Evolution
- Thread starter MamiyaOtaru
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't something so complex and alledgedly improbable reinforce a skillful creator god?
athiest myself but I really don't think, as has been said, that evolution and god existence are in conflict.
and "creationist" idea seems to revolve around a very litteral reading of poetry. I wonder what the greek says?
no flameing here.
athiest myself but I really don't think, as has been said, that evolution and god existence are in conflict.
and "creationist" idea seems to revolve around a very litteral reading of poetry. I wonder what the greek says?
no flameing here.
Wedge009
Rogue Leader
I've seen these threads before, and I'm sure I'll wind up regretting the decision to make another post on this topic, but being the fool I am, I'll do it anyway.
I am Christian. That is, I believe that Jesus Christ died and rose again to bridge the gap between God and Mankind. From the perspective of the Christian, I believe the Evolution/Creation debate on the origin of the universe is not an issue of salvation, and is therefore ultimately unimportant in the eternal scale of things. Knowing how the universe was made and how life came into being is not something that will save me from God's final judgement.
However, while the issue is unimportant to me, I know the question is very important to many others, both Christian and non-Christian alike. And while I say it is unimportant to me, I cannot say I am not curious to know how certain things came about either.
My personal view is that the theory of evolution and the story of creation as told in Genesis are not necessarily incompatible with each other. The Bible is hardly a scientific document - it is clear to anyone, I think, that it was not written from a scientific perspective. I also view the theory of evolution as Humanity's explanation of the universe as we see it, but being only Human, it is an incomplete view - I may have mentioned this before in a previous discussion. While evolution might explain much of our universe, it does not explain absolutely everything.
I also want to add that Christianity is not just 'blind faith', based on a foundation without evidence. I say this to counter a common view that Christians (in general) are among those irrational, religious folk who cling to the story of creation just because "the Bible says so".
I say all this as a statement of my opinion as a Christian. I apologise for the lack of coherence - intense discussions like these always muddle my thoughts. With that, here's a poignant question from God: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding." - Job 38:4, ESV.
I am Christian. That is, I believe that Jesus Christ died and rose again to bridge the gap between God and Mankind. From the perspective of the Christian, I believe the Evolution/Creation debate on the origin of the universe is not an issue of salvation, and is therefore ultimately unimportant in the eternal scale of things. Knowing how the universe was made and how life came into being is not something that will save me from God's final judgement.
However, while the issue is unimportant to me, I know the question is very important to many others, both Christian and non-Christian alike. And while I say it is unimportant to me, I cannot say I am not curious to know how certain things came about either.
My personal view is that the theory of evolution and the story of creation as told in Genesis are not necessarily incompatible with each other. The Bible is hardly a scientific document - it is clear to anyone, I think, that it was not written from a scientific perspective. I also view the theory of evolution as Humanity's explanation of the universe as we see it, but being only Human, it is an incomplete view - I may have mentioned this before in a previous discussion. While evolution might explain much of our universe, it does not explain absolutely everything.
I also want to add that Christianity is not just 'blind faith', based on a foundation without evidence. I say this to counter a common view that Christians (in general) are among those irrational, religious folk who cling to the story of creation just because "the Bible says so".
I say all this as a statement of my opinion as a Christian. I apologise for the lack of coherence - intense discussions like these always muddle my thoughts. With that, here's a poignant question from God: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding." - Job 38:4, ESV.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
steamedpunk said:
I take issue with your statement "All evidence points to evolution. Nothing points to creation." That is not completely true and I suspect you know this.
However, this conversation is not about creation, it's about Evolution so I will restrict my comments to Evolution. No one has provided me with a good solid answer to these questions, namely.
The drifting of the moon over a period of 100 million years or so...
The expenditure of the Sun...
The lack of a significant layer of dust on the moon...(in 1960s promoters of evolution predicted that the moons surface should have been covered with several thousand feet of dust based on the rate dust collects on the surface of the moon projected over several million years...it was in fact only a few inches as evidenced in the great photos of Armstrong's feetprints).
Also please explain the big bang in very basic terms to me because it gives me the most pause...(as I understand it now, nothing condensed upon nothing until nothing became so condensed that it exploded into something? Wow...that is extremely hard to grasp! Help me out here!)
Things like this make me dubious of the validity of Evolution.
Maj.Striker said:
The Recession of the Moon:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
The shrinking sun:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html
It was never an "evolutionist" argument.
See:
Short rebuttle:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html
+
The Moon Dust argument:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof2
Big Bang:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
The Big Bang doesnt explain what happened before it, but part of quantum physics is that matter can apparently occur from, essentially, nothing.
Quantum Cosmology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may01.html
With respect, your claims just show a misunderstanding of science.
Id also like to point out that Science is not absolute, just because we might not know everything doesnt mean we know nothing.
Ed
We’re talking about a scientific theory to which many have contributed (and many more are still contributing), certainly and preeminently Darwin, but whose particular contribution was not the very ideas of evolution and natural selection, each of which had been around for a while, but the proposition that natural selection was evolution’s principal mechanism. Even so, Darwin did not come close to fully explaining the dynamics of natural selection, including speciation, and of course had little inkling of the molecular/genetic aspects, especially regarding the actual beginnings of life. (In private correspondence, he did speculate that life probably started in a “warm little pond”, but could offer nothing more ) In sum, if you want to try to use Darwin’s own words against him, you may be able to trip him up, but not his theory. (Similarly, Newton was clearly wrong in some of his assertions concerning space and time and gravity, but by no stretch of the imagination is his work therefore “disregarded” today.)
Moreover, I sense a naivete here about science in general. In the same way critics enjoy arguing that evolution, to be true, must ultimately rely on the quite unlikely chance of certain structures, like genes or cells, suddenly springing into being whole and complete, you seem to be suggesting that a scientific theory, to be taken seriously, must likewise be whole and complete when first proposed, and in addition stay that way. But that’s not how science works; that’s not even what science is. In the normal course, for the vast majority of the time, science is not about the creation but the subsequent “working out” or “fleshing out” of theories. (To put it another way, science subsumes the theory of evolution but the process of evolution subsumes science.)
And I was merely stating that you’re wrong. To be sure, the claims of “irreducible complexity” you point to must come to be addressed by the theory, but that work is on-going, and no one, especially evolution’s critics, are in any position to assert that “irreducible complexity” in those cases has been proven. As I noted before, there’s still so much to learn about biochemistry, and not just as it concerns evolution. (Also, regardless of the science, your contention amounts to proving a negative, which while practical for trivial or simple realities and concepts, is exceptionally difficult for complex ones.) Indeed, your contention is no different from someone’s being handed a Rubik’s cube for the first time, already twisted about, who then opines, without further examination, that it “certainly” could never be “reworked” into a simpler configuration where each side consists of only one color. Of course, it can, but for most people, some quality time (not to mention a load of frustration) is required to confirm (or disparage) the fact.
The last quoted statement clearly shows Salisbury doesn’t believe “irreducible complexity” has been proven; he’s merely raising the issue, which is all well and good.
But I am reminded of a well-known cartoon titled “The Origin of Life”. (I don’t know the cartoonist.) There are three frames, each showing the same natural landscape. The first highlights a small area and reads–“3,562,027 years ago: Two amino acids drift together.” The next notes–“6 seconds later: They drift apart.” And the last reads–“482,674,115 years later: Two amino acids drift together.”
It evinces the same pessimism Salisbury has, but is double-edged, for it belies a telling pessimism about chemistry as well. There’s a lot of work being done at present to discover the much simpler precursors to RNA, DNA, enzymes, proteins, etc. that evolution counters must have existed, but I guess the fact of that work will fail to impress skeptics as long as they continue to underestimate/underappreciate the power, range, and diversity of chemistry.
Here’s but one example that helps to undercut such pessimism. Query: Is there a discrete and “roaming” collection of molecules in the world that totally depend for their replication and “survival” on their chance encounters with other molecules? You bet there is. We call them viruses. And their “iffy” propagations have caused and continue to cause us human beings no end of distress. (Ditto for the quite different if no less “worrisome” prions.)
Whatever we think we know about chemistry, we still don’t know enough to fail to stand in awe. And we certainly don’t know enough to toss out (all too cute) improbabilities about the origin of life and then hail them as some kind of damning, incontrovertible proof against evolution.
Evolution proposes no such thing. Part of what evolution does propose, in further answer to the concerns Salisbury raises about DNA, is that there is no reason to believe that replication and “purpose” (or “information") had to go hand-in-hand. Instead, evolution posits that before there were self-replicating molecules with “codes” (as in DNA), there had to be much shorter, simpler, self-replicating molecules with no “codes”; function and purpose (beyond replication) came later.
I think the reason Fundamentalists have a hard time dealing with Evolution is that they take it either as some kind of "threat" to their faith, or they don't understand it, therefore it must be bad. Evolution is a REALLY slow process, and that is how more and more complex organisms evolved. The Earth is much more than 5000 years old, as demonstrated by Carbon Dating. Fossils of prehistoric animals and even skeletons of whales found in the Nevada mountains, Austrailia's diverse fauna, sub-human ancestors, what mroe proof do you need that the Earth is very old?
ChrisReid
Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Fatcat said:
Yeah, if man wasn't created on the sixth day, along with beasts, then it takes away from man's holy triumph against the dinosaurs.
http://www.creationists.org/genesis1_23_27.html
Nomad Terror
Rear Admiral
There is a bit of misunderstanding here.
Like many other forms of science, evolution has different levels. We have microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution is observable. Different changes in animals happen. Giraffes get longer necks. White moths die out because they are all eaten by birds. Species adapt to their circumstances. Microevolution is certainly true.
However, macroevolution is the idea that totally different species share a common ancestor. Macroevolution is not observable. The existance of microevolution does not confirm the existance of macroevolution.
When you get into this whole creation vs evolution debate, you are actually debating creation vs macroevolution. Everyone knows that microevolution exists, because it is observable in today's world. However, when it comes to macroevolution, different evidence is required.
Like many other forms of science, evolution has different levels. We have microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution is observable. Different changes in animals happen. Giraffes get longer necks. White moths die out because they are all eaten by birds. Species adapt to their circumstances. Microevolution is certainly true.
However, macroevolution is the idea that totally different species share a common ancestor. Macroevolution is not observable. The existance of microevolution does not confirm the existance of macroevolution.
When you get into this whole creation vs evolution debate, you are actually debating creation vs macroevolution. Everyone knows that microevolution exists, because it is observable in today's world. However, when it comes to macroevolution, different evidence is required.
MamiyaOtaru
Spaceman
wow Chris. I just wasted some good time following links. That site with evidence of Dinosaur/human coexistence had a link to a site about how the nazca lines are a spaceport, which linked to a site about the Knights Templar. It's enought to make my brain bleed lol. I haven't found a hyperlink to Enterprise Mission yet, but I'm sure it's in there somewhere.
Nomad Terror said:
You are right there is a misunderstanding here.
Macroevolution is not observable because it is not something that is possible to "observe". "Macro" means big, and "Micro" means small. However this doesnt actually have anything to do with "big" or "small" adaptations. The strawman is to claim that macroevolution proposes these large scale changes happen over only 1 generation and therefore since we havent observed such a thing, it must be wrong. Of course macroevolution isnt any such thing.
Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a large timescale. Somehow Creation proponants seem to think that a species can micro-evolve into all manor of different subspecies yet stop at some kind of magical barrier. If one accepts your definiton of "micro"evolution you have to explain this magical barrier where an organism can evolve no further.
Macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Ed
Sphynx
Commodore
I've seen this discussion absolutely ruin other forums. I'm glad we're keeping it civil so far. We're a diverse group of people, with diverse ideas, but I think for the most part we are friends. We are capable of sharing our diverse beliefs (both scientific and religious, for both have a great deal of division within them) without becoming nasty, so I hope we all do that here. As far as my personal point of view, I don't have a problem with the idea of evolution, but I'm not sure if speciation really does occur and in some ways I doubt that it does.
I've read much of the literature on both sides, and there are compelling arguments on both sides, and also some really lousy arguments with bad logic and bad science on both sides. It seems like the issue of evolution has a tendency to expand into the issue of what humans are and what brings meaning to our lives. I think maybe that is why it is such a heated topic.
One observation I would make is that even fantasy can have an impact on the quality of our lives. I mean, look at us: we are together because of WC, which is fantasy. Yet all of us have gained something from it. So, the argument of whether or not evolution is real or God is real is in some ways a little deceptive. I think one of the most profound findings in systems psychology is that if we belive something is real, than it is real in its effects on us whether or not it actually exists.
I think people get heated about the evolution debate because it feels like God is on trial, with the assumption that if evolution exists, God must not exist. For some people, that's not a problem, but for others it would be a life-shattering experience. For me, I don't see why the two can't be reconciled. People can not belive in God, and people can believe in God, and both can act morally. I know some people feel strongly about ex nihilo creations, but other people's spirituality allows for the possiblity that God used natural laws to create the earth. I fall into that last category, and I also realize that no matter how precise we think our science is, it is always at best an approximation. Yet I trust it for what it is useful for. I mean, I'm a social scientist! That's what I do all day. It's considered one of the softer sciences, but all science gets a little soft the closer you look. That doesn't mean it isn't useful, you just have to take it in context.
Whether or not evolution occurs won't change my personal spirituality, or the way I think people should be treated. For me, it's an interesting debate with a lot of evidence and a lot at stake for a lot of people people, but for me finding out that evolution and speciation actually do or do not occurr won't shake what makes meaning in my life.
It is, however, a facinating subject.
My, that was a disjunct post on my part!
I've read much of the literature on both sides, and there are compelling arguments on both sides, and also some really lousy arguments with bad logic and bad science on both sides. It seems like the issue of evolution has a tendency to expand into the issue of what humans are and what brings meaning to our lives. I think maybe that is why it is such a heated topic.
One observation I would make is that even fantasy can have an impact on the quality of our lives. I mean, look at us: we are together because of WC, which is fantasy. Yet all of us have gained something from it. So, the argument of whether or not evolution is real or God is real is in some ways a little deceptive. I think one of the most profound findings in systems psychology is that if we belive something is real, than it is real in its effects on us whether or not it actually exists.
I think people get heated about the evolution debate because it feels like God is on trial, with the assumption that if evolution exists, God must not exist. For some people, that's not a problem, but for others it would be a life-shattering experience. For me, I don't see why the two can't be reconciled. People can not belive in God, and people can believe in God, and both can act morally. I know some people feel strongly about ex nihilo creations, but other people's spirituality allows for the possiblity that God used natural laws to create the earth. I fall into that last category, and I also realize that no matter how precise we think our science is, it is always at best an approximation. Yet I trust it for what it is useful for. I mean, I'm a social scientist! That's what I do all day. It's considered one of the softer sciences, but all science gets a little soft the closer you look. That doesn't mean it isn't useful, you just have to take it in context.
Whether or not evolution occurs won't change my personal spirituality, or the way I think people should be treated. For me, it's an interesting debate with a lot of evidence and a lot at stake for a lot of people people, but for me finding out that evolution and speciation actually do or do not occurr won't shake what makes meaning in my life.
It is, however, a facinating subject.
My, that was a disjunct post on my part!
Sphynx said:
Hi Sphynx!. I agree with everything you said. And I have also seen it turn nasty and thats one of the reasons I wanted to stay out... But uh... I have low self control ...
Speciation certianly does occur. Perhaps you are confused as to what speciation means. See this FAQ on speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I suggest you read this:
God and Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Ed
MamiyaOtaru
Spaceman
Interesting link Edx.
I am religious, but have never had a problem with evolution. I'm not Cathlic, but I appreciate the pope's stance on the matter, which I believe can be summed up thusly: It would not diminish man's nobility in the slightest to be descended from monkeys (or single celled organisms if you prefer), if God had a hand in it.
Fossil evidence of long dead species, dinosaurs, human precursors etc. were not placed in the ground by God as a Big Joke. If one believes in him, one must believe that he knew we would find those things, and that we would try to discover what they mean. Science is the way we do that.
There is no conflict between religious truth and scientific truth. If there appears to be on the surface, it is due to incomplete understanding in one or both of the fields. What we can do is strive to further our knowledge in both, and believe that at some point they will reconcile.
I am religious, but have never had a problem with evolution. I'm not Cathlic, but I appreciate the pope's stance on the matter, which I believe can be summed up thusly: It would not diminish man's nobility in the slightest to be descended from monkeys (or single celled organisms if you prefer), if God had a hand in it.
Fossil evidence of long dead species, dinosaurs, human precursors etc. were not placed in the ground by God as a Big Joke. If one believes in him, one must believe that he knew we would find those things, and that we would try to discover what they mean. Science is the way we do that.
There is no conflict between religious truth and scientific truth. If there appears to be on the surface, it is due to incomplete understanding in one or both of the fields. What we can do is strive to further our knowledge in both, and believe that at some point they will reconcile.
Mjr. Whoopass
<FONT color=lightblue><B>I was going to say someth
I sense a naivete in your reading comprehension. I DO realize that science is mostly a "working out" of theories. However, when aspects of one persons theory are believed to be flawed, scientists usually come up with a theory to make corrections for the flaws. Because I find flaws with Darwin's theory doesn't naturally imply that I believe every aspect of evolution theory are flawed.Nemesis said:
Actually you just stated that I'm right. You said "To be sure, the claims of "irreducible complexity" you point to must come to be addressed by the theory..". This is my point exactly. I hope we can at least agree to agree since we do agree on this point. As far as proof, scientists don't need to "prove" irreducible complexity, because it's common sense. You remove one part and the whole item is useless. Like a bike without wheels, like an eye without connective tissue, like a heart without a brain.Nemesis said:
WAY OFF! Once again you're showing incorrect reading comprehension. Analogies are great IF you choose one that accurately represents each aspect of the logic behind an argument. Making a half-assed analogy like this gets a conversation nowhere. I can do the same: I could say that "your contention is no different from someone's being handed a Rubik's cube for the first time, already twisted about, who then opines without further examination, that it "certainly" could be "reworked" into a simpler configuration where each side consists of only one color merely while operating on the cube's own power (assuming a regular non-computer Rubik's cube) with no "intelligent" help. Where have we gotten? Nowhere.Nemesis said:
If a virus developes a complex system such as the ones claimed to be "irreducibly complex" out of randomness I will truly be in awe. How will a virus develop an eyeball? Will it gradually gain rods one by one, then cones? How many years will it be carrying such parts that are ineffective without others? Would this virus reproduce successfully while it carries this strange and useless eye-like growth that's waiting and hoping for other parts to randomly develop so that it can become effective? Whether these things develop slowly or all at once would be a miracle beyond even the awe inspiring power of chemistry.Nemesis said:
Well, that must have been one lucky molecule to have atoms chemically arrange themselves (however gradually) into the first DNA "codes"! It would be fascinating to see when the first heartbeat was formed along with the necessary brain tissue, neurons, etc. required to cause and keep it beating. Of course I'm joking. Any sense of probabilities show that this is impossible to happen randomly given any amount of time. Of course I don't suppose you actually believe it happened with unguided, unassisted chemistry. I add this just to make a point. If anyone thinks there are odds that this could spontaneously happen (however gradually), I know some friends who would love to play poker with you.Nemesis said:
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I can't speak as to whether or not there was a spark of the divine involved in the creation of life -- but I don't think it's remotely the mathematical impossibility you're implying. Nearly infinite environments in the universe, each with a constant, limitless series of chances for the essential amino acids to form and start off the process... eventually the fourteen or so atoms that it takes to create one will come together.
Mjr. Whoopass said:
Thats a bit muddled. In science a theory is not an imperfect fact. A scientific theory is a model which are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Einstein's revised Newtons theory of Gravity last century but the facts didnt disappear, and much of Newtons work is just as relative today, as is Darwin's original theory. Theories *should* be revised and updated, its not supposed to be some static absolute construct that we must accept as gospel (if you pardon the expression).
Thats how you gain prestige and respect in science btw, which is to start a fight and challenge the dominant theory and accepted way of thinking and if you can, refine it or replace it with one of your own that explains the evidence better. The way someone earns the Nobel prize, I might add, is by finding the flaws in revaluing theories and by proposing something that improves our understanding.
There will always be things we dont know, but just because we dont know them doesnt mean we cant know anything.
Well first a virus is not technically a living organism. The only characteristic it displays of what is considered a living organism is that is can replicate itself. Because of this it is in a kind of inbetween gray area of life and non-life. While not strickly alive they do evolve in the process of viral replication, where mutations occur. Since so many copies are made the bad mutations dont usually cause any harm to the virus. The mutations that dont harm it lead instead to brand new strains. The influenza virus (flu) is famous for this and why its so hard to beat as each year new strains need to be identified so vacienes can be made against them. There is actually recent, and growing concern, that a strain of flu that infects birds will combine with a human strain leading to a far more dangerous and potentially lethal influenza virus.
Evolution of the eye (brief):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
The Intermediate Stages Of The Fish Eye:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_stages.html
This is is a muddled view of abiogenesis. But the science of how life could start from non-living material was first 'observed' back in 1998 a group of German scientists; which developed reproducing molecules, the first step to the road to life, that arose from experiments created from inanimate material.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
Relatively far down the line! Just like the eye, these things didnt just suddenly appear. The heart evolved over many sequential steps, but not like bits of a heart, or bits of a wing like you suppose above, but fully functioning organs.
Except Evolution is not random at all, this again is a misunderstanding. Again, I suggest you read the "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution". Your criticisms are not valid because they are based on a lack of understanding of the science.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Ed
Maj.Striker said:
I will be more precise. All 'evidence' I have seen for Creation, has been nothing but conjecture. I've read a fair amount of Creation stuff. Sorry if you have an issue with this.
Regarding why there is this huge debate, I will call fourth my incredible powers of recollection! And try to remember a documentary I watched
IIRC, this all started because for some Christians (biblical literalists, I guess you would say nowadays), the Bible ties in strongly with their belief. Bible=word of God. God=Always correct. Evolutionary theory suggests that the Bible is wrong (does not match Genesis). And thus for these people, there is no God.As Neils Bohr allegedly said "Who are you to tell God what to do?"
Mjr. Whoopass
<FONT color=lightblue><B>I was going to say someth
I was responding to someone's comparison of a virus to something that could develop into the wide variety of species that we see today, not making a claim as to whether a virus is a living organism or not.Edx said:
Edx said:
I would rely on the TalkOrigins site as readily as I would rely on a creationist discussion forum (which isn't very much). Like someone earlier, I would suggest limiting links to sites by people knowledgable in the field and who have had significant peer review. TalkOrigins, by it's own admission, is not such a site (quoted from the talkorigins site): "Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts." To say that these sites are a brief statement of the evolution of the eye is an extreme understatement. Here is a better idea of the eye's complexity from the University of Texas - Houston Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine's world wide Medical Education Information Center (MEDIC™). http://medic.med.uth.tmc.edu/Lecture/Main/eye.htm
The very first sentence in this article makes it clear that this example does NOT start on its own from non-living material: "German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory." Note that German scientists "created" it. This also shows clearly that it was not merely 'observed' as you put it. This is also the second time you've stated that something I've wrote is "muddled". I feel everything I've wrote was clearly explained considering the fact that I'm trying to limit the size of my posts (which are already long). If you don't understand something I wrote I would be happy to explain. However, I would suggest you PM me so that the people who understand them don't have to watch me explain them to you.Edx said:
In my post I dealt with the idea of these things gradually appearing as well as suddenly appearing.Edx said:
Once again, talkorigins is simply a discussion forum that takes an aggressively evolutionist stance. I would suggest we limit quoting either this or likewise, an aggressively creationist discussion forum. I'll use yet another quote from the talkorigins site itself: "...this informal procedure is not as demanding as the process a scientist goes through to publish a paper in a scientific journal. It is important to keep this fact in mind when reading the contents of this archive. Because most of the essays have not undergone rigorous peer review, some of them may contain errors or misstatements of fact."Edx said:
For your viewing pleasure I will include one of the more obvious misstatements of fact from that very link: "The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished." While this may be true of SOME creationists, there are certainly many who know what the evolution theory says. This is the type of incorrect generalizations that can be found on discussion forums but should not appear on serious scientific literature.
You stated in the above quote that "Evolution is not random at all". I will again use your link to show that your article states that chance indeed plays a large part: "Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution..." and "Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with." My criticisms ARE valid because they ARE based upon an understanding of the science that was gained from numerous accellerated and University science courses. I would suggest limiting the personal assaults and staying focused on the discussion of ideas. If you want to successfully assault my knowledge of science, at least don't allow me to use your very own link to defend myself (and be careful, because I might start biting back
). You can have a knowledge of science and have an opinion that evolution is "not random at all". However you cannot have this opinion while believing "Mark Isaak"'s opinion is fact.Mjr. Whoopass said:
Except Creationist discussion forums arent supported by any scientific scources at all. While talkorigins is not as rigorous as peer review, which Creationists wont subect themselves to, its surely the next best thing.
I would also direct you to their "awards" page.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/awards/
Example: "Smithsonian Institution Human Origins Program recommends the Talk.Origins Archive on their links page as having "quality content that can help you in further pursuing your interests in paleoanthropology and related disciplines ... A great site for the interested student. "
Well of course they artificially created it as the process cannot take place today naturally since the conditions are very different, but the point is they created the building blocks of life from inanimate (dead) material, that are able to evolve. Creationists often state life from nonlife is impossible, when this is actually observable.
You ask, "Would this virus reproduce successfully while it carries this strange and useless eye-like growth that's waiting and hoping for other parts to randomly develop so that it can become effective" -- Well no one would ever suggest anything like that would happen to a virus, and this shows you dont understand how evolution works. Gradual incremental steps, not part of an organ that is useless to the creature. If you looked at the Fish Eye link anyone can see see its not any way you like describe. If you are going to criticize evolution you have understand how it really works, or instead you are just picking at a strawman.
This is the mainstream view, that is supported by peer-review which no Creationist will subject themselves to. They choose to preach to church goers and lay people instead. That says something in itself.
If you can find a Creationist site that is supported by even one major scientifc institution or journal you can compare it.
And the newsgroup is not the same as the website, the website is an archive. The articles contained were selected. While not as rigorous as peer review they have undergone the scrutiny of the talkorigins group, many of which are scientists have which have also contributed significant portions, and of course the mainsteam scientific community which support the site (see earlier link)
And if you read a little further in your quote you would have read : "Read the primary, reviewed literature before making up your mind on any topic. Most of the archive's essays provide references to primary sources to make it easier for you to do this."
Creationist sites never do this, and cannot link to any peer reviewed literature to support their case since there isnt any.
If they know what evolution is, this does not reflect in their arguments. Thats the point. Because many of them have signed statements that they will never change their minds, they generally wont do any outside reading so arguments as silly moondust, thermodynamics or using out of date quotes from dead scientists get thrown about so much.
There is no contradiction here. If you roll dice the result you get isnt based on pure random chance either. Similarly while chance does play a part in evolution, it is not random. If you had read a little further on that page site :
"...Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating..."
IOW, its not some kind of random statistical improbablility you describe it as being.
On the contrary, I think I have been perfectly civil and I refuse to let it degenrate into that (my end at least)! When I said you were muddled and confused, I have only been stating a fact. Eg, the eye + the confusing way you speak of the scientific method.
Ed
- Status