Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 17

There has been a lot of talk and conjecture about how entropy can be used to show the evolution could not have occured. On the surface, sure it sounds plausible however it should be pointed out that entropy will not occur in this instance. Imagine if you will a box containing oxygen molecules. These molecules are in one corner of the box, held there by a divider. When you remove the divider the molecules will collapse from their "complex" state and spread throughout the box more or less uniformly. That is entorpy in a nutshell. The molecules will move into a state that is less complex and requires no energy i.e not all in one corner of the box. Now, imagine if you will "species" in the box. The reason evolution cannot be disproved via entorpy is the the "divider" in this case is energy. The energy being taken from the sun, the food we and other animals eat, water, what we breath etc stops entropy for occuring. Entropy will not occur while enery is there to push forward into more complex forms. We see this in hydrogen clouds being pushed together by gravity and nuclear forces, energy, igniting hydrogen into stars. Make sense? User: MetcalfeM

No.

Here's an experiment for you. Prepare a building lot for a house. Deliver the bricks, timber, plaster, plumbing, etc. Do this in summer, and just leave it there, bathing in the energy of the sun. Will it develop into a house?

The problem is that the energy needs to be directed. Yes, you need energy, but energy alone is not enough to turn the simple into the complex. In fact, undirected energy will cause things to break down. The timber is already a complex item, having been formed in a tree, but the energy of the sun will tend to break it down into a simpler form.

Philip J. Rayment 07:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Philip, I believe your example is inaccurate as it applies to evolution. Self-organizing molecules are common and would be necessary for evolution to occur. A simple example of the spontaneous behavior of elements is the reaction of hydrogen gas with oxygen. Hydrogen atoms have such a great inherent tendency to form strong bonds with oxygen to yield water that a small energy of activation, in the form of a spark affecting only a relatively few molecules, causes the two substances to start to react, resulting in an enormous evolution of energy. This is exactly as the second law predicts: some of the energy in a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen becomes spread out (so much and so rapidly that it is an explosion) when the lesser energetic compound, water, is formed. Yet, water is more complex than the simple elements and its atoms are arranged in an exact geometric pattern. Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously. Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned; not only water but cholesterol, DNA, and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law. The reason why your analogy is not accurate towards evolution is that evolution is based on the accumulation of molecular changes, not large physical changes of the organism (those are bonuses). So building a house would not be accurate as much as the change of the molecular structure of the wood over time, which we know would occur. And as my example with water implies we should find some elemental forms forming less energetic states but often more complex structures.--Able806 09:06, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Self-organising molecules would indeed be necessary for evolution to occur, which is one of the reasons that it can't!

Complex molecules, such as cholesterol, DNA, etc. do not spontaneously come together by the application of energy. They must be built by the molecular machinery, just as a house get built with the aid of machinery (even if, at a minimum, that "machinery" is a human being). A simply application of energy will tend to break down such molecules. And the machinery is working to a plan, contained in the DNA. So you actually need (a) energy (APT synthase, or electricity for the builder), (b) machinery (molecular, drills, electric saws, etc.), and (c) a plan (DNA, a building blueprint). Without any one of these, you don't get complex structures built. So where do the plans come from? By the way, the instructions for building the molecular machinery are on the DNA, which needs the molecular machinery to read it for it to be useful. Either one without the other is useless. The only idea which makes sense is that they were both created together.

And something merely ordered, such as a crystal, is not complex, so is not what we are talking about.

Philip J. Rayment 09:41, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Philip, you are mistaken. DNA is a self organizing molecule, outside of the cell. You are correct for DNA formation within a cell, the pH and other environmental factors do not allow for DNA to form without assistance (the cell’s internal environment is one that degenerates proteins and nucleotides over time for reuse) however just the DNA components in water will self form with the application of heat (not that they will encode anything, or perhaps they could). This has been shown to occur through reproducible experimentation without argument. Many types of simple cholesterols are formed by just having their elemental components available and having a source of radiation applied. Micelles are also self forming, they are a basis for much budding and transport between cells of materials and viruses. The machinery you speak of does create even more complex molecules and proteins however many of the basic molecules used in the body as bases are indeed self forming. I currently research a protein found in archaebacteria that has a molecule at its active site that is self forming. The molecule has a Fe-Fe bridge and multiple carbonyl groups. When exposed to photons it produces hydrogen. The neat thing about this molecule is if you place the base elements in a flask and heat it, they from this complex that, when exposed to cysteine in a protein, binds to the sulpher groups allowing the molecule to add a hydrogen pump to the protein. As for your statement: By the way, the instructions for building the molecular machinery are on the DNA, which needs the molecular machinery to read it for it to be useful. Either one without the other is useless. The only idea which makes sense is that they were both created together. This is in error. The instructions are in fact on RNA, which builds the machinery. The ribosomes responsible for protein synthesis are composed of tRNA and protein. The tRNA is what actually decodes the mRNA and applies the amino acids for translation. RNA is the genetic material for retro viruses as well. Evolutionary biologists state that RNA was the first genetic material, DNA is just better. So the example with RNA, both t and m, shows that machinery is not always needed to go from code to protein, if the molecules are available. Energy yes but machinery no.--Able806 10:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Well said Able806, well said. I couldn't have expressed it better as I dont have either the time or the motivation. It is a peeve of mine to see bad science and the entropy/evolution use here is a prime example of bad science. MetcalfeM

I don't like seeing bad science either, which is one reason that I oppose evolution.

I'd like to see the evidence that DNA is self-organising outside the cell.

Somehow I'm unimpressed by "self-forming molecules" that require a human with equipment to cause them to form.

The instructions on the RNA are derived from the DNA, so what I said is correct, albeit I left out a step. The DNA is copied to make the RNA, and the RNA is used to build the machinery that puts the DNA and the RNA together.

Some evolutionary biologists believe that RNA was the first genetic material, and that viruses were the first living things, but there is no evidence for this (and it doesn't solve the problem anyway) but viruses cannot survive by themselves without using the machinery of other living things, so could not have been the first living things.

Philip J. Rayment 06:16, 22 January 2008 (EST)

DNA self organizing Example 12. Your statement about being unimpressed is not as important as the fact that it happens, and that it happens in nature without lab equipment. Lab equipment is by the way how we can isolate and study just the molecule. As for DNA and RNA, two examples the potato spindle tuber viroid is the smallest naturally self-replicating bit of RNA, it just needs access to the nucleotides and amino acids (which can be found in nature). For Qb virus a test tube full of suitable chemicals is enough. The experiment, conducted by Sol Spiegelman of the University of Illinois, consisted of introducing the viral RNA into a medium containing the RNA's own replication enzyme, plus a supply of raw materials and some salts, and incubating the mixture. When Spiegelman did this, the system obligingly replicated the strands of naked RNA. Spiegelman then extracted some of the freshly synthesized RNA, put it in a separate nutrient solution, and let it multiply. He then decanted some of that RNA into yet another solution, and so on, in a series of steps. The abstract. So you see there are viruses that do not need cells in order to replicate as well as self organizing molecules. So your statement "Self-organizing molecules would indeed be necessary for evolution to occur, which is one of the reasons that it can't!" has proven to be lacking due to self-organizing molecules existing and some even being based on genetic material. This and my past paragraph are prime examples as to why the theory of evolution is not in violation of thermodynamics.--Able806 09:48, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It is impossible to have a scientific debate between creationists and evolutionists. Creationism is not science. Before you get butthurt over that, Creationism is neither falisfiable nor testable. Barikada 19:44, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Creation is no less scientific than evolution. See also Falsifiability of evolution. And creationary scientists have made falsifiable predictions which have been tested and passed the test. So much for that claim! Philip J. Rayment 07:26, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Not that I am saying it did not happen, but I would like to know some of these falsifiable predictions that creationary scientists have made.--Able806 09:08, 18 January 2008 (EST)

See Plate tectonics#Biblical View for one that was made before the confirming discovery. Other ones, although made in the knowledge that they are true, are that, as a result of the global flood, we should expect to find (a) lots of sedimentary rocks (which of course we do) and (b) evidence of living things rapidly buried in sedimentary rock layers. Many fossils show evidence of rapid burial. Philip J. Rayment 09:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Philip, I am not sure if I would use that claim about the fossils. The reason is that we should expect to see all fossils of a certain strata (the strata that is associated with the flood) to have evidence of rapid burial, which is not the case. While this is an example of a falsifiable claim it has been proven to be false. As for the verse

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." Genesis 1:9-10

that could also describe the formation of the Hawaiian islands from volcanic activity. Be that as it may, it does not account for Rodinia then a break up then the formation of Pangaea then another break up to the current land masses we have today. So once again it would be a stretch to make the claim of this example being on of falsified evidence found in creation accounts.--Able806 10:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)

The Flood would account for most of the strata (not just a particular one), and just because the flood would rapidly bury many creatures doesn't mean that all creatures would be rapidly buried. If you didn't know that, how can you say that it's been proven false? More likely a straw-man argument has been proven false.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with your next point. It seems to be a case of taking something totally out of context. The multi-step breakup of a single continent is an aspect of evolutionary/naturalistic theory, not something that is objective evidence. There is good evidence that a supercontinent broke up, but not for the multiple-step aspect, which would have more to do with uniformitarian dates than anything. But the verse you quote was a factor in a creationist proposing an original supercontinent that subsequently broke up, in the middle of the 19th century (that's when he proposed it, not when it happened!), something that scientists now generally accept, even if they disagree with the timescale and some details. So you could in fact put this down as another successful prediction by creationists!

Philip J. Rayment 06:30, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Philip, lets break this apart. The flood would account for most of the strata, let’s presume this to be true. If it is then we should see humans mixed through out the strata since humans were around when the flood happened. This is not the case, for we only find humans to a certain point in the strata and further below we find dinos. Let us go a bit further, since we find no humans beyond a certain point in the strata and we find dinos but we find no dinos above humans in the strata or even with humans in the strata we could say that dinos and humans did not exist together. To go further, we find evidence of rapid burial of dinos and we find evidence of rapid burial of humans, so was this due to two different floods? In any event, we do not have any definitive proof that the flood happened by looking at the earth's strata since A. we find rapid burial in lower and upper strata. B. We find a separation of humans and dinos in different strata. As such I can not understand why you would say this supports creation? For the second part. First off the break up of the super continent is based on plate tectonics not evolutionary theory. Second, that verse is what was used on the Plate tectonics#Biblical View to explain Pangaea. It fails to explain Rodinia or any of the other movements, but this is not the issue. The point is that the verse, which is the backbone of the argument, is vague. I would say too vague to postulate the differentiation of Pangaea or the Hawaiian islands--Able806 10:11, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Which is to say, evolution is a scientific theory. There is a misunderstanding in the evolution/creationism "controversy" that evolution is only a theory. The problem with this argument is that a theory means:

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena^[1]

When used in a scientific context. To call evolution a "theory" in that it is "only a theory" is like calling the theory of relativity only a theory -- it's something that we see repeated over and over and is often true. Konserve

Would it be possible to remove the "Theory of" in the title or to add "Theory of" in front of every other scientific theory in the whole of the Conservapedia? That seems the fairest to me - I did a quick search for Gravity and got a page titled Gravitation. But it too is a scientific theory; it must follow that the page should be titled, "Theory of Gravitation," right? Just my two cents.--Reasonless 00:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Excellent observation - However, I think most of those here who oppose Evolution actually argue that it is in fact not a scientific theory. Unfortunately, that's a preposterous notion. Wisdom89 00:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)

This is a common fault with amateur creationists, but it's something that the more knowledgeable creationists are quite aware of, and they don't use that argument, and even advise against it.

Whether or not evolution is science depends a bit on your definition. Much of evolution is simply not falsifiable, so on that basis, it's not science. But if you want a broader definition, perhaps it is. But either way, any definition of science that includes evolution would include creation, unless it was a self-serving definition.

Philip J. Rayment 07:37, 18 January 2008 (EST)

But it IS a theory, there ARE scientific facts supporting it, such as the clear line of lineage of humans based off carbon-dating

This really depends just as much on your definition of 'evolution' as it does on your definition of science. If you take evolution to mean 'descent with modification,' that's a fairly easy thing to prove. The biological processes of heredity and mutation are well-documented and researched; from there, demonstrating examples of more fit phenotypes' survival is not a far step. Then, following this logic, species quickly and observably will change phenotypic ratios to match their given environment. I'd write more and maybe cite some sources, but I've really got to go now. Bye. --Reasonless 12:45, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

It is getting really hard to follow and is taking up alot of space.--Able806 10:13, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Archived. SW^{♠·♥·♣} 23:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)

A few points in the article makes some flawed arguments and should be considered for revision:

“

Although the defenders of the theory of evolution contend there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution, there are many who are against the theory of evolution and state there are many problems with the theory of evolution. For example, an article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved."

”

• Just because some Americans don't believe in evolution, or that some do and believe that God was involved, doesn't mean that there is a problem with evolution as the preceding sentence would have you believe. How does "some people don't believe in evolution" and "some people believe in evolution and God" an example for "there are many problems with the theory of evolution"?

“

The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version.

”

• Saying that great thinkers did not come up with the idea for an evolutionary process beforehand is superfluous and unnecessary. What is the point of saying that? The article on the telephone does not say that "Archimedes, Aristotle, and St. Augustine did not propose the telephone", of course the article then goes on to say that "evolutionary ideas were taught by the ancient Greeks as early as the 7th century B.C." If it was thought it had to of been thought up by someone, just because their name wasn't Archimedes doesn't mean whoever it was wasn't a great thinker.

Also, one more minor note is that under the section "The Issue Whether the Evolutionary Position Qualifies as a Scientific Theory" The absurdly long dead link "falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience" should probably be removed unless anyone decides to write an article on that anytime soon, and if they did it should probably just be called "falsifiability".

This article contains an obvious slant in one direction. Not to mention misstating certain "facts." For example: "Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates)" From the selected source, it states: "Although we have been involved in over 300 such debates (with Dr. Gish doing the debating in most of them)" which seems to directly state that Dr. Gish has in fact not been involved in over 300 formal debates, but has debated in most of the 300 debates cited.

"“At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”" Citing one person's opinion on a matter does not constitute as a reliable source. Please cite an independent source.

"An individual's view regarding the theory of evolution may also affect one's view regarding homosexuality. For example, Creation Ministries International states: "Homosexual acts go against God’s original design of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see Genesis 1 and 2, endorsed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:3–6."[210]" How does a citation from the Bible determine that an individual's view on the theory of evolution affects his or her view on homosexuality. This is a perfect example of the fallacy Petitio Principii. It claims to draw the conclusion that evolution is responsible for feelings towards homosexuality, then states that according to the Bible homosexuality goes against God, and doing so associates the theory of evolution goes against God. Please remove such fallacies.

The inclusions of the Nazi's view of Eugenics has never been associated with the scientific view of evolution, rather an ethically detestable view of genetics and "weeding out" a race of people who are not in fact genetically distinct.

Concerning the statement that "In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct.[190]" I have browsed the linked page and read the specified letter and the source that the author lists is the Smith's Bible Dictionary as the source of the aforementioned 19th century European naturalists:"Ant (Hebrew. nemalah). This insect is mentioned twice in the O. T.: in Prov. VI. 6, XXX. 25. In the former of these passages the diligence of this insect is instanced by the wise man as an example worthy of imitation… It is well known that the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the ant stored up food, which it collected in the summer, ready for the winter’s consumption; but this is an error. The European species of ants are all dormant in the winter, and consequently require no food; and the observations of modern naturalists seem almost conclusive that no ants lay up for future consumption. (Smith’s Bible Dictionary)" I fail to see how a Bible dictionary is the accepted scientific consensus on the matter of those 19th century naturalists.

• Well duh. This is Conservapedia, where facts and veracity thereof don't matter. It actually uses a poll to see how many people believe in evolution to show that it's wrong. -Darthmilo77 18:42, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I believe that this example will help us understand how mutations can arise from seemingly minor changes or neutral mutations. It is important to note that this is just a conjecture of how this receptor formed and is biochemically sound (meaning the reactions to form the molecules and activation energies all add up). Now to place this in perspective to much of the conversation from the new information section in the archive; not all mutations create an affect immediately, some allow for greater change later on. Meaning there needs to be a foundation for which to build upon. Much of this foundation is slight alterations of proteins allowing for further changes.
A note also about Junk DNA and other concepts that many who do not study the biosciences seem to misunderstand. Junk DNA is not “worthless”; in fact, areas of junk DNA contain some of the highest mutation rates found in genomic material. This is still being investigated but most think it is the ratio of nucleic acids of the junk DNA that allows for high mutations. These mutations, by the way, are sometimes transcribed into proteins with and without function. Now to tie the Junk DNA in to the New Information situation; Junk DNA is composed mostly of DNA inserted by HGT (endovirusis, and fungi), copy errors and redundant sequences. This allows for quite the propagation ground for new mutation to occur and furthermore to be transcribed. So it is a reasonable conjecture that new information consists of non-coding junk DNA mutating to become encoding of active proteins therefore allowing for new expression and similar function of other proteins in the genome. With that being said why would it be such a stretch that with the build up of mutations that a population would change over time considering the mutations were cumulative and dispersed among the population’s progeny?
I have seen where YEC accept the term “microevolution” (changes on the molecular level such as antibiotic resistance) but reject the term “macroevolution” (the splitting of a species to for a new species). I have to assume this is based on the amount of time needed for speciation to occur, which would not fit in the time scale provided for by a young earth model nor in the biblical account of kinds. Outside of those two reasons are there any others as to why it is rejected? I mean after all we have proven that “microevolution” occurs in the lab and in nature due to antibiotic resistant bacteria made artificially in the lab and found naturally in areas where high antibiotics are found as well as bacteria that can digest nylon (a synthetic material created by man that was not found to be digested by any micro organisms until this bacteria mutated). So beyond the time (according to YEC views of the bible) and flood (according to the bible) are there any other reasons?--Able806 17:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I haven't yet managed to read all of Conservapedia's article on the Theory of Evolution yet, but from my personal experience there are a couple reasons why macroevolution is rejected. I apologize if there's anything I missed in your question above.

You state above that many YECs consider junk DNA to be worthless; I think that the concern is more that junk DNA is harmful to an organism. When random mutations occur, a decrease in usable information in the DNA occurs. Though it might happen that a beneficial mutation occurs, such a mutation would not only be rare, but also (depending on where the mutation occurs) could be fatal to a creature if the creature's body rejects the fact that it has mutated or if the mutation affects the survival of the creature. Thus one reason for rejection of macroevolution is the sheer unlikelihood of a beneficial mutation occurring.

Also, I think many YECs derive a notion of 'kinds' (see Baraminology) from the statements God makes in Genesis 1:21-25. That is to say, a dog cannot produce a cow in reproduction because a cow is not the dog's 'kind.' From this standpoint, no creature will ever reproduce something that is not the 'kind' that it was created as, ruling out the possibility of gradually evolving into another kind. It would seem possible to merge DNA from two different kinds (a donkey and a horse produce a mule), but these hybrids are rarely able reproduce and aren't evidence of new genetic information, just recombined DNA from the original animals. --Hampshire2600 29:49, 29 January 2008

Thank you for the response but I believe I was not clear in my post therefore causing the wrong assumptions to be made.
I did not state that YEC consider junk DNA to be worthless, I said "many who do not study the biosciences". There are many YECs who consider junk DNA to be valid as do bioscientists. It is a bit of misconception about the mutations being harmful, most mutations amount to nothing since the majority of junk DNA is inert, meaning it is not encoded and therefore can change all it wants. Only when the mutation causes the initiation of transcription of the junk DNA is it ever a concern. With that being said, the ratios found of neutral, negative and positive mutations tend to favor the neutral mutations to a higher degree with the positive and negative to not be seen except occasionaly. Since the Junk DNA is not normally transcribed it would not be considered a loss of information in reference to the genome. But I digress the issue is that the build up of mutations is found to happen, my example above as well as a number of papers researching the changes of viral biochemical pathways to adapt to the environment, so why would it be a stretch for the build up to cause speciation?
Thank you for mentioning Baraminology, I had forgotten the term. What you listed above with kinds seems to make since except in the case where Domestic dogs (Canis familaris), wolves (Canis lupus, Canis rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. As a side, Canis is the genus so interbreeding of genus can occur beyond species). I was always a little perplexed with classification systems in biology since most are based on physical traits instead of genetic differences. If memory serves me right, taxonomists are working on changing the classification system used in biology to include genetic material. Now to the point, the interbreeding does not introduce new genetic information to the environment however it does introduce new genetic information to the species. For example, if a wolf were to mate with a pack of domestic dogs, thus introducing some traits of size and ferociousness to a litter of pups and the pups continued to mate with the remainder of the dog pack you would see a dispersal of wolf genetic material in the domestic dog pack augmenting the dog's natural phenotype with the wolf phenotype. So when you take this into context there is not an introduction of new information into the collective but there is introduction of new information in the part therefore causing a change in the part's phenotype. This with competition within the environment may allow for those dogs with the partial wolf phenotypes to have an advantage and therefore survive to pass on their genes. With continued selective pressures of the environment could change the entire species of dog in the area to allow for an animal with a better fit. (This is a prime example of natural selection with genetic drift).
The reason why I bring this up is to understand why YEC has such a problem with evolution outside of the assumed time (according to YEC views of the bible) and flood (according to the bible). We, as in the scientific community, have seen beneficial mutations, have seen gene transfer between organisms and a host of other genetic mutational mechanisms which, assumed over periods of time, could lead to great phenotypical changes in organisms.--Able806 14:40, 30 January 2008 (EST)

You appear to misconstrue what a created kind is. It doesn't have to be a species. In fact, Canis lupus familiaris is a subspecies of the gray wolf! Furthermore, I would define a "wolf kind" that would include what we call dogs, along with wolves, coyotes, and foxes. Nere's my challenge to you: could a fox interbreed with, say, a puma? I say not. I say that big dogs and big cats are two different kinds.--TerryH^Talk 15:15, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Excellent point Terry! A fox could not interbreed with a puma. However on the comment of kinds, in relation to the ark, would the kind for Canis allow for speciation to the diversity we see in the genus Canis? This is a bit of a conundrum since we are actually talking about a genus (Canis) and not just a species (BTW thank you for the correction about the domestic dog like I said before it has been some time since I went into the classification systems). So to answer your question, no, a fox and a puma would not interbreed however a coyote and a fox can. As such if we rely on the kind only then we have to assume evolution is correct to account for the species diversity we see in the Canis genus. Never the less, back to the original question besides time (according to YEC view of the bible) and the flood (according to the bible) why would the Theory of Evolution be wrong? And to correlate with my post over at flood geology if I never heard of the bible why would I believe that the theory of evolution is wrong?--Able806 16:34, 30 January 2008 (EST)

The critical flaw in the theory of evolution is its parallel assumption of abiogenesis--the notion that life came from non-life. In addition, classical evolution assumes that all of life is one kind, and that all kinds observed today descend from a common ancestor. Baraminology assumes that a number of kinds each descend from its own ancestor, and that God made the ancestors. Thus YEC sees not one tree of descent, but many. Baraminology, then, seeks to discern the kinds--while classical evolution tries to link all species together in a single, gigantic tree, only to find that some of the links are, for lack of a better word, missing.

Of course, the answer that classical evolutionists make to the questions of "Where are the 'missing links'?" and "How could life have arisen from non-life?" is "Wait and see." Well, YEC's have waited, and have not seen much beyond gross misconstruction and in some instances outright misrepresentation.--TerryH^Talk 16:58, 30 January 2008 (EST)

I can see what you mean about abiogenesis, it would be a leap. I have to point out the RNA talk up near the top of the page though, it includes self organizing molecules. Now to create life out of nonlife, well I do not classify viruses as alive but the example of Sol Spiegelman's experiment kinda makes me wonder if it is not possible.

From what I can tell the difference between Baraminology and the evolutionary tree is the number of trunks, which I could say may be due to the time involved as pointed out from my initial question.

As for missing links, I have heard and wondered the same. I tend to keep to the biochemical level of a cell and often see many transitional proteins and molecules that have lead to different active sites within a cell's funtion. As for application of this to such a high level as to differentiate species, well I guess it would be based on magnitude.

I would like to continue this but I need to add more edits plus I have to meet my wife for dinner. Perhaps tomorrow.--Able806 17:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Just to make sure I understand you Able806, (correct me if I'm wrong) you've said that the majority of mutations aren't reproduced and thus don't impact the survival of organisms. Among the ones that do, though, you say that beneficial mutations have occurred, have been observed, and could accumulate over time to cause creation of new species.

When you ask why YECs have a problem with evolution, I assume that you're asking why creationists have a problem with macroevolution in biological species rather than why creationists have a problem with evolution as an origins theory. The main problem with evolution as a whole (and it applies to macroevolution as well) is entropy. Without guided forces directing it, continued mutations in reproduced DNA will result in a breakdown in the information already in the DNA which describes the organism. Beneficial mutations might be reproduced because they lend themselves to the survival of the organism, but these don't tend to be the norm. It's also possible for a mutation to lend itself to increased chance of reproduction but be harmful to the organism, I think.

Beneficial reproduced mutations in more complex systems of an organism have an even smaller likelihood of occurring because changes must either occur all at once or else be harmful to the organism (the concept of irreducible complexity). It might be possible for a mutation to occur, giving a flying squirrel a flap of skin between its legs, but if this flap of skin comes about through smaller mutations, the mutation won't be beneficial enough to merit an increased chance of reproduction. This is to say nothing of whether, when the squirrel tries to mate, whether the mutation will make him/her an undesirable mate.

So, yes, time is an issue in a way. In order to produce a series of beneficial mutations (or combinations of beneficial mutations), the time required (assuming a steady rate of mutations occurring) is out of range of the YEC view of the age of the earth. Furthermore, though, the chance of beneficial mutations occurring to produce speciation is so small that macroevolution would be at best unlikely over a long period of time. At worst, macroevolution would be impossible.

Hopefully I've hit on what you're asking; let me know if I haven't. Hampshire2600 16:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you, Hampshire! But I must correct you in a few regards. The majority of mutations are not ‘’expressed’’ not that they are not reproduced just that they are not transcribed. You are correct in the assumption that my line of questioning is based on macroevolution (as defined by creationists). I explained above how the entropy argument really does not have an application on evolutionary theory to the degree that creationist claim. Nucleotide excision repair, for example, helps repair many mutations that cause disruption to the DNA being transcribed. There are many biopathways that repair DNA in similar fashions, these pathways conform to biochemical properties of molecules which follow the rules for entropy. I am unsure if you would interpret this as guided or not but it is what it is. Just to comment the prevalence of positive mutation vs. negative mutation is augmented by how the mutation affects the organism. For example, a negative mutation that causes one to burn in modest sunlight would be more noticeable than the mutation that allowed for a human to have a higher O₂ capacity. Many geneticist comment that where the majority of mutation is neutral (having no phenotype change) the difference in the proportion of negative to positive mutation is minor. Your comment about irreducible complexity causes me to recommend that you read my first paragraph about the progressive mutations that lead to a receptor. Not all changes have to occur at the same time to formulate a change. Many molecular changes are progressive, such as viral adaptation and bacterial resistance. Your comment about the flying squirrel is very true when taken in the context that all mutations cause phenotype changes, this is not true in that genotype changes are not always expressed therefore they can be hidden in a population until a higher concentration of the genes occurs. For example sickle cell, if you are heterozygous with sickle cell you do not get malaria; if you are homozygous you end up with sickle cell anemia. The heterozygous carriers can spread the gene around till the point where the majority of the population is heterozygous thus causing an increase in the ratio of homozygous due to the population. Thank you though for trying to help out in this discussion. The time issue is one of the major factors that I can see would cause such issue with YEC and evolution, the second is the literal interpretation of the bible. As such I am trying to rationalize the difference. I personally believe in theistic evolution but as a scientist I have to limit my worldview in my conclusions of the observations I make. (I gave an example of this on the flood geology page). Philip has pointed out many things where I can see the confusion but I am trying to reduce the variables to see what the parts consisting of the argument. --Able806 17:04, 30 January 2008 (EST)

First, I'd like to compliment you all with this interesting discussion. I hope you don't mind if I add a few observations. Hampshire says that without guiding forces the gene pool would deteriorate, and he is correct. But there is a guiding force and it is known as selection. If a harmful selection occurs, like the ones that you describe, then the bearer of this mutation would have no off-spring, and this mutation would be gone within a single generation. Bad mutations disappear, while good ones stick. This might not work when the population is small, i.e. if there is a limited choice of mating partners. It has indeed been observed in small isolated human communities, and this is known as genetic drift. But if a group is sufficiently big genetic drift does not occur, there are mathematical model predicting the size when this occurs, and selection is the guiding force you are looking for.

The squirrel example is indeed right. If a mutation of a squirrel doesn't have an reproductive benefit, it won't spread. That is exactly what the theory of evolution would predict. It wouldn't disappear either, unless it has a negative impact on the reproductive rate. A mutation is beneficial, if it leads to an increased chance for reproduction. There is no independent measure. Mutation that "lend itself to increased chance of reproduction but be harmful to the organism", are beneficial mutations. If a mutation turns a person into an infertile superhuman, it won't make it to the next generation. If a mutation turns a person into an attractive simpleton, it is beneficial. The is no objective measure, other being a better fit to the environment, and fertility, and sexual preference of other individuals is part of the environment.

I still haven't seen an argument that macro evolution is impossible, since macro evolution is just a accumulation of mirco evolution. You travel a long distance by foot, by making small steps. Order 18:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Evolution is a proven scientific theory just like the "theory" of universal gravitation and the "theory" of relativity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eljesusreal (talk)

We are listening to "scientests"...just not the atheistic, liberal kind! Karajou 22:13, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Stalin agreed with Charles Darwin. It is therefore immoral, and is not true.

The Stalin argument is so weak it is laughable: Stalin also had a moustache, therefore all people with moustaches are immoral ... and tell lies!

Read Soviet "ape-man" Karajou 22:21, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

My point is this: Just because a mad-man (Starlin) believed in evolution, does not mean that all people who believe in evolution secretly harbour the desire to kill millions of people.

In fact for comparison, a Google search for "christian serial killers" gives quite a few hits for example, the first hit: http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/serial_killers.htm, quotes the FBI who state that "Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were 'hard-shell' Baptists and Methodists". I would never therefore conclude that therefore all christain are secretly harbouring the desire to be serial killers, just because there is an example of a christian serial killer.

The Starlin argument is weak and meaningless. Your logic is thus: Planes have wings; birds have wings; a plane is therefore a bird. Yes, they have something in common (wings) but they are not therefore the same. Qgobo 23:22, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

No, that wasn't my logic. Planes are different from birds, as are evolutionary scientists are different from people who harbor a desire to kill. But what you're missing is the fact that Stalin (or "Starlin", as you call him) believed in evolution himself; Stalin applied evolutionary logic to many of his actions; and Stalin was in charge of a country, where millions were killed off because of him. Karajou 05:40, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Stalin also believed in a round Earth. Does this mean that the whole round Earth theory is immoral and wrong? Barikada 16:30, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh-- Stalin even applied round-Earth logic to his actions! Take a look at the missile and rocket launcher plans his troops had. Clearly reliant on a round Earth. Barikada 16:44, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

TO: Anonymous poster: Did the FBI state what you quoted? I saw no compelling citation or no employee of the FBI quoted. Conservative 08:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

To be quite honest the whole argument that stalin used evolution so evolution is bad is like saying that the people in the 9/11 crisis commited their crimes of terror because of their god, therefore all gotds are bad. This is obviously not true, you can use anything to support any actions if you are creative enough. The fact is that there is proof of evolution. For instance, the bush people of Africa have a higher average height, whigh is obviously an advantage where they live. Lets face it, there is no scientific evidence that god created the world in 7 days, but there is proof for evolution. Take a look at the noah's ark story, there is direct contradictions about times withen the bible. If we take the bible's inent and not its exact words we can easily see that the order in which things were created fits fairly well with the beleived progresion of evolution. Each of the 7 days could be hundreds of thousands of years, this is the only way that creationism is in any way supported by science, so I sugest you stop grasping at straws and accept the facts. Jesusfollower 12:15, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Jesus Himself believed in the Genesis account, which by that alone not only contradicts everything you just said, but your own user nick as well. Karajou 12:24, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Karajou, does that mean that you cannot be a true follower of Jesus unless you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and the six days of Creation? Ajkgordon 14:42, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

You cannot be a true follower of Jesus if you believe in something that contradicts what the Bible has to say on the subject. Karajou 14:53, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your answer. Just to clarify, that means you don't believe that Christians who believe in an old Earth, evolution, the Big Bang, etc. are proper Christians. Is that correct? If so, is that simply a personal opinion or is it a policy of Conservapedia? Does it leave any room for non-YEC Christians to edit anything that may conflict with this view? (I'm trying to ascertain which articles I should stay away from editing.) Thanks. Ajkgordon 07:20, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Please let us know if there is any broken links for this article so they can be repaired. Perhaps Conservapedia will buy the program Link Defender and run it so we can repair borken links more expeditiously at Conservapedia. I don't have a lot of free time right now in order to buy and learn how to use the program Link Defender which can be purchased here: http://www.download.com/Link-Defender/3000-2181_4-10256089.html Conservative 21:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi all, I'm new here, so bear with me. I was reading this article, and I saw the line "The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version." How exactly is this relevant? They didn't propose space flight either, did they? We did, afterall, go to the moon, unless you ask some nutjob conspiracy theorist, of course ;) it's essentially saying that these men encapsulate the sum of all human knowledge, past, present an future, and if they didn't theorize it, it's wrong or impossible. It's a ridiculous argument, and if you want people to take Conservapedia seriously, statements like this need to go. ForrestBHolliday 23:26, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Welcome to Conservapedia. I completely agree, and would like to add that statements like this fall under a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. While all these people are famous, it isn't surprising that Archimedes (an early physicist and mathematician), St. Augustine (a theologian and philosopher), Francis Bacon (philosopher), Isaac Newton (physicist and theologian), and Lord Kelvin (physicist) did not come up with a theory in biology. The only one that was associated with biology was Aristotle, but this is like saying that because Ptolemy did not come up with General Relativity it is wrong (or implied to be wrong).--Phillipps 21:29, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I am neither a fan nor an opponent of the sentence but I will point out that Kelvin opposed Darwinism.Conservative 01:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Great contribution, as usual, Conservative. How, exactly, does Kelvin's view contribute to the above discussion? I don't think you get the point being made by ForrestB and Phillipps. To wit: arguments from authority are meaningless when that authority is from the distant historical past. Are you not aware that Kelvin's objection was based on his dating of the earth far too young because radioactivity hadn't yet been discovered? So you're citing an authority who has been proven wrong by modern science. Get it? Porkchop 20:35, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I think there should be external links added to this page, about educational resources regarding evolution. I would add these.

• A good introduction, from the science department at Berkeley.
• PBS' Website is also a good interactive site.
• Science Daily's Evolution News covers up-to-the-day information on evolution.
• The TalkOrigin Archive, often technical, helps to understand creationist arguments, and provides the information needed to rebut them.

I understand this "panel" decision would somehow matter... but apparently, the decision is meaningless, so...-ArcturusM 16:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

1. ↑ http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory