Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] Evolution 101

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
O

Oran_Taran

Guest
Ok, since most people don't know much about evolution, I'll explain the VERY basics of evolution. (again, this is VERY simplified, don't nag me about not mentioning sexual selection and stuff, because this is just to get things started)

First off, evolution can be defined by: the change of the frequency of genes in a population over time. (populations of organisms change over time)
It does this mainly through natural selection. Natural selection is a very simple concept to grasp:
1) Organisms have MANY more offspring than the environment can support.
2) Since there are limited resources (food, water, shelter, space), and other forces working against them (predation, etc), not all of them survive.
3) That means that there is a struggle for existance
4) No two offspring are alike, so some are more fit to survive than others.
5) Those fit enough survive and reproduce, thus passing their genes on.
6) After many generations, better genes replace less good genes.
That's it. That's evolution. Did you notice I never said anything about the origin of life? or the origin of the universe? or galaxies? the exact year humans migrated to north america? stars, moons, antimatter, etc? That's because the scientific theory of evolution does not deal with any of those. Evolution only says that populations of living organisms change over time.
Natural selection is NOT a creative process, it is an editing process. It does not create what is needed, it just replaces the good/bad by the better.
So how does new information arise? mutations. There are many types of mutations, most of which do not do anything, many which are bad, and a few which are good. There are mutations that just change existing information, others that add new information, and others that change existing DNA but which codes for nothing.
Beneficial mutations HAVE been observed many times, in organisms ranging from bacteria to humans.
Now, evolution explains a mountain of observations, of which I will make a small hill since I'm not here to teach a biology course.
Biogeography- Darwin noticed that species who live close to each other are generally more closely alike than species who live far apart. This applies even if the climate is very different.
For example, the sonoran desert and australian. The organisms in the sonoran desert are more alike to the organisms in north america, regardless of climate (say, they're like the organisms in decidious forests) than to those in australian deserts, even though both are deserts. This is because the organisms in the sonoran desert evolved from those in north america, not from those in australia.
for example, the mammals in the sonoran desert are all placental mammals. There may be rabbits, rats, and whatever else. This is in contrast to australia, where the mammals are marsupials. They may have kangaroos, and other small marsupial animals. (note that rats were introduced to australia. They're not native there)
PAST biogeography is the same way (fossils)
Evolution also explains homologies. Organisms that have common ancestors share similar DNA, proteins, and anatomy. For example, If you compare the hemoglobin (a protein) from chickens, fish, a lizard, a monkey, and a human, you will find that human hemoglobin is the closest like the monkey, then the (crap, I forgot the exact order... :tongue) then the... lizard? then the chicken, and then the fish. (again, I might have mixed up the lizard and the chicken) Same with DNA.
and as for anatomy, you'll find that since bats, whales, humans, and cats are all mammals, they have very similar bone structures in their limbs.
here, take a look at this picture- http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/160/homologous.jpg
Evolution also explains analogous structures. These are structures that superficially look similar and serve a similar purpose, but because they evolved separately they don't have the same structure. For example, bat wings and bee wings serve the same purpose (to fly), but they are VERY different structurally. A better example may be the fins of sharks and of dolphins. They serve the same purpose, and look very much alike, but structurally they are very different. The dolphin has a "hand-like" arrangement of bones, and the shark has many rays of cartillage instead.
This is because they evolved in the same environment, and therefore the pressures were the same, so they evolved similarly. But because they came from different ancestors, their structures are very different. You'll find the same with genes/proteins, the dolphin's will be more like other mammals than to the shark. And the shark will be more like other fish than to the dolphin.
Vestiges are also explained by evolution. Vestiges are things that at one point in time (in the ancestors), served a greater role than they do now. They may or may not serve a function now.
an example of an useful vestigial structure are ostrich wings. Ostriches evolved from flying birds, so they retain the same structures (wings), but they don't serve for flying anymore. Nowdays they do use them for their mating rituals, but they're still vestigial.
An example of a useless vestigial structure is the muscle that allows you to wiggle your ears. In our ancestors, they were used to orient the ears towards a sound (like in rabbits). Nowdays, most people don't even know how to wiggle their ears. Those muscles are useless.

Fossils: Fossils allow us to see the chronological order and geographical distribution of past life forms. We can see that as you go back further in time, the organisms look less and less like today's organisms. We also see many transitional fossils, which are fossils that are links between an organism's ancestor and today's organism.

Evolution also explains a wide range of many other observations, which I won't mention right now. The mechanisms of evolution have been observed, such as natural selection with guppies, HIV, the peppered moth, and many others; and evolution itself has been observed. Speciation (a population of one species becoming another species) has been observed quite a few times, with a quite a few organisms ranging from goatsbeard, mice, mosquitoes, to fruit flies and primroses.

and... I'll think I'll quit now. Like I said, there is much more to evolution than this, such as sexual selection, geographical isolation, reproductive isolation, ring species, and dozens more, but this was just to get things rolling. lol.
If you read all this, thanks! (remember I had to type it all... from scratch... no copying and pasting... ... yes, I'm just bragging now lol)
 
The only real thing I need to understand about evolution is that it is built on faulty premises and that I don't buy it for one moment.
 
is it faulty premises solely because it is contradictory to the bible?
 
peace4all said:
is it faulty premises solely because it is contradictory to the bible?
No. Not at all. I have studied through the group ICR and see that there is much that evolution does not even come close to explaining. While I do hold true to the Biblical narrative, I find evolution to be kind of a silly subject. Even the meaning of evolution keeps evolving. Today evolutionists try and steer away from the long held belief that we came from monkey's but this nonetheless was a part of the evolution of evolution.
 
Lyric's Dad said:
No. Not at all. I have studied through the group ICR and see that there is much that evolution does not even come close to explaining.

Gravity doesn't explain everything too, should that be thrown out?

Lyric's Dad said:
While I do hold true to the Biblical narrative, I find evolution to be kind of a silly subject. Even the meaning of evolution keeps evolving.

The meaning keeps changing? There's evolution, the word, which is change. Then there's Evolution, the fact, which is the change in alleles in a population over time, and there's the Theory of Evolution, which encompasses(As Oran stated) natural selection, common ancestry, sexual selection, etc.

Lyric's Dad said:
Today evolutionists try and steer away from the long held belief that we came from monkey's but this nonetheless was a part of the evolution of evolution.

I'm sorry, no. We try and steer away from the all-too-common misconception that we come from modern-day monkeys, which is not what common ancestry is. It's just that, we share a common ancestor, not "monkeys".

The "foundation" of evolution is that alleles in a population will change over time, I was not aware that there's a genetic barrier that stops this. Perhaps you could point me to a peer-reviewed article where this discovery was introduced?
 
Charlie Hatchett said:
Wow...long post...I haven't read it yet, and probably won't unless you provide

your credentials. I not really interested in a layman's opinion.

Peace

Should we apply this to everything you say? No, we shouldn't. And that really wasn't an opinion, though they were most certainly present, it was mostly an explanation. Please show where he went wrong, or just ignore it completely.
 
Should we apply this to everything you say? No, we shouldn't. And that really wasn't an opinion, though they were most certainly present, it was mostly an explanation. Please show where he went wrong, or just ignore it completely.

He is trying to teach us basic Evolution Theory, which 99.9% of us have been

taught since at least high school biology by leading scientists' writings.

Why would I want to read a laymans teachings...especially when it purports

to show the ignorance of ID types?

I'm sorry, no. We try and steer away from the all-too-common misconception that we come from modern-day monkeys, which is not what common ancestry is. It's just that, we share a common ancestor, not "monkeys".

I agree. I think this is where alot of the confusion between adherents of

Evolution and ID come into play. ID types DO believe in natural selection,

and the culling out of the most beneficial traits for the particular

environment in which an isolated population exists. This is how the

different races of humans came to exist, different cats, different

dogs...etc...The difference is, ID types believe the whole genetic "package"

existed in the original stock of each species. This culling has resulted in a

loss of information, not an increase.

Peace Grengor and sorry if I insulted you...that was not my intention.

You appear to be a very fair minded, respectful individual.

It just appeared that Oran was attempting to insult ID types by assuming

we're not aware of the basic tenants of ToE. Most ID types were thoroughly

indoctrinated with ToE in high school, college and our post graduate

studies and, despite popular pressure, have challenged the

assumptions of ToE.

The following dialogue occured just prior to Oran making his "Evolution 101"

post:


So according to your logic, the Second Law does'nt apply to anything...come on...do you really buy that?

The only instance where the Second Law does'nt apply is where energy is

available and there's a set of intructions to guide the energy into useful

work. Even then, the reversal of entropy is temporary.



What the hell does that have to do with evolution? evolution says N-O-T-H-I-N-G about creating matter.
Did you mean the big bang? No wonder. You don't even know what evolution is. Tell you what, go find out what evolution really is and THEN start talking about it. OK?


Wow...pretty arrogant there Oran...you must have some very high

credentials to dispense statements like that. Do you hold a Phd in biology

or archeology or something of the like?

Give us your actual field experience working with applied evolution. My

guess is your still a student parroting his professors...am I right?

If I'm wrong, then I apologize...but your statements mimic a evolution

textbook.



Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This has been dealt with many, many times, so I will not go down that road. I would be surprised if any credentialled scientist, even a Christian one, would agree with this claim. It is simply not true.

Please, fellow Christians, become scientifically literate!!!



Quote:
There is one consideration, however, which goes well beyond the implications of the above difficulties. Not only is there no evidence that evolution ever has taken place, but there is also firm evidence that evolution never could take place. The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.... It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order.Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how...By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant.


Henry Morris, Ph.D.





Peace
 
Wow...long post...I haven't read it yet, and probably won't unless you provide your credentials. I not really interested in a layman's opinion.
Speaking of credentials,
Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Ph.D. in what? I searched and it says he got "a master's degree in hydraulics in 1948 and a PhD in hydraulic engineering"... Well gee, he knows EVERYTHING about the laws of thermodynamics, biology, and evolution doesn't he.
And what are YOUR credentials anyway? archeology? Has nothing to do with thermodynamics, biology, or evolution.
there is much that evolution does not even come close to explaining.
Like what?
It just appeared that Oran was attempting to insult ID types by assuming we're not aware of the basic tenants of ToE
I said most people aren't. Do you mean they do?
You yourself implied that evolution has something to do with the creation of matter. That is obviously wrong, showing you don't understand the basics of evolution.
Wow...pretty arrogant there Oran...you must have some very high
credentials to dispense statements like that. Do you hold a Phd in biology
or archeology or something of the like?
Give us your actual field experience working with applied evolution. My guess is your still a student parroting his professors...am I right? If I'm wrong, then I apologize...but your statements mimic a evolution
textbook.
That paragraph is pretty arrogant itself.
What are your credentials?
 
Okay, let's look at two points in evolutionary history. Point one is a billion and a half years ago. The only life is a protean sludge floating about in the prehistoric oceans. A bunch of one-celled, primitive creatures float about, accidentally running into food, which they then instinctively eat and digest.

Point two is today. We have millions of separate species, each one expertly tailored to interact with its specific environment. These beings are largely complex, intelligent (at least as compared with the aforementioned protean sludge), and well suited for life on Earth.

The level of information encoded within the beings of the first point in time is very small. Heck, if we go back far enough, "life" apparently consisted of a single type of one-celled creature - the level of information present in that system was minute.

The level of information encoded within the biosphere of today, though, is immense. There is a massive amount of detail embedded in the many critters running about.

Now, in our experience, when information is added to a system, it's added from somewhere. In our experience, it's invariably from somewhere intelligent. When I see an Excel spreadsheet that has grown, I know that there was a person somewhere who added that extra information. I don't assume that the spreadsheet just acquired the extra information on its own.

Now, where did all of this organized information that we see in modern creatures come from? While I recognize that the law of entropy applies to physical phenomena and not metaphysical, it seems that there must be some analogous law that would prevent a system from just acquiring massive organization and information on its lonesome.
 
By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant.
Strange way to state that there is a obvious reason why the second law arguement doesn't work against evolution. Wonder why he attacks using the second law arguement in one breath then answers his own debate in the next?
 
Strange way to state that there is a obvious reason why the second law arguement doesn't work against evolution. Wonder why he attacks using the second law arguement in one breath then answers his own debate in the next?
Well, he's a PhD after all.
Now, where did all of this organized information that we see in modern creatures come from?
Mutations in DNA. There are many ways information is added. Some mutations add small pieces of a chromosome into another chromosome during meiosis, so that one gamete has extra DNA (yeah, the other one has less, but that's irrelevant). Sometimes even whole chromosomes are added... that's mostly bad, but sometimes it's neutral (Personally I've never heard of an extra chromosome being GOOD). Sometimes entire genomes are replicated (polyploidy) and that has a higher chance of being neutral, especially in plants. In animals it's bad for the most part, although there are some polyploid animals out there. There's a kangaroo rat from south america that has 4 copies of each chromosome.
Information can also be added through transposons, viruses, and many other ways.
After there is new DNA, more mutations can cause beneficial mutations. And as I've already said (and given examples), there are many examples of beneficial mutations occuring naturally.
Now, in our experience, when information is added to a system, it's added from somewhere. In our experience, it's invariably from somewhere intelligent.
evolution is just trial and error... what works stays, what doesn't dies. The vast majority of things don't work, so they die. There's no intelligence needed for trial and error.
While I recognize that the law of entropy applies to physical phenomena and not metaphysical, it seems that there must be some analogous law that would prevent a system from just acquiring massive organization and information on its lonesome.
Well, remember that we are talking about BILLIONS of years (in your example). Personally I can't comprehend such big numbers. If you think about it, most animals reproduce a couple of times a year right? now multiplly that not by decades, not my a hundred years, not by a thousand years, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, and if your dates are right, not by a billion years, but by a billion and a half years. That's a LOOONG time and a LOT of generations.
ok, one last point:
We have millions of separate species, each one expertly tailored to interact with its specific environment.
There IS a lot of room for improvement, but yeah they're very well adapted.
And also note that the vast majority of those separate species are things that reproduce like wildfire. I don't know how much percent of the total number of species out there are invertebrates, but 97% of all animals are invertebrates. They and bacteria, protists, fungi, and most plants reproduce very quickly. They have hundreds of eggs, spores, seeds, and cell divisions (in single cells).
With all those trials, over such a long period of time, with pressures from natural selection, adding of information, etc; it's easy to see how in 1.5 BILLION YEARS, such complexity can arise.
OH! also note that most species have many populations. Each of those populations can potentially give rise to a new species, and that's how so many species can arise.
 
What the hell does that have to do with evolution? evolution says N-O-T-H-I-N-G about creating matter.
Did you mean the big bang? No wonder. You don't even know what evolution is. Tell you what, go find out what evolution really is and THEN start talking about it. OK?



Wow...pretty arrogant there Oran...you must have some very high
credentials to dispense statements like that. Do you hold a Phd in biology
or archeology or something of the like?
Give us your actual field experience working with applied evolution. My guess is your still a student parroting his professors...am I right? If I'm wrong, then I apologize...but your statements mimic a evolution
textbook.

Ph.D. in what? I searched and it says he got "a master's degree in hydraulics in 1948 and a PhD in hydraulic engineering"... Well gee, he knows EVERYTHING about the laws of thermodynamics, biology, and evolution doesn't he.
And what are YOUR credentials anyway? archeology? Has nothing to do with thermodynamics, biology, or evolution.


Strange way to state that there is a obvious reason why the second law arguement doesn't work against evolution. Wonder why he attacks using the second law arguement in one breath then answers his own debate in the next?

Well, he's a PhD after all.


You yourself implied that evolution has something to do with the creation of matter. That is obviously wrong, showing you don't understand the basics of evolution.


That paragraph is pretty arrogant itself.
What are your credentials?



I'm not the one insulting others...I need no credentials to state your being

arrogant. It self apparant.

I'll address the other's issues, but with you sir, I'm done.

Best Wishes
 
Define "information".

And that's one hell of an assertion to claim that the genes were always there, do you back the claim that no "information" can be added through mutation?

It's not an outrageous claim if you believe in special creation versus evolution.

A mutation always results in a net loss of information. That's one of the

weakest links in the evolution argument...mutations supposedly are the

mechanism by which organization and therefore information increase.

Information:


in·for·ma·tion (ĭn'fər-mā'shən) pronunciation
n.

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.

http://www.answers.com/information

Notice all the definitions imply intelligence.


"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it."

Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University


Peace
 
It's not an outrageous claim if you believe in special creation versus evolution.

A mutation always results in a net loss of information. That's one of the

weakest links in the evolution argument...mutations supposedly are the

mechanism by which organization and therefore information increase.

Information:
see what I mean by you ignoring posts? here's what I had said:
Mutations in DNA. There are many ways information is added. Some mutations add small pieces of a chromosome into another chromosome during meiosis, so that one gamete has extra DNA (yeah, the other one has less, but that's irrelevant). Sometimes even whole chromosomes are added... that's mostly bad, but sometimes it's neutral (Personally I've never heard of an extra chromosome being GOOD). Sometimes entire genomes are replicated (polyploidy) and that has a higher chance of being neutral, especially in plants. In animals it's bad for the most part, although there are some polyploid animals out there. There's a kangaroo rat from south america that has 4 copies of each chromosome.
Information can also be added through transposons, viruses, and many other ways.
After there is new DNA, more mutations can cause beneficial mutations. And as I've already said (and given examples), there are many examples of beneficial mutations occuring naturally.
...
...
another definition of information:
: FACTS, DATA b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct

by the merriam webster. Doesn't imply intelligence.
DNA is just a chemical that interacts with other chemicals. Those other chemicals interact with others and so on, and the cell functions.

... and if you don't believe what I say, search. By searching transposons and other key words, you can find sites that tell you how they add information.
 
Charlie Hatchett said:
What the hell does that have to do with evolution? evolution says N-O-T-H-I-N-G about creating matter.
Did you mean the big bang? No wonder. You don't even know what evolution is. Tell you what, go find out what evolution really is and THEN start talking about it. OK?



Wow...pretty arrogant there Oran...you must have some very high
credentials to dispense statements like that. Do you hold a Phd in biology
or archeology or something of the like?

Well, he's right. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, or with abiogenesis. It's entirely possible to suppose an old universe that began with a Big Bang, but in which evolution doesn't occur. Evolution also says nothing about creating matter - it's entirely consistent with the idea that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. (Well, as long as the universe doesn't notice, such as with virtual particle/anti-particle creation. :) )

[quote:84b22]Ph.D. in what? I searched and it says he got "a master's degree in hydraulics in 1948 and a PhD in hydraulic engineering"... Well gee, he knows EVERYTHING about the laws of thermodynamics, biology, and evolution doesn't he.
And what are YOUR credentials anyway? archeology? Has nothing to do with thermodynamics, biology, or evolution.

Strange way to state that there is a obvious reason why the second law arguement doesn't work against evolution. Wonder why he attacks using the second law arguement in one breath then answers his own debate in the next?[/quote:84b22]

Hey, I have a Masters in engineering. I guess I'm qualified to speak on the topic, too. :)

Anyway, the Second Law argument doesn't work. The Second Law references only closed systems. The Earth isn't a closed system, because it constantly absorbs radiation by the sun. Even if evolution resulted in a local decrease in entropy on Earth, it would be balanced by the tremendous increase in entropy as a result of the sun's burning of fuel.

Which isn't to say I buy evolution, only that it can't be refuted on Second Law grounds.
 
Anyway, the Second Law argument doesn't work. The Second Law references only closed systems. The Earth isn't a closed system, because it constantly absorbs radiation by the sun. Even if evolution resulted in a local decrease in entropy on Earth, it would be balanced by the tremendous increase in entropy as a result of the sun's burning of fuel.

Which isn't to say I buy evolution, only that it can't be refuted on Second Law grounds.


I think it can be refuted based on the Second Law.



There's actually alot of experts in information theory that believe that

evolution and entropy are at odds:



"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.The problem with the NDT is not natural selectionâ€â€this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information."


Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University

With a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, Spetner taught information and

communication theory for years at Johns Hopkins University.

He accepted a fellowship in biophysics at that institution, where he worked

on solving problems in signal/noise relationships in DNA electron

micrographs. He subsequently became fascinated with evolutionary theory,

and published papers concerning theoretical and mathematical biology in

prestigious journals such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Nature, and

the Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Biophysics.He's got a

good read out called "Not by Chance"...

Peace
 
Charlie Hatchett said:
I think it can be refuted based on the Second Law.

Well then, you're wrong.

There's actually alot of experts in information theory that believe that

evolution and entropy are at odds:

...and so are they. The Second Law deals with the change of energy from usable to less usable forms. It deals with physical phenomenon involving heat transfer. Moreover, as I stated before, it requires a closed system. You can decrease the entropy on Earth all the live-long day and not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Here, read this. When you understand it completely, we can begin to have a useful discourse on entropy.
 
Charlie, you do realize that some people are just stupid? no matter how many degrees they have, people can still be wrong. Now, you could take the word of .001% of scientists who know anything about the second law, yet have biases, agendas, logic problems, schizophrenia, whatever it is, or you could take the word of 99.99% of experts, not to mention what the actual law itself states. Your choice, but also remember the old proverb:
"Repeating a lie, doesn't make that lie true."
 
Back
Top