they are taking power away from God, and viewing him through a prism of societal and religous conditioning.

doubloon · Post by **doubloon** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:23 pm

Sort of an "intelligent design" view? I've read a little bit on the intelligent design "theology" but not enough to be fluent.

RWBlue · Post by **RWBlue** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:56 pm

This may seem dumb, but....if I was GOD......Why not use evolution to accomplish my goals?

BTW, I am agnostic today.

Post by **silencertalk** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:08 am

Takes too long. But yes, a religious argument can be made that evolution was set up by God - and I would find that way more believable than the literal six days of all nighters.

Fulmen · Post by **Fulmen** » Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:36 am

Evolution is a proven fact(*), just deal with it. Fossil records, genetics, physiology, distribution of species and subspecies, even lab experiments all confirm each other. We can see evolution happen in a bottle with bacteria, we can see it in the wild. I'm sorry, but you can't disagree with reality.

This does not however provide positive evidence for the origin of life, but it does make natural explanations seem plausible, and I expect future research to strengthen the case.

Does this disprove the existence of (any) God? Not really, all it does is prove the obvious fact that an ancient bronze-age culture didn't understand the first thing about this. Very few would want a doctor to base his treatment on the Bible, so why would you require any other science to pay any attention to it?

(*) One could argue that the cause of evolution is something else than the currently accepted theory of natural selection, but that's a different discussion.