Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Mooseman, Jun 22, 2005.
Nail on the head.
Evolution fails as a theory when you are talking about major changes. Minor changes occur such as the pigmentation of a butterfly species from white to black as a survival trait during the industrialization of England.
Quantum changes or major changes necessary for the diversification of different kingdoms, such as plant to animal, or single cell to complex organism, have no evidence of occuring. Any major mutation to a complex organism is 99.999% fatal. I would say a hundred percent but we aren't allowed to say that. For example a man born with an extra heart usually dies before he hits puberty. And even if you could have a stable quantum mutation such a person with four arms, in order to pass on said genes of the new species would require a mate to have developed the same evolutionary changes.
In other words most major mutations cause things to die, if it doesn't die, it has to be able to attract a mate in order to pass on its genes, if it is a new species the mate has to be compitable, or else it won't reproduce or will reproduce infertile offspring like the jenny.
In some hybrids, females can be fertile, but males can't. There is a genetic explanation for this that isn't all too difficult to grasp, but I forget how it went...
What's the time frame we're talking about here though? Many "minor" changes could add up to a "major" change over thousands to millions of years.
Theres a great example in the august 15 times magazine.
It is about eyes. It goes something like this.
"Although to some it may seem impossible for eyes to have came from evolution, it can be explained given the fact we are talking about millions and millions of years. Eyes could have started as simple light sensitive cells, allowing the organism to tell wheter it was day or night, and therefore when its most common food will be out. From there more could have been added, or even cells sensitive to color. Things like the lens would help the eyes focus. Etc."
Evolution would not probably occur as a instant change. We wouldn't have gone from insect to human.
Question: mythosx, do you know what the word Quantum means. It's best to use a dictionary before using $4 words.
And this proves what? That mutation is not always successful? Thank you for stating the obvious.
When debating a subject, it is best to at least understand what you are debating. Both of these examples have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory is a slow process with many minor changes, not huge leaps. Also, both parents need not have the same changes to pass them on, ever heard of resseive and dominant genes?
The theory of evolution is not complete and written in stone, but that does not mean that the basic underlying science is flawed.
I am still waiting for one, just one scrap of evidence that ID or Creationism is a valid theory.
Hey mooseman, please don't be so stand-offish. This is a classy site lets keep it that way.
Quantum means means packets, in other words like the quantum leaps between energy levels in electron orbits and what not. I used it to talk about the necessary jumps in evolution that need to occur or certain changes can't happen.
For example, the animal heart. If you claim evolution, then it slowly evolved and then all the other supporting organs had to evolve slowly over time. But this can't really be. A heart by itself doesnt work. It requires the entire respritory system to be there at the same time.
That means there had to be a creature without a heart, lungs, blood vessels, madula oblangata...etc. And then within 1 generation had to develop or mutate all that. You can't kind of have a half heart and evolve that thing, it either exists or it doesnt. And it can not exist by itself, the entire system has to develop at the same time. Because of complex organ systems, that is why intellegent design is being discussed. The evolutionary theory isn't what you say it is. It isn't always about small changes...small changes don't fill in gaps in evolutionary chains. Most scientist already concede that so don't make up your own theories.
Oversoul, you are right about the hybrid females being fertile, but with out males, the new species dies or reverts back to one of the original species. Genetics is a finicky mistress, one that doesn't really care of hybrids. Cept huskies apparently, that one I don't know. I personally think dogs and wolves are the same though, they should don't do it with each other. Normally.
Let me present you all with this idea. Since evolution is a theory, that means its not complete. That means its not a fact. Ergo, you must have faith that it works. If that is the case, why is it ok to present one faith based idea in school and not another?
Sorry if you took it that way, It wasn't intended that way.
I can't even respond to this...... to me it make no sense..... Half a heart? What are you talking about? No never mind, I see that you have your mind set on your belief and nothing anyone can say will change that.
More bad logic.... sorry but this is getting nowhere. I started this post to see what people on CPA thought of ID, but I did not expect such blind faith.
Once again..... and for the last time....... what evidence is there that ID is even plausable and why could God not have created life, man,etc... via evolution. I have not seen any on this site or the ID/Creationism sites on the internet, just some philosophical differences, but no real evidence.
Everything that requires evidence negates faith. The most beautiful desires, beliefs, and hopes - from the simple desire of being loved and loving someone to the brief moments in which one hopes that there really is peace out there, and along all of our ideals (supposing that we have ideals, of course) - all these are things that have never been, and will never be proven - and yet they constitute the very engine of life, provides its sustenance. Man would have not gotten "this far" if it were only for mere science; everywhere we have come to know today, and everything that we will know tomorrow, and every bit of sanity that keeps us asking these questions while consequently forming irreconcilable doubts, all this...rests on the back of faith: faith in our questions, faith that there are questions and the need for questioning, faith in science, faith in knowledge, faith in mankind, faith in yourself as an individual who deserves to ask, doubt, speak, and understand answers. There is absolutly no evidence, for example, that I should respect or tolerate you as a human being. There is no evidence that you have freedom, much less, the freedom to ask and doubt. There is no evidence of the American Constitution. There is no evidence of the law. There is no evidence of good and evil. Without faith in them - a lot of faith! - everything is possible. Every rule, every law, every legal matter, every question of racism, equality, freedom, war, peace, good, evil...in other words, everything that we need necessarily in order to function enough to have our "sciences," is based on nothing more than...faith. Take that faith away, enter nihilism, and you shall not even have your precious science. The world would enter a stage of unending, blatant upheaval.
Not that I necessarily believe in Creationism, but I do know the proper priorities to keep in mind: to request "evidence" from something that is essential only without evidence...is ill-founded. In other words, if you are asking for the "proof" of God, you are barking the wrong tree. Many wrong trees, as a matter of fact.
I thought it was obvious enough that hybrids wouldn't be a very good vehicle for speciation. But I guess pointing it out can't hurt.
Anyway, dogs and wolves have been considered the same species for some time now. They used to be Canis familiaris and Canis lupus respectively. But now they're both Canis lupus and are divided into subspecies. Domesticated dogs are typically (if I remember correctly) Canis lupus familiaris while wolves (or at least gray wolves) are Canis lupus X.
Shouldn't do it with each other? You're silly.
And herein lies the problem. IDT is, to put it bluntly, a cop-out. I can say "God did it" about anything and no one can prove me wrong. If there's absolutely no explanation for something, despite rigorous testing, I can always tack "God did it" to the phenomenon and call it a "theory." But what's the point of a theory if it is of no use to me? As I stated earlier, theories are tools. "God did it" (perhaps Intelligent Design Theory should be called God Did It Theory) is not a tool. It's an empty dismissal. Even if a good explanation (with lots of evidence) is given for my phenomenon, I can claim that God is responsible for the workings of whatever powers the (former) phenomenon. This is a continuous and scientifically pointless cycle until such a time as...judgment day or whatever (well, either until I die or God starts helping me out).
The response to the somewhat significant adherence to IDT (or GDIT) is illogical, but entirely predictable. As DÛke pointed out, "Science is mind-numbing. On a research, ambitious, curious level, I have no doubt that there are some people out there who truly think scientifically; on a casual and social level, however, science is nothing more than a new God, worshiped even more so blindly than once upon a time God was worshiped. The masses sway from one idolatry to the next."
And so, where I conclude that IDT's use is limited to thought experiments, it seems that many will not stop there. Since IDT is not really a valid theory, Darwinian evolution MUST be right about EVERYTHING. So instead of searching for truth, scientists are focused on backing up the current pet theory.
And they've extended the theory from a biological one, to a universal one. If something in geology doesn't fit with "evolution" (which I have have seriously seen referred to as the Grand Unifying Theory) then it has to be replaced or thrown out.
This theory should be treated as a tool. Instead it is treated, by members of the so-called scientific community, as dogma. This leads to people spouting nonsense about Darwinian evolution having as much evidence as gravity does.
That there in is my point. Thanks oversoul. It isn't dogma.
Acutally ID isn't just about god. A very narrow branch of scientist have a distant origins theory. Life came from some where else by some fluke or aliens even.
Hey mooseman, if you are so hell bent on proof, show me proof of evolution. To be honest, there isn't a shred of hard evidence supporting evolution. We have no gradual fossil evidence of evolution. And while your at it, show me these three specific gaps in the evolution theory. Life from no life, plant to animal, and single cell to complex organisms. Evolution can't explain those changes, at least not with slowly evolving over millions of years.
Well, when IDT was originally concocted, it was to provide an alternative to evolutionary theory that appealed to creationists (and was all about God). I do know that there are now some other factors involved. But "aliens did it" is just as dismissive as "God did it" until it can be tested with the scientific method (this is not to say that evolution is tested much with the scientific method).
Not to jump on the "evolution is inadequate" bandwagon (it's the most solid theory we have AT THE MOMENT that explains how organisms grow and change, etc. and an honest analysis of it would be much better than blindly defending or attacking it), but there must be literally hundreds of issues that have been brought up where evolution doesn't have any good answers. Of course, it's hard for me (not being an expert in any field of biology) to ascertain which ones are valid points and which ones are total fabrications...
Well met oversoul, I don't have an issue with evolution, and people don't seem to understand that. Things evolve. I know this, everyone knows this. The kicker that people associate with evolution without realizing it is spontaneous generation.
When science first came about one of the first theories it disproved was spontanious generation. Basically, life doesn't just spring out of no life. You can have non-living matter generate living matter. So if this is the a KNOWN FACT why do "evolutionists" (not what evolution is all about anyway), why do people insist that a theory of life generating from no life is scientific? IT IS A KNOWN FACT that life does not come from no where.
Well, special conditions are hypothesized in which life might result (obviously spontaneous generation could not just magically happen).
I believe the Miller-Urey experiment has already been mentioned in this thread. But it only created amino acids. Until life can be engineered in a controlled experiment, the whole thing seems implausible.
I'm to lazy to point as to where these arguments go or to qoute.
1. On hearts, look up the cardiov vascular systems of smaller animals like grass hoppers. They have many small hearts that beat along one main line.
2. There are groups of single cell organisms that form larger clumps in order to float up to the surface of the water, thereby getting more oxygen.
There are multicellular organisms, that consist of about 20 some cells. They have the specialization also.
3. Evolution: What happens with life over many years.
Creationism: How life starts.
Wheres the conflict?
After Football today, in the lockeroom there was an argument about jesus walking on water. My point was however, that they all believed he was a god, but that he didn't walk on water. People easily get sucked in to the wrong arguments. Darwinists bring up creating life in order to shred ID.
4. There will never probably be fossil evidince of singe to multi cell, becuase they are too small
This is a very interesting comment, Duke...I'm going to yank it a bit out of context and use it to make a point.
First off, I guess we need to understand what we mean by "science", or in this case, "mere science". Personally, I would put that everything that happens, has happened, or ever will happen is based on certain laws of nature that cannot be broken. That this is how things "work". I would call that "science". In which case, everything is scientific and nothing happens that doesn't have an explaination.
Next, I find it increadibly arrogant of quite a few people (not just those on this board, and certainly not everyone on this board) to posit theories and speculations as somehow more important that what I have just referred to as science. Oversoul stated it well when he said that the proponants of Evolution often religate many componants of what they believe to dogma. There are too many gaps...In fact, many contradictory pieces, and yet they choose to ignore those areas as unexplainables.
I certainly don't care whether or not we teach God in the classroom. Personally, I would rather that be taught in the home anyway. But by the same token, it is extream arrogance to want to present any unproven philosophy and calling it "science" which somehow gives it legitimacy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there is absolutely nothing to the theory, I'm just rephrasing my original argument that we shouldn't be even implying something like that is factual in the classroom, which is where entirely too many people take this.
Grasshoppers don't have hearts, they have a series of pumps and an open circulatory system that floods their tissues with oxygenated blood. It's completely different from a "heart" or any closed circulatory system.
Your second thing is actually right, so far as I can tell. The third thing may be referring to mesozoans, but it has too little information for me to tell.
But what is the point? The thread is a discussion of educational issues concerning Darwinism and IDT. It isn't the "fun science facts" thread.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Some proponents of Darwinian evolution do believe God started/guided the process. Others are atheists and still others don't make any assertions in this area. But "creationists" generally believe that God poofed the universe into existence and often use literal interpretation of the Bible to claim that evolution contradicts it. Most of them I've met are "young earth creationists" who believe the world isn't all that old (the lowest figure is usually about 6,000 years, based on the work of a scholar, which is taken out of context anyway), but larger numbers like 10,000 or even 20,000 also make appearances.
No conflict? I think you're confusing "creationism" with Christianity (not all Christians take the events in the Bible literally, but the ones that apply literal interpretation to the creation story in Genesis are the ones who originally labelled themselves "creationists" in response to the term "evolutionist" used to describe a proponent of Darwinian evolution).
They were in response to holes in evolution.
I defined creationism as the belief that a god/gods created the world
Indeed, it mostly begins in the class room. Two failures: teachers, from my experience, fail to inform the students regarding the holes in the theory of Evolution. Instead, it is taught as "hard science": as something that is useful, practical, and long time proven. The other failure concerns the students: students who learn not the lesson, but the mistakes taught throughout the lesson. They grow up to be what you see today: "evolution is not a theory, it is a fact."
The truth is, there are no facts, only interpretations of facts. The facts that we believe are merely reinterpretations of essential facts that we cannot exactly understand on an objective level since we are humans, after all, and everything that we learn we learn from a humanly perspective, and this little perspective we call "factual" (see th example I gave in this thread about why Darwin began the whole "Origin of a Species" enterprise...)
Aside of all that, I think that I would be cutting too much slack by saying that "Evolution is a theory," because I am not even willing to give it that much credit. As a suggestion, it is as good as Creationism. As science? It will soon become a joke in serious scientific journals, while the everyday man will go on thinking despite "the facts."
Evan D: While your definition makes sense from a standpoint of what the word looks like it SHOULD mean, the vast majority of the places where the word is used are in the context of "creationism vs. evolution" and the vast majority of those are the "young earth" variety of creationism. I think this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on creationism explains the situation pretty well...
"The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the book of Genesis (for Jews and Christians) or literally as described in the Qur'an (for Muslims.) Although the Hebrew Bible does not provide an account of creatio ex nihilo (‘creation out of nothing’) and, according to some scholars, may even suggest different accounts of creation, some Jews and Christians use Genesis exclusively as a support of their beliefs about origins. Refer to creation according to Genesis.
Theists believe that the universe and life were created by God. The idea could equally be applied by Deists, who believe that there was a God who originally created the universe, and that God then either ceased to actively interfere with its operation, or simply ceased to exist. Similarly, proponents of an alternative type of creationism might rely on a belief that the universe was created by many deities, in accordance with a polytheistic faith, or by Vishnu, the Titans of Greek mythology or any of the host of other such beings.
The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs conflicting with the theory of evolution by natural selection. This conflict is most prevalent in the United States, where there has been sustained creation-evolution controversy in the public arena. On the other hand, many faiths which believe in divine creation accept evolution by natural selection as well as, to a greater or lesser extent, scientific explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life – such beliefs have been given the name evolutionary creationism, though others call them "theistic evolution". To distinguish the belief that individual "kinds" of higher organisms were created by divine intervention in the natural order, from the belief that the Universe (and its contents) was created by God, the former is sometimes referred to as special creation.
Many creationists adopt a literal interpretation of religious or supernatural creation accounts, and say that a particular one is a factual account that supersedes mainstream science (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). Such interpretations run counter to the evidence considered to be the empirical source for information on natural history.
It should be noted that many Christian churches have now rejected "Creationism" outright. Liberal theology considers Genesis a poetic work, that human knowledge of God expands over time and that the early biblical stories show only the most primitive understanding of what was to become known as the Christian deity. Indeed, comparing the God of the early Jewish tribes to the God revealed in the figure of Christ clearly depicts how much theological understanding developed in between the writing of the various books that came to be collected in the Bible. However, in the gospels Jesus quotes Genesis as authoritative." --Wikipedia
However, if you choose to define creationism strictly as something like...
"Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that humans, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity."
...then there is obviously no conflict. Any theory in biology (or physics if we're talking about the big bang, although it's another can of worms to open) considers only the physical, while creationism (as the belief that the universe was made by an entity or entities) is metaphysical.
Separate names with a comma.