Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Iliad]

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.

I don't think we're getting through to them

[heavycola]

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

Evolution is a process of gradual change based on mutations arising in dna. Natural selection is the pressure from environmental factors that shapes the direction evolution takes. I don't think anyone discussing evolution sensibly would use the two interchangeably.

Look - let's have a discussion about evolution, about gaps in the theory, fine. but don't hold up a culture-specific creation story as an alternative. it has nothing to do with science. I am not ringfencing religion and science altogether, but here there is no overlapa nd to deabte as though there is one ins pointless.

Jay - you do not understand what you are talking about. All fish and all frogs do share a common ancestor, a creature that existed millions and millions of years ago. Your demand for a living half-dog-half-tree or whatever as 'proof' of evolution only belies your by-now hugely irritating ignorance about all of this.

[Skittles!]

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.

You don't need more chromosomes to evolve. Have you even studied evolution? If you have, you would know the basis of it is natural selection. It does not mean natural selection makes you lose chromosomes or genes, it means that the recessive gene or otherwise is now chosen to be the dominate gene to help that species survive easier. No where does it state that you would lose genes in natural selection. No where does it say you will gain genes in evolution. You keep the same about of chromosomes, the same amount of genes, you just have the recessives being used more and eventually would become the dominate gene.

Why does this not make sense to you?

Evolution does not mean you are evolving into a higher state of a species. It means you are naturally selecting, or ADAPTING, to your surroundings to increase the chance of survival. Humans do not need to do this anymore as we have many things which can let us stay in one place in the whole lad-mass of the world and not naturally select the gene which would help us survive easier.

[Iliad]

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

No, you misunderstand. Evolution is a prioces of gradual change based on mutations arising in dna. Natural selection is the pressure from environmental factors that shapes the direction evolution takes. I don't think anyone discussing evolution sensibly would use teh two interchangeably.

Look - let's have a discussion about evolution, about gaps in teh theory, fine. but don't hold up a culture-specific creation story as an alternative. it has nothing to do with science. I am not ringfencing religion and science altogether, but here there is no overlap.

Jay - you do not understand what you are talking about. All fish and all frogs do share a common ancestor, a creature that existed millions and millions of years ago. Your demand for a living half-dog-half-tree or whatever as 'proof' of evolution only belies your by-now hugely irritating ignorance about all of this.

a common mistake by people who don't know that much about evolution.

Another common mistake: humans didn't evolve from gorillas! Humans evolved from old world monkeys and so did new world monkeys(gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.)

[Skittles!]

Those that are not allowed to or do not know learn about evolution should never make a debate with it as they would be stumped down continuously because they have no idea what they are talking about.

[Iliad]

Those that are not allowed to or do not know learn about evolution should never make a debate with it as they would be stumped down continuously because they have no idea what they are talking about.

jay that may have been directed at you

[Skittles!]

Those that are not allowed to or do not know learn about evolution should never make a debate with it as they would be stumped down continuously because they have no idea what they are talking about.

jay that may have been directed at you

And WM.

[Iliad]

Those that are not allowed to or do not know learn about evolution should never make a debate with it as they would be stumped down continuously because they have no idea what they are talking about.

jay that may have been directed at you

And WM.

Yeah

[Neutrino]

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.

How so? Sure, they're losing the genes responsible for eye growth, but they are also gaining genes responsible for salt resistence and the digestion of a different diet.

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.

Genetic information will rarely, if ever, be lost. The development of eyes will merely be relegated to a regressive gene. You'll still end up with occasional throwbacks with partly or fully developed 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.

If downward was the only possible way, why do we see creatures of such complexity today? Surely after a few billion years (I don't think anyone here is suggesting evolution or adaptation can take place on creationist timescales) of downgrading, life would consist of little more than bacteria?

[jay_a2j]

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.

[Skittles!]

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.

It doesn't take logic to believe in God either

And why do you think there are fossils of mutating animals? Why? Natural selection takes many, many generations to fully happy. Fossils are rare anyway.

[Titanic]

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.

Evolution takes more faith? Theres not one scrap of proof for creationism, whilst there is a large amount of evidence which points towards evolution being true.

[Iliad]

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.

*sigh* Evolution is not a magical process in which a frog turns into a fish in the matter of minutes! It takes hundreds and hundreds of generations!

Please know SOMETHING about what you are arguing against. Of course it seems illogical to you, you know nothing about it!

[AlgyTaylor]

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.

Actually there is. Look at fossils of the same species in the same place over a very long period of time (there's places you can do this in Gloucestershire/UK for free). They gradually change from one thing to another.

And as before, it's only illogical to you because you're blinded by your faith, so to speak.

[heavycola]

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.

You are also ignoring the opportunity cost. Havign eyes where none are needed uses up valuable brain perocessing power, not to mention the energy and materials needed to build and maintain the eyes in the first place. Those resources would obviously better directed, in a pitch black cave, towards other methids of identifying prey and predators.

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE!

Jay, the consensus is that the common ancestor we share with all other mammals - bats, whales, mice, monkeys, duck-billed platypuses - looked like a shrew. It certainly didn't look like a half-man, half whale. You just do not understand any of this, do you? If you would like me to pm you about this, just ask.

[Skittles!]

duck-billed platypuses?

All platypuses are duck-billed, sorry to say heavy.

[heavycola]

duck-billed platypuses?

All platypuses are duck-billed, sorry to say heavy.

prove it! prove that every single platypus has a bill!

[joecoolfrog]

The best legal minds in the United States could not make a case for creationism outside of its religious context, yet Jay stumbles blindly on.
He is certainly proving the point that delusion and ignorance can be powerful motivational tools though !

[Frigidus]

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.

It's not like the fossil record is trying to make things convenient. Let's take humans as an example. Do we have a fossil record showing a generation by generation change, from australopithecus to human? No! Does that mean that evolution is TOTALLY illogical? Also, no. If you need a complete fossil record to prove a theory on the origin of all species then all of us are arguing a lost cause.

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.

Wow, I have to say I think I've actually figured out what jay's saying. Creationists don't call the change from one species to another evolution. They will only accept that evolution occurs when it crosses from one family into another. No wonder they think it's so far-fetched...it's only happened a few times in all of history. Going back to the fossil record example, what do you think the odds are of more than one or two of these missing links being fossilized are? Evolution of that magnitude isn't a gradual change, it occurs in great leaps when an extreme stimulus is added to the environment. There has to be a good reason to take that particular route after all.

[jay_a2j]

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.

*sigh* Evolution is not a magical process in which a frog turns into a fish in the matter of minutes! It takes hundreds and hundreds of generations!

Please know SOMETHING about what you are arguing against. Of course it seems illogical to you, you know nothing about it!

Good grief! Let me speak slowly.... If a fish, over 100,000 years became a lizard, at some point, a creature that had some resemblance of a fish and some resemblance of a lizard, fossil would be found! We find fish fossils and we find lizard fossils but NOTHING in between.

[jay_a2j]

Jay, the consensus is that the common ancestor we share with all other mammals - bats, whales, mice, monkeys, duck-billed platypuses - looked like a shrew. It certainly didn't look like a half-man, half whale. You just do not understand any of this, do you? If you would like me to pm you about this, just ask.

"The consensus"? ROFL.....we evolved from a shrew as did the bat. And my faith seems hard to swallow?

[heavycola]

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.

*sigh* Evolution is not a magical process in which a frog turns into a fish in the matter of minutes! It takes hundreds and hundreds of generations!

Please know SOMETHING about what you are arguing against. Of course it seems illogical to you, you know nothing about it!

Good grief! Let me speak slowly.... If a fish, over 100,000 years became a lizard, at some point, a creature that had some resemblance of a fish and some resemblance of a lizard, fossil would be found! We find fish fossils and we find lizard fossils but NOTHING in between.

Good grief! Let me speak even slower...

fish and lizards share a common ancestor. Fish and mushrooms share a common ancestor. Humans and pine trees share a common ancestor. But none of those common ancestors would look much like the species descended from them.
Species are branches. The further away we are from the poitn where our branch connects with, say, a bat's branch, the longer ago we shared an ancestor and the more differences we will have.

Do you get this? Even if you don't believe me, do you understand the principle behind the absence of half-man-half-fish fossils?

[jay_a2j]

Do you get this? Even if you don't believe me, do you understand the principle behind the absence of half-man-half-fish fossils?

WHERE is the fossil of the half-man, have whatever we DIRECTLY evolved from....you don't have to go as far back to the fish.? Its not there. Case closed.

[Snorri1234]

There would be SOME KIND of fossil evidence of mutating animals! There is none. NONE! To believe in evolution takes even more faith than it does to believe in God. Evolution is TOTALLY illogical.

*sigh* Evolution is not a magical process in which a frog turns into a fish in the matter of minutes! It takes hundreds and hundreds of generations!

Please know SOMETHING about what you are arguing against. Of course it seems illogical to you, you know nothing about it!

Good grief! Let me speak slowly.... If a fish, over 100,000 years became a lizard, at some point, a creature that had some resemblance of a fish and some resemblance of a lizard, fossil would be found! We find fish fossils and we find lizard fossils but NOTHING in between.

NO! Lizards didn't evolve from fish, they share a common ancestor. This means that some of the ancestors decided to stay in the sea and some moved on the land. The ones who stayed in the sea gradually became more adept at swimming and developed a better streamline and stuff like that. And the ones who tried to live on the land developed legs and lungs that could filter the oxygen out of the air. They started to live on plants and therefore they grew bigger to eat more of it. Common ancestors didn't look anything like a fish or a lizard, for all I know they looked like a bunch of jellybeans with eyes.

[Snorri1234]

No, my faith has everything to do with how I interpret science and don't you EVER TELL ME OR ANYONE ELSE THAT THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER! Not only are you are sadly mistaken if you really think that science and the bible are two totally different realms but by pushing it away you are pushing the spotlight away from the creationists. I will not let you do that. If they were two separate realms then there would be no argument. If they aren't related then how can there even be an argument. Also, allow me to tighten up my beliefs a little more. I believe in creationism not only because I believe the Bible is 100% true from my own logic (no one else had their hand hand feeding me this unlike children raised on evolution) but also because evolutionary evidence is non-existent and impossible based on the very rules of science that evolution is forced to abide by but bends anyways to make their theory true. Your vague use of words would never fly when put against the scientific method. If it doesn't pass the method then is it really science? Or is it a theory? Remember back in the 1600's when the reformation just started? Let's look at the reformation and scientific discovery's before and after. Before alchemy was a "science" while it does have something to do with science (the mixing of chemicals and whatnot) but it was not true science. Now look at after the reformation. Scientists were making discoveries left and right. What's more is that they were praising God while they did it! Anyone who says otherwise must either by hiding from the truth because they cannot bear it or stupid. Remember, these were the same men who founded science. You go against them and you go against your own beliefs.

I find it ironic that your username is sheepofdumb...