Science vs. Creationism

[LogGrad98]

If you're talking evolution, than that's easy. Document the gene frequencies of any population. Wait 'til the next generation, document the gene frequencies. The change is evolution.

If you're talking the beginning of life, abiogenesis, than that's an entirely different concept altogether.

Talking about both. Documenting it is different than recreating it.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Talking about both. Documenting it is different than recreating it.

Define "recreate." Evolution defined is the change in gene frequencies in a population over time. Create a population and gene frequencies will change over time. It's more work to KEEP gene frequencies from changing, a general impossibility among non asexual reproducing organisms.

If you're recreating the same change in gene frequencies in a population over time, I'd find that difficult as well as there's no real way to narrow the variables to one.

 

[LogGrad98]

How about abiogenesis then?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

How about abiogenesis then?

No clue. Different field. I think I read once about creating some amino acids, but I know very little about that.

 

[PearlWatson]

Question: can we recreate evolution in a lab? Are the mechanics of evolution well-enough understood that we can reproduce it? Have we created life through evolutionary means? Seriously just curious. I have read about experiments with what we think the early "soup" looked like and then shocked it with fake lightning and were able to jolt together the beginnings of protein structures, but far from something that would then move to the next step and start reproducing. How close are we to being able to recreate life in the laboratory or cause something to evolve artificially (and not by purposefully meddling with genetics, which is more like creative design than evolution).

Don't let duck screw around with you by describing the mechanisms of Darwinism as "change over time."

Darwin's theory:

1. Life began accidentally with a single celled organism (common ancestor)
2. Random(accidental) mutation of new desirable attributes. (highly implausible)
3. Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" attributes (circular argument)
4. Leads to creation of new species

Basically, "All life and all the attributes of life are an accident."

So the mechanisms are random mutation and natural selection.

Random Mutation: How can you prove it was "random" after the fact? That's why the guy in the debate started out by stating the differences between hard science like physics vs. "historical science" (a nice way of saying pseudoscience)
Natural selection: This is just a circular argument. "By the process of natural selection the "fittest" survived. Who are the "fittest?" The ones who survived! Look it happens every time!"
Plus "natural" and "selection" are extremely versatile in the Darwin doctrine.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Don't let duck screw around with you by describing the mechanisms of Darwinism as "change over time."

Yes, discuss things with me, someone who can speak about the issue, or you, an internet troll. Nice argument.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Still waiting on your response, Pearl.


Oh, and your description of Natural Selection as tautological is laughable at best.

 

[PearlWatson]

Still waiting on your response, Pearl.
Oh, and your description of Natural Selection as tautological is laughable at best.

As you wish:

I think you underestimate the time scale. We see rapid evolution in things like viral genomics within mere months, or years. Complete alterations of capsid structure, etc.
I think this is a better question: to what extent do you believe in evolutionary mechanics? Do you think that mutations aren't inheritable, and that every species is static? Or do you merely think that every species can evolve only to a certain extent? How do you reconcile all of this evolutionary evidence provided to you?
So you don't think that you can make new species via evolution? Is that your point?
Quit polarizing the discourse. This isn't Darwinists vs those who are religious. I'm religious myself-- probably just as religious as yourself, in fact.

If rapidly mutating viruses were proof of "evolution" then after 3 billion years of nonstop evolution, the only life forms we would have on Earth would be extremely sturdy viruses.
Humans can build up tolerances for alcohol but no one imagines a high tolerance for alcohol will lead to a new organ, like a pair of wings. Several of our fellow forum members would have earned their wings by now, eh?
I think the discourse is already polarized in the title science vs. creationism. It is really more like origin of life doctrine vs. origin of life doctrine.
I simply use "Darwinist" as a person who defends Darwin's doctrine.
I don't know how we would determine degree of "religiosity" anyway.

 

[PearlWatson]

Yes, discuss things with me, someone who can speak about the issue, or you, an internet troll. Nice argument.

Log asked about the ability to reproduce the mechanisms of evolution, and you come back with this:

"Evolution defined is the change in gene frequencies in a population over time."

"Document the gene frequencies of any population. Wait 'til the next generation, document the gene frequencies. The change is evolution."

That's like him asking if we can reproduce the mechanisms involved in building a freeway and you coming back with:

A freeway is defined as a change in lane frequencies in a city over time.

Just document the # of lanes in city and wait ten years and document the # of lanes again. That change is freeway building!

It's an amazing scientific process you God-believing dumdums.

If you are an example of "someone who can speak about the issue," Logs in bad shape.

 

[PearlWatson]

Oh, and your description of Natural Selection as tautological is laughable at best.

Explain how it works.

 

[Zulu]

@ pearl.... I don't think Darwin used the word accidental in his book " The Origin of Species". You think by just throwing that word around helps your argument, but it only shows you know little about how the scientific world views mutations!!!

Also how did lungs evolve???

Scientist have seen evidence that swim bladders if fish used to control buoyancy, were modified through genetic mutations as a more efficient form of gas exchange especially with the abundance of Oxygen at the surface of the ocean!!

Also isn't it amazing that a single Zygote can multiply into hundreds of thousands of cells, each cell differentiating into a specific cell or group of cells that make up a complicated living system. Developmental Biologist have mapped out most of the pathways which differentiate these cells and the amazing thing is that certain genes that control the development of the head of a fly also develop the head of a mouse, but geneticist have mapped out where the mutations are that makes these two organism different!!!

 

[Zulu]

@ log...

So many scientist studying biogenesis believe that RNA plays the big role of going from a pseudo cell with all the right components to an actual reproducing and living organism.

I know there are a handful of universities working on this right now!! Penn State I believe is one of them. In living systems now RNA is know to act as an enzyme, structure and store info!!!