Evolution & Creationism Debate at Museum

[Hobo]

The Ecoli experiment is still not producing a new gene, you are just reactivating genes that were dormant (i.e. they were already there).

...do you have evidence of this? or are you just saying it because it sounds nice next to your religion?

No, I actually read the description of the experiment and that's exactly what it's doing.

A pseudogene is a fragment of a gene that used to be active but which got shuffled around and corrupted in the process. This makes it no longer active.

Results

In the early years of the experiment, several common evolutionary developments were shared by the populations. The mean fitness of each population, as measured against the ancestor strain, increased, rapidly at first, but leveled off after close to 20,000 generations (at which point they grew about 70% faster than the ancestor strain). All populations evolved larger cell volumes and lower maximum population densities, and all became specialized for living on glucose (with declines in fitness relative to the ancestor strain when grown in dissimilar nutrients). Of the 12 populations, four developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains. Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.

where in this article does it say that genes that were dormant are being reactivated?

Also, a question for those who are skeptical about evolution. by not accepting in the theory of evolution, do you mean to say that every organism that had ever existed ever has had no changes to its genetic makeup? That god just "poofed" everything into existence?

[Col. Hstar]

First off Let's make one point. Foretelling a future event is not predestination. A mechanic who warns a driver of the poor condition of his vehicle cannot be held responsible if an accident occurs or be accused of predestining it

I've highlighted the scriptures you quoted in blue. My responses are below each one. I took a lot of time to answer each scripture you posted, I hope you take the time to read it.

"For many are called, but few [are] chosen." (Matthew 22:14, KJV)
Not Sure How this one shows predestination? The scripture shows Jesus Illustration about those who have a heavenly calling? The bible shows that 144,000 will have a heavenly reward and a great crowd will enjoy everlasting life in peace on earth. But this is a group, not individual people.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5 NIV)
Jehovah exercised foreknowledge prior to their birth. This foreknowledge, however, did not specify what their final destiny would be. For example. In this case Jeremiah was foretold that he would serve as a prophet. He continued to serve faithfully of his own accord. On the other hand, King David was told that he would have a son Solomon who would build the temple, however Solomon proved in the end to turn away from Jehovah.

"As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven." (Mark 4:10-12, NASB)
Again unsure how this is predestination. Jesus explains that he speaks in parables or illustrations because those who truly and genuinely want to know God and come to an understanding will have to put forth effort and learn about God. Others who

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,..." (Eph. 1:3-5, NASB)
The foreordaining mentioned here is a group of people. In the garden of Eden when the initial challenge came from Satan, Jehovah foretold that a group of humans would rise up and answer that challenge. he does not however mention specific individuals. These people join that group by actions they make on their own throughout the course of their life.

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Rom. 8:28-30, NASB)
This is the same situation as above. Paul is referring to a group of people. Specific people are not mentioned and are only included in the group when their actions show their course.

"... but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; ..." (1Co. 2:7, NASB)
Wisdom is not a person. So I don't know how this means people are predestined. Other Translations use the word foreordained which means established. This makes more sense when put in context because Paul is referring to how we need to use wisdom, not form mans view but from Gods view

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur." (Act. 4:27-28, NASB)
This is a prayer that the apostles were offering to God. Put in context they are pray for his will to be done. Mentioning that things he foretold had already happened. This is past tense. The prophecy they refer to did not mention Herod and Pilate specifically.

Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psa. 139:16, NASB)
Here is a different translation:
(Psalm 139:16) Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing, As regards the days when they were formed And there was not yet one among them.
This scripture points to the fact that when a child is conceived in that split second it's DNA is formed and encoded. Scientists have proven that a strand DNA has our entire genetic structure stored in it like a book. What color our eyes, hair, skin will be etc. This is not predestination.

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Romans 9:15-18, NIV)
Another translation of verse 18
18 So, then, upon whom he wishes he has mercy, but whom he wishes he lets become obstinate
God did not harden the heart of Pharaoh, he allowed he to be obstinate.
Using common sense here, if Pharaoh was not against letting Gods people go, why would God harden his heart?? Wouldn't it be easier to have his people release by a cooperative Pharaoh?

"The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Exodus 4:21, NIV)
See response right above

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" (Rom. 9:22-24, NIV)
Where is predestination here?

"For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:8-10, NKJ)
He foreordained the works such ones would be expected to carry out, and their being tested because of the sufferings the world would bring upon them. But this is again a group of people. Not individual people

As for my statement about the devil, if God is omnipotent then he therefore lets everything happen. The Devil exists solely by the grace of God. There is also scriptural support for God's creation of evil in Isaih. The argument revolves around the word "rah" but even though it doesn't strictly and solely mean evil it is a general catch all for bad things. The Devil can not exist without God's allowance. Evil can not exist without God's allowance. Epicurus' puts it quite well before Christianity was even formed

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Jehovah God created the angels in heaven along with everything else in the universe. This means that he is the rightful sovereign of the universe. One of those angels, using his free will rebelled against God. he wanted worship for himself.
In the Garden of Eden he spoke the first lie to Eve saying that God was holding back from her. He challenged God's right to rule. In a sense he said that Mankind would be able to rule themselves without God's help or guidance. (Genesis 3:1-5)
How does someone prove that challenge false? God has allowed mankind to try to rule themselves over the past 6000 years. The wickedness and suffering seen today are the result of man dominating himself to injury. As an answer once and for all about God right to rule, we live in the system we live in right now. The world lies in the hands of Satan. Would you hold a Father accountable for atrocities committed by his adult child? No.
God does hold out hope for those who put faith in him. He promises that they will soon enjoy everlasting life without sickness, death, violence, and injustice.

So is God responsible for evil no. Those who commit evil of their own free will are responsible.

[Col. Hstar]

Just as a note for Christians who believe in an old earth: Mark 10:6 - Jesus talks about Adam and Eve being made "at the beginning of creation." Having man come about millions of years after creation started really twists what He says.

Taking a literal approach like you are, would be claiming that they were made before the planet, or universe was made.

Also it says
(Mark 10:6) However, from [the] beginning of creation ‘He made them male and female.
From the beginning is not AT the beginning. There is no absolute time span given

[WD-40]

I just Farted.

God laughed!

[Duel of Fates]

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Pursuant to our agreement, I've begun reading Genesis and am determined to keep an open mind.
I'd like you to watch this video when you have about an hour of free time. Watch the entire thing, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9G2YVtBYc&feature=player_detailpage#t=349

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

Results

In the early years of the experiment, several common evolutionary developments were shared by the populations. The mean fitness of each population, as measured against the ancestor strain, increased, rapidly at first, but leveled off after close to 20,000 generations (at which point they grew about 70% faster than the ancestor strain). All populations evolved larger cell volumes and lower maximum population densities, and all became specialized for living on glucose (with declines in fitness relative to the ancestor strain when grown in dissimilar nutrients). Of the 12 populations, four developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains. Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.

where in this article does it say that genes that were dormant are being reactivated?

Also, a question for those who are skeptical about evolution. by not accepting in the theory of evolution, do you mean to say that every organism that had ever existed ever has had no changes to its genetic makeup? That god just "poofed" everything into existence?

They used a number of genetic markers unique to this population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli were contaminants. They also found the ability to use citrate could spontaneously re-evolve in a subset of genetically pure clones isolated from earlier time points in the population's history. Such re-evolution of citrate use was never observed in clones isolated from before generation 20,000. Even in those clones that were able to re-evolve citrate use, the function showed a rate of occurrence on the order of one occurrence per trillion cell divisions

The key word is "re-evolve." It was there already, then lost, then regained. Additionally, you have changes in gene expression (the regulatory environment shifted around making some genes more active), but this does not constitute new information.

Those of use who do not accept evolution are actually objecting to macroevolution (i.e. the theory that massive genetic changes can occur to change a bacterium to a man over long periods of time. We totally accept microevolution (i.e. changes in gene frequency in populations) and the ability of animals to diversify by expressing genes that they always had but were not necessarily active before.

For example, there was probably one kind of cat type creature that diversified into the modern housecat, the tiger, lion, etc. However, the cat and say the elephant have no common ancestor. Basically, take a tree of evolution and chop through it at the point when it has a few thousand main branches. We accept the fact that genetic changes occur because they are observable, but we disagree with the attempt to extrapolate and say that it can cross major categorical lines.

Pepsi, I'll try to take a look at that video when I have some time, hopefully soon. I don't want to bind you to an agreement if I can't fulfill my end of it so consider yourself released unless you wish to continue it. I will try to watch the video and at least take a look at the book.

[Hobo]

They used a number of genetic markers unique to this population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli were contaminants. They also found the ability to use citrate could spontaneously re-evolve in a subset of genetically pure clones isolated from earlier time points in the population's history. Such re-evolution of citrate use was never observed in clones isolated from before generation 20,000. Even in those clones that were able to re-evolve citrate use, the function showed a rate of occurrence on the order of one occurrence per trillion cell divisions

The key word is "re-evolve." It was there already, then lost, then regained. Additionally, you have changes in gene expression (the regulatory environment shifted around making some genes more active), but this does not constitute new information.

Those of use who do not accept evolution are actually objecting to macroevolution (i.e. the theory that massive genetic changes can occur to change a bacterium to a man over long periods of time. We totally accept microevolution (i.e. changes in gene frequency in populations) and the ability of animals to diversify by expressing genes that they always had but were not necessarily active before.

For example, there was probably one kind of cat type creature that diversified into the modern housecat, the tiger, lion, etc. However, the cat and say the elephant have no common ancestor. Basically, take a tree of evolution and chop through it at the point when it has a few thousand main branches. We accept the fact that genetic changes occur because they are observable, but we disagree with the attempt to extrapolate and say that it can cross major categorical lines.

I don't understand... you say you accept microevolution, but you don't think new info is created? What about gene duplication? It's a major function of microevolution, and is literally defined as creating new genetic material. Furthermore, pseudo-genetic self-reactivation doesn't happen often, and when it does, it usually creates negative effects. (i.e. certain cancers) that article did say one occurrence per trillion cell divisions. how can you attribute every change to organisms be because of pseudogenes being reactivated, and how do you know it's not due to atavism? And as a side note, pseudogenes are created from multiple mutations of a gene, they weren't just there.

There's good reason why you don't see any animals without 4 limbs, you should really read about analogous and homologous (vestigial) structures. If you can agree that genetic changes can occur in animals of the same family/group/whatever, what's stopping you from extending that concept into kingdoms?

Random stuff I felt like posting

link for support of creating new genes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11841181
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/triple-x-syndrome

Structural evidence for chromosome fusion:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/215/4539/1525
http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

They used a number of genetic markers unique to this population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli were contaminants. They also found the ability to use citrate could spontaneously re-evolve in a subset of genetically pure clones isolated from earlier time points in the population's history. Such re-evolution of citrate use was never observed in clones isolated from before generation 20,000. Even in those clones that were able to re-evolve citrate use, the function showed a rate of occurrence on the order of one occurrence per trillion cell divisions

The key word is "re-evolve." It was there already, then lost, then regained. Additionally, you have changes in gene expression (the regulatory environment shifted around making some genes more active), but this does not constitute new information.

Those of use who do not accept evolution are actually objecting to macroevolution (i.e. the theory that massive genetic changes can occur to change a bacterium to a man over long periods of time. We totally accept microevolution (i.e. changes in gene frequency in populations) and the ability of animals to diversify by expressing genes that they always had but were not necessarily active before.

For example, there was probably one kind of cat type creature that diversified into the modern housecat, the tiger, lion, etc. However, the cat and say the elephant have no common ancestor. Basically, take a tree of evolution and chop through it at the point when it has a few thousand main branches. We accept the fact that genetic changes occur because they are observable, but we disagree with the attempt to extrapolate and say that it can cross major categorical lines.

I don't understand... you say you accept microevolution, but you don't think new info is created? What about gene duplication? It's a major function of microevolution, and is literally defined as creating new genetic material. Furthermore, pseudo-genetic self-reactivation doesn't happen often, and when it does, it usually creates negative effects. (i.e. certain cancers) that article did say one occurrence per trillion cell divisions. how can you attribute every change to organisms be because of pseudogenes being reactivated, and how do you know it's not due to atavism? And as a side note, pseudogenes are created from multiple mutations of a gene, they weren't just there.

There's good reason why you don't see any animals without 4 limbs, you should really read about analogous and homologous (vestigial) structures. If you can agree that genetic changes can occur in animals of the same family/group/whatever, what's stopping you from extending that concept into kingdoms?

Random stuff I felt like posting

link for support of creating new genes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11841181
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/triple-x-syndrome

Structural evidence for chromosome fusion:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/215/4539/1525
http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

Again, new information is never created. It is always just loss of existing information. Duplication is not really creating new information even if it does alter gene expression (it generally increases it).

No, I am not suggesting that every change is due to reactivating pseudogenes. Pseudogenes are basically damaged genes, it takes a lot of mutations to make them I agree. Reactivating them is not creating new information. Fusing chromosomes is not creating new information. Creating new genes is not creating new information when you are reusing information (yes, you can create new genes from old ones, but you are generally losing information in the process and you are certainly never gaining it.

Microevolutionary changes are the result of natural selection acting on existing information. We believe that the entire genetic diversity of the animal and human world today was on board the ark. All animal species today derived from those animals as they spread out into different areas of the world and adapted. They did not gain information, but instead had the necessary genes expressed (that they always had) as driven by natural selection.

The trouble is the definition of species, it doesn't exist. In its place, there are several competing definitions. For example, you have 5 species of wolf that you would have trouble telling apart but only one species of domestic dog (and you know how varied those are). It depends on who is doing the classification, and taxonomy is a bit of a mess for that reason.

The best definition of a species I have heard is a population that doesn't have reproductive barriers between members (my ecology is rusty, don't sue me XD). All domestic dogs can theoretically interbreed, but there are populations of wolves that are separated from one another and incapable of interbreeding for that reason (they probably could if the populations were combined).

The reason we believe in "kinds" (baramins) is basically because the BIble indicates this. We don't know how wide a baramin is, so we cannot really correlate it with a modern taxonomic classification. It is certainly wider than a species and probably wider than a genus. We don't believe that natural selection is powerful enough to make a species evolve across kingdoms. It has also never been demonstrated.

The biggest problem for evolution is that beneficial mutations are very few and far between, and even the ones that exist are debatable. Being say heterogeneous for sickle-cell anemia makes you resistant to malaria sure, but it also increases the chance of having homogeneous children so you have a brake on population growth put in place by natural selection. Plus, this arises from a receptor being rendered non-functional, so this is a loss of information, not a gain.

Vestigial structures are actually few and far between. Many structures that people have thought were vestigal have turned out to be functional (appendix, tonsils, etc).

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/historical_errors_in_the_gospels-3.htm (I don't agree with everything post here)
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html (nor do I agree with everything posted here)
Other Historical Inaccuracies:

1 Chronicles 29:7 - David collects 10K drams (darics) to build Jerusalem's temple, but those coins were not minted until half a millennium after David lived...

1 Samuel 11 recanted the tale of Israel and Judah in conflict...before the land was split that way.