Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Creationism VS Evolution... I think...

Page 4 of 8 [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

22 Jan 2010, 11:05 pm

Orwell wrote:
JetLag wrote:
quote]I think that the term "natural selection" seems to be an odd use of the two words because scientists have never been able to prove that nature can select anything.

Please tell me you're joking. If you like, I could produce a few hundred such examples for you. When one organism has a better chance of surviving in a given environment, they will be favored by natural selection.

In the sense that "natural selection" is defined simply as the effect that the natural world has on living things, a principle of local adaptation and not of evolution, then I would agree.

But natural selection has nothing to do with origin of species. What natural selection does is to bring to light the previously unseen and undetected combinations of genes that have always existed and never changed; ergo, natural selection has nothing to select, as though it had a choice, in order to evolve into something. And therefore the term "natural selection" in this sense of the word is a contradiction in terms.

I've read somewhere that scientists have discovered that the germs that survive new drugs usually survive the new drugs not because those germs have a way of magically evolving resistance to them through time, but because the germs already had possessed a built in resistance all along. And the germs that don't possess this built in resistance to new drugs do not evolve but become extinct.


_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Jan 2010, 12:12 am

JetLag wrote:
Orwell wrote:
JetLag wrote:
quote]I think that the term "natural selection" seems to be an odd use of the two words because scientists have never been able to prove that nature can select anything.

Please tell me you're joking. If you like, I could produce a few hundred such examples for you. When one organism has a better chance of surviving in a given environment, they will be favored by natural selection.

In the sense that "natural selection" is defined simply as the effect that the natural world has on living things, a principle of local adaptation and not of evolution, then I would agree.

But natural selection has nothing to do with origin of species. What natural selection does is to bring to light the previously unseen and undetected combinations of genes that have always existed and never changed; ergo, natural selection has nothing to select, as though it had a choice, in order to evolve into something. And therefore the term "natural selection" in this sense of the word is a contradiction in terms.

I've read somewhere that scientists have discovered that the germs that survive new drugs usually survive the new drugs not because those germs have a way of magically evolving resistance to them through time, but because the germs already had possessed a built in resistance all along. And the germs that don't possess this built in resistance to new drugs do not evolve but become extinct.


Your basic misconception is that genes are somehow eternal and therefore must present the same features to the environment to be tested. Genes are continuously and spontaneously modified and the modifications can be fatal or disabling (which is the general case) or they can present new opportunities for taking advantage of fortunate circumstances and thereby the species is advanced. That is the method of evolution.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jan 2010, 5:19 am

Greshym_Shorkan wrote:
Neither has made sense to me, in the long run. Evolution makes somewhat more, but that's not to say that I don't see holes in it.


If you see holes in it then you obviously do not have the faintest idea how it works, evolution is about as factual as scientific theory gets


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

23 Jan 2010, 4:21 pm

im seeing it again. chirstians saying men lived with dinosaurs and some dino fossils arent petrified? is this true? :lol:
the program i watched was heavily biased twords creationism but after awile i started to believe it for some reason until i snapped myself out of it! :ninjaturtle:


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,668
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

23 Jan 2010, 8:34 pm

richardbenson wrote:
im seeing it again. chirstians saying men lived with dinosaurs and some dino fossils arent petrified? is this true? :lol:
the program i watched was heavily biased twords creationism but after awile i started to believe it for some reason until i snapped myself out of it! :ninjaturtle:


Incidentally, they don't care about the truth. Just what's written book thousands of years old.



Greshym_Shorkan
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 255

24 Jan 2010, 6:06 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Greshym_Shorkan wrote:
Neither has made sense to me, in the long run. Evolution makes somewhat more, but that's not to say that I don't see holes in it.


If you see holes in it then you obviously do not have the faintest idea how it works, evolution is about as factual as scientific theory gets


Dude, go drink some metamucil.



Greshym_Shorkan
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 255

24 Jan 2010, 6:09 am

richardbenson wrote:
im seeing it again. chirstians saying men lived with dinosaurs and some dino fossils arent petrified? is this true? :lol:
the program i watched was heavily biased twords creationism but after awile i started to believe it for some reason until i snapped myself out of it! :ninjaturtle:


Ninja Turtles mutated when they came into contact with the "ooze." They didn't evolve. Wait, maybe all species came into contact with the "ooze?" That's the answer... my Lord.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Jan 2010, 8:04 am

JetLag wrote:

I've read somewhere that scientists have discovered that the germs that survive new drugs usually survive the new drugs not because those germs have a way of magically evolving resistance to them through time, but because the germs already had possessed a built in resistance all along. And the germs that don't possess this built in resistance to new drugs do not evolve but become extinct.


You are overlooking the possibility of mutation of genes.

ruveyn



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

24 Jan 2010, 5:45 pm

I'm not sure what "mutation" is anymore. Learned last session that they recently found genetic difference between "aged" homozygotic twins (which are usually 100% genome identical). So how come one can survive through cancer and not the other? =/ Apparently it is because of what is called the "epi-genome" which is basicly how the genome is "read". See, we all have our basic genes in our DNA, but some are flipped on or off by the surrounding environement (or your actions, etc.) which changes how a gene is "supposed" to act. These changes also occur when a cell divides itself over time, where the "new" cell might override the gene the "old" one had.

Thinking about this, i wonder if "mutation" is still the right term. <.<



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

25 Jan 2010, 2:52 am

Speaking as a scientist and believer with an atheistic sciertist brother who thinks I am no scientist or maybe an apostate, I feel the conflict is not between the fact or theory or hypothesis of creation and/or evolution, but between Creationists and Evolutionists who [wrongl;y, in my view] think there is something that CAN be fought over and MUST be fought over.

A professor of mine once shaped his views to be the direct opposite of those of huis nemesis, who had to be wrong. A colleague of mine once told me [a fierce reprimand] - You never agree with the enemy even if he is right.

This is what too often passes for science, either biology or theology. More data, more logic, less fight - for God's sake.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Jan 2010, 3:18 am

Philologos wrote:
Speaking as a scientist and believer with an atheistic sciertist brother who thinks I am no scientist or maybe an apostate, I feel the conflict is not between the fact or theory or hypothesis of creation and/or evolution, but between Creationists and Evolutionists who [wrongl;y, in my view] think there is something that CAN be fought over and MUST be fought over.

A professor of mine once shaped his views to be the direct opposite of those of huis nemesis, who had to be wrong. A colleague of mine once told me [a fierce reprimand] - You never agree with the enemy even if he is right.

This is what too often passes for science, either biology or theology. More data, more logic, less fight - for God's sake.


To assume there are no issues between Creationists and Evolutionists is, if nothing else, a most perversely comic attitude.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Jan 2010, 4:46 am

Sand wrote:

To assume there are no issues between Creationists and Evolutionists is, if nothing else, a most perversely comic attitude.

Rom
Creationists come in several varieties. We are used to Fundie Creationists who insist on the literal interpretation of Genesis. But there are Creationists who believe God made the Cosmos and all the physical laws and the natural processes as well. So they regard evolution as God's way of cranking out species.

Dr. Ken Miller, who gave devastating testimony against the ID folks during the Dover PA trial is a devout Roman Catholic, so perforce he is a Creationist, but NOT a biblical literalist.

ruveyn



musicboxforever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 518

25 Jan 2010, 9:36 am

Philologos wrote:
Speaking as a scientist and believer with an atheistic sciertist brother who thinks I am no scientist or maybe an apostate, I feel the conflict is not between the fact or theory or hypothesis of creation and/or evolution, but between Creationists and Evolutionists who [wrongl;y, in my view] think there is something that CAN be fought over and MUST be fought over.

A professor of mine once shaped his views to be the direct opposite of those of huis nemesis, who had to be wrong. A colleague of mine once told me [a fierce reprimand] - You never agree with the enemy even if he is right.

This is what too often passes for science, either biology or theology. More data, more logic, less fight - for God's sake.


I refuse to talk to my Dad about the subject of Evolution because even though I want to know about it and he does know alot on the subject, he has a tendancy to discuss it from the point of view that he has to argue against Creationism, because my mum is a creationist. I can't be bothered with the conflict either. I just like to learn about things.

I wish I had studied sciences now instead of art because I really don't want to just believe what either side of the argument tells me, but that is my only real option because I am told by the evolutionists that my understanding of science isn't good enough because I question it. I am stubborn.



musicboxforever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 518

25 Jan 2010, 10:14 am

Sand wrote:
musicboxforever wrote:
JetLag wrote:
Greshym_Shorkan wrote:
Neither has made sense to me, in the long run. Evolution makes somewhat more, but that's not to say that I don't see holes in it.

Undoubtedly the evolutionists and creationists study the same facts; but I believe when the evidence or data do not speak for themselves, each group will then interpret what they see according to their own particular worldview.

Many who believe in evolution, for instance, do not see any design at all in the genetic code. All they see is a bunch of selfish little genes randomly replicating. For them, facts must fit into their natural-selection way of looking at things in order to be facts at all.

I think that the term "natural selection" seems to be an odd use of the two words because scientists have never been able to prove that nature can select anything. It takes intelligent beings to evaluate the options before them and to make choices based on those evaluations. We simply do not get natural laws from either luck or predictable processes of chance.

The creationists, on the other hand, see facts as evidence and data that points to God, the fingerprints of God as it were; and they evaluate the facts before them not on chance or by the finite and ever-changing thinking of mankind but on God's revelation.

Many good people sincerely believe in evolution but science is not supposed to be a belief system. Science by definition is about knowledge, a knowledge that can be demonstrated, observed, and repeated in any laboratory around the world. And evolution cannot be observed or proved in a laboratory - it has to be "believed," like a religion almost.


Very nice argument. Balanced from both sides. I have learned in my short life that anyone can find evidence to support any point of view that they have and I am now more cautious about stating my opinions about things, but there is one thing I must defend you on.

Yes, I have a problem with the way "natural selection" is put accross as well. I understand where you are coming from I think. I have no problem with the concept of survival of the fittest. If an animal is not happy in a certain environment it will die out. The animal that is happy in the environment will survive and go on to procreate and it's species will survive for generations. The fittest thing survives. For example we are now seeing more shorter tusked elephants because the longer tusked elephants are being killed for their ivory and not being given a chance to procreate. The shorter tusked elephants are the fittest in this scenario, therefore they survive and pass on their genes to the next generation.

But often when evolution is explained (mostly on tv i see this) it irritates me that the presenter will say that a plant for example finds a way around a problem by developing a certain trait like a sting or an animal develops a certain ability so that it can survive. I cannot see how nature is capable of this. I.E. I being female I get stomach cramps every month. For my gender to get ahead in the workplace it would be good if we could suffer less pain every month and be cramp free like our male counterparts, this would aid our concentration. However, I will never have the ability to provide this advantage to my offspring.

I cannot see how a creature can develop a way to deal with an environment. Either it is suitable and it survives, or it is not suitable and it dies.


Genetics provides variation amongst individuals. There is variation going on all the time. Individuals do not adapt. Either they have the right stuff or they are eliminated. Evolution does not take place to change an individual. If it is not survivable to have cramps you will not survive. But individuals who don't develop cramps (and there is no guarantee that such individuals exist) then only they will survive. Otherwise, everybody dies.


Ah, that is kind of what I mean. I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words. I'm sorry to go back to this, but it's the adaption thing I don't quite get. "Evolution does not take place to change an individual" This is a new idea to me. I have always understood that adaption means that an individual was forced to change to survive. I agree, if a thing is a certain way that isn't survivable it won't survive.

Just a wee thing. I'm not criticising. I'm just interested. I wonder if there should be a greater amount of dead things fossilised than there are if this adaption concept is correct. Bare with me, I am slowly building up my understanding of these ideas. I always approach everything from a doubting point of view before I learn more, which I know can annoy people.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Jan 2010, 10:29 am

musicboxforever wrote:
Sand wrote:
musicboxforever wrote:
JetLag wrote:
Greshym_Shorkan wrote:
Neither has made sense to me, in the long run. Evolution makes somewhat more, but that's not to say that I don't see holes in it.

Undoubtedly the evolutionists and creationists study the same facts; but I believe when the evidence or data do not speak for themselves, each group will then interpret what they see according to their own particular worldview.

Many who believe in evolution, for instance, do not see any design at all in the genetic code. All they see is a bunch of selfish little genes randomly replicating. For them, facts must fit into their natural-selection way of looking at things in order to be facts at all.

I think that the term "natural selection" seems to be an odd use of the two words because scientists have never been able to prove that nature can select anything. It takes intelligent beings to evaluate the options before them and to make choices based on those evaluations. We simply do not get natural laws from either luck or predictable processes of chance.

The creationists, on the other hand, see facts as evidence and data that points to God, the fingerprints of God as it were; and they evaluate the facts before them not on chance or by the finite and ever-changing thinking of mankind but on God's revelation.

Many good people sincerely believe in evolution but science is not supposed to be a belief system. Science by definition is about knowledge, a knowledge that can be demonstrated, observed, and repeated in any laboratory around the world. And evolution cannot be observed or proved in a laboratory - it has to be "believed," like a religion almost.


Very nice argument. Balanced from both sides. I have learned in my short life that anyone can find evidence to support any point of view that they have and I am now more cautious about stating my opinions about things, but there is one thing I must defend you on.

Yes, I have a problem with the way "natural selection" is put accross as well. I understand where you are coming from I think. I have no problem with the concept of survival of the fittest. If an animal is not happy in a certain environment it will die out. The animal that is happy in the environment will survive and go on to procreate and it's species will survive for generations. The fittest thing survives. For example we are now seeing more shorter tusked elephants because the longer tusked elephants are being killed for their ivory and not being given a chance to procreate. The shorter tusked elephants are the fittest in this scenario, therefore they survive and pass on their genes to the next generation.

But often when evolution is explained (mostly on tv i see this) it irritates me that the presenter will say that a plant for example finds a way around a problem by developing a certain trait like a sting or an animal develops a certain ability so that it can survive. I cannot see how nature is capable of this. I.E. I being female I get stomach cramps every month. For my gender to get ahead in the workplace it would be good if we could suffer less pain every month and be cramp free like our male counterparts, this would aid our concentration. However, I will never have the ability to provide this advantage to my offspring.

I cannot see how a creature can develop a way to deal with an environment. Either it is suitable and it survives, or it is not suitable and it dies.


Genetics provides variation amongst individuals. There is variation going on all the time. Individuals do not adapt. Either they have the right stuff or they are eliminated. Evolution does not take place to change an individual. If it is not survivable to have cramps you will not survive. But individuals who don't develop cramps (and there is no guarantee that such individuals exist) then only they will survive. Otherwise, everybody dies.


Ah, that is kind of what I mean. I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words. I'm sorry to go back to this, but it's the adaption thing I don't quite get. "Evolution does not take place to change an individual" This is a new idea to me. I have always understood that adaption means that an individual was forced to change to survive. I agree, if a thing is a certain way that isn't survivable it won't survive.

Just a wee thing. I'm not criticising. I'm just interested. I wonder if there should be a greater amount of dead things fossilised than there are if this adaption concept is correct. Bare with me, I am slowly building up my understanding of these ideas. I always approach everything from a doubting point of view before I learn more, which I know can annoy people.


I will try to bear with you. Fossilization is an extremely rare and unusual event. When a living thing dies it is usually quickly consumed by other animals, insects or micro-organisms. To be fossilized the dead animal or plant has to be in exactly the right place such as being sucked into a tar pit or buried in the right kind of mud or some other substance so that other living things do not quickly destroy it. Then the mud or clay sinks down into earth and eventually becomes rock and if a piece of bone perhaps sticks out so somebody can see something is inside the rock then the rock can carefully be taken off, grain by grain and the fossil exposed. Each of these events to make a fossil has to happen just right to preserve the fossil and it doesn't happen very often. It is very likely entire species or even lines of species have disappeared without a trace.

Incidentally, I am not a scientist, I am an artist but I read a lot and go to museums a lot and have learned a good many things without formal instruction. If you really care, you can do this also.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

25 Jan 2010, 1:25 pm

musicboxforever wrote:
Ah, that is kind of what I mean. I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words. I'm sorry to go back to this, but it's the adaption thing I don't quite get. "Evolution does not take place to change an individual" This is a new idea to me. I have always understood that adaption means that an individual was forced to change to survive. I agree, if a thing is a certain way that isn't survivable it won't survive.

Evolution is intergenerational. Evolution is the change of the frequency of genes (within a population) from one generation to the next, so evolution always occurs to a breeding population, not an individual. Individuals can and do experience genetic mutation (a significant source of variation) including in the cell lines producing sex-cells (in which case the mutation is heritable and can be inherited by offspring).

Genetic mutations happen independent of the needs of organisms. Whether mutations have adaptive, neutral or negative implications for how well adapted a life-form is, in the context of their environment, strongly influences the likelihood of the genetic trait being perpetuated.. In other words mutations do not arise in order to facilitate adaption, but rather how adaptive mutations are once they arise, influences whether or not they are perpetuated.