A Plea to Creationists
By omnithought
@omnithought (199)
United States
March 7, 2007 11:55am CST
I've seen a great deal of posts on here supposedly "debunking" evolution, but they have all been so full of incorrect assumptions about evolution. People aren't debating evolution, they're debating some weird fantasy science that other creationists have invented, and if their claims were true, I'd be against evolution also.
Here are a few tips to help you out:
Evolution does not claim that one species suddenly transforms into another. If such an unlikely event were to take place, it would be over many thousands of years, not in a generation or two.
Evolution does not teach that species exist by random chance. Quite the opposite. Natural selection is the survival of traits which benefit certain species. Species change gradually over a long time to become more and more suited to their environments. There's nothing random about it, and it doesn't happen by chance. The insect with slightly better camouflage than its fellows will naturally tend to be able to survive long enough to pass on its genes, while the ones who are slightly less camouflaged will have less of a chance to pass on their genes. That is what natural selection is and how evolution works. Some species long ago reached a form that works quite well for them and have changed very little over time, such as certain mosses, fungi, crayfish, sharks, etc. Others changed more rapidly, yet that rapid pace still consists of many thousands of years.
Evolution does not cover how life came into existence in the first place. That's what cosmology covers. Evolution studies what life has done sAFTER its origin. It doesn't even address the beginnings of all life. It never has. Regardless of HOW life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and evolution studies this diversification.
About evolution being a "theory". The popular use of the word "theory" refers to just a guess that someone pulled out of their butt. In science, a theory is an explanation based on rigorously tested evidence, and valid predictions are made based on the examination of this evidence. It is corroborated by much supporting evidence. Scientists don't debate about whether evolution occurs, but how it occurs. Scientists have rigorous debates over processes and mechanisms of evolution, not about whether it happened at all. Some see these debates and think that the scientific community is somehow unsure about whether or not evolution itself is a valid theory. Scientists agree that it does exist, what they argue over is the smaller details of how it works.
Evolution does not claim to have all the answers about life. In fact, no scientist worth his or her degree would claim that it does. Of course there are gaps in the fossil record, just as there are many transitional fossils. We obviously don't have good fossils available for every species. However, the gaps that have existed are closing rapidly as more and more transitional fossils are being found. Only a delusional person would claim to have all the answers, as all the evidence is not available. Evolution is simply the explanation which is the most supported by a very rigorous examination of available evidence. If some other thing comes along that has more evidence (not speculation) to support it, and the examination of that evidence holds up to the scientific process, then it would be adopted. So far, nothing else has come close.
I could go one with more examples of misconceptions about evolution, but I've made my point. My plea to creationists is to at least find out what evolution actually is before trying to debunk it. If you hear something from your pastor or some other creationist about evolution, before you go and start blabbering it to the world, convinced that you've found some nugget of "evidence" against evolution, first make sure that what you've found out is actually true about evolution. The internet is full of information to help you. If you're going to use it to debate, get your facts straight first. Your pastor is not a scientist.
The best source of information I know of that can really explain current evolutionary theory is a book called "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. You can also go to YouTube and search for "The Blind Watchmaker" and see the same information in documentary form. Please do everyone (including yourself so you don't end up looking stupid) a huge favor and get informed.
Thank you.
10 people like this
22 responses
@nicolec (2671)
• United States
7 Mar 07
Well said. In fact doing one's research can be said about almost anything in life. Many people take for the 'gospel' what is put in front of them without looking for the facts. A perfect example is the Passions of The Christ. How many people saw that movie and thought almost imediatly the 'facts' portrayed were true. When in reality, it was just one man's interpretation. It goes the same when people hear what the preacher has to say.
Evolution and creationism can coexist. It's the close minded or the narrow minded that fail to see both sides.
Genetic mutations take place at roughly 10^-6 per locus per generation. That is approximatly .000001 mutations per single locus per generation. With that in mind, it would take a long time for multiple mutations to allow evolution into a completly new species.
You have it right about 'theory'. It's valid predictions. No one disputes gravity even though it is 'the theory of gravity'.
Ok, I've rambled enough.
2 people like this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Microevolution is not evolution, it's the separation of traits already there. Kind of if red heads moved to an island and only married red heads, eventually all they would give birth to would be red heads, but they didn't evolve red heads, even if another island was discovered with only blonds.. which would have come about in the same way.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
8 Mar 07
P.S. - you can observe gravity, so it is no longer a hypothesis and possibility.. but observable data..
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
How about researching the difference between macroevolution and microevolution?
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
7 Mar 07
Very nice text.
A good action from your part posting it on mylot.
I am sorry to say, creationists, at least the TCP (trained creationist parrot) will keep saying (or writing) the same weird fiction science that they like to call evolution. And attacking it, and running away from answering such questions as What is the scientific theory of Creationism.
have a nice day
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
8 Mar 07
The theory of creationism is the theory of "intelligent design". One of the debates in scientific circles right now is "where does information come from?" - this referring to the intricate DNA code which is found in all life (all living things).
And actually, to quote "The Blind Watchman" (the book referrd to above): "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view." I guess the only intelligent question left is, what did the said lifeform do while it was so slowly developing its survival mechanisms? To be overly simplistic, what did a breather do those millions of years while it was randomly "with no purpose in view" evolving lungs?
Mutations are like a computer virus, and will sooner turn the human genetic code to gibberish than it will cause evolution of humanity. This is observable. Positive mutations have never been observed. That would make "the blind watchmaker" a belief in a blind watchmaker, but it is more like a "blind gunman," for it 'shoots' deadly 'bullets' randomly into beautifully designed DNA genetic codes. Sometimes they kill. The "blind watchmaker" is an illusion, and imaginery. A false god, a miracle which could not ever have occurred even once...
The first amino acids forming the first protein molecules (life) requires 2000 to 3000 amino acids lined up perfectly without one being out of place. Mathematicians have figured this one thing alone as being virtually impossible to have occurred, let alone all the other highly improbable random occurances required to bring about a slug, let alone all life as we see it.
:))
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
1 Apr 07
..yes I did copy my own words this one time, as I type this stuff over and over. Your answer on page three was wrong:)) Insulting your opponent does not qualify as science.. I know it's impossible to believe christians have minds..
@cyntrow (8523)
• United States
7 Mar 07
Excellent post. You know every creationist that I have spoken with has uttered the same line, "There are large enough holes in the theory of evolution to drive a bus through." Then they claim this is not prompted. Now, I do believe in a supreme being. But I do not ignore science and I believe creationism and evolution can co-exist. Thanks for an intelligent and thought out discussion.
2 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
7 Mar 07
That's a great contribution to MyLot, Omnithought. A + rating is the minimum I can do to symbolize that.
I've already answered at least half a dozen discussions this week, explaining to someone how what they view as evolution does not really correspond to what the theory actually says. Hopefully, linking to this explanation will be yet another quick alternative to familiarize people here with what the Theory of Evolution really is about.
2 people like this
@fizz11 (69)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I think the debunking started with the rise of 'Intelligent Design'. Now many religious communities are running with scissors, slicing the heck out of evolution. I send out that plea with you. It is a shame that when a hypothesis comes along it is suddenly used like a toggle switch to turn off the other guy. All the evidence Darwin put together is still there. Many Intelligent Designists are using something called 'Irreducible Complexity' as a weapon against evolution when in all actuality, at this point it only opens up a void containing a question mark.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Richard Dawkins also said in "the blind watchmaker" that the nucleus of the cell, whether, plant, animal or human has a data base larger than a 30 volume set of the encyclopedia" and admits this is quite a problem for evolution.
To quote: "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view." I guess the only intelligent question left is, what did the said lifeform do while it was so slowly developing its survival mechanisms? To be overly simplistic, what did a breather do those millions of years while it was randomly "with no purpose in view" evolving lungs?
Instead of a "blind watchmaker," mutations are more like a "blind gunman," one which shoots deadly "bullets" randomly into beautifully designed models of living molecular machinery. Sometimes they kill. Name one positive mutation found in human genetics. The "blind watchmaker" is an illusion, and imaginery. A false god.
Mutations are like a computer virus, and will sooner turn the human genetic code to gibberish than it will cause evolution of humanity. This is observable. Positive mutations have never been observed. That would make "the blind watchmaker" a belief - in a blind watchmaker.
To say evolutoiion is not a theory (hypothesis) of origins is flatly false. What's all the hoohah about the first amino acids forming the first protein molecules? A sort of sacred pond scum? Which by the way, those first protein molecules (life) require 2000 to 3000 amino acids lined up perfectly without one being out of place. Mathematicians have figured this one thing alone as being virtually impossible to have occurred, let alone all the other highly improbable random occurances required to bring about a slug, let alone all life as we see it.
Peace!
1 person likes this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
1 Apr 07
Nope, I type from my thoughts.. and memory of what I've learned.. the thing about the amino acids for instance I learned watching a program on television.. I knew it would devolve into insults, in lieu of good points..
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
1 Apr 07
..information, even phrases can be repeated by intelligent design-ers, as well as they are by evolutionists.. I never accuse anyone of this preferring to debate the issue rather than try to marginalize an 'opponent'.. If I had copied it from a source I would simply say so.. and they would still be valid points..
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
8 Mar 07
Why is it such a widespread habit among creationists to steal other people's words and pretend they are their own? Is it so hard to admit when you are copying the words from someone else, and give them proper credit?
flowerchilde, the text you just copied came from this site, did it not?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html
The answer to these arguments is quite simple, in fact. First, that in early evolutionary stages, a part of an organism could have had other uses, different from the current one - like the example I like to give, of an incomplete wing that is incapable of flight, yet improves the running performance of the ancestral of a bird.
Second, there's absolutely no reason to say that no mutation is beneficial. To cite from a quote given by Leavert himself, a mutation leading to growth of fur, in a cold climate, is a beneficial mutation.
1 person likes this
@p3halliwel2005 (3156)
• Philippines
8 Mar 07
In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. Despite many people's tendency to think of all creationists in one group and all evolutionists in another, "creationism" refers to a wide range of beliefs. I guess we have each our own beliefs about this...I am not into either but this is what I believe in.
1 person likes this
@john_essex (199)
•
8 Mar 07
All I can say here is what an excellent post! I've never heard a single good arguement for intelligent design, it's just a load of made up science used to try and promote a regligous agenda.
Once again well done for writing an excellent post!
1 person likes this
@draconess (650)
• Canada
8 Mar 07
Ah, great discussion, and well said omnithought! I've often avoided posting in those threads with creationists because I get tired of their false assumptions. I completely agree with you, that if they are going to argue against evolution, they should at least put a little effort into understanding what the theory actually says first. And there is no reason a religious person can't agree with the theory of evolution, you can still believe god put life on earth. Evolution is merely a process that, through natural selection, can lead to species changing over time such that they become better suited to their environments.
1 person likes this
@maanvar (48)
• India
8 Mar 07
I was searching something like yours. I looked your points since long ago. As if transformation is occured to be human, it is now since long for the next transformation.
Hence, the earth was unveiled with all these lively beings. Human population is increasing day by day - sa fast to cover 7 or 8 billion now. If this trend goes, there is no further chance for another evolution before which the whole human community would loss food and resources once when there would not have anyone who things or researches on the "evolution". You are exactly right, be little more for the cause.
1 person likes this
@maildumpster (3815)
• United States
9 Mar 07
Whether or not evolution exists does not affect whether or not God exists. I am a Christian. You are right there is nothing in the bible to refute anything involving evolution.
The problem comes when people try to take the creation story to literal. They believe that 6 days means 6 24-hour periods. That is just crazy. God is not confined by our time standards. Heck go to a different planet in our solar system and their days are not 24 hours.
To me the 6 days are periods of time not 6 24-hour days. There is no reason in this world or any other that God could not create everything and put evolution in motion.
I do not however believe that we evolved from apes. Otherwise I have no problem with evolution or creation.
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
8 Mar 07
I can't blame you for that, man. And I would harbor no hope of changing the mind of a true believer in creationism or Intelligent Alien Design either.
But I try to keep in mind that there are some people who may not be taking part in the discussion directly, but they are reading and absorbing the information, so I can't feel at ease letting so many misconceptions slip by.
1 person likes this
@omnithought (199)
• United States
8 Mar 07
That seems to be the case. I was just hoping to reduce the number of blatantly ridiculous arguments.
I'm really curious why creationists are against evolution in the first place. It doesn't threaten their beliefs at all. There's nothing in the Bible that refutes it or makes it incompatible. They can still believe that God created all life. If a god exists and he did create all life, then he obviously created life that evolves. how hard is that?
1 person likes this
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
7 Mar 07
You are missing the key difference between Macro and Micro evolution. Micro evolution does not contradict intelligent design.
Macroevolution, the changing of species is what is still a theory and still not proven and even Charles Darwin admitted there was no link to prove that species could evolve to a completely different animal, as the evolutionary theory of creation
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Yes, they miss the point, that it's not evolution at all, but the separation of traits.. already there!
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
The genetic barrier would prevent it. Micro evolution is due to the re-arrangement of EXISTING alleles, or degenerative changes.
Whereas macroevolution requires the formation of NEW, complex.laden genes to produce feathers on reptiles, for example.
1 person likes this
@maildumpster (3815)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I'm not going to get into this with you. I have made my views on creationism and evolution very clear in other posts. You are welcome to go through Messages I've Replied To and find out what they are.
I consider myself a combination of the two. But not in the usual sense that people think of when it is a combination of the two.
You'll find that I have debated with both sides. It got especially heated with a creationist.
All that said I think that while eloquent in style and very well written; I feel it was very insulting to creationists. You have basically said that if they don't believe the 'evidence' then they come across as stupid. That isn't fair nor is it nice.
@maildumpster (3815)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I appologize. Fargale is correct - I stopped looking at evolution discussions. The reason for this is my views have never really been looked at. Only one person did and they were extreme creationists who attacked me. I didn't appreciate that.
I have replied to a few evolution/creation discussions and as I said my views have been pretty much ignored.
Seems if you agree with both camps to some degree people don't want to talk to you.
Again I am sorry but the way you stated it came across as insulting. Didn't insult me but I am sure it insulted somebody which is why I said it. I wasn't trying to cause discord. I will be the first to say that some creationists take the story of creation as is and nothing can budge them.
I am a Christian and I am a bible believer BUT I am also a realist and realize that the bible is filled with stories and allusions that were written that way for the people of the time. People that would not have the scientific knowledge to know better. Sadly most don't want to accept that - which is sad. Their pastors are misinformed and passing along that misinformation. They say that a day for God could be eons but in the next breath they will say that the 6 days of creation in the bible were 6 24-hour periods. I don't get that at all.
In closing I again want to apologize for misunderstanding what you were trying to say.
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
8 Mar 07
"You have basically said that if they don't believe the 'evidence' then they come across as stupid."
Since you haven't been following the creationism/evolution threads of the last 3 or 4 days, at first glance this post might seem that way to you. But that's not what the post said at all.
It didn't say that if you don't _believe_ evolution, you're stupid. What it DID say was that if you are going to argue against evolution, the least you should do is inform yourself of what evolution really says, instead of arguing against an imaginary concept that exists only in the poster's head, and doesn't correspond to reality.
Maildumpster, we've literally had someone saying yesterday that evolution states that deer who stretch their necks long enough become giraffes. I know you're aware of how patently absurd that is, and how far it passes from what evolution really says. That's why the original poster is making this plea for everyone not to believe in evolution, but to simply know what it is about _before_ creating a new discussion trying to disprove it.
2 people like this
@omnithought (199)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I didn't say anything of the sort.
What makes people look stupid is when they use arguments against something without being educated as to what that thing actually is. If one wants of believe in creationism, then that's fine. However, if one is going to argue against evolution, then they should argue against actual evolution and not things that some people invent about it. If they do use these unfounded arguments, then they do look stupid.
Again, just to be clear: I don't think all creationists are stupid, I think that people who use false arguments make themselves look stupid.
1 person likes this
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Interesting.
I especially like the last comment suggesting all 'Creationists' become 'informed'. Geeez, I really didn't know 'evolution' had become the 'final answer'. I always thought 'evolution' was as much a THEORY as Creationism. Didn't realize someone had decided that evolution was so much more 'provable'. My bad.
However.....
In all reality, I'm of the opinion that neither evolution nor creationism can be completely proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Oh, we might be able to connect some dots of history and all, but how far back does that really take us in the grand scheme? Only as far as our little speck of dust we call home. We say we have 'evidence' that our Universe all began some 13.7 billion years ago (that's OUR years of course...a small 'blip' in time in the grand scheme probably) in an event called the "big-bang".
OK...we probably can't come up with anything more plausible yet, so we say it all just "happened out of nowhere or nothing" I guess. Nowhere have I seen credible 'evidence' that clearly explains how or why the 'big-bang' got its marching orders. Nor have I seen credible evidence that explains how the matter involved in the 'big-bang' ever came to be.
We're getting there.........
@omnithought (199)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Did you actually read the whole thing?
Nowhere did I implicate that evolution is the "final answer". And, the final answer to what, I must ask?
You also must not have read the part about "just a theory".
You also didn't read the part about evolution not addressing the origins of life.
If you're going to respond, at least read what you are responding to.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
9 Mar 07
Of course it addresses the origins of life. What makes you think it gets to just start somewhere in the middle? Exactly where is your starting point? Cut the ambiguity deception!
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Wonderful argument in support of 'evolution'. I still can't help wonder how 'evolution' itself began. I can only explain that by believing God created evolution...and that's why it's working as it's supposed to.
What is the 'intelligence' behind an insect species collectively 'evolving' to adapt to their environment?
Do they hold regular meetings to discuss how they need to change, much like we humans try to do about global warming? Or do they otherwise 'communicate' on a species-level? Or...is it the minute DNA strands that are the ones that are communicating?
I know 'natural selection' attempts to explain it, but to me it's still sadly lacking regarding the origin of the very complex set of laws and principles that make it all work so well.
Is there scientific 'evidence' to explain?
@muppetsnap (229)
• Canada
8 Mar 07
The insects don't decide to adapt - it's simply a matter that some insects will (for a given environment, and over enough time) be better suited to survive and multiply.
Perhaps we are now so far from our caveman past that we have forgotten how unforgiving nature can be with those individuals who are even just a little less able than those around them?
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
It's natural selection and mutation. I don't see "mutation" anywhere in your text. It's mutations that are random. Look it up. You have TONS of misconceptions in your text about misconceptions.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
Yes but as developmental biologist Scot Gilbert of Swarthmore University argues "natural selection explains the survival, but not the arrival of the fittest."
