Creation vs. Evolution

[TRLWNC7396]

I think this can go into the first post:

I don't have a problem with what is said here.

The problem I have is that when it comes from a teacher in a school, it is typically TAKEN as fact.

Then, not allowing a counterpoint (teaching religious understanding (not saying to teach A religion, but religious understanding)) is not fair to EITHER side.

This is why the "church and state" argument to me is pointless. If you don't embrace what is there, how do you know what is good (or bad) about it?

Mind, I'm not saying that I want to learn about the details of the occult. I'm just saying that knowing how "Christians", "Muslims", "Hebrews" ("Jews"), "Buddhists", etc. feel about their religion is valuable. That way, evolution can be approached from a balanced perspective of "this is how THEY feel about what they are saying".

Rather than the current (US) problem of "This is what we say. Listen or else." nonsense.....

 

[TenEightyOne]

not allowing a counterpoint (teaching religious understanding (not saying to teach A religion, but religious understanding)) is not fair to EITHER side.

That poster doesn't exclude any other views though, just clarifies some.

 

[Famine]

I don't have a problem with what is said here.

The problem I have is that when it comes from a teacher in a school, it is typically TAKEN as fact.

Then, not allowing a counterpoint (teaching religious understanding (not saying to teach A religion, but religious understanding)) is not fair to EITHER side.

This is why the "church and state" argument to me is pointless. If you don't embrace what is there, how do you know what is good (or bad) about it?

Mind, I'm not saying that I want to learn about the details of the occult. I'm just saying that knowing how "Christians", "Muslims", "Hebrews" ("Jews"), "Buddhists", etc. feel about their religion is valuable. That way, evolution can be approached from a balanced perspective of "this is how THEY feel about what they are saying".

Rather than the current (US) problem of "This is what we say. Listen or else." nonsense.....

Why would that be taught in a science class?

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Hmmm... yeah. But, at the same time, the thought of evolution is treated like a religion by some...

 

[Liquid]

It simply is not.

 

[Touring Mars]

Then, not allowing a counterpoint (teaching religious understanding (not saying to teach A religion, but religious understanding)) is not fair to EITHER side.

That is what RE class is for, not science class. It is not the job of a science teacher to teach anything from the Bible, the Qu'ran or any other religious text. Should children learn about these things? Of course. But should evolutionary theory be taught alongside biblical creationism in the interest of fairness? Absolutely not.

Saying that science teachers are not allowed to present a counterpoint is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is - a proper understanding of any current scientific theory requires that one understands how that theory has been arrived at, which necessarily involves due consideration for the alternatives as well as the evidence that shows why these alternatives are not correct. Creationists demand the former but steadfastly refuse to accept the latter.... how's that for balance?

Continuing to teach something that is known to be false is wrong, plain and simple. By all means allow some discussion of creationism, but it should be presented in the proper context and called for what it is i.e. not a true scientific theory.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Well, I agree with you to a point. To me, Evolution is just another step in our history. Why is it being taught as "science" only.

Not saying it doesn't have its place-we all evolve to an extent over the course of our lives.

But teaching it AS science only, and not as another place marker in history.... Hmmm.... That to me is a disparity.

 

[huskeR32]

...Then, not allowing a counterpoint (teaching religious understanding (not saying to teach A religion, but religious understanding)) is not fair to EITHER side.

This is why the "church and state" argument to me is pointless. If you don't embrace what is there, how do you know what is good (or bad) about it?...

...I'm just saying that knowing how "Christians", "Muslims", "Hebrews" ("Jews"), "Buddhists", etc. feel about their religion is valuable. That way, evolution can be approached from a balanced perspective of "this is how THEY feel about what they are saying"...

It's already been noted that evolution is science, and that religions very much aren't, so let's skip over that and address this "balanced" approach that you're promoting.

Mind, I'm not saying that I want to learn about the details of the occult.

Huh. That didn't take long. What happened to being "balanced" and hearing all possible views?

Advocating for the teaching of no religions is far more balanced than insisting that we teach only a handful of them which meet some arbitrary criteria making them worthy of discussion.

Rather than the current (US) problem of "This is what we say. Listen or else." nonsense.....

Are you seriously suggesting that in the United States, those advocating the removing of religion from the classroom are even remotely close to the majority, let alone some sort of totalitarian ruling class? Get real.

----------

Well, I agree with you to a point. To me, Evolution is just another step in our history.

Our history of figuring things out, so that we don't have to rely on superstition and made-up stuff anymore?

Why is it being taught as "science" only.

I'm not sure I'm following your question here (if it's even a question, seems to be missing something important) but I think there's two possible things you're getting at:

1. Between evolution and creation, why is evolution the only one being taught as science?

Or

2. Why is evolution presented as being strictly a scientific study, not as a belief system like religion is?

If you meant the first one, then it's simple - it's the only one that is science. If you meant the second one, it's again simple - the theory of evolution is backed up by an enormous amount of credible objective data. No belief is required to know that it's true.

Not saying it doesn't have its place-we all evolve to an extent over the course of our lives.

What a staggering misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution tells us.

But teaching it AS science only...

Looks like the second interpretation of your above question is the correct one. In which case, you seriously need to read up on the amount of evidence that supports evolution. And then you need to have a nice long talk with yourself about how little evidence religion has to support it. Then come back and tell us why they should be taught along side each other in a place that is meant to teach critical thinking and equip the next generation for the task of finding out more about this world/universe we live in.

...and not as another place marker in history.... Hmmm.... That to me is a disparity.

I have no idea what you mean by "another place marker in history?"

I mean, if the theory of evolution marks anything in our history, it marks a point at which we found out about one of the most influential and significant things we now know about life on Earth. It represents a staggering amount of knowledge about how living things come about, and how they go away. If you count every species on this planet, both extinct and extant, and all of the points at which those species diverged from each other and slowly became the organisms that we know today, all of the times that it has predicted the existence of species that we have gone on to find evidence of... If you take all of that together, the theory of evolution clearly emerges as one of the most oft-tested and well-supported theories we have.

Of course, if that's what you meant when you were talking about it's place in history, then your entire post makes no sense at all. So the question is begged, what did you mean? What on earth are you trying to get at?

 

[Famine]

Well, I agree with you to a point. To me, Evolution is just another step in our history. Why is it being taught as "science" only.

What a bizarre question.

"Science" is the study and pursuit of knowledge through objective means. I'm not sure where the "only" comes into it, since pretty much your entire life is possible only as a result of science.

Evolutionary theory is one of those areas of study. Evolutionary theory is science. What would you prefer it to be taught as if not science?

 

[Imari]

Hmmm... yeah. But, at the same time, the thought of evolution is treated like a religion by some...

If it is, then they're doing it wrong, just as fundamentalists are doing religion wrong by flying planes into buildings.

Evolution is the best explanation available for a set of observed facts, a fact in this case being an objective piece of evidence. That's it. It may and likely will change tomorrow, but probably not in a major way because that would require everything we have observed to this point to be completely wrong.

This is all science classes actually attempt to get across; the current best explanations for certain observations, and what those observations were and why they make sense.

There are also certain techniques for how to best avoid bias and approach your work in a clear, methodical manner, but those tend to be picked up rather than explicitly explained, at least at lower levels. If you go on to higher level study then the techniques for making sure that your work is highly reproduceable, statistically valid and non-biased become much more important than when you're messing around making hydrogen go pop in high school.

Not saying it doesn't have its place-we all evolve to an extent over the course of our lives.

No, we don't.

Evolution is the selection mechanism by which characteristics are passed between generations. Any adaptation that an individual makes during it's own lifetime is not strictly evolution, although some laypeople might use that word to describe it. I'll be honest, I don't know what the correct term for adaptation that an individual makes during it's own lifetime is, but it's probably "adaptation to (insert thing here)".

 

[Griffith500]

Isn't that where memetics comes in? As in, the "cultural equivalent" of genetics, or whatever. It's about information transfer outside of genetic material (which itself is information transfer), and has contributed to survival and "extinction" (e.g. collapse of civilisations) in our history in much the same way as genetics has, generally, based on the same idea of "fitness" to our environment.

It's sometimes thought that our stubbornness to adapt our behavior, despite the fact that we are both conscious of outside pressures and understand their ramifications, is our greatest threat to survival, but that's probably way off topic now.

 

[zzz_pt]

Hmmm... yeah. But, at the same time, the thought of evolution is treated like a religion by some...

Yes. By religious ignorant people.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Okay, let me put it this way: The acknowledgment of science is a part of our history. Teaching it as a part of history FIRST would make more sense to me. Just as teaching the elements of religions would make more sense to me. After all, this video shows what all religions boil down to to begin with:

http://io9.com/george-lucas-explains-what-star-wars-means-1651484814

I fully agree with the statement that "life is about getting along and being good to each other" (basically) that he says. Religion fills that place in many lives, as a way of saying "This way works best, so I'll continue it."

I'm not so sure that teaching people evolution to the point of following it blindly is anything less than planned. It's a way to detract and distract from the other concepts that are out there.

If it gets approached from another angle, evolution is brought in as "here is the theory", and it isn't quite the same as the "This is how it happened."

Yes, we do evolve. It ends up being more adaptation than major changes. There is the level of choice. We do have a choice in many cases. Does that change the fact that I (and you) have learned and change or "evolved" into what we are today?

This has mostly been a matter of need. We all "need" to be following our path in life. That choice has led us to change and become a different (and in some cases different type) of person. Not saying to change our skin or sex orientation, but a kind person to a less kind or vice-versa type of thing.

 

[Famine]

Okay, let me put it this way: The acknowledgment of science is a part of our history. Teaching it as a part of history FIRST would make more sense to me.

Why would teaching the scientific method be a part of teaching history?

Do you think evolutionary theory is all in the past?

I'm not so sure that teaching people evolution to the point of following it blindly is anything less than planned. It's a way to detract and distract from the other concepts that are out there.

If it gets approached from another angle, evolution is brought in as "here is the theory", and it isn't quite the same as the "This is how it happened."

Well... it is. "Theory" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Theory is an explanation for all known facts, laws, processes and observations. Theory is above "this is how it happened" because theory explains the occurrence and the processes behind it.

I have no idea what you mean by teaching it "to the point of following it blindly". The entire point of the scientific process is the exact opposite of that. You don't follow it blindly - you see what other people have done and try to prove them wrong.

This is clearly why it needs to be taught in science lessons rather than history or religious education.

Yes, we do evolve. It ends up being more adaptation than major changes. There is the level of choice. We do have a choice in many cases. Does that change the fact that I (and you) have learned and change or "evolved" into what we are today?

This has mostly been a matter of need. We all "need" to be following our path in life. That choice has led us to change and become a different (and in some cases different type) of person. Not saying to change our skin or sex orientation, but a kind person to a less kind or vice-versa type of thing.

The evolutionary process occurs at the genetic level and affects species, not individuals.

The process of individual learning is "learning". The process of losing our appendix function or tail is evolution.

 

[Imari]

I'm not so sure that teaching people evolution to the point of following it blindly is anything less than planned. It's a way to detract and distract from the other concepts that are out there.

The whole point of science is to teach people not to follow anything blindly. It's a method of approaching problem solving, that's all.

Science "class" may be a little different, but that's an issue with science classes and not science itself.

If it gets approached from another angle, evolution is brought in as "here is the theory", and it isn't quite the same as the "This is how it happened."

Again, don't confuse bad teachers or teachers under pressure from the school system with a failure of the scientific method.

Given enough time, any science teacher will gladly explain the observations that were made that were not compatible with prior theories and why evolution is the best explanation that humanity has been able to come up with so far for those observations. Any scientist will gladly explain, although you'd be better off reading your way through the relevant Wiki pages first and then coming back with questions about what you don't understand.

Yes, we do evolve. It ends up being more adaptation than major changes. There is the level of choice. We do have a choice in many cases. Does that change the fact that I (and you) have learned and change or "evolved" into what we are today?

Be careful with your language.

As I explained above, there's a tendency for laypeople to use "evolve" in the manner you just have, but that's not what a scientist means when they say "evolve", nor is it considered a part of the theory of evolution.

You will find both these definitions in the dictionary if you look it up, because the dictionary includes casual speech. Hence why it also contains "words" like "lol". From a purely scientific standpoint, there is a definition of evolution which means the change in inherited characteristics between generations.

If you want to continue to use the word "evolve" to mean this second thing as well, then you need a way to signal to others which of the two meanings you intend. This is why scientists are (or should be) very careful with which words they use when they speak.

This has mostly been a matter of need. We all "need" to be following our path in life. That choice has led us to change and become a different (and in some cases different type) of person. Not saying to change our skin or sex orientation, but a kind person to a less kind or vice-versa type of thing.

These are not evolution in the way that a scientist would describe it. If you want to call it evolution then fine, but be aware that just because you mis-use the word in this way doesn't mean that this particular meaning is part of the theory of evolution. It isn't.

If you want to debate the theory of evolution, you need to understand at least roughly what is meant by that theory. That means understanding what it does and doesn't say, and it doesn't say what you've just outlined. Otherwise you're just going to be throwing up straw men, whether you intend to or not, and wasting everyone's time explaining to you why you're not even wrong.

If there are things you don't understand, ask instead of making general assumptions. At least then people can point you to resources that you can educate yourself with, and once you understand the current state of play you'll be in a position to sensibly debate whether it's really correct.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Yes, the scientific method is a good thing. I am not discounting it. It is a wonderful tool to prove the things that we use, need and develop.

Yes, I used the term "evolution" loosely. Doesn't change my feelings on it. I am a VASTLY different person than I was several years ago. That change was NOT due to need on the outside or in my environment. It was based on my wish and desire to be a better person. So, I "evolved" into something else. Adapt just doesn't fit that process. Shrug....

So evolution is a theory. So what. I appreciate it for what it is. That doesn't mean I believe it.

Those who have learned and educated themselves beyond the "They said so" realm are very powerful people. However, how many people bother to get to that point?

I'm not saying you are wrong in saying that some DO learn. I'm saying most people are too lazy to try. So they stay at the "They said so" level. THAT becomes a dangerous event and process that typically manipulates and misleads people.

 

[Imari]

Yes, I used the term "evolution" loosely. Doesn't change my feelings on it. I am a VASTLY different person than I was several years ago. That change was NOT due to need on the outside or in my environment. It was based on my wish and desire to be a better person. So, I "evolved" into something else. Adapt just doesn't fit that process. Shrug....

You're saying that your feelings about "evolution" as a means of personal progression are what drive your feelings about evolution as a method of explaining how species adapt to the environment?

That makes absolutely no sense at all. How about acknowledging that there's two different things going on here that you happen to call by the same name, and address your position for each of them separately?

So evolution is a theory. So what. I appreciate it for what it is. That doesn't mean I believe it.

Le sigh.

Theories do not require belief. Either you agree that it's the best explanation for the facts available, or you do not. If you do not, you likely have some reason for doing so which you can share with the class.

Otherwise you're going down the creationist route, where they've decided their conclusion in advance.

Those who have learned and educated themselves beyond the "They said so" realm are very powerful people. However, how many people bother to get to that point?

What does it matter how many people get to that point? Some do, and some of them are here talking to you. You can either treat everyone as if they have no idea, or you can actually accept that there are some people who at least have the ability to think independently and engage in conversation.

I'm not saying you are wrong in saying that some DO learn. I'm saying most people are too lazy to try. So they stay at the "They said so" level. THAT becomes a dangerous event and process that typically manipulates and misleads people.

That seems like a problem with most people being lazy, rather than a criticism of evolution or any particular scientific theory.

I know of no way to make people take interest. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink, and all that.

I don't think it's fair to judge evolution on the fact that some people choose not to learn about it, just as I don't think it's fair to judge religion by the fanatics that misinterpret things and go shoot up a school. There's outliers in every field of life.

If you want to debate evolution, then debate evolution. Not the foibles of those who may or may not know what they're talking about.

==========

So, why don't we start with a short description of evolution as you understand it, and your position on it. I'm sure it's in what you've typed already, but it's probably easier and clearer for everyone to have it in one place and labelled clearly.

Then we can establish that we're actually talking about the same things when we say "evolutionary theory", find the points of difference and discuss them. At the moment you're wandering into the realms of debating definitions of words which never goes very well.

If you want to talk about personal evolution (which seems to be your own definition of evolution), then I rather think you're in the wrong thread.

 

[wfooshee]

Yes, the scientific method is a good thing. I am not discounting it. It is a wonderful tool to prove the things that we use, need and develop.

The Scientific Method doesn't try to prove anything. It tries to disprove. Only by testing the concepts against contradicting concepts, incorporating new findings as they appear, can knowledge be advanced. Try to disprove something, and the more difficult it becomes to disprove, the more likely it is to be the correct explanation.

That does not lend credibility to the statement "Well, then, disprove Creation! You can't can you?" Well, maybe not, but you can't test it, either. Stating a "fact" and saying "This must be true," is ..... philosophy? Religion? Politics?

Yes, I used the term "evolution" loosely. Doesn't change my feelings on it. I am a VASTLY different person than I was several years ago. That change was NOT due to need on the outside or in my environment. It was based on my wish and desire to be a better person. So, I "evolved" into something else. Adapt just doesn't fit that process. Shrug....

You didn't "evolve." There is nothing different about your physicality before and after your "wish," nor did you produce any offspring during that time with some mutation that may prove advantageous over time. Nothing in the change of your thought processes affected the human genome in any way whatsoever.

A change in ideals is not "evolution."

So evolution is a theory. So what. I appreciate it for what it is. That doesn't mean I believe it.

So you've completely skipped over the responses above about what the word "Theory" means in science......

Those who have learned and educated themselves beyond the "They said so" realm are very powerful people. However, how many people bother to get to that point?

Anybody with a degree, or even many with only a diploma???

I'm not saying you are wrong in saying that some DO learn. I'm saying most people are too lazy to try. So they stay at the "They said so" level. THAT becomes a dangerous event and process that typically manipulates and misleads people.

There is something to this, I think. The refusal to accept something that contradicts your "knowledge" despite all the evidence available is something I've called willful ignorance. See:

That doesn't mean I believe it.

"They said so" is something you're trying to apply to people who read and learn, but have no original thinking or questioning. Trivia buffs, maybe. It most aptly applies, though, to followers of religious teaching, as in "This is what it says here, therefore it is True!"

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Okay, let me work on that. I'll try to get it up by this evening.

 

[TheCracker]

Yes, I used the term "evolution" loosely. Doesn't change my feelings on it. I am a VASTLY different person than I was several years ago. That change was NOT due to need on the outside or in my environment. It was based on my wish and desire to be a better person. So, I "evolved" into something else. Adapt just doesn't fit that process. Shrug....

'Evolving' and 'the process of evolution' as in the Theory of Evolution are not the same thing. A Mitsubishi Evolution IV has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution either

Your use of the word 'evolve' could be substituted by the words 'grow', 'mature', 'advance' or any other words that mean the same.

Your own 'evolving' is a process of you improving your character. It's a proactive thought process brought on by your own wants and needs, not a passive biological process brought on necessity.

Those who have learned and educated themselves beyond the "They said so" realm are very powerful people. However, how many people bother to get to that point?

I'm not saying you are wrong in saying that some DO learn. I'm saying most people are too lazy to try. So they stay at the "They said so" level. THAT becomes a dangerous event and process that typically manipulates and misleads people.

Are you talking about science or religion here? Because to me what you are describing sounds a lot more like how religion is taught than how scientific knowledge is used.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

'Evolving' and 'the process of evolution' as in the Theory of Evolution are not the same thing. A Mitsubishi Evolution IV has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution either

Your use of the word 'evolve' could be substituted by the words 'grow', 'mature', 'advance' or any other words that mean the same.

Yes, I realize that, and admitted to using it loosely. Technicality of personal interpretation...

[/QUOTE]Your own 'evolving' is a process of you improving your character. It's a proactive thought process brought on by your own wants and needs, not a passive biological process brought on necessity.



Are you talking about science or religion here? Because to me what you are describing sounds a lot more like how religion is taught than how scientific knowledge is used.[/QUOTE]

But, that's the question: Who is being taught, and how?

I'm working on a long response. It's going to take a bit....

 

[Famine]

Yes, I realize that, and admitted to using it loosely. Technicality of personal interpretation...

Yes, but in a thread whose core topic is the nonsense creationist model of the modern existence of life on Earth vs Evolutionary Theory, it doesn't really suit anyone to talk about their self-improvement as evolution.

 

[GTsail]

****The process of losing our appendix function is evolution.

In an effort to speed up the evolutionary process and looking for a GT6 speed edge, I've had my appendix removed:idea:


Can't say that I've noticed any speed advantage

Maybe it will take until GT7 before I will see any improved lap times.


GTsail (stg 1 weight reduction)

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Okay, here is my long answer. It is long, I took up about three pages in my word processor. Also, sorry to take so long, but I have a life...

I feel that evolution is looked at from the wrong angle.

To say that Creation or Evolution is the be-all, end-all is rather wrong. There has to be a balance of everything, and throwing one side or the other off makes the teeter-totter a rather steep and slippery slope.

I'm not going to argue for one or the other to be completely correct, but I do feel we started with creation, and evolution has happened due to mankind's manipulation or other environmental factors causing manipulation since then.

A simple example showing human manipulation is the classic case of the “natural selection” of the moths in the trees in England. Before the industrial revolution, most were white, as were the trees. Once coal dust began covering everything, they rather quickly went through an almost genocide. But, enough survived that the black ones took over. Since then (haven’t checked, but surely someone in England can verify), there has been a lot less soot in the air, and the white ones have probably taken over again.

This was (an accidental) manipulation of a species. There have been other manipulations that have happened. An easy one is looking at how many breeds of domesticated cats, dogs, and horses there are. I rather doubt we started with ALL of them.

There are, also, geographical evolutions. Look at how many squirrels there are. I wonder how much of a change has happened due to mountains coming up or land masses splitting?

Not to say that that is the be-all, end-all, either. I have seen gray and white squirrels within 10 miles of my house. (And maybe red, but I don’t look real close.) Why are those ALL in the Appalachian Mountains of Western NC? I sure don’t know! If geological changes CAUSE evolution, why are they not ALL gray or white? That’s an entirely different discussion for another time.

So, here’s one that I CAN put up: There are fire ants in the US. They were introduced sometime in the last 200 years or so by sailors who used sand as ballast, and dumped the sand when they got back. And there were ants in the sand…. When they first got here, they were acclimated to the more equatorial climate. However some survived, and they are now as far north as northern SC. I know, because I have spoken with people who live there and are dealing with them.

In this cooler climate, are they a new species? No, but…. They have evolved and adapted to being in the cooler climate. I would like to see someone compare the genetics of these northern ants with ones that are still at the equator (or, even better, a sample from pre-1900’s, if that were possible). I can pretty much guarantee that there will be a difference. Don’t know how much, and it’s only been 200 or so years, so it probably won’t be incredibly drastic. But there will be a difference, as they are now a (somewhat) cooler climate animal.

Now I have a question: What CAUSES evolution? If it is ALWAYS based on need to adapt, and powered by natural selection, how long does it take?

How about I answer that by putting up an idea:

Let’s say we want to force an evolution. We have seen this happen, and we understand the way to document it. For a “breed” of an animal to be established, a dog (or cat or horse) needs to be consistent in its breeding for 30-50 years ( https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081031224839AA22rXH ). So, let’s look at that from a different angle:

I would like to breed a dog to become a cat. Not that I hope this happens (eew!), but just for the argument. Aside from looking and acting like one, the following three things must happen:

1) The two animals must WANT to breed. And I’m not talking with themselves, or in that breed. I’m talking bring in ANY cat and have it want to breed with THIS “species”.

2) The female MUST become pregnant from the male.

3) The children MUST be viable. The old half-breed problem comes in here, as in when you breed a donkey and a horse, you get a sterile mule.

In 50-200 years, I’m sure we can get the looking and acting down pretty well. To an extent.

But, the other 3? How long would that take? Even if we forced the breeding? Now, I’m sure we could genetically alter this “species” to work, but that would be cheating, and would destroy this experiment. I only want male to female reproduction here.

Could it happen?

How about I take this from yet another angle:

Let’s ask this: If a dog is what it is, what would cause it to NEED to become a cat?

And, if that need arose, would it be slow enough to allow the gradual adaptation vs just killing them off before they could adapt?

How long are we talking here? We can say that the earth has been around for 4-billion years or more. Okay, I’ll accept that. But…

I want to know how many TRILLION we would need for this process to occur all on its own via natural selection.

Why do I think it would take that long?

Here are two experiments to consider:

First experiment:

Take two hollow spheres with a threaded opening. Put in an equal number of equally sized items in each one of two different colors (50 black, 50 white marbles for simplicity in this argument). Connect them with a tube that will allow some to pass through to each side. Put them on a motorized mount, and power the motor to spin the device. Run it slow enough that some will fall through to the other side each time one of the spheres passes over the top.

There is a calculation out there that will easily say the following: If X number of marbles fall through each time, then after X number of revolutions, the number of black and white marbles in each side will be within 95 (or so) percent of 25 black and 25 white. This is an easy calculation, and shouldn’t cause anyone any overt stress to consider. Simple statistics.

But….

What is the calculation that says how many revolutions will be needed to get (to be nice, even within 95% again) of 50 Black and 50 white in each sphere?

Is there one?

Wouldn’t it take an outside force stopping the motor, opening the spheres and physically separating the marbles to have this occur?

Okay, so that would be difficult without outside intervention. Not sure it’s NOT possible, but even THAT might be a bit of a stretch.

Second experiment:

Take 10 coins (pennies are cheap, so I’ll go with those). Number them sequentially. (0-9 or 1-10 or 5,10,15, etc. Whatever you want. Just don’t repeat any.)

Put them in a cup, then put on a blindfold and shake them a bit (keeping them in the cup… ).

Then, reach into the cup and pull them out in order from the lowest to highest in 10 tries. As in, #1 first, followed by #2, followed by #3, etc….

Can you do it?

What are the statistical probabilities of this being possible?

Again, this would be difficult. It IS possible, but it seems it would be more likely for someone to be struck by lightning 5 times.

These two experiments show that things coming together on their own and being organized on their own is a bit of a stretch.

Let’s take something fairly simple as a different example. There are three layers of smooth muscle in the human stomach. (http://www.innerbody.com/image_digeov/dige11-new.html ) They mash and manipulate the food, then move it to the small intestine. Along with everything else that is going on. What are the statistical probabilities of those three layers (setting aside becoming muscle and lining themselves up correctly, as well as everything else that goes on) coming together to work like that?

But, the theory of evolution says it happened. So, again, here is my earlier question: Why and how?

If evolution is based on adaptation, what was the NEED to evolve? Or, to go back and look at my other argument, why would a dog NEED to be a cat? It’s perfectly fine in its environment and how it lives. Why would it NEED to be a cat?

And, if it did suddenly NEED to, what were the conditions required that would force it, not to mention allow it, to do so? And, again, could/would that happen slowly enough to NOT kill off the species before it evolved?

On top of all of that, what is the time frame we are looking at? If we forced an evolution (the dog to cat question) and it took many, many millennia to get viable reproduction, then how did evolution “just happen” by itself? The laws of nature and selection show that things fall apart, not come together or be in order, so, how?

Could this have taken ONLY billions of years? Why not Trillions, Quadrillions, or more? I’m a little stuck on the speed that evolution is said to happen with. That part just doesn’t sit well with me when I consider the above two experiments and the question of need.

This is why I agree with creation giving us a starting point, but also agree that evolution (and mankind’s dominion) has taken it from there.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So why do you choose a cat and a dog to breed? Because you group them similarly (regardless of their respective roots amongst those of chickens and wolves)?

Evolution can happen with a few lifecycles of an organism, that is to say hours.

Ebola is a good example of evolutionary mutation in action.

 

[TheCracker]

A dog and a cat are bad examples. They both evolved from a common ancestor. You can't just reverse this and devolve back to the original ancestor then head down a more feline direction. They're also both prime examples of domestication and selective breeding which muddies the waters with natural evolution. All dogs now, from Great Danes to Pugs, can trace their ancestry back to a single 'breed' of dog of only a few thousand years ago. All the variations of dogs now come down to selective breeding due to human intervention. Same goes for domestic cats, but to a much lesser extent. A Great Dane and a pug may appear to be much more diverse in appearance to the horse and donkey you mentioned, but looks aside, they are still essentially exactly the same animal, where as a donkey and a horse are just closely related, yet distinctly different animals.

*edit* a donkey and a horse mating is like a human and a chimp mating. A Great Dane and a pug mating is like a freakishly tall black man and a stunted-growth Asian lady mating - they're still both humans and can naturally produce healthy offspring.

You seem to be talking about experiments in selective breeding, which is a deliberate bending of nature to turn A into B. This isn't evolution.

A dog doesn't need to evolve into a cat. But if circumstances lead to particular naturally occurring genetic mutations making particular dogs more suitable to survive a certain environment, then they'll thrive and their ancestors will eventually all inherit those mutations too. Millions of years down the line and you have a distinctively different dog to what you started off with. It's about surviving and genetically adapting to what nature throws at you as a species.

 

[Scaff]

To say that Creation or Evolution is the be-all, end-all is rather wrong. There has to be a balance of everything, and throwing one side or the other off makes the teeter-totter a rather steep and slippery slope.

Sorry but no it doesn't have to be a balance of everything.

If you have no evidence at all to support a hypothesis (Creationism) then it doesn't carry equal weight/balance to a theory (of whatever) that is supported by thousand upon thousands of points of data that has been peer reviewed, subject to falsafiability, etc.

If you have no supporting evidence for a hypothesis then it carries no 'weight' at all, zero, nada. Present some for creationism to a solid standard, get it peer reviewed (collect you nobel prize and collect £200 as you pass go) and I will accept the point you make, until then, no.

 

[niky]

Okay, here is my long answer. It is long, I took up about three pages in my word processor. Also, sorry to take so long, but I have a life...

I feel that evolution is looked at from the wrong angle.

To say that Creation or Evolution is the be-all, end-all is rather wrong. There has to be a balance of everything, and throwing one side or the other off makes the teeter-totter a rather steep and slippery slope.

Fallacy. The idea that there should always be a counterpoint doesn't work. Do you also believe that we can't simply have 2+2=4 or 2+2 = God... we have to have a balance? Why?

I'm not going to argue for one or the other to be completely correct, but I do feel we started with creation, and evolution has happened due to mankind's manipulation or other environmental factors causing manipulation since then.

At what point does creation stop?

Now I have a question: What CAUSES evolution? If it is ALWAYS based on need to adapt, and powered by natural selection, how long does it take?

For it to take a finite amount of time, creatures have to stop evolving completely. They don't.

How about I answer that by putting up an idea:

I would like to breed a dog to become a cat.

A breed is not a species. Breeds are defined by physiological factors. Granted, breeds tend to... breed... true. But they can still reproduce with other breeds. A species cannot breed with other species. Horses and donkeys and zebras are regarded as separate species, but they are incompletely speciated... meaning they can still breed with each other, but the offspring are typically mules, they can't reproduce.

-

What you're describing is cross-breeding. Which doesn't work between species, especially not from different families. This has nothing to do with speciation.

How about I take this from yet another angle:

Let’s ask this: If a dog is what it is, what would cause it to NEED to become a cat?

-----

I want to know how many TRILLION we would need for this process to occur all on its own via natural selection.

-----

These two experiments show that things coming together on their own and being organized on their own is a bit of a stretch.

It's a good thing dogs aren't marbles.

Organic molecules became organic for a reason, they possess chemical and physical properties (the geometries and shapes of the molecules themselves) that lend themselves to self-organization.

This is like asking how many trillions of years it would take for water to form into snowflakes.

The laws of nature and selection show that things fall apart, not come together or be in order, so, how?

Could this have taken ONLY billions of years? Why not Trillions, Quadrillions, or more? I’m a little stuck on the speed that evolution is said to happen with. That part just doesn’t sit well with me when I consider the above two experiments and the question of need.

A lack of understanding does not negate the process. It just signifies a lack of understanding. There are numerous dissertations available online hypothesizing how complex structures evolved. It'll pay to read them, as that's beyond the scope of this thread.

As has been explained to you, evolution happens continuously. Speciation has occurred within the human lifetime... within our lifetimes... and is still occuring, thanks to the high speed of bacterial reproduction.

Darwin has shown examples of physical adaptation occurring in larger creatures over short time spans in the Galapagos islands. This is not speciation, note. This is the development of new breeds. These breeds only become species when enough genetic changes occur for them to not be able to breed with other sub-breeds of the species.

Also... a billion years is a lot of years.

Written human history covers a mere three hundred or so generations. In which time we've grown from (possibly) under a million humans into several billion.

A billion years is about fifty million or more human generations (disclaimer: Humans haven't been around nearly that long). And trillions of bacterial generations. I think we've had enough time.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

So, you've given me concrete answers.

Please answer the open-ended why.

 

[niky]

The open-ended "why not trillions" is based on false premises.It assumes that the process of speciation and adaptation have a beginning and an end-point. They don't.

As for the "need"... there is no "need." You're assuming this is a guided process. It isn't. Whatever species manages to survive long enough to reproduce, doesn't eat itself out of a food supply, and doesn't get killed off in one of the many disasters that occassionally occur on this planet, survives. Any genetic changes which increase the chances of survival and which can be propagated throughout the local population will stick. Even those which decrease the chances of survival, if they don't kill off the animals before they can reproduce (Our inability to generate Vitamin C and D, diabetes, heart disease, etcetera), will get passed on within the species.

But if you're asking the philosophical "why", that isn't a question for science. Evolution is a blind process. Not a God.