God vs Evolution

[volcob]

the split second has gone back to the reality

[Jones]

That would be the catholics, love.

[alextemplet]

Yep, we Catholics are definitely very big fans of reality.

[LittleBeaver]

From a purely scientific standpoint (this is not a religious website obviously), the creationists do have a firm footing for what they believe. Both creationists and evolutionists who can both be classified as "scientists" use a lot of the same evidence (i.e. fossils or just the earth in general) but because of their perspective,they will be more inclined to interpret that evidence to fit into their theories. So who is right? Here's one example from a creationist view: genetics...natural selection is at work but only at the micro-evolutionary level, an animal cannot simply change into another animal because there are too many controls (ex.methylation) in DNA replication to make a huge enough mistake to cause an animal to evolve into something else. They have also done research and found that most mutions that occur are generally minor and usually detrimental to an organism, producing a loss in information rather than a gain so that they would not be likely to survive to produce more offspring.

[genovese]

............... They have also done research and found that most mutions that occur are generally minor and usually detrimental to an organism, producing a loss in information rather than a gain so that they would not be likely to survive to produce more offspring.

Very true, but what happens to the very few mutations that are beneficial? Are these to be ignored because they are less frequent?

[LittleBeaver]

They are not to be ignored as nothing in science ever should be, forgive me for not addressing that. As I understand it, the point is that the mutations that do occur, and are able to be passed on to other generations and contribute to that species, could not be drastic enough to produce say a change in species because the foundational DNA for that particular animal is still there. A cat is not going to eventually evolve into a bird because it developes a mutation for a wing-like structure...the bone and muscular structure is simply not embedded in the DNA (I know this example is totally hypothetical). It seems like there would have to be too many pure chance mutations that just do not occur in nature to direct such a change in species. A little taco dog and a huge mastif both still have "dog" DNA even though they have very different phenotypes but are still and will remain dogs. There are a few documentations of beneficial mutations but most mutations that do occur either have no effect or a bad effect on the organism.

[canalon]

They have also done research and found that most mutations that occur are generally minor and usually detrimental to an organism, producing a loss in information rather than a gain so that they would not be likely to survive to produce more offspring.

There are a few documentations of beneficial mutations but most mutations that do occur either have no effect or a bad effect on the organism.

I would add a few things:
-this discard horizontal genetic transfer (HGT), which seems to be very important in gene acquisition and quite frequent now that we can see whole genomes. There are also gene duplications. So it's not just deletions and point mutations.
-I have witnessed and selected many "beneficial" mutations in bacteria. They are individually not very frequent, but at the population level, not that rare. And combined with HGT they can spread quite fast in populations when selection is strong enough.
-If you had seen what point mutations in some regulations genes (hox family for example) can do to drosophila, you would know that very limited mutations at the early stage of development can have really important effects on the whole animal.

So molecular biology is regularly bringing more strength (although admittedly often more complexity) to the evolutionist model, while the creationist are still to bring anything convincing for scrutiny. And the micro/macro evolution dichotomy has no real meaning. There is only evolution which effects are mostly felt on limited levels rather than just being spectacular (macro level), and the dichotomy is mostly a Marketing trick by creationist to avoid looking as complete idiots if they were to flat out refuse the huge evidence of short evolution.

[genovese]

In answer to LittleBeaver,
I expect that the difficulties you have with the standard theory of evolution have already been dealt with by previous writers on this post, and by Canalon above.

The modern Darwin theory on evolution and even Darwin’s original theory didn’t suggest that a cat would suddenly mutate and develop wings, you would need man manipulating genetic material to do that – science fiction stuff, although see Canalon re HGT above. All the species that you see around you today only represent a tiny fraction of all the species that have been around since the origin of life. You wouldn’t expect Dinosaurs and all the other funny creatures (found in fossil evidence) to have all lived and inhabited this small planet at the same time as the many species that we see alive today. They would have been competing and fighting each other to survive. There wouldn’t have been enough room or food for so many different species. Why therefore would a Creator put all these species on the planet at the same time – knowing that it wouldn’t work and that they would become extinct?

I am assuming that you believe that all species were created at the same time – correct me if this is wrong.

If you think that Dinosaurs existed at the same time as Homo Sapiens, why have we not found drawings of many extinct animals like Dinosaurs in pre-historic caves paintings? Living at the same time as the dinosaurs would have been very frightening for Man.

[twinletkat]

You pose a few good questions. However, the drawings question doesn't hold up when analyzed properly. How many other species have been drawn in caves. I don't have extensive knowledge of this, but I do know that the most popular drawing are of horse-like animals. Does that mean that only horses existed during that period? Perhaps those homo Sapiens that encountered the dinosaurs did not live. Or, perhaps humans and dinosaurs lived in very different environments and locations on the earth. There are other stronger evidences of humans and dinosaurs existing together, such as the dinosaur and human foot print that have been found together preserved in rock.

Another question that you brought up was that all creatures could not have lived together on earth, so why would God try. Think of why species now become extinct. Man has decided that his own desires for more land and different food is worth the sacrifice of ecological balance. If humans began to hunt deer (for example) and that was some of the dinosaurs key prey, that would cause an imbalance in the ecological structure that was in place. It is man's own doing that has caused certain animals or species to become extinct, not the fault of God not creating enough space. Even then there are plenty of location, such as the ocean, where man has not interefered and new species are still being discovered. Those species in the oceans have fought for space and food, but still exist in a wide ranging flora of amazing creatures.

[twinletkat]

"-I have witnessed and selected many "beneficial" mutations in bacteria. They are individually not very frequent, but at the population level, not that rare. And combined with HGT they can spread quite fast in populations when selection is strong enough."

I have a problem with this because bacteria and humans (or any other mammal) replicated completely differently. Bacteria have a much higher likelihood of passing on genetic mutations because of transformation, transduction, or conjugation. In humans or other mammals the cells are not simple replicated from the mother cell, but rely on a sperm and an ova to complete the new cell. Therefore, just because it may be easy for a bacteria to pass on mutations, there is no reason to claim the it is easy for higher organisms to pass on mutations.

[MichaelXY]

, but I do know that the most popular drawing are of horse-like animals. Does that mean that only horses existed during that period? Perhaps those homo Sapiens that encountered the dinosaurs did not live. Or, perhaps humans and dinosaurs lived in very different environments and locations on the earth.

Not only horses, Wooly Mammoth drawings have also been found in France.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauv ... caves2.php
Fossil remains of dinosaurs have been found throughout europe and france, which is also where many of the cave paintings are.

There are other stronger evidences of humans and dinosaurs existing together, such as the dinosaur and human foot print that have been found together preserved in rock

I don't think so, can you cite your source for this.

[twinletkat]

I believe it was in Dinosaur Valley State park in some of there excavations, but I may be mistaken.