Is Evolution True? | Benzun's Perspective

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
That's a fallacy. If that was true, then all religious people who believe in an afterlife would kill themselves too, since life is just a preparation for a better, eternal one after death.

Some do of course, but that's just evolution on display.

Have you ever seen a human/mouse/fish embryo? They all look the same at an early stage of development, indicating the common ancestor that we have had.

I've always thought that was pretty cool - its a microcosm of evolution.

I believe they look the same in the early stages of development because the designer used a "common blueprint" for many different types of animals...

Such a belief is fine for the sake of religion, but you must understand that there is no scientific evidence to support it.

It may not be different, but for what advantage would an animal do it again for a second time? Think about it, once it's born, and it's fighting through life why would it even risk its life to wrap itself in a coccon for a few weeks?

Does it have a choice?

JUST because I believe in creationism does NOT MAKE ME religious...

...One way or another you have to believe in a god...

Confused [?] [?] It almost looks to me like you don't even know what the word "religious" means.

 

[nautica]

"Again, who ever said that creationism is about religion? I just explained to you that creationism is not about religion, it is about disproving evolution. If you had actually read through the site you would have noticed that rather than preaching about some all powerful god, the author tries to convince the reader that evolution is false. I don't see how this is religious."

If you will do some research on the arthor of the site as well as the sponsors of that site, I am sure you will find that there is a religous aggena.

"Confuse them with science? I'm sorry but that makes me very mad. I love science. Just because I believe in creationism you somehow think that all my evidence is a misconception? It's funny because that's how I feel about your evolutionary theory. But of course, you can't confuse evolution with science, they're one and the same, evolution was born through science. But when I use science to disprove evolution, and insinuate the presence of a higher intelligence, it's blasphamy, right? How is it different from what you're saying and doing?"

"My evolutionary theory" Thank you, I will take that as a complement, as I am sure that Mr. Darwin would, also.

You might want to explain your definition of both creationism and evolution, then maybe I can fully understand what you mean. As far as science goes, it has no place in creationism. Creationist have a great story, which they have been trying to fit evidence into for 1000's of years. This is completely backwards as to what science is about. One should take years of evidence and come up with a theory based on that evidence. Do you fully understand the steps of the scientific method - they are actually quite simple.

Also, like I have stated before - I do not believe that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, maybe with your deifintions they are, maybe they are not.

Nautica

 

[thunderfvck]

Does it have a choice?

No it doesn't have a choice. But how could of have arisen via evolution? Genetically speaking of course. This creature goes from one that doesn't form a pupa to one that does, okay? So, it MUST have received all the genetic coding in one step (I don't see any half-pupas or anything, it either forms one or not). It seems like that that is QUITE A LOT of information to be just an accident. Genetically, there has to be a signal to tell the catterpillar it's time, then it has to know how to go into its pupa stage, then it has to do all that funny stuff inside consequently remaking the organism into a whole new creature with new characteristics, then it has to break free, hang upside down while it unfolds its wings, then it will migrate a few hundred miles away to mate or whatever butterflies do. If the catterpillar is missing ONE TINY part of this genetic information, it's a failure and it dies. So you're telling me that to go from the catterpillar ancestor, to this incredibly sophisticated creature is possible via the probability of mutation?

Confused It almost looks to me like you don't even know what the word "religious" means.

When I speak of religion I am referring to this definition (according to dictionary.com):
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

I believe in a god, fine, that's dandy. But I don't believe in any of his beliefs, his values, etc that make the religion what it truly is. I persoanlly think that god doesn't give a **** about any of us, he created us, him and the other gods or whatever (there could be more than one, outside of time) for whatever purpose he saw fit and we're just living through it. I don't want to get all philosphoical here but you get the idea. I don't believe in heaven in hell, I don't believe in Satan, all I believe is that there is an intelligent life out there that started our reality.

 

[O Great One]

Evolutionists are religious

Actually, the only reasons one has for believing in evolution are religious, not scientific. Living organisms are far too complex to have arisen through random chance. It is merely a factual observation. But, of course that's not acceptable to people, so they have no choice but to believe in that which is not true. All evolutionists are very religious people, they can't accept the truth. It's merely based on feeling and not reality.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by O Great One
Actually, the only reasons one has for believing in evolution are religious, not scientific. Living organisms are far too complex to have arisen through random chance. It is merely a factual observation. But, of course that's not acceptable to people, so they have no choice but to believe in that which is not true. All evolutionists are very religious people, they can't accept the truth. It's merely based on feeling and not reality.

That just went way over my head. Start from the beginning and explain to me how believing that evolutionary theory is based on evidence has anything to do with religion.

I don't think I have ever stated beliefs on this site, b/c this is a "science" site not a "religous" site, but I can assure you that my belief that evolution is a fact has nothing to do with my religous beliefs and I in no way sit down and pray or worship toward an "Evolutionary God"

Based on the definition of religion - I can not see how anyone can be religous in their studies of evolution. Although some may spend too much time studying evolution - it still would not fit the definition of religion.

Nautica

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
This creature goes from one that doesn't form a pupa to one that does, okay? So, it MUST have received all the genetic coding in one step (I don't see any half-pupas or anything, it either forms one or not). It seems like that that is QUITE A LOT of information to be just an accident.

Here your limited knowledge of biology is tricking you. The ONLY reason it becomes a pupa is to EAT! The embryo could've happily stayed in its egg and have become a butterfly, but that apparently takes too many resources, so it hatches and starts eating. After a while it has build up enough resources and is able to continue its development.

 

[thunderfvck]

Oh I see. So the only reason for the whole pupa stage is to eat in preparation for becoming a butterfly. That makes sense.
In order for this animal to have evolved its ancestors must have undergone some extreme changes. Changes that will only work in the offspring provided every last detail of the genetic code is correct. So it's a one shot deal, either you have it all 100% at the beginning or you don't. If you don't have it all you have some failed births and a dead species. How could genes from one ancestral species mutate sufficiently to form a genetic basis for a species with two different forms. How could genetics get so much extra information just by accident? Think about it. You start with an insect who don't undergo metamorphosis, or do any of the cool things that catterpillar/butterflies can do, and its offspring mutates to form an insect with a completely new life cycle. Where did all the information come from?
I was reading about butterflies and it turns out that the Monarch, once developed into its adult stage migrates something like 2000 miles to avoid winter. Where did they get that information from? I guess you can argue that all animals have a sense of direction, even if they spend their entire lives on the ground, they can still manage to give their mutant offspring the directions to florida.


And for me, creationism basically is the anti-evolutionary science. We may not perform rigorous experiments, or study things as intently as you do. Instead what we do is look at evolution and try to break it down into everything that it relies on. Then we pick at it and reshape this whole puzzle of life by rejecting the assumptions made by evolution (earth is so many years old, universe started with a big bang, etc). The evolutionists have done so much work already to put their picture of life into focus, and we're just trying to tear it down. We're basically double checking your assumptions and discovering that they're false. You really should do some serious reading on www.creationscience.com. There's so much information, things I really don't want to have to summarize.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
And for me, creationism basically is the anti-evolutionary science. We may not perform rigorous experiments, or study things as intently as you do.

 

[thunderfvck]

Oh that was cute.
Thank you for giving me an erection mr. wood, I won't spoil this moment. Look, all I'm saying is that evolution is flawwed. Creationism explains why its flawwed scientifically and then explains the alternative view which in no ways is religious mumbo jumbo.
All this really has no point on the arguments I've made anyway.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
Changes that will only work in the offspring provided every last detail of the genetic code is correct. So it's a one shot deal, either you have it all 100% at the beginning or you don't.

What makes you think biology works in such a way? It is not all or nothing, gradual changes over time become major changes. Just because you can't see the intermediate steps, doesn't mean they aren't there.

Butterflies are not the only organism who behave in such a way, how about frogs?

Evolutionary the organism used to sit inside an egg and undergo the whole development, then mother nature decided that it is more economical to let the organism hatch early (so that the eggs could be smaller for instance, smaller load on the mother).. thus a pupa could evolve. The pupa wouldn't have been a pupa at that time, but then mother nature decided that it is more economical to let the pupa rest so that the development can take place at a higher pace. The pupa then got the need to disguise itself and the ones who started using their excretions to cover themselves survived, thus a cocoon evolved.

All based on logic..

 

[nautica]

You prove creation through the flaws in evolutionary theory? I am not sure where to begin criticizing this statement other than the fact that you obviously do not understand science.

It is, also, very obvious that you can not think for yourself or form your own conclusions. Your rely completely on a website, which has a hidden agenda, solely b/c it is wrapped in such a neat little package.

I guess you are like most creationist. You believed in creation so you decided to search the web. Not for the truth but for a site that made you feel good about not understanding evolution. You disprove evolution only through your lack of understanding and knowlegde and are much too lazy to educate yourself - so you take the easy way. Which, I guess, is fine, but don't try to defend yourself and act like you have studied the subject by pointing out one example, which you do not understand, or by pointing out a website that is either full of ignorance or lies.

One other question for you. I pointed out earlier the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how that site used it to disprove evolutionary theory. With you great knowledge and understanding of science, you can surely enlighten me, in your own words, how this is so.

Thanks
Nautica

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
We're basically double checking your assumptions and discovering that they're false. You really should do some serious reading on www.creationscience.com. There's so much information, things I really don't want to have to summarize.

OK, I had a look.. how about this statement from the site:

Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term ¡°organic evolution.¡± Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory¡ªor macroevolution. [See Figure 4 on page 6.] Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves only changes in size, shape, color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of ¡°just right¡± mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as ¡°horizontal¡± change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an ¡°upward¡± and beneficial change in complexity. Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. [micro + time ¡Ù macro]

That statement that micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution is just outright wrong. The author restricts his thinking by stating that macro-evolution occurs in an all or non fashion, which is just not true. I'd recommend him taking up a genetics course and actually educate himself on some principles of genetics (he has a PhD in mechanical engineering, not biology).

And why the distinction between micro and macro-evolution? These processes are based on the same mechanism and YES time IS the determining factor.

You tell me when looking at the following image http://www.creationscience.com./onlinebook/webpictures/transitionfossil.jpg what the difference is between the horizontal and vertical lineages. They are all caused by mutations.

 

[Jeebus]

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ...
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

1. Fossil animals are different from living animals (Cuvier, 1708)

2. Living organisms are organized in nested heirarchies of form (Linneaus, 1758)

3. Geological processes are uniform and many sedimentary features are very old (Hutton, 1788)

4. Domestic animals are changed through artificial selection and nature seems to do the same thing to wild ones (Darwin, 1859)

6. Organisms pass on genetic material through reproduction (Mendel, 1865)

7. Microevolution proven in captive fruit fly experiments (Dobzhansky, late 1920's)

8. DNA discovered (Watson and Crick, 1953)

9. Radiometric dating developed and actual rock ages are shown to correspond to fossil ages predicted by evolutionary morphology (Macroevolution) (Evernden, Savage,Curtis and James, 1964)

10. Human and Chimp genomes are compared in detail and are very, very similar (about a week ago)

 

[nautica]

Good info, except for the fact that Watson and Crick did not discover the DNA molecule. It was discovered by Rosalin Franklin and "stollen" by Watson and Crick. The reason she too was not recognized with a Noble was due to the fact that she had passed before it was given.

Nautica

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by nautica
Good info, except for the fact that Watson and Crick did not discover the DNA molecule. It was discovered by Rosalin Franklin and "stollen" by Watson and Crick. The reason she too was not recognized with a Noble was due to the fact that she had passed before it was given.

Nautica

very sharp!

 

[agnostictheist]

RE: monique

I know been a while, sorry

"I've done the calculation before myself...it does indeed appear that Adam was born/created in 4026 BCE (see All Scripture is Inspired of God and beneficial, published by Jehovah's Witnesses if you want to see exactly what proofs there are for this), and this would put man at about 6000 years (the site said 6175, so I'll go with that) old. Well, that could easily refer just to Cromagnon man, so there needn't be any dispute there with evolutionary theories, right?"

has FZ stated cro-magnon man is bones go futher back than this... say for a rought ball point figure...30,000

But what seems to have not been picked up is that cro-magnon man while is essentianlly physically identical to modern "man" with the minor exception of slight bigger bone size, cro-magnon is not really a "species", nor really found in the proper scienfic papers, its more of a pop-grouping for seprating them from neaderthals.


I think around 9,000 - 6,000?(dont qoute me on this date) yes cro-mangon man was supplanted (around places like Italy, fantastic place, being italain and all) and replaced with a closer looking modern human, but that's NOT saying there is really any difference between cro-mangon and us.

finally:

"And why the distinction between micro and macro-evolution? "

the reason is thus:

micro-evolution is evolution within a species, macro is outside... the point is a creationist whom assumes that God created all the species "directly" will only go part way - has a theist and a scientist that's idiotic, without scaraficing one for the other.

has you say time is a factor, but there are evolutionary effects that can change a species very rapid indeed, I would say change has a result of the chraprone genes? and even mirco-organism evolution has good examples.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
micro-evolution is evolution within a species, macro is outside... the point is a creationist whom assumes that God created all the species "directly" will only go part way - has a theist and a scientist that's idiotic, without scaraficing one for the other.

The (most obvious) flaw in the belief that all species were created at the same time of course is extinction.

 

[Monique]

[?] the last few posts have been incomprehensible ..

the flaw in simultanious creation is extinsion?

 

[agnostictheist]

what bits don't you "understand"?



Russ, I don't think that all mirco-evolutionist (creationists) hold that all creatures were created at the same time, to these people all it means is that God created one species then anther etc, and most reject the notion that one species changes into anther. rather God created them in turn.

So the fundermental note is that they hold the evolution does happen, but within very strict limitations.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by thunderfvck



And for me, creationism basically is the anti-evolutionary science. We may not perform rigorous experiments, or study things as intently as you do.

As far as I can tell, the only rigourous experiments creationists do is make really phony fake plaster fossils, cut and past debunked arguments, quote scripture, and make themselves look dumb.


If you're going to defend creationism at least do it from a religious perspective, because scientifically there is no leg to stand on.

And don't give me that "it's not about religion" garbage. Creationism is almost exclusively confined to a few american fundamentalist nutjobs who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and will resort to breaking the commandment about false witness in order to defend they're five thousand year old myth.

 

[nautica]

Very well said Superfreak. If only I could be so elegant in my response.

Nautica

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
Russ, I don't think that all mirco-evolutionist (creationists) hold that all creatures were created at the same time, to these people all it means is that God created one species then anther etc, and most reject the notion that one species changes into anther. rather God created them in turn.

That does not fit with the way the Bible describes it though.

the flaw in simultanious creation is extinsion?

Monique, if God created all species at the same time (presumably 4 billion years ago or so, since that's as far back as fossil records go) then the fact that extinctions occur should mean there are far less species than there used to be.

It also should show in the fossil record that all species we see today existed back then.

For young Earth creationists (YECs), the position is essentially that God has tricked us into thinking that evolution (and a lot of other scientific theories) is true by creating the universe 6000 years ago and making it look like we evolved over 4 billion years. I personally like the "decietful God" belief though - it contradicts other religious teachings.

 

[Bernardo]

And so our nice thread on this topic has disintegrated like all the others before it. Nothing learned - nothing changed.

Differing thoughts cannot coexist - even here in the 'intellectual' world of philosophy and debate. It always seems to boil down to shots against the person. Making someone seem stupid so your point can be made. All I read the last few pages is shot after shot after shot.

You people are master students and engineers and know more about molecular matters that I ever will, and yet a discussion still ends up as base as any locker room.

I thought I could learn from all these different ideas - all I've seen is more of the same. That's too bad 'cuz this thread is fast reaching its end.

I believe "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1. I don't know how, I don't know when. My faith is more concerned with knowing why.

Your right - leave science out of religion and religion out of science - I mean why try a new idea anyway.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by Bernardo
And so our nice thread on this topic has disintegrated like all the others before it. Nothing learned - nothing changed.

Differing thoughts cannot coexist - even here in the 'intellectual' world of philosophy and debate. It always seems to boil down to shots against the person. Making someone seem stupid so your point can be made. All I read the last few pages is shot after shot after shot.

You people are master students and engineers and know more about molecular matters that I ever will, and yet a discussion still ends up as base as any locker room.

I thought I could learn from all these different ideas - all I've seen is more of the same. That's too bad 'cuz this thread is fast reaching its end.

I believe "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1. I don't know how, I don't know when. My faith is more concerned with knowing why.

Your right - leave science out of religion and religion out of science - I mean why try a new idea anyway.

Finally, someone who can admit that their belief in creation is based on faith.

Nautica

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Bernardo
I believe "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1. I don't know how, I don't know when. My faith is more concerned with knowing why.

I'm a Christian, but all of those unknowns are not acceptable to me. Human curiosity.

 

[Bernardo]

I never said that unknowns were acceptable.

I don't believe in religious ignorance.

I do believe that God placed rules laws in place that we call science.

Yes, creation by faith, I claim it completely. But I want to find out as much about the creation as possible. What could possibly be wrong with that.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Bernardo
Yes, creation by faith, I claim it completely. But I want to find out as much about the creation as possible. What could possibly be wrong with that.

It just appears to me that you are putting constraints on your curiosity.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by Bernardo
I never said that unknowns were acceptable.

I don't believe in religious ignorance.

I do believe that God placed rules laws in place that we call science.

Yes, creation by faith, I claim it completely. But I want to find out as much about the creation as possible. What could possibly be wrong with that.

So could God not have created 1 and then evolution occurred. Or are you a true fundelmentatlist that believes the Earth was created 6000 ya.

Nautica

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That does not fit with the way the Bible describes it though.

I'm trying to be careful not to let this get to religious because of me, but it is, in fact, possible to create an interpretation of the physical evidence that fits the Biblical account. You simply have to assume that the "days" of creation (which, btw, is a more restricted translation of a much looser term in the Hebrew...the word translated "day" could mean any defined period of time) were very long.

Monique, if God created all species at the same time (presumably 4 billion years ago or so, since that's as far back as fossil records go) then the fact that extinctions occur should mean there are far less species than there used to be.

Again, the Bible doesn't say that all things were created at the same time. Let's imagine that everything progressed the way that the physical evidence suggest it did, but there also happens to be a God watching all of this occur...this God then gives a vision of the occurance to a Jewish man, raised in ancient Egypt...isn't the vision going to be very simplified and general, for the purpose of not confusing the man (Moses)?

Just a thought.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
"I've done the calculation before myself...it does indeed appear that Adam was born/created in 4026 BCE (see All Scripture is Inspired of God and beneficial, published by Jehovah's Witnesses if you want to see exactly what proofs there are for this), and this would put man at about 6000 years (the site said 6175, so I'll go with that) old. Well, that could easily refer just to Cromagnon man, so there needn't be any dispute there with evolutionary theories, right?"

has FZ stated cro-magnon man is bones go futher back than this... say for a rought ball point figure...30,000

But what seems to have not been picked up is that cro-magnon man while is essentianlly physically identical to modern "man" with the minor exception of slight bigger bone size, cro-magnon is not really a "species", nor really found in the proper scienfic papers, its more of a pop-grouping for seprating them from neaderthals.


I think around 9,000 - 6,000?(dont qoute me on this date) yes cro-mangon man was supplanted (around places like Italy, fantastic place, being italain and all) and replaced with a closer looking modern human, but that's NOT saying there is really any difference between cro-mangon and us.

Many thanks. This will be of use to me, since I have many friends who are (unfortunately) creationists.