Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:38 am

Adaptation can equal evolution, in a loose sense.

Let's take a human as an example. We've all adapted to our surroundings, but further more, we've evolved to suit our surroundings by becoming technological enough to make clothes, create fire, turn gas into heat etc etc. We've adapted and evolved in a way. Whilst it's not evolving into a totally different species, we've evolved from our predecessors via becoming more technological.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:40 am

Iliad wrote:OH MY FUCKING GOD(pun not intended) Why are you so stupid! Great debating skills! I go and post and rebutt your points and what do you do? You reply that it's all "hogwash". Fucking hell. Jay please actually debate

You've only just figured out that 'debating' with Jay is like talking to a brick wall?

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:41 am

jay_a2j wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
The Weird One wrote:but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not
No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.
And if a salmon evolves it's still a fish. Nevertheless it has evolved.

No it hasn't. A species of fish migrated into underwater caves which were pitch black. They went blind as a result of not needing sight (because they lived in total darkness) Although the fish are now born blind, they REMAIN a fish. This is called ADAPTATION not evolution. Evolution is when one animal becomes another, totally different animal (count the chromosomes) over a long period of time. (ex. a fish becoming a frog)

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:42 am

He used to be a quite good debater, but at some point he changed for the worse.

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:43 am

Skittles! wrote:
Iliad wrote:OH MY FUCKING GOD(pun not intended) Why are you so stupid! Great debating skills! I go and post and rebutt your points and what do you do? You reply that it's all "hogwash". Fucking hell. Jay please actually debate
You've only just figured out that 'debating' with Jay is like talking to a brick wall?

Worse. It's like trying to use a computer when a stupid pop-up keeps on popping up and it makes you wanna hit the computer screen.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:46 am

MeDeFe wrote:He used to be a quite good debater, but at some point he changed for the worse.

It gets kinda redundant debating the same topics over and over. All this stuff could be read in "Logic Dictates There Is A God".

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:48 am

Evolution is marked by the process also known as "natural selection". This is when species naturally select the best helpful gene for their survival in their environment. This goes to all animals, all bacteria, every single organism that has lived.

As I said before, humans have done this by becoming more technological advanced yet have not evolved into a different species.

Another example. A mosquito has been sprayed via a mosquito spray which would normally kill them. This mosquito has a recessive gene which can help combat this mosquito spray, which after it effectively combats away, this recessive gene now becomes the dominate gene, making it more immune to that type of mosquito spray and others like it. This is why corporations are making more and more different mosquito sprays because we've learnt that mosquitoes are getting immune to the older types of mosquito spray.

Make sense? The mosquito has naturally selected a gene to help survive in its environment. It has not evolved into a different type of mosquito, but it has adapted and naturally selected (the basis of evolution) to stay alive.

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:50 am

jay_a2j wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:He used to be a quite good debater, but at some point he changed for the worse.
It gets kinda redundant debating the same topics over and over. All this stuff could be read in "Logic Dictates There Is A God".

jay I actually want you to either prove your 3 points which I rebutted(saying it's all "hogwash doesn't count or put 3 new ones. I'm still waiting

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:54 am

jay_a2j wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
The Weird One wrote:but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not
No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.
And if a salmon evolves it's still a fish. Nevertheless it has evolved.

No it hasn't. A species of fish migrated into underwater caves which were pitch black. They went blind as a result of not needing sight (because they lived in total darkness) Although the fish are now born blind, they REMAIN a fish. This is called ADAPTATION not evolution. Evolution is when one animal becomes another, totally different animal (count the chromosomes) over a long period of time. (ex. a fish becoming a frog)

but that takes an enormous amount of time. I think that's the part not getting to you

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:04 am

Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
The Weird One wrote:but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not
No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.
And if a salmon evolves it's still a fish. Nevertheless it has evolved.

No it hasn't. A species of fish migrated into underwater caves which were pitch black. They went blind as a result of not needing sight (because they lived in total darkness) Although the fish are now born blind, they REMAIN a fish. This is called ADAPTATION not evolution. Evolution is when one animal becomes another, totally different animal (count the chromosomes) over a long period of time. (ex. a fish becoming a frog)
but that takes an enormous amount of time. I think that's the part not getting to you

No, I get it. It doesn't change the facts that adaptation is not evolution.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:05 am

Iliad wrote:Evolution has no flaws it has been proven

The three topics that have been listed in this debate currently have not been proven for either side.

There have been assumptions made both ways and thus either one has not been proven.

Remember that was the point of this topic.
To look at many aspects and when all together, which set fits the best together.

You can't just say evolution has been proven. The last three topics issues (iridium, nylon, antibiotics) have been cited as reasons evolution is a FACT. Well I have presented the creationist argument for everyone. They are scientific, they are opinions of scientist, they differ from the evolution norm. They are no more or less FACTS than evolution because you can't prove either.

You can ONLY SPECULATE because no one can see the beginning of any of these events (I mean the actual beginning of the creation or evolution of the actual crater or bacteria or whatever etc).

So by looking at many different issues (which I hope to continue to do) we all can see both sides of the story from more than 1 or 2 angles and then see which assumption puzzle (evolution or creation) best fits together.

WM

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:06 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
jay_a2j wrote: No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.
And if a salmon evolves it's still a fish. Nevertheless it has evolved.

No it hasn't. A species of fish migrated into underwater caves which were pitch black. They went blind as a result of not needing sight (because they lived in total darkness) Although the fish are now born blind, they REMAIN a fish. This is called ADAPTATION not evolution. Evolution is when one animal becomes another, totally different animal (count the chromosomes) over a long period of time. (ex. a fish becoming a frog)
but that takes an enormous amount of time. I think that's the part not getting to you
No, I get it. It doesn't change the facts that adaptation is not evolution.

Reply to my points above. Your 3 flaws got owned. Either show more proof or show different flaws. Cause there are tons of them?

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:07 am

Skittles! wrote:

Evolution is marked by the process also known as "natural selection". This is when species naturally select the best helpful gene for their survival in their environment. This goes to all animals, all bacteria, every single organism that has lived.

As I said before, humans have done this by becoming more technological advanced yet have not evolved into a different species.

Another example. A mosquito has been sprayed via a mosquito spray which would normally kill them. This mosquito has a recessive gene which can help combat this mosquito spray, which after it effectively combats away, this recessive gene now becomes the dominate gene, making it more immune to that type of mosquito spray and others like it. This is why corporations are making more and more different mosquito sprays because we've learnt that mosquitoes are getting immune to the older types of mosquito spray.

Make sense? The mosquito has naturally selected a gene to help survive in its environment. It has not evolved into a different type of mosquito, but it has adapted and naturally selected (the basis of evolution) to stay alive.

That is not evolution...that's becoming more advanced. That has nothing to do with the make-up of the human body. A mosquito is a mosquito...when it becomes a pigeon then we have evolution.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:18 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Skittles! wrote:

Evolution is marked by the process also known as "natural selection". This is when species naturally select the best helpful gene for their survival in their environment. This goes to all animals, all bacteria, every single organism that has lived.

As I said before, humans have done this by becoming more technological advanced yet have not evolved into a different species.

Another example. A mosquito has been sprayed via a mosquito spray which would normally kill them. This mosquito has a recessive gene which can help combat this mosquito spray, which after it effectively combats away, this recessive gene now becomes the dominate gene, making it more immune to that type of mosquito spray and others like it. This is why corporations are making more and more different mosquito sprays because we've learnt that mosquitoes are getting immune to the older types of mosquito spray.

Make sense? The mosquito has naturally selected a gene to help survive in its environment. It has not evolved into a different type of mosquito, but it has adapted and naturally selected (the basis of evolution) to stay alive.
That is not evolution...that's becoming more advanced. That has nothing to do with the make-up of the human body. A mosquito is a mosquito...when it becomes a pigeon then we have evolution.

Exactly. I think the main issue here is that some of us are using evolution and natural selection interchangeably( evolutionist) where others (creationist) see a distinct difference.

I will try to get my post comparing them done today. But in brief (IMHO):

Evolution = GAIN in genetic information through mutation

Natural Selection = LOSS of genetic information through mutation

WM

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:23 am

Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote: That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven
Are you crazy??? Evolution has TONS of flaws! Has NEVER been proven! And if someone could prove to me there was no God. I STILL wouldn't believe in evolution!

*** fast posted***
Yeah? If there are tons of flaws point out 3. That's all I'm asking.
1. It has NEVER been observed nor reproduced.

2. The "missing link" has never been found. (ex. Fossil of part fish, part bird)

3. Does not give reasons for different races nor languages.
1. Yes it has. Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced. You do realise it takes a long,long time for an animal to evolve

2. Yes it has. For example thrinaxodon is the link between mammals and reptiles. And you do realise that's not how evolution works? It's not like: fish one generation, bird next generation

3.Languages and evolution have no link. At all. You might as well say: evolution does not explain the building of the Pyramids.

So I have pointed out the flaws in your flaws. Next

1. That is ADAPTATION NOT EVOLUTION.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrinaxodon that's prehistoric....something living please. Note*** nowhere in that link did it say it was a "missing link" try again.

3. Says you....can you post a scientist who agrees with you?

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:23 am

jay_a2j wrote:

No it hasn't. A species of fish migrated into underwater caves which were pitch black. They went blind as a result of not needing sight (because they lived in total darkness) Although the fish are now born blind, they REMAIN a fish. This is called ADAPTATION not evolution. Evolution is when one animal becomes another, totally different animal (count the chromosomes) over a long period of time. (ex. a fish becoming a frog)

Evolution is nothing more than a large number of small adaptations. At the very least, these blind fish of yours would form a sub-species. What's to stop them from making another small change or two and becoming a whole new species, completely seperate from the fish tht didn't like caves?

For example: What if, for whatever reason, the water of their cave becomes saltier? Presumably these fish would adapt and you would be left with a species of blind, salt resistant fish. Taking it further: what if these fish's primary food source proves unable to adapt to the increaced salt content of the water? It would probably die off and these blind, salt resistant fish have to find some other food source. You have a species of blind, salt resistant, different-food-eating fish. It's doubtful that these fish will be able to mate with their original stock at this point. What's to stop them from taking it further? Maybe their river starts to dry up and they have to develop the ability to breathe air...

If you accept the reality of adaptation, then you have to accept the reality of evolution. Evolution is nothing but a large number of small adaptations.

AlgyTaylor · Post by **AlgyTaylor** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:27 am

what the hell are you talking about, WM?

Natural selection is the whole basis of evolution.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:29 am

Neutrino wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:

No it hasn't. A species of fish migrated into underwater caves which were pitch black. They went blind as a result of not needing sight (because they lived in total darkness) Although the fish are now born blind, they REMAIN a fish. This is called ADAPTATION not evolution. Evolution is when one animal becomes another, totally different animal (count the chromosomes) over a long period of time. (ex. a fish becoming a frog)
Evolution is nothing more than a large number of small adaptations. At the very least, these blind fish of yours would form a sub-species. What's to stop them from making another small change or two and becoming a whole new species, completely seperate from the fish tht didn't like caves?

For example: What if, for whatever reason, the water of their cave becomes saltier? Presumably these fish would adapt and you would be left with a species of blind, salt resistant fish. Taking it further: what if these fish's primary food source proves unable to adapt to the increaced salt content of the water? It would probably die off and these blind, salt resistant fish have to find some other food source. You have a species of blind, salt resistant, different-food-eating fish. It's doubtful that these fish will be able to mate with their original stock at this point. What's to stop them from taking it further? Maybe their river starts to dry up and they have to develop the ability to breathe air...

If you accepet the reality of adaptation, then you have to accept the reality of evolution. Evolution is nothing but a large number of small adaptations.

Because in order for it to become another animal it must either gain or lose chromosomes. This should be easy to demonstrate in a lab....yet has not even been done...why? Because it is impossible for an animal with 20 chromosome to "evolve" and end up with 26 chromosomes. A fish has x amount of chromosomes and when they go blind (adapt) they still have the same number of chromosome. Hence...IT DID NOT EVOLVE.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:30 am

Neutrino wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:

No it hasn't. A species of fish migrated into underwater caves which were pitch black. They went blind as a result of not needing sight (because they lived in total darkness) Although the fish are now born blind, they REMAIN a fish. This is called ADAPTATION not evolution. Evolution is when one animal becomes another, totally different animal (count the chromosomes) over a long period of time. (ex. a fish becoming a frog)
Evolution is nothing more than a large number of small adaptations. At the very least, these blind fish of yours would form a sub-species. What's to stop them from making another small change or two and becoming a whole new species, completely seperate from the fish tht didn't like caves?

For example: What if, for whatever reason, the water of their cave becomes saltier? Presumably these fish would adapt and you would be left with a species of blind, salt resistant fish. Taking it further: what if these fish's primary food source proves unable to adapt to the increaced salt content of the water? It would probably die off and these blind, salt resistant fish have to find some other food source. You have a species of blind, salt resistant, different-food-eating fish. It's doubtful that these fish will be able to mate with their original stock at this point. What's to stop them from taking it further? Maybe their river starts to dry up and they have to develop the ability to breathe air...

If you accepet the reality of adaptation, then you have to accept the reality of evolution. Evolution is nothing but a large number of small adaptations.

Evolution is nothing but a large number of small adaptations. Wrong.

Because the blind fish are not gaining genetic information. They are losing it. Natural selection at work.

A group of fish went down into the cave. They continued to grow. Fish were born with varying levels of eyesight (like humans are as well). Since the fish who were blind never needed to rely on sight to live, they flourished. Those who needed to see to hunt or defend themselves, died. Over time, the blind fish would be the only fish left to breed and make mroe fish. Thus a whole bunch of blind fish because the genetic pool has lost the information to see.

That is why we have:
-long an short haired dogs.
-different colored hair/eyes

Over time taking away information (natural selection) does not improve the overall genetic code of a creature or plant. It LOWERS IT.

Thus adaptation, while beneficial to the creature now, does not account for an increase in information needed to evolve to a higher state of species.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:30 am

Then why do some humans lose or gain some chromosomes which are then mutated?

That's pretty much what you're saying - evolution is the gain of chromosomes, or generic coding, through mutation. A human that has 'mutated' has therefore evolved.

That makes no sense.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:32 am

WidowMakers wrote:Evolution is nothing but a large number of small adaptations. Wrong.

Because the blind fish are not gaining genetic information. They are losing it. Natural selection at work.

A group of fish went down into the cave. They continued to grow. Fish were born with varying levels of eyesight (like humans are as well). Since the fish who were blind never needed to rely on sight to live, they flourished. Those who needed to see to hunt or defend themselves, died. Over time, the blind fish would be the only fish left to breed and make mroe fish. Thus a whole bunch of blind fish because the genetic pool has lost the information to see.

That is why we have:
-long an short haired dogs.
-different colored hair/eyes

Over time taking away information (natural selection) does not improve the overall genetic code of a creature or plant. It LOWERS IT.

Thus adaptation, while beneficial to the creature now, does not account for an increase in information needed to evolve to a higher state of species.

THAT IS NATURAL SELECTION WHICH IS EVOLUTION!

gah.

AlgyTaylor · Post by **AlgyTaylor** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:33 am

jay_a2j wrote:2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrinaxodon that's prehistoric....something living please. Note*** nowhere in that link did it say it was a "missing link" try again.

Why should it say that it's a "missing link"? For one, it's not missing, and for another only religious nutters like yourself believe in a non-evolution based nonsense.

Also, first you're asking for the "missing" part of the fossil record, then when something is provided you want something that's alive! Why keep changing the goalposts, so to speak?

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:35 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote: That's because you believe god. Evolution has no flaws it has been proven
Are you crazy??? Evolution has TONS of flaws! Has NEVER been proven! And if someone could prove to me there was no God. I STILL wouldn't believe in evolution!

*** fast posted***
Yeah? If there are tons of flaws point out 3. That's all I'm asking.
1. It has NEVER been observed nor reproduced.

2. The "missing link" has never been found. (ex. Fossil of part fish, part bird)

3. Does not give reasons for different races nor languages.
1. Yes it has. Evolution in bacteria has been observed and reproduced. You do realise it takes a long,long time for an animal to evolve

2. Yes it has. For example thrinaxodon is the link between mammals and reptiles. And you do realise that's not how evolution works? It's not like: fish one generation, bird next generation

3.Languages and evolution have no link. At all. You might as well say: evolution does not explain the building of the Pyramids.

So I have pointed out the flaws in your flaws. Next

1. That is ADAPTATION NOT EVOLUTION.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrinaxodon that's prehistoric....something living please. Note*** nowhere in that link did it say it was a "missing link" try again.

3. Says you....can you post a scientist who agrees with you?

1. SAME THING! Evolution=many,many adaptions over a long period of time. Give enough time and the animal will adapt(evolve) enough to become slightly different

2. It had many charasterics of reptiles and many charasteristics of mammals. And wiki isn't the best source you know! And I can't give you something living because we haven't lived long enough

3.Dude I don't need to! Do I need a scientist to tell you that the Sun is a star? No it's basic knowledge

Next

ParadiceCity9 · Post by **ParadiceCity9** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:35 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Iliad wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
The Weird One wrote:but it is still EVOLVED from a previous form, is it not

No...it ADAPTED. It's STILL a bacteria so it did NOT evolve.
*sigh* But if we can see how it adapts can't you see how it can evolve after more time?

No, because every living creature has a set number of chromosomes. So if science can explain how an animal with 24 chromosomes can somehow obtain 2 more to make it 26... not only will they become very rich but they might even persuade some of us religious fanatics.

The whole chromosomes thing...there are syndromes in humans that make the syndromee (i know not a word but you know what I mean) have more chromosomes, or at least X in females. (sorry if this is not completely true but it's the best i could remember from biology last year)

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:36 am

Skittles! wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Evolution is nothing but a large number of small adaptations. Wrong.

Because the blind fish are not gaining genetic information. They are losing it. Natural selection at work.

A group of fish went down into the cave. They continued to grow. Fish were born with varying levels of eyesight (like humans are as well). Since the fish who were blind never needed to rely on sight to live, they flourished. Those who needed to see to hunt or defend themselves, died. Over time, the blind fish would be the only fish left to breed and make mroe fish. Thus a whole bunch of blind fish because the genetic pool has lost the information to see.

That is why we have:
-long an short haired dogs.
-different colored hair/eyes

Over time taking away information (natural selection) does not improve the overall genetic code of a creature or plant. It LOWERS IT.

Thus adaptation, while beneficial to the creature now, does not account for an increase in information needed to evolve to a higher state of species.
THAT IS NATURAL SELECTION WHICH IS EVOLUTION!

gah.

Thus adaptation(loss of information), while beneficial to the creature now, does not account for an increase in information needed to evolve to a higher state of species.