The Tolkien Forum

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Creation vs. Evolution

Which view is yours?

  • Athiestic Evolution

    Votes: 6 27.3%
  • Thiestic Evolution

    Votes: 5 22.7%
  • Young-earth Creation

    Votes: 6 27.3%
  • Old-earth Creation

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • Total voters
    22

Aragorn21

On fire
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
386
Reaction score
0
Location
In the land of India, where the monkeys dance
"optical qualities can readily be quantified: it is possible to show objectively that one model eye would have better acuity than another"
Oh dear, am I stupid? How does that show that each step in the evolution of the eye is useful? :confused:

Mutations: I have done alot of googling on mutations. And I see "mutations are a change in genetic information" not "mutations add new genetic information"


"What is a Mutation?
A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene. Mutations in a gene's DNA sequence can alter the amino acid sequence of the protein encoded by the gene.
How does this happen? Like words in a sentence, the DNA sequence of each gene determines the amino acid sequence for the protein it encodes. The DNA sequence is interpreted in groups of three nucleotide bases, called codons. Each codon specifies a single amino acid in a protein." (http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/mutations/) No where do I see anything that says mutations add new genetic information, not even in the links you provided.


No it isn't.

"Yes it is"

No it isn't.
:D i was just thinking that exact same thing!

Fossil Record:

Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist) Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals

Plants appear abruptly, too. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner: "... I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.

Animals unchanged. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man.

Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism.

The fossil record does not provide evidence in support for Evolution. "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

joxy said:
Some organism might find it useful to be able to sense which way is "up" - which way light is coming from. Another might find it useful to be able to distinguish night from day.
But would it be able to with only 1% of an eye?


I think this discussion is pretty much over. I don't think I'll be posting in this thread much, if at all anymore. I've been too busy with school to spend as much time as necessary researching, and I don't think I know enough to continue debating mr. Eriol. :D So thank you mr. joxy and mr. eriol, it has been fun, and I definately learned alot. See you around. :)
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
Much of the problem here is the absence of large amounts of data. As I have previously posted, we know very little of "the whole" when it comes to the past. Yes, we have some clear indication of the evolution of certain species - such as, for instance, the horse - but for the earliest stages of creation and on into fairly recent history - after the extinction of the dinosaur, for instance - we are like people attempting to determine an extremely difficult and intricate puzzle of thousands of pieces from a mere handful, many of whom don't even "fit together" so to speak. Ergo, many of the conclusions which scientists are so prepared to declare as unassailable fact, frequently find themselves disproved when the next round of discoveries is made!

For instance, if you look at the early sci-fi films, you see dinosaurs dragging their tails on the ground and moving slowly as do modern reptiles and amphibians. However, now we know that their long tails - especially among the bipeds - were used like a kangaroo's tail for balance and hence was carried in the air rather than being dragged on the ground. We also are pretty much certain that dinosaurs were warm blooded, unlike modern reptiles and amphibians. Yet all of this knowledge is of very recent origin although we have had dinosaur fossils since the late 1800s.

The history of the universe in general and the earth in particular is fascinating. But it is useless to demand loyalty to any present "theory" since tomorrow may provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary. One is far better served with an open mind that is thus able to see and accept evidence which conflicts with the present orthodoxy if one does not wed oneself to any particular "theory" exclusively.

Parenthetically, I wish the members to know I am speaking here of scientific facts regarding events that took place and not whether or not those events were ir were not guided by a Creator. In this alone is a fixed opinion acceptable always providing that one does not attempt place upon the Creator limitations determined by man!
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Aragorn21 said:
But would it be able to with only 1% of an eye?
Plants don't have eyes at all; I think we can agree on that.
Plants are able to sense the electro-magnetic radiation of the sun, in the form of light, or in other forms, and can and do use that ability in order to orientate themselves in the most favourable position for obtaining the maximum amount of radiation possible in order to achieve the best possible rate of photo-synthesis, which is vital to its existence and to its procreation.
Similar abilities to sense light became specialised over those uinimaginable depths of time into the organs we know as eyes.
Now we see the universe in all its vastness, and all its minuteness.
Isn't that a magnificent part of Creation?!
And let me be an anti-filmFrodo, to you as an anti-filmSam: Don't go away, please!
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Aragorn21 said:
Oh dear, am I stupid? How does that show that each step in the evolution of the eye is useful? :confused:
If every step in the simulation is objectively better at visual acuity, then it is more useful. Once we assume that the purpose of the eye is visual acuity, that is ;).

No where do I see anything that says mutations add new genetic information, not even in the links you provided.
From the first link (the first sentences there!):

"The recombination of parental alleles creates new permutations of existing traits within a population's gene pool. However, mutations result in entirely new alleles."

From the second link (again, the first sentences):

"Mutations are the raw materials of evolution.

Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles are created. "

Fossil Record:

Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist) Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals
Sorry, but it does. (We've found quite more fossils than Darwin ever knew about ;)). There are intermediate forms (for example) between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between amphibians and dinosaurs, between rats and bats...

When you speak of "basic kinds" of animals, though, you are speaking of phyla (Arthropoda, Annelida, Chordata, and the like). The "major designs". Yes, they appeared suddenly (in the Cambrian explosion), as soon as it was possible, due to multicellularity. This is a classic scenario of "niche exploration". Just like the fish which colonized the land experienced an explosion in the number of species and forms (what is called "adaptive radiation" ).

Plants appear abruptly, too. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner: "... I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.
Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961??

Sorry, but no fat lady singing here either. And the "abruptness" of the radiation is predicted by theory. As usual.

Animals unchanged. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man.
Watch out, for this quote establishes -- beyond all doubt -- that the graph species vs. time is V-shaped. It states what I have been saying for a long time, that there are more species nowadays than there were 50 million years ago, and more then than there were 150 million years ago, etc.

And, of course, evolutionary history is filled with temporary (since they are no longer around), intermediate stages of evolution.

I wonder at how people can state that and doubt it at the same time. The data in this paragraph (beginning at "it is said...") is pure Evolutionary theory; and the author thinks it is proof against it.

Weird.

Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism.
Exactly. The millions of fossils already discovered provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. Solidly, soundly in favor of Evolution. Ask the paleontologists. Ask the biologists. Ask the experts.

Don't look at sites who say that social insects are less related to each other than other creatures :p. If you want to learn about Tolkien, you go to a site about Tolkien. If you want to learn about biology, you go to a site about biology (not to one about Creationism).

The fossil record does not provide evidence in support for Evolution. "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)
You know, this is called "arguing by statement" -- if you only state often enough that the fossil record does not support Evolution, perhaps people will believe it. The reasons offered (so far) by your sources to support that statement are laughable (sorry) -- they show an awful misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (by citing evidence that supports it, as if it bolstered the Creationist case), and often enough a misunderstanding of basic biology.

Evolution has a clear prediction of the fossil record: "If Evolution is correct, the fossil record should be like this". Lo and behold, it is exactly as predicted by modern evolutionary theory (don't go to Darwin for that, for his ideas of the fossil record were not perfect; he didn't know anything about heredity, and he also didn't know much about speciation too).

Evolution has also other clear instances of "predictive success". Evolution "predicted" that the continents were once in different positions, even when physicists (hard science :D!) laughed at biologists for proposing this. They said it was impossible. Later, it was shown otherwise. The same happened with the age of the Earth. Lord Kelvin (the greatest physicist of his time) scoffed at the notion of an earth older than 200,000 years, and not because of religious notions, because of accurate physical calculations. Later, it was shown otherwise (when radioactivity was discovered, as an "extra" source of energy for the Earth's heat).

Evolution has yet to be caught in a wrong prediction; it is one of the most successful theories of mankind. That's why we (biologists) are so bold when we say that "Evolution is a fact". It is. To doubt evolution, one has to doubt science in general. (This was something discussed in the old "Genesis" thread).

I think this discussion is pretty much over. I don't think I'll be posting in this thread much, if at all anymore. I've been too busy with school to spend as much time as necessary researching, and I don't think I know enough to continue debating mr. Eriol. :D So thank you mr. joxy and mr. eriol, it has been fun, and I definately learned alot. See you around. :)
Ok, see you around too.
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
OK then, let's bring this back to the top of the list that is still open.
 

Aragorn21

On fire
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
386
Reaction score
0
Location
In the land of India, where the monkeys dance
Whatever..might as well post. :D


No, I didn't say mutations didn't add new traits, of course they add new traits. What they don't add is new genetic information.


And am I slow of understanding? Because I honestly do not see how a group of cells (the beginning of the very complicated eye) could be useful to the organism, and every other % of the eye valuable there after... For something to be able to see it has to have 100% of an eye, and each part has to function correctly. Am I correct in thinking this?


hah, show me one intermediate fossil, in all my research I have yet to see a valid one...except for the some of the human evolution fossils...
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Aragorn21 said:
No, I didn't say mutations didn't add new traits, of course they add new traits. What they don't add is new genetic information.
No, it's the other way around. The definition of a mutation is "new genetic information". Often mutations do not result in new traits (neutral mutations).

A mutation can't help but adding new genetic information.

And am I slow of understanding? Because I honestly do not see how a group of cells (the beginning of the very complicated eye) could be useful to the organism, and every other % of the eye valuable there after... For something to be able to see it has to have 100% of an eye, and each part has to function correctly. Am I correct in thinking this?
No, you are not correct. Read the link again. Each stage has a measurable visual acuity; the first stage can distinguish only between light and darkness, but that is enough for many organisms.

hah, show me one intermediate fossil, in all my research I have yet to see a valid one...except for the some of the human evolution fossils...
I just found this. So far I was just quoting from memory (reptile-mammal transition, whale ancestors, etc.), but now there is a neat list:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
 

Aragorn21

On fire
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
386
Reaction score
0
Location
In the land of India, where the monkeys dance
"Mutation is a change in the hereditary material of an organism's cells. By altering this material, a mutation changes certain traits." ~ World Book Encyclopedia

"2. a change within a gene or chromosome of animals or plants resulting in a new feature or character that appears suddenly and can be inherited." ~ World Book Dictionary



About the fossils. Yes, I have seen that before, I've read through almost all of that FAQ. And the first thing I thought when I saw that was, "why are these not on any other site?" (i have looked) and "why are no there no pictures or links to support any of these?" Perhaps you could answer that for me?
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Aragorn21 said:
No, I didn't say mutations didn't add new traits, of course they add new traits. What they don't add is new genetic information.
Aragorn21 said:
"Mutation is a change in the hereditary material of an organism's cells.

"2. a change within a gene or chromosome of animals or plants "
How come "a change within a gene/chromosome/genetic material" does not add new genetic information?

Your dictionaries are wrong (or at least misleading if they don't say what I'm about to say). They are using the breeder's definition of mutation; I, and evolutionary theory in general, use the genetic definition. More than half of the mutations take place in parts of the genome which do not express themselves, and are therefore neutral.

About the fossils. Yes, I have seen that before, I've read through almost all of that FAQ. And the first thing I thought when I saw that was, "why are these not on any other site?" (i have looked) and "why are no there no pictures or links to support any of these?" Perhaps you could answer that for me?
No, I can't. I don't know the webmaster of that site, or the author of that piece.

Though I have no idea of what does this have to do with the matter.

But you didn't look hard enough anyway. A quick google retrieved:

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm (by the same author, but not so detailed)

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Transitional_fossils (Wikipedia)

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5.html

http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm (complete with a mention of living transitional forms).

Yep, you didn't look hard enough.
 

Thread suggestions

Top