Creation vs. Evolution

[Dotini]

It would appear that all of us are strongly united in our love of and interest in GranTurismo, a band of brothers, as it were. Beyond that, there is a wealth of other interests and opinion among us which make this particular forum so fascinating and instructive. It would also seem that the overwhelming majority here strongly favor science and evolution, which is to be expected. Very few or none are fundamentalists. From my experience of SCJ in other forums, he is anything but a fundamentalist. Some like Niky are able to reconcile religion and science and partake of both. My two cents is on direct personal experience as a higher touchstone of reality than either science or religion. I believe one of the definitions of empiricism is "a theory that all knowledge originates in experience."

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Touring Mars]

I still wonder how Creationists can swallow the concept of "eternal" without the slightest hiccup, but they somehow can't wrap their heads around the simple concept of a really really long time.

It's a joy to read something you never thought of saying yourself, but really want(ed) to say. Top form 👍

 

[Public'sTwin]

A literal interpretation of all things Biblical is an incredibly bad way to go about reading it, simply because the older sections are not a "history of the world", they're a history of the Jewish race and religion. Which is why the Catholic Church frowns on a literal interpretation of Genesis (or any part of the Bible) and instead concentrate on the more theological and philosophical implications of Biblical study instead of chasing after (non-existent) evidence of the world being just 6000 years old.

I understood your point; my point was that sarcasm tends to turn people away

 

[Famine]

As if...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yes, but you are ignoring some major and obvious key factors when you say this, specifically the effects of cumulative genetic variation and the vast tracts of time over which these variations have manifest themselves as different species.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm dismissing it as what it is: "inconclusive speculation".
For that to be case, as I said there would have to be a prolific number of multistage transitional species in every species. This would be clearly observable. It isn't.

Through sexual reproduction, new individuals are always genetically different from their parents hence providing the necessary variation upon which natural selection can act. This is as simple a fact as there is, and it is irrefutable. Whether natural selection does actually happen is presumably what you have a problem with, but there is ample evidence that says it does. By studying the genomes of various species, one thing becomes abundantly clear - we are simply too similar genetically for these similarities to have occurred randomly. You can argue that we have been designed to look like we evolved, but that is kind of redundant. The genetic evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the idea that all species are related to all others to a greater or lesser extent, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they were merely designed to look that way.

I think you are ignoring something as well.
I believe there is plenty to suggest it.
Evidence? As pointed out thats strictly subject to personal interpretation.

Our empowerment of design capability. The fact that everything we do, (well primarily) everything we make and produce is by design. Our MO through-out this life is one of design.

The incredible varying complexities of life forms and the finely tuned enviroment in which we live does not suggest it?

Relation of species proves that we have something in common.

All this does not suggest it?
Rather it came about by happenstance?
From nothing?

Personally, you may as well tell me upon viewing a Ferrari that it assembled itself in a junkyard you visited by natural selection because you found some parts there similar to Ferrari parts.

If you want to make that claim, you better have plenty of stout conclusive proof of your claim for me to believe it. Otherwise it can only be considered wild chasmic speculation.

In the final analysis evolution is conclusively unprovable in realtime.

 

[Famine]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm dismissing it as what it is: "inconclusive speculation".

It's only that because you don't understand it. Your insistance of the following point is evidence of this:

For that to be case, as I said there would have to be a prolific number of multistage transitional species in every species. This would be clearly observable. It isn't.

Everything alive today, and every species that has ever existed, is a transitional species. Even man.

If you insist on pretending that "transitional species" means "half-monkey half-man" as you did earlier, it shows that you not only don't understand the concept of evolution but any of the mechanics of it - there is and never was any "half-monkey half-man" species, and evolution neither predicts, models nor requires one.

I think you are ignoring something as well.
I believe there is plenty to suggest it.
Evidence?

All evidence in the field of evolutionary science is evidence in favour of evolution, and no evidence has ever been against it.

As pointed out thats strictly subject to personal interpretation.

You pointed it out. You were no more correct then than you are now - evidence is not subject to personal fiat.


Your particular brand of evolution-bashing is not new - redefine, or subtlely misunderstand, the terms involved and you can redefine, or subtlely misunderstand, the entire scope of evolution thus rendering it illogical and irrational. The problem is that the flaw in logic and rationality isn't with evolution - it's in your head. So long as you're redefining "belief", "science", "evidence" and "evolution" in your head to suit your own requirements and desires you will never see that you're wrong.

 

[homeforsummer]

In the final analysis evolution is conclusively unprovable in realtime.

...apart from microevolution. So immediately you're wrong on that count.

As for "there would have to be a prolific number of multistage transitional species in every species. This would be clearly observable. It isn't", is it not enough that there are visibile differences between different races that are very much linked to the areas of the world in which they live not enough?

Not just skin colour, but resistance to different diseases (or contraction of diseases that are very specific to certain races - such as sickle cell in central Asians - and yet barely ever observed in others), and even physical attributes such as height and facial structure, not enough to suggest that much of the human race is very much in transition based on their climate and geographical conditions? If you swapped the populations of Africa and Europe, I very much suspect that given many, many thousands of years skin pigmentation and metabolism (to name just two attributes) would be in the process of change to cope with differences in environment.

 

[Joel]

I
Personally, you may as well tell me upon viewing a Ferrari that it assembled itself in a junkyard you visited by natural selection because you found some parts there similar to Ferrari parts.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's assume cars aren't inanimate objects.

What we're trying to say, is that say a species of Toyota Corollas migrated to a race track. They were constantly being beaten and demolished by the faster cars, so over time, some of the cars shed their back seats, slimmed down, and became faster, out of necessity. Over time, the ones who started to change became their own separate SPECIES, and years and years later we see 2 separate beings of Ferraris and Toyotas. I know it's an absolutely ridiculous example, but it's evolution in a nutshell.

 

[dylansan]

I recently stumbled upon these videos about the common misconceptions of evolution. Some are slightly less than well worded, but the points made are pretty clear. Here are a few relevant ones:



And something just really interesting:

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I still wonder how Creationists can swallow the concept of "eternal" without the slightest hiccup, but they somehow can't wrap their heads around the simple concept of a really really long time.

That fundamental disconnect is what prevents them from considering evolution.

Not so.
I fully understand the concept of it having supposedly taken place over many (pick a number of) years.

The problem with this, apart from what has already been pointed out, is it is a totally abstract proposition and renders it conclusively unprovable in realtime. Therefore as I have repeatedly pointed out, it must be embraced under belief or actually faith, since it is unprovable.

 

[Famine]

The problem with this, apart from what has already been pointed out, is it is a totally abstract proposition

By your terms.

and renders it conclusively unprovable in realtime.

By your terms.

Therefore as I have repeatedly pointed out, it must be embraced under belief or actually faith

By your terms.

since it is unprovable.

By your terms.

Luckily for the rest of us, reality isn't defined by your terms.

 

[niky]

I understood your point; my point was that sarcasm tends to turn people away

As if...

Of course, my point was that he wasn't paying attention to any of my posts anyway...

I'm not ignoring it. I'm dismissing it as what it is: "inconclusive speculation".
For that to be case, as I said there would have to be a prolific number of multistage transitional species in every species. This would be clearly observable. It isn't.

Of course, horses, zebras, donkeys and etcetera aren't multistage transitional species in SCJ's eyes, because to him, the fact that these species are only a partial genetic match... in other words, they can reproduce with each other but not perfectly... creating sterile offspring... doesn't register.

Not to mention the various canine species (Dogs, Wolves, Foxes, Dingos, Coyotes, etcetera), which can interbreed in a limited way, either producing infertile offspring or fertile offspring (reading the interbreeding chart is like navigating a dating service sheet... )... or various large felines (Lions, Tigers and Bears, oh my! Okay, not Bears and Felines, but Bears and Bears...) which can interbreed... also imperfectly in cases.

All evidence pointing to incomplete or ongoing speciation... pointing to transitional species. (This is simple College biology stuff!)

Of course, I fully expect him to ignore this post as well. He's only answering posts which he can pick holes in the semantics within... or trying (not very well) to match wits with the purple one...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It's only that because you don't understand it. Your insistance of the following point is evidence of this:

Your confusing accept with understand. They're two different things.

Everything alive today, and every species that has ever existed, is a transitional species. Even man.


If you insist on pretending that "transitional species" means "half-monkey half-man" as you did earlier, it shows that you not only don't understand the concept of evolution but any of the mechanics of it - there is and never was any "half-monkey half-man" species, and evolution neither predicts, models nor requires one.

Why don't you enlighten me on this one then, so my understanding will be correct.

All evidence in the field of evolutionary science is evidence in favour of evolution, and no evidence has ever been against it.

You are confusing the issue again. Evidence is presented for the purpose of influencing belief, in an attempt to prove a claim. The conclusivity of the evidence is wieghed by the individual and determined accordingly. That which is considered evidence, is brought forth out of the same process. It is strictly a reasoning belief process, determined individually. Consensus may or may not develope from this. In the current example there is a consensus amoung some here that there is sufficient evidence for evolution and its claims to render it factual. Some apparently once the word "scientific" is attached conclude the evidence and claim as a "smoking gun" and it must be accepted as fact. As you said, the evidence may favour the claim, however that does not equate to enough sufficiency to conclusively prove the claim.

[You pointed it out. You were no more correct then than you are now - evidence is not subject to personal fiat.

I just pointed out how, in the final analysis, it most assuredly is.

Your particular brand of evolution-bashing is not new - redefine, or subtlely misunderstand, the terms involved and you can redefine, or subtlely misunderstand, the entire scope of evolution thus rendering it illogical and irrational. The problem is that the flaw in logic and rationality isn't with evolution - it's in your head. So long as you're redefining "belief", "science", "evidence" and "evolution" in your head to suit your own requirements and desires you will never see that you're wrong.

I'm not bashing evolution, I'm simply pointing out the obvious problems with it.
I'm certainly not doing so by redefining it. Maybe my request above for your clarification will help.

 

[wfooshee]

Your confusing accept with understand. They're two different things.

You are confusing the issue again. Evidence is presented for the purpose of influencing belief, in an attempt to prove a claim. The conclusivity of the evidence is wieghed by the individual and determined accordingly. That which is considered evidence, is brought forth out of the same process. It is strictly a reasoning belief process, determined individually. Consensus may or may not develope from this. In the current example there is a consensus amoung some here that there is sufficient evidence for evolution and its claims to render it factual. Some apparently once the word "scientific" is attached conclude the evidence and claim as a "smoking gun" and it must be accepted as fact. As you said, the evidence may favour the claim, however that does not equate to enough sufficiency to conclusively prove the claim.

Holy cow!!!

I just . . . .

When you . . . .

I don't . . . . .


OK, got a response formed. {whew!!}

I have never ever ever in my life ever seen such a complete demonstration of a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Ever!

 

[Mermadium]

I still wonder how Creationists can swallow the concept of "eternal" without the slightest hiccup, but they somehow can't wrap their heads around the simple concept of a really really long time.

That fundamental disconnect is what prevents them from considering evolution.

Well said.👍
Isn't it funny how some things work, even with the scientific evidence, people still believe in religious archaic concepts to seek salvation, we should be thankful to the stars that die in incredible supernovas, and admire the expanding universe that made the miracle of life occur.
And evolution exist, we keep learning more and more with the advancement of science, why some people want to go back to the dark ages makes little sense to me.

 

[James2097]

SuperCobraJet, despite having no real grasp of the scientific method, nor evolution, did so with an extremely entertaining confidence.

Thanks!

 

[Famine]

Your confusing accept with understand. They're two different things.

Seems to be a theme here, confusing two different things.

But so long as you still insist there are no transitional species because there are no half-monkey, half-man hybrids, I'll stick to "You don't understand evolution".

Why don't you enlighten me on this one then, so my understanding will be correct.

Evolution doesn't require such "transitional species". It doesn't model them. It doesn't predict them. In fact it models against, predicts against and is completely requiring of the lack of transitional half-and-half species. The only time they appear at all in discussion of evolution is when creationists think they should exist or when evolution is explained to primary school (grade school) children. Which is kinda indicative of the level of understanding creationists have of evolution.

You are confusing the issue again. Evidence is presented for the purpose of influencing belief, in an attempt to prove a claim. The conclusivity of the evidence is wieghed by the individual and determined accordingly. That which is considered evidence, is brought forth out of the same process. It is strictly a reasoning belief process, determined individually. Consensus may or may not develope from this. In the current example there is a consensus amoung some here that there is sufficient evidence for evolution and its claims to render it factual. Some apparently once the word "scientific" is attached conclude the evidence and claim as a "smoking gun" and it must be accepted as fact. As you said, the evidence may favour the claim, however that does not equate to enough sufficiency to conclusively prove the claim.

Evidence is independant of belief and belief is dependant on lack of evidence.

You're still wrongly defining "evidence", "belief", "science", "theory" and "evolution" to suit your own needs. It's still not a new tactic.

I just pointed out how, in the final analysis, it most assuredly is.

Your final analysis, using your own incorrect terminology.

I'm not bashing evolution, I'm simply pointing out the obvious problems with it.
I'm certainly not doing so by redefining it.

The "obvious problems" with it are ones generated by redefining terms. That generates a self-sustaining fallacy, though the problems aren't with evolution but with the persons defining things how they see fit.

Maybe my request above for your clarification will help.

6,300 posts. If you want clarification, read.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm dismissing it as what it is: "inconclusive speculation".

Speculation? Absolutely not. Tell me, how is it "speculation" to say that genetic variation within species via sexual reproduction and via random mutation provides the necessary raw material upon which natural selection can act? This is not speculation at all, but plain fact. Speculation would maybe go something like this: "Perhaps the fact that human offspring are genetically distinct from their parents is a purposeful design feature introduced by God so that he can tell us apart without having to run DNA tests on us?" That is speculation. That we are all genetically distinct, even from our own parents, is a plain fact, but to dismiss it (as you are) as "inconclusive speculation" is beyond staggering.

For that to be case, as I said there would have to be a prolific number of multistage transitional species in every species. This would be clearly observable. It isn't.

Correction - it most certainly is. A rat and a human might look to be so distinct from the outside that classification as two separate species is simple and obvious - but it is not as straightforward on the genetic level. On almost every level except that which we can see by simply looking at an intact individual, rats and humans are incredibly similar. Orangutans and humans are even more similar. Humans and chimps are more similar still - so similar infact that we even look similar from the outside. But on the inside, we are even less distinguishable. And on the genetic level, we are almost identical. These similarities are real and explicable - humans really are incredibly similar to chimps, orangutans and rats. Yes, we are still distinct from them, and we are a separate species, but the evidence of our relatedness is written through all our genomes - our own genome is itself a record of multistage transitions.

There is nothing that makes our genes "human genes", and there is nothing "human" about the chain of amino acids that makes up human cytochrome C other than the fact that we possess the genes to make it. Chimps have 100% identical cytochrome C to humans and possess identical genes to make it. Biochemically, distinguishing them is impossible - they are exactly the same. Chimp cytochrome C is not the same as human cytochrome C because of chance, but because we inhereted the gene for cytochrome C from the same recent common ancestor. Human and chimp cytochrome C is almost (but not quite) identical to macaque cytochrome C - the differences are due to the fact that our common ancestor (human/chimp and macaque) was less recent.

Such patterns of similarity in genomes exist cross the whole living world and reveals common ancestry everywhere, at many different levels simultaneously. You may dismiss this is meaningless coincidence, you may dismiss it as a deliberate trick by God to fool us into believing we are the products of billions of years of evolution, but I accept it for what it is - strong supporting evidence for the theory that all present day species share common ancestry, that any present day species is infact a "transitional" entity, and that it is the concept of immutable "kinds" that is false and inconsistent with the evidence.

I think you are ignoring something as well.

*snip*

Our empowerment of design capability. The fact that everything we do, (well primarily) everything we make and produce is by design. Our MO through-out this life is one of design.

*snip*

Personally, you may as well tell me upon viewing a Ferrari that it assembled itself in a junkyard you visited by natural selection because you found some parts there similar to Ferrari parts.

If you want to make that claim, you better have plenty of stout conclusive proof of your claim for me to believe it. Otherwise it can only be considered wild chasmic speculation.

Hardly ignoring it - I personally have talked about this many times, and it has been covered in extreme detail in this thread by many people. That humans are capable of design is not evidence that all complexity in the known universe must also be a product of design by intelligent agency. This is perhaps the most simple logical error and biggest mistake that is continually made by creationists. Just because something appears designed, it doesn't prove that it was designed. Ferraris do not self assemble, and there is a mountain of evidence to substantiate the claim that they are designed... the makers even write their name on the damn things. But that the natural world does not spontaneously make self-assembling Ferraris is not evidence that the natural world is incapable of generating staggering complexity via explicable processes.

 

[Sureboss]

Reminds of Mr Dawkin's, The Blind Watchmaker.

 

[DK]

SuberCobraJet, I recommend you read On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Sorry to be a complete jackass, but I find it incredibly hilarious that people are still willing to believe creation theory over evolution. Creationism has never been changed (at least I think it hasn't) for 3,000 or so years or whenever the Book of Genesis was first created by Hebrew scholars or whatever. Evolution has adapted to new evidence, which enables us to get a better picture of where we came from. Some hyper-Conservatives have resorted to slander to make evolution look like the bad guy, blaming it for everything from high school shoot-outs to the Holocaust. The Holocaust was caused by a continuation of Christian anti-Semitism in an uglier new form. High school shoot-outs are often caused by years of isolation and bullying of the person carrying out the shootings, causing him one day to vent out his anger on the school via bullets. But Darwin wasn't bitter towards those who mocked him, nor was he a racist.

As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shows us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. ... This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honored and practiced by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.

He believed that having moral values was part of being human and it was part of human evolution. Unfortunately, biologists are yet to find a gene that enabled us to go against instincts and use free will. So, until they find that gene, creationists will have a strong argument.

 

[mindwise]

Unfortunately, biologists are yet to find a gene that enabled us to go against instincts and use free will. So, until they find that gene, creationists will have a strong argument.

I understood most of your post DriftKing, but i am puzzled as to what the strong argument is

edit:
The 'Free will' discussion, i think, needs it's own thread with thousands of posts
I'll say two things about it: (without bothering to define 'free will' for now; on purpose and with good reason)
- The version you coin here, where i can choose to go against my instinct, i somewhat accept, not completely, but i understand the concept of doing something i don't want to do.
- Yet, though i am not a determinist, i do not actually think i have 'free will'.....
I consider myself as a slave to myself , i cannot will myself to like something, 'not be scared' when i am scared etc.
I can make rational decisions, sure.... but the emotional factor ('me') is not something i have control over....
I certainly cannot 'will' myself to believe something, hehe. a handy nuisance i think, but not a choice....

Enough sentences starting with 'I' for now..... and i'm afraid of the 'free will' discussion that might enter the arena now....

 

[Exorcet]

Unfortunately, biologists are yet to find a gene that enabled us to go against instincts and use free will. So, until they find that gene, creationists will have a strong argument.

Free will can be a product of evolution even if we don't find the cause.

What you said is like saying (to paraphrase from before) a ball that is not green is white. It doesn't add up.

Your statement would be fine if creationism was an established explanation for the universe, but it's merely a baseless claim. It is not the "default answer".

 

[Dotini]

SuperCobraJet, despite having no real grasp of the scientific method, nor evolution, did so with an extremely entertaining confidence.

Thanks!

There is much that is admirable about SuperCobraJet. He did not get to 111,813 A-spec points by any lacking of dedication, determination and persistence. If he were a building, he would be Caernarvon Castle.

 

[Biggles]

I'm not about to wade through the thousands of posts here to find the answer, but can anyone tell me if the majority of "anti-evolutionists" represented here are proposing a literal Biblical reading of creation, or an "intelligent design" version?

Also, I am curious to know what the range of belief is in the Islamic world? Presumably, a significant proportion of Muslims, but not all, would be literal creationists?

 

[sumbrownkid]

^As a Muslim, I'd say God created us via evolution. That perhaps Adam was the first true human to evolve from the previous creature.

I can't really say much on the Islamic point of view on creation and evolution as I don't know the Quran much. (My parents have been yelling at me to pick it up again.)

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Hooooly **** Famine. Still posting in this thread after all those years, trying to punch through that thick wall called faith?

I haven't posted in this topic for years and I'm surprised you still haven't given up by stepping away from these lost causes.



SuberCobraJet, enjoying your comments so far. Keep 'em coming.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Speculation? Absolutely not. Tell me, how is it "speculation" to say that genetic variation within species via sexual reproduction and via random mutation provides the necessary raw material upon which natural selection can act? This is not speculation at all, but plain fact. Speculation would maybe go something like this: "Perhaps the fact that human offspring are genetically distinct from their parents is a purposeful design feature introduced by God so that he can tell us apart without having to run DNA tests on us?" That is speculation. That we are all genetically distinct, even from our own parents, is a plain fact, but to dismiss it (as you are) as "inconclusive speculation" is beyond staggering.

By virtue of the fact that evolution is not just claiming the raw material, but that it has conclusively been acted upon by natural selection alone for multi transitional species changes and introduction of new species.
Neither of which has ever been observed nor can be demonstrated on the scale claimed. Possibly "assumption" is a better descriptive, however it is a form of speculation. To make such a claim about nothing more than a possibility, I consider "staggering" as well.

Correction - it most certainly is. A rat and a human might look to be so distinct from the outside that classification as two separate species is simple and obvious - but it is not as straightforward on the genetic level. On almost every level except that which we can see by simply looking at an intact individual, rats and humans are incredibly similar. Orangutans and humans are even more similar. Humans and chimps are more similar still - so similar infact that we even look similar from the outside. But on the inside, we are even less distinguishable. And on the genetic level, we are almost identical. These similarities are real and explicable - humans really are incredibly similar to chimps, orangutans and rats. Yes, we are still distinct from them, and we are a separate species, but the evidence of our relatedness is written through all our genomes - our own genome is itself a record of multistage transitions.

Similarities, in and of itself, does not conclude common lineage.
It can only suggest the possibility.

There is nothing that makes our genes "human genes", and there is nothing "human" about the chain of amino acids that makes up human cytochrome C other than the fact that we possess the genes to make it. Chimps have 100% identical cytochrome C to humans and possess identical genes to make it. Biochemically, distinguishing them is impossible - they are exactly the same. Chimp cytochrome C is not the same as human cytochrome C because of chance, but because we inhereted the gene for cytochrome C from the same recent common ancestor. Human and chimp cytochrome C is almost (but not quite) identical to macaque cytochrome C - the differences are due to the fact that our common ancestor (human/chimp and macaque) was less recent.

Again you are making an assumptive jump to conclusion from a commonality observation. One does not prove the other. It merely suggests the possibility. And again I consider that jump "quantum leap" in scope.

Such patterns of similarity in genomes exist cross the whole living world and reveals common ancestry everywhere, at many different levels simultaneously. You may dismiss this is meaningless coincidence, you may dismiss it as a deliberate trick by God to fool us into believing we are the products of billions of years of evolution, but I accept it for what it is - strong supporting evidence for the theory that all present day species share common ancestry, that any present day species is infact a "transitional" entity, and that it is the concept of immutable "kinds" that is false and inconsistent with the evidence.

The evidence, such as it is, only proves similarity of make up. Thats all.
It does not prove ancestral interconnection. Thats the assumption you are determined to make, from inconclusive evidence. I will state it again: If this were true under that claim, there would be literally millions of transitional observations to be examined amoung every species living today. It isn't.
Not only that but there is no evidence to suggest this is true amoung that which is observable and demonstrable in reproduction of species in realtime.

Hardly ignoring it - I personally have talked about this many times, and it has been covered in extreme detail in this thread by many people. That humans are capable of design is not evidence that all complexity in the known universe must also be a product of design by intelligent agency. This is perhaps the most simple logical error and biggest mistake that is continually made by creationists. Just because something appears designed, it doesn't prove that it was designed. Ferraris do not self assemble, and there is a mountain of evidence to substantiate the claim that they are designed... the makers even write their name on the damn things.

My point there was to draw a comparison to demonstrate the true scope of the evolutionary claim.

I can make a similar claim with just as much possibility of being correct as you can:

"Just because something can appear to have common ancestry and could have been a evolutionary process, doesn't mean that it did. And it sure doesn't prove that it did."

But that the natural world does not spontaneously make self-assembling Ferraris is not evidence that the natural world is incapable of generating staggering complexity via explicable processes.

To the contrary I believe it does.
Explicable processes aside, If a Ferrari can't be made apart from "intelligent design", I don't see how we can be.

There is much that is admirable about SuperCobraJet. He did not get to 111,813 A-spec points by any lacking of dedication, determination and persistence. If he were a building, he would be Caernarvon Castle.

Thankyou for the support and kind words Dotini.

 

[wfooshee]

If a Ferrari can't be made apart from "intelligent design", I don't see how we can be.

A Ferrari isn't alive, nor were any of the other cars that existed before it. Nor do they seek to reproduce themselves.

I'll repeat the last sentence:

Nor do they seek to reproduce themselves.

The reproductive process that life pursues is the base mechanism for change, for variation, that over time leads to Natural Selection, and over even greater time, to Evolution.

The process of reproduction is the process of copying genes to offspring. Simple as that. You mix some of your genes with some of those from a partner, and see what you get. You get a slightly varied form of yourselves.

Do that enough times, and those slightly varied forms diverge far enough from the starting point to represent something different. Yes, they do. (I heard you arguing!)

The variations that work, either by having some survival trait, or merely being "desirable" by potential mates, get passed on. I'm a brown mouse living on the sand, and my girlfriend is a brown mouse. Somehow one of the kids is a black mouse. He don't make it. The owl upchucks his bones and some witch doctor reads them. But he doesn't live to make more black mice.

Unless we happened to move into a lava flow, and all our brown kids would become someone's fortune.

Genes get copied, passed, and once in a while, slightly altered. A bad copy, some missing or changed information. Most of those bad copies don't make it. Some do. If it expresses as something useful, it makes it big time.

Eventually, the divergence caused by those changes is something not like what you started with. The selection process of what works and what doesn't forces a "type" onto the carriers of the genome.

You seem to be able to accept that variation occurs. You also seem to be able to accept that some variations are more successful than others. You just can't seem to make the very simple fundamental inevitable step that enough variation over enough time lets you end up with something - different. It's not that different from its parents, who aren't that different from theirs, but it's much different than what was around 20,000 generations ago.

You also seem to accept that the fossil record exists, and that it shows numerous plants and animals that no longer exist. You just can't seem to make the very simple fundamental inevitable step that extinction is evidence of selection.

 

[JetStar]

The "assumptions" we are making regarding evolution have been made and shaped by the brightest minds on Earth for hundreds of years based on thousands of years worth of evidence. However, these "assumptions" are nothing compared to the assumption you have made that God created all life as it is, with no such evidence whatsoever.

 

[Smallhorses]

The problem with the insistence that the fossil record, and what's potentially missing from it, is proof that evolution can't be happening shows a level of ignorance over what is actually required to make a fossil in the first place.
Out of the trillions & trillions of creatures that've exisited within the lifespan of this planet, only a miniscule fraction of a percentage have ever been trapped in such a way that the planet (which in itself is continually evolving around us) can create the necessary conditions and forces necessary to form a fossil.

Wisdom teeth are a good indicator of the process of evolution in ourselves, and that we ourselves are indeed a transitional species of which SCJ is so fond of bringing up. Going back tens of thousands of years, mankind ate meats which make modern beef jerky seem as tender as a rare Fillet-Mignon, and the 3rd set of molars were required for mastication. As the human race has evolved over the millenia, the long protruding jawbone, such as seen in chimps, has shortened to accommodate the increase in brain capacity and left no room in most modern humans for the 3rd molar or Wisdom Teeth to fit. Now it seems they exist soley to cause profit for dental surgeons and orthodontists!!! Give us another couple of millenia and it seems likely that just as we've evolved away from the need for a tail and now only have a vestigial remnant, so too will we be rid of those troublesome teeth that're no longer required!

Again this process illustrates evolution in action, there is no sudden "step" from long jawbone / smaller brain to shorter jawbone / bigger brain, but an evolutionary solution to a problem which happened over enormous timespans, the need to accommodate more & more brain, which in turn made us smarter, meaning we're able to find & eat better food or indeed cultivate food rather than hunting and gathering, lead to less & less need for the long jawbone, and thus over time it was gradually diminished, which fits the model of evolution to conform with the changing environment around us.

The problem with creationists is that they see evolution as a stepwise, and some might say "digital" process. They see the monkey, they see the man, but they don't see the "step" such as SCJ wishes to see as the "half-monkey/half-man" Evolution is not a "digital" process like this. You have to look at this as an analogue process (ironically in an age where more & more things are going digital!) where the transition is seamless and gradual.

It also seems that many creationists (though not all and I won't tar SCJ with this brush, unless he sees fit to label himself as such) seem to view the human species as the pinnacle of evolution except for god. In this case you need to take another look. - Put simply: you ain't.

The Human Race is evolving daily, with each new birth. Nobody yet knows what we're bound to end up as, and you or I won't be around to see it, but the Human Race as in Homo Sapiens as we know it is just another rung on the evolutionary ladder.
The Human being is still just a vehicle for the reproduction of genetic material, as with other living organisms. Your genes drive you to find a mate, to reproduce, but Humans are unique in that we have the knowledge & power to wilfully override that genetic drive. Don't kid yourself otherwise.