Evolution for Creationists: Where Do We Disagree?

A brief run through the underlying principles behind evolution. I'm interested in our points of departure between creationism and evolutionary theory.

On a side note, I am interested in a formal video debate with an Intelligent Design creationist. PM me if you would be interested.

For more information about:
Natural Selection and Evolution in general:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Personalized Genetic Medicine (Pharmacogenomics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacogenomics
Homeobox genes and bauplans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOX_genes

Thanks for watching, commenting, "favorite" -ing, and subscribing. I really do appreciate all the support.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• polymorphism
• creationism
• disagreement
• debate
• natural
• selection
• macroevolution
• genetic
• change
• allele
• frequency
• probability

[Mogley52]

Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan

[C0nc0rdance]

@Mogley52

Ah. Fred Hoyle, 1951. Tornado in a Junkyard.

It's not the similarities that interest us, though, it's the trivial differences. Why do humans have a non-functional copy of GULOP, similar to some other apes, but not most mammals?

Do you believe the first humans were created by magic, whole and unrelated to any other animal?

[Mogley52]

NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived if their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.

[C0nc0rdance]

@Mogley52

I'm afraid your writings are a catalog of the worst mistakes made by creationists. It's not even consistently ID or YEC, switching between arguments freely.

Let's start with three simple points:

1. DNA determines what traits an animal has

2. The DNA "gene pool" for a species changes over time, in response to environment

3. There are no limits to genetic change

Which do you disagree with and why?

[TheAtheologian]

@C0nc0rdance He disagrees with point 3.

I think he disagrees because he has set a system of confines for each "kind", wherein genetic change is possible, and any direct observation of genetic change is therefore within kinds, yet any indirect observation is "unknown" "unproven" et al. and therefore "not within kinds".

[dubbleplusgood]

The only intelligent thing about intelligent design, is the word intelligent.

[Kalevala87]

@Mogley52 DNA is not information. It's not a blueprint containing the sequence of all the instructions to create a human being. It's merely a three-dimensional molecule interacting with other three-dimensional objects within the cell and, by extension, with other cells and the external environment. It only becomes information to us when we sequence it and when we see it expressed in the phenotype of an organism. Molecules can generate spontaneously, hence rendering your point moot.

[tristbjorn]

@Mogley52 Information can happen by chance. Ever heard of ghost coding in computers. So from here on, your point is void. And if all the different organisms had arisen on their own, then yes a similarity would indeed be very odd, but with common ancestry that isn't an issue. Now - how does your designer argument account for all the bad design and useless coding?

[TheAngryChinchilla]

debate more, but I thought I'd at least provide a comment for people with intelligence to see and save their time by not watching this video that is at best, something that can be found in any biology text book. The information itself is the only thing worth knowing and it's common knowledge. The applcation is completely useless. I'm a straight A student taking 17 units this semester while working a 40 hr week job. Sorry I don't have time to play debate more.

[TheAngryChinchilla]

My teacher posted this as a requirement for my class. It is supposed to aid in writing one of our papers. I fear however that the information I can glean from it does not help me in the slightest. You use round about logic and make points that can be linked, but offer no back directional flow. In short, all dogs have four legs. All four legged things are not dogs. Your logic flows in one direction, but you argue its multiple applications without sound logic. I honestly don't have time to

[TheAngryChinchilla]

What a shame.. I actually was seeking some intelligent debate to destract me from my genetics homework and I find this discussion.. gamesbok, why is it that you keep demanding to hear an argument stated or made, but when it is stated or made, you refuse to answer and dance around the question? Is your only point to keep asking for questions just so you can ignore them? Don't bother replying, I wouldn't hold any ground for what you say. And at C0nc0rdance, is your only rebuttle a spelling errror?

[gamesbok]

@crazyinsane500 I don't expect to make any progress with knowwaie. My comments are for third partie observers, to show that his claims are not valid. I presume there is a 'middle ground' to be won.

Strikes me that any system showing reproduction, variation and selection MUST show evolution. It's true because of the meaning of the words, a priori true, logically necessary, inescapable, unavoidable. Thast all emperical evidence supports it, as it does, is only to be expected.