Evolution or Creationism

[Leepaidamba]

It doesn't change the fact that genetic diversity does not increase because the ratios of variation within species change. If we're in a time loop, we'll have a hard time creating the dinosaurs. Our bacteria have remained bacteria. Our fruit flies have remained fruit flies. Neither species gained new genetic code (although people were pressuring bacteria to do so (E. coli experiment)).

Maybe that's because they don't need to. Those species still exist because they are so well adapted. Many other species and greater groups of organisms have died out before. That's always because they weren't as well adapted or couldn't adapt fast enough.

[Yezichek]

Species adapt. However, they don't become new species to do it. Variation already existed which allowed them to adapt, while still being the same species. Only the ratio of these existing genetics changed. Adaption is not the same as evolution.

Sorry about the awkward wording.

[DaWoad]

Species adapt. However, they don't become new species to do it. Variation already existed which allowed them to adapt, while still being the same species. Only the ratio of these existing genetics changed. Adaption is not the same as evolution.

Sorry about the awkward wording.

no, you're flat out wrong on that. Adaptation by genetic selection is exactly what evolution is. the reason "we haven't seen it" (we have) is that in major species it takes a really freaking long time and we've only been able to study it for, what, a couple of centuries? tops? That said, we've seen evolution (entirely new species) in bacteria in a lab setting and we've seen genetic adaptions in species with longer generations. We also have fossil records, genetic information etc. etc. freaking etc.

[DaWoad]

Creation as expounded by religion is nonsense. Only people who don't understand evolution and haven't seen the evidence for it believe creationists have any sort of point at all.
Besides, there are so many flaws, contradictions, inaccuracies and logically impossible events in the Abrahamic texts that they make Galloping Gertie look stable and steadfast by comparison.
That and YHWH is a really disgusting character.

Evolution is the idea that life began as a simple organism created from inanimate matter, either through some unknown, unguided natural process or some sort of designer (I think most people would agree directed panspermia is nonsense, however ). This simple organism mutated and became every single species we see today using a process known as natural selection.

Evolution can also be called nonsense. Evolution argues eyes evolved 40 to 60 different times, despite the incredible complexity of an eye. Evolutionists arguments rest on similarities between species which is not evidence for evolution. Subjects still taught in classrooms are rejected by modern evolutionists (Miller's experiment and the pepper moth experiment). Evolutionists found that coelacanth, when they were discovered, showed no signs of becoming anything close to amphibians as they had once expected. Evolutionists think that genetic diversity can increase because existing species have variation (evolution is just more of speciation). Evolution has flaws, inaccuracies and logically impossible events.

I do believe creationist and ID explanations should be considered before people dismiss them as nonsense.

1- do you have sources for ANY of that. and, no, creationist blogs will not be good enough.
2- of course eyes evolved anywhere that they are an advantage and didn't already exist. If you can't understand that little of evolution, I can understand how you'd consider it "flawed, inaccurate or logically impossible".
3-If it occurs genetically it dmn well is and, hey, it does.
4- *sigh* highschool classrooms lag certainly, the same as they do in physics chemistry etc. Would you suggest the fact that highschool chemistry isn't fully up on Quantum chemistry suggests that the entire theory is wrong?
5- Certainly genetic diversity increases, it happens all the bloody time. Mutation, basic biology? no?
6-no, it shouldn't, evolution holds scientific consensus, it has very few flaws, almost no inaccuracies and absolutely nothing that could be considered "logically impossible".
7-Hell no, ID and Creationsist arguments have NO, repeat no, basis in anything that could be considered scientific. They are, quite simply, nonsense.

[Seperates]

Species adapt. However, they don't become new species to do it. Variation already existed which allowed them to adapt, while still being the same species. Only the ratio of these existing genetics changed. Adaption is not the same as evolution.

Sorry about the awkward wording.

That's not true... Adaptation = Evolution

All of it is evolution. Adaptation is over a long time produces radically different spieces... which is what evolution is... Surprise surprise, kiddo.

[Seperates]

Evolution is the idea that life began as a simple organism created from inanimate matter, either through some unknown, unguided natural process or some sort of designer (I think most people would agree directed panspermia is nonsense, however ). This simple organism mutated and became every single species we see today using a process known as natural selection.

Evolution can also be called nonsense. Evolution argues eyes evolved 40 to 60 different times, despite the incredible complexity of an eye. Evolutionists arguments rest on similarities between species which is not evidence for evolution. Subjects still taught in classrooms are rejected by modern evolutionists (Miller's experiment and the pepper moth experiment). Evolutionists found that coelacanth, when they were discovered, showed no signs of becoming anything close to amphibians as they had once expected. Evolutionists think that genetic diversity can increase because existing species have variation (evolution is just more of speciation). Evolution has flaws, inaccuracies and logically impossible events.

I do believe creationist and ID explanations should be considered before people dismiss them as nonsense.

1- do you have sources for ANY of that. and, no, creationist blogs will not be good enough.
2- of course eyes evolved anywhere that they are an advantage and didn't already exist. If you can't understand that little of evolution, I can understand how you'd consider it "flawed, inaccurate or logically impossible".
3-If it occurs genetically it dmn well is and, hey, it does.
4- *sigh* highschool classrooms lag certainly, the same as they do in physics chemistry etc. Would you suggest the fact that highschool chemistry isn't fully up on This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: weak and misleading information content. Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. Quantum chemistry suggests that the entire theory is wrong?
5- Certainly genetic diversity increases, it happens all the bloody time. Mutation, basic biology? no?
6-no, it shouldn't, evolution holds scientific consensus, it has very few flaws, almost no inaccuracies and absolutely nothing that could be considered "logically impossible".
7-Hell no, ID and Creationsist arguments have NO, repeat no, basis in anything that could be considered scientific. They are, quite simply, nonsense.

Preach it brother man!

[Avenio]

Evolution is the idea that life began as a simple organism created from inanimate matter, either through some unknown, unguided natural process or some sort of designer (I think most people would agree directed panspermia is nonsense, however ). This simple organism mutated and became every single species we see today using a process known as natural selection.

Unknown?

Evolution can also be called nonsense. Evolution argues eyes evolved 40 to 60 different times, despite the incredible complexity of an eye.

Eyes are remarkable organs, yes, but they are fairly simple to evolve. All life with photoreceptive cells currently has the same genetic machinery behind it, suggesting a common origin, and as life evolved to fill more and more complex niches eyes began to specialize; this is best demonstrated through the following video.

Evolutionists arguments rest on similarities between species which is not evidence for evolution.

Really. Do tell, why are homologous and analogous structures, like the structure of vertebrate hands suddenly invalid as evidence for evolution?

Subjects still taught in classrooms are rejected by modern evolutionists

Bohr models are quite outdated when compared to modern quantum mechanical models of the atom, but we still teach them; they serve as an important stepping stone in introducing students to much more complicated theories. Older, simpler theories can provide a useful stepping-stone to more complex ideas, as well as providing a perspective as to how our understanding of the field(s) in question has changed.

(Miller's experiment

I'm assuming you're talking about the Miller-Urey experiment, yes? In which case, though its not considered to be a correct model of abiogenesis anymore, it is still very useful both as one of the first large-scale forays into the field, and its findings are still correct within their own frame of reference. (ie still very useful as a model for the formation of amino acids in early Earth)

and the pepper moth experiment).

The peppered moth experiment is by no means incorrect. Unless of course you have a profound revelation to deliver unto the scientific community, that is.

Evolutionists found that coelacanth, when they were discovered, showed no signs of becoming anything close to amphibians as they had once expected.

Err, what? No-one expected that the coelocanth would turn into an amphibian; it branched off from the sarcopterygii that became the tetrapods almost 400 million years ago. The coelocanth and its ancestors continued on in their fish-like form until about 65 million years ago (The K-T extinction event), whereupon it disappeared from the wider fossil record. It was assumed extinct because of this, but a small number of species managed to survive with relatively small habitats and ranges.

Evolutionists think that genetic diversity can increase because existing species have variation (evolution is just more of speciation).

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. You've stated a basic tenet of biology as inaccurate, but have provided no evidence of such.

Evolution has flaws, inaccuracies and logically impossible events.

Care to name any? Because the examples you've listed stem from ignorance on your part, not a fault in the theory.

I do believe creationist and ID explanations should be considered before people dismiss them as nonsense.

Once ID and creationism falls into the category of a scientific theory and can this be falsified and experimentally tested through the scientific method, then we may consider it worthy of comparison to modern evolutionary and biological theory. Until then, keep religion in places of worship and leave science to the science classroom. Where each subject belongs.

[Meldaria]

Last sentence is not warranted. Name-calling is looked down upon. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Sorry, I've been going through a rough time lately and was in no mood to be provoked.
Nonetheless, no excuse.

I predict a long vacation to DEATland for you in the very near future.

[Abdju]

Adaption is not the same as evolution.

Errr, yes it is.

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most adaptable to change.

[Abdju]

keep religion in places of worship and leave science to the science classroom. Where each subject belongs.

I agree 100%.

[The Western Reaches]

I'm gonna go with evolution, because the general concept makes sense, and I'd rather just leave the details to the biologists.

But the fact that god "created" evolution, therefore evolution IS creationism: That could be a possibility but it's not a very sound theory.

Pure creationism: Evidence shows that it's probably not the case, and "not believing in" evolution doesn't make sense either. It's a well-proven scientific theory not something some dude wrote down thousands of years ago that still hasn't been "proved".

(Hoorah for entering this thread uber-late!)

[River Nate]

reminds me of this comic strip

[Ifreann]

Your teacher is entitled to believe whatever he/she wants to believe. It's only a problem if he/she tries to make you believe it as well.

Yeah, I know, that's not it. As I said, I believe creationism, too. But scientists have a reputation for believing in evolution.

Stereotypes are often wrong.

---

Evolution is the idea that life began as a simple organism created from inanimate matter...

The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection has nothing to do with how life came about.

...I do believe creationist and ID explanations should be considered before people dismiss them as nonsense.

Physician, heal thyself. You've already shown that you're ignorant as to what the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection actually is. It's a bit rich to suggest we consider your position when you haven't considered ours.

[Amorgas]

Why can't there be both?

[Farnhamia]

Why can't there be both?

Because only one is science.

[Norstal]

Why can't there be both?

Creationism is a lie.

[Amorgas]

Why can't there be both?

Because only one is science.

I meant, why can't God've created science?

[Norstal]

Because only one is science.

I meant, why can't God've created science?

Because we don't teach physics in a church. So I don't expect God being taught in a school.

[Farnhamia]

Because only one is science.

I meant, why can't God've created science?

Which "God"?

[Norstal]

I meant, why can't God've created science?

Which "God"?

The one that is made of whole wheat flour. *nods*

[Avenio]

Because only one is science.

I meant, why can't God've created science?

God was Francis Bacon?

[Abdju]

I meant, why can't God've created science?

God was Francis Bacon?

You can't proove he isn't

[Amorgas]

I meant, why can't God've created science?

Which "God"?

Any god, I'm not going to pick. I was just putting the idea out there.

I meant, why can't God've created science?

Because we don't teach physics in a church. So I don't expect God being taught in a school.

And that's your reason? Because education is secular?

[Farnhamia]

Which "God"?

Any god, I'm not going to pick. I was just putting the idea out there.

Because we don't teach physics in a church. So I don't expect God being taught in a school.

And that's your reason? Because education is secular?

If you bring up "God" then you have to pick. And yes, public education, at least, should be secular. You want to teach mythology as science, open a private school.

[Norstal]

Because we don't teach physics in a church. So I don't expect God being taught in a school.

And that's your reason? Because education is secular?

Yes? That and Intelligent Design is not empirical.

Like I said, 4 times now, give me a testable proof for creationism and I will reward anyone who does it with $1 million.