OK, lets start the debate. Looking at the issue from strictly a scientific point of view, in the sense that we draw conclutions from what we observe, then which theory(s) make the most sense?

From my observances, it doesn't make sence that stuff just apeared. From what I understand, it is impossible to predict what the universe was like pre-Big Bang, but still, the stuff had to come from somewhere, right? If we reconize that there is a higher being of some sort that is more powerful than us, then it makes sense that he created the stuff for whatever reason. What about entropy? Doesn't that state that things move from order to disorder? From what I know, life , and even the entire universe seems organized to some degree. What caused the differances in the way humans and chimps, what is called our closest relative, then why do chimps and humans have so many differances, such as thought processes, emotion, and beauty. I mean, from what we know, chimps don't look at a painting, or listen to a piece of music and get a sensation of some sort. I have another question in my mind. If mutation is a method for evolving new traits, then where are the examples of positive mutations in the world today?

Please don't make the discussion anti-evolution, anti-Big Bang, or anti-creationism. I would apreatiate it if you would give detailed facts in your answer. Remember, this is science, not I'm right you're wrong! Thanks!

have you searched the forum? I believe this has been discussed in excruciating detail a number of times. You should find quite thorough explanations by both sides of the issue scattered throughout the past threads and in the archives. Not much more can be said.

What caused the differances in the way humans and chimps, what is called our closest relative, then why do chimps and humans have so many differances, such as thought processes, emotion, and beauty. I mean, from what we know, chimps don't look at a painting, or listen to a piece of music and get a sensation of some sort.

Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Both evolved in different ways.

From http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/hominid.htm

"A widespread misconception must be corrected here. It has become almost an axiom among non-paleontologists that "humans are descended from the apes". This in fact is not strictly true, although the creationists do their best to pander to this popular misconception. The hominids are not descended from any of the existing monkeys or apes. Rather, paleoanthropologists have concluded that, approximately 5 million years ago, the human line and the ape line shared a common ancestor, from which the apes went on their separate way, leading to modern gorillas, chimps and orang-utans, and the hominid line went on in another direction, producing the bigger-brained Australopithecines and ultimately you and me. The modern apes are therefore our evolutionary relatives, not our ancestors; we are no more descended from monkeys or apes than you are descended from your sister or cousin."

Enigma'07: See the thread 'Evolution and the 2nd law' in the biology forum for a through explanation for why the second law of thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Looking at the issue from strictly a scientific point of view
... would result in the word 'creationism' not getting a mention. You know, on account of how it has no sceric of scientific backing whatsoever.

OK, lets start the debate. Looking at the issue from strictly a scientific point of view, in the sense that we draw conclutions from what we observe, then which theory(s) make the most sense?

From my observances, it doesn't make sence that stuff just apeared. From what I understand, it is impossible to predict what the universe was like pre-Big Bang, but still, the stuff had to come from somewhere, right? If we reconize that there is a higher being of some sort that is more powerful than us, then it makes sense that he created the stuff for whatever reason. What about entropy? Doesn't that state that things move from order to disorder? From what I know, life , and even the entire universe seems organized to some degree. What caused the differances in the way humans and chimps, what is called our closest relative, then why do chimps and humans have so many differances, such as thought processes, emotion, and beauty. I mean, from what we know, chimps don't look at a painting, or listen to a piece of music and get a sensation of some sort. I have another question in my mind. If mutation is a method for evolving new traits, then where are the examples of positive mutations in the world today?

Please don't make the discussion anti-evolution, anti-Big Bang, or anti-creationism. I would apreatiate it if you would give detailed facts in your answer. Remember, this is science, not I'm right you're wrong! Thanks!


I have similar problems such as I don't see enough passage of time for all the complex organic molecules to form in the goo somewhere, survive and grow such that we see the result we do. Remember, evoluton theory says there was one original simple organic entity from which evrything is derived. It would seem more probabalistic if many trillions of simple organsism were formed giving a huge number of possible combinations. Then the similarities of monkeys and men mean simply there was a similarity in the original forms and organism grew, even evolved in parallel. However, the evolution industry has committed themselves to the single original organism, as far as I know, and they ain't about to say "Whoops we made a little mistake" are they. Then everyone is going to asking what other corecions they may have to tell us, until nobody listens to evolutionists anymore.

However, the evolution industry has committed themselves to the single original organism, as far as I know, and they ain't about to say "Whoops we made a little mistake" are they. Then everyone is going to asking what other corecions they may have to tell us, until nobody listens to evolutionists anymore.

Science corrects itself all the time. That's why it's called "science", not "religion".
Forget this "vested interest" nonsense.
If a scientist screws up, every other scientist on earth is waiting to pounce and prove him wrong.

However, the evolution industry has committed themselves to the single original organism, as far as I know, and they ain't about to say "Whoops we made a little mistake" are they. Then everyone is going to asking what other corecions they may have to tell us, until nobody listens to evolutionists anymore.Do you realize what kind of scientific fame and fortune you would get if you could prove that evolution didn't happen? You would almost certainly win the Nobel Prize, have your choice of professorship at any university in the country, and go down in history and one of the greatest biologists ever.

Hardly the sort of thing that people would be reluctant to jump at.

Science corrects itself all the time. That's why it's called "science", not "religion".
Forget this "vested interest" nonsense.
If a scientist screws up, every other scientist on earth is waiting to pounce and prove him wrong.

that sums it up pretty well. Even though scientists are capable of being irrational, bias, political and narrow minded like anyone else. It's the institution of science itself that seperates it, self correction is built into it on a very fundamental level. It might take a generation for a new idea to be accepted but the better evidence will rise to the top eventually, no matter how heavy the oposition. In the end, the winner is the person with the most proof and best theories.

Religion also has irrational, bias, political and narrow minded people in it's community. The difference is there is no incentive to question "the truth" within this institution. "The world is as it is because this is how god made it... so quit asking asking!" How can an effective debate happen when one side can claim "god did it" when the questions become difficult? Scientific theories have no such safety net.

thats basically just a long winded way of saying what has already been said. You can't really compare the theory of evolution with creation because creation isn't a theory, it's faith.

Hi, Enigma'07
Most of these answers are from Talk origions “Index to Creationist Claims”

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html


From my observances, it doesn't make sence that stuff just apeared. From what I understand, it is impossible to predict what the universe was like pre-Big Bang, but still, the stuff had to come from somewhere, right?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html

Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero.




If we reconize that there is a higher being of some sort that is more powerful than us, then it makes sense that he created the stuff for whatever reason.

But who created God? If God can come into being, then why not the universe?

What about entropy? Doesn't that state that things move from order to disorder? From what I know, life , and even the entire universe seems organized to some degree.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one, or equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This doesn't prevent increasing order because
· the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy which accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
· entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. [Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998] Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size [Han and Craighead 2000].
· even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.




What caused the differances in the way humans and chimps, what is called our closest relative, then why do chimps and humans have so many differances, such as thought processes, emotion, and beauty. I mean, from what we know, chimps don't look at a painting, or listen to a piece of music and get a sensation of some sort.

Evolution is about survival. What survives breeds, what doesn’t survive doesn’t breed. There are thousands of survival strategies. Chimps just have a different one to us.
How do you know Chimps don’t like music or art? They may have simpler minds but that does not mean they cannot think at all or appreciate the beauty of the world around them.


If mutation is a method for evolving new traits, then where are the examples of positive mutations in the world today?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

1. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests [e.g. Newcomb et al. 1997]. (No, these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations [Wichman et al. 1999]. Other examples include:
· Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon [Prijambada et al. 1995].
· Plant breeders use mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones [FAO/IAEA 1977].
· Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS [Dean et al. 1996]
· . . . or to heart disease [Weisgraber et al. 1983; Long 1994; Rayl 2000].
· A mutation in humans makes bones strong [Boyden et al. 2002].
· Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity [Moffat 2000].
· Mutation and selection in vitro can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules such as a ribozyme [Wright and Joyce 1997].

But who created God? If God can come into being, then why not the universe?

We know in theory that there are several dimentions, and since we aren't in them, we can only predict what they would be like, right? So that leaves plenty of room for a god. Perhaps, if you take in theory that we were created, then couldn't it be possible that we are unable to compleatly grasp understanding of everything?

... would result in the word 'creationism' not getting a mention. You know, on account of how it has no sceric of scientific backing whatsoever.

Creationism is just another theory, just as evolution is a THEORY. It cannot be proven for certain, but there are facts that would support it. There are sevral scientists that believe in creationism, such as Donald DeYoung, D. Russell Humpphreys, David Wilkinson, Carl Wieland, and even more famous ones like Newton, Pasteur, and Faraday. If you dismiss a theory just because religion is tied to it then it seems to me (and I mean no offense) , that you are not acting a good scientist and evaluating all the facts objectivly.

Creationism is not a theory.

A theory explains what we observe in the real world. Creationism inevitably retreats to the "God wanted it that way" position.

Suppose your car won't start.

The scientific method would begin with hypotheses: maybe I'm out of gas, maybe the battery is dead, etc. Each of these hypotheses would be tested until one was shown to be true (e.g. the carburetor is gummed up). When the problem is explained, it can be fixed.

Creationism, on the other hand, would begin: God doesn't want me to go to work today. The creationist would sit there waiting for the problem to miraculously fix itself.

A theory doesn't prove anything. It explains the evidence.

Creationism is just another theory, just as evolution is a THEORY. It cannot be proven for certain, but there are facts that would support it.

Where are these facts you speak of? If facts went with religion, there wouldn't be such a thing as faith; believing without having the facts. This is something I know Christianity is big on and preaches often about. So how can Creationism have any grounds in a scientific debate when there is no HARD evidence whatsoever?

Where are these facts you speak of?

Evolution is based on faith in universal naturalism, not nessaseraly facts. The law of entropy clearly states that things move from order to disorder. Never does it specificaly say only in closed systems. Matter of fact, the law applys to all systems: geological, physical, biological, and chemical. Plus, if the sum causes an increase of heat in the earth's open system, then entropy should increase, not decrease. Natural selection does not organize nature, it causes a loss of traits. Neither Evolution or Creationism can be proved. No one can turn back time.

Evolution is based on faith in universal naturalism, not nessaseraly facts.
No. Evolution is based on what we can see. Faith is not allowed in science.
The law of entropy clearly states that things move from order to disorder.
You're referring to the kindergarten/creationist version of "entropy", not the real thing.
Never does it specificaly say only in closed systems.
Yes it does.
Matter of fact, the law applys to all systems: geological, physical, biological, and chemical.
The real Laws of Thermodynamics apply to all closed systems. Your bargain-basement version of the Laws is a creationist fabrication.
Plus, if the sum causes an increase of heat in the earth's open system, then entropy should increase, not decrease.
What? Explain the "logic" of that, please.
Natural selection does not organize nature, it causes a loss of traits.
Where's your evidence of that?
Neither Evolution or Creationism can be proved.
Science is not about "proof". It's about evidence. It's no wonder that creatioinists come up with such hare-brained "theories" when they have such a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and does.
No one can turn back time.
If you come home to find your canary missing and the cat with feathers in his mouth, you don't have to "turn back time" to know what happened.

The law of entropy clearly states that things move from order to disorder. Never does it specificaly say only in closed systems. Matter of fact, the law applys to all systems: geological, physical, biological, and chemical. Plus, if the sum causes an increase of heat in the earth's open system, then entropy should increase, not decrease.No no no! Bad Enigma'07!

I'll assume that by 'the law of entropy' you mean 'the second law of thermodynamics,' because there is no 'law of entropy' in physics.

The second law of thermodynamics states actually states that dS>dQ/T where S=k ln(W). This is an equation that governs the behavior of energy in systems - it has nothing to do with 'order' or 'complexity'. As you can see, it's also a precise mathematical equation - not a vague, qualitative statement like "disorder always increases"

Referring to the second law as having to do with 'order' is just an analogy that's sometimes used when trying to explain it to people with a poor science background, but it doesn't really convey what the second law is about and you shouldn't use it to draw conclusions about the behavior of systems. There is nothing about evolution that violates the second law of thermodynamics. And yes, if you check any basic thermodynamics textbook you will see that it only applies to isolated systems. Also, it should be obvious that it's possible for things to move from disorder to order. If it were impossible for things to move from disorder to order, water molecules wouldn't be able to form ordered crystal structures when they freeze.

It is possible to have one effect decreasing entropy whilst another increases it. An excellent example is formation of micelles by surfactant (e.g., soap) molecules. Surfactant molecules contain both a water-soluble and a water-insoluble group. In water, the water-insoluble parts tend to group together 'inside' a micelle whilst the water-soluble parts locate between the water-insoluble parts and the water.

This might be thought to decrease entropy (or at least spontaneously form a more ordered structure) but there is another factor operating. If the water-insoluble parts did not group together inside a (e.g., spherical) micelle they would structure adjacent water molecules. This would cause more ordering than if the water were bulk water. So, in fact, the ordering caused by micelle formation is less than the ordering imposed by ordering water molecules.

Nice post Igor. Covered everything on the subject I would share except one thing; appears to me that evolution is a creation theory, albeit via circumstance rather than some omniscient being.

I do believe that one can find moral and spiritual guidance from science and that religion just screws up any cogent consideration. Religion is not theory IMHO. Religion is anti-theory, being a collection of loosely conjoined assumed postulates, basically fodder for the masses to justify their sacrifice to so-called leaders. Priesthoods have sanctioned static hierarchies on the basis of "special knowledge" since perhaps the first Homo saps started grunting.

yes, natural selection removes traits that don't help an organism survive. because organisms seem to have these things called niches, and natural selection "selects" organisms best suited for a niche. hmm, almost sounds like organization, no?

I have similar problems such as I don't see enough passage of time for all the complex organic molecules to form in the goo somewhere, survive and grow such that we see the result we do.

4.5 Billion years isn't enough time?

The entire Universe is 14 Billion years old (give or take). Time enough for matter to separate from energy, coalesce into large structures, collapse into nebulae, start forming stars, which burn for billions of years, explode into supernovae, which then coalesce into second generation stars.

HUGE cosmological sized events managed to happen in the 10Billion or so years before the Earth was formed. I think therefore, that 4.5Billion years is long enough for a bunch of chemicals to organise themselves together haphazardly.