Creation vs. Evolution

[Zoom!Zoom!]

But...evolution is survival of the fittest. So, it IS goal oriented. Each specie would be working towards becoming the fittest. And I've always heard that "This species evolved, because..." or "they evolved to..." Although, I will admit, no one has ever mentioned a reasoning behind why dinosaurs evolved into birds. (And just because we have fossil records showing similar species with and without feathers, really doesn't mean anything. It could simply be that the feathers weren't preserved in one fossil and were in the other.)

There are some scientist who think birds evolved into dinosaurs. They are not in the majority so their voices are seldom heard.

And yes, I understand the 98% represents the order...but...as you pointed out, most things have a 90%+ similar DNA sequence with humans...If you're going by DNA sequences, then one would have to argue that EVERYTHING is related to everything else in some way.

Hadn't scientist already admitted years ago that the 98% figure is totally bogus? One even suggested it could be as low as 70%. It all depends how you want to slice the DNA.

And...I still don't think humans fit with evolution very well...even cavemen would chase entire herds of animals off cliffs and feed off the spoils. No other "animal" on this planet kills as much as we do. No other specie has made as much impact on the evolutionary chain as we have. We really are the top of the food chain. I would think that for evolution to REALLY work, there can't be a top of the food chain. Sure there are animals that can kill us and there are a few that could potentially be the above us on the food chain if they were discovered, but, I believe, even then, we would find a way to become the top again. We are the King of Beasts, masters of the land.

Hitler was trying to help evolution out by wiping out the weak and we had to interfere. Now see the price we had to pay by stopping Hitler... 7 billion people. Now Evolution has to evolve another man to wipe out most of the world's population. Death is the main tool evolution uses.

 

[SuperShouden]

So evolution is essentially random? But...that makes less sense than "Holy crap, if I could just take to the air, I could get away from this thing." After, all that is how adaptation works. The body says "Hey, if I do this, then it would make my job easier and I would use less energy." Which is why a cowboy's legs will become bowed, or a pitcher's arm curved, or a guitarists chord fingers become long and callused.

And it really doesn't matter if it is essentially random or not...human beings are just too powerful. If a species develops one thing, it's killed by us before it can decide if it works to it's survival or not.

It also doesn't really explain why some species are more adaptable than others. Like a wolf can pretty much survive anywhere. It's considered to be the most adaptable animal on the planet, whereas lost of fish have trouble adjusting to great fluctuations in water salt content and temperature.

Hitler was trying to help evolution out by wiping out the weak and we had to interfere. Now see the price we had to pay by stopping Hitler... 7 billion people. Evolution has to evolve another man to wipe out most of the world's population.

Zoom...did you just say Hitler's mass killings were a good thing? He wasn't trying to help evolution, he was trying to commit genocide by wiping out Jews and Gypsies. Genocide, as we've seen from our damage to the ecosystem, isn't usually very helpful to evolution.

Hitler was also a Free Mason, I believe and believed he was doing God's work by eradicating the Jews.

Damn! I think that comment should be flagged, because it called the Jews weak and Hitler good.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Zoom...did you just say Hitler's mass killings were a good thing? He wasn't trying to help evolution, he was trying to commit genocide by wiping out Jews and Gypsies. Genocide, as we've seen from our damage to the ecosystem, isn't usually very helpful to evolution.

Hitler was also a Free Mason, I believe and believed he was doing God's work by eradicating the Jews.

Damn! I think that comment should be flagged, because it called the Jews weak and Hitler good.

It's simple math. The world population growth will one day become zero and the answer to the problem is all bad . From a natural point of view what Hitler did could be seen as a good thing. What Hitler seen was the world was becoming overpopulated at an alarming rate and believe literally survival of the fittest.

If we found three Stargate that lead to three brand new Earth full of resource it would only buy us 70-100 years at best until we be in the same situation. All four planet would have close to 6-7 billion people on each planet.

 

[SuperShouden]

I'm not going to argue with someone who justifies attempted genocide and says that EVERYBODY needs to die. You just sound like a terrorist and a Nazi and I think you need banned, personally. But, I get yelled at for trying to psuedo-moderate.

EDIT: BTW, not even Evolution can justify the killing of 6 million Jews. They were still people. Evolution would warrant a large scale natural disaster like Yellowstone erupting. If anything, Hitler's actions would actually hurt the theory of evolution.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I'm not going to argue with someone who justifies attempted genocide and says that EVERYBODY needs to die. You just sound like a terrorist and a Nazi and I think you need banned, personally. But, I get yelled at for trying to psuedo-moderate.

EDIT: BTW, not even Evolution can justify the killing of 6 million Jews. They were still people. Evolution would warrant a large scale natural disaster like Yellowstone erupting. If anything, Hitler's actions would actually hurt the theory of evolution.

I'm not a naturalist but this is how nature deals with overpopulation. I surely didn't mean I agree with Hitler but I do see another Hitler in the future. What I wrote has been common knowledge for decades.

 

[Strittan]

I'm not a naturalist but this is how nature deals with overpopulation. I surely didn't mean I agree with Hitler but I do see another Hitler in the future. What I wrote has been common knowledge for decades.

That's total BS. What you're saying is that nature has it's own will, just like a human being, and was like; "Holy crap, there are way too many Jews in Europe. I'll have to put an evil man on this earth to erase as many of them as possible."

 

[Schwartz]

I don't know....every time I step back and look at the whole evolutionary picture, there just doesn't really seem to be a way to put humans in there without screwing up everything else. Also, there hasn't really been an evolutionary change in anything in a very long time....not since we homo-sapians rose to power. (Unless you count the human race wiping out several species an evolutionary change.)

A long time meaning thousands of years? Evolution takes millions and millions of years to make anything relatively different. Humans are currently evolving right now, we just dont understand this because we have only started recording history a few thousand years ago. From our perspective, the earth is only feels like it is a few thousand years old. We can learn lots and lots of information from stuff that we recorded a few thousand years ago, but not so much from stuff that wasn't recorded over the millions of billions of years before that. Naturally, we subconciously think of that the world is a few thousand years old, plus the few thousand years before that when evolution happened. It is impossible for humans to understand how long a billion years is compared to about 10,000 years. Its quite hard to fathom that all these cities humans have created, all the technology we have discovered, all the advancements we have made are just tiny specks of phases in the billions of years the Earth has existed, and that the cities and technology will all have been long gone and the humans either evolved into a more advanced or less advanced spiecies or wiped out billions of years before the Earth is gone. So really, unless an asteroid blows up the Earth tomorrow (which the chances are very, very, very unlikely), the apocalypse of the universe will happen in a world that has little or no resemblance of our current world

 

[SuperShouden]

I don't know about common knowledge, and I think you'd have to make the argument that nature is a very nasty b---h to "create" Hitlers just to control the population. That would also imply that 1. There's a force greater than us, and 2. we are not in control of our actions. It would also suggest that mother nature doesn't like Jews, to which, I would have to ask, "What did Jesus and the Jews do to nature to piss her off?"

Seriously, I don't care what you believe or how you slice it, there isn't a way to justify Hitler's actions. I think the only ones who think that Hitlers are necessary are ignorant.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I don't know about common knowledge, and I think you'd have to make the argument that nature is a very nasty b---h to "create" Hitlers just to control the population. That would also imply that 1. There's a force greater than us, and 2. we are not in control of our actions. It would also suggest that mother nature doesn't like Jews, to which, I would have to ask, "What did Jesus and the Jews do to nature to piss her off?"

Seriously, I don't care what you believe or how you slice it, there isn't a way to justify Hitler's actions. I think the only ones who think that Hitlers are necessary are ignorant.

Hitler was just a man yet because of the enviroment and the sitution of his day he was able to gain power.
Here is a video that deals with the math. Even he agrees that life sometime in the future will become very cheap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

 

[Strittan]

A long time meaning thousands of years? Evolution takes millions and millions of years to make anything relatively different.

Not true. Evolution is much more rapid than you think. According to a study I read about a while back, we are more different from people 5,000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals.

From our perspective, the earth is only feels like it is a few thousand years old.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I definitely do not feel like the earth is only a few thousand year old. Bible worshipers do.

 

[DEVILSADVOCATE]

I have a question about "Irreducible Complexity". Aren't there entire ecosystems that, in their natural state, would fit the definition of "irreducibly complex"? At least, that's what scientists have been telling us for years."...this or that ecosystem is so delicate that if even 1 element is removed...blah blah blah". Would not the same "irreducibly complexity" rules apply here?

 

[Rich S]

Not true. Evolution is much more rapid than you think. According to a study I read about a while back, we are more different from people 5,000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. I definitely do not feel like the earth is only a few thousand year old. Bible worshipers do.

I'm not sure what Super Shoudon's position is here, is he trying to disprove evolution and promote creation? I havent been on this thread yet.

I would think with gene modifications in the near future we'll be living longer. I think genetic engineering is where the big change is going to come, evolution takes forever.

If one doesn't believe in evolution just look at how similar one is to their parents. Thats pretty damning. Unless you adopted that is, or have step parents.

 

[Strittan]

I'm not sure what Super Shoudon's position is here, is he trying to disprove evolution and promote creation? I havent been on this thread yet.

I would think with gene modifications in the near future we'll be living longer. I think genetic engineering is where the big change is going to come, evolution takes forever.

If one doesn't believe in evolution just look at how similar one is to their parents. Thats pretty damning. Unless you adopted that is, or have step parents.

What does anything of that have to do with anything in my post?

 

[Grand Prix]

So evolution is essentially random? But...that makes less sense than "Holy crap, if I could just take to the air, I could get away from this thing." After, all that is how adaptation works. The body says "Hey, if I do this, then it would make my job easier and I would use less energy." Which is why a cowboy's legs will become bowed, or a pitcher's arm curved, or a guitarists chord fingers become long and callused.

And it really doesn't matter if it is essentially random or not...human beings are just too powerful. If a species develops one thing, it's killed by us before it can decide if it works to it's survival or not.

It also doesn't really explain why some species are more adaptable than others. Like a wolf can pretty much survive anywhere. It's considered to be the most adaptable animal on the planet, whereas lost of fish have trouble adjusting to great fluctuations in water salt content and temperature.

You can build up muscle all you like but it won't make your child a little Arnold. However, you could argue that if you have the genetics to develop massive muscles, and your offspring takes advantage of that, then it is a trait that is passed on. Although it has to be used to be seen.


In other words, you have no control over how tall you can be, how muscular you can be, etc. How your body develops ultimately depends on your genes. The DNA is a blueprint on which your body is built from - it can't take advantage of information that isn't there. Mostly because the DNA dictates what the body becomes, and also because the brain has no control over the genetic makeup. (Unless, of course, you choose an attractive mate with which to make your offspring, but you have no control over the DNA in your body) Some animals, like jellies, don't even have brains. How do they adapt to their changing environment over hundreds of millions of years do you reckon?


Plants and fungi don't have brains either. Yet they adapt and evolve as a result of changing environmental conditions. "Result" is the key word here. They don't seek to evolve, they changed as a result of changing environments. Plants that survived in one region survived in that region. Plants that didn't survive that region died off in that region before they could make offspring. Conifers are better suited to living in mountain regions through no control of their own. That's just how they ended up as a result of millions of years of life and death results. Fascinating isn't it?

 

[dylansan]

I have a question about "Irreducible Complexity". Aren't there entire ecosystems that, in their natural state, would fit the definition of "irreducibly complex"? At least, that's what scientists have been telling us for years."...this or that ecosystem is so delicate that if even 1 element is removed...blah blah blah". Would not the same "irreducibly complexity" rules apply here?

An interesting thought, and it may indeed be true that certain ecosystems are irreducibly complex.

The point is, however, that even irreducibly complex systems could have evolved. The eye, for example, is certainly irreducibly complex. By removing any individual part, it stops functioning. And yet, it could have evolved simply because the parts of our eyes today might have served very different functions when they first evolved. Our corneas, for example, may have just been mucus buildups over some light sensitive cells that helped focus the light better. Here's a video showing a process by which the eye could have evolved into its current "irreducibly complex" state.


The same applies to ecosystems. In fact, I believe there is a current theory suggesting multicellular organisms came from colonies of single cells which had different functions within the group, suggesting that there's nothing particularly different in terms of evolution between one creature and an ecosystem of creatures.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

From the very beginning of the video Dawkins is wrong. Creatures with the simple flat light spot can tell the direction of the light source (sun).

 

[niky]

I suppose you've interviewed a lot of simple organisms in your time?

I think there's confusion over the words "irreducibly complex"... an eye isn't irreducibly complex, if you break it down into enough steps and take the system as a whole instead of individually. Viewing the eye as "irreducibly complex" simply because it cannot work without certain components in us ignores the fact that the eye developed underwater and under different conditions. Reproduce the conditions and you can reproduce the development.

I don't know....every time I step back and look at the whole evolutionary picture, there just doesn't really seem to be a way to put humans in there without screwing up everything else. Also, there hasn't really been an evolutionary change in anything in a very long time....not since we homo-sapians rose to power. (Unless you count the human race wiping out several species an evolutionary change.)

How long do you think evolution takes? There have been several large species that have evolved within the dominance of man (elephants, modern horses, modern dogs) and many more that we know little about.

There are some scientist who think birds evolved into dinosaurs. They are not in the majority so their voices are seldom heard.

[needs citation]

Hitler was trying to help evolution out by wiping out the weak and we had to interfere. Now see the price we had to pay by stopping Hitler... 7 billion people. Now Evolution has to evolve another man to wipe out most of the world's population. Death is the main tool evolution uses.

Says who? What does the systematic killing of an ethnicity of humans who are more fit to survive have to do with actually wiping out the weak and unfit? Genocides occur through an arbitrary definition of "superior", meaning simply "who's got political power at the time". And since Hitler, tens of millions have been killed in various genocides around the world. Hasn't stopped the population growth at all.

You're treading a fine line here, I would like to remind you that the AUP does not look kindly on explicit support of persecution of ethnic minorities, let alone Holocaust praise.

 

[TankAss95]

I have two questions about evolution:
1. How was the first life form able to reproduce? Why did it not just live and die? Was there lots of life forms before the first life form that could reproduce that came into existence?
2. Why are we conscious? Why don't we just work like primitive computers? Wouldn't that be more successful, and more crucially, simpler?
(Okay, there are a few questions here, but they are all related two the two points.)

And just to make it clear, I'm not asking this to try to disprove evolution, I just want to understand.

 

[Strittan]

1. How was the first life form able to reproduce? Why did it not just live and die? Was there lots of life forms before the first life form that could reproduce that came into existence?

Through asexual repdroduction.

2. Why are we conscious? Why don't we just work like primitive computers? Wouldn't that be more successful, and more crucially, simpler?

Because of (or thanks to) evolution.

 

[Schwartz]

Now see the price we had to pay by stopping Hitler... 7 billion people. Now Evolution has to evolve another man to wipe out most of the world's population. Death is the main tool evolution uses.

Actually, World War II killed 60-80 million people, depending on where you find your information. The Earth's population isn't even 7 billion (its actually 6 billion).

Citation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/world_war2/world_at_war/

You are quite ignorant, my friend. If you want people to be killed, why don't you go out there and start killing people yourself. On the other hand, population control is becoming very important. In China I think they have a law that you can only have up to two or three children, but I don't have a source for that so I'm not sure.

 

[SuperShouden]

How long do you think evolution takes? There have been several large species that have evolved within the dominance of man (elephants, modern horses, modern dogs) and many more that we know little about.

But...the elephants, horses and dogs (I'm assuming you're talking about domesticated animals...although, the elephants are really all that domesticated) are all the result of human breeding. A better word for it would be "tampering."

Horses really haven't come all that far from the mustangs. In fact, the Mustang Reintroduction Program is going extremely well.

Dogs are the only real specie that's seen significant "evolutionary" change. And, again, it's not really evolution. You also answered your first question of "How long do you think evolution takes" with, "these species have evolved since man's been around."

I'm just not sure if you can count domesticated animals as "evolution" since it was the human race that domesticated them and ultimately changed them. Which, if that is evolution, then that should show you the impact man-kind has on the evolutionary change. I mean, if we can cause animals to evolve to become our obedient pets, then...that would more support the Christian creation story where God gives us dominion over the animals and the land. He gave us power to change and evolve them to suit our needs. Maybe the dinosaurs evolved into birds because we didn't like dinosaurs being the top of the food chain.

Also....we really don't know how old the earth is. I've already said this. There isn't any accurate to tell how old it is, either. Carbon-14 dating is incredibly inaccurate and is dependent upon a lot of variables. Fossils would also probably be the most inaccurate candidates for carbon dating because to fossilize something requires a lot of sediment laid down really fast. And there's no way to tell how much carbon-14 was added or taken away from the fossil in the process. I think it would be interesting to develop away to test fossilization to determine how much it effects the carbon dating process.

 

[Schwartz]

In America, if we keep getting fatter, it will find a way to get in to our genes.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Actually, World War II killed 60-80 million people, depending on where you find your information. The Earth's population isn't even 7 billion (its actually 6 billion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
"The world population is the totality of all living humans on the planet Earth. As of today, it is estimated to number 6.981 billion by the United States Census Bureau.[1] " You are 11 years behind.

Citation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/world_war2/world_at_war/

You are quite ignorant, my friend. If you want people to be killed, why don't you go out there and start killing people yourself. On the other hand, population control is becoming very important. In China I think they have a law that you can only have up to two or three children, but I don't have a source for that so I'm not sure.

Why do I want to kill anyone when I live in ease in USA? I'm someone who uses more than my share of the world resources and never went to bed hunger.
For the world to reach zero population growth there's going to be a lot more deaths. (China still doesn't have zero population growth) For those who believe so much, are we a part of evolution or not? There is a lot of things in nature that's very brutal and ugly.

 

[TankAss95]

Through asexual repdroduction.

Because of (or thanks to) evolution.

How was the first life form able to complete that exact task? I would imagine the very origin of life to be as simple as possible. How would it be able to complete a task like reproduction, which I would imagine be quite complex in itself?

Yes, but I was not asking why we were conscious, but rather why we need to be. Why are we not just simpler computers, capable of carrying out tasks putting ourselves always first, without hesitation (which I would imagine be most successful in the evolutionary process)?

EDIT: I seemed to have asked the second question in a wrong context. Apologies.

 

[Exorcet]

But...the elephants, horses and dogs (I'm assuming you're talking about domesticated animals...although, the elephants are really all that domesticated) are all the result of human breeding. A better word for it would be "tampering."

Horses really haven't come all that far from the mustangs. In fact, the Mustang Reintroduction Program is going extremely well.

Dogs are the only real specie that's seen significant "evolutionary" change. And, again, it's not really evolution. You also answered your first question of "How long do you think evolution takes" with, "these species have evolved since man's been around."

I'm just not sure if you can count domesticated animals as "evolution" since it was the human race that domesticated them and ultimately changed them. Which, if that is evolution, then that should show you the impact man-kind has on the evolutionary change. I mean, if we can cause animals to evolve to become our obedient pets, then...that would more support the Christian creation story where God gives us dominion over the animals and the land. He gave us power to change and evolve them to suit our needs. Maybe the dinosaurs evolved into birds because we didn't like dinosaurs being the top of the food chain.

Also....we really don't know how old the earth is. I've already said this. There isn't any accurate to tell how old it is, either. Carbon-14 dating is incredibly inaccurate and is dependent upon a lot of variables. Fossils would also probably be the most inaccurate candidates for carbon dating because to fossilize something requires a lot of sediment laid down really fast. And there's no way to tell how much carbon-14 was added or taken away from the fossil in the process. I think it would be interesting to develop away to test fossilization to determine how much it effects the carbon dating process.

Breeding and evolution are basically the same. The favorite passes on its genes.

How was the first life form able to complete that exact task? I would imagine the very origin of life to be as simple as possible. How would it be able to complete a task like reproduction, which I would imagine be quite complex in itself?

"Reproduction" came before life. RNA was replicating before cells existed.

Yes, but I was not asking why we were conscious, but rather why we need to be. Why are we not just simpler computers, capable of carrying out tasks putting ourselves always first, without hesitation (which I would imagine be most successful in the evolutionary process)?

Perhaps, your assumption on what's the most successful is wrong.

 

[Schwartz]

I think it would be interesting to develop away to test fossilization to determine how much it effects the carbon dating process.

This would involve sciency stuff which I don't understand, but I don't imagine this could be too hard for real scientists to figure out (but then again I know nothing about science). Fossils can take between about 5 years (or maybe even less) and x million years to form. The main obstacle would probably be to figure out how much was added/taken away in the fossil that takes millions of years to form. ...Because the experiment will take 1 million years.

 

[Rich S]

How was the first life form able to complete that exact task? I would imagine the very origin of life to be as simple as possible. How would it be able to complete a task like reproduction, which I would imagine be quite complex in itself?

but rather why we need to be.

EDIT: I seemed to have asked the second question in a wrong context. Apologies.

This is a question of Abiogenesis. I'm not a biologist or into biopoesis. A quick google search gives me those two fields.

It seems to be a question of simpler and simpler organisms slowly turning into composite structures made from iron, nickel, etc although thats just one theory. Viruses replicate via RNA (using the host) but they aren't considered to be alive.

Certainly Adam & Eve weren't the first living organisms.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

How was the first life form able to complete that exact task? I would imagine the very origin of life to be as simple as possible. How would it be able to complete a task like reproduction, which I would imagine be quite complex in itself?
.

All physical life as we know it has a ATP synthase which is a very complex machine. Almost everything in a living cell runs on ATP just like a car runs on gas. Living cells are simple only in fairy tales.
Every cell in your body has to be repaired many times every day (by protein machines) just to hold it together.

 

[Schwartz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
"The world population is the totality of all living humans on the planet Earth. As of today, it is estimated to number 6.981 billion by the United States Census Bureau.[1] " You are 11 years behind.

Oh... I am behind. Thanks for correcting that. 👍

Why do I want to kill anyone when I live in ease in USA? I'm someone who uses more than my share of the world resources and never went to bed hunger.
For the world to reach zero population growth there's going to be a lot more deaths. (China still doesn't have zero population growth) For those who believe so much, are we a part of evolution or not? There is a lot of things in nature that's very brutal and ugly.

Okay, so you hope a Chinese Hitler goes and starts killing asians simply because they have too many people? If thats not ignorant, I don't know what is.

 

[DEVILSADVOCATE]

Reading comments & realize that there are either 2 different main types of evolution, or else, as one guy up there put it, some people have a incorrect definition of what evolution means & their comments are based on that incorrect understanding. I don't think that even Creationists argue that changes can occur within a species, over time, as a result of adaptation to whatever variables. I can buy that no problem. That would be what I'm referring to a Evolution type A. But the idea that 1 creature can, over time, for ANY REASON, evolve into some completely different creature (species wise)...I don't know...it just seems like, without even needing the benefit of scientific research, some basic level of our understanding of the world around us that we've witnessed, and maybe just "common sense", should be enough for us to recognize how far-fetched that is. I think it's a mistake for scientists to settle on THAT evolutionary theory, because it more than likely is slanting their perception of the information & discoveries that they come across. Like the police just being dead set on believing that one guy did it, so they pin it on him, finding a way for all the evidence to point to him (which, considering the human imagination, is the easiest thing to do), and wind up overlooking good potential leads...maybe even having a peice of evidence that screams out who actually did it, but the tunnel vision prevents them from even looking at it from that angle. I mean, isn't it true that if the theory of evolution wasn't thrown out there science would still be aggressively searching for answers instead of aggressively searching to substantiate a theory?