Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

babe is correct here. A shared survival strategy can arise independently in two lineages, particularly when they are already closely related, but even when they are distantly related. For example, "being active in the daytime" is a survival strategy shared by many plants and animals, that has evolved in response to different reasons for different living things.
.

Maybe I needed to be more specific as I was talking about estivation in particular which amphibians and lungfish do. This is to similar of the process to be ignored as neither birds, mammals or reptiles have this kind of mechanism where you build up cocoon from skin secretions and mucus to protect yourself during dry periods.

 

[MVP]

babe probably qualifies as a highly religious person, but I would not describe him believing in biblical reasons for biological phenomena. Almost always, he exhibits a tendency to accept science.

So you think he agrees that atavistic human tail is one of proofs of evolution?

 

[One Brow]

So you think he agrees that atavistic human tail is one of proofs of evolution?

I'll allow him to discuss the individual evidences he accepts and rejects. I was referring to his general stance.

 

[One Brow]

Maybe I needed to be more specific as I was talking about estivation in particular which amphibians and lungfish do. This is to similar of the process to be ignored as neither birds, mammals or reptiles have this kind of mechanism where you build up cocoon from skin secretions and mucus to protect yourself during dry periods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestivation

Note there are some reptiles, snails, insects, crabs, and even a species of primate that aestivate.

Even if you limit it to just some frogs and lungfish:
1) There was a common ancestor to the all of these animals (going back to the Devonian, it would seem) that use aestivation, and it was lost many, many different times over the generations, or
2) It's developed independently in different organisms.

Until you offer evidence of 1), 2) makes more sense to me.

 

[MVP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestivation

Note there are some reptiles, snails, insects, crabs, and even a species of primate that aestivate.
.

In general term estivation is used as opposite for hibernation - inactivity and reduced metabolic rate during summer ( hibernation during winter) which makes this all discussion confusing. It is completely different mechanism with all other species you mentioned. Only fish and amphibians share similar cocoon building, water preserving estivation.

 

[PearlWatson]

Well, if you mean by it that we could not observe how humans evolved then yes. But new species and even old species adopting to changes and developing new features because of changes in environment are regularly observed today. For example bacteria who evolved to consume nylon or bacteria resistant tom antibiotics - are they "intelligent creation" or part of evolution in your opinion? What is London underground mosquito? "creation" or evolution?

If a species is adapting after changes to the environment then that ain't random mutation...that is stimulus--->response...and therefore not a Darwinian mechanism.

The development of antibiotic and pesticide resistance is often presented as a modern example of evolution by mutations and as clear evidence for Darwinism. A literature review found that most examples of the acquisition of resistance are not due to mutations, but in nearly all cases are a result of complex, built-in genetic and molecular biological defence systems. The extant literature indicates that those few examples that are due to mutations are in all cases so far due to loss mutations and do not result in a gain of genetic information.

~ Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology

Creationists are making a strong case that genomes are not static and that the DNA sequence can change over time, but they are also stating that some of these changes are controlled by genetic algorithms built into the genomes themselves. In other words, not all changes are accidental, and a large proportion of genetic ‘information’ is algorithmal. If a change occurs in DNA through an intelligently-designed algorithm, even an algorithm designed to make random, but limited, changes, what do we call it? Mutation originally simply meant ‘change’ but today it carries a lot of extra semantic baggage. Can we say that a mechanism designed by God to create diversity over time within a species can be a cause of ‘mutation’, with its connotation of unthinking randomness? In fact, there is considerable evidence that some mutations are repeatable. (that is, not wholly random). This suggests the presence of some genomic factor designed to control mutation placement in at least some cases. If that something causes an intentional change in the DNA, do we call that a ‘mutation’ or an ‘intelligently engineered change in the DNA sequence’? Of course, random mutations still occur, and these are mostly due to the error rate of the DNA replication and repair machinery.

Dr Robert W. Carter Ph.D., Marine Biology

 

[carolinajazz]

If a species is adapting after changes to the environment then that ain't random mutation...that is stimulus--->response...and therefore not a Darwinian mechanism.

...and I might add, NOT evolution! Adaptation does NOT change one specie into another specie or one "kind" to another "kind!" The Galapagos Finches are a fine example of NON-evolution adaptation. Some finches had developed longer beaks over time.....but STILL remained finches! Adaptation? Yes. Proof of evolution? Not in the least!

 

[One Brow]

Only fish and amphibians share similar cocoon building, water preserving estivation.

Which is why, when I outlined the two choices, I limitied them to fish and amphibians. Amphibians diverged in the Devonian era. Which of the two outlined secnarios made sense to you?

 

[carolinajazz]

This is just a segment of the debate. Interesting debate if you care to watch the rest. It's in 8 parts and this is from the middle. I like the first 6 or 7 min of this section. Then Ruse and Behe take over and it becomes less compelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wrs3FDiyot4

...if this "creationist" insists that the Genesis "days" were 24 hrs long then he could never win this debate! On the other hand, if he points out that the Hebrew word for day "yohm" allows for much longer periods of time when any extraordinary event happens or occurs then he could clearly point out that the creative “days” of Genesis does not disagree with any current Scientific guess as to how old a certain dinosaur bone or any bone of any animal might be!

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html

I always thought it just referred to the times God spent making everything, not necessarily consecutive. If you work one day a week, and talk about the third day at work, that is in the 3rd week, in relative time. I don't think it would be a stretch to think that eons passed between the "days" in which God was actively engaged in creation. And if he is truly a being outside of the normal constraints of time he could describe the creationary period however he needs to in order to convey to us the process in a way that allows him to teach us what he feels needs to be taught.

 

[One Brow]

If a species is adapting after changes to the environment then that ain't random mutation...that is stimulus--->response...and therefore not a Darwinian mechanism.

1) The adaptation is from the selection of differing mutations in different environments, which falls well under what you call "Darwinism".
2) Stimulus-response *is* an evolutionary mechanism.

~ Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology

Selective examination and interpretation of the evidence. There are many instances of speciation and adaptation using novel genetic information.

Dr Robert W. Carter Ph.D., Marine Biology

There are a few species that can alter the rates of their mutations. The vast majority of mutations do not act within the llimitations set by Dr. Carter.

 

[One Brow]

...and I might add, NOT evolution! Adaptation does NOT change one specie into another specie or one "kind" to another "kind!"

Evolution also teaches that a kind only gives birth to that kind. Fish only give birth to fish. Even though some of these populations of fish developed legs, they are fish. Legged fish only give birth to legged fish, even though some populations of these legged fish use their legs to adapt to living out of teh water for part of their life cycle, and called amphibians. Amphibians are still legged fish. Amphibians only givve birth to amphibians, even though some populaitons of amphibians move their breeding cycle onto the land, and are now called reptiles. Reptiles are still amphibians. Reptiles only give birth to retiles, even though some populations of reptiles develop hair and thermal control, a subset we call mammals. Mammals are still reptiles. Mammals only give birth to mammals, even though some mammals developed very large brains and u-right walking, which subset we call humans. Humans are still mammals, therefore reptiles, therefore amphibians, therefore legged fish, therefore fish. At each step, each only gives birth to its own kind.