Evolution or Creation?

[Apache]

The answer is Yes!

 

[Gatorubet]

The fact that Darwin predicted a common ancestor for ape and man more than a century before DNA technology showed that chimps and humans are 99.9 alike, DNA wise, is very telling to me. I've yet to have a young earther explain how this could be so other than "that is the way God set it up."

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure why Max would say that.

entropy definition | Dictionary.com

en?tro?py (ěn'trə-pē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. en?tro?pies

1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

The fact that Darwin predicted a common ancestor for ape and man more than a century before DNA technology showed that chimps and humans are 99.9 alike, DNA wise, is very telling to me. I've yet to have a young earther explain how this could be so other than "that is the way God set it up."

Don't need to get into a debate, but I believe the 99.9 stat is exaggerated and anyway I'm confused what is wrong with the answer creationist provide.

 

[MaxBuck]

Max:

I forgot to ask for your clarification on the statement above. I have always understood entropy to have an "order" parameter to it. Maybe my educators were lacking in their explanation. I understand the "heat transfer" portion, but isn't there an order part to it? Or am I just misunderstanding what you wrote?

No, you have it right. The use of "order" as an analogue for entropy really comes from the inability of scientists to make sense of a very abstract concept. I recommend Scholarpedia.org (Entropy - Scholarpedia) for a fuller description of what entropy is - it's not an easy concept to understand. I have a full year of thermodynamics and a second year of p.chem under my belt and I still can't really put entropy into a proper verbal construct.

Unfortunately, the social scientists got hold of the word, started to use it as a literal synonym for "disorder," and that's where the Creationists started off on their second-law toot.

 

[muffler dragon]

The fact that Darwin predicted a common ancestor for ape and man more than a century before DNA technology showed that chimps and humans are 99.9 alike, DNA wise, is very telling to me. I've yet to have a young earther explain how this could be so other than "that is the way God set it up."

I could be wrong, Gator, as it's been quite a while; but I recall reading/hearing that DNA-wise there are a lot of "relatives" to human beings within the 99.9% error margin. For some reason, slugs keeps coming to mind. I haven't been involved in these discussions for quite some time. So TIFWIW, but that could play a role in a response.

 

[Gatorubet]

I could be wrong, Gator, as it's been quite a while; but I recall reading/hearing that DNA-wise there are a lot of "relatives" to human beings within the 99.9% error margin. For some reason, slugs keeps coming to mind. I haven't been involved in these discussions for quite some time. So TIFWIW, but that could play a role in a response.

I guess my point is that humans are not closest to frogs, or dogs, or birds, or camels, or fish, etc. - no matter what percentage of similar material we share with those creatures. We are closest to chimps. That certainly supports the theory of a common ancestor far more than if our DNA was more divergent than - say - humans and rabbits. If we were genetically closer to a bunny then that would discount the primate common ancestor theory. But we are closest to chimps, as Darwin's theory predicted.

BTW, here is a link to some recent articles and studies.

DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp Genomes

 

[muffler dragon]

I guess my point is that humans are not closest to frogs, or dogs, or birds, or camels, or fish, etc. - no matter what percentage of similar material we share with those creatures. We are closest to chimps. That certainly supports the theory of a common ancestor far more than if our DNA was more divergent than - say - humans and rabbits. If we were genetically closer to a bunny then that would discount the primate common ancestor theory. But we are closest to chimps, as Darwin's theory predicted.

BTW, here is a link to some recent articles and studies.

DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp Genomes

I understand. I was just under the impression that Darwin's theory went more by physical appearance similarities.

Thank G-d, when we fight, we don't go for the hands and/or genitals.

 

[Buckeye Maniac]

If you have about two hours to kill then this a very good documentary explaining the Dover, Pennsylvania case and why Intelligent Design (Creationism) lost.


[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4024258832125504495&ei=r6mdSdKnBo3I-gHb2vmMAg&q=dover+evolution&hl=en]Evolution, Religion ? Dover High school Case ? ?Judgment Day?[/ame]

 

[JCOSU86]

I remain perplexed as to why these two things are mutually exclusive.

We are closest to chimps.

Some of us closer that others.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I guess my point is that humans are not closest to frogs, or dogs, or birds, or camels, or fish, etc. - no matter what percentage of similar material we share with those creatures. We are closest to chimps. That certainly supports the theory of a common ancestor far more than if our DNA was more divergent than - say - humans and rabbits. If we were genetically closer to a bunny then that would discount the primate common ancestor theory. But we are closest to chimps, as Darwin's theory predicted.

BTW, here is a link to some recent articles and studies.

DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp Genomes

I'm not sure you understand the position. It's not like Creationists deny that DNA is primarily responsible for physical traits because that's what it seems like your implying.

Follow me. If God designed DNA to drive physical characteristics wouldn't it make sense that creatures with similar characteristics have similar DNA? We look more like chimps than rabbits so it would make sense that we are closer genetically to chimps.

It almost seems like you believe that because one denies evolution one denies genetics.

 

[Gatorubet]

Don't need to get into a debate, but I believe the 99.9 stat is exaggerated and anyway I'm confused what is wrong with the answer creationist provide.

The stat was off the cuff. I linked to the latest articles for whatever it is.

What is wrong with the answer is that even if future theological changes to earth's population results in a billion people abandoning Christianity and believing that the great beach ball in the sky made us, and that a stone tablet from 10,000 B.C. purports to tell a story of how the GBBITS did start life, it is not science.

Believing really, really hard is worth squat, scientifically. A huge number of sincere people really, really believed that the world was sitting on the back of a giant turtle. No deep core sample has struck turtle yet. Knowing that your Gods or God is real because he responds to prayer is not even "proof". I recently re-read Xenophon's Anabasis, where in response to a blizzard they sacrificed to the God Boreas. Xenophon recorded that if was obvious to all of his soldiers that the fierce wind abated. So we can't say that because I prayed to God and little Timmy got better that my God's existence has been proven any more than the existence of Boreas was proven when the storm diminished. Religion does tell me about geophysics, or metallurgy, or calculus, or geology. It tells me about man's relationship with God.

And nothing about science makes it less likely that God exists. To me it is more likely. But if you say that God just does whatever you want him to do, and that is why the scientific method should be ignored, then I can only point out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose adherents wrote the Kansas School Board and explained a lack of scientific evidence supporting the existence of the FSM thusly: "For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

I mean, you can use that tactic, but "because God can do whatever he wants" is a pretty piss poor reason. At least to me.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

The stat was off the cuff. I linked to the latest articles for whatever it is.

What is wrong with the answer is that even if future theological changes to earth's population results in a billion people abandoning Christianity and believing that the great beach ball in the sky made us, and that a stone tablet from 10,000 B.C. purports to tell a story of how the GBBITS did start life, it is not science.

Believing really, really hard is worth squat, scientifically. A huge number of sincere people really, really believed that the world was sitting on the back of a giant turtle. No deep core sample has struck turtle yet. Knowing that your Gods or God is real because he responds to prayer is not even "proof". I recently re-read Xenophon's Anabasis, where in response to a blizzard they sacrificed to the God Boreas. Xenophon recorded that if was obvious to all of his soldiers that the fierce wind abated. So we can't say that because I prayed to God and little Timmy got better that my God's existence has been proven any more than the existence of Boreas was proven when the storm diminished. Religion does tell me about geophysics, or metallurgy, or calculus, or geology. It tells me about man's relationship with God.

And nothing about science makes it less likely that God exists. To me it is more likely. But if you say that God just does whatever you want him to do, and that is why the scientific method should be ignored, then I can only point out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose adherents wrote the Kansas School Board and explained a lack of scientific evidence supporting the existence of the FSM thusly: "For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

I mean, you can use that tactic, but "because God can do whatever he wants" is a pretty piss poor reason. At least to me.

I've read this about 5 times and I'm not positive I can make sense enough to respond intelligently. Not that I'm ignoring. Its possible that I have reading comprehension issues.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Good point. Nothing in science is a "finished product;" we're still studying gravity.

I disagree with the comment that "there are holes in the theory." It is too easy to infer from this language that some scientific observations suggest evolution is possibly not a valid theory. And that just isn't the case. All the comments about 2nd law of Thermo, homo habilis, "doesn't explain the origin of life," etc. are nothing but red herrings - they have nothing to do with the general validity of evolution as the mechanism for the development of life on earth. As to the details, sure, we're still learning a lot about those.

Truth is, I just concede the "holes" part for the sake of the point I was making (didn't want to get attacked on some tangential talking point to the issue I intended to address.). I'm a firm "believer" in Evolution and I don't find the objections you've listed (which were listed by Jake, I believe) as persuasive. I guess I should also say, when I said "I agree with the remainder of your post" in response to the Jake post, I really was just talking about the conclusion about relying on faith and not really knowing...

 

[Gatorubet]

I've read this about 5 times and I'm not positive I can make sense enough to respond intelligently. Not that I'm ignoring. Its possible that I have reading comprehension issues.

That's because I'm an idiot Scott. I had assumed that you were referencing my earlier statement that creationists say "that is the way God set it up" when you said "I'm confused what is wrong with the answer creationist provide."

So my response was directed to answering what is wrong with saying "that is the way God set it up." As you were apparently not referring to that response, none of my convoluted post made sense. My bad.

I guess we need to get together and agree on what answer creationists provide before we can talk about it. Sorry for the waste of time.