Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

And who set this rule?

Linnaeus.

That's the definition of species - animals that can breed with other animals and produce fertile offspring. Some species are incompletely speciated - species of the family felidae as a quick example - but most are completely speciated and it's an ongoing process.

Uhhh I thought your an evolutionist, how did we get here then? According to this we shouldn't...?

There's no such thing as an "evolutionist" and the quoted part says nothing of the sort.

I thought us and gorillas were the same species, how come we suddently aren't?

We've never been the same species. Gorillas are part of the same subfamily - homininae - as humans.

Humans and gorillas are two different species. These species are called gorilla and sapiens. Each species belongs to a different genus. These are called Gorilla gorilla and Homo sapiens. But each genus belongs to the same subfamily of homininae. So the Western gorilla is homininae Gorilla gorilla and the human is homininae Homo sapiens.

Why can we not mate with a great ape?

They'd beat us up.

Do we not share 99% genes with them?

It depends what metric you're using. We share 97% of our coding DNA with seaweed - ever tried mating with seaweed?

And why are there no other species that have a different appearence from us but managed to evolve to an intelligence and capabilities likely of ours?

This is due to evolutionary forcing. Whatever organism is best suited for its environment thrives in that environment. Each environment constantly changes and benefits those that are better suited to the change to the detriment of those better suited to the previous conditions. Humanity's ancestors have merely been better suited to each environment they've been in than competing species to the point they were able to change the environment to suit them and help themselves survive.

 

[DQuaN]

And this is where you're argument is flawed. You have no idea what you are arguing against. You have an idea of Evolution in your head that is completely wrong.

Uhhh I thought your an evolutionist, how did we get here then? According to this we shouldn't...?

Makes no sense. Are you under the impression that Evolution works by different species mating and creating a new one???

I thought us and gorillas were the same species, how come we suddently aren't?

No one ever said that. We are not. I have no idea why you think we would be.

Why can we not mate with a great ape? Do we not share 99% genes with them?

We also share 99% of genes with mice, try mating with one and let me know how it goes...


*edit*
My post loses a little weight when it's been tree'd by Famine!

 

[axletramp]

We share 97% of our coding DNA with seaweed - ever tried mating with seaweed?

We also share 99% of genes with mice, try mating with one and let me know how it goes...

Interesting and valid points... but the pictures in my head!

 

[Famine]

You should seek kelp.

 

[axletramp]

Sorry, I lost Fucus for a moment.

 

[homeforsummer]

Why can we not mate with a great ape?

They'd beat us up.

Might go easy on you for calling it "great" though. Even apes like compliments.

 

[niky]

A little monkeying around in the bedroom never hurt anyone.

 

[axletramp]

Seriously? Have you seen their butts?!

 

[BobK]

A little monkeying around in the bedroom never hurt anyone.

Until her husband comes home...

 

[Brett]

Interesting and valid points... but the pictures in my head!

Until her husband comes home...

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Well this all escalated quickly.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Until her husband comes home...

Hey he's free to join the party if he wants.👍

Well this all escalated quickly.

That happened about 407 pages ago.

 

[SirAlanClive]

Jesus....why do you guys bother reasoning with these (creationist) people - they don't deserve it. Unless it's for the intellectual athletics (Famine ). I say leave 'em to it. But I think the thread title should have been Creation v. Science.

 

[PeterJB]

Jesus....why do you guys bother reasoning with these (creationist) people - they don't deserve it. Unless it's for the intellectual athletics (Famine ). I say leave 'em to it. But I think the thread title should have been Creation v. Science.

Creationism isn't an affront to the entirety of scientific theory, only evolutionary theory.

 

[Famine]

Since it's a wholly unscientific discipline, dressing faith up as science, it's an affront to both the entirety of faith and the entirety of science.

 

[PeterJB]

Since it's a wholly unscientific discipline, dressing faith up as science, it's an affront to both the entirety of faith and the entirety of science.

My point was being a creationist doesn't lead you to deny everything science has to say, only what it says on evolution.

 

[SirAlanClive]

Since it's a wholly unscientific discipline, dressing faith up as science, it's an affront to both the entirety of faith and the entirety of science.

Thank you. My point entirely.
Creationists use unscientific methods to promote their opinions and thus undermine the culture of reason.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

My point was being a creationist doesn't lead you to deny everything science has to say, only what it says on evolution.

And the age of the universe, and how it came to be. Can't forget those.

 

[Famine]

My point was being a creationist doesn't lead you to deny everything science has to say, only what it says on evolution.

The problem is you can't cherry pick like that.

Science isn't unsuitable for things when you don't like the answer it gives. The same methods, criteria, tolerances and standards underpin evolutionary science as underpin medical science. The statement that we - and all of our primate cousins - evolved from earlier forms of hominid life is as factual as it gets. It's no less of a fact than those that govern and lead to the invention of the television, the computer, the car, antibiotics, modern food (and food production methods), lighting, heating, running water (and waste removal), roads, bridges, houses ... [list continues for a while] ... and the internet - which, incidentally, was a byproduct of the particle physics work at CERN that people find so theoretical and useless.

Rejecting that as a fact is delusional. Rejecting it as a fact because you don't like it is delusional arrogance. Rejecting it as a fact because you don't like it, while accepting other facts of equal standing is hyprocritical, delusional arrogance. Rejecting it as a fact because you don't like it, while accepting other facts of equal standing, replacing it with a completely fabricated "alternative" should be classed as insanity, not "Creation Science".

If you have faith, have faith. Faith stands alone, separate to fact. Don't pretend facts don't exist and paste faith over it as a substitute, because you're not only denying - and insulting - facts and the fact gathering process, you're denying your own faith - and insulting others who share that faith set - by pretending it's evidence-based.


Every time someone tries to present evidence for faith, they're insulting the natures of faith and evidence. If they've made it up, it's just that little bit worse because neither culture tolerates liars.

 

[Bye Ya]

The statement that we - and all of our primate cousins - evolved from earlier forms of hominid life is as factual as it gets.

Is it? Then why is it still called the "theory" of evolution? I'm not trying to back up creationism, btw.

 

[DQuaN]

This has been posted many many times. Theory is not what you think it is. A theory is regarded higher than fact.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment".

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

 

[Famine]

"Theory" is a specific scientific word that means "Explanation for all known facts and observations". It's not the same as the common use word that means "Guess/Idea" - that'd be hypothesis.

The fact that we - and our other primate cousins - evolved from earlier forms of hominid life is simply one of the facts that any theory of evolution has to explain.


And today it's DQuaN's turn to tree me

 

[Barra333]

It is a theory in the same way that gravity and other physical forces are theories. The term theory is used a little differently in science.
----
urgh, beaten to it twice

 

[niky]

Is it? Then why is it still called the "theory" of evolution? I'm not trying to back up creationism, btw.

Because that's as high as any scientific assertion gets.

A "law" is a mathematical description of physical phenomena.

A "theory" explains why this happens.

People keep citing Newton's "Law of Gravity", but broken down into plain language, all it tells us is that things attract each other in a specific way. No discussion as to why they do or what mechanism is involved.

In fact, Newton's "Law" doesn't hold true in all cases... it's ever so slightly wrong. So it's not really Universal. General Relativity is more accurate, but we still call that one a "Theory".

 

[Zenith]

Is it? Then why is it still called the "theory" of evolution? I'm not trying to back up creationism, btw.

For the same reason it is called The Theory of Gravitation.

 

[Bye Ya]

This has been posted many many times.

I hate when people do this. I'm supposed to hang out in this thread and know this? I'm supposed to spend how much time tracking this down by searching because I'm not allowed to re-ask a question that's pertinent to the discussion?


Also, so is something like dark matter not also called a theory then, because it seems to be a 'best guess' explanation. Are you suggesting that all scientific theories are equal?

 

[ScouserInExile]

I hate when people do this. I'm supposed to hang out in this thread and know this? I'm supposed to spend how much time tracking this down by searching because I'm not allowed to re-ask a question that's pertinent to the discussion?

It's also a little bit of a "why is the sky blue?" question. Anyone with an ounce of sense will either already know - it being fairly common knowledge - or will find out without much difficulty.

Anyone without an ounce of common sense will just say "because (a) god made it blue".

 

[Scaff]

I hate when people do this. I'm supposed to hang out in this thread and know this? I'm supposed to spend how much time tracking this down by searching because I'm not allowed to re-ask a question that's pertinent to the discussion?

You may have a point had this very discussion not have taken place within the last few pages and been provided with the information (that you then didn't quote).

Also, so is something like dark matter not also called a theory then, because it seems to be a 'best guess' explanation. Are you suggesting that all scientific theories are equal?

No because the existence of Dark Matter is a hypothesis....

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.[1] Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the total energy density (with almost all the rest being dark energy).[2]

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

[wfooshee]

I hate when people do this. I'm supposed to hang out in this thread and know this?

Well, yes. You should know the terminology of any discussion in which you participate. How can you participate when you don't know what words mean?

That would be no different than trying to find a bathroom in a foreign country with no English speakers nearby. Two completely different sets of words and no information being exchanged.

 

[Bye Ya]

No because the existence of Dark Matter is a hypothesis....

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Ok, cool.

Well, yes. You should know the terminology of any discussion in which you participate. How can you participate when you don't know what words mean?

By asking questions regarding the terminology?