Creation vs. Evolution

[Joey D]

Aren't there a lot of creationist out that that say adaptation is possible through micro-evolution? That's at least the argument I get a lot when I'm discussing this with people. How that works I will never know. Do these people just think micro-evolution will never lead to macro-evolution?

 

[Sureboss]

But our hair isn't stiff or straight enough for that to work. Unfortunately.

Those two are the ones I know, plus a little here and there from Anatomy 101 and the study of reflexes... we actually have a plantar (toe curling) grasp reflex as babies... along with our palmar (finger curling) grasp reflex... this would allow babies to grip their mothers' fur and hold on to them as the mothers walked around... but we don't have fur to grip, and human babies are too weak to hold themselves up in the air with their hands... not to mention the fact that our toes are too ridiculously short to do any grasping at all.

Creationism views the human as perfect. The study of the human body, medically, reveals so many things that could be better if it were purposefully designed, instead of the way it is now. And it's not difficult to do so... the facts are all there for people to study or ignore as they please.

A little research online makes for fascinating reading... did you know that that little bump on the inside corner of our eyes is a vestigial remnant of a nictitating membrane? Incredible.

That really is incredible. I'm going to be doing loads of research on Human Vestigiality over Christmas, fitting that I just bought The Origin of Species.

 

[niky]

Micro-evolution... I suppose they'll hope scientists will likewise bend and say that there's a chance for micro-creation?

What I have always found fascinating is how rabidly people argue over evolution... as it does not disprove God as much as it disproves the idea of how God (Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, Rama, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ahura Mazda) "created" life. It's amazing how strongly people will hold on to the absolute belief that what is apparently fable is fact. Especially when the religious fable they're defending is not their own, but one coopted from another religion many centuries ago.

I'm waiting for scientists to discover a genetic connection between man and grass. This then, will prove that my people got it right the first time, and Man and Woman really did step out of a split bamboo plant.

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation-phil.html (last story... though I was not aware of the others, and they make compelling reads)

"Creation", on a cosmic level, has also fascinated science fiction writers for the longest time... Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" posits a very human reason for the creation... or recreation, if you will... of the Universe... http://www.swiftgear.com/last_question(long).html (amazing that you can find this stuff verbatim on the internet... it's a classic! Haven't read it for decades)...others have toyed with the birthing of Universes through various quantum mechanisms.

God is dead. Religion and all the weight of centuries of dogmatic bull-dookey have killed him. But that doesn't mean that people will stop looking for the prime motivator, the 'cause' of everything. Whether it be through story-telling or through scientific study of the fabric of the universe, we're looking. Many may be of the opinion there is no God, but there is no incontrovertible proof for the absence of a God, just proof that our childhood stories are just that... stories.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm waiting for scientists to discover a genetic connection between man and grass. This then, will prove that my people got it right the first time, and Man and Woman really did step out of a split bamboo plant.

Good news - there is a genetic connection between man and grass! Bad news - man didn't "come from" grass (well duh!) - but we do share common ancestry, albeit a very long time ago (nice pdf of the 'tree of life' here).

The evidence can be found in the degree of similarity between certain ubiquitous proteins. It is staggering to think that although humans and other extant species (such as grasses) are only very distantly related, that relationship is still detectable (and relatively easily, too). (See the pioneering work of Margaret Dayhoff for more detail)

"Creation", on a cosmic level, has also fascinated science fiction writers for the longest time... Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" posits a very human reason for the creation... or recreation, if you will... of the Universe... http://www.swiftgear.com/last_question(long).html (amazing that you can find this stuff verbatim on the internet....

👍 Nice find, lucky I just got my computer linked up to the printer here at work

 

[TVC]

Creationists believe in one book written by (or put together at least) by a man. Besides that there is no other evidence.

Evolution is still a theory but actually has proof we are able to see today.

 

[Joey D]

The Bible was not written by one man, but several men over a long period of time.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

The Bible was not written by one man, but several men over a long period of time.

TVC's point still stands.

 

[Sureboss]

He wasn't dismissing the point, just pointing out it is a collaboration rather than a single author.

 

[Joey D]

TVC's point still stands.

What Sureshot said.

He wasn't dismissing the point, just pointing out it is a collaboration rather than a single author.

I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that creationist don't have much to go on besides what the Bible tells them. Other then that they go on the lack of evidence, which is not the same as evidence against, from the evolution field. If you've bothered to read anything I've ever written in this thread you would see I fully support evolution.

 

[Sureboss]

With pink pom-poms 'n' all?

 

[Joey D]

With pink pom-poms 'n' all?

You betcha!

Hooray!

 

[Sureboss]

Hmm...creation...

*wipes drool from mouth*

 

[ledhed]

This thread is still alive ?

Maybe I should believe in Miracles.

Micro-evolution... I suppose they'll hope scientists will likewise bend and say that there's a chance for micro-creation?

What I have always found fascinating is how rabidly people argue over evolution... as it does not disprove God as much as it disproves the idea of how God (Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, Rama, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ahura Mazda) "created" life. It's amazing how strongly people will hold on to the absolute belief that what is apparently fable is fact. Especially when the religious fable they're defending is not their own, but one coopted from another religion many centuries ago.

I'm waiting for scientists to discover a genetic connection between man and grass. This then, will prove that my people got it right the first time, and Man and Woman really did step out of a split bamboo plant.

http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation-phil.html (last story... though I was not aware of the others, and they make compelling reads)

"Creation", on a cosmic level, has also fascinated science fiction writers for the longest time... Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" posits a very human reason for the creation... or recreation, if you will... of the Universe... http://www.swiftgear.com/last_question(long).html (amazing that you can find this stuff verbatim on the internet... it's a classic! Haven't read it for decades)...others have toyed with the birthing of Universes through various quantum mechanisms.

God is dead. Religion and all the weight of centuries of dogmatic bull-dookey have killed him. But that doesn't mean that people will stop looking for the prime motivator, the 'cause' of everything. Whether it be through story-telling or through scientific study of the fabric of the universe, we're looking. Many may be of the opinion there is no God, but there is no incontrovertible proof for the absence of a God, just proof that our childhood stories are just that... stories.

It was worth following the old e-mail link just to read this ..
although I still don't believe we should trash others for their belief system --just because we have strong opinions on our own .

So i'd not endorse the Childhood stories bit .

Its better to attack the argument --and saying someones belief system is a fable-story --caca etc.

Steps into the realm of saying they are nuts --thus attacking the person for what they believe.

Nothing accomplished by that .

 

[niky]

Maybe calling them childhood stories may seem a bit demeaning... but that wasn't the intent. Let's call it folklore? Tales of the old folk... told by firelight to rapt listeners and wide-eyed young ones.

Creation myths are just that. Man's early attempts at understanding the world around him and his place in it. I'm not attacking these beliefs... as they're the beliefs of my forefathers before we were converted to Christianity... but they are childhood stories. Stories that were woven in the early years of our life as a human culture.

We still tell ourselves stories, create fictions to explain the universe, in fact, much of current science fiction and fantasy, as I pointed out, is storytelling of this type. Trying to find Man's place in the universe. But our greater knowledge of the world around us allows us to paint these stories on a wider canvas, to explore ideas and concepts that our ancestors could only dream of.

 

[Sureboss]

I'm waiting for scientists to discover a genetic connection between man and grass.

I swear I remember TM posting that we shared an enzyme with grass...might be this thread.

 

[Denur]

I know that the world was created in 6 days and that even the Almighty needed a one day breather to recuperate. And I know that there is evidence beyond any doubt that this planet is older than a zillion years and I also know that there are very smart people who believe that Adam and Eve where the parents to us all, and that it must be a miracle that we are not all mongolites. If we are all children from Adam and Eve, than let's hail incest, it must be the way to be!

 

[Richardrfo]

I'm not one to get involved with debates such as these, but I instantly thought of this thread when I read this article and thought someone might have some views on it: http://christwire.org/2009/02/expos...ttle-bombardier-beetle-that-defies-evolution/

The writer is the exact kind of person I struggle to understand. How does one not at least accept that evolution is possible, even if it were in God's control? I'm not a religious person, but I can understand the concept of a religious belief, is it so hard to do it vice versa?

 

[Mark T]

I recently watched a David Attenborough documentary on Charles Darwin. After watching I went online to read an interview with Attenborough and came across the following:

His beef is with those who want to teach creationism or its offshoot “intelligent design”. A recent survey found that a quarter of science teachers in state schools believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons. “That is terrible. That is really terrible,” says Attenborough. Richard Dawkins has said that it is a national disgrace. “I don't know about national; it's a human disgrace that you don't recognise the difference between these things,” says Attenborough.

People write to me that evolution is only a theory. Well, it is not a theory. Evolution is as solid a historical fact as you could conceive. Evidence from every quarter. What is a theory is whether natural selection is the mechanism and the only mechanism. That is a theory. But the historical reality that dinosaurs led to birds and mammals produced whales, that's not theory.” He concludes this programme with the truth he takes from Darwin: “We are not apart from the natural world, we do not have dominion over it. We are subject to its laws and processes as are all other animals on earth - to which, indeed, we are related.

Link here to full interview.

I would also recommend watching Charles Darwin and the Tree Of Life. It's available on BBC iPlayer for those who missed it.

 

[Touring Mars]

That was an excellent documentary 👍

This is quite cool too... http://www.wellcometreeoflife.org/interactive/ Early stages yet, but should turn into something pretty useful/interesting...

I'm not one to get involved with debates such as these, but I instantly thought of this thread when I read this article and thought someone might have some views on it: http://christwire.org/2009/02/expos...ttle-bombardier-beetle-that-defies-evolution/

The writer is the exact kind of person I struggle to understand. How does one not at least accept that evolution is possible, even if it were in God's control? I'm not a religious person, but I can understand the concept of a religious belief, is it so hard to do it vice versa?

Creationists clearly believe in resurrection, since they seem to do it all the time when it comes to dead arguments. Here is a refutation of the pseudoscientific arguments discussed in that article... from 1981.

Perhaps the most telling line in that article is this:

one of the biggest lies strict secular evolutionary scientists have tried to force into your society

Such a shame that a fascinating little bug should be used as propaganda in what is a barely disguised attack on "secular" values in "society"... this is what these people are really all about. They are not interested in entomology, biology, natural history, science, facts or the truth one little bit. Their arguments all stem from the misguided perception that their moral values (as gleened from their various religions) are superior to yours. Go figure.

 

[Stevisiov]

His beef is with those who want to teach creationism or its offshoot “intelligent design”. A recent survey found that a quarter of science teachers in state schools believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons. “That is terrible. That is really terrible,” says Attenborough. Richard Dawkins has said that it is a national disgrace. “I don't know about national; it's a human disgrace that you don't recognise the difference between these things,” says Attenborough.

People write to me that evolution is only a theory. Well, it is not a theory. Evolution is as solid a historical fact as you could conceive. Evidence from every quarter. What is a theory is whether natural selection is the mechanism and the only mechanism. That is a theory. But the historical reality that dinosaurs led to birds and mammals produced whales, that's not theory.” He concludes this programme with the truth he takes from Darwin: “We are not apart from the natural world, we do not have dominion over it. We are subject to its laws and processes as are all other animals on earth - to which, indeed, we are related.

I do wonder, how big exactly is the creationist movement in the UK? I haven't heard about it other than a potential creationist theme park (how would that work ). We have a large Darwin exhibition in celebration of 200 years in the main entrance our college, no doubt courtesy of the biology department. It has yet to be vandalised and I haven't heard of any complaints, presumably there are no creationists at our college . I must say it did see me smile seeing the exhibition.

 

[wfooshee]

"So complicated that it could not possibly have evolved," just because it has a bit of a chemistry lab in its gut?

What do you think your liver is?

As for not destroying itself with its little toy, how many venomous creatures enjoy immunity from their own chemistry sets? (Natural Selection content warning!!!!) An adaptation that destroys the host is probably unlikely to pass down.

 

[Touring Mars]

I do wonder, how big exactly is the creationist movement in the UK?

I think the 'creationist movement' is alot smaller than people might think it is... It's my personal view that alot of people in the UK are 'creationist by default' (until such a time as they learn about evolution), and hence many people respond positively to poll questions that have anything to do with God and the basic concepts of 'creation', but they are very far from what I would call an actual 'Creationist', i.e. someone who actively refutes science. Similarly, people who express 'doubt' about evolution theory in polls do so partly (if not mainly) because they are not sure what it means (and real Creationists are more than happy to maintain this situation). I include myself as such a 'default creationist', since that is the way I grew up. Also, as someone who never studied biology at school, I can understand why so many people have doubts about how evolution theory can possibly account for what looks very like it was designed.

There are groups whom together could be called a creationist movement, but it's still nothing like the scale as it exists in the States... In my line of work (biological research), the most vocal and possibly most well-known creationist movement currently 'active' in the UK is Harun Yahya, a Muslim creationist outfit from Turkey. However, various religious groups, including Jehovah's Witnesses, actively distribute anti-evolutionary/creationist material...

I haven't heard about it other than a potential creationist theme park (how would that work ).

If they want to gross Dollar One, they will need a bloody miracle...

We have a large Darwin exhibition in celebration of 200 years in the main entrance our college, no doubt courtesy of the biology department. It has yet to be vandalised and I haven't heard of any complaints, presumably there are no creationists at our college . I must say it did see me smile seeing the exhibition.

👍

Did you see that Attenborough doc that Mark T mentioned earlier? I had to laugh at the bit where they removed a statue of Richard Owen from the main landing at the Natural History Museum (Owen founded the museum!) and put Darwin in his place...

 

[Mark T]

Did you see that Attenborough doc that Mark T mentioned earlier? I had to laugh at the bit where they removed a statue of Richard Owen from the main landing at the Natural History Museum (Owen founded the museum!) and put Darwin in his place...

I actually felt bad when they moved it. The natural history museum is such a valuable resource and full credit should go to Richard Owen. I think Darwin and Owen should sit side by side as they have both contributed so much.

 

[Touring Mars]

Perhaps symbolic of this whole debate? I don't think it is a permanent arrangement, although it is interesting to note that Darwin's statue used to be in this location, before it was moved to make way for the statue of Owen!

 

[Sureboss]

That was one very good documentary.

 

[Touring Mars]

Today marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Many science websites and broadcasters are marking the occasion, including special features in Nature, Science the BBC's Darwin Season, a podcast at Scientific American, as well as events nationwide as part of "Darwin 200" and indeed, Darwin Day. I am choosing to celebrate by carrying an image of Darwin in my wallet.

 

[Mark T]

Hopefully there will be some good TV on tonight.

I was bidding on a 6th edition of the Origins of species last night. I'm hoping to pick up a copy as I see it as a future investment. I saw a 3rd edition go for nearly £800 last week, but unfortunately my budget is a quarter of that, so only a sixth edition for me.

 

[Sureboss]

Ooh, I may actually have some time next week to read the Origin of Species and those Journals you sent me TM!

 

[Mark T]

Ooh, I may actually have some time next week to read the Origin of Species and those Journals you sent me TM!

Share the wealth!

 

[Sureboss]

My version was a Wordsworth one that cost about £4...