Evolution v Creationism (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 12, 2014, 23:19 (3723 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE (Sorry for all the trimming, Size Constraints suck)
> 
Punctuated Equilibrium:-Evolutionary Version - Environmental changes killed off everything allowing those that survived to expand into new forms suitable to the new environment. New species arose de novo. This theory, postulated by Stephen Gould, was meant specifically to combat the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. -Creation Version - At each stage of development, the earth needed different creatures in order to prepare for the subsequent stage. When they had fulfilled their purpose they were allowed to die off and the creatures needed for the next stage of development were created. There would NOT be any transitional fossils because there was no transition. -
Failed Innovation, Fossils, Gradualism, and Organ Complexity-
Inventive cells WOULD leave some kind of evidence behind. All of the evidence we have ever found was 100% fully and perfectly formed. That should raise doubts too any form of 'experimentation'. Can you give an example of a creature with a functioning organ that grew more complex? Any evidence to back up that assertion?--Lack of Freedom and Foresight-
Yes, I believe that somethings were created with a view to them dying off once their purpose was served. That is not a lack of pre-planning or foresight, but the exact opposite coupled with the understanding that there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution. Is that bad pre-planning? If a architect builds a support that he knows will have to be removed, is that bad pre-planning? Or does it actually demonstrate better pre-planning because he knows in advance what will need to be changed/fixed before it needs it?- -Fossil Record and Fully Formed De Novo Species-If separate creation is true, you would see new species pop-up ONLY at specific key points (Periods of creation). And if the biblical accounting is true, then we would see no new species post-humans. If evolution is true, they should pop-up fairly randomly, scattered throughout the ages with some clumping after major environmental changes. The major clumping around environmental changes fits both theories, which leaves the distinguishing question to be: Do we see random species cropping up outside of major environmental shifts? -
>DHW:Once an organism functions well enough to survive, however, it does not need to evolve any further. -As you remarked above, we have not observed gradual speciation and no new species keep cropping up that we are aware of. So, no evidence in the fossil record(all creatures show up fully formed) and no evidence in the living world (creatures remain virtually unchanged since the last creative event). Thus the need for punctuated equilibrium to explain away how the facts don't fit the theory. -
>DHW: ...Why does God have to keep creating the mechanism separately for each new species?
> -Is it simpler to create one mechanism that exists in all life forms to keep them relatively stable and unchanged (within predefined parameters), or is it simpler to create a different mechanism for each creature that is synched with the mechanisms for all other creatures so that they diversify and branch out in a manner that preserves homeostasis? The answer has already been witnessed in the way the DNA in ALL creatures is preserved from transcription/copy errors. They ALL use the same mechanism.--
> DHW: There are vast numbers of different species in given environments, and what they have in common is their ability to cope with that environment. How does this prove that God created them all separately? 
> -The answer is in the need for the theory of Convergent Evolution, "the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches."-These creatures are NOT closely related, NOT from the same phylogenetic branch. So how could they come up with virtually identical solutions via random chance? Even intelligent cell communities can not explain this one. -->DHW: If all organisms are derived from earlier organisms (= evolution), the same applies in spades. Why would God have to keep repeating himself if he was starting from scratch every time?
> -Why do you assume he was starting from scratch? The clear evidence from genetics tells us that he DIDN'T start from scratch. He reused code liberally throughout all of creation to deal with specific environmental circumstances.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.