Creationism Vs Evolution

[Doug1029]

Back to the subject of the thread:

There are perhaps a dozen or more species of southern yellow pine in the US.  But evolution requires geographical isolation to produce a new species, so how did there get to be so many different species?

Florida protrudes southward on the east side of the Gulf of Mexico.  Mexico extends southward on the west side of the Gulf.  When sea levels fall (glacial advances), land is exposed along the US' southern coast and is occupied by pine forests.  During low-water episodes the trees cross-pollinate.  But during high-water (glacial retreats), the coastal regions are flooded, severing the connection and allowing separate species to evolve in Mexico and in Florida.

The Mississippi River is a formidable barrier to pine pollen, so gene flow across the river is slow and intermittent.  In one case, the river changed course, isolating a sizeable area.  These trees crossed with relatives nearby, forming a new sub-species.

 

Mountains come and go, but rivers are eternal:  there has been a river flowing north-to-south across the North American plate since the Permian - before the dinosaurs.  That river, the Mississippi, has had a profound influence on life and evolution.

Doug

[LucidElement]

22 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

 

Mountains come and go, but rivers are eternal:  there has been a river flowing north-to-south across the North American plate since the Permian - before the dinosaurs.  That river, the Mississippi, has had a profound influence on life and evolution.

Doug

Can you explain in layman's terms what you mean by the above? I guess im a little confused on what about that specifically has had a profound influence on life and evolution? I mean, cant you believe creationism made that possible?

[seeder]

30 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Back to the subject of the thread:

 But evolution requires geographical isolation to produce a new species,

 

Really? Would you kindly provide me with further info or links to support that claim?

[seeder]

1 hour ago, LucidElement said:

So if man came from animals (Evolution belief) where did the animals come from? For example, everything had to come from something right?? almost like what came first, the fly or the larvae?

 

Ok...lets start like this

whats this animal?

 

Yes....its a whale...or at least, it became a whale

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1553008.stm

 

Trick question: Is that evolution or adaptation?

 

answers

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13615-evolution-myths-everything-is-an-adaptation/

 

 

[questionmark]

1 hour ago, LucidElement said:

So if man came from animals (Evolution belief) where did the animals come from? For example, everything had to come from something right?? almost like what came first, the fly or the larvae?

Man is an animal. Just the dominant one. And mostly behaves like that too.

 

[Doug1029]

22 minutes ago, LucidElement said:

Can you explain in layman's terms what you mean by the above? I guess im a little confused on what about that specifically has had a profound influence on life and evolution? I mean, cant you believe creationism made that possible?

I suppose a creationist could argue that god said it was thus, and so it was.  But that is no explanation at all.  Rather, it is a pretense of knowledge where none exists.  Historically, creationism has not offered any new incites.  It contents itself with offering objections to evolution's (or geology's, or biology's) discoveries.  When evolution eventually answers those objections, creationism retreats to some new objection only to lose that one too.

 

The Mississippi River is wide enough that south of the Ohio and Missouri, plant pollen and insects have trouble traveling that far; thus, the Mississippi is a barrier to gene flow.  Once populations become isolated on opposite sides, however, new varieties of plants and insects can evolve, protected by the river from back-breeding/back-pollination.

The Mississippi delta used to be in Pennsylvania where it laid down the Sharon conglomerate and the great coal beds of the Carboniferous.  It drained the Appalachians which were then Himalayan-sized mountains created when Africa rammed North America.  Over the eons since, the delta has gradually moved south to its present position.  Along the way it served as a barrier to animals and plants trying to get across, allowing new species to develop from isolated populations on opposite sides.

I hope that helps.

Doug 

[GlitterRose]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

All science classes, by necessity, use reasoning skills.  Those aren't the same as debating skills.  And research always involves reasoning:  which statistical model to use is based on the reasoning and the wrong model can lead to the wrong conclusion.  That's especially embarrassing if it's a reviewer who discovers the mistake, or worse yet, your mistake gets published where everybody can see it.

As far as debunking creationism:  give the students the reasoning skills and let them do it.  Don't waste class time on more than one or two examples.

 

I think you are confusing science with "facts" taught in grade school science classes.  Science is a reasoning process and a way of looking at truth and the world.  Your comments suggest you would teach science like you would teach religion and that would be turning science into religion - something we don't really want to do, either.

Doug

There's nothing wrong with teaching facts, as well as having kids do their own experiments and come to their own conclusions. Science teachers are required to cover certain material. There were also fun types of experiments when I was in science classes, and they didn't need to include debunking creationism. I remember natural selection experiments that were great ways of showing how it works. And of course, kids are taught how to do research, and how to find reliable information. 

It's not like that doesn't already happen. There's no need to spend time debunking creationism for that to happen. Like I said before, history teachers don't spend time in history class debunking holocaust denial so that they can say their class practiced using their reasoning skills. 

Honestly, it's like we're entering an era where facts don't matter anymore. Are science teachers supposed to give equal time to conspiracy theories about global warming, too? Should they also entertain the Hollow Earth "theory?" I hope no one is gonna argue for that. 

Edited June 28, 2016 by ChaosRose

[LucidElement]

31 minutes ago, seeder said:

 

Ok...lets start like this

whats this animal?

 

Yes....its a whale...or at least, it became a whale

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1553008.stm

 

Trick question: Is that evolution or adaptation?

 

answers

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13615-evolution-myths-everything-is-an-adaptation/

 

 

ok, but again where did it come from? You can think to yourself, what came first the FLY or the Larvae? If so HOW? Everything has to come from something right?

[seeder]

I said earlier on, Evolutions HASNT stopped, do read this

 

Quote

 

8 Examples of Evolution in Action

Evolution is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Armed with the knowledge of the interconnectedness of all life on earth, biologists have made startling discoveries. There is so much evidence in favor of evolution, that arguing against it is like denying that there is a moon in the sky. Yet people do still actively deny evolution occurs. Speciation, the formation of a new species from an ancestor species, takes a very long time yet there are evolutionary steps which can be observed. Here are eight examples, amongst many, of evolution in action.

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

 

 

[GlitterRose]

3 minutes ago, seeder said:

I said earlier on, Evolutions HASNT stopped, do read this

 

 

Some people actually do deny that the moon is in the sky. 

Arguing with them about it is really a futile endeavor. 

[LucidElement]

3 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Some people actually do deny that the moon is in the sky. 

Arguing with them about it is really a futile endeavor. 

lol where would it be? i look up in the sky i see it... am i missing something/ lol

[GlitterRose]

Just now, LucidElement said:

lol where would it be? i look up in the sky i see it... am i missing something/ lol

Just google it. You'll find the guy who thinks the stars and moon are some sort of illusion. 

[seeder]

3 minutes ago, LucidElement said:

ok, but again where did it come from? You can think to yourself, what came first the FLY or the Larvae? If so HOW? Everything has to come from something right?

Youre asking questions the wrong way around

Before the fly could...fly...it needed a reason to fly

The link I posted above talks about , amongst other things... the 3 toed Skink, some have live birth.....others lay eggs.... but WHY? They are the same species..

Quote

 

The yellow bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is a lizard of New South Wales, in Australia, that appears to be undergoing the change from laying eggs to live birth. Since these skinks can either lay eggs or give birth, it gives scientists the chance to study the adaptations necessary for live birth. Skink embryos encased in an egg have an extra source of calcium that the live born skinks lack. It turns out that this nutritional difference is made up by the mother secreting extra calcium for the young held inside her. This looks like the first step on the road to developing a system like the mammalian placenta. Skinks living on the coast tend to lay eggs, probably because the warm weather is predictable and sufficient for embryonic development. Those skinks living in the cooler mountains tend to give birth to live young, the mother’s body providing a more stable temperature. It is to be predicted that these two populations will at some point separate into different species as each population becomes fixed in its reproductive strategy.

This brings up a common question in creationists – If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

 

 

[seeder]

Squirrels. yes those bushy tailed tree climbers.... and EXCELLENT tree climbers....seemingly PERFECTLY adapted right?

Aha.... but SOME of them.....can FLY....sort of. Now the question is, do we expect them to one day grow wings? perhaps not, strictly speaking they GLIDE, which really isnt flying. BUT WHY....do they glide and have a body suitable for gliding.....when regular squirrels....dont?

http://www.britannica.com/animal/flying-squirrel

 

[Doug1029]

35 minutes ago, seeder said:

 

Really? Would you kindly provide me with further info or links to support that claim?

That's a basic concept of the Theory of Evolution.  Most any beginning text on the subject should have an explanation.  Here are some research papers on the topic:

Lesch, John E.  1975.  The Role of Isolation in Evolution:  Geroge J. Romanes and John T. Gulick.  Isis 66(4) 1975.  University of Chicago Press on behalf of the History of Science Society.  pp. 483-503.

Kaneshiro, K. Y.  1980.  Sexual Isolation, Speciation and Direction of Evolution. Evolution 4(3) 1980.  pp. 437-444.

Magnus, D.  1993.  In Defense of Natural History:  David Starr Jordan and the Role of Isolation in Evolution.  Stanford - Ph.D. Dissertation.

Doug

 

[Doug1029]

30 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

There's nothing wrong with teaching facts, as well as having kids do their own experiments and come to their own conclusions. Science teachers are required to cover certain material. There were also fun types of experiments when I was in science classes, and they didn't need to include debunking creationism. I remember natural selection experiments that were great ways of showing how it works. And of course, kids are taught how to do research, and how to find reliable information. 

It's not like that doesn't already happen. There's no need to spend time debunking creationism for that to happen. Like I said before, history teachers don't spend time in history class debunking holocaust denial so that they can say their class practiced using their reasoning skills. 

Honestly, it's like we're entering an era where facts don't matter anymore. Are science teachers supposed to give equal time to conspiracy theories about global warming, too? Should they also entertain the Hollow Earth "theory?" I hope no one is gonna argue for that. 

I agree with you and would rather not have creationism in a science classroom at all.  But we are being forced to include supersticion in science classes. What I am proposing is a way to deal with the problem and perhaps turn it to our advantage.

And BTW:  global warming/climatology IS science.

Doug

[Rlyeh]

3 hours ago, LucidElement said:

So if man came from animals (Evolution belief) where did the animals come from? For example, everything had to come from something right?? almost like what came first, the fly or the larvae?

Evolution belief? Humans ARE animals, this isn't a belief it's a fact observed in human biology. Our genes, our cells are animal.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Rlyeh

[LucidElement]

1 hour ago, seeder said:

Squirrels. yes those bushy tailed tree climbers.... and EXCELLENT tree climbers....seemingly PERFECTLY adapted right?

Aha.... but SOME of them.....can FLY....sort of. Now the question is, do we expect them to one day grow wings? perhaps not, strictly speaking they GLIDE, which really isnt flying. BUT WHY....do they glide and have a body suitable for gliding.....when regular squirrels....dont?

http://www.britannica.com/animal/flying-squirrel

 

I understand what your saying/writing.. but where did they come from? i mean... when you stare into air nothing just "POPS" out of no where ya know.. wings or no wings lol.. just saying in general.. what created any sort of animals? dinosaurs? crustacians , fossils?? where did they come from? just keep thing backwards.... then you get to "nothing?"

[Podo]

1 hour ago, LucidElement said:

I understand what your saying/writing.. but where did they come from? i mean... when you stare into air nothing just "POPS" out of no where ya know.. wings or no wings lol.. just saying in general.. what created any sort of animals? dinosaurs? crustacians , fossils?? where did they come from? just keep thing backwards.... then you get to "nothing?"

All life evolved from single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Where that initial living cell came from? We don't know. There are a lot of good scientific theories, but we've not cracked that case yet. The genesis of life and the process of evolution are entirely different topics, though, since evolution only matters once life exists. Evolution is fact, it is observable, and it is repeatable. The origin of life still being a mystery in no way contradicts how lifeforms evolve over time.

[Doug1029]

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I suppose a creationist could argue that god said it was thus, and so it was.  But that is no explanation at all.  Rather, it is a pretense of knowledge where none exists.  Historically, creationism has not offered any new incites.  It contents itself with offering objections to evolution's (or geology's, or biology's) discoveries.  When evolution eventually answers those objections, creationism retreats to some new objection only to lose that one too.

 

The Mississippi River is wide enough that south of the Ohio and Missouri, plant pollen and insects have trouble traveling that far; thus, the Mississippi is a barrier to gene flow.  Once populations become isolated on opposite sides, however, new varieties of plants and insects can evolve, protected by the river from back-breeding/back-pollination.

The Mississippi delta used to be in Pennsylvania where it laid down the Sharon conglomerate and the great coal beds of the Carboniferous.  It drained the Appalachians which were then Himalayan-sized mountains created when Africa rammed North America.  Over the eons since, the delta has gradually moved south to its present position.  Along the way it served as a barrier to animals and plants trying to get across, allowing new species to develop from isolated populations on opposite sides.

I hope that helps.

Doug 

P.S.:  The Great Plains also divide North America into isolated biological zones.  Jack pine and Virginia pine are closely related to lodgepole pine, but separated by the plains.  The southern yellow pines and red pine are likewise separated from ponderosa pine.  Gambel oak is closely related to post oak, but again they are separated from each other by the Great Plains, without which they wouldn't be separate species.  Loblolly pine and shortleaf pine are crossing in eastern Oklahoma.  Eventually, shortleaf will undergo genetic swamping and cease to exist as a separate species.  Why?  Because they are no longer isolated and are too closely related.

Doug

[Horta]

On 6/28/2016 at 6:09 AM, LucidElement said:

What points on each side are seen as a debate? For example, if you are a religious person, there is no stopping someone from believing that God created everything in the universe. Furthermore, if someone said to you, dinosaurs did exsist because God put them there, how would an evolutionist argue that? People will say Adam and Eve were the first people and I read somewhere that they would have existed around 3,000 BC.. but weren't the ancient Egyptians / Sumerians before them? How about temples like Ggantija or Puma Punku, even Gobekli Tepe (9000-1000B.C) ... Just things that baffle me.

 

 

I have regularly looked over (modern) human habitation sites 22,000 yrs old and more, that have been continuously inhabited up until recent times. These aren't particularly old either (comparatively). Seems these people predate Adam and Eve, missed the flood that didn't happen and so forth.

There should never be a debate between creationists and scientists. Creationist claims shouldn't be dignified with a response until they supply something that is more than a bundle of fallacies. The main reason there has ever been any debate at all is because the delusionals think young minds would benefit from indoctrination into their anti science - anti intellectual beliefs in science class.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Horta

[Horta]

On 6/29/2016 at 4:00 AM, Podo said:

All life evolved from single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Where that initial living cell came from? We don't know. There are a lot of good scientific theories, but we've not cracked that case yet. The genesis of life and the process of evolution are entirely different topics, though, since evolution only matters once life exists. Evolution is fact, it is observable, and it is repeatable. The origin of life still being a mystery in no way contradicts how lifeforms evolve over time.

I'm certainly not saying you are wrong (you are obviously right), in that evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet and not how it began. Abiogenesis is not understood well enough for any particular hypothesis to be accepted (as yet), but is slowly getting there and likely to be included in a more comprehensive theory at some stage. So overall I'm with PZ Myers on this one (though I'm certainly not a biologist). No harm in acknowledging that we don't fully understand this aspect yet and if creationists like to think it discounts the rest of evolution (which is generally considered a common fact) that's up to them if they want to live in their own little fantasy.

There seems no other possibility than abiogenesis (panspermia would also require that life began from naturalistic processes somewhere) and although there are gaps in our understanding, we are getting closer to having a naturalistic understanding for the evolution of our universe IMO, including the epiphenomena of self replicating molecules/organisms and the resulting biological evolution on one tiny spec of dust. Natural processes all the way so far it seems. Though creationists would never accept it anyway. Even if the process were replicated, they would simply (rightly) note that it was caused by an intelligence (scientists). 

Creationists have always relied on denying science and the "god of the gaps" fallacy. Until they can firstly demonstrate that god exists, and then explain how he/it made all of this and the processes used, they are irrelevant.

Quote

#15 is also a pet peeve: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life” is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that “abiogenesis is not evolution,” but it’s a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don’t understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/20/15-misconceptions-about-evolut/

A view from a physics angle, whether it has genuine merit or not, interesting enough.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Edited June 30, 2016 by Horta

[Doug1029]

11 hours ago, Horta said:

I have regularly looked over (modern) human habitation sites 22,000 yrs old and more, that have been continuously inhabited up until recent times. These aren't particularly old either (comparatively). Seems these people predate Adam and Eve, missed the flood that didn't happen and so forth.

I maintain that THE FLOOD outlined in Genesis and Gilgamesh was a real event.  But it was local, not global.  That being said, there is little evidence to go on.  The best guess is that it corresponds to a flood in Egypt during the reign of Semerket (6th Pharaoh, First Dynasty).  There are two climate anomalies recorded in tree ring series about 2700 and 2800 BC.  Those might give us a date and I'd like to do a serious study of it, but time is of the essence....

There is a twenty-foot-thick tsunami deposit under the Arabian marshes.  There is a proposal that Berkel Crater in the Indian Ocean was caused by an asteroid impact about that time, but nobody has dated the crater.  Chevrons on Madagascar point at the crater and suggest a 600-foot tsunami.  Might that have been high enough to reach Egypt?

 

About other sites:  how does the Younger Dryas (12,900 BP to 10,660 BP) fit into this?  The Wisconsin Glacial Maximum occurred about 19,000 YBP.  How does that fit in?

 

While you're on Bible mysteries:  how did Adam's son Cane manage to invent iron-making only to have the skill wiped out by THE FLOOD, then magically reappear?

Doug

[seeder]

On 28/06/2016 at 5:08 PM, LucidElement said:

 but where did they come from? i mean...

 

Did you know MAN has created life?

Quote

 

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'
Artificial life has been created in a laboratory for the first time by a maverick scientist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

 

 

[Harte]

On 6/28/2016 at 10:02 AM, Doug1o29 said:

That's a basic concept of the Theory of Evolution.  Most any beginning text on the subject should have an explanation.  Here are some research papers on the topic:

Lesch, John E.  1975.  The Role of Isolation in Evolution:  Geroge J. Romanes and John T. Gulick.  Isis 66(4) 1975.  University of Chicago Press on behalf of the History of Science Society.  pp. 483-503.

Kaneshiro, K. Y.  1980.  Sexual Isolation, Speciation and Direction of Evolution. Evolution 4(3) 1980.  pp. 437-444.

Magnus, D.  1993.  In Defense of Natural History:  David Starr Jordan and the Role of Isolation in Evolution.  Stanford - Ph.D. Dissertation.

Doug

 

The fact that you can find statements that isolation drives evolutionary change is not indicative of any statement that evolution REQUIRES isolation.

In fact, it doesn't.

Harte