The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[tecoyah]

Ok, I have a question. With alteration in the nucleotide sequence in the DNA, (which alter gene expression), would that not in turn alter protein synthesis and cause problems? I'm asking you, as you know more than me. Doesn't DNA damage (mutations) result in problems/diseases? At what point does it not? We also have repair enzymes to fix altered DNA. Don't ask me its exact name, because I can't remember.

In short....yes Mutations can cause disease, and can also cause none. Mutation is simply a change...sometimes minor, and sometimes dramatic. Nature tends to weed out Damage, or unfavorable change in the DNA structure by premature death ( genes are not passed along to offspring) or through repair and redundancy. This is one of the basic tools of Evolutionary adaptation, as some changes are beneficial and thus get added to the gene pool, while others are detrimental and tend to fall by the wayside.
There are quite a few failures in gene expression that lead to disease in humans, and if untreated the carriers of any extremely negative mutation would likely never reproduce. This would make the mutation null, as it would be removed through attrition. Just as immunities play a large role in disease prevention in the short term, Evolution does the same in the Long haul.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Ok, I have a question. With alteration in the nucleotide sequence in the DNA, (which alter gene expression), would that not in turn alter protein synthesis and cause problems?

Yes and no....It depends.

The classic human example is the single gene mutation that alters the transcription of the proteins that make the abnormal sickle cell hemoglobin (sickle cell anemia). When an African living in Africa has this, it protects him or her from dying from malaria. When they move out of africa into cold climates, they get sickle cell crisis. Thus, a sigular nucleotide mutation that encodes an abnormal protein protects a black in warm, malaria infested environment but not in cold,malaria free environments.


Bacterial antibiotic resistance is due to genetic changes that code for abnormal proteins that allow resistance to antibiotics.

On a more complex scale, rats have developed resistance to rat poison (warfarin) because of gentic polymorphic mutation encoding for a protein that handles vit K.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/164/3/1055

Insects have developed the ability to block the action of the insecticide due to a genetic mutation that transribes into a a mutated acetylcholinesterase enzyme . (we can reproduce this in the laboratory as well as observing this in nature.)

http://www.absw.org.uk/Briefings/insecticide_resistance.htm

Most chance mutations actually have no effect (either beneficial or deletorious) to the organism, but some can be profoundly dangerous or beneficial. This is where the "selection" part of the environment comes in. It's not to say that a caveman in iceland did not have a sickle cell gene mutation, but they died off in the cold climates from sickling crisis whereas those who carried this mutation in Africa survived malarial plagues and passed their genes onto their descendants.

 

[alphieb]

Yes and no....It depends.

The classic human example is the single gene mutation that alters the transcription of the proteins that make the abnormal sickle cell hemoglobin (sickle cell anemia). When an African living in Africa has this, it protects him or her from dying from malaria. When they move out of africa into cold climates, they get sickle cell crisis. Thus, a sigular nucleotide mutation that encodes an abnormal protein protects a black in warm, malaria infested environment but not in cold,malaria free environments.


Bacterial antibiotic resistance is due to genetic changes that code for abnormal proteins that allow resistance to antibiotics.

On a more complex scale, rats have developed resistance to rat poison (warfarin) because of gentic polymorphic mutation encoding for a protein that handles vit K.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/164/3/1055

Insects have developed the ability to block the action of the insecticide due to a genetic mutation that transribes into a a mutated acetylcholinesterase enzyme . (we can reproduce this in the laboratory as well as observing this in nature.)

http://www.absw.org.uk/Briefings/insecticide_resistance.htm

Most chance mutations actually have no effect (either beneficial or deletorious) to the organism, but some can be profoundly dangerous or beneficial. This is where the "selection" part of the environment comes in. It's not to say that a caveman in iceland did not have a sickle cell gene mutation, but they died off in the cold climates from sickling crisis whereas those who carried this mutation in Africa survived malarial plagues and passed their genes onto their descendants.

Your right, those were good examples.

 

[God-Is-Holy]

Thank you ...for justifying every single one of my statements.....

You have only justified yourself in your own mind. But God knows better.

Uh...wait.....doesn't your belief tell you I am unsaved...and forced to burn in the depths of Satans domain.

Ask God. Not me.

Mods.....he told me to Go To Hell.....Ban Him.....heh

Now you're just getting slanderous, and distorting the forum rules to make your psuedo-case. Direct quotes please, instead of this wild propaganda.

 

[tecoyah]

You have only justified yourself in your own mind. But God knows better.

Ask God. Not me.
Now you're just getting slanderous, and distorting the forum rules to make your psuedo-case. Direct quotes please, instead of this wild propaganda.

Uh....you may want to invest in a sense of humor....thereby gaining some understanding of the term...."Sarcasm"

Oh..and I am aware God knows better....she told me yesterday

 

[God-Is-Holy]

Uh....you may want to invest in a sense of humor....thereby gaining some understanding of the term...."Sarcasm"

God is not sarcastic.

Oh..and I am aware God knows better....she told me yesterday

God is clearly male.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

God is not sarcastic.

But tecoyah ain't him, and neither are you. Unclench your buttcheeks for a while, let a load off (or out).

God is clearly male.

Just cause Adam had a penis.....

 

[Rhadamanthus]

God-is-holy, Are you saying that god directly divulges to you the nuances of his/her/its sense of humor and the details of his/her/its sex?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

God-is-holy, Are you saying that god directly divulges to you the nuances of his/her/its sense of humor and the details of his/her/its sex?

Yes, yes he is.

 

[AlbqOwl]

While God-is-holy is no doubt devout and sincere in his beliefs, I think they are not shared by the vast majority of Christians. For instance, God is spirit and therefore not encumbered by sex. Accommodating human tendencies to assign anthropomorphic attributes to their dieties, the Bible does assign masculine attributes to God--creator, protector, disciplinarian, provider, etc.--and also female attributes: nurturer, comforter, healer, a mother hen shielding the chicks beneath her wings, etc.

If we are 100% honest however, there is a component of evolution vs creationism that the Christians have been skirting around. To believe that God is the author and catalyst for Creation and to believe that Jesus was/is God revealed to humankind is heavy stuff and is taken quite seriously by most praticing Christians. Just as we are taught to speak up and speak out about injustices and indecencies in the world, Christians are taught that to deny God is a dangerous thing to do and can have profound repercussions.

Thus most Christians do not consent to God being banned from the educational process or anywhere else for that matter. Many don't speak up because it is not 'politically correct' to do so these days, but that's where they are coming from. Most do not want creationism taught as science in the schools because they know it is not science as we define science. But they don't want the schools telling their kids that God is stupid or irrelevent or unwelcome either.

There has to be a reasonable compromise here somewhere.

 

[Iriemon]

But tecoyah ain't him, and neither are you. Unclench your buttcheeks for a while, let a load off (or out).

Just cause Adam had a penis.....

If God is not sarcastic, where did our sacrasm come from? Developed from nothing?

Does God have a sense of humor? Is there evidence of it in the Bible?

 

[God-Is-Holy]

But tecoyah ain't him, and neither are you. Unclench your buttcheeks for a while, let a load off (or out).

Now you're just getting angry. A bit hypocritical. Did you take my comment too seriously? lolol (Bad joke, but I'm laughing at your emotional response.)

Just cause Adam had a penis.....

I lost ya here.

God-is-holy, Are you saying that god directly divulges to you the nuances of his/her/its sense of humor and the details of his/her/its sex?

Actually, God is directly referred to as "Father" about 900 times in the bible (or thereabouts).

For example:

Matthew 6
9 "Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
(NAS95)

This is the predominant Christian view.

 

[MrFungus420]

If God is not sarcastic, where did our sacrasm come from? Developed from nothing?

Does God have a sense of humor? Is there evidence of it in the Bible?

There may not be evidence of God habing a sense of humor in the Bible, but there is evidence in nature. Look at the platypus... :lol:

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

Now you're just getting angry. A bit hypocritical. Did you take my comment too seriously? lolol (Bad joke, but I'm laughing at your emotional response.)

Angry? Haha, no I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was making fun of your pompousity and assumptions. Besides your post isn't funny in any way here, I think you may be one of those rare people who are born without a sense of humor and a stick up the ass as well...

I lost ya here.

You said God is a man. I said "Just cause Adam had a penis...", you know "God created man in its own image" all that ****. I was wondering why he (or she) couldn't have just added the fun bits on at the end?

 

[steen]

"The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata. In actuality, as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing. I provide a few recent examples of this, and then show that stratigraphic-range extension is not the exception but the rule. The constant extension of ranges simultaneously reduces the credibility of the geologic column and organic evolution, and makes it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record." from http://www.answersinggenesis.com.

Ah, what a deceptive claim. That is not what geology has claimed, so this guy is arguing against what isn’t there to begin with. I believe the term is to set up a strawman to knock it down?

Fossil contain flaws and do not necessarily explain anything.

Nobody have claimed so. On the other hand, we still have not found grasses below certain ages, and have not found trilobites above a certain age etc.

Species go extinct to this day. It still does not provide truth for evolution.

And nobody claimed that it did, so once again you are arguing against what isn't there to begin with.

 

[steen]

Then why was the poster banned? It's simply not godly to make such references to another poster's children in such a derogatory manner like that.

Presumably you are talking about me. I wasn't banned for anything in this tread. I was banned for what happened in a tread called "it."

And no, I did not attack somebody's children. Somebody decided to use their own kids as pawns in a discussion. That made the kids part of the discussion. And note that I was not attacking the kids, but rather a parent who so deliberately would set their own childen back and limit their future possibilities by lying to them.

 

[steen]

Evolution is not absolute or carved in stone. There are still many, many unanswered questions.

Could you give some reasonable examples, some examples that actually are as you desribe and not like some creationist site lies and claim it is? Or is this merely another "just because I say so" unsubstantiated creationist ad hominem attack?

 

[steen]

Please refrain from personal attacks against my children. My children are doing well in life. Attack me if you wan't to but leave my children out of it.

I am not bringing up your children, YOU DID. If you don't want them part of the debate, don't bring them up.

This debate is against me and the God I serve.

more silly nonsense, almost as if you hadn't read one post here. I have no debate against God. So unless your God is not the God of Jesus Christ, I have no attack at your God. And the debate is not against you personally either, your paranois none withstanding; the debate is against the false claims you make about science. If you did not make such false claims, if you did not bear false witness so much, you wouldn't even be noticed.

 

[steen]

Then why is the other poster attacking this person's children? That's just ungodly if ever anything was. It's merely a manifestation of atheist hatred to attack a Christian's children. Time for you to get back to the debate itself, and not justify when someone attacks another's children. That's not only poor debate skill, but isn't very humane either. That's where atheism gets you. Absolutely godless behavior.

Ah, but I am a Christian, so what you witnessed was Christian behavior.

And by the way, what we are noticing in the creationists is that they think that bearing false witness like they do all the time, that such demeaning spitting-God-in-the-eye behavior that this somehow is the Christian thing to do. Shame on you for so demeaning God.

 

[MrFungus420]

Presumably you are talking about me. I wasn't banned for anything in this tread. I was banned for what happened in a tread called "it."

WB Steen.

There were at least of few of us wondering what happened.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

WB Steen.

There were at least of few of us wondering what happened.

Post in "It." Thread, Page #3, Post #23 : http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=158821#post158821

It is very easy for the Pro Abortion people to say "abort it" giving no meanining to the life they are going to kill. I take offense to using the word it to describe someone so prescious.

And I take offense to you lying about me. And I take offense at your flagrant misogyny and desire to enslave women. And so on, and so on.

Abort is the same kind of word.

It is a factual, scientific/medical term. It is not our fault that you didn't learn enough English to know this.

Again Pro abortionist change the meaning of this word use to mean cancel.

huh? No we don't.

STOP LYING!

Now it means to kill another human being in the womb

Utter nonsense. You are REALLY showing how illiterate you are. here is the actual definition, curtesy of Stedman's Medical Dictionary:

ABORTION
1. Giving birth to an embryo or fetus prior to the stage of viability at about 22 weeks of gestation (fetus weighs less than 500 g). A distinction is made between abortion and premature birth: premature infants are those born after the stage of viability has been occuring (but before full term). Abortion may either be spontaneous (occuring from natural causes) or induced.
2. The product of such viable birth.
3. The arrest of any action or process before its normal completion

So obviously, you are again making false claims.

The next post was a mod post (#24):

[Moderator mode]
:smash:

steen,

After repeated attempts from multiple Moderators through public warning and personal messages, you still let your emotions get the best of you and continue to personally abuse fellow forum members and disrupt legitimate debate...

The subject matter is irrelevant...It's HOW you present your rebuttals and attack the other members...

I have given you a five day suspension...In that time, understand that this forum will not tolerate this manner of debate any longer...If and when you choose to return, cease & desist from this style immediately or forum privileges will be provoked permanently...

[/Moderator mode]

Thought I'd clear it up, better than rumors (especially since you can't search for the word "it" in the forum search engine becuase it is too short, making the thread hard to find). And I'd like to point our that he was merely suspended. I've gotten warnings in forums before, it happens.

 

[steen]

yes, I am still working with moderators about how I am actually allowed to challenge those who lie about me. Hopefully they will clarify this soon.

 

[Slantedfacts]

What do you mean? What missing link?
Again, it is not clear what you are talking about. "Lucy" is an Australopithecus afarensis, a species that lived about 3-4 mill years ago. We have several species from before then.

Now, again, what does lucy have to do with your presumed evidence against ALL of the Scientific Theory of Evolution? Try to be a little more observant - I am of the thinking that science and Bible are saying the same thing in different ways! This is just a bizzare claim, not to mention that it is woefully outdated if you treat "lucy" as the oldest known fossil. It is NOT the OLDEST - it was presumed to be the ACTUAL link between monkey and man as in the one that CONNECTS the two We have fossils of hominids going back 6-7 mill. years, and we certainly also have Proconsul which is from even before the time that the Chimps split off. I am not quite sure what you mean with "missing link" and what that has to do with "Lucy"?
Well, isn't that interesting.... What is the date (looks from the link to be October 2001?), and why are you trying to provide definitive evidence from a site dealing with energy research?

Just to avoid to much foolishness and to much impression of you not knowing what you are talking about QUIT INSULTING! the way you have responded - you must NOT have figured out that a LINK is something between! That was apparent by your comment "Lucy" is an Australopithecus afarensis, a species that lived about 3-4 mill years ago. We have several species from before then. (And thus spoiling the impression that you might know a little bit about what you are talking about [though the above question doesn't bode well for this] and hence not to early get dissappointed about yet another creationist arguing without a clue about the facts and data), here is a link you might want to take a look at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
And it got a nice timeline. It also got plenty of Scientific references, in case you should find yourself doubting the evidence and wanting to check them out yourself.
(PS. The actual references are linked on this page, which is a more overarching page with much more data than just a species list: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ )
Again not a dated site, but I did note that this is not a Scientifically unbiased site. n They seem to be a fundamentalist site, and per their weird focus on "Lucy" (Which seems to be where you get your focus from), they seem ignorant as well. If you check out my above links, you can in 2 minutes know alot more about this subject than they seem to.

That is the problem with using political agenda sites in search of Scientific Evidence, they tend to "filter" info according to their slant and generally are ignorant of what they are talking about.
And that is evidenced by....? certainly, the fossil data from the Leakeys alone is substantial.

But I think I know. It is something that creationists websites claim a lot. There is even a reference to this in "the most important fossils" sub link in the overarching site I mentioned above. And it certainly is in the talk.origin's link to disproved creationist claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html

Yup. A good site is the above listed one.

Also, here is a list from the Scientific, Peer-reviewed journal "Nature," regarding important papers in this area: http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/index.html

This site from Encarta is also a good overview. It is not as scientifically referenced, but it also is a bit easier to read, uses smaller words and doesn't get so nitty gritty that people get lost if they don't have familiarity with the subject.


Now, this has ONLY dealt with the speciation of the hominids. You seem to have missed the rest of the evidence for the Scientific Theory of Evolution. certainly, speciation is only a minor part of Evolution, and certainly hominids are only a small part of the biosphere. Care to talk about the nylon bug or ring species?

I would also recommend for you to, before posting to many other claims, look at this site. This deals with the many "typical" creationist claims out there and the evidence against them. Just so you won't embarrass yourself by posting something that has been disproved 50 years ago, OK?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
(f.ex. it had the above link to the claim about everything fitting in a coffin)

Or don't you really know much in this area at all, relying instead of moralistic, theocratic fervor and a smattering of creationist lie sites? The latter seems to be the case per your going on about "lucy," and would be most disappointing as it would show you just another ignorant creationists with a smattering of misleading factoids and no actual knowledge. Such people are not worth it debating with as they don't KNOW anything about what they are talking about.

WHY do you insist on questioning poster's intelligence?

That is very insulting! Can't you make a point or reiterate facts without challenging people's INTELLIGENCE?

SINCE YOU ARE SO SMART - let me teach you something SIMPLE Self professed smart people who are consistently displaying typo's start to appear rather foolish when they insist on INSULTING OTHERS! -- in the upper right side there is a little check mark with "ABC" above it - that is a mediocre tool called SPELL CHECKER - try to AT LEAST LOOK a little smarter - it might actually ad credence to your illusion of being superior to me and others like myself!
I am not going to bother responding to an insult fanatic.

Let me know when you can STOP insulting - you sound like a mindless Liberal with this senseless insulting!

 

[steen]

Now, again, what does lucy have to do with your presumed evidence against ALL of the Scientific Theory of Evolution?

Try to be a little more observant - I am of the thinking that science and Bible are saying the same thing in different ways!

I can agree with that sentiment to some extent. Science tells the HOW and the WHAT, while the Bible tells the Why. And both are woefully inadequate in each other’s territory.

This is just a bizzare claim, not to mention that it is woefully outdated if you treat "lucy" as the oldest known fossil.

It is NOT the OLDEST - it was presumed to be the ACTUAL link between monkey and man as in the one that CONNECTS the two

no, it wasn’t. It wasn’t even expected to be the one connecting humans and the closest ape ancestor, the chimp.

WHY do you insist on questioning poster's intelligence?

I don’t questing the intelligence, I question the knowledge.

in the upper right side there is a little check mark with "ABC" above it - that is a mediocre tool called SPELL CHECKER

Thanks, I didn’t know that.

Let me know when you can STOP insulting - you sound like a mindless Liberal with this senseless insulting!

Let me know when you can stop spewing ignorant falsehoods – you sound like a mindless fundie creationist with this senseless display of ignorance of science.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I can agree with that sentiment to some extent. Science tells the HOW and the WHAT, while the Bible tells the Why. And both are woefully inadequate in each other’s territory.
QUOTE]

I disagree. They compliment each other beautifully. The authors of the Bible were not men of science and had no opportunity or apparent inclination for scientific study. Their symbolism, metaphors, allegories, and poetry were all focused on one central concept: All that has ever been, is, or will ever be is out of and from God's creation.

You are correct that evolution explains some of the 'how'. And the Bible explains some of the 'why'. And there is no scientist that can show or prove that the two are mutually exclusive in any way.

The case for Intelligent Design is evident to those who believe it simply because it cannot be replicated by science. And evolution is evident to those who believe it simply because there is no better conclusion to be had based on the evidence we have. And there is nobody who can rationally argue that if one exists, the other cannot.