Evolution or Creation?

[DaytonBuck]

I have no idea what your are talking about, but I have to admit, I am intrigued. :)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M4_XZ3FLHw]YouTube - Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K): Gumby in Robot Rumpus[/ame]

 

[martinss01]

personally ive always found the creation vrs. evolution debate a little misguided. the majority of persons in this country see first hand proof of both evolution and creation every single morning. if theres a more obvious case of both natural evolution and creation than the domestic dog id like to know about it. we know for a fact that dogs not only have evolved naturally, and continue to do so. but we also know for a fact that outside forces (us) have artificially created many dog breeds. both evolution and creation have occurred in the past, both are in fact happening right now, and both will continue to occur in the future.

ive never understood the anger directed at darwin either. while his theories no longer represent the finest thinking of the scientific world today. for the time, his theories were absolutely ground breaking and well beyond that of his contemporaries. in fact, i really only have 2 issues with his theory. A. his "tree" of life is a little narrow minded imo. i think its more likely that life is more closely compared to a cluster of shrubs. B. i don't think evolution always requires a long period of time to occur nor do i think it is only sparked by competition for resources. its my opinion that climactic issues such as the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere can cause rapid and radical evolution in a very short period of time.

 

[Ttown]

So you believe in both evolution and creation ?

 

[Brewtus]

personally ive always found the creation vrs. evolution debate a little misguided. the majority of persons in this country see first hand proof of both evolution and creation every single morning. if theres a more obvious case of both natural evolution and creation than the domestic dog id like to know about it. we know for a fact that dogs not only have evolved naturally, and continue to do so. but we also know for a fact that outside forces (us) have artificially created many dog breeds. both evolution and creation have occurred in the past, both are in fact happening right now, and both will continue to occur in the future.

Your example of domesticated dogs is only evolution, not creation. Creationism or ID states that things popped into existence. No breed of dog just appeared out of nowhere or was created from the rib or whatever of another dog.

 

[fanaticbuckeye]

Your example of domesticated dogs is only evolution, not creation. Creationism or ID states that things popped into existence. No breed of dog just appeared out of nowhere or was created from the rib or whatever of another dog.

No ribs were used but controlled breeding is used to create desired dog breeds. See the history of the Doberman here...

American Kennel Club - Doberman Pinscher

Not that dog breeding really strengthens the ID vs Creationism on a macro level, I guess a micro level argument could be made. Not sure I could make it.

 

[buckiprof]

ive never understood the anger directed at darwin either.

Galileo understands.

 

[Brewtus]

No ribs were used but controlled breeding is used to create desired dog breeds. See the history of the Doberman here...

American Kennel Club - Doberman Pinscher

Not that dog breeding really strengthens the ID vs Creationism on a macro level, I guess a micro level argument could be made. Not sure I could make it.

Sure, but every current breed of dog has many transitional breeds that provide a link between now and when they were first domesticated from wolves. ID and Creationism state that species suddenly appeared from nowhere and have no transitional forms. I don't see how anyone could argue that the domestication of dogs does anything to support Creationism or ID (not that I'm claiming that is your position).

 

[martinss01]

So you believe in both evolution and creation ?

yes... is that bad?

i simply don't see the idea that god created the heaven and the earth as being mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution. complex life evolved from simple single celled organisms which evolved from simple proteins which were given the opportunity to come together because climate conditions were right because of weather patterns caused by the movement of the earths crust/formation of atmosphere/the sun which was caused by the big bang.... so.. what caused the big bang? heres the deal, im willing to spot god for everything i can't explain. until i can come up with an explanation anyway. but seeing as how i will never have all the answers...

No ribs were used but controlled breeding is used to create desired dog breeds. See the history of the Doberman here...

American Kennel Club - Doberman Pinscher

Not that dog breeding really strengthens the ID vs Creationism on a macro level, I guess a micro level argument could be made. Not sure I could make it.

the doberman was exactly the dog i had in mind. i personally am not pro intelligent design as has been put forth for study in science/biology class. i don't believe in it, its not science, and i don't agree with it. science classes should involve nothing but hard core 100% science. now as a topic for a debate team or a theology class? i would fully support that.

my only point is that the doberman without question did not evolve on its own. the animal was created with a goal in mind by an outside force (ie people). while i realize that isn't the "intelligent design" that is being argued in this thread, im not sure what other term you would use to describe it.

but your right, the doberman didn't just "spring into existence". so... what about hybrid crops? plants that we have spliced the dna of and cross pollinated that are very literally incapable of such things in nature to create new plants. these are very much 1 generation plants. would that be evolution as well?

Sure, but every current breed of dog has many transitional breeds that provide a link between now and when they were first domesticated from wolves.

actually thats not the current theory on dog evolution.

this is a link to an experiment with the siberian fox:

The domestication of the russian silver fox. (40 year fast track evolution)

basically they took 10's of thousands of siberian foxes and bred them based solely on tameability. within 10 years the animals coats began to change from silver to white. within 15 years the animals developed floppy ears, curly tails, shorter legs and muzzles and were fully domesticated from birth. 80% of the puppies seek human attention whining and licking at cages and compete for human attention with little to no prior human contact.

while that certainly isn't an argument against evolution, in fact it supports the theory. what it does mean is that there is a strong chance that no transitional species exists because the evolution was so rapid. if i gave the skeleton of a fox from this experiment from 1950 and the skeleton of its offspring that was born in 1960, it is very likely that any scientist would call them two completely different species with no direct link to one another without the use of dna testing which for many fossils is impossible.

ID and Creationism state that species suddenly appeared from nowhere and have no transitional forms. I don't see how anyone could argue that the domestication of dogs does anything to support Creationism or ID (not that I'm claiming that is your position).

its not my position. my point was to show that some animals and plants have evolved separate from the way nature has intended. that to me is the definition of creationism though i do realize that is not the accepted definition.

 

[Brewtus]

actually thats not the current theory on dog evolution.

this is a link to an experiment with the siberian fox:

The domestication of the russian silver fox. (40 year fast track evolution)

basically they took 10's of thousands of siberian foxes and bred them based solely on tameability. within 10 years the animals coats began to change from silver to white. within 15 years the animals developed floppy ears, curly tails, shorter legs and muzzles and were fully domesticated from birth. 80% of the puppies seek human attention whining and licking at cages and compete for human attention with little to no prior human contact.

While that's an interesting experiment and was probably seen as insightful 40 years ago, recent DNA analysis of most breeds of dogs indicate that they were all domesticated from the wolf.

Here's an interesting episode of Nature that aired on PBS in 2007 on the subject: Dogs That Changed the World - Introduction - Dog Breeds | Nature

while that certainly isn't an argument against evolution, in fact it supports the theory. what it does mean is that there is a strong chance that no transitional species exists because the evolution was so rapid. if i gave the skeleton of a fox from this experiment from 1950 and the skeleton of its offspring that was born in 1960, it is very likely that any scientist would call them two completely different species with no direct link to one another without the use of dna testing which for many fossils is impossible.

Transitional species must exist, otherwise you're claiming that a new species just appeared out of thin air. I think you're confusing the ability to actually have the physical remains of a transitional species in hand vs. the fact that a transitional species existed even if we don't have the remains available to study. For instance, there are thousands of transitional forms between me and the common ancestor of humans and chimps that lived about 6 million years ago, starting with my parents, then my grandparents, then my great-grandparents, etc., etc. going all the way back to an ape-like creature most likely living in Africa. I don't have transitional remains for every one of my ancestors that lived, hell I don't even know where my great grandparents remains are, but I do know that I had great grandparents. And I do know that transitional species have been found linking modern humans to our ape-like ancestor. We don't have the remains of every previous generation that ever lived, but we do have enough pieces to conclude that humans and chimps, gorillas and orangutans shared a common ancestor.

its not my position. my point was to show that some animals and plants have evolved separate from the way nature has intended. that to me is the definition of creationism though i do realize that is not the accepted definition.

Nature doesn't have any preconceived "intentions". The current distribution of life on the planet with humans at the top of the food chain was not an inevitable occurrence. If we were to wind the evolutionary clock back 2 billions years and then start it again to let life evolve once more on this planet, it's extremely unlikely that humans would ever evolve once again.

 

[martinss01]

While that's an interesting experiment and was probably seen as insightful 40 years ago, recent DNA analysis of most breeds of dogs indicate that they were all domesticated from the wolf.

Here's an interesting episode of Nature that aired on PBS in 2007 on the subject: Dogs That Changed the World - Introduction - Dog Breeds | Nature

where did i say the domestic dog didn't evolve from the wolf? i cited a study conducted on a specific type of fox as an example of rapid evolution. not as a theory on where the domesticated dog came from.

Transitional species must exist, otherwise you're claiming that a new species just appeared out of thin air. I think you're confusing the ability to actually have the physical remains of a transitional species in hand vs. the fact that a transitional species existed even if we don't have the remains available to study.

actually i think you misunderstood my point. for which i apologize for not being more clear. i was stating that it is very likely that (as in the case of the foxes i noted) wolfs likely evolved rapidly over a very short period of time making it very difficult to impossible to find the "missing link" species you described earlier. in fact, its possible that such "missing link" species was skipped entirely as a creature that would be viewed as a wolf could potentially give birth to a puppy that would be viewed as a domestic dog. while the puppy would obviously be the "missing link". because it is so different than its parent it would likely not be viewed as such because it is so different as was the case with the fox experiment. in fact, if the episode you linked is the one im thinking it is they note that the dna of dogs actually allow for significant mutation in a very short period of time which is why we (humans) were able to create so many different breeds of dogs in such a short period of time.

Nature doesn't have any preconceived "intentions". The current distribution of life on the planet with humans at the top of the food chain was not an inevitable occurrence. If we were to wind the evolutionary clock back 2 billions years and then start it again to let life evolve once more on this planet, it's extremely unlikely that humans would ever evolve once again.

no way on earth does hybrid corn or purple potatoes come into being without human intervention. why? because it requires the manipulation of dna at a level that is not natural. its the equivalent of spider dna being spliced with goats so they can be "milked" for spider silk in large enough quantities for use. its not that we "turned on" a sequence of dna that nature had deemed unfit, its that we inserted dna into a creature that did not posses it before. thats not natural selection. (not making any claims as to whether or not its wrong, just pointing out that there is a difference)

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

For those who are interested in videos on the subject, this guy has an excellent Youtube channel (and he's also a Christian). Here's one video from his channel (go there to get to the rest):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c]YouTube - Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism[/ame]

 

[Brewtus]

where did i say the domestic dog didn't evolve from the wolf? i cited a study conducted on a specific type of fox as an example of rapid evolution. not as a theory on where the domesticated dog came from.

Well you responded "actually thats not the current theory on dog evolution." and provided the website when I said "every current breed of dog has many transitional breeds that provide a link between now and when they were first domesticated from wolves.", so I took that to mean you didn't think dogs evolved from wolves. My bad.

actually i think you misunderstood my point. for which i apologize for not being more clear. i was stating that it is very likely that (as in the case of the foxes i noted) wolfs likely evolved rapidly over a very short period of time making it very difficult to impossible to find the "missing link" species you described earlier. in fact, its possible that such "missing link" species was skipped entirely as a creature that would be viewed as a wolf could potentially give birth to a puppy that would be viewed as a domestic dog. while the puppy would obviously be the "missing link". because it is so different than its parent it would likely not be viewed as such because it is so different as was the case with the fox experiment. in fact, if the episode you linked is the one im thinking it is they note that the dna of dogs actually allow for significant mutation in a very short period of time which is why we (humans) were able to create so many different breeds of dogs in such a short period of time.

I think we're arguing from the same side of the table on this topic, but it's important to remember that populations evolve into new species, not individuals. The offspring of one species does not instantly became a new species when it's born, even if it carries some new genetic material that makes it unique from its parents. A species is generally described as a population that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I'm no dog expert, but I would think that almost all breeds of dog are capable of mating with each other and producing fertile offspring, and maybe even still capable of successfully mating with wolves. Granted, most would need to be artificially inseminated due to size differences or unwillingness to mate.

no way on earth does hybrid corn or purple potatoes come into being without human intervention. why? because it requires the manipulation of dna at a level that is not natural.

If you're talking about cross-breeding or selective breeding over many generations, then I disagree. With the right mix of natural selection pressures, domesticated corn and potatoes certainly could evolve naturally. The same evolutionary mechanics (genetic drift, gene flow, natural selection, etc.) are involved. Granted it's extremely unlikely that nature could reproduce in natural terms what mankind has done intentionally, but it's theoretically possible.

its the equivalent of spider dna being spliced with goats so they can be "milked" for spider silk in large enough quantities for use. its not that we "turned on" a sequence of dna that nature had deemed unfit, its that we inserted dna into a creature that did not posses it before. thats not natural selection. (not making any claims as to whether or not its wrong, just pointing out that there is a difference)

I agree and this is very different than domesticating dogs and plants. Splicing a segment of DNA in the labratory from one species into another is beyond the realm of natural selection.

 

[martinss01]

Well you responded "actually thats not the current theory on dog evolution." and provided the website when I said "every current breed of dog has many transitional breeds that provide a link between now and when they were first domesticated from wolves.", so I took that to mean you didn't think dogs evolved from wolves. My bad.

no, it sounds more like my bad actually. i probably should have been a lot more clear on what i was saying. :)

I think we're arguing from the same side of the table on this topic, but it's important to remember that populations evolve into new species, not individuals. The offspring of one species does not instantly became a new species when it's born, even if it carries some new genetic material that makes it unique from its parents. A species is generally described as a population that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I'm no dog expert, but I would think that almost all breeds of dog are capable of mating with each other and producing fertile offspring, and maybe even still capable of successfully mating with wolves. Granted, most would need to be artificially inseminated due to size differences or unwillingness to mate.

yep, same point of view just from a slightly different angle. in fact, i think the only point of contention is the time frame in which evolution can occur. in the case of the fox experiment what would be recognized as a unique species was created in less than 15 years. even under controlled circumstances, thats absolutely mind boggling and imo has to completely change the way we view the evolution of species. in an extreme enough situation, and god knows this planet has had a few of those, some species have the ability to rapidly evolve into another in an extremely short period of time. evolution might not require "millions of years". just maybe with the right set of variables it could take place in 50 years. 30 years. 20... thats very literally the blink of an eye when viewing the fossil record.

actually wolves and domesticated dogs are being successfully interbred as we speak. its even legal to purchase such animals in certain states. same is being done with certain types of cats. look up a breed of cat called the savannah. interesting stuff.

If you're talking about cross-breeding or selective breeding over many generations, then I disagree. With the right mix of natural selection pressures, domesticated corn and potatoes certainly could evolve naturally.

I agree and this is very different than domesticating dogs and plants. Splicing a segment of DNA in the laboratory from one species into another is beyond the realm of natural selection.

i think we agree here 100%.

 

[lvbuckeye]

all i know is i'll believe in "molecules to man" evolution as soon as someone shows me an example of all the dog breeding resulting in offspring that is no longer a dog...

 

[Best Buckeye]

THe real question is "do you believe in God" If you believe in n eternal all powerful God then you just about have to believe in creation.
After that evolution would have followed.