Evolution vs Creation
- Thread starter BliZZard
- Start date
Welcome to Sciforums!
A very common argument but a good argument, unfortunately 80-90% of us hear agree with evolution, some of us believe that a god is pulling the strings but still believe in evolution, you won’t find enough to take up the creationist side here to get this argument going, perhaps a post in the religious forum?
A very common argument but a good argument, unfortunately 80-90% of us hear agree with evolution, some of us believe that a god is pulling the strings but still believe in evolution, you won’t find enough to take up the creationist side here to get this argument going, perhaps a post in the religious forum?
What is your own opinion? I don't like it when people ask for opinions and never give their own.
evolutiong all the way! i belive in 1 god, cthulhu! and hes a god of destruction, not creation! so we kthonians belive that the universe is a naturaly created.. thing. and we were put here to kill it! so, yah. evolution. ps. could some1 splice some scales and poison secreting glands into my cats unborn fetii? thanx.
Evolution can at least be observed. (chiwawas are descended from wolves, bacteria develop resistance towards antibiotics) Creationism on the other hand is based on a handfull of books that might very well be works of fiction.
Could somebody do an equation to find out just how many Evolution vs Creation threads are started each year?
Could somebody do an equation to find out just how many Evolution vs Creation threads are started each year?
Actually this is the first in the last 3 months to pit evolution and creationism against each other: most just pick out a quirk of the theory or a flaw of the mythology and debate about it, few ask out right which one is better.
contrarian
Registered Senior Member
Obviously, some form of evolution certainly seems to have taken place. Species seem to have changed from one to another over the course of time, certainly.
The interesting question is how much of the observed evolution is explained by materialism. Most supporters of evolution seem to believe the terms are synonymous.
The commonly held tenet that evolution could be explained by a combination of random chance and natural selection seems to me to be very difficult to maintain if one has an understanding of precisely how complex living systems are.
very few people are willing to ket go their preconceptions and discuss it logically.
The interesting question is how much of the observed evolution is explained by materialism. Most supporters of evolution seem to believe the terms are synonymous.
The commonly held tenet that evolution could be explained by a combination of random chance and natural selection seems to me to be very difficult to maintain if one has an understanding of precisely how complex living systems are.
very few people are willing to ket go their preconceptions and discuss it logically.
on the contrary...
contrarian
Registered Senior Member
On the contrary ... what?
If one understands life, a supernatural view would be difficult to maintain...
Let's do this seriously though...
Are you suggesting that complex life cannot be explained solely by mechanical processes, or are you just saying that other natural forces are working in the process of evolution besides 'chance' and 'selection'?
Are you suggesting that complex life cannot be explained solely by mechanical processes, or are you just saying that other natural forces are working in the process of evolution besides 'chance' and 'selection'?
contrarian
Registered Senior Member
Supernatural?
I don't get it. Maybe I should rephrase.
To test the randomness factor in evolution:
First you have to enumerate the changes that took place
These fall into two main types (1) genetic and (2) morphological
Since there is no real theory to account for how morphological differences arise we have to put a big question mark in that column.
How genetic material changes is easily understood - chemicals, radiation or copying mistakes can all produce genetic changes. The odds of a beneficial mutation taking place are much less.
Again probabilities are very difficult to quantify. Mutations, in the first place are designed to be rare. In the second place a beneficial mutation must take place in the context of the existing genetic organisation. That is to say, the gene for an improved protein for brain function does no good if it replaces the gene for hemoglobin.
I don't get it. Maybe I should rephrase.
To test the randomness factor in evolution:
First you have to enumerate the changes that took place
These fall into two main types (1) genetic and (2) morphological
Since there is no real theory to account for how morphological differences arise we have to put a big question mark in that column.
How genetic material changes is easily understood - chemicals, radiation or copying mistakes can all produce genetic changes. The odds of a beneficial mutation taking place are much less.
Again probabilities are very difficult to quantify. Mutations, in the first place are designed to be rare. In the second place a beneficial mutation must take place in the context of the existing genetic organisation. That is to say, the gene for an improved protein for brain function does no good if it replaces the gene for hemoglobin.
Morphological changes accrue usually from genetic ones do to the central dogma (DNA--mRNA-Protein=phenotype)
The problem here is the degree at which a person feels something is unlikely to happen: many people just cannot believe that billions of years of small changes can produce the complex life we see today… that’s their problems. The evidence best fits Darwinian evolution.
The problem here is the degree at which a person feels something is unlikely to happen: many people just cannot believe that billions of years of small changes can produce the complex life we see today… that’s their problems. The evidence best fits Darwinian evolution.
I don't think you ever looked...
for instance
Salazar-Ciudad, I. & Jernvall, J. (2002) A gene network model accounting for development and evolution of mammalian teeth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 99: 8116-8120.
Your remarks sound extremely strange in my ears, because I am part of a field of science whose sole purpose is to unravel the mystery of morphological change. Developmental Biology. The primary aim is to discover the mechanisms of ontogeny. More and more this field expanded this aim to also include the evolutionary aspects of morphological change. It is therefore certainly an understatement that we do not know anything about these processes or that it is all a big questionmark. Sure, there are plenty of questions, but there are also plenty of answers.
Last edited:
contrarian
Registered Senior Member
Hiya!
Well, I admit I'm not familiar withyour study of mammalian teeth, but I am curious could you elaborate? I suspect that it refers to genes which act as switches which turn specific developmental steps on rather than a full accounting of the nuts and bolts of these processes. To gimmick with a gene to alter or arrest the overall expression of a trait does not mean that that trait is fully explained by that gene.
Furthermore, if the same process is used to produce a dog's teeth and a man's for instance, then pretty obviously, it doesn't explain why a dog's teeth have a different shape than a man's.
WellCooked - you have to realize there's a pretty huge leap in your sequence from protein to phenotype.
My point is though how does genetic info translate into the actual structures of a living body i.e shape, size, cellular makeup - we don't know.
The only recognizable information that I'm aware of in a cell is in the form of genes i.e. templates for the proteins used by a cell.
The shape, number and types of cells are the kind of things needed to be imparted to a cell when in the process of differentiating.
How, for instance, does let's say foetus liver cell 6879 distinguish itself from foetus liver cell 6880 and 6878. I mean, specifically, what biochemical process allows the organism to coordinate the millions of separate interactions and to keep track of them. It's pretty easy to see how protein synthesis happens - It's pretty hard to see how your hand has the exact shape of the bones, the exact placement of muscles, ligaments, nerves and blood vessels.
Now maybe there's some kind of algorithm hidden somewhere in the cell which controls all this stuff- maybe that information is somehow processed and passed to individual cells - I don't see how it would work.
It seems to me that current biological thought would be well disposed to consider these issues.
Well that's enough for now - this is cool, though.
Well, I admit I'm not familiar withyour study of mammalian teeth, but I am curious could you elaborate? I suspect that it refers to genes which act as switches which turn specific developmental steps on rather than a full accounting of the nuts and bolts of these processes. To gimmick with a gene to alter or arrest the overall expression of a trait does not mean that that trait is fully explained by that gene.
Furthermore, if the same process is used to produce a dog's teeth and a man's for instance, then pretty obviously, it doesn't explain why a dog's teeth have a different shape than a man's.
WellCooked - you have to realize there's a pretty huge leap in your sequence from protein to phenotype.
My point is though how does genetic info translate into the actual structures of a living body i.e shape, size, cellular makeup - we don't know.
The only recognizable information that I'm aware of in a cell is in the form of genes i.e. templates for the proteins used by a cell.
The shape, number and types of cells are the kind of things needed to be imparted to a cell when in the process of differentiating.
How, for instance, does let's say foetus liver cell 6879 distinguish itself from foetus liver cell 6880 and 6878. I mean, specifically, what biochemical process allows the organism to coordinate the millions of separate interactions and to keep track of them. It's pretty easy to see how protein synthesis happens - It's pretty hard to see how your hand has the exact shape of the bones, the exact placement of muscles, ligaments, nerves and blood vessels.
Now maybe there's some kind of algorithm hidden somewhere in the cell which controls all this stuff- maybe that information is somehow processed and passed to individual cells - I don't see how it would work.
It seems to me that current biological thought would be well disposed to consider these issues.
Well that's enough for now - this is cool, though.
Protiens are uses to make everything in the body, proteins control almost all enzyme reactions include critical cellular functions, cellular communication, cellular products, a change to the gene changes the protein which changes the function, structure is change by a small genetic change.
Cells communicate with each other is complex chemical patterns, the central dogma does not go in one way specific proteins can choose what genes get activated and how much, as a organism develops (embryonic) is cells communicate and change according to the extremely complex activities of it proteins, genes and chemical messengers. The genes them self to not have a blue print of your structure, it only a chemical reactions that determine what changes a cell makes and were in moves, grows and dies. As a biochemist I do not know enough about morphology to continue this, I sure spuriousmonkey can give you more details.
Again the problems is what your consider possible, you don't think 100,000-1million proteins interacting in analog with them self, there genetic blueprints and chemical products could produce a human being, that is your opinion not fact, theory and evidence supports it even if its hard to imagine.
Cells communicate with each other is complex chemical patterns, the central dogma does not go in one way specific proteins can choose what genes get activated and how much, as a organism develops (embryonic) is cells communicate and change according to the extremely complex activities of it proteins, genes and chemical messengers. The genes them self to not have a blue print of your structure, it only a chemical reactions that determine what changes a cell makes and were in moves, grows and dies. As a biochemist I do not know enough about morphology to continue this, I sure spuriousmonkey can give you more details.
Again the problems is what your consider possible, you don't think 100,000-1million proteins interacting in analog with them self, there genetic blueprints and chemical products could produce a human being, that is your opinion not fact, theory and evidence supports it even if its hard to imagine.
contrarian
Registered Senior Member
I don't think you really get my objection, WellCooked
You say that cells communicate, but are they saying the right kinds of things. Genes 'know' how to do one thing only and that is to make proteins. All the molecules of a particular type of protein are identical. However, the kind of information needed to build an organism from the ground up is highly specific. It forms particular shapes made up cell by cell.
Organisms move from a single cell to an extremely specific collection of cells numbering(depending on the organism) to the trillions. Every step along the way it has to be viable(ie not die) and lead to the next step in the organism's development.
I think that the kinds of questions I ask are pretty simple. The reason you have so much problem answering them is because current theory just ignores. For instance, if genetic info determines everything about a cell, what part of a human's gene's determines the shape of a human eye. Granting that we can't find that information right now, what could that information possibly look like. Does anyone anywhere have an explanation for why any species has its own particular morphology tracing it backwards to the genes. I notice you didn't really do this you just told me that it happens. Am I supposed to take this on faith?
You say this is all my beliefs, but all I think I'm doing is saying that the Emperor has no clothes.
Cheers
You say that cells communicate, but are they saying the right kinds of things. Genes 'know' how to do one thing only and that is to make proteins. All the molecules of a particular type of protein are identical. However, the kind of information needed to build an organism from the ground up is highly specific. It forms particular shapes made up cell by cell.
Organisms move from a single cell to an extremely specific collection of cells numbering(depending on the organism) to the trillions. Every step along the way it has to be viable(ie not die) and lead to the next step in the organism's development.
I think that the kinds of questions I ask are pretty simple. The reason you have so much problem answering them is because current theory just ignores. For instance, if genetic info determines everything about a cell, what part of a human's gene's determines the shape of a human eye. Granting that we can't find that information right now, what could that information possibly look like. Does anyone anywhere have an explanation for why any species has its own particular morphology tracing it backwards to the genes. I notice you didn't really do this you just told me that it happens. Am I supposed to take this on faith?
You say this is all my beliefs, but all I think I'm doing is saying that the Emperor has no clothes.
Cheers
You could take a specific protein. Let’s say Sonic Hedgehog (SHH) from a mouse and put it in a fruitfly. The fruitfly will develop quite normally. That is because the positional information is not in the protein or in the slight differences between the protein (warning: gross generalization, which is obviously not completely true). The information can be found in the promoter region and enhancer and inhibitor elements and other regulatory elements and processes that specify the expression. A nice example of such regulation and a mechanism would be the ‘combinatorial control’ theory, in which the promotor region acts as a sort of computer adding up all the negative and positive promotor regulatory elements, and reduces it to a single signal (=expression of the protein). The output of course varies depending on differences in the promotor region. That is on manner in which spatial information is specified.
Read a general book on ‘development’ of organisms. For instance ‘Developmental Biology’, by Scott F. Gilbert. Honestly, there are plenty answers, you just never heard them. Read about it and be amazed.
No..read more literature…start with a good book as I suggested.
I could go into details, but you wouldn’t understand it anyway. That is the curse of science nowadays. And it would take more than a single post anyway .
And actually, these question do not actually deal with evolution perse. You can't imagine personally how an organism can be build, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a well established field in biology describing exactly this process: developmental biology.
edit:
here is another thread on combinatorial control...
Last edited:
no…you suspect wrong. It predicts the postion of organizer centers in a model, and correlates it to real expression patterns. Then the model shows how little changes in these patterns can account for different tooth shapes.
The same signaling molecule families (SHH, WNT, FGF, TNF, Notch, TGFbeta, etc) are used to make all organs. There are no specific genes that create specific organs, although some genes are organ specific.
trust me, it is a central thought in EvoDevo.