- 29,085
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 438,372 views
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
First of all, this thread was definitely not dead. It goes through hot and cold spells periodically but it never dies. Secondly, I don't think it's fair to categorize "evos" in that way. Not that articles are necessarily more or less valid than an opinion stated on an internet forum.
The bottom line is that evolution isn't just observable, it's a logical consequence of the sharing of genetic information. Quite simply put, if you share the genetic traits of your parents, evolution must be true.
- 5,060
- Panama City, FL
I made no such judgment. The observation is that you either don't understand the science behind evolution well enough to accept it, or that you refuse to accept it. You are welcome to express yourself as you wish, for indeed that is the purpose of this forum!
As for my church experience, I grew up going to Sunday School and church every week, my mother was one of these who believed that Sunday was for nothing else. If we travelled, it had to be between Sundays. If it was a longer trip, it had to involve a family destination so we could go to their church (as opposed to an unknown "strange" church, or worse, skipping church <gasp>.) We went Sunday and Wednesday nights, too. I grew weary of hearing the church teachers tell me that everything in school was wrong, absolutely wrong, especially given the church's record vis-a-vis scientific progress in the past. (See my first post in this thread, #3849, for my views on the church's appreciation of science.)
So much for church. Now for education: I am college-educated, an engineering major, although it's been some time since I was in school, maybe there've been some new discoveries since then.
I actually went into the personal computer business, using nothing from my acedemic days since personal computers did not exist at the time (although I had classes in computer sciences of the time, incluing languages such as FORTRAN and COBOL.)I was taught in high school English classes that there is not much more of a useless way to express yourself than to state an opinion as fact and back it up with, well, "because it's true!" I've expressed myself in this thread, and tried to defend the points I was making both scientifically and logically.
So, yes, I'm "qualified" to express myself in this forum, and I've never told anyone they didn't meet some standard of participation. I have had phrases like "If you knew anything about..." used in responses to me, and I've never taken it personally. It never even occurred to me that it COULD be taken personally. What I said about you should not have been taken personally. You have a strong faith in your feelings, but it is apparent that your appreciation of the science falls short, and if you're willing to hear, we're willing to present. What you do with what's presented to you is yours alone to decide, and we all respect that. All we ask is reciprocation of that respect.
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Well...Let me start to think out loud with this response. I have been stiring up some stuff in here for a few weeks now and here is how it seems to go down. In general the science side will never give much credit to the faith side. Their brain just doesn't work that way. The MUST see it to believe. You have text books to back up what you say. I on the other hand have the best selling book of all time, but its just not credible enough for a scientist.
The chances of any of us change someone elses mind in here is slim to none. We all enter this thread already knowing where we sit before we tell anyone where they stand. So here we go back in this circle again.
By the way I have a great love of technology and science. We need it to better our lives here on this earth. We all have to have a spot on the planet to make it go round. Someone has to flip burgers and we have to have micronuclerbiodna scientists. So where does this thread go from here?
Do you really want me to quote Scripture all day long to prove that I am right?
The chances of any of us change someone elses mind in here is slim to none. We all enter this thread already knowing where we sit before we tell anyone where they stand. So here we go back in this circle again.
By the way I have a great love of technology and science. We need it to better our lives here on this earth. We all have to have a spot on the planet to make it go round. Someone has to flip burgers and we have to have micronuclerbiodna scientists. So where does this thread go from here?
Do you really want me to quote Scripture all day long to prove that I am right?
- 86,451
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
And you wonder why:
How would quoting a very large novel prove anything at all?
The people who believe in it think it's the perfect Word of God. The people who don't point out that it's written by imperfect men over the course of several centuries, translated by imperfect men over the course of several more centuries, edited by an imperfect Roman Emperor, retranslated by other imperfect men and comes in several different Versions - surely if there's different Versions then not all of them can be the perfect Word of God - and contains nothing which is reproducible or independantly verifiable.
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Nothing I've said so far has been meant to verify the bible. That is a very big task that I could never do when talking to a non-believer. I could and should try but I don't think I would be successful. All that it verified was famines point of view. He will always think I am nuts because I believe in something he doesn't.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
I've seen people lose religion. I've caused people to lose religion. I've also seen people find God.
Maybe you're too entrenched in your beleifs to change, and I doubt anything could change my mind - but there are plenty of people who are undecided on the issue.
If you put textbooks below the bible on the scale of truth, then you're probably too far attached to your religion to change.
It's hard to lose God. The progression of questions is a particularly difficult one. Once you get someone to question their faith, you start hearing things like:
"Well, how do you know right from wrong?"
"What do you think happens when you die?"
"Where DID the universe come from?"
"How can so many people be wrong?"
The answers to those questions can be difficult to hear. Especially number 2. Religion is comforting. People want very badly for it to be true, which is part of the reason why it's so difficult for them to change - and part of the reason people "find God".
You're right that the human mind's power for self-deception is remarkable. But I don't think this thread is a waste of time.
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Time to try something different.
Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selection and mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things.
Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes — \ it does not produce new information. Actually, this is consistent with the Bible's account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.
Maybe this will be more productive for this thread
Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selection and mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things.
Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes — \ it does not produce new information. Actually, this is consistent with the Bible's account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.
Maybe this will be more productive for this thread
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
Two fish are better at swimming than most other fish. They're both the result of the combination of one parent with a strong tail but poor eyesight and one parent with good eyesight and a weak tail. They both ended up with the good tail and the good eyesight (while their siblings ended up with other combinations). These two fish get lots of food, avoid predators, and eventually find each other and mate. Their children are now going to be at least as good at swimming as their parents. Maybe one of them gets a favorable combination of bone structure or additional muscle potential from the parents that they hadn't fully developed - and that child is better at swimming etc.
Through several generations, natural selection favors the most suited to the environment. Predators, disease, and anything that causes death interacts with the fact that genetic information is shared between pairs differently for each offspring. In society, you see one child that ends up with red hair and think nothing of it. In the fish world, that color variation just might blend in with some coral enough that it gives that one child - that one combination of genes, an advantage over other children.
03R1
That's true. Natural selection does not produce new genetic information. It only selects out certain offspring, thereby directing the course of genetic evolution in a particular species.
Human beings are currently in a state at which we still share genetic information, but we no longer suffer natural selection (much). Almost nothing kills us off before we reproduce. The things that do kill us off still play a role in natural selection, but most of the diseases we face, and traits we carry don't manage to get us killed before we have children. That's because we don't have bears or mountain lions picking off the slow ones anymore.
Edit: I've said this before in this thread, but I think it bears repeating. Why do you like the looks of a lush forest? Why do you think that snow capped mountains, waterfalls, and oceans are beautiful? Why is it that you think flowers are attractive, or that babies are cute? All of these give you an advantage in the wilderness. Lush forests have lots of food and places to hide. Snow capped mountains, waterfalls, and oceans all have one thing in common - water (where there's oceans there's rain, rivers, fish, etc.). Flowers grow where there is water in the soil and an abundance of fruitful plants. Finding babies cute ensures that their mothers aren't going to abandon them.
All of this could be explaind by saying that God thought about all of that and made us that way on purpose to give us an advantage in the wild. But it makes more sense to suggest that these sorts of traits/interests/preferences developed because the people that had them survived more often than that some creator took into account every single one of these details and designed us that way. Otherwise, wouldn't men find babies cute too (more often that is, I know some of you do)? Wouldn't we care a little more about the feelings/well being of other men? These things don't confer an advantage in the wild, which is why we don't have them, but I'd think a divine being would think of those things and hook us up.
In general, just about everything wrong with our species is evidence that we were not designed by God, but instead designed by predators and disease.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
Think longer term. That's one small variation, but when you combine millions of years of that kind of selection, you can get some interesting results.
03R1
How about penguins? It's easy to see how they transition from birds to fish-like creatures. Lots of birds dive into the water short distances. Penguins simply managed to dive further and swim around. Can you not see the transition from bird to penguin?
How about from fish to penguin? Would that be so hard to imagine? The bill is more bird-like than fish-like which makes me think it didn't head that direction, but it isn't much of a stretch.
How about the similarities in eels/snakes/lizards? Can you see a link there? The arms are throwing you off aren't they?
Crabs/spiders?
I'm not a biologist, I don't know which species are supposed to have developed from which. I'm just trying to point out similarities between animals and showing how a trait or two can make all the difference. Turtles are a good example of a transitional species between water and land. So are iguanas and allegators.
I suppose what you're struggling with is the lack of an existing spectrum currently. You'd probably expect animals to exhibit more of a spectrum of traits all existing right now if natural selection is going on. You'd expect to see a fish that was close to coming up on land, one that barely came up on land, and one that spent nearly all of its time on land - all very similar to each other and all existing at one time.
That doesn't happen because major traits are favored quite heavily. The entire species shifts together, it doesn't leave behind transitional versions. If it did, you'd be left wondering why those didn't evolve as well.
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
So you see the result and try to figure out how it got that way. Doesn't that skew your objectivity?
You have a bird and a pengiun...so they at one point had to have been the same thing. There was ONE Skyline that started it all, but now we have more skylines then we need.
If someone looked at those cars a billion years from now you would say they evolved. But the truth is that man created each car similar from the last i.e. God created panguins from birds. Why should he have started from scratch with each spieces.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
You do the same thing. You just figured God did it instead of looking for natural phenomena.
Nope. I'm just providing you with examples of traits that cross boundaries that you don't seem to think can be crossed. I'm showing you animals that have traits from both, as examples of how evolution can cause dramatic results.
03R1
That's certianly possible if you believe in God. But it's an unecessary explanation. We know what happens, we can observe it. Like I said earlier, evolution is a necessary consequence of that fact that we share genetic information when we generate offspring. The fact that you look like your parents proves evolution.
- 5,060
- Panama City, FL
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/dipnoi.html
No legs yet, but notice that it has exactly four fins where legs would be, and can actually drown!
Attachments
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
That's a rather weak argument there Danoff.
I know lots of people (as Pako said) that look nothing like their parents. Now, if you're talking genetic makeup, that's a different story. But if you want to go by basic physical appearance, why not believe the bible. It's been around long enough.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
That's a rather weak argument there Danoff.
I know lots of people (as Pako said) that look nothing like their parents. Now, if you're talking genetic makeup, that's a different story. But if you want to go by basic physical appearance, why not believe the bible. It's been around long enough.
What does the length of time the bible has been around have to do with whether I should believe it? If anything, the older it is, the more skeptical we should be.
My point is not specifically about how you look necessarily, but that you share genes from your parents. What I'm trying to say is "evolution follows from the fact that genetic information is shared via pair bonding".
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Here is how I would rebut the fish with legs being a link to an improved spieces. Not my words but you'll get my point
Mutations are defined as random changes in cellular DNA. They change the genetic code for amino acid sequence in proteins, thus introducing biochemical errors of varying degrees of severity. Mutations have been classified as deletions (loss of DNA bases), insertions (gain of DNA bases), and missense or nonsense (substitution of a DNA base).
If the mutations affect germ cells (female ova and male spermatozoa), they will be passed to all the cells of the offspring, and affect future generations. Such mutations are called "germline mutations," and are the cause of inherited diseases.
Mutations also occur in other populations of body cells and will accumulate throughout a lifetime without being passed to the offspring. These are called "somatic mutations," and are important in the genesis of cancers and other degenerative disease processes.
