Creationism and Evolution Both

[Gaea 0]

 

I have heard that certain creatures have not changed at all in hundreds of millions of years.

If evolution was a law of nature, then all creatures would have evolved.

Fossil records show that some creatures are the same now as they were hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

 

Evolution is process that is driven only when there is a selection pressure. If there is no selection pressure you either get small changes with no disadvantageous phenotype or consistency.

[Gaea 0]

 

Now a Scientologists?? Star-trekkie?? I ain't no Spoof with pointy ears.

 

 

 

 

Funny thing Spoof ripped this off from a 60's sci-fi TV show about aliens amongst us here on earth, The Invaders I think. You could only tell them by their hands which were formed like this.

 

Before that it is an ancient Rabbinical sign that signifies the name of God.

 

Continued jokes along this line will get you guys abducted!!! I'm connected. I got juice. So back off.

 

Haha, just shave off that dodgy hair cut and put a pony tail on it - i KNEW it, all Vulcans are undercover Vaishnavas!

[Avinash 0]

 

Evolution is process that is driven only when there is a selection pressure. If there is no selection pressure you either get small changes with no disadvantageous phenotype or consistency.

 

 

As per your post, selection pressure is a must for evolution. In other words, evolution is impossible without selection pressure. But this is not so. Evolution can happen even without selection pressure. It is also true that without selection pressure the evolution would take far longer to cause the kind of changes in population than we see. But, at least in theory, evolution can happen without selection pressure.

 

Selection pressure is one of the mechanisms by which evolution takes place but it is not a necessity. What is a necessity is the variation between genetic differences between the individuals of a population.

[Gaea 0]

 

As per your post, selection pressure is a must for evolution.

 

 

It's a must for evolution in the traditional sense - adaptation. Diversity can easily continue in the absence of selction pressure.

 

 

In other words, evolution is impossible without selection pressure. But this is not so. Evolution can happen even without selection pressure.

 

 

see above.

 

 

It is also true that without selection pressure the evolution would take far longer to cause the kind of changes in population than we see.

 

 

Hence the theory that there are selection pressures.

 

 

But, at least in theory, evolution can happen without selection pressure.

 

 

Again, see above. Evolution in the conventional sense (adaptation) will not occur in the absense of pressure. Things can happen by "chance" though (i personally don't believe in chance, but this is the spin put on evolution amongst curretn scientists). For example, Kenyan prostitutes "by chance" developed antigens to the HIV virus, and they are immune from the disease.

 

 

Selection pressure is one of the mechanisms by which evolution takes place but it is not a necessity. What is a necessity is the variation between genetic differences between the individuals of a population.

 

Variation is key.

[Guest guest]

Apart from some genetic mutations of microbes in a lab, there is NO proof of evolution in the fossil records.

 

Evolution is a theory and it can never be proven factually.

 

You put your faith in science or you can put your faith in intelligent design.

 

The chance of random combinations of molecules coming together to create life is so remote that impossible is the only way to describe it.

 

It's grant money that keeps all these scientific hoaxes alive.

 

It's about money, salaries, eating sleeping, mating and defending.

 

The science of astronomy is a playground for fools.

[Avinash 0]

Adaptation is the notion that some traits make it more likely for an organism to sutvive in an environment when subject to natural selection.

 

Therefore, by the very definition of adaptation, selection is a must for adaptation. It is also true that evolution is often used in the sense of adaptation. In that sense, selection becomes must for evolution (in the sense in which the word evolution is often used).

 

But let us see what evolution really means.

 

"Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation."

 

If we go by this definition of evolution, then it is possible for evolution to happen even without selection.

 

I could not resist from making the previous post because of the usage of the words 'only when' in a post of yours. When you say evolution happens only when there is selection pressure, then it is same as saying that evolution is not at all possible without selection.

 

Also, as I came to know from the last post of yours, you are using the word 'evolution' in the sense in which people often use it (i.e. adaptation). But I am using it in the strict sense in which it is defined.

[Gaea 0]

 

Adaptation is the notion that some traits make it more likely for an organism to sutvive in an environment when subject to natural selection.

 

Therefore, by the very definition of adaptation, selection is a must for adaptation. It is also true that evolution is often used in the sense of adaptation. In that sense, selection becomes must for evolution (in the sense in which the word evolution is often used).

 

 

yep.

 

 

But let us see what evolution really means.

 

"Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation."

 

If we go by this definition of evolution, then it is possible for evolution to happen even without selection.

 

 

Yes, albeit undirected.

 

 

I could not resist from making the previous post because of the usage of the words 'only when' in a post of yours. When you say evolution happens only when there is selection pressure, then it is same as saying that evolution is not at all possible without selection.

 

 

As i said, in the traditional sense.

 

 

Also, as I came to know from the last post of yours, you are using the word 'evolution' in the sense in which people often use it (i.e. adaptation). But I am using it in the strict sense in which it is defined.

 

What is the strict sense you are talking about? It's important that we get both of our definitions right so that we talk on the same level, otherwise we'll end up arguing about semantics

[theist 1]

 

Haha, just shave off that dodgy hair cut and put a pony tail on it - i KNEW it, all Vulcans are undercover Vaishnavas!

 

Yeah I can see it! Put him in a dhoti and you have Bhakta Spoof.

 

That is a funny picture indeed.

[Avinash 0]

 

What is the strict sense you are talking about? It's important that we get both of our definitions right so that we talk on the same level, otherwise we'll end up arguing about semantics

 

In the following sense:-

 

"Evolution is the change in the frequencis of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation."

 

Isn't this definition accepted in Science also?

[Avinash 0]

 

Apart from some genetic mutations of microbes in a lab, there is NO proof of evolution in the fossil records.

 

What about so many proofs that evolutionists give based on fossil records?

 

 

Evolution is a theory and it can never be proven factually.

How do you decide what is a theory and what is a fact? Why should intelligent design not be considered as a theory?

 

 

You put your faith in science or you can put your faith in intelligent design.

Why should the faith in Science exclude the faith in intelligent design? Why can't the two go together?

 

 

The chance of random combinations of molecules coming together to create life is so remote that impossible is the only way to describe it.

When you apply natural selection, then it is no longer purely random.

[Gaea 0]

 

In the following sense:-

 

"Evolution is the change in the frequencis of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation."

 

Isn't this definition accepted in Science also?

 

Hi, no not really - it is incomplete. If you use this as a complete definition, then yes your arguments of course hold.

[Avinash 0]

 

Hi, no not really - it is incomplete. If you use this as a complete definition, then yes your arguments of course hold.

 

What is the standard (and complete) definition of evolution accepted by scientific community?

[Gaea 0]

 

What is the standard (and complete) definition of evolution accepted by scientific community?

 

As far as i am aware there is no set defitional lexicon or ontology in this case as every researcher has his/her own angle. But I would say everyone would agree with your definition PLUS the inclusion of the affect of slection pressure and a directed evolutionary path.