Creation Vs. Evolution

[ShadowMarth]

Ok, I have never heard the definitions of (or even heard the terms) microevolution or macroevolution, but here's what Wikipedia says. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.

It is somewhat less clear on Macro. Frankly I can't make a good opinion about it from this. Feel free to elaborate.

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species. In contrast, microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) in populations. In the Modern Synthesis school of thought, microevolution is the "normal" mode of evolution. The process of speciation is the link between macroevolution and microevolution, and it can fall within the purview of either. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution.

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

* It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by classical population genetics. This view is becoming less and less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.
* A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

It also says this.

Though the details of macroevolution are debated within the scientific community, it is widely accepted. Macroevolution is largely disputed by many creationism and intelligent design advocates. Generally speaking, these groups differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting that the former is an undeniably observable phenomenon, but that the latter is not.

I'm going to fall back on my last argument here. Argument with science is all good and well, as long as it's logical, but trying to prove religion by science is pure idiocy.

[nmaster64]

Originally Posted by ShadowMarth

The big bang didn't simply blow up and stars flew out, only the most basic of particles flew out. It took millions of years for them to pull together into atoms, and then basic elements. At this point, the clouds of gas lucky enough to slowly pull together eventually (and extremely slowly) pull together to form massive, basically all-hydrodgen stars. Of course, nuclear fusion takes over, and these are fused into dozens of larger elements, all the way up to iron, the nuclear fusion dropoff. After that, the stars die, and scatter their elements to the winds. Millions of these stars had to live and die to scatter their elements. Once the heavier elements came together however in large clouds, eventually solar systems formed. It's simple gravity.

I would say that's a valid theory, but it's still to coincidental how they came together, especially the Milky Way and Earth. The distance from the sun, the mass and atmospheric properties of the Earth, and of course the fact the creation of life itself on what is the only planet perfect for it. To say a random explosion of particles formed all that is stretching it way farther than any fanatic creationist does. I believe your example is very close to what truly occured, but I believe it was done with the aid and design of a higher power. The odds of a big bang creating the universe in the way ours is a mathmatic impossibility. Like I said, it'd be like blowing up a computer parts shop and ending up with a computer, there's just no way the pieces are gonna fall in that precise an order and location, regardless of influences like gravity.


As for the micro/macro evolution thing, here's the bottom line:

Microevolution is an observable fact, not to mention common sense, i.e. survival of the fittest. You can't dispute it, there is no argument there.

Macroevolution is microevolution to the point you have a new species, and is, by common sense, fact as well, just without proof at the current time. If you think about it, if microevolution is true, than macroevolution must be true, because macroevolution is just the result of many, many, many, many microevolutions.

Now of course, the biggest issue is everyone tries to link drastic things like a monkey and human. Ridiculous. While completely possible, such a drastic mutation would take billions upon billions of years and will never be seen within or species lifespan. True macroevolution is more likely to be found in differences like you would see in for example breeds of dogs, exhibiting noticable and defining differences but similar in most aspects.

"God doesn't conflict with science, afterall, he invented it."

[bignds]

Originally Posted by bignds

I study science quite a bit and i find it hard to believe that such a dramitic change can happen in such a short(you know what i mean) time. Small environmental changes CAN happen, dont get me wrong about that, i can prove that sitting here, but thats in terms of adaptation, which is why we believe evolution takes place. Now, if we belive darwins theory, which is a 'theory' nothing more, evolution is based around adaptation, if we adaptated, then it wouldnt make any sense, seeing as how the climate was genuinly alot colder back then, we lost our 'fur' to adaptate? No, that wouldnt be smart, so its adaptation then. So the only possible answer that in any relates to dawins theory is mutation, which believe me, something entirly different. Which would mean a freak group of about 5 or so apes starting mutating drastically. Even if this were to have had happened, then dawins theory is proven wrong there, evolution is based on adaptation/survival of the fittest, but if we adapted to survive and lost our fur in a geniunly colder climate, how is that adapting to survive? im repeating my self i know, but its for the point. So then itll have to be mutation which in hand is proving dawins theory wrong and now we're going round in circles, its for the above stated and alot of other things which is why i dont believe in evolution.

ahem, thats what i was trying to point out.

[ShadowMarth]

Originally Posted by nmaster64

I would say that's a valid theory, but it's still to coincidental how they came together, especially the Milky Way and Earth. The distance from the sun, the mass and atmospheric properties of the Earth, and of course the fact the creation of life itself on what is the only planet perfect for it. To say a random explosion of particles formed all that is stretching it way farther than any fanatic creationist does. I believe your example is very close to what truly occured, but I believe it was done with the aid and design of a higher power. The odds of a big bang creating the universe in the way ours is a mathmatic impossibility. Like I said, it'd be like blowing up a computer parts shop and ending up with a computer, there's just no way the pieces are gonna fall in that precise an order and location, regardless of influences like gravity.


As for the micro/macro evolution thing, here's the bottom line:

Microevolution is an observable fact, not to mention common sense, i.e. survival of the fittest. You can't dispute it, there is no argument there.

Macroevolution is microevolution to the point you have a new species, and is, by common sense, fact as well, just without proof at the current time. If you think about it, if microevolution is true, than macroevolution must be true, because macroevolution is just the result of many, many, many, many microevolutions.

Now of course, the biggest issue is everyone tries to link drastic things like a monkey and human. Ridiculous. While completely possible, such a drastic mutation would take billions upon billions of years and will never be seen within or species lifespan. True macroevolution is more likely to be found in differences like you would see in for example breeds of dogs, exhibiting noticable and defining differences but similar in most aspects.

"God doesn't conflict with science, afterall, he invented it."

It's not at all coincidental. It's simple physics on a rediculously large scale. I don't see why anyone thinks it's some big "coincidence" that the world came out this way from a random explosion. If it hadn't, then there wouldn't be an earth, and there wouldn't be anyone to contemplate the existance of god. Of course, alternately, this is all controlled by god. But both are possible, and in fact both could be true. God controls randomality. In such a massive universe, such conditions were bound to occur. Then again, whose to say it has to be these specific conditions for life? That's a big question mark.

And billions of years? It's really not that big a stretch. Monkies and humans are extremely similar in every way when you think about it. Sure, some find it degrading, but on a basic level it's common sense. Look at your feet. Look at your hands. Look at a monkey. It's really all very similar to monkies.

Not to mention recent computer experiments (on isolated servers in labs) with very basic evolving programs. They are given a basic purpose, and the process is modeled directly after darwinian evolution. A program's mutation is useless or bad, it is deleted. Otherwise they progress. These programs have gotten quite far, since they can be replicated and mutated thousands and thousands of times over in a short amount of time. Some even started to resist deletion. It's all very eerie. Of course, this doesnt' prove evolution in humans, but it proves that the concept works in more fields than one.

Macroevolution, as you state, is easily proovable fact. Dog species have specially bred BY HUMANS taking advantage of natural selection, crossbreeding, and mutation. So we have domesticated dogs rather than wolves, and hundreds of species of them.

[Pilot_51]

A few things I wanted to point out:

1. Both Creation and evolution are religions, they're both based on faith because they aren't proven, and I don't think either can ever be proven. Evolution theorists probably came up with the "millions of years" thing to reduce the possiblity of it being disproven, but for some reason they kept loads of other things easily disprovable and many of them that have been disproven decades ago are still being taught in schools as fact (alongside evolution being taught as fact and not theory of coarse).

2. The term "scientist" means "A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science" (from dictionary.com). A scientist can believe either Creation or evolution, and they're either called Creation scientists or evolution scientists, just because evolution is becoming more accepted doesn't make only the evolution scientists actual scientists.

3. The reason all the animals are similar, from the Creation perspective, is because God made them with the parts necessary for their habitat, which in most cases involves eyes, ears, nose, mouth, limbs, the internal organs, etc.

4. There's 6 types of evolution, some are proven and some are complete theory, but in most cases when we talk about evolution, we talk about the highly debated theory.

I was watching one of Kent Hovind's videos last night and thought it would be good for debate if nothing else. He's a really big Creation scientist, meaning science is just about all he talks about, which is why I like it. I suggest you all check it out, it's one of the shorter of his many videos and, as usual, hits on many areas of debate, and please try to keep an open mind without bashing stuff you can't disprove (I'm saying look equally at Creation and evolution and let the proven facts guide your opinion).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...56199145885147

[ShadowMarth]

Oh dear god. I'm sorry pilot, but that's just lunacy. You're saying that basic observation and the scientific method applied to worldwide populations (i.e. everthing that moves), and religion, which relies entirely on faith rather than observation or fact, are the same? Evolution has more evidence than most fields of science due to its interest, and several times more evidence than that for the existance of god..... or it would if you could multiply by zero.

[Pilot_51]

There's things proven for both sides, and yes evolution has a lot of physical evidence, but nothing that does anything to prove evolution to be real, and all the disproven stuff is hurting evolution while many scientific facts were stated in the Bible long before modern scientists proved them as fact. It's about as likely for all the things in the Bible to be randomly correct (there's no way some of those things could've been known back then without the help of a higher kind) as it is for evolution to exist, and given the many disprovable things in the Bible that were proven true (nothing, out of the countless things, has been proven false). Not only that, but the prophecies are still on track, leading most Christians to believe the Tribulation could very well be within our lifetimes (nobody really knows when, only God).

Now, I should probably say that none of us should expect to convert anyone to our belief, since most of use (except maybe Lkr) stand strong, and there will of coarse never be a firm winner in the great debate of Creation vs. evolution. This is a never-ending debate where we try to find those unlikely holes in the oppositions belief big enough to convert them. Keep in mind, chances are both sides look at each other similarly about the whole trying to convert others deal, so there's no need to make any rants about it (I've seen a lot of it from evolution believers).
The reason I hate these debates is because some 95% of the time nothing ever gets accomplished for either side, if anything it's just knowledge about them.

[bignds]

Originally Posted by pilot_51

Now, I should probably say that none of us should expect to convert anyone to our belief, since most of use (except maybe Lkr) stand strong,

Another reason why we have pilot appreciation day.

[Sepharite]

I'm in the middle. =/ Both theories present are equally factual. How did we all start? Obviously, Creation. And slowly (billion years in development) naturally mended our traits via Evolution.

But then again, extraterrestrial may have influenced our change. Perhaps, an alien ****d a monkey and poof - humans. Thus, we could contain extraterrestrial (God?)'s DNAs.

Oh well, don't care much as it can never be proven.

[ShadowMarth]

Originally Posted by Pilot_51

There's things proven for both sides, and yes evolution has a lot of physical evidence, but nothing that does anything to prove evolution to be real, and all the disproven stuff is hurting evolution while many scientific facts were stated in the Bible long before modern scientists proved them as fact. It's about as likely for all the things in the Bible to be randomly correct (there's no way some of those things could've been known back then without the help of a higher kind) as it is for evolution to exist, and given the many disprovable things in the Bible that were proven true (nothing, out of the countless things, has been proven false). Not only that, but the prophecies are still on track, leading most Christians to believe the Tribulation could very well be within our lifetimes (nobody really knows when, only God).

Now, I should probably say that none of us should expect to convert anyone to our belief, since most of use (except maybe Lkr) stand strong, and there will of coarse never be a firm winner in the great debate of Creation vs. evolution. This is a never-ending debate where we try to find those unlikely holes in the oppositions belief big enough to convert them. Keep in mind, chances are both sides look at each other similarly about the whole trying to convert others deal, so there's no need to make any rants about it (I've seen a lot of it from evolution believers).
The reason I hate these debates is because some 95% of the time nothing ever gets accomplished for either side, if anything it's just knowledge about them.

Let's start here. Or rather, at my first post. Proving something from the bible actually occured does not prove God. That's simple. Next thing on the agenda. The likelihood of evolution occuring is a big, and impossible to infer, variable. We will only know that once we visit (or at least have the ability to closely observe) other planets like ours, or possibly other planets very much unlike ours with life. Like I said, that's not possible to know. So you can't really say how likely the concept of evolution is, only that it obviously has an affect, at least on some level, on our planet.

"Prophesies being on track" is also extremely subjective. Every time a prophesy doesn't come true, the prophet is labeled false, securing the rest for future retelling. In fact, I found this odd Wikipedia article a while back, including false prophesies (mostly of the coming apocalype) by everyone from nobody televangelists to Martin Luther King:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfulfi..._by_Christians

I entirely agree with the last point, nothing is accomplished. However, it annoys me that absolutely no one regards my first post at all, so I have to keep restating it.