Creation vs. Evolution

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Evolution doesn't have a "main point" or goal.

It is completely random. It does not work towards "perfection."

 

[XoravaX]

Evolution doesn't have a "main point" or goal.

It is completely random. It does not work towards "perfection."

--


EDIT: let's call it evolution through natural selection then, it was a terminology misconception.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

It is random.

Genetic mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow are entirely random and determine what traits will be dominant within a population which in turn determines how efficient a species is in surviving in that environment.

Evolution isn't this invisible force determining what species survives and fails. Take a collegiate level biology majors course and the first thing they tell you is "evolution is entirely random and there is no goal." Why? Because this is one of the most misunderstood concepts of evolution.

My name isn't Zoology because I thought it looked cool...

The concept you are referring to is natural selection which is the only mechanism that can consistently cause adaptive evolution.

If natural selection were the only variable in evolution then you might be correct in saying it is "not random." Even in that case natural selection cannot create a perfect organism because it is limited by inheiratance and any structural modifications are typically compormises.

 

[XoravaX]

Ok, I failed the terminology. But effectively we're off topic on this thread if there are species mentioned, as there wouldn't be any species if it (evolution via natural selection) were completely random, or the definition of species would be pretty difficult to reach a consensus on, because there wouldn't be mainline trends in genetic drift.

Or then we shouldn't be discussing of evolution alone but to bring natural selection to it too?

All long-term evolution on Earth (the creation of new species) occurs through natural selection, as the "mistakes of evolution" (I know they aren't mistakes, but what they should be called?) don't work well enough, am I right?

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Ok, I failed the terminology. But effectively we're off topic on this thread if there are species mentioned, as there wouldn't be any species if it (evolution via natural selection) were completely random, or the definition of species would be pretty difficult to reach a consensus on, because there wouldn't be mainline trends in genetic drift.

All long-term evolution on Earth occurs through natural selection, as the "mistakes of evolution" (I know they aren't mistakes, but what they should be called?) don't work well enough, am I right?

I honestly can not comprehend (I am... intoxicated?) what you are trying to say here but I will attempt to reply (let me know if I am off base).

There is no such thing as evolution exclusively through natural selection. Natural selection is not the only variable in evolution. Natural selection =\= evolution and to specifically state all long term evolution occurs through only natural selection is incorrect. Natural selection is dependent upon genetic variation (through the mechanisms I mentioned previously which are indeed random).

There are many definitions of species.... so not sure on what you are getting at there.

If natural selection were the only variable in evolution then you might be correct in saying it is "not random." Even in that case natural selection cannot create a perfect organism because it is limited by inheiratance and any structural modifications are typically compromises. - cut that from my previous post incase you missed it (I was editing while you responded).

 

[Scaff]

You miss the main point why evolution occurs: to better fit a given environment and situation with the minimum energy consumption, not to be the ultimate arsenal that needs more energy than it could possibly eat. For large omnivores our eyes are the best given the time they've had to evolve for our needs (blind spot isn't a real problem, really how many people haven't survived or weren't born because of it - that's what matters in evolution, how much offspring are you able to produce that is able to continue it further; the more, the more common your features become species-wide, as supposedly those who can produce more offspring are more suited to the environment). Do we really need night vision, which would make our eyes super-sensitive at day making it hard to operate in heavy sunlight (ie. savannah environment humans supposedly habited in Africa compared to the shadowy forest environment of geckos).

330 degree field of vision sacrifices stereo view which is necessary for depth perception. Stereo view requires at least two eyes focused on the same object, of which they produce a slightly different image, which brain then conjoins as three-dimensional. Without depth perception we couldn't tell how far or close anything is. For any larger carnivores or omnivores stereo view is a necessity to be able to see the distance to the target. Goats and such harmless herbivores need their large field of vision to notice possible threats early. Our two-feet stance already allows us to see further and we're far faster to turn our heads than goats, so that's not a problem either.

Gecko eyes aren't ideal, as they don't offer any extra hunting aid to us due to stereo view being far more functional as described above.

There is no advantage in wasting resources in things that aren't necessary or hugely advantageous like our brains.

Human is as perfect as it had time to adjust to the given environment with given resources, no more, no less.

EDIT: replace the evolution to evolution through natural selection.

I haven't missed the point regarding Evolution at all, it would seem you either haven't read and/or understood my posts.

I'm well aware of the differences between eyes and the advantages and disadvantages they provide the species in question.

My post is simply a question to those who follow ID and Creationism as to 'why' a creator designed eyes for man with the inherent weakness' they have. That even extends to the human genders with differences between male and female eye-structures (including rod and cones numbers and distribution and retina shape) meaning men are better at perceiving movement and perifferal detail (and in lower light) and women are better at static detail and colour perception. Something that in part answers why women see 'shades' of colours and men work more along the 'its red/blue/green' scale of things. Neither is wrong, we simply and actually see the world differently.

 

[XoravaX]

I honestly can not comprehend (I am... intoxicated?) what you are trying to say here but I will attempt to reply (let me know if I am off base).

There is no such thing as evolution exclusively through natural selection. Natural selection is not the only variable in evolution. Natural selection =\= evolution and to specifically state all long term evolution occurs through only natural selection is incorrect. Natural selection is dependent upon genetic variation (through the mechanisms I mentioned previously which are indeed random).

There are many definitions of species.... so not sure on what you are getting at there.

If natural selection were the only variable in evolution then you might be correct in saying it is "not random." Even in that case natural selection cannot create a perfect organism because it is limited by inheiratance and any structural modifications are typically compromises. - cut that from my previous post incase you missed it (I was editing while you responded).

Intoxicated, in middle of a Sunday? Friday and Saturday I would quite understand, but a hangover on Monday isn't really the best way to begin a week with (or then it's not booze).

Anyway,
I meant that it would be hard to distinguish any "species" if the whole process of evolution would be without its regulating variables, a random scattershot. Like, the creatures would evolve like an expanding ball instead of a "family tree", if the unsuited genetic lines didn't go extinct. That way there wouldn't be even clear-ish borders between species (I know some species don't have them even now), but it would be a smooth transition. What they should be called then?

And that we're here discussing of Earth-bound species which are affected by natural selection too as well as the other factors. Talking of these species with only the "core" evolution in mind doesn't really work, as there are those factors too.

But isn't it that the natural selection is the greatest factor in genetic drift?

I'm well aware of the differences between eyes and the advantages and disadvantages they provide the species in question.

Of course, but those we have are quite the best that are there for us. I meant that there would be no mind for God to choose any of the different eyes, as they would probably be worse for our use.


But hey, a question for those who believe in Genesis:
Gen 1:27
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

Does that mean God would have a blind spot too?
Or is it just symbolic like I find the whole Genesis?


However, evolution theory doesn't prove God doesn't exist. The existence of God is something too complicated, God can never be proven to not to exist.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Intoxicated, in middle of a Sunday? Friday and Saturday I would quite understand, but a hangover on Monday isn't really the best way to begin a week with (or then it's not booze).

Anyway,
I meant that it would be hard to distinguish any "species" if the whole process of evolution would be without its regulating variables, a random scattershot. Like, the creatures would evolve like an expanding ball instead of a "family tree", if the unsuited genetic lines didn't go extinct. That way there wouldn't be even clear-ish borders between species (I know some species don't have them even now), but it would be a smooth transition. What they should be called then?

And that we're here discussing of Earth-bound species which are affected by natural selection too as well as the other factors. Talking of these species with only the "core" evolution in mind doesn't really work, as there are those factors too.

But isn't it that the natural selection is the greatest factor in genetic drift?

Alcohol is not involved. I can not discuss illegal activities on this forum lol.

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. What "core" evolution are you speaking of? Again, evolution is not goal driven and putting animals, plants etc. into a phylogenetic tree allows us to visualize the concept of evolution and serves little more than a teaching aid. The actual process of evolution is much more "messy" than a tree as you suggest. It is in fact closer to this "expanding ball" concept than a tree. You have to also remember that just because a sub-species that had unsuitable traits for an environment went extinct does not mean that those alleles have been removed from the population. Disease, humans born with tails, etc. There is much, much, much more involved in evolution than simply natural selection. I believe this is where you are getting caught up at.

Again, there are many different definitions of what a species entails. Biological, ecological, phylogenetic, morphological, and some more less used but equally confusing definitions. You see, it is in fact quite hard to distinguish between species. Remember, separating species is not just determining the traits of mammals; it applies to any living organism (single cell or multi). Classifying some of the rarer asexual single celled organisms can be quite tricky. This is why we have so many definitions or concepts of species.

Natural selection is not a factor in genetic drift. Rather it is the opposite. Genetic drift is the movement of allele's in and out of a localized species; it is not effected by natural selection in this sense. Genetic drift is random, based on chance events (see founder's and bottleneck effect).

 

[niky]

Sometimes I think that the use of the term "Fittest" does much to miscommunicate the process of Evolution. Maybe Darwin should have simply called the process... "Survival of the Survivors." A much more trait-neutral term.

There is nothing wrong with our eyes but our brain are designed to filter out a lot of information so you can focus on what you want and ignore what you don't. People with autism often have trouble filtering things out. There are advantages of seeing with your brain instead of your eyes.

There are a lot of disadvantages with seeing with your brain, as my previous post elaborated. If you don't actively force yourself to look for things, you are completely blind to them.Using pre-set images in the brain to fill in for things that you see... instead of actually" seeing" them... gets a lot of people (and animals) killed by tigers, spiders and snakes in the grass.

You came to conclusion it's not designed without first learning how it could evolve. Is this how your science works? We are learning more of why the eye are designed the way they are. For example in the human eye the RPE cells requires a large blood supply which they have in the back of the retina.
I do agree with Dawkins that man would never designed the inverted retina because of the limit of our knowledge.

You've come to the conclusion eyes are designed without learning how they should be designed, then?

Again... you've come to the conclusion that eyes are intelligently designed because intelligent humans lack the ability to design them. What again?

 

[Scaff]

Of course, but those we have are quite the best that are there for us. I meant that there would be no mind for God to choose any of the different eyes, as they would probably be worse for our use.

How would not having a blind spot be worse?
How would having a 330 degree field of view be worse?
How would having better night vision with no impact on our day vision be worse?
How would it be worse to take less that 20 minutes to adjust from day to night vision (pirates would have been a fan)?

Our eyes are far from perfect and if this is the result of the intelligent design of an always-right creator, then quite frankly he/she sold us well short.

 

[homeforsummer]

Sometimes I think that the use of the term "Fittest" does much to miscommunicate the process of Evolution. Maybe Darwin should have simply called the process... "Survival of the Survivors." A much more trait-neutral term.

I suppose "fittest" is most accurate if considered as "fitness for purpose" rather than physical fitness.

You came to conclusion it's not designed without first learning how it could evolve. Is this how your science works?

No.

I came to the conclusion it's not designed because there is zero evidence to suggest the eye is designed, and plenty to suggest it evolved.

That's how science works.

And when are you going to answer my question(s)?

I'd be intrigued to hear what you think of it:

Has an eye always been an eye? No, of course not. In very early creatures it was likely just a simple light/dark receptor. The creatures who could more accurately make out light and dark survived over those that couldn't. Then the ones that could discern shapes outwit those that could only tell light from dark. Those that could see depth outwit those that could only sense shapes. Those that could focus outwit those that could only see depth.

Every single thing in our bodies will have had an evolutionary past. An organ doesn't necessarily have to be a whole organ in order to work.

Unless of course you'd like to explain why God has given me eyes that are unable to clearly discern objects more than about seven inches from my cornea without the use of corrective glasses? If the eye is "designed" a certain way, why do mine not work properly? And indeed, why do some people's eyes not work at all?

 

[XoravaX]

Ok, I don't try to argue with you, Zoology, especially not about the terminology. You seem to know a lot of these things. But basically what I meant as the "core" evolution would be it without being subjected to any specific environment, that the environment wouldn't affect it in a sense of directing the development of new species. That it would be completely random for every creature.

How would not having a blind spot be worse?
How would having a 330 degree field of view be worse?
How would having better night vision with no impact on our day vision be worse?
How would it be worse to take less that 20 minutes to adjust from day to night vision (pirates would have been a fan)?

Our eyes are far from perfect and if this is the result of the intelligent design of an always-right creator, then quite frankly he/she sold us well short.

The eyes without a blind spot work on a different principle to ours. Of course blind-spot-less eyes that had the same principle as ours were better, but how does it really harm us? There are very few occasions it would cause direct problems.

A 330-degree field of vision isn't possible without sacrificing the stereo vision (or having an added amount of eyes). Thus, no depth perception at all.

Geckos' eyes are suited to daylight in a shadowy forest environment, not hard sunlight in open plains like humans'.
My eyes are already having problems with hard-sunlight-lit areas (eg. I must use sunglasses to prevent getting a headache from squinting my eyes on sunny days), so any more sensitive eyes would be a step to worse.

At least I can see well enough in dark after 10-20 minutes. Not colours, but different shades of blue that make objects clearly distinguishable.

But of course our eyes could be better. If we had also infra-red and UV vision, we'd see a lot more things than currently, like how hot an object is. Our eyes are barely adequate, just not that the other eyes created by nature would be any better for our use.

 

[niky]

Evolution would have no meaning without the environment. If there were no environmental factors or stresses involved, evolution would hardly occur.

Our deficiency in eyesight does harm us... with every person who's stepped on a snake in the grass, or who doesn't see a tiger approach... Or who falls down a ravine in the dark... The only thing is, it doesn't kill enough of us off for evolution to have removed the near-sighted and night-blind from our gene pool completely.

I suppose "fittest" is most accurate if considered as "fitness for purpose" rather than physical fitness.

The problem is, if a species is too fit for the purpose of survival, it could quite literally eat itself into extinction... I dislike the term because many people assume that fittest means fastest, strongest, hardiest... etcetera... when it's usually the species that are just fit enough to survive without experiencing population booms or becoming too overspecialized (in other words... too tailor-fit to their environment) that survive in the long run...

 

[homeforsummer]

The problem is, if a species is too fit for the purpose of survival, it could quite literally eat itself into extinction...

If it did that, it wouldn't be a survivor

Though I do know what you're getting at. Several of these terms can be a little grey at times and it can confuse some people.

The only thing is, it doesn't kill enough of us off for evolution to have removed the near-sighted and night-blind from our gene pool completely.

And it doesn't do that because the human race has workarounds. In my case, glasses, to counteract my near-sightedness.

 

[niky]

Damn spectacles. Sometimes I wonder if we should be pushing evolution along. Give people with 20/10 vision... 180+ IQs and perfect physiques unlimited breeding licenses...

 

[tlowr4]

The issue, Scaff, is you're throwing questions into the air on the basis of Evolution, but if we sent the same to you, would you be able to answer them? Supporters of creation would most certainly be able to using the bible.

 

[TheCracker]

The issue, Scaff, is you're throwing questions into the air on the basis of Evolution, but if we sent the same to you, would you be able to answer them? Supporters of creation would most certainly be able to using the bible.

But that's a ridiculously backwards way of doing things. When supporters of creation 'theory' are given a problem, they consult a book written between 3500-6000 years ago to try and find a passage that supports it.

If you asked me to explain the intricacies of world politics and i used aesop's fables to justify my answers you'd rightly laugh in my face.

 

[niky]

The issue, Scaff, is you're throwing questions into the air on the basis of Evolution, but if we sent the same to you, would you be able to answer them? Supporters of creation would most certainly be able to using the bible.

The answer: "Just because!" isn't really a helpful answer.

Why is the sky blue?

"Because!"

Perfect.

 

[Scaff]

The eyes without a blind spot work on a different principle to ours. Of course blind-spot-less eyes that had the same principle as ours were better, but how does it really harm us? There are very few occasions it would cause direct problems.

Once again the actual question I have asked has been ignored.

I am well aware of the minor impact the blind spot has on human vision, I'm not asking about that at all. I'm also well aware of why (as a part of the evolutionary process) it exists.

What I am asking (and what has been ignored repeatedly) is that if we were designed, then what design purpose does the Blind Spot have?

Its a simple question that those who believe in ID should have no problem explaining, yet it has been avoided repeatedly.

A 330-degree field of vision isn't possible without sacrificing the stereo vision (or having an added amount of eyes). Thus, no depth perception at all.

Once again if we were designed by some all powerful creator he/she would have got around this. Why were we not 'designed' to have an eye that gives us the best possible vision?

Again evolution explains this perfectly well, but Creation/ID doesn't.

Geckos' eyes are suited to daylight in a shadowy forest environment, not hard sunlight in open plains like humans'.
My eyes are already having problems with hard-sunlight-lit areas (eg. I must use sunglasses to prevent getting a headache from squinting my eyes on sunny days), so any more sensitive eyes would be a step to worse.

Utter nonsense, Gecko's are not limited to daylight in a shadowy forest environment, many species live in semi-arid Mediterranean and Desert environments and are active both in the day and night. Gecko's have evolved an eye that allows the iris (which is a totally different shape to ours) to narrow to an incredibly thin slit alloing them to see in both the dark and in bright sunlight that would cause a human to grab for sunglasses.

At least I can see well enough in dark after 10-20 minutes. Not colours, but different shades of blue that make objects clearly distinguishable.

In the wild 10-20 minutes is more than enough to be very dead and the lack of colour vision at night is a massive problem for true night activity.

But of course our eyes could be better.

Which would be the exact point I made and you disagreed with!

If we had also infra-red and UV vision, we'd see a lot more things than currently, like how hot an object is. Our eyes are barely adequate, just not that the other eyes created by nature would be any better for our use.

I've not said that other eyes would be better for us at all, what I have asked is if we were designed (which we were not) why did the 'designer' not give us an eye that incorporated some of the best features of all these eyes.

Early man would have been far more able to survive had he/she been given strong day and night vision, rather than spending our early stages hiding in caves the second the sun went down. Of course many Creationists dispute that an early man even existed and that we all popped into being around 6,000 years ago, despite the only 'proof' for that being some rather dodgy reading of the Bible.

The issue, Scaff, is you're throwing questions into the air on the basis of Evolution, but if we sent the same to you, would you be able to answer them? Supporters of creation would most certainly be able to using the bible.

If you actually bother to read the thread you will quite clearly see that myself and others have answered every single one of those questions. I've also addressed every question that has been posed to me by Creationists/ID, yet the moment questions are asked back all that happens is evasion.

That you refer to the Bible as a source of proof is testament (pun most certainly intended) to the lack of scientific proof you have to back up some of these claims.

Case in point is the RLN, evolution quite clearly explains its route (a handy video was even provided), ergo its been explained from an evolutionary point. That is, its route serves no purpose and has no design behind it, but is a byproduct of the evolutionary process.

I asked the simple question of what the design purpose behind that would be from a Creation/ID point of view and to date have not got an answer beyond 'science will find out one day' (rather invalid as science already provides and answer that is being ignored by Creation/ID) or 'God haven't let us know yet'. Neither of which actually explain the 'design' claim behind it.

In short I have no problem answering questions, and if no known answer yet exists I'm more than happy to acknowledge that (without resorting to filling in the blanks with 'magic'). The evasion is not coming from this end of the discussion at all.

You see the four questions I asked (that arose from points made by the Creationist/ID side are yet to be answered by that side and, the evidence that is claimed to back it is not forthcoming at all (I'm still waiting for the names of scientists who dispute the RLN explanation - a claim regarding them was made but when sources were requested it all went quiet.

Oh and could you let me know what section of the Bible covers the design of the route of the RLN, as I have (again) answered a large number of questions yet I still see a dearth of answers from the Creationists (aside from the God said so 'non-answer').

 

[hennessey86]

They way I see it is GOD provided the blue print from which we have continually evolved from.

 

[TheCracker]

They way I see it is GOD provided the blue print from which we have continually evolved from.

That's a convenient way of admitting that the theory of evolution seems pretty convincing, but you're not quite ready to admit that there's no god.

At what point in our, or any other living creatures, development did we deviate from god's blue print?

 

[TankAss95]

That's a convenient way of admitting that the theory of evolution seems pretty convincing, but you're not quite ready to admit that there's no god.

Evolution doesn't disprove God.

And anyone who claims that there is in fact no God shares the same weight of the burden of proof as the theist does.
Simply not believing that a exists is not the same as believing that a does not exist.

 

[Scaff]

Evolution doesn't disprove God.

No it doesn't.

And anyone who claims that there is in fact no God shares the same weight of the burden of proof as the theist does.
Simply not believing that a exists is not the same as believing that a does not exist.

No.

Proving the absence of something is not a valid test, the burden of proof rests with those making the claim. You claim God exists, then the burden of proof rests with you.

 

[hennessey86]

That's a convenient way of admitting that the theory of evolution seems pretty convincing, but you're not quite ready to admit that there's no god.

At what point in our, or any other living creatures, development did we deviate from god's blue print?

I actually believe in evolution, its there for all to see, what I am saying is you can't prove that creationism isn't real.

 

[Scaff]

I actually believe in evolution, its there for all to see, what I am saying is you can't prove that creationism isn't real.

See above. Just as with evolution the burden of proof rests with those making the claim and no one else.

Evolutionist need to provide proof to support the theory of evolution, and creationists need to provide proof to support creationism (and the Bible is not a source of proof).

 

[TheCracker]

*tree'd*

Evolution doesn't disprove God.

I'm not saying it does.

And anyone who claims that there is in fact no God shares the same weight of the burden of proof as the theist does.
Simply not believing that a exists is not the same as believing that a does not exist.

This has been argued against over and over in this thread. Believing in god is not the flip side of having no belief in god. You don't need to prove that nothing exists. But you do have to prove that something does indeed exist.

I actually believe in evolution, its there for all to see, what I am saying is you can't prove that creationism isn't real.

Millions of years worth of fossil records would suggest otherwise.

 

[TankAss95]

This has been argued against over and over in this thread. Believing in god is not the flip side of having no belief in god. You don't need to prove that nothing exists. But you do have to prove that something does indeed exist.

If someone claimes that there is no God, then they have the same burden of proof as someone who says there is. A Non-Theist (as Famine likes to call it) has the same burden of proof as a Theist. Meanwhile, a person who lacks belief either way (atheist, agnostic... whatever) carries no burden of proof (unless perhaps previously given positive evidence).

As Bertrand Russell once said, there is absolutely no conclusive, testable evidence of the reality of the past. If someone said that the past never/does not exist (wether you support a A-Theory or B-Theory of time doesn't matter) they would have a burden of proof to carry, just like those who believe that there has in fact been a past (aka me ). Luckily, though, this is a properly basic belief: one that doesn't need evidence for us to believe in rationally (like the belief that there are also other conscious minds other than my own).

 

[homeforsummer]

If someone claimes that there is no God, then they have the same burden of proof as someone who says there is. A Non-Theist (as Famine likes to call it) has the same burden of proof as a Theist. Meanwhile, a person who lacks belief either way (atheist, agnostic... whatever) carries no burden of proof (unless perhaps previously given positive evidence).

Which is all very well, but that isn't what this thread is about.

Here, we're arguing that there's no evidence for creation theory and plenty for evolution theory.

In that case, those of us who don't believe in creation theory do not need to prove it doesn't exist, because the vast body of evidence for evolution strongly suggests that creationism is bunk.

Those who do believe in creationism however have no satisfactory evidence that creationism is how we're all here. Whether atheist or nontheist, it's not up to us to disprove creationism, it's up to creationists to prove it, and prove that evolution theory is incorrect.

 

[Ophiochus]

I believe in Evolution.

I feel people who beleive in creationism (wether through god or little green men dropping us off here as science project) dont want to ACTUALLY know

Its like when you find a stain on your shirt. You KNOW it is there, but how did it get there?Then , ten minutes later you ask your girlfriend/kid why your shirt has a stain. If they say ' oh i used it for (X)' , then you know. but if you put the shirt on and never ask the question, then you never know. you may never think about it, then convince yourself that it was always there.

Forgive my ignorance, but i have a feeling there are more scientists looking to further our knowledge with evolution, then the (real not money craving evangelists) believers try to find away to talk to god.

PS: Im not a hater for the people who follow (whatever) god. As long as they commit no crimes, speak the truth and respect america, then practice what you will. don't change people, and don't preach the authenticity of your doctrine.

 

[wfooshee]

Yeah, except evolution isn't a belief system.... That's kinda the whole point.