Evolution or Creation?

[fluffy]

I think I've always had a feeling that there is something tying this whole mess together on a level other than physical, but I never could get along with the concept of some sort of cosmic consciousness at the helm so to speak. I was more comfortable with how some wise old guy once described it as "It surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the universe together." Call it what you want, but "God" is real easy to spell and it only has one syllable.

On a religious note, I kept a copy of the Bible with me in jail, along with a copy of the Lord of the Rings. You needed a couple of heavy items to weight the edge of a blanket on the top bunk so it could hang down in front of the lower bunk when you slept cuz they wouldn't turn off the lights.

[steven lloyd]

An entire branch of medicine is devoted to evolution. It's why we get flu shots.

Really jenny. Evolution is a fact because we engineered flu shots ?

Primitive medicine men knew tolerance to snake bites could be developed by limited and repeated exposure to snake venom.
Are you telling me they were closet geneticists ?

[steven lloyd]

Steven demonstrates that he in fact has no idea about what a theory is.

Thanks. I will so advise my university professors and demand an immediate refund of my fees

It IS based on facts - and in the case of evolution a plethora of factual observations.

Hmmm, could have sworn I said something like that. Wait a sec ...

Evolution is a theory strongly supported by scientific evidence – to be precise.

evolution is the best present explanation given the overwhelming scientific and archaeological evidence that supports that theory

Process demonstrates that he/she might also want to get a refund on some of dat der edjumacation.

[JLives]

Really jenny. Evolution is a fact because we engineered flu shots ?

Primitive medicine men knew tolerance to snake bites could be developed by limited and repeated exposure to snake venom.
Are you telling me they were closet geneticists ?

Really Steven?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 130201_flu It's a tiny bit more advanced than snake venom. This should catch you up to speed.

[Process]

Steven, one of the statements I take issue with is:


As for theories of creation, It would be presumptuous to dismiss all explanations based on the knowledge of just one or two religious ones. There is still so much we do not know, and it is those who continue to make the discoveries that already understand that

You said "theories of creation". It is you who do not understand what a theory is, as creation stories are myths. Try to get it straight.

BTW, which component of my education (three degrees and a post doctoral fellowship) should I request a refund for? Shall we compare credentials?

[zzontar]

Perhaps evolution is pre-determined. Would that still make it evolution?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/evolution-take ... 22572.html

Evolution is surprisingly predictable and its course seems relatively unaffected by chance events, a new study suggests.
Michael Doebeli, a mathematician and evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia, and postdoctoral researcher Matthew Herron conducted three separate experiments under the same laboratory conditions, observing 1,000 generations of E. coli bacteria as they evolved into two different strains — a process known as diversification that eventually gives rise to separate species.
They wanted to answer one of the big questions about evolution: Is diversification a predetermined process or is it partly driven by chance events?
That answer could in turn help answer a bigger question that some biologists have mused about.
That is, if you went back thousands of years and "replayed the tape of life," would you end up with humans and the species we know today, or would small differences caused by chance result in completely different plants and animals?
Doebeli was surprised to discover that in his study, all three bacterial populations evolved in almost exactly the same way, suggesting that chance or randomness doesn't play a big role, at least over a short period of time, such as 1,000 generations, and in laboratory conditions.
"It's a deterministic process — it unfolds in very similar ways in independent instances," said Doebeli. "We were surprised by just how parallel it actually is."
Not only did the bacteria go through similar mutations, but similar changes in the populations occurred at similar times.
Doebeli said the process is consistent with mathematical predictions. The results were published this week in the journal PLoS Biology.
Doebeli's study involved growing E. coli bacteria in an environment with two nutrients, glucose and acetate.
The bacteria prefer to eat glucose, but once it is all gone, they can switch into a different metabolic mode to eat the acetate. Over 1,000 generations, the bacteria evolve via natural selection into two different strains:
One that is better at eating glucose but bad at switching its system into acetate-eating mode.
One that is not as good at eating glucose, but better at switching into acetate-eating mode.
That's because initially, when everyone is going after the same resource, an individual who can tap into a different resource has a distinct advantage and will be able to produce more descendants.
Throughout the process, which took about six months, the researchers removed and froze bacteria from different generations at regular intervals. At the end, they analyzed the changes to the DNA over time to see what changes occurred.
"We have basically a genetic fossil record of what happened," Doebeli said.
In all three cases, the diversification followed the same pattern, and each step occurred in the same order and took the same amount of time.
First, a strain that was unusually good at eating gluocose arose. Then a strain that was good at eating acetate came about. That led to more changes in the glucose specialist, which in turn led to more changes in the acetate specialist, and so on.
Of course, Doebeli acknowledged, it's true that the mutations that allowed that process to take place occur randomly.
"But the ones that actually make it — the mutations that can actually proliferate — those are not random," he said. "They are determined by this environment."
Although the exact mutations differed between the three populations, they tended to occur in genes that had similar functions.
Doebeli said the study suggests this kind of diversification in an environment with multiple resources isn't something that happens "by chance every now and then."
"Under the right conditions, it's actually expected to occur," he said. "And for the same conditions, it will always occur in the same way."
He added that he thinks that finding is applicable to all organisms. However, he acknowledged that sexual reproduction — where mating between two strains can counteract divergence — does add some complications.
As for the question of whether this type of process played a big role in the evolution of humans, Doebeli said that process may have been "more deterministic than someone would have thought.
"But I don't think we can extrapolate from this 1,000-generation experiment to the emergence of humans."

[steven lloyd]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 130201_flu It's a tiny bit more advanced than snake venom.

Yes it is jenny. I had hoped the example wouldn't be so elusive or you so quick to deflect. We know a lot about gentics now. We know about mutation. We have seen examples of evolution that support the overall theory. I'm not arguing against the overall theory of evolution. I still recognize that it is incomplete in spite of the growing evidence we have to support it.

[steven lloyd]

You said "theories of creation". It is you who do not understand what a theory is, as creation stories are myths. Try to get it straight.

BTW, which component of my education (three degrees and a post doctoral fellowship) should I request a refund for? Shall we compare credentials?

Actually, you’re the one making quite the presumptions when assuming a theory around creation must reference a religious myth when many other options exist – abiogenesis comes to mind as just one example (references easily found using google). You can decide where you want to start with your requests for refunds.

[steven lloyd]

Evolution is surprisingly predictable and its course seems relatively unaffected by chance events, a new study suggests. Michael Doebeli, a mathematician and evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia, and postdoctoral researcher Matthew Herron conducted three separate experiments under the same laboratory conditions, observing 1,000 generations of E. coli bacteria as they evolved into two different strains — a process known as diversification that eventually gives rise to separate species. They wanted to answer one of the big questions about evolution: Is diversification a predetermined process or is it partly driven by chance events?

What ??? Science doesn't know for sure yet (ie. found it to be fact) ? Ya don't say.

[steven lloyd]

Shall we discuss the futility of arguing that one guess is better than another?

Now that's a fact

[Process]

Steven, abiogenesis is not Creationism as we're discussing it, and as is being discussed on the Daily Courier's letters section. Stop muddying the waters. Life arising from inorganic material is an expected beginning for life, and the beginning of events for what comes later, descent with modification. Creationism requires the intersession of supernatural forces. So, I'll hang onto my degrees, and ask you to burn yours.

[Process]

Shall we discuss the futility of arguing that one guess is better than another?

Fluffy and Steven - the only fact I can discern here is that neither of you has demonstrated has demonstrated the ability to discern between a theory and a myth, or a theory and a notion (or even inkling). With the flaccid world view you hold, it's no wonder one of you says such a ridiculous thing, and the other agrees.

[steven lloyd]

Steven, abiogenesis is not Creationism as we're discussing it, ....

No, abiogenesis is not a theory of creationism as you’ve decided we’re discussing it.

Creationism requires the intersession of supernatural forces.

If you says so doc

So, I'll hang onto my degrees, ...

Good idea. I bet you find them very reassuring.

[fluffy]

Fluffy and Steven - the only fact I can discern here is that neither of you has demonstrated has demonstrated the ability to discern between a theory and a myth, or a theory and a notion (or even inkling). With the flaccid world view you hold, it's no wonder one of you says such a ridiculous thing, and the other agrees.

In this case theory and myth may well be just a matter of semantics. Science points towards "likely" explanations but still does not supply definitive proof yet. To assume that any explanation, even one you would class as myth, does not fall within the realm of possibility is not the way things are done. There are still gaping mysteries in the evolutionary timeline that are more readily explained by the intervention of some as-yet-unknown force outside the accepted evolutionary norms, a classic example being the Cambrian Explosion. The simple assessment is "We don't know yet".

Yes I do often find myself in agreement with Steven's posts as it is apparent to me that his viewpoints are well considered and researched, as opposed to those whose world view is narrow-minded to the point of dismissing opinions that may not be visible through their chosen little tunnel of thought. Some see it as taking strength of character to cleave to a belief in the face of opposition. I would say this may be true given sufficient proof is available to support that belief, but cleaving to a belief for which there is no proof takes character of a completely different nature.

[Poindexter]

Ya, there goes Steven being reasonable again. What a suprise. There's a whole lot of Judge Judy in that guy.

Anyway, since I see we've come to a stalemate, or as Steven and Fluffy would like to say, both sides may be right, I'd like to throw a wrench it in.

Let's break it down to the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Given creationism's stance, the chicken was planned and thus the chicken came first, complete with the proteins required to make chicken eggs in thier ovaries. With evolution, it would have been a mutation in a bird that gave it these proteins and allowed it to lay for the first time what we currently call a chicken egg. So evolution believes the egg came first.

So there you have it, it really all come's down to the chicken and the egg. Creationists on one side and Evolutionists on the other. Neither is difinitive, but one does seem more probable given our understanding of evolution. This does not require evolution to be a perfect science, it only requires it as a tool to help decide which would be more probable or how extremely unprobable an opposing theory may be.

To me it's a very easy decision utilizing another scientific tool, Occam's Razor, the egg came first. But then I may be a dozen short, the choice is your's.

Here's a very short video that may help you decide.