Evolutionary trump card

[Coyotero]

Creationists: Something I've always been puzzled about.

Why is evolution viewed as the trump card that would claim to disprove God and creation? Why must divine creation and evolution be mutually exclusive?

I would think that evolution could be said to resemble an intelligently-designed process. It makes sense that if I were God, and I were populating a planet with creatures, I would want the creatures to be adaptable and dynamic, to change with their environment.

Why are people so threatened by this theory?

[Coyotero]

I've never actually gone (although it is less than an hour away) for that very reason. Evidently there are diaramas of humans and dinosaurs living side by side and other such ridiculousness.

I would love see something creative like a cowboy Jesus riding a dinosaur with a lasso. The kids and I thought it might be fun.
Of course they are 27 and 29 and I don't know if I can keep it together.

Getting back to the OP and away from fun and entertainment, I still get this awe when I think about the elegance of evolution or change and its effects.
It is so simple only God could think of it, if God though about it, maybe that is the best God can do, nothing. The environment or the universe shapes life and life shapes it.
It isn't random; it is shaped by the surroundings and what can and did happen.
It is also shaped by accidental factors.
What lives, lives through the flow of populations.

Eloquently put. God is in the details, so to speak.

I have always been of the opinion that if science and religion could find middle ground, some great things might be accomplished.

[Cathar1950]

I've never actually gone (although it is less than an hour away) for that very reason. Evidently there are diaramas of humans and dinosaurs living side by side and other such ridiculousness.

I would love see something creative like a cowboy Jesus riding a dinosaur with a lasso. The kids and I thought it might be fun.
Of course they are 27 and 29 and I don't know if I can keep it together.

Getting back to the OP and away from fun and entertainment, I still get this awe when I think about the elegance of evolution or change and its effects.
It is so simple only God could think of it, if God though about it, maybe that is the best God can do, nothing. The environment or the universe shapes life and life shapes it.
It isn't random; it is shaped by the surroundings and what can and did happen.
It is also shaped by accidental factors.
What lives, lives through the flow of populations.

Eloquently put. God is in the details, so to speak.

I have always been of the opinion that if science and religion could find middle ground, some great things might be accomplished.

I think there is all kinds of middle ground and then some. Religions have been shaped by the science of their day. Eventually even reactions will become adaptations.
Like the evolution of life-forms where one trait will often come by accident and bring others along for the ride that may become useful later, or not.
Religion like life-forms are shaped by their surroundings.

[Alan Clarke]

...if I were God, and I were populating a planet with creatures, I would want the creatures to be adaptable and dynamic, to change with their environment.

That is EXACTLY what God did. But those variations have limits, just as does height or weight. A bacteria will never become a man any more than dirty hay will become mice. Mutations will never add or change 100,000 base pairs in bacteria genetic code to become 3.2 billion base pairs in human DNA. The number of mutations required would plague and/or kill the organism repeatedly throughout its entire evolutionary period. The idea is preposterous to anyone who does the math or comprehends the magnitudes. For this reason, many who don't want to accept the creationist theory because of philosophical reasons (not scientific), have resorted to alternate theories to explain how life started on this planet in the first place, such as "transpermia".

Go to this web page and make sure your media player is enabled to view the various animations of a flagellar motor. Many people have come to the same conclusion: these motors cannot build themselves by the mechanisms of mutations and natural selection. The entire build processes are "sequenced" in the right order. Trying to accomplish this with "hit-and-miss" random mutations would be like finding one misplaced atom in the Universe six times in a row. In other words, it is impossible. Read for yourself the various mathematical probability arguments against proteins randomly assembling themselves. Evolutionist's only hope now is that many parallel Universes exist where their chances for bacteria evolving into man is increased. Instead of taking a convoluted and improbable path to increased foolishness, why don't people just give up and learn to accept that God made everything just as the Bible says? The whole scheme of things was laid out clearly for millennia. What more do you want? God cannot be a figment of my imagination. He is not like anything I imagined.

Why are people so threatened by this theory?

I am not personally "threatened" by this theory but I think tax dollars are wasted and less-discerning people are damaged. I would resent being sold food that purposefully omitted the ingredient label or preservative warning information. Evolution theory is often marketed as "change over time" but the sellers are almost embarrassed to tell you that they believe the product can turn bacteria into people. It is Ponzi marketing at its finest.

Also, evolution theory stipulates that death was happening for millions of years before the first man ever arrived on the scene. This teaching is contradictory to Bible teaching which states that death didn't exist until the first man, Adam, sinned. The Bible and evolution are like day and night, sweet and sour, or progress and congress. The theory has a history of fraud and deception.

[Alan Clarke]

Why is evolution viewed as the trump card that would claim to disprove God and creation?

Why is Christianity/creationism viewed as the trump card that would claim to disprove evolution? Why isn't the Dalai Lama considered a serious threat to evolution?

A Google search on "creationists" yields 922,000 hits.
A Google search on "evolutionists" yields 634,000 hits.

Each respective side refers to the other using these words. There are some problems and exceptions using this research methodology, but you are given a general idea of the ratio of adherents to each side. Therefore, "creationists" are indeed a threat to "evolutionists". The phenomena is real, measurable, and growing. I attribute this growth to people who are becoming informed through the internet. No longer do modern-day college professors and universities "own" science as many suppose. They never were the “guardians of truth� but the “sellers of knowledge�.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

why don't people just give up and learn to accept that God made everything just as the Bible says?

Because that was a stupid answer 350 years ago when it was said to Galileo, and it is just as stupid today. 350 years ago the official interpretation of the church was that the sun, planets and stars orbited the Earth. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for daring to look because he found out that the official interpretation was false. Today's interpretation, as represented here by Alan, is just as false, but the church no longer has the power to prosecute(persecute) those who find that out. Our world is better off for all the scientist's discoveries made by men who would not, and will not accept such a stupid answer.

As to blending religion and science, I say no. The two are completely different realms, neither has anything to say about the other. They answer completely different questions. They are compatible BECAUSE they do not(and must not) interfere with each other. Religion is a philosophy, science is a discipline. Religion(philosophy) is about what we should do with our knowledge and understanding, science about what we can know and understand about the physical world. Neither should dictate to the other. Just because science shows us how to blow up the world using fusion bombs doesn't mean we should seek to do so. Just because our philosophy tells us we should not blow up the world does not mean we should stop seeking to understand the processes involved with fusion and try to harness the unlimited, clean power we could get from that understanding.

I'm sorry if Alan is uncomfortable with having a monkey as a distant cousin(or a bacteria, for that matter), but that doesn't change the fact that it is so. I too have much, much closer relatives that I would deny, if that were possible, but my wishes have no more effect on reality than Alan's beliefs do. The difference is, I accept that while Alan goes to absurd and ridiculous lengths trying to deny the truth. Though I should probably thank him for his service in convincing others of the common sense of my positions.

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

Doubt is an incentive to truth... - Hosea Ballou
Doubt is the beginning, not the end, of wisdom. - George Iles
Doubt is the father of invention. - Galileo
Great doubts...deep wisdom. Small doubts... little wisdom. - Chinese Proverb
...fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell
The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not. - Akhenaton

Well said. I highly DOUBT evolution theory.

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

Well said. I highly DOUBT evolution theory.

Doubt is the beginning, not the end, of wisdom. - George Iles

You must be able to take the next step for your opinion to mean anything.

Grumpy

[Scotracer]

...if I were God, and I were populating a planet with creatures, I would want the creatures to be adaptable and dynamic, to change with their environment.

That is EXACTLY what God did. But those variations have limits, just as does height or weight. A bacteria will never become a man any more than dirty hay will become mice. Mutations will never add or change 100,000 base pairs in bacteria genetic code to become 3.2 billion base pairs in human DNA. The number of mutations required would plague and/or kill the organism repeatedly throughout its entire evolutionary period. The idea is preposterous to anyone who does the math or comprehends the magnitudes. For this reason, many who don't want to accept the creationist theory because of philosophical reasons (not scientific), have resorted to alternate theories to explain how life started on this planet in the first place, such as "transpermia".

So it's perfectly okay for a Amoeba with it's 670,000,000,000 base pairs* to evolve into anything with a smaller genome...right? No "information" has been added?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_(genus)#Genome

Go to this web page and make sure your media player is enabled to view the various animations of a flagellar motor. Many people have come to the same conclusion: these motors cannot build themselves by the mechanisms of mutations and natural selection. The entire build processes are "sequenced" in the right order. Trying to accomplish this with "hit-and-miss" random mutations would be like finding one misplaced atom in the Universe six times in a row. In other words, it is impossible. Read for yourself the various mathematical probability arguments against proteins randomly assembling themselves. Evolutionist's only hope now is that many parallel Universes exist where their chances for bacteria evolving into man is increased. Instead of taking a convoluted and improbable path to increased foolishness, why don't people just give up and learn to accept that God made everything just as the Bible says? The whole scheme of things was laid out clearly for millennia. What more do you want? God cannot be a figment of my imagination. He is not like anything I imagined.

Ah, I wondered where my old friend "Irreducible Complexity" had gone. This is something championed by Dr Behe and he got his proverbial butt slapped at the Dover trial when Ken Miller (a Catholic Evolutionary Biologist) showed that the concept of irreducible complexity with regards to the Bacterial Flagelum was wrong.

Claim:

Bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex, Since nonfunctional intermediates cannot be preserved by natural selection, these systems can only be explained by intelligent design.

Source:

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 59-73.

Response:

This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):

A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.

The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).

Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Here's a nice video where Ken explains it all:

Why are people so threatened by this theory?

I am not personally "threatened" by this theory but I think tax dollars are wasted and less-discerning people are damaged. I would resent being sold food that purposefully omitted the ingredient label or preservative warning information. Evolution theory is often marketed as "change over time" but the sellers are almost embarrassed to tell you that they believe the product can turn bacteria into people. It is Ponzi marketing at its finest.

Also, evolution theory stipulates that death was happening for millions of years before the first man ever arrived on the scene. This teaching is contradictory to Bible teaching which states that death didn't exist until the first man, Adam, sinned. The Bible and evolution are like day and night, sweet and sour, or progress and congress. The theory has a history of fraud and deception.

Ah, "social Darwinism". Okay, let's take the same claim: Survival of the Fittest, and then turn it into an altruistic "ideology" - if people aren't helped, they wont survive. Same argument, much nicer outcome - don't you think?

Oh and you still haven't shown (in fact no one has ever shown) that the bible claims are indeed factual. You know why I dislike Creationism? Because it's a slap in the face of everything a scientist stands for - we dedicate our lives to improving the world and all people will do is cling to some storybook and cry from the rafters that it is true, not the millions of manhours of work. But of course if I were to tell these people to forgo the fruits of science they'd quieten down because, as I wrote in my paper on the subject, religious people (and most people in general for that matter) will Pick n' Mix science as they please.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 13:

That is EXACTLY what God did. But those variations have limits, just as does height or weight. A bacteria will never become a man any more than dirty hay will become mice.

We've observed changes, and from such we can make a reasonable and logical conclusion that such changes, over time, will lead to speciation.

We have observed speciation.

Mutations will never add or change 100,000 base pairs in bacteria genetic code to become 3.2 billion base pairs in human DNA.

Why not?

I would agree, as a matter of honorable debate, at least I can't claim humans came from bacteria, however there is evidence (however great or slight) for this reasonable and logical conclusion.

The number of mutations required would plague and/or kill the organism repeatedly throughout its entire evolutionary period.

This represents a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. Generally, mutations that are harmful will be weeded out, and mutations that are beneficial will be kept.

There are also mutations that have a "dual effect", like in sickle cell diseases, where inheriting a single copy will infer benefits against malaria, and a double copy creates problems. There's also the issue of a benefit at one point, and a detriment in another; sorry, but I can't think of an example right now.

The idea is preposterous to anyone who does the math or comprehends the magnitudes.

Argument from incredulity. Evolution has been observed.

For this reason, many who don't want to accept the creationist theory because of philosophical reasons (not scientific), have resorted to alternate theories to explain how life started on this planet in the first place, such as "transpermia".

I can't speak for others, but I have no overt philosophical qualms regarding the ToE. It is what it is.

I reject creation stories based on a lack of evidence, and lack of evidence alone.

Go to this web page and make sure your media player is enabled to view the various animations of a flagellar motor.

LOL

Irreducible complexity can come about through evolutionary mechanisms. Changing from one function to another can create an appearance of IC, in that the new function has deleted parts. We can often find these deleted parts in other organisms.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

* deletion of parts
* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* change of function
* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* gradual modification of parts


All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Many people have come to the same conclusion: these motors cannot build themselves by the mechanisms of mutations and natural selection.

See above, many of these IC claims have been refuted.

The entire build processes are "sequenced" in the right order. Trying to accomplish this with "hit-and-miss" random mutations would be like finding one misplaced atom in the Universe six times in a row.

This is nothing but a water in the puddle argument.

Read for yourself the various mathematical probability arguments against proteins randomly assembling themselves.

Then apply such factors as these assemblies occurring over time, and multiple simultaneous efforts.

Are we to also apply probablity to God. What are the odds on that'n?

Evolutionist's only hope now is that many parallel Universes exist where their chances for bacteria evolving into man is increased.

Not at all. I would say our "only hope" is to encourage folks to learn about the processes involved.

Instead of taking a convoluted and improbable path to increased foolishness, why don't people just give up and learn to accept that God made everything just as the Bible says?

Yeah, and the Bible ain't a "convoluted and improbable path to increased foolishness".

Your subtle smear against folks who disagree is not evidence for a god.

The whole scheme of things was laid out clearly for millennia. What more do you want?

Evidence.

God cannot be a figment of my imagination. He is not like anything I imagined.

I propose He's not like what the Bible says either. I base my opinion here on lack of evidence for Bible claims about God. This includes a lack of evidence for God.

Evolution theory is often marketed as "change over time" but the sellers are almost embarrassed to tell you that they believe the product can turn bacteria into people.

I somewhat agree. I think there should be a bit more explaining of how the ToE is based on reasonable and logical conclusions. As opposed to such as "Darwin did it"

Also, evolution theory stipulates that death was happening for millions of years before the first man ever arrived on the scene. This teaching is contradictory to Bible teaching which states that death didn't exist until the first man, Adam, sinned.

We've got evidence that indicates humans are "late" on the scence. What evidence do we have for:

1- Adam's existence
2- Adam being the first human
3- No death prior to Adam

The Bible and evolution are like day and night, sweet and sour, or progress and congress. The theory has a history of fraud and deception.

Are cdesign propentists innocent?

How 'bout them folks up in Dover (see section 6), where the judge himself said they were lying?

Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions...The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony.

[Alan Clarke]

So it's perfectly okay for a Amoeba with it's 670,000,000,000 base pairs* to evolve into anything with a smaller genome...right? No "information" has been added?

You have an uncanny ability to shoot yourself in the foot.

Is it legitimate to demand of evolutionists an explanation for the origin of genetic information? Click here.