Two questions for creationists...

[grimpixie]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by grimpixie *
**

On a serious note, I have sent the questions to Ms. Pixie who is a creationist (and a botany/zoology major) and will report on her respose.**

At last I am able to post the Pixie-wife replies:

In response to Question 2(shakiest element of the theory of evolution) - So she answers questions in reverse order, I love her anyway!!:

The idea/ theory of evolution itself. Every time there seems to be some incontrovertible evidence that macro evolution occurs, a few years later it’s proved wrong. I don’t dispute micro evolution, there is plenty of evidence for that, but macro evolution (from one species to another). When a scientist can show me an intermediate species that was prolific and successful, ie could survive, then I will reconsider. However, because of niche specialisation, an intermediate species could not have survived because it would be suited to either the niche it had been suited to, nor the niche to which it was becoming suited, and hence would have been eliminated before it could have reproduced. What would have been required is multiple (ie in more than one organ in order to make the organism viable in between the two niches) identical simultaneous beneficial mutations in at least one male and one female of the species for any mating to be possible and viable.

Citing the example of geographical speciation as evidence for macro evolution has one fatal flaw. The example cited involves mutations in a species of bird (if only I could remember back to my varsity notes I could tell you where and what bird) into a new subspecies (ie can still mate with the original species) because of geographical separation, and then a second subsequent geographical speciation from the first sub species, resulting in the original species and the second sub species not being able to mate, ie being two different species. The flaw in this is that you are still left with only birds. The new and old species may not be able to mate, but they’re still birds. The problem with Darwin’s finches is that beak size variation is seasonal, and at the end of it, they remain birds, they don’t become something else. Archeopterus (sp?) was supposed to be half bird half reptile, but if my memory serves me correctly, it’s been discredited as a falsification, likewise with the ape-human controversy with “Lucy”. So far, the evidence all points to micro evolution, not macro.

In response to Question 1 (solid evidence to support the creation stance):

If you interpret the creation story in Genesis literally, it says we all descended from one woman, and one man. Genetic evidence today would suggest that this is true. Likewise, Genesis tells us that God created this universe specifically for humans. Scientists today are increasingly relying on the ‘Anthropic Principle’ to understand why the world has evolved the way it has. This theory says that there are just too many coincidences surrounding how perfectly this world supports human life (distance and angle from the sun, thickness of the atmosphere, amount of water, etc, etc, etc) and so they say that it’s almost as if nature had a plan of its own (with humans as it’s goal), and therefore evolved in a certain way, in order to support human life. Scientists are therefore willing to admit that the fact that earth is the way it is is a miracle, and that they can’t explain that with evolution alone. There has to be something more.

If you interpret the Flood story literally, it says that there was a cataclysmic, world wide phenomenon, or disaster. Archaeological evidence today would suggest that there was a cataclysmic event which caused floods and tidal waves around the entire world. Every tribe around the world has legends about this sort of event. Is that coincidence?

However, I think the most compelling argument is the lives of Christians down the ages. Creation, like evolution, is a spiritually held belief. If the Bible were wrong, then why has Christianity flourished? Why are there more Christians today than ever before, and more than in any other religion around the world? Why is it the fastest growing religion world wide (although possibly not in the West)? Surely if it were false, it would just die a natural death? If Science were enough to fill the need within human beings, why are more and more people dissatisfied with its statement of atheism, and turning to other religions for answers? The Bible may not be a scientific textbook, it may not provide the ‘how’, but it answers the ‘why’, which in turn will affect the way we see the ‘how’, and therefore it does have something to say about ‘how’.

And a few final thoughts:

Anyway, those are just a few thoughts, and I’m sure any confirmed atheist would tear them apart. The point is that however much someone tries to argue the facts, the truth remains. However much someone may discredit the truth here on earth, whether on purpose or because of a lack of insight or knowledge, it doesn’t change the truth. At the end of the day, every person will have to stand trial for themselves, and nothing they say then will confuse the issue or discredit the truth.

Please note that these are not my opinions, I am posting them in an attempt to give one person’s answer to the OP, the fact that she happens to be my SO not withstanding. I will endeavour to get her to comment on any point made in response, but cannot guarantee anything.

Flaming-phasers set to stun please…

Gp

[Mangetout]

Thanks grimpixie I don’t know where to start with that lot; there seems to be a lot taken for granted there, for example:

Every time there seems to be some incontrovertible evidence that macro evolution occurs, a few years later it’s proved wrong

• Um, examples please?

Archeopterus (sp?) was supposed to be half bird half reptile, but if my memory serves me correctly, it’s been discredited as a falsification

Discredited? When and by whom?

If you interpret the creation story in Genesis literally, it says we all descended from one woman, and one man. Genetic evidence today would suggest that this is true

IANAGeneticist, but I think there’s evidence to suggest that by the time you work back to a single pair of organisms as common ancestors, they don’t look very human (Ben, can you shed any light on this one?)

[pldennison]

Heavens to Betsy . . . I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen a post that long which simply requires the response, “Cite, please?” Here are some of the ones that leap out, for which I’d like cites:

–Every time there seems to be some incontrovertible evidence that macro evolution occurs, a few years later it’s proved wrong.

–However, because of niche specialisation, an intermediate species could not have survived because it would be suited to either the niche it had been suited to, nor the niche to which it was becoming suited, and hence would have been eliminated before it could have reproduced.

–Archeopterus (sp?) was supposed to be half bird half reptile, but if my memory serves me correctly, it’s been discredited as a falsification, likewise with the ape-human controversy with “Lucy”.

–Genetic evidence today would suggest that this is true.

–Scientists today are increasingly relying on the ‘Anthropic Principle’ to understand why the world has evolved the way it has.

–Scientists are therefore willing to admit that the fact that earth is the way it is is a miracle, and that they can’t explain that with evolution alone.

–Archaeological evidence today would suggest that there was a cataclysmic event which caused floods and tidal waves around the entire world.

–Why are there more Christians today than ever before, and more than in any other religion around the world?

I don’t need a cite for this one. It’s demonstrably false. The obvious reason why there are more Christians now is the same reason there are more blond-haired people–simply because there are more people. And while Christianity may be the world’s single-largest religion, it exceeds No. 2 – Islam – by only 700 million adherents. 67 percent of the world’s people are not Christian.*

–Surely if it were false, it would just die a natural death?

Like homeopathy and ESP and moon-landing hoaxes and Faces on Mars and psychic pets and . . .

–If Science were enough to fill the need within human beings, why are more and more people dissatisfied with its statement of atheism,

Please cite this statement of atheism that appears somewhere in the world of science.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**Heavens to Betsy . . . I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen a post that long which simply requires the response, “Cite, please?” Here are some of the ones that leap out, for which I’d like cites:

–However, because of niche specialisation, an intermediate species could not have survived because it would be suited to either the niche it had been suited to, nor the niche to which it was becoming suited, and hence would have been eliminated before it could have reproduced.

–Archeopterus (sp?) was supposed to be half bird half reptile, but if my memory serves me correctly, it’s been discredited as a falsification, likewise with the ape-human controversy with “Lucy”.**

A couple of coments (I know that you didn’t make these claims, pldennison, but your post was easier to quote than filtering the original):

-The phrasing of the quoted “niche specialization” comment is such that it is difficult to make sense of, but I think it’s attempting to state that intermediate species are neither suited to their former niche, nor their “attempted” niche. However, intermediate (or, I should say, “emerging”) species are, by definition, better suited to their environment than their immediate predecessors. It is thus likely that the “intermediate” form (which is a misnomer anyway, since it implies that there is a “final” form) will replace its ancestral form.

-Archaeopteryx has not been shown to be a hoax or falsification. It remains a striking example of a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Memory does not serve Mrs. Pixie correctly in this case.

[jab1]

And even if Archaeopteryx is a fake, what about all the other feathered dinosaur fossils that have been found? Are they all fakes too?

[andros]

Duh. Of course they are, as part of the Evil Humanistic Atheist Satan plot.

[jab1]

Oh, and I can tackle the Anthropic Principle bit, too: GP stated that there are too many coincidences to explain how the Earth ended up where it is. But there are a lot of solar systems out there and, so far, not ONE has been found that resembles ours. (There are one or two systems that are close, but no Earth-like worlds have been discovered yet.) Which is exactly what you’d expect if solar systems developed on their own, at random, without a guiding intelligence.

[capacitor]

*Originally posted by Hamish *
**

*Originally posted by capacitor *
**Yes. that is one of the reasons. Second, it does what has been done to do with Black people all this time: equating man with animals. Seeing that this notion has not served black people at all, it certainly serves little good for the rest of humanity. **

Ah, but racist theories always depend on on group getting to be the human beings, and another are the animals.

In evolution, everyone is an animal. But they are also human beings, in much the same way that a lizard is an animal, but also a lizard. And a lizard and a human being, to state the obvious, are two very different animals. I would say morality is one of the things that sets the human animal apart.

As for the theory of evolution not doing good for humanity, it all depends on what perspective you take. I am, as Royal Sampler would say, an “evolutionist,” and I see the theory of evolution as a source of spirituality.

First of all, it shows us that we’re a part of nature, not above it. That’s a good antitdote for pride. Secondly, it shows that things can and do change, and change for the better, something we tend to forget. Also, since the animals we tend to think of as the most “evolved” – humans, monkeys, dolphins, and whales – tend also to be the most social, I think that says something positive about value of morality in evolution. **

It also says that we are not required behave no better than animals, since we are merely animals. And many people demonstrate that they are unwilling to be any more than animals. This leads to apathy of the worse kind.

[ultrafilter]

[hijack]
capacitor: No better than animals? Let me point something out to you: Martin Luther King, Jr., was an animal. Leonardo da Vinci was an animal. Albert Einstein was an animal.

Some animals are capable of reaching amazing heights. If I’m not expected to rise above them, I’m glad. I just couldn’t do it.
[/hijack]

[Gaudere]

It also says that we are not required behave no better than animals, since we are merely animals.

Required by whom? And better how? My goal is to be a good human, not be “better” than any particular species. The optimum behavior for a particular individual is highly unlikely to be the same transpecies–lion populations would drop preciptously if lions switched to wolves’ monogamy, and chimps would have great trouble if they adopted praying mantis mating habits. If you’re trying to be “better” than another species, you’re probably going about it ass-backwards.

If someone thinks behavior of any sort–animalistic or not–is “required” by an outside moral force, she already is evidencing a fairly distinct difference between humans and other animals, and as such should perhaps get the hint that patterning herself off another species’ behavior may result in the loss of a second date, at the very least (should she take a cue from mantisses). Since a person who can formulate such a thought shows capacity for moral reasoning, it is ironic that she should use this reasoning to think that she doesn’t have to use it, but I don’t think you can lay the blame at the door of science–it more likely belongs to short-sighted philosophy.

(Nonhuman animals apparently do not think well enough to formulate our flexible and comprehensive moral systems, but they are not the wholly selfish creatures you make them out to be, either. Many human’s behavior would be improved in the eyes of other humans if they could act in the same manner as nonhuman animals: “If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.” – Mark Twain)

And many people demonstrate that they are unwilling to be any more than animals. This leads to apathy of the worse kind.

I am unwilling to be any more than an animal in the same manner than I am unwilling to be anything “more” than female or homo sapiens–as in, it is meaningless except in a metaphorical sense. Do not confuse the scientific belief than we are animals with the poetic conflation of animals with brutality and mindlessness. Saying that I am an animal no more makes me a flatworm than saying that a lemur is a primate makes it a human person. And still, I am not apathetic.

[Edited by Gaudere on 08-20-2001 at 11:16 PM]

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Mangetout *
**IANAGeneticist, but I think there’s evidence to suggest that by the time you work back to a single pair of organisms as common ancestors, they don’t look very human (Ben, can you shed any light on this one?) **

So think of it this way: when they say that birds are descended from dinosaurs, they don’t mean that a particular, individual dinosaur laid some eggs which hatched into dinosaurs which, several generations down the line, evolved into birds. What they mean is that a particular species of dinosaur gradually changed over time until it turned into a species of birds. (Of course, there’s also branching and whatnot, but I think you get the idea.)

The problem is that the myth of Adam and Eve is so ingrained in our society that even evolutionists tend to think of a pair of ancestors which birthed a race: Lucy and her boyfriend, so to speak. But of course, if that really happened, then their grandchildren would be horribly inbred before anything human appeared on the scene.

In reality, the human race sprang from an earlier population of hominids who interbred (intrabred?) with each other and gradually accumulated mutations which spread throughout the population until all members of the population had acquired them. In this fashion, the population as a whole was transformed until it became a population of modern humans. (See this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=82720

for my explanation of genetic drift.)

Now, there are some questions in the field as to whether the human race sprang from a single small population in Africa, or whether it arose separately from near-human ancestors in several different locations. (The latter theory I’ve never entirely understood, so I’m probably mangling it.) What I do know is that some geneticists decided to compare DNA from people around the world and create a phylogenetic tree, a family tree for the human race. They used mitochondrial DNA, because it’s inherited solely through the mother and doesn’t undergo the forms of genetic recombination which would complicate the analysis. (See the FAQ for an explanation of recombination and crossover.) What they ended up with was a family tree showing the human race deriving from a small population in Africa. IIRC they also reconstructed the ancestral mitochondrial DNA as well, but that wasn’t the DNA of a single individual: it was the mitochondrial DNA of a population small enough that genetic drift caused the DNA to be “fixed” in the population.

The problem is that this result was referred to with the term “Mitochondrial Eve,” which led laypeople to believe, quite reasonably, that scientists were talking about a single individual. And, of course, any time you use the word “Eve” in a scientific discussion, you know the creationists will jump on it as proof of creationism. A later study on Y chromosomes (which similarly don’t undergo crossover, but are passed through the male line) yielded a “Y chromosome Adam.” Again, it wasn’t a particular individual: it was a population small enough that the Y chromosome became fixed through genetic drift.

One reason why creationists like this result is that the Y chromosome Adam is younger than the Mitochondrial Eve. (ie, the creationists point out that Noah and his sons are more recent than Eve.) But in reality all it proves is that at some point after the “Eve” population, some event caused the Y chromosome to become fixed in the population. I don’t know what it was, but you can speculate. In all likelihood it was some unusual molecular-genetic event that we don’t know about yet, but one could also imagine that after the population became too large for genetic drift to fix the mitochondrial DNA, some event (such as a war) killed off so many of the men that genetic drift could fix the Y chromosome separately.

So there you have it!

BTW, grimpixie, could you run the 11 questions past your SO?

-Ben

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by grimpixie *
If you interpret the Flood story literally, it says that there was a cataclysmic, world wide phenomenon, or disaster. Archaeological evidence today would suggest that there was a cataclysmic event which caused floods and tidal waves around the entire world. Every tribe around the world has legends about this sort of event. Is that coincidence?

One more thing - every culture around the world also has some legend about pixies/faeries/leprechauns/imps/elves/greys - are we to assume that these have basis in truth (personally, I’d like to think so; Tinkerbell was hot stuff!)

[grimpixie]

*Originally posted by Ben *
BTW, grimpixie, could you run the 11 questions past your SO?

Indeed I did - she claimed to recognise some of the words/concepts you used/quoted, but didn’t feel that she would be able to give a reasonable response to them - at least not without returning to her study notes/textbooks which are all on a different continent at the moment. I asked her to respond to these questions as they were less specific…

I fear that you will not get the cites you desire Mangetout, pldennison and others - for two reasons:

1. The SO has limited access to the internet (which is why I post on her behalf) and therefore does not have the time to be able to provide the links that you long for…
2. The SO has no access to the textbooks and reference materials that she did in her student days, and therefore will not be able to quote those learned tomes to you…

I guess I will need to bear the blame for posting what was in essence an IMHO post in GD - as a non-doper, the SO is unaware of the standard of practice of these boards, and wrote what she remembered without being able to reference… Which leads me to another question - What would make you change your mind?

Rest assured that if she is able to respond in a way that I feel would be of interest to you, I will post it here as well…

[grimpixie]

*Originally posted by Mangetout *
**

*Originally posted by grimpixie *

**

BTW - I’d appreciate it if y’all could distinguish between what I have said and what I was posting on behalf of the SO when you quote from that post.

As much as I love her, her opinions are her own and not shared by me!!

Gp

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by grimpixie *
**BTW - I’d appreciate it if y’all could distinguish between what I have said and what I was posting on behalf of the SO when you quote from that post.

As much as I love her, her opinions are her own and not shared by me!!

Gp **

I was taking that for granted; it’s easier than saying ‘please could you explain to her…’ etc.

[Duck_Hook]

Q1: I don’t believe in a literal translation of the Bible or that it offers any scientific proof of anything. I do believe it contains truths about our relationships with both God and each other that have held up for thousands of years. If you want a cite, read one of the many translations and see for yourself. I believe God exists and has given us a handbook for living. If God is not a part of the Theory of Evolution, I disagree with it. So I guess the existence of God is my evidence.

Q2: While I wouldn’t pretend to discount scientific evidence of evolution, I don’t believe Evolutionists could even say that the current Theory of Evolution is THE complete answer to our origin. Like any theory, it is constantly changing as new evidence arises or “facts” are disproven (no cites, just a phenomenon that generally occurs in any scientific study). Isn’t it true that scientific laws are only good until disproven? Faith is no different, just harder to disprove. My problem with the idea of simple, “random” evolution explaining everything stems from my religious beliefs. God is in control, therefore evolutionary changes are part of Creation.

Well, what did you expect, a scientific answer? Obviously, if there were hard contradictary evidence against evolution, science would have discovered it already and you wouldn’t be asking this question. It seems kind of silly. This is just another case of non-religious folk trying to debunk religion. God demands that I love and respect you. It’s not all fun and games, you know.
A few questions: (These are not attacks against evolution, I really want to know!)

Explain why humans all over the world have lost most of their thick body hair when it seems to be such an advantage for other species?

Why are human infants so much more fragile and dependent than other species? Maybe they’re not, but it seems like it.

Why isn’t there something between modern humans and our origin species still around?

Have humans evolved even the slightest bit during recorded history?

Have a nice day!

DH

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by Duck Hook *
If God is not a part of the Theory of Evolution, I disagree with it. So I guess the existence of God is my evidence.

God is not part of Physics…do you disagree with Einstein? God is not part of Chemistry…or Geology…or any science. Not because science attempts to debunk religion, but because it seeks a naturalistic explanation, without the need to invoke God. That is a very different thing than you imply.

**

While I wouldn’t pretend to discount scientific evidence of evolution, I don’t believe Evolutionists could even say that the current Theory of Evolution is THE complete answer to our origin.**

See, here’s the thing: evolutionists don’t make that claim. Creationists make the claim that evolutionists make that claim.
**

Explain why humans all over the world have lost most of their thick body hair when it seems to be such an advantage for other species?**

Most elephants, hippos and rhinos, to name a few mammals, would disagree with that statement.
At any rate, their are a few theories about how huamsn evolved, one of which involves the conept of neotony, which is the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. One such characteristic is the lack of body hair. We may not have necessarily lost our hair because it was advantageous to do so; we may have lost it because it was advantageous to retain other juvenile characteristics, and lack of body hair was just part of the package. At any rate, I’m no human paleontologist, and i’m sure others could provide a better explanation.

**

Why are human infants so much more fragile and dependent than other species? Maybe they’re not, but it seems like it.**

This one is easy: “Check out the big brain on Brad!”
Because humans have such large brains, we have large heads as a result. If gestation continued to the point where human babies were as capable as those of most mammals, the head would be too large to pass thhrough the pelvis. Definately not an advantageous circumstance.

**

Why isn’t there something between modern humans and our origin species still around?**

Because we out-competed them. Any new species is by definition better adapted to its environment than its ancestors (I’m not sure if I said that in this thread or another…they’re all bluring together).

**

Have humans evolved even the slightest bit during recorded history?**

Humans are a large, interbreeding population. Because of this, any new variants can easily become diluted, leading to a relatively homogeneous group. We certainly have not evolved into a new species, if that’s what you mean. However, many cultures have adapted to life in extreme environments. I’m no anthropologist, so I’m not too familiar with many details, but off the top of my head, the Sherpas have, for example, adapted well to high-altitude. Adaptation is evolution.

[andros]

This is just another case of non-religious folk trying to debunk religion.

Well, no. Not in the slightest. Nope. Nuh-uh.

This is a case of both religious and non-religious folk alike to try to debunk those who claim that their faith is the same as science, or that their faith constitutes scientific evidence. It is an effort to debunk the seriously deranged and potentially very harmful concept of “creation science.”

See, we agree with you–science is science, religion is religion. Religious belief cannot be used as a scientific refutation of anything any more than scientific theory can be used as a religious refutation.

Unfortunately, there are many who do not agree with this, and attempt to present their faith as science. It just don’t work.

And those are the people we rail against.

[Duck_Hook]

*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch *

God is not part of Physics…do you disagree with Einstein? God is not part of Chemistry…or Geology…or any science. Not because science attempts to debunk religion, but because it seeks a naturalistic explanation, without the need to invoke God. That is a very different thing than you imply.

God is the origin of all scientific laws including those that govern evolution. Discovering and proving those laws is the business of science, be it naturalistic or not.

**

Why isn’t there something between modern humans and our origin species still around?**

Because we out-competed them. Any new species is by definition better adapted to its environment than its ancestors (I’m not sure if I said that in this thread or another…they’re all bluring together).

So, Big brained Brad is born with slightly different thumbs. All others of his species stop mating so Brad can start his superior thumbed family. In another area, Sally is born with an equally advantageous mutation, but not the thumbs. Why don’t Sally and Brad start separate versions of their respective species, both with viable advantages? What keeps this from happening? It seems there should be animals in existence that are closer to humans than the apes.

Thanks for your reply.

DH

[andros]

DH, I think you have some misconceptions about how evolution works. Might I suggest http://www.talkorigins.org as a valuable source of information on how speciation works?