Ugh. Tiny font. hurts eyes. I hope you're proud of yourself... you've just killed the remainder of my work day :wink:
Haha, I decided to dispence with the small font this time, it hurts my eyes too. Anyway, here's the my latest mammoth attempt to fill up Katia's disk space :twisted:
Valid. I can't argue with that. Except to say that while this is possible, is it FEASIBLE? Because as well as having the genetic makeup for the complete diversity of mankind they would also have to have the genetic makeup for all of the FLAWS of mankind. Which means all of the genetic defects, diseases etc would become dominant in their children. Even if you assume ONLY Adam had the genetic flaw that can cause diabetes (to use a simple example) then it would still have a high potential to become dominant in many of their children. Given the STAGERING number of genetic flaws we know of in the human population the odds are that each and every one of their children would have had atleast one if not many major genetic flaws. Enough to kill them all likely.
Granted, this can be countered by saying that these genetic flaws resulted from damage done to the genetic material passed down in future generations, but this would be similar to suggesting that nature is "creating" information from chaos which you later argue is impossible.
I can't argue with the genetic diversity account you are giving cause technically it sounds possible given what I know of genetics. I'd still make the above argument about genetic flaws though.
Your genetics is perfectly accurate, as is your conclusion. On this point we agree.
Yes, I will counter with the argument that the original human genome was created without genetic flaws (Gen 1:31). Genetic flaws accumulated with the transfer (with error) of getectic information down the generations following the fall/curse (Gen 3).
You pre-empt this counter with the argument that the appearence of these genetic flaws constitutes a creation of new information. Information is not measured by the number of traits (whether beneficial or harmful) but by specified complexity. It is elementary information theory that any change (mutation) that destroys the functionality of a gene is a reduction in specified complexity (i.e. a loss of information). All mutations studied thus far (even beneficial ones) have demonstrated a loss of information or in some cases no change in information content. So, the laws of information are not violated
Personally, this is not the concept i've read. I've always read that mankind was a SLOW evolution that occured seperatly among primates in a localized area.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all evolutionists have abandoned the idea that the different "races" evolved seperately. But most have, based on the mtDNA evidence. They still believe that mankind evolved from primates and they still believed the further evolution of mankind was SLOW, they even still believe that there could have been seperatley evolved humans that became extinct. I only presented the mtDNA evidence to show that evolutionists now accept an idea that has been a prediction of creationist theories forever (that all mankind shares common ancestry through one mother) and parallels creationist theories in other parts. Really, just to make clear that the biblical account should not be rejected out of hand as "crazy".
It takes a long time for evolution to kick of a new SPECIES. You get new varieties readily but the new varieties are still capable of breeding with their less brethren. Which means that we didn't have to have a sudden change, it could be gradual. For example, look at lions and house cats. Clearly the same origin, but they are compeltely different species now, not just a different variety. But this change was likely gradual and not sudden.
Again, I agree with you here. Creationists embrace speciation in a similar way to evolutionists. Both camps agree that lions and cats have the same origin. Creationists say that lions and cats are both decended from an original created cat kind (Gen 1:24-25) containing all the information in it's genome for all types of cat. Speciation occured to produce the many species of cat that exist today and the many varieties within each species. On the other hand, evolutionists say that lions and cats share the same evolutionary ancestor and through the process of evolution (as described by the neo darwinian theory of evolution [NDTE]) all different species of cat (speciation) and all the varieties within these species evolved.
The crucial difference is that the NDTE says that the information for different cat features came into existance via the process of mutation shaped by natural selection and creationists say that the information was created by God and has only reduced during the process of speciation. To which my previous information argument applies (see below also). As a side point, creationists also predict that speciation can occur much more rapidly than evolutionists.
The same thing applies to humans as to cats for both evolutionary and creationist theories.
No idea what mtDNA is.
mtDNA is the DNA contained in the mitochondria (the powerplants) of cells, rather than in the nucleus. Only DNA in the nucleus is transmitted via a sperm cell. So all mtDNA is supplied by the mother (via the egg). It's a lot easier to extract than normal nuclear-DNA.
Granted, arguing this has the MAJOR flaw that we are missing MOST of the steps between ancient apes and modern man. The popular argument here is that there were "catastrophic events" that killed large populations and spawned rapid evolution. We have evidence of this in prehistoric life where we see entire oceans essentially vanish in a short time and the previously aquatic life is forced to adapt to low water conditions quickly. We've seen this level of change so we know its possible.
Entire generations are believed to have been lost this way, which could explain the missing steps in the chain.
If the evidence of these catastrophies and the subsiquent rapid evolution is available in the prehistoric record, why not in the more recent record too? Without such evidence evolutionists maintain nothing more than faith in these ad hoc catastrophic events. Of course, you are perfectly right in suggesting that, if it's true, this would explain the missing steps. This is fine if people are only looking for a reason to
believe in evolution. But if evolutionists want to prove their theory, they need the evidence to support their predictions. Expecting to be excused from bringing such proofs because they are not observable does not help their scientific case.
The problem with some of those sources you give is that they are arguing based on the pretext that all mankind was whiped out in a flooed 4 thousand years ago.
They do indeed. Those sources are a defense of the creationist position. In order to defend something you must accept what you are defending as a pretext and see how well that pretext explains what we observe today (in this case, current population). It's the only way to scientifically study any theory that attempts to explain events in the unobserved past. The question is, which pretext makes best sense of the evidence we have today.
There is almost zero evidence to support this. I've even see catholic documentaries trying to dig up evidence for the flood and their evidence was bad.
Well I can't account for those documentaries, there is (unfortunatley) a lot of compromise in all parts of the church these days (Gap theory, Theistic evolution, Day-Age theory) often employing 'local flood' ideas. Perhaps this was the fate of your documentaries.
There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for the global flood. The most notable being the fossil layers (millions of dead things layed down by water). This is exactly what you would expect to find. This is obviously a large point of difference between the naturalistic and creationist standpoints. The naturalist (not the naked kind, lol) starts with the assumptions that there is nothing supernatural and that rates at which the sedimentary layers were layed down has been (for the most part) the same as the observed rates today. The creationist starts with the assumptions that the biblical account in Genesis is true. Both sides have the same evidence, they differ only in their starting presuppositions. The scientific way to determine which presuppositions are better is to determine which one makes best sense of the evidence. Obviously, it is my view that the creationist position does. This is getting really off track now but if you can be bothered to go into it I am happy to keep talking forever
I agree that mankind could have grown that fast. here are the time based problems as I see them. Geologically, we know that the Earth is older than the bible says. Either that, or we have the Adam and Even Bellybutton argument (which states that God could have created the Earth with the universe with the APPEARANCE of being older than it is).... which i enjoy, but it would indicate that God WANTS to trick us. Which I find hard to believe.
We agree on another point, I find the bellybutton argument equally hard to beleive. So much so, that I don't consider it a possible explanation for the evidence. It's not in the character of God (the God of the bible anyway).
The geologic column is not evidence in itself that the earth is older than the bible says. As stated above, that is a conclusion drawn only from naturalistic assumptions about how the layers were formed not the creationist position. If by "Geologically" you mean radioisotopic (RI) dating, they are also based on questionable assumptions. There are also scores of other dating methods (non-isotopic) based on the same kind of uniformitarian assumptions that put a maximum age at far less than the dates usually obtained with RI dating. This is getting way off track, but (again) if you can be bothered we can go down this route.
Another problem would seem to be that we have evidence of life forms that existed BEFORE mankind. Unless you take the 7 days to be metaphorical?
Nah, It's my view that Genesis is refering to 7 solar days (24 hour). It's written in literal historical narrative and refered to as such (even by Christ) in the new testament.
Again, the idea that the geologic layers represent ordered periods of time is a conclusion drawn only from naturalistic presuppositions. The creationist position is that these layers were deposited during and after the flood.
Not really how I would define evolution, but it works for the point of our discussion here. Actually, Darwin never used evolution to explain where mankind came from. Only to study where SPECIES came from. Personally, I don't recmond reading Origin of the Species because it is MOSTLY case studies of animals. Which is booooooring.
lol. True, but no creationists or evolutionists book shelf would be complete without it
The definition of evolution is important. My argument only applies to the NDTE (large scale evolution). Many changes occur in living things, natural selection is a good observable scientific fact and can lead to new species. These small scale changes are often also refered to as evolution and I have no problem with them. However, these smaller evolutionary changes are not the kind of change that can account for large scale evolution because they add no new information.
back to the main topic, if you go all the way back, MODERN evolution can show how life can be created from NON living matter.
In fact, we can do this NOW. We can take non living material and place it in the appropriate conditions for relatively short periods of time and we get amino acid chains.
Amino acid chains are not life.
As mentioned above, science can create amino acid chains out of nonliving matter (I can dig up the case study later; I studied it 3 years ago so I dont remember it off the top of my head).
Amino acid chains are what MAKEUP our genetic material. Basically what happens is a bunch of atoms bump into eachother and stick together. These form amino acids and protiens among other things. Now let's say one of these protein chains forms in such a way that it causes OTHER atoms to form around it because they natrually balance the chemical equations. These other atoms HAPPEN to be immune to UV rays. So that when the sun comes up, its not broken apart.
oops! thats the start of the genetic material for skin!
Lets say another one is shaped so that it splits apart easily. So it bumps something, splits in half, and other stuff bumps into it and the two half become whole again. Thats reproduction!
This is how genetic information is formed. Freak accident. Lets say one of these amino acid chains has a light sensative spot on its back and this helps it NOT be destoryed when the sun comes up. Thats the start of an eye.
Eventually these chains get more and more complicated as they constantly split and connect with other chains. Each time they split and recombine they take their genetic material with them. Each time they combine with something new they learn pick up new chains.
Till suddenly you have simple organisms.
The process you have described is an impossible process according to the science of information theory. The fact that evolutionists state that this occured does not make it so (or even possible). Yes amino acids (even clumps of amino acids) can form by random processes. But amino acids do not represent information. There is no code system adhered to, no syntax or any conveyed meaning within the molecuels, it's just the bonding forces of atoms at work. The arranging of these amino acids into
meaningful information carrying sequences by random processes would be good proof that information by chance (and thus evolution) is possible.
The NDTE requires that nucleotides are formed naturally and arranged in the DNA into
information carrying sequences (encoding how to contruct amino acids/proteins). Such a thing has not been demonstrated and science predicts that it will never be. In addition to demonstrating an evolutionary process that can create new information, evolutionary theory fails to explain how the genetic code system used to encode that information became defined in the first place. As it stands, evolutionists can only maintain by faith (in spite of the science) that these things happened naturally. Information and code systems only come from intelligent design.
Science CAN show it is POSSIBLE for all life on Earth to have come from nonliving matter spontaneously.
In light of my above responses, I maintain that it cannot show that it is possible.
I went to a catholic college, and this was NEVER disputed in ANY of my classes by even the most religious teachers.
Did you have any information theorists as teachers?
This is closer to what evolution REALLY is. It originally refered to changes to a given animal not changing from one type of animal to another. So creationists accept changes within a species? I seem to remember the Pope acknowledging Darwin within the last 20 years or so. No arguments here.
See above for my explanation of the importance of the original definition. Yes creationists accept changes within a species and even creation of new species (speciation) but that these changes are always accompanied by a loss in genetic information (or no change in information). Never the upward change
required[b/] by the NDTE.
I think you're right, the Pope may have accepted evolution (and the big bang, I think), but he is not the final authority on the matter. Such compromised theistic evolutionary ideas induce huge theological contradictions such as having death and suffering before sin. Also if you're free to interpret Genesis as metaphor at will (in spite of the context), what's to say that the foundational teaching regarding salvation only through Christ's sacrfice and ressurection isn't also a metaphor?
The creationist account fits nicely with science in that genetic information was created by an intelligence (God) and has since decreased as a result of mutation (and crossover, etc.) and natural selection over thousands of years.
Yes, creationism CAN coincide with Evolution. I agree. BUT NOT with Adam and Eve.
Sorry, I never meant to imply that evolution can coincide with biblical creation (it can't in my opinion). By "science" I meant the information theory I had been refering to. The NDTE is not science in the same way that creationism is not science, it's a believe system about the past. Science is the tool used to validate/invalidate these believe systems.
One theory that works is that God created the universe with a road map, KNOWING how it would form and how life would evolve. Being God and all, he can get away with this.
To suggest that God just spontaneously created man out of thin air, causes all kinds of problems.
However, like I said... i cannot dispute the idea that God is capable of creating the universe under whatever conditions he wants.
This is the idea known as theistic evolution (God controlled [or forseen] evolution). I'm not a fan of the idea, for reasons I described above (in regard to the Pope's compromise).
-Kev
P.S. Thanks for the intelligent and respectful responses. It's much more fun than the all-to-often encountered responses which Mart (MartUK) pointed to in his post (from both sides!)
Sorry again for the length of the reply.
