The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

mehfesto wrote: »

Genuine question here:
How is evolution refuted with 'recent examples', such as MRSA or VRSA (something that evolved to be resistant to methicillin/vancomycin)? Is this regarded as something other than evolution?

Who is this addressed to?

mehfesto

Anyone who can offer an explanation that it isn't evolution at work. I don't understand the full extent of the transformation but I'd like to have it explained!

Turtwig

mehfesto wrote: »

Anyone who can offer an explanation that it isn't evolution at work. I don't understand the full extent of the transformation but I'd like to have it explained!

That, my dear sir/madam, would be "mirco-evolution". An invented creationist term describing the fictitious divide between observed evolution in the laboratory of "mirco" organisms and the observed evolution in nature and fossils of "marco" organisms. It's basically a get out of jail card for allowing modern medicine to be included in creation science.

Turtwig

SleepDoc wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the principle on which science is based. Science does not "only show something to be wrong". Science provides the only rational basis for our existence, but it's concern is not with showing that anything is "wrong".

Yeah I probably do, but I think you also misunderstand it a wee bit too.:) Here's my understanding of science.

An observation is made from some sort of experiment or by accident. Scientists check to see if the observation is repeatable and statistically significant. They will also examine if the observation contradicts an accepted theory or if it is currently unexplainable by any known theories. If none of these checks provide a sufficient explanation about the observation, scientists will propose a new hypothesis to explain the observation.

One of the logical consequences of this newly created hypothesis will be that it directly (or indirectly) makes predictions on new outcomes or observations that should occur if the hypothesis is an accurate explanation of the initial observation. If future experiments show the hypothesis predictions to be accurate then the hypothesis may eventually gain the stronger evidence based status of a scientific theory. However, at no point can the theory be given the status of absolute truth. This is in keeping the principle of falsification. The idea is rather intuitive in that you can never positively demonstrate something to be true (you may be missing a tiny bit of info somewhere) but you can almost always certainly show something to be false. In a sense, science advances when something is "proven" to be less wrong than the theory that preceded it.

Least, that's my understanding of it.:)

gaynorvader

mehfesto wrote: »

Genuine question here:
How is evolution refuted with 'recent examples', such as MRSA or VRSA (something that evolved to be resistant to methicillin/vancomycin)? Is this regarded as something other than evolution?

It would be similar to the difference in evolution in birds to the evolution in mammals. ie. little or no difference.

mehfesto

Malty_T wrote: »

That, my dear sir/madam, would be "mirco-evolution". An invented creationist term describing the fictitious divide between observed evolution in the laboratory of "mirco" organisms and the observed evolution in nature and fossils of "marco" organisms. It's basically a get out of jail card for allowing modern medicine to be included in creation science.

But isn't ALL evolution 'micro-evolution'? Isn't that the point, small, unintentional changes that benefit the transformed?

gaynorvader

mehfesto wrote: »

But isn't ALL evolution 'micro-evolution'? Isn't that the point, small, unintentional changes that benefit the transformed?

micro-evolution is evolution in micro-organisms such as bacteria.

Turtwig

mehfesto wrote: »

But isn't ALL evolution 'micro-evolution'? Isn't that the point, small, unintentional changes that benefit the transformed?

Shhhhh....;)

mehfesto

gaynorvader wrote: »

micro-evolution is evolution in micro-organisms such as bacteria.

But are you saying it doesn't apply to larger organisms, then?
If so, why not?

gaynorvader

mehfesto wrote: »

But are you saying it doesn't apply to larger organisms, then?
If so, why not?

It does, but because it takes longer for larger organisms to be effected by tiny changes, it has not been observed in a lab and so some people argue that it is not proven. It would be the same as if they proved that evolution definitely happened in birds, those same people would argue that birds are different from mammals and therefore "avian-evolution" does not prove that humans are the product of evolution.

liamw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Misuse

santing

See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/peer-reviewed_paper_investigat036771.html
A peer-reviewed paper, "Information and Entropy -- Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?," by University of Leeds professor Andy McIntosh in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics expressly endorses intelligent design (ID) via an exploration of a key question in ID thinking:

The ultimate question in origins must be: Can information increase in a purely materialistic or naturalistic way? It is not satisfactory to simply assume that information has to have arisen in this way. The alternative of original design must be allowed and all options examined carefully.

A professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory, McIntosh is well acquainted with the workings of machinery. His argument is essentially twofold:

(1) First, he defines the term "machine" (a device which locally raises the free energy) and observes that the cell is full of machines. Such machines pose a challenge to neo-Darwinian evolution due to their irreducibly complex nature.
(2) Second, he argues that the information in living systems (similar to computer software) uses such machines and in fact requires machines to operate (what good is a program without a computer to run it?). An example is the genome sitting on the DNA molecule. From a thermodynamics perspective, the only way to make sense of this situation is to understand that the information is non-material and constrains the thermodynamics so that the local matter and energy are in a non-equilibrium state.

strobe

santing wrote: »

See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/peer-reviewed_paper_investigat036771.html
A peer-reviewed paper, "Information and Entropy -- Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?," by University of Leeds professor Andy McIntosh in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics expressly endorses intelligent design (ID) via an exploration of a key question in ID thinking:

The ultimate question in origins must be: Can information increase in a purely materialistic or naturalistic way? It is not satisfactory to simply assume that information has to have arisen in this way. The alternative of original design must be allowed and all options examined carefully.

A professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory, McIntosh is well acquainted with the workings of machinery. His argument is essentially twofold:

(1) First, he defines the term "machine" (a device which locally raises the free energy) and observes that the cell is full of machines. Such machines pose a challenge to neo-Darwinian evolution due to their irreducibly complex nature.
(2) Second, he argues that the information in living systems (similar to computer software) uses such machines and in fact requires machines to operate (what good is a program without a computer to run it?). An example is the genome sitting on the DNA molecule. From a thermodynamics perspective, the only way to make sense of this situation is to understand that the information is non-material and constrains the thermodynamics so that the local matter and energy are in a non-equilibrium state.

I take it you have read the paper? Does he go on to offer any kind of proof that irreducible complexity exists in nature? If so he is the first person to do so and should get his Nobel prize speech ready. If not then one of his primary assumptions completely discredits his argument.



Honestly......how the hell is IC still being mentioned in this thread 23000 posts in.

Morbert

santing wrote: »

See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/peer-reviewed_paper_investigat036771.html
A peer-reviewed paper, "Information and Entropy -- Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems?," by University of Leeds professor Andy McIntosh in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics expressly endorses intelligent design (ID) via an exploration of a key question in ID thinking:

The ultimate question in origins must be: Can information increase in a purely materialistic or naturalistic way? It is not satisfactory to simply assume that information has to have arisen in this way. The alternative of original design must be allowed and all options examined carefully.

A professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory, McIntosh is well acquainted with the workings of machinery. His argument is essentially twofold:

(1) First, he defines the term "machine" (a device which locally raises the free energy) and observes that the cell is full of machines. Such machines pose a challenge to neo-Darwinian evolution due to their irreducibly complex nature.
(2) Second, he argues that the information in living systems (similar to computer software) uses such machines and in fact requires machines to operate (what good is a program without a computer to run it?). An example is the genome sitting on the DNA molecule. From a thermodynamics perspective, the only way to make sense of this situation is to understand that the information is non-material and constrains the thermodynamics so that the local matter and energy are in a non-equilibrium state.

Heh, for a second I thought the Journal was 'Nature' and was wondering if IDers actually came up with a theory...

It seems not:

"The genetic information needed to code for complex structures like proteins actually requires information which organises the natural forces surrounding it and not the other way around – the information is crucially not defined by the material on which it sits. The information system locally requires the free energies of the molecular machinery to be raised in order for the information to be stored. Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it."

Well duh. Nobody is saying the lowering of entropy will automatically produce functionality. Scientists are saying selection pressures exploit entropy reduction.

Evolution of biological information. Thomas D. Schneider, National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology

SleepDoc

Wicknight wrote: »

Evolution has vast amounts of evidence and science behind it, it is one of the most established and well supported scientific theories out there.

The problem with stating that it is irrefutable is that technically nothing in science is irrefutable and when dealing with Creationists you have to be very careful about how you put things because everything will be used against science. For example the idea that scientists hold to evolution like some indisputable fact is often pushed by Creationists to try and suggest that evolution is a religion rather than science and that science is not interested in exploring any possible problems with the theory, which isn't true.

Creationists will clutch at any straw to disprove Darwinism. Whether we say something is irrefutable or choose another equally strong phrase is irrelevant to them. They will try to punch holes in anything that does not suit their fallacy no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

Zombrex

SleepDoc wrote: »

Creationists will clutch at any straw to disprove Darwinism. Whether we say something is irrefutable or choose another equally strong phrase is irrelevant to them. They will try to punch holes in anything that does not suit their fallacy no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

There is no harm keeping things accurate though on our end.

SleepDoc

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no harm keeping things accurate though on our end.

OK. The evidence for evolution is irrefutable.

gaynorvader

SleepDoc wrote: »

OK. The evidence for evolution is irrefutable currently.

SleepDoc

gaynorvader wrote: »

Agh! I'll go with Dawkins.

gaynorvader

SleepDoc wrote: »

Agh! I'll go with Dawkins.

Even Dawkins is fallible! :P

*insert evil laugh here*

JimiTime

Malty_T wrote: »

That, my dear sir/madam, would be "mirco-evolution". An invented creationist term describing the fictitious divide between observed evolution in the laboratory of "mirco" organisms and the observed evolution in nature and fossils of "marco" organisms. It's basically a get out of jail card for allowing modern medicine to be included in creation science.

It seems though, that there is a difference between species/organisms apadting to environment etc and the concept of evolution being the development of one cell organisms into human beings, or indeed the plethora of life on earth. It appears to me, that the adaptation abilities of organisms etc is very strongly backed up in the science lab. However, the one cell organisms changing over time into people is jumping the gun.

I don't know much about creationism etc, so from a purely 'Jimitimes common sense' perspective, I can see how one would distinguish between how organisms adapt and change in terms of environment etc, and how we are told that this adaptation etc eventually leads that one cell organism to Albert Einstein.

SleepDoc

JimiTime wrote: »

It seems though, that there is a difference between species/organisms apadting to environment etc and the concept of evolution being the development of one cell organisms into human beings, or indeed the plethora of life on earth. It appears to me, that the adaptation abilities of organisms etc is very strongly backed up in the science lab. However, the one cell organisms changing over time into people is jumping the gun.

I don't know much about creationism etc, so from a purely 'Jimitimes common sense' perspective, I can see how one would distinguish between how organisms adapt and change in terms of environment etc, and how we are told that this adaptation etc eventually leads that one cell organism to Albert Einstein.

You were a one cell organism yourself once. Nine months later you were born.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

It seems though, that there is a difference between species/organisms apadting to environment etc and the concept of evolution being the development of one cell organisms into human beings, or indeed the plethora of life on earth. It appears to me, that the adaptation abilities of organisms etc is very strongly backed up in the science lab. However, the one cell organisms changing over time into people is jumping the gun.

It seems that way to who exactly?

Not being snotty but so many times we have discussed this subject when we go into great length to present a whole lot of evidence and science only to have the person go something like "oh well I'm not a scientist this is just what I've heard" and leave. Which I hope you can imagine is rather frustrating.

Do you know much about current theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution Jimi and are you genuinely interested in people trying to explain why what you just said is wrong ?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

It seems that way to who exactly?

To me, and by the looks of things, others too. In this context though, I'm just talking about me.

Not being snotty but so many times we have discussed this subject when we go into great length to present a whole lot of evidence and science only to have the person go something like "oh well I'm not a scientist this is just what I've heard" and leave. Which I hope you can imagine is rather frustrating.

Do you know much about current theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution Jimi and are you genuinely interested in people trying to explain why what you just said is wrong ?

Meh, not really that interested if its alot of hassle to explain. I was just looking up evolution in the lab, and anything I read would indicate top me that organisms adapting and mutating is quite clear. However, just from my own sense (Make of it what you will), it seems a big leap to believe that these experiments show one cell to human evolution.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Meh, not really that interested if its alot of hassle to explain. I was just looking up evolution in the lab, and anything I read would indicate top me that organisms adapting and mutating is quite clear. However, just from my own sense (Make of it what you will), it seems a big leap to believe that these experiments show one cell to human evolution.

The thing is the molecules to man is not simply inferred from watching short period evolution. So it is not a leap so to speak.

Despite what Creationists claim about the fossil record being poor and not supporting evolution it does in fact support evolution very well. You can see the evolution of life, from simple cells 3 billion years ago, to simple sea life, to land creatures, to more complex land creatures right up to humans.

And ever step of the way scientists are matching evolutionary models of these different species against future fossil record discoveries, so they aren't just guessing that one species is related to another for example.

Galvasean

Ah so this explains JimiTime's thread in Palaeontology... Feel free to ask away.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

The thing is the molecules to man is not simply inferred from watching short period evolution. So it is not a leap so to speak.

You are conflating two issues here.

1. Biological evolution of a species
2. abiogenesis - the spontaneous creation of life

They aren't the same thing.

As regards strict Darwinian evolution. Personally I don't accept it. It seems too gradualist. I go more for a catastrophist view e.g deluges and disasters. in fact a lot if not almost all fossil evidence came from catastrophes. I tend to lean Goulds way on this.

Funny how this discussion went very quiet when the hard liners copped out ( or were banned) isn't it?

Despite what Creationists claim about the fossil record being poor and not supporting evolution it does in fact support evolution very well. You can see the evolution of life, from simple cells 3 billion years ago, to simple sea life, to land creatures, to more complex land creatures right up to humans.

If you mean there are dated fossils of unicellular lifeforms and others there aren't loads and dates are disputed. But ther does seem to be a terend of more complex life later. But again from a catastrophist point of view this doesn't happen o9ver time but quite quickly. Also if it isn't broken don't fix it! Comparatively simple life forms existed for hundreds of millions of years parallel to other more developed lifeforms, Ammonites for example. that isnt to say they never evolved. Maybe like humans they just reach and end point after which they didn't need to evolve. until they became extinct that is

And ever step of the way scientists are matching evolutionary models of these different species against future fossil record discoveries, so they aren't just guessing that one species is related to another for example.

It would be nice of they could use DNA matching but sadly they have to depend on matching shapes and guessing climates. I agree it isn't all a guess but neither is it exact science. More like an estimate???

ISAW

SleepDoc wrote: »

You were a one cell organism yourself once. Nine months later you were born.

This is based on the assumption that you are your body. That is a philosophical assumption. Maybe you existed before your body did and maybe you will exist after it is gone. This is not necessarily a Christian belief.

SleepDoc

ISAW wrote: »

This is based on the assumption that you are your body. That is a philosophical assumption. Maybe you existed before your body did and maybe you will exist after it is gone. This is not necessarily a Christian belief.

That you were once a unicellular life form is not a philosophical argument, it's a fact. Whether you exist before your body, or after is fantasy and conjecture, Christian or otherwise.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

As regards strict Darwinian evolution. Personally I don't accept it. It seems too gradualist. I go more for a catastrophist view e.g deluges and disasters. in fact a lot if not almost all fossil evidence came from catastrophes. I tend to lean Goulds way on this.

Funny how this discussion went very quiet when the hard liners copped out ( or were banned) isn't it?

Catastrophism isn't just leaning Gould's way, it's fallen well past it. Gould's punctuated equilibrium is still a gradualist theory, as 'punctuations' can span millions of years. Furthermore, catastrophism has been debunked by geologists for quite a while, and now only exists in the creationist "You can't prove it didn't happen." form.

If you mean there are dated fossils of unicellular lifeforms and others there aren't loads and dates are disputed. But ther does seem to be a terend of more complex life later. But again from a catastrophist point of view this doesn't happen o9ver time but quite quickly. Also if it isn't broken don't fix it! Comparatively simple life forms existed for hundreds of millions of years parallel to other more developed lifeforms, Ammonites for example. that isnt to say they never evolved. Maybe like humans they just reach and end point after which they didn't need to evolve. until they became extinct that is

It would be nice of they could use DNA matching but sadly they have to depend on matching shapes and guessing climates. I agree it isn't all a guess but neither is it exact science. More like an estimate???

The real key behind the fossil record is how the developmental history of life maps onto the geographical history of life. In otherwords, not only do we see a trend from simple to complex, we see a trend of migration and change of habitat that matches this development.