The Evolution of Haltickling

[omega]

Hal,

Here is the new thread.

Yes I am a creationist.

No I do not believe that God created the world 4,000 years ago.
(Sidebar: Most creationist believe that it was somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 years ago)

I believe that God created the world many millions of years ago. And I could even believe that God has used evolution to some extent. But to believe this I would need proof. So far much of what evolutionists have held up for proof has been shot down. Consider Piltdown Man, the evolving horses, the evolving monkeys. All of them shown to be either frauds or questionable because of the lack of evidence. If indeed evolution is working to bring about a whole new species from another. Then where is the proof? Name me one species that is on earth today but was not here 200 years ago.

Finally, show me the missing links. And why are there no link species alive today? It is very convient for the evolutionists that all of the supposed link speicies are now extinct. Then the evolutionists can find fragments of bones from already known species and say, "Look, proof of a missing link."

 

[qjakal]

Some thoughts....

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Q

 

[Haltickling]

Omega, please prepare for a lengthy reply, as you’re touching a complicated issue. I’ll try to make it as legible and interesting as possible.

I won’t pretend that science has clarified all aspects of evolution, nor that I understand them all. Science’s approach to the variety of life forms (past and present) is still a theory. We don’t have irrefutable proof, as there are no eyewitnesses, but we have a lot of circumstantial evidence.

The strongest evidence lies in our own DNA. It’s the same basic structure of four substances ordered in a double helix, in whatever living being. The stronger the similarities in this DNA are, the more related we are. Human genetic material is about 90% identical to pigs, 99% to chimpanzees. We’re related to fish, reptiles, mammals. That much is undisputed by science.

A further piece of evidence is the human embryo. During our growth in our mother’s womb, we went through a lot of intermediate stadiums of life: After the monocellular stage, we develop gills like fish, then lungs and a tail like amphibious creatures, and the last embryonic stage of primates is almost indiscernible from human embryos; even the babies look very much alike. Again, this is undisputed by science.

In fact, the ‘Missing Link’ theory is a bit outdated since the DNA proves the connection much more logically. Besides, the mere necessity of such a link is highly doubted by science in the meantime, as mutations (according to nowadays’ knowledge) are well able to cover the gap in one jump. The Australopithecus, for example, is apelike enough to be closely related to a common ancestor. We have proof for the different stages of human development, like the Neanderthal and the Cro Magnon.

The fact that all earlier stages have become extinct in the meantime has nothing to do with convenience, it’s not even incidental, because it’s logical: All intermediate stages were necessarily followed by more successful later forms which claimed the same space of living. Other primates like the chimps survived because they stuck to the trees as habitats, and thus were no direct competitors of the human race.

If you wonder why no relics from ‘Missing Links’ are found, please take into account how many lucky circumstances it took for a dinosaur or meganodon skeleton to get preserved for several millions of years, and the enormous number of past living beings. Approximately one of a billion animals (probably much fewer) died in a swamp which dried out shortly thereafter and never became neither swampland nor surface again, so the bones could get petrified. How can you expect some intermediate species to exist long enough to leave substantial traces?

Furthermore, you should consider the enormous time spans in which this all happened. If you compare the whole history of our planet with a day, humans didn’t appear on the stage until 23:55 h! Life truly had a lot of time to develop.

You want me to name one new species that followed the rule of evolution during the last 200 years? Easy. It’s a small butterfly called ‘birch-spinner’ (I don’t know whether that’s the correct name in English). This animal lives on the bark of birch-trees and was usually white. But the birches became dark gray in the late 19th/early 20th century, as a result of industrial pollution, especially in the British Midlands. Suddenly biologists find a new, dark-gray variety of this moth in exactly these heavily polluted areas. Mind you, they were BORN that color, they weren’t just dusty. Such a species had never been observed before, it was new.

Most probably there was a small number of gray spinners every year, but they were found easily on the white birch bark by birds, and eaten before they could procreate. But slowly the bark became darker (generation-wise), and the white moths were more easy to catch, while the gray ones could pass on their genes to the next generation. That’s how evolution works; I think it’s a beautiful logic.

All of the above is sound science, ready to be verified by anybody who knows basic scientific tools like the C14 method or DNA analysis. Every piece of the mosaic explains the next one. Still, it’s a theory, but a viable and most probable one, whereas the existence of a supernatural being strongly denies any logic if you make it responsible for the creation of species. It interrupts a logical chain quite unnecessarily. If there is a place for God, it’s at the Big Bang itself. He created all matter in the design that allows all later stages to follow neatly.

I don’t know whether you’re familiar with Occam’s razor: It’s a scientific principle that let us cut out all parts of a theory which can’t be observed scientifically (as in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle). We can’t observe divine interference in our world, we have no evidence for it. So we leave it out of science. We don’t deny the possibility of God’s existence, as we can neither prove nor disprove it.

But the same applies to you. You can’t prove that God exists. It’s a mystical quantity, up to personal faith. Scientists don’t tamper with God or your belief, in fact many scientists are firm believers. But the Christian church constantly tries to mess with science and logic. Why?

PS: The whole theory of creationism is a typically American one. You'll hardly find any European who seriously doubts evolution.

 

[Biggles of 266]

Hal, like I said in another thread, some religious people think that the whole DNA carbon dating thing is just a big sham designed to fool people and trick them away from God. Yes, every scientist on earth is playing a giant party trick just for your benefit.

My biology teacher in high school was a Christian, and she believed in evolution. Her theory was that the universe was created with a snap of God's fingers (like a Big Bang of sorts ) and then He just left everything to their own devices. We evolved, and so be it.

The JW's believe that fossilised skeletons are gifts from God for us to discover, and that the entire world is run by Satan to test us.

Biggles

 

[omega]

Omega, please prepare for a lengthy reply, as you’re touching a complicated issue. I’ll try to make it as legible and interesting as possible.

I won’t pretend that science has clarified all aspects of evolution, nor that I understand them all. Science’s approach to the variety of life forms (past and present) is still a theory. We don’t have irrefutable proof, as there are no eyewitnesses, but we have a lot of circumstantial evidence.
The strongest evidence lies in our own DNA. It’s the same basic structure of four substances ordered in a double helix, in whatever living being. The stronger the similarities in this DNA are, the more related we are. Human genetic material is about 90% identical to pigs, 99% to chimpanzees. We’re related to fish, reptiles, mammals. That much is undisputed by science.

The similarity of our DNA's would be for me a sign that humans and all of the animals come from the same creator.

Hal wrote:
"A further piece of evidence is the human embryo. During our growth in our mother’s womb, we went through a lot of intermediate stadiums of life: After the monocellular stage, we develop gills like fish, then lungs and a tail like amphibious creatures, and the last embryonic stage of primates is almost indiscernible from human embryos; even the babies look very much alike. Again, this is undisputed by science."

It is my understanding that ultrasound technology is showing that this is not really true. From the very earliest stages the embryo looks and acts very human. Perhaps the new 4D ultrasound technology will give us the best pictures to settle this.

Hal wrote:
"You want me to name one new species that followed the rule of evolution during the last 200 years? Easy. It’s a small butterfly called ‘birch-spinner’ (I don’t know whether that’s the correct name in English). This animal lives on the bark of birch-trees and was usually white. But the birches became dark gray in the late 19th/early 20th century, as a result of industrial pollution, especially in the British Midlands. Suddenly biologists find a new, dark-gray variety of this moth in exactly these heavily polluted areas. Mind you, they were BORN that color, they weren’t just dusty. Such a species had never been observed before, it was new."

I don't understand how a change in color is a new species. It is still the same butterfly species just a different color. Like the difference between a Black Lab, Chocolate Lab and Golden Lab.

Hal wrote:
"All of the above is sound science, ready to be verified by anybody who knows basic scientific tools like the C14 method or DNA analysis. Every piece of the mosaic explains the next one. Still, it’s a theory, but a viable and most probable one, whereas the existence of a supernatural being strongly denies any logic if you make it responsible for the creation of species. It interrupts a logical chain quite unnecessarily. If there is a place for God, it’s at the Big Bang itself. He created all matter in the design that allows all later stages to follow neatly."

I don't understand how evolution is a logical chain when most of it is described as chance. It all seems to depend upon accidental mutations that just happen to work to some advantage for the mutant. I still think it is like saying a print shop blew up and when all the letters landed on the street they accidently came down in an order so as to write the Gettysburg Address. What if I told you that the house I live in is here because a lumber yard blew up and all the lumber landed in such perfect order so as to form the house I live in. You would call me crazy. And you would be correct. My house was built by builders/creators. Why when we look at the universe and planet earth do people suddenly say, Oh! It's all here because of a long series of accidental Big Bangs and Mutations.

Hal wrote:
"PS: The whole theory of creationism is a typically American one. You'll hardly find any European who seriously doubts evolution."

I know Christians in America and Europe who would say that is because Europeans have left the faith and become pagans.

 

[Strelnikov]

Sidebar on Evolution

In layman's terms, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the level of randomness and disorder in the Universe increases over time. Creationists sometimes misinterpret this to "prove" that evolution is impossible, because the evolution of lower life forms (amoebas, football players, etc.) into higher forms would violate the Second Law.

Here's where their argument fails. The Second Law applies to closed systems. But we aren't looking at the Universe when we talk about evolution. We're looking at Planet Earth, which is an open system in steady state equilibrium, something very different. A local increase in order does not violate the Second Law, because it is cancelled out by increased disorder elsewhere.

Strelnikov

 

[kurchatovium]

The magazine "Scientific American" has an article that debunks all the creationist myths. Read the article if you believe in creationism.

"PS: The whole theory of creationism is a typically American one. You'll hardly find any European who seriously doubts evolution."

Are you saying that no one in Europe has any beliefs like creationism. I don't buy that. You are a smart guy Hal dump the Antiamerican rederick it doesn't fit.

 

[Haltickling]

omega

Omega, let me tackle your arguments one by one:

The similarity of our DNA's would be for me a sign that humans and all of the animals come from the same creator.

It’s a sign that all nature on Earth developed the same way, following the same laws of nature. Not more, not less. If you wish to introduce a creator, he’d be at the very beginning of the universe, where he designed the laws of nature after which it could develop that way. That would be a real act of creation, not the petty, shortsighted meddling with single life forms.

It is my understanding that ultrasound technology is showing that this is not really true. From the very earliest stages the embryo looks and acts very human. Perhaps the new 4D ultrasound technology will give us the best pictures to settle this.

You’re right, sonographic pics are quite blurry, that’s why it can only be applied when the embryo is big enough to be visible. The intermediate stages happen when the embryo is about 2-3 millimeters long, much too small to be seen clearly on sonographic pics.

So how do we know about these stages? Small glass fiber cameras were inserted into the female womb, and the results are very clear digital real-time films and pics that can be watched through a microscope. The method is called ‘minimal-invasive endoscopy’ and pretty much standard equipment in good hospitals. There must be pictures of such embryos on the net, but I suck at working search-machines. Maybe one of the computer cracks in the forum could help me to find some as proof. That is, if you accept pics as proof, omega, which I’m beginning to doubt.

I don't understand how a change in color is a new species. It is still the same butterfly species just a different color. Like the difference between a Black Lab, Chocolate Lab and Golden Lab.

Okay, it’s a new sub-species. But that only happened 100 years ago, while evolution is measured in hundreds of thousands, even millions of years. And to get a different color, a minor change in the DNA must have happened, so it proves the mutation theory (unless you call this ‘divine intervention’ as well). The selection is pretty well proven by the many species that have gone forever because humans extinct them. Other species have adapted to live in big cities (rats, many birds, even monkeys in India and South Africa, snakes, and most of all: insects). They show certain physiological differences to their relations who still live in the wilderness, again by extremely small mutations over hundreds of generations. Even changes in behavior belong to the mutation/adaptation/selection principle, as they can change from generation to generation.

Besides, the human race has changed pretty much during the last 500 years. We grow taller, have less body hair, and we become twice as old as a medieval human. Yes, we have better medicine and less famine now, but that’s part of our evolution as well. Which brings us neatly to the next point:

I don't understand how evolution is a logical chain when most of it is described as chance. It all seems to depend upon accidental mutations that just happen to work to some advantage for the mutant. I still think it is like saying a print shop blew up and when all the letters landed on the street they accidently came down in an order so as to write the Gettysburg Address. What if I told you that the house I live in is here because a lumber yard blew up and all the lumber landed in such perfect order so as to form the house I live in. You would call me crazy. And you would be correct. My house was built by builders/creators. Why when we look at the universe and planet earth do people suddenly say, Oh! It's all here because of a long series of accidental Big Bangs and Mutations.

Here we have the key to your misunderstanding of evolution, I think. You don’t understand how it works. Let’s stick to your ‘house’ example for a moment:

Certainly your house is a product of evolution over several ten thousand years. At first, humans slept in caves, or in the open. Then they developed small huts made of big tree branches, later came rough-hewn wood, then stone walls, brick, concrete. The materials and work methods were constantly refined over the centuries, and each generation passed on their knowledge and experience to the next generation. That’s exactly how evolution works, each generation starts out on the fundaments of the previous generation. They don’t have to live through all the stages from branch hut to modern house, they can concentrate on improving the modern house. You’re living in a product of evolution.

Modern technology is often developed that way, following the mutation/selection principle. One example: A crew of engineers had to construe a tube for a pipeline which bends at a 90 degree angle. The normal thing would be to develop a slightly rounded L-shape, isn’t it? But the engineers tackled the problem like evolution would: They fixated the beginning and the end of the bent tube in a model, and they attached metal rings at ten different spots along the line. Each of the rings could be fixed in ten different positions, and a computer was programmed to produce a random combination of positions, but to change them one by one. The flexible tube was bent to odd shapes by that, and they measured the streaming speed for each combination.

If the new speed was higher than in the previous combination, then a different ring was re-positioned. If the oil came out slower than before, the computer changed the position of the same ring once more, again at a random rate. The end result was not a rounded L-shape, but an S-shaped bend which produced much less resistance to the flowing oil. That’s how evolution works, and that method is used by technicians all over the world. The best-known technical improvement achieved that way were the winglets at the tips of jet wings. They reduced fuel consumption by about 3%, which adds up to a lot of money for the airlines.

Evolution is not a random change from the very beginning each time. It’s a sum of small changes, based on the previous structures, and controlled only by the result. Sometimes, it takes millions of years to achieve a better result, sometimes only one or two generations. The less well adaptive version vanishes again, while the better model survives and becomes the base for future improvements. That’s why your example of the blown-up print shop or lumber yard doesn’t hold.

Oh, and there was not an interminable number of Big Bangs, only one at the very beginning of the universe. That’s where you should see God, if you believe he is omnipotent, because that’s where he designed the laws of nature, including evolution.

That’s about as much as I can tell you about evolution. If you prefer to ignore all that evidence, to negate science as a whole, please yourself. I know I can’t convince a religious fundamentalist who doesn’t accept scientific proof for scientific methods. Just ask yourself one thing: Do you really want proof? Personally, I don’t think so.

I’ll address your last point in my following post to kurchatovium, as he raised similar objections.

 

[Haltickling]

kurchatovium

Are you saying that no one in Europe has any beliefs like creationism. I don't buy that. You are a smart guy Hal dump the Antiamerican rederick it doesn't fit.

Sorry, kurchatovium, but that's the way it is. If you told the creationist theory to any half-educated European, he'll look at you as if you just had claimed that the Earth is flat. All schools teach evolution as the current scientific state of art, and if creationism is ever mentioned, it's done in a historic context, as this theory became outdated in the 19th century.

The only circles who still believe that Nature was created several thousand years ago are Jehovah's witnesses (as Biggles observed rightly), and other small religious sects. There is no Creationist Movement here in Europe, and that's nothing to do with anti-Americanism.

 

[kurchatovium]

The point I was making Hal is it is hardly fair to judge everyone in our country by the thoughts of a few. I don't know what you think goes on in most schools in the US but when I was taught creationism was not mentioned. Anyone I ever talked too that I know was not taught any creationism. I'm certain the number of schools that even mention this are quite rare. I'm also certain their are a lot of whacko's in europe with various crazy ideals but I don't pretend to judge everyone in europe by those few people. So there may or may not be a Creationist movemment there in Europe but I'm certain there are other movements just as crazy or odd. I however would not presume to insult everyone in Europe by making any vast generalizations.

The above being said I would say that all of your arguments regarding evolution are right on the money. Generally almost everyone in the scientific community regards evolution as a fact. Thats why I mentioned the Scientific American article that debunked most of the creationist arguments quite well. I would also commend you on your patience in explaining all of this to others.

 

[Raya]

Although I wonder if I should be jumping in on an entirely too intellectual conversation here, I was wondering if anyone in this thread had read (or seen, as it's been made into a movie, twice now) "Inherit the Wind"? During my teenage struggle to reconcile the science I was taught in school and the religious teachings I was taught on Sunday, I did a lot of searching for answers (including attending church or whatever with any of my non-catholic friends to see if their teachings made any more sense).

It finally took a 10th grade reading assignment to give some of those answers, or at least alleviate the "I've been lied to" mentality I carried with me wherever I went. Although highly dramatized, Clarence Darrow's closing arguments in the Scopes Monkey Trial were an attempt to tell the creationists and the evolutionists that both viewpoints could be correct. .. days are based on sun and earth and moon, yet they weren't created until 3 days in.. so was it in fact our concept of days or God's that the bible speaks of. God's day could be a thousand, million, or even a billion years, easily allowing for evolution to have been a tool of God, not an argument against the existence of God or creationism.

 

[Haltickling]

kurchatovium, I didn't mean to insinuate that the whole USA consists of creationists; I just observed that the biggest concentration of creationists (and the biggest influence) occurs in the USA, much more than in Europe. And: thanks for your evolutionary support!

Omega, you're using an old discussion tactics to digress to another aspect when you're unable to disprove the previous arguments. It took me the best of two hours to formulate my previous reply, and you don't even bother to address it. That's not the way I discuss difficult issues.

There would be a lot to say about that article you copied here. I won't, as it seems you're simply not willing to understand evolution, so every further discussion in this style is a waste of my time. I'm not even able to evaluate the source, as the given URL doesn't work. Choose other victims for your proselytizing.

Tracy, sorry, I don't know that book or movie. It sounds interesting.

 

[qjakal]

Neutrality

In general I think Anne has the right viewpoint, because there can't be a definitive "answer" to a question of this complexity. BUT, I do disagree with this statement:

"Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code."

Completely inadequate. Regardless of your view on creationism vs evolution, this one just violates common sense. Most mutations that persist must have some viability or application to their environment, otherwise you're postulating sheer chaos as the defining element of the universe. The rest of the material also contains assumptions that are not verifiable, but are thrown out as facts rather than conjecture, so it's not the best source to use to represent the creationist viewpoint. The lines of reasoning on this topic have been drawn and redrawn as technology advances the scope of our knowledge. The odd thing is, that although we discover more and more about the mechanics of our world, it still seems we move further away from an answer....the intricate relationships and complexity we uncover do seem too perfect to be the result of pure random evolution. At the same time evolution presents itself as a logical viewpoint that is within our grasp as a species to be used as a tool to manipulate our environment. Genetically enhanced foods have been engineered, and obviously as we near perfection of cloning techniques we gain the ability to 'evolve" organisms ourselves.

Big topic... Q

 

[kurchatovium]

No problem Hal. You have an excellent command of science I've noticed. If its possible you should really consider teaching.

 

[omega]

Omega, you're using an old discussion tactics to digress to another aspect when you're unable to disprove the previous arguments. It took me the best of two hours to formulate my previous reply, and you don't even bother to address it. That's not the way I discuss difficult issues.

There would be a lot to say about that article you copied here. I won't, as it seems you're simply not willing to understand evolution, so every further discussion in this style is a waste of my time. I'm not even able to evaluate the source, as the given URL doesn't work. Choose other victims for your proselytizing.

My post of the long article was a big mistake. Since it offended you I deleted it. Please accept my apologies.

I am not unwilling to understand evotution. I do want to understand evolution. You seem to be a very educated and thoughtful person and I would hope that we can continue this teaching/learning experience. Since I do not personally know you I have no ill will toward you and neither do I have any personal agenda for you. I am not trying to proselytize you.

 

[Haltickling]

My post of the long article was a big mistake. Since it offended you I deleted it. Please accept my apologies.

I am not unwilling to understand evotution. I do want to understand evolution. You seem to be a very educated and thoughtful person and I would hope that we can continue this teaching/learning experience. Since I do not personally know you I have no ill will toward you and neither do I have any personal agenda for you. I am not trying to proselytize you.

I’m glad that you realized that the now removed article was counter-productive at this stage of our discussion. An apology is unnecessary, as you didn’t insult me. And I take back my accusation of proselytizing; the article caused that impression.

We may certainly go on with our discussion if it’s done in the usual thesis-/antithesis procedure, referring to each other’s arguments. I’ve just got to warn you that I’m no scientist myself, so although I may not be able to explain everything (even full-blown academics can’t), this does not automatically affect the validity of a generally accepted scientific theory. I’m only a self educated layman without any university degree who is very interested in cosmological questions, no matter which sciences or philosophies are involved.

BTW, kurchatovium: this lack of university education excludes me from any job as a teacher, as much as I regret it. But thanks for the flowers anyway…

 

[kurchatovium]

I was afraid of something like that Hal. Its too bad you would make a great teacher.

 

[THE THREAD]

I think everything evolves even me. I can feel close to changing again.