Evolution / creation

[Crackerjaxon]

Evolution and creationism are not exclusive of each other. Fundamentalist, empty-headed, God-denying, morally bankrupt atheists like to pretend that they are.

There is no doubt that environment affects the gene pool. Fundamentalist, empty-headed, God-denying, morally bankrupt atheists like to pretend that this undeniable fact precludes any notion of a created universe. That is a silly misconception on their part.

What else can you expect from a bunch of wackos who gad about the net demanding a scientific explanation of God?

I must disagree. Evolution and science in general, are completely and fundamentally incompatable with Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Genesis.

One is based on starting from a blank slate, observing, requiring repeatability of observation, amasing statistically significant evidence, then creating a more generalized model that explains that observations and is effective in predicting future observations. It's ability to predict future observation is dependent on the complexity of the natural phenomina that it studies, as well as the computational power of the tools at it's desposal. If also highlights it's fundamental postulates and axioms.

The other is based on observation, experience and pragmatism. The reason religion exists and persists is that it works for people. Some people look at a forest and see an intricate ecosystem reflecting the hand of God. Others see trees.

I don't believe science can do anything but describe observed events. Since human evolution is unobservable, most evolutionary thought is, by definition, conjectural. Yes, I know Popper gave dispensation to evolutionists, but the fact remains. Scientists need to tend to business in the lab, not offer uninformed, demeaning and downright silly opinions concerning religion. Some people come to religion via faith. Others come to it via direct experience.

All science can tell us is that environment affects the gene pools of populations. Most people can figure that out for themselves. That fact does not preclude a created universe.

Why would you think it does?

 

[itfitzme]

Yet the first life form might be a "creation" that led to evolution....

Or it could be that the chemicals of life naturally come together because of the physics and evolution adds diversity to the equation.

Organisms *create their own environment. *And the self replication of DNA is clearly dependent on the environment that the organism creates for it.

UC Berkeley has a webpage on misconceptions about evolution. *It's worth reading. *Science has three thimgs it can conclude; "Yes", "no" and "I don't know". *

Yes is defined as a statistical probability that is almost one. *Apparently, in particle physics now, they use like 3.5 million to one or better. That's 0.999999714. *

What the alpha or p-value is in the biological, anthropological and evolutionary sciences, I don't know. *But one thing is for sure, if it hasn't been proven to an acceptable degree of certainty, then the answer is "can't say".

There is, though, a "corrallary", of a sort, to hypothesis testing. *That is proving something isn't so. *It's always a bit trickier. *

To show something can be, all you need is once.

*To show that it must be, you need 99 out of a hundred, statistically, which often means 99999 out of a hundred thousand, experimentally.

**To show that something cannot be, you have to show it hasn't been in like *> 99999 out of a hundred thousand in just every which way you can possibly do it. *There is always the black swan, that one special place you haven't looked, like the Continent of Australia. *But that always begs the question, "Who cares?"

And the thing is, if you don't need something completely unobserved to understand it, you don't use something unobserved to explain it. *Particle physics has a bit of a philosophical issue with some fundamental models because they propose things that are not observable.

If I understand it correctly, we can observe DNA molecules self replicating. *We can observe RNA molecules using the DNA machinery to replicate. *And viruses are tracked evolving around the globe on a yearly cycle by health organizations.

So, an observable science that has demonstrated repeatability to 0.99999 and a hypothesis based on that? *Or a hypothetical unobservable process that is neither necessary or required?

That is the issue.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Virii evolve constantly. That is why we have so many different flu virii. Madagascar and the Galopagos Islands also prove that larger animals also evolve. Sickle cell enemia also proves that people evolve. The genetic change that causes sickle cell enemia is a combination of two parents that evolved a recessive genetic modification to red blood cells that prevents "sleeping sickness". When both parents have the modified gene and pass it to an offspring it results in sickle cell enemia - it has been charted to find the origin of the genetic change.

Evolution happens for a number of individual and various pressures. Some of the changes stay because those who carry the gene are able to live to procreate while others die as a result of the change. Yes, there is even evidence that different species evolve from one. Birds still carry the genes of their reptilian ancestors and by turning on the existing genes you can have chicken with teeth, arms instead of wings and, at least theoretically, you could turn on the genes and have a dinosaur from a chicken - reverse evolution - so to speak.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you did the same thing to a chimp - maybe find the common ancestor of both humans and the great apes.

Thanks. *There is some technical fine line between evolution and simply breeding to bring out characteristics. *Virus mutation at a genetic level is an evolutionary process, real, present, observable, and happening constantly. That is a missing piece to the discussion.

The fact that viruses mutate does not, in any way, intimate that human evolution is anything at all like what is observed in virueses in a lab.

I would very much like to see those genes turned on. I seriously, seriously doubt the veracity of your statement. That fact that humans share genes with trees does not mean we, in any way, can grow leaves with the tweak of a gene, which seems to follow from what you are saying.

 

[PaulS1950]

The genetic change that causes sickle cell anemia is proff that humans evolve too.

evolution is a fact - the methods are still being pondered.

 

[itfitzme]

Evolution and creationism are not exclusive of each other. *Fundamentalist, empty-headed, God-denying, morally bankrupt atheists like to pretend that they are.

There is no doubt that environment affects the gene pool. *Fundamentalist, empty-headed, God-denying, morally bankrupt atheists like to pretend that this undeniable fact precludes any notion of a created universe. *That is a silly misconception on their part.

What else can you expect from a bunch of wackos who gad about the net demanding a scientific explanation of God?

I must disagree. *Evolution *and science in general, are completely and fundamentally incompatable with Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Genesis. *

One is based on starting from a blank slate, observing, requiring repeatability of observation, amasing statistically significant evidence, then creating a more generalized model that explains that observations and is effective in predicting future observations. *It's ability to predict future observation is dependent on the complexity of the natural phenomina that it studies, as well as the computational power of the tools at it's desposal. If also highlights it's fundamental postulates and axioms.

The other is based on observation, experience and pragmatism. *The reason religion exists and persists is that it works for people. *Some people look at a forest and see an intricate ecosystem reflecting the hand of God. *Others see trees.

I don't believe science can do anything but describe observed events. *Since human evolution is unobservable, most evolutionary thought is, by definition, conjectural. *Yes, I know Popper gave dispensation to evolutionists, but the fact remains. Scientists need to tend to business in the lab, not offer uninformed, demeaning and downright silly opinions concerning religion. *Some people come to religion via faith. *Others come to it via direct experience. *

All science can tell us is that environment affects the gene pools of populations. *Most people can figure that out for themselves. *That fact does not preclude a created universe.*

Why would you think it does?

Ever read Carl Sagan's book, Contact? *A major premise is that thenuniverse was created by some intelligent entity. *The proof was found buried a hundred millions and millions of digits deep in the random sequence of numbers that make up PI, the relationship of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter. *After ... I don't know, years of searching by the most sophisticated super computer, using the most sophisticated pattern recognition software, out popped the description of a circle.

Where did I say I think anything one way or another. *What did you observe me say?

It's all about the observation. *I haven't said one way or another. *That's the problem with people. *When reality doesn't present it one way or the other, they project their own concept onto it.

Of course, it is born out of our innate ability to see the possibilites beyond what is there.

I said that Creationism and science are fundamentally incompatible. *Perhaps one day science will discover the universe is *part of some greater structure, created out of some force that made it's laws and life inevitable. *And that will be science.

That won't make Creationism scientifically right. Science is internally consistent, self checking, and self sacrificing. *To be scientifically correct, it must be not just be right, it must be right the right way.

I find it amusing to see Intelligent Design attempted to be argued using scientific reason. *It simply can't be. *It isn't observable any more that we can go back in time and observe it. *(Oh, except for wel can "go back in time" and observe the remnants of the big bang. Took radio engineers and scientists along time to figure out what that darned hiss was.)

All science is, is going outside once a day and seeing if the sun hase come up. *Aftee doing it for a thousand times, you're pretty sure it will tommorow. And, you're pretty sure it came up long before you were born. *Maybe one day it won't. *Maybe there was a time when it didn't. *Maybe... maybe... maybe... that isn't science.

Surely I'm not telling you anything new.

 

[itfitzme]

Virii evolve constantly. That is why we have so many different flu virii. Madagascar and the Galopagos Islands also prove that larger animals also evolve. Sickle cell enemia also proves that people evolve. The genetic change that causes sickle cell enemia is a combination of two parents that evolved a recessive genetic modification to red blood cells that prevents "sleeping sickness". When both parents have the modified gene and pass it to an offspring it results in sickle cell enemia - it has been charted to find the origin of the genetic change.

Evolution happens for a number of individual and various pressures. Some of the changes stay because those who carry the gene are able to live to procreate while others die as a result of the change. Yes, there is even evidence that different species evolve from one. Birds still carry the genes of their reptilian ancestors and by turning on the existing genes you can have chicken with teeth, arms instead of wings and, at least theoretically, you could turn on the genes and have a dinosaur from a chicken - reverse evolution - so to speak.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you did the same thing to a chimp - maybe find the common ancestor of both humans and the great apes.

Thanks. *There is some technical fine line between evolution and simply breeding to bring out characteristics. *Virus mutation at a genetic level is an evolutionary process, real, present, observable, and happening constantly. That is a missing piece to the discussion.

The fact that viruses mutate does not, in any way, intimate that human evolution is anything at all like what is observed in virueses in a lab.

I would very much like to see those genes turned on. I seriously, seriously doubt the veracity of your statement. That fact that humans share genes with trees does not mean we, in any way, can grow leaves with the tweak of a gene, which seems to follow from what you are saying.

What statement?