I love the out-of-context quote from Darwin:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree"

yet he follows it with..

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

You creationists pick whatever suits your arguments and ignore absolutely everything else.

---> Exilement
"How can you believe that genes can mutate to copy themselves, but reject the idea that the genetic code within them mutates? It simply does. It's a fact. You have absolutely no evidence to the contrary and I've provided plenty of evidence that supports it. "

I do believe that the "genetic code within them mutates". That random mutations can give birth to new functions I do not believe (and I am not talking about right off the bat either)

Quote from iRakodai

You're right. Evolution is still a theory because people believe in it. Evidence will be interpreted differently according to ones presuppositions. Mine creation, so I will see things from my point of view, and you evolution so you will see things from your point of view.

Now you are insulting my intelligence.

What do you mean, it's "Still a theory"? what do you think it's going to turn into? A theory is as valid as anything like this gets.

Evidence is not being interpreted a specific way by anyone other than you. There is not a "belief" in evolution that leads to bending and twisting facts to support its premises. Evolution is the theory, the end result, that objectively ties that evidence together in a way that makes the most sense. There is no interpretation without brutal fact-checing and verification of its validity, if it's deemed invalid the interpretation is dismissed. Funny how that approach is exactly opposite of what religion does.

You believe in creationism, so you INTERPRET these facts in a way to try and make them compatible, despite all evidence to the contrary. Religion is not the end result of factual interpretation like evolution is. It's absurd to compare your views to those of proponents of evolution.

Again, you are right. It doesn't, but it has to. For us to have gotten here through evolution we would have to have become much much more complex.

Are you even reading my posts? We use about 2% of our genome, like all other life on earth. A larger genome does not correlate with complexity. Not that you've defined what you mean by "complex" anyway.

Also, as far as that citation you gave... wow. Please, something in English

You asked me to cite my info, so I did. Unfortunately scientists do not publish their findings in a dumbed-down, simple way. That isn't necessary for the intelligent, informed and educated populace who reads them. I don't rely on biased, incorrect pseudo-scientific propoganda on a fundamentalist website to get my info, I rely on cold, hard fucking science.

Quote from iRakodai

I do believe that the "genetic code within them mutates". That random mutations can give birth to new functions I do not believe (and I am not talking about right off the bat either)

I've explained how it does and cited research that supports it. If you refuse to believe it, fine, but if you also refuse to explain why that research is incorrect, then we aren't going to get anywhere with this discussion.

Quote from iRakodai

I do believe that the "genetic code within them mutates". That random mutations can give birth to new functions I do not believe (and I am not talking about right off the bat either)

This isn't an arguable point. The fact that mutations change things is as much of a fact as that airplanes can travel through the air.

Quote from Zed

Modern bacteria are not the same single-celled organisms we evolved from. They have been evolving too. Everything alive today has been evolving for the same length of time. And since bacteria go through generations faster than humans, yes of course you would expect them to have more mutations and a greater mass of DNA.

The passage you quoted just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

Zed, again, this is meaningless to me. Telling me that evolution is just true is like telling an atheist that you are God. He will laugh in your face unless you give him some proof.

Quote from Exilement

I love how when I cite gene duplication you dismiss it as just copies of the same thing, meaning it's nothing new, even though that's not how it works and not what I was trying to say. But when Answers In Genesis gives an example of a polyploid with tens of thousands of identical copies of its genome, you don't treat it as such. Suddenly it's evidence against evolution because it's more "complex", which isn't even remotely true and directly contradicts your reasoning for calling my evidence invalid.

And yet you're the one saying we're biased in our arguments because we support evolution.

edit: lol, Answers in Genesis is a young-earth Creationist website. From Wikipedia: "Young Earth creationism is normally characterized as opposing the theory of evolution, though it also opposes many claims and theories in the fields of physics and chemistry (including absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology and dendrochronology among others."

Welp, I'm convinced

My point was that the more "evolved" beings didn't go through as much evolution as some think.

And as for that bit from wikipedia, again, this is a scientific debate. I wasn't impressed with your mockery. I was impressed with the arguments you presented. You have been one of the few people on this debate that actually provide support for their claims. Don't act like a child when you're an adult.

Quote from Exilement

I love the out-of-context quote from Darwin:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree"

yet he follows it with..

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

You creationists pick whatever suits your arguments and ignore absolutely everything else.

He had to say that because he had lost his faith in God. He had to find some explanation that seemed logical to his limited knowledge of nature and he found one. He also struggled to explained how the eye evolved because of its complexity. He was unaware of how vastly complex it truly is.

oh my god this fucking thread

---> Exilement
What do you mean, it's "Still a theory"? what do you think it's going to turn into? A theory is as valid as anything like this gets.

I mean Still in existence. Evolution can never become anything but a theory.

---> Exilement
"You asked me to cite my info, so I did. Unfortunately scientists do not publish their findings in a dumbed-down, simple way. That isn't necessary for the intelligent, informed and educated populace who reads them. I don't rely on biased, incorrect pseudo-scientific propoganda on a fundamentalist website to get my info, I rely on cold, hard f***** science. "

I just thought you were trying to convince me of something. To convince me of something I have to understand what you are saying.

Also, your picking apart what I'm saying. What about the scientific information. Why is THAT being ignored? Isn't that why we are here? I have tried to make a point of responding scientifically to every attack, but this has gotten pitiful.
Please provide Scientifically valid and observable information. This is not a debate over who can throw the most mud.

I believe in God, but I have not tried to preach his word because I wanted this debate to remain strictly scientific. I won't ask you to do something I don't.

Also,

I've explained how it does and cited research that supports it. If you refuse to believe it, fine, but if you also refuse to explain why that research is incorrect, then we aren't going to get anywhere with this discussion.

I refuted this a while ago. I know it wasn't satisfactory to you but if you will actually post something scientific I will respond in a likewise manner.

I hope this can help us understand each other a bit more. I think it can help people to formulate their arguments better when they consider this.

"Evidence

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and Present

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a “time machine.” They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

That’s why the argument often turns into something like:

“Can’t you see what I’m talking about?”

“No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?”

“No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.”

“No, it’s not obvious.” And so on.

These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting “evidence,” you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense “on the facts.” But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found “stronger facts.”

“Facts” are neutral. However, there are no such things as “brute facts;” all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions—see Naturalism, Logic and Reality."

Quote from iRakodai]It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs.[/quote]

That's not how it works at all.

The theory of evolution is in regards to how evolution led to life that exists today. We know, for an undeniable fact, that evolution exists. The theory is purely relevant to how it led to modern biological life. You cannot say "I don't believe evolution exists". It's been a scientifically accepted fact for the last century.

As far as the theory goes, it is not reliant on some ingrained presupposition about anything. We are not interpreting the facts through any sort of "evolutionist glasses" that blur our understanding. The theory was created specifically to explain the facts in a way that makes the most sense. When something about it doesn't make sense, it's IMMEDIATELY rejected, and other possibilities are explored.

What you're doing is taking these "neutral" facts and twisting, bending and bastardizing them into something that barely fits your view of creationism. This is where the pre-suppositions come in, this is where your views become "interpretations" through some external belief system. Science does not have this. It involves taking the facts and evidence and making sense out of them in the best way possible. There is no "interpretation" whatsoever, interpreting facts to fit a theory created from those facts makes no sense.

[QUOTE=iRakodai

I refuted this a while ago. I know it wasn't satisfactory to you but if you will actually post something scientific I will respond in a likewise manner.

No you didn't. You dismissed it purely on the basis that it's "potential". You didn't address the actual science behind it. Why is that being ignored?

What evidence do you want? Seriously? I've given you so much, you haven't given any whatsoever. But here, I'll throw more at you, let's see what sticks:


Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)


If a bacteria becomes penicillin-resistant, it really does contain new information. We know this because researchers have now got to the point where they have read out (sequenced) every last bit of the DNA in some bacteria. This means that it's possible to do before-and-after measurements.

Here's a tested recipe for isolating successful mutations. Grow a batch culture of Salmonella typhimurium strain SK2979 at 37 deg. C on Neidhardt's MOPS-based minimal medium with 0.4% glycerol as the carbon source and 10 mM L-aspartate as the nitrogen source. Dilute and subculture for several days. L-aspartate fast growing mutants will take over the culture in something under 3 days. These typically have a doubling time of 60 minutes on asparate, compared to about 120 minutes for the parental, wild-type strain.

Even better, starting with the fast-growing strain, one can easily isolate secondary mutation(s) which permit growth on aspartate as the sole carbon and nitrogen source -- which the parental strain simply cannot do. This demonstrates how cumulative mutations can arise. - Tim Ikeda from UC Berkeley


Any of that good enough? No? How about an experiment that demonstrated uni-cellular to multi-cellular evolution?

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.


So what it is? What else is it going to take? What more do you need to admit that evolution exists?

Quote from iRakodai

Advanced vision appears almost at the very beginning of the fossil record.

This doesn't mean anything. The first organisms were not anything that could be fossilized, once they became large enough to fossilize they've already evolved quite a bit from the first cellular organisms.

Scientists readily admit that the Cambrian fossil record is very incomplete and thus, no scientific conclusions are drawn from it. So any conclusions a creationist makes based off of it don't really address anything.

Quote from iRakodai

Only about a third of all animal phyla contain species with proper eyes, another third contain species with light-sensitive organs only, and a third have no means of light detection, although many can detect heat

Blatantly false. There are 35 phyla and only six of them have the means to directionally detect light, those six phyla making up 96% of the species on earth. Good research on these guys' parts.

Quote from iRakodai

Nonetheless, of those animals with eyes, both vertebrates and most invertebrates, an enormous variety of eye designs, placement and sizes exists.

Well that sure sounds like the work of an intelligent creator and not a random, goal-less process of selective adaptation and evolution.

That said the design, placement and size might vary, but the biological structure behind the operation of all eyes are all extremely similar.

Quote from iRakodai

Although many kinds of very different eyes are known, no direct evidence exists to support the evolution of the eye and its accessory structures.

Yes it does, I cited it. We have a pretty good theory of how photoreceptor cells grouped together and depressed into a cup shape allowing for the angular detection of light, a very simple and primitive structure still seen in the planaria and other animals.

Extensive amounts of evidence indicate that color-sensitive cells mutated from a single ancestral gene. I've explained this more times than I should have to. It isn't "potential", there's evidence and research behind this claim. Where's the evidence for yours, that isn't posted on a website with "Creation" or "Genesis" in the URL?

But again, scientists will readily admit that the evolution of the eye is an incomplete theory and research is still being done on it. This article attacks conclusions that don't exist.

Quote from iRakodai

Furthermore, much evidence contradicts such evolutionary beliefs. For example, note in table 1 that the number of myelinated fibres in the optic nerve does not correlate with putative evolutionary development. A pigeon has almost as many fibres as a human. Many birds, such as the eagle and hawk, have excellent vision yet have half as many fibres as a domestic pig.

Vision has everything to do with the shape and number of cones in the eye, and has virtually nothing to do with the number of optic nerve fibers. Eagles have over 4 times as many cones in their eyes as humans do, and as the number of cones in a species increases/decreases, so does their eyesight.

Does that correspond with evolutionary beliefs? Or are we still ignoring facts that contradict your views, while creating false facts out of nothing to make it seem plausible?

Quote from iRakodai

Another example is visual pigments.

Again, what the fuck does this matter? Why would a creator make an eye with so many different types of color-sensitive cells? You have no explanation for that either.

If primates didn't have any advantage over dichromacy with trichromacy, then it wouldn't appear in their population. It happened for humans and further evolved for birds who rely on their sight far more than most animals do, but this doesn't even work as hypothetical evidence towards anything.

I don't know why they keep saying primates are the most evolved creatures as if that means every single structure must be equally as good as any other animal. Humans can't run as fast as a cheetah, we can't jump as high as a flea relative to our size, we can't live underwater like a fish, we can't fly, at what point does any of this become evidence towards anything?

Organisms are specialized and blind comparisons between ones with vast differences don't prove, disprove or even support any arguments whatsoever, unless there is a scientific explanation of why it's a fair comparison.

This entire article reeks of pseudo-science and pandering towards its fundamentalist audiences. I'm honestly embarrassed that you posted that thinking it demonstrates anything of value. I'm not going to waste my time addressing the huge amount of false claims and logical fallacies these sort of arguments constantly have.

Thanks buddy. Just fighting the good fight.