# The facts of Creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975 "2004-04-02T23:18:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/81 "2004-04-04T19:51:46Z")
> [@Steel Rat](#): > > How do you figure these “kinds” don’t change? How do you account for the different races of human. Animal hybridization wouldn’t work if “kinds” didn’t change from generation to generation. How would you get a Chihuahua from a Wolf (from which all dogs are derived) if the “kinds” didn’t change from generation to generation? Chihuahuas and wolves are still dogs. Getting from a wolf (the “parent”) to the chihuahua is done by isolating certain information already present in the wolf and removing/recessing the rest. Not adding information. This, bu the way, was a specific task that I wish man had left undone. I hate chihuahuas. There are too many rats in the world, why breed a dog to look like one. At least the rats are quiet. Notice that the purebred breeds are not as hearty as the “parent” wolf. In some cases, these traits can be isolated intentionally through breeding. Sometimes in nature, it happens through circumstances leading to natural selection. Evolution proposes that we went up the scale, that microbe to man happened. Nature slides downhill. Theories that say otherwise are “but it could happen” theories with no observations to point to. Races: all human races are still human. The varieties have ocurred through selective breeding (people of similar life styles or appearance or language or neighborhood or clan preferred others like themselves) or perhaps environmental influences like northern conditions or equatorial conditions favor the survival of a certain flavor of person. Biblically a major seperation of mankind happened at the Tower of Babel along the lines of lanquage. Anytime a “kind” of creature becomes isolated from others of their kind, they can start their own branch of lost or retained genetic information resulting in differences from the others. But they won’t gain any info. or become more complex. Not thru natural causes, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/82 "2004-04-04T19:57:02Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I am really not hung-up on anything. Please show me an example of chaos turning into order without intelligent help of any kind. Complexity seems to be one of the next steps evolution must overcome. Order alone does not lead to life. ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/83 "2004-04-04T19:59:11Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > Complexity seems to be one of the next steps evolution must overcome. Order alone does not lead to life. Not to mention order deals only with what already exists, not the creation of the substance that is chaotic or orderly. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/84 "2004-04-04T20:12:01Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > Chihuahuas and wolves are still dogs. Getting from a wolf (the “parent”) to the chihuahua is done by isolating certain information already present in the wolf and removing/recessing the rest. Not adding information. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Do you know for a fact that of the multitude of dog breeds on our planet, none of them owes even one of its traits to a novel gene, not present in its wild ancestors? There are, after all, known methods by which new ‘information’ can come into existence in an organism’s genome. ---
**Author:** ![Steel\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/85 "2004-04-04T20:12:50Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > Chihuahuas and wolves are still dogs. Getting from a wolf (the “parent”) to the chihuahua is done by isolating certain information already present in the wolf and removing/recessing the rest. Not adding information. This, bu the way, was a specific task that I wish man had left undone. I hate chihuahuas. There are too many rats in the world, why breed a dog to look like one. At least the rats are quiet. Notice that the purebred breeds are not as hearty as the “parent” wolf. lol, I agree about rat dogs. Sure, genetically they’re almost indistinguishable from the wolf. But we only know that through the study of biology, not from creationism. I was just showing about “kinds” change. You still haven’t given a scientific explanation of “kinds”. > [@](#): > > In some cases, these traits can be isolated intentionally through breeding. Sometimes in nature, it happens through circumstances leading to natural selection. Evolution proposes that we went up the scale, that microbe to man happened. Nature slides downhill. Theories that say otherwise are “but it could happen” theories with no observations to point to. Why do you say “Evolution proposes that we went up the scale,…” and that “Nature slides downhill.” A branch on an evolutionary scale isn’t an up or down, it just is. > [@](#): > > Races: all human races are still human. The varieties have ocurred through selective breeding (people of similar life styles or appearance or language or neighborhood or clan preferred others like themselves) or perhaps environmental influences like northern conditions or equatorial conditions favor the survival of a certain flavor of person. The point was we still changed. Whether information was “added” is a moot point. Nothing needed to be added so nothing was. How does creationism account for Neanderthals, or Cro-Magnon, or any of the hominids that are clearly not apes? > [@](#): > > Biblically a major seperation of mankind happened at the Tower of Babel along the lines of lanquage. How is this useful? > [@](#): > > Anytime a “kind” of creature becomes isolated from others of their kind, they can start their own branch of lost or retained genetic information resulting in differences from the others. But they won’t gain any info. or become more complex. Not thru natural causes, anyway. How do you know they won’t gain any information? We’ve observed, through the fossil record, that they will. Sometimes they even lose information. So-called lower life forms aren’t necessarily less complex that we are, genetically. ---
**Author:** ![Steel\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/86 "2004-04-04T20:14:49Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > Not to mention order deals only with what already exists, not the creation of the substance that is chaotic or orderly. The arguments you use to debunk evolution would seem to preclude god from doing anything to the cosmos. He would just be breaking all kinds of laws. He can get pulled over for that. ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/87 "2004-04-04T20:30:02Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Do you know for a fact that of the multitude of dog breeds on our planet, none of them owes even one of its traits to a novel gene, not present in its wild ancestors? > > There are, after all, known methods by which new ‘information’ can come into existence in an organism’s genome. 1st of all, rather than prove a negative, does someone know of a novel gene that does occur in dog decendants and not the original? What known methods can add additional information with or without intelligent design and intervention other than the Genesis account? ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/88 "2004-04-04T20:32:19Z")
> [@Steel Rat](#): > > The arguments you use to debunk evolution would seem to preclude god from doing anything to the cosmos. He would just be breaking all kinds of laws. He can get pulled over for that. It’s ok, He’s the judge and jury as well as the one who set up the laws. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/89 "2004-04-04T20:39:45Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I am really not hung-up on anything. Please show me an example of chaos turning into order without intelligent help of any kind. Life is simple, don’t try to complicate it to make black look like white. > > Love Crystal formation – for example, the salt left behind when a water puddle evaporates. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/90 "2004-04-04T20:46:21Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > What known methods can add additional information with or without intelligent design and intervention other than the Genesis account? This depends on your definition of ‘information’, of course (I have debated creationists who would only accept a defintion that was something like ‘that which can only have arisen by intelligent authorship’). Novel genes can come into existence through duplication, then mutations in the duplicated sequence (while the original sequence still performs the original function). ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/91 "2004-04-04T20:49:45Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > Anytime a “kind” of creature becomes isolated from others of their kind, they can start their own branch of lost or retained genetic information resulting in differences from the others. But they won’t gain any info. or become more complex. Not thru natural causes, anyway. What other posters have been hinting at in the hopes that you would come across it yourself, is that ‘kind’ is not a biological or evolutionary term. Humans define species for convenience but there’s really no 100% firm basis to do this. The boundary at which species separate is a major bone of contention from biologist to biologist and from species to species. A common defintion is breeding capability but there’s still problems here. Wolves and dogs are different ‘species’ but are capable of interbreeding. Ostensibly fertile members of the same ‘species’ are often incompatible for breeding. It’s just not that simple. You seem to be using a slight gradient of the ‘why don’t we get cats born from dogs’ argument, but that kind of occurence would more than likely invalidate evolution, not justify it! As well your reference to ‘increasing complexity’ and ‘nature declines’. Evolution says no such thing. Evolution is change, period, and can lead to more complex, less complex or equally complex individuals. It imposes no value judgment. I am evolved from my parents. You are evolved from yours (assuming you’re not a clone). ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/92 "2004-04-04T20:50:23Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Do you know for a fact that of the multitude of dog breeds on our planet, none of them owes even one of its traits to a novel gene, not present in its wild ancestors? Admittedly, I am not the source of the study. Answers in Genesis speaks of it [here](http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/poodles.asp) making reference to an article published in a Nov, '02 _Science_ issue [here](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol298/issue5598/index.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/93 "2004-04-04T21:08:30Z")
Yeah, really interesting; the fact of dogs having a common ancestor (not in dispute) and the details of that ancestry are linked to references in science mag. The assertions that mutations are always deleterious and that no new genes can arise etc, are all linked to references in _Creation_ (AiG’s own magazine) or other creationist articles. However, I am absolutely certain that AiG would like the reader to finish reading the article with the false impression that it is mainstream science, not just a few creationists, that has a problem with the idea of novel genes. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/94 "2004-04-04T21:14:27Z")
If the term ‘shysters’ didn’t already exist, it would be necessary to invent it. ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/95 "2004-04-04T21:14:47Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > This depends on your definition of ‘information’, of course (I have debated creationists who would only accept a defintion that was something like ‘that which can only have arisen by intelligent authorship’). > > Novel genes can come into existence through duplication, then mutations in the duplicated sequence (while the original sequence still performs the original function). Unless I’m mixing up my terminology, the following snippet from this site, [The Mysteries of Life’s Origins](http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html) alludes to the complexity and volume of information required for an organism: "To describe a crystal, one would need only to specify the substance to be used and the way in which the molecules were to be packed together. A couple of sentences would suffice, followed by the instructions “and keep on doing the same,” since the packing sequence in a crystal is regular. The description would be about as brief as specifying a DNA-like polynucleotide with a random sequence. Here one would need only to specify the proportions of the four nucleotides in the final product, along with instructions to assemble them randomly. The chemist could then make the polymer with the proper composition but with a random sequence. It would be quite impossible to produce a correspondingly simple set of instructions that would enable a chemist to synthesize the DNA of an E. coli bacterium. In this case the sequence matters. Only by specifying the sequence letter-by-letter (about 4,000,000 instructions) could we tell a chemist what to make. Our instructions would occupy not a few short sentences, but a large book instead!" Similarly, I remember seeing a comparison of some simple life form to the quantity of information it takes to get a human, but I can’t find it now. ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/96 "2004-04-04T21:23:20Z")
**NOVEL** gene novel being **different** beacause of reduced or shuffled genetic info is no problem. **EVOLUTION** , if it strictly limited itself to natural change “sideways” or “downhill,” would be in line with observed evidence. Unfortunately, as you know, it’s name is frequently used to explain origin and microbe to man, an “uphill” climb to say the least. It’s this last usage of the word where creation science disagrees, of course… which you also knew. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/97 "2004-04-04T21:25:15Z")
Does duplication and mutation count as shuffling? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/98 "2004-04-04T21:31:07Z")
> [@samhouch](#): > > **EVOLUTION** , if it strictly limited itself to natural change “sideways” or “downhill,” would be in line with observed evidence. Unfortunately, as you know, it’s name is frequently used to explain origin and microbe to man, an “uphill” climb to say the least. How does this relate to animals born with extra digits, appendages, or other anatomy? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/99 "2004-04-04T21:36:15Z")
Or bacteria with a mutation that allows them to digest nylon? ---
**Author:** ![samhouch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@samhouch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samhouch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975/100 "2004-04-04T21:57:58Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Yeah, really interesting; the fact of dogs having a common ancestor (not in dispute) and the details of that ancestry are linked to references in science mag. Selectively breeding animals or plants has always followed the path of isolating genetic traits, either breeding out characteristcs and/or isolating desired traits. What’s the problem? > [@](#): > > The assertions that mutations are always deleterious and that no new genes can arise etc,… I believe they state that **most** mutations are deleterious, and yes, never result in **additional** information. > [@](#): > > …are all linked to references in _Creation_ (AiG’s own magazine) or other creationist articles Many of their articles are written by many scientists. Why discard their research without honest consideration because they’re “creationist?” Judge the message, not the messenger. However, if you want to consider the messengers, consider [these](http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp) Evolutionary origins has taken on a philosophy of its own. Disputing it with scientific observations ironically brings up similar resistance like Galileo experienced. Acording to what I’ve read in Encarta, it was the philosophers that couldn’t ingest the scientific observations, and reconsider the foundation they’d been building on. The church went along with the popular theories then as well, like the theistic evolutionists do today. Popularity often proves wrong. Look at Noah’s flood. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-facts-of-creation/237975.md?page=6)