Creation vs Evolution

Started by Shakyamunison221 pages
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Ahh, he is talking about reincarnation. However, even if someone goes from being a frog, to a tree to a baboon doesn't mean that there are no species.

No, I am not talking about reincarnation.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
They matter because his faith is interesting.

Thank you

Originally posted by inimalist
I think what Shaky is trying to say is that species are an anthropic principal, and that when you look at the history of life without the perspective of the human observer at this time and place, they become more of a continuum rather than discrete items.

Yes, that is part of what I was getting at. Thanks inimalist.

What I have seen on this thread is people like JIA pointing out flaws in the concept of speciation. So, what I was trying to point out is that nature is the boss, and nature will do what nature will do, we are simply observers. The concept of species is a human invention to describe nature, and therefore inherently incorrect at some level. The reason I say this is because the true nature of reality cannot be fully described by humans. There will always be flaws. Therefore, to point at flaws in speciation and claim that animals don’t change over time is comparing apples and oranges. Because there are flaws in science does not mean that science is wrong and god did it all. So, when I said that species don’t exist in real life, I was trying to state that speciation is an abstraction of nature, just like dimensions are an abstraction of nature.

Though, may i ppoint out, that the goal of the definiton of species is to find a naturally relevant defenition. However, nature is diverse and not always directly testable.

Originally posted by Alliance
Though, may i ppoint out, that the goal of the definiton of species is to find a naturally relevant defenition. However, nature is diverse and not always directly testable.
I test nature all the time pitt_shifty

All living creatures have choice of how to live, choice can cause DEATH, evolution is all about what SURVIVES. Survival and death don't mix.

The best way to never die is to never live in the first place.

Originally posted by BananaKing
The best way to never die is to never live in the first place.
😱

Check it out;
http://www.livescience.com/history/070717_lucy_link.html

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Check it out;
http://www.livescience.com/history/070717_lucy_link.html
This has rocked my world, what will I ever do?

Wait I believe in evolution 😛

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
This has rocked my world, what will I ever do?

Wait I believe in evolution 😛

🙄 I thought it was a good article.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
🙄 I thought it was a good article.
It was, I'll have to read it fully later. 🙂

Originally posted by Spliffman
lol so how are we all here man!? c'mon u know god is real!!

This undermines your point. Just because you and a large percentage of the world was fooled into thinking that a Sky-Father of some sort pulled a Deus Ex Machina for your identity crisis doesn't make it so. Facts don't care if you want unique origins.

I feel no presence of God and most (if not all, I claim not to be an expert) organized religion's have major scientific and factual flaws. At best you can get an atheist like myself to admit that you can't disprove a higher being that "watches" over us in the vaguest sense. Still, there is more to that than say, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

I will let you believe what you want (I am not so much of an anti-theist anymore, I think that religions, Buddhism in particular, have a lot of interesting states of mind and ideas to offer, although, let me tell you, I just got a job painting and I am not Zen at all, I have a severe case of monkey-mind), but it would be appreciated if you prove up.

For a long time I agreed with Jim about the seeming benignancy that the major world religions displayed, but then I began to learn history and started to pay attention to the news more closely than before. The majority of killing going on today in Iraq, Israel, and pretty much the entire Middle East, as well as the Crusades, Inquisition, Holy wars and all of the Jihads that have occured.

Originally posted by Jbill311
For a long time I agreed with Jim about the seeming benignancy that the major world religions displayed, but then I began to learn history and started to pay attention to the news more closely than before. The majority of killing going on today in Iraq, Israel, and pretty much the entire Middle East, as well as the Crusades, Inquisition, Holy wars and all of the Jihads that have occured.

So clearly man evolved from lower lifeforms.

I dislike the term lower. It portrays some sort of intelligent progression behind evolution, and reinforces the delusion that many have that evolution was leading up to humans. We are nothing more than another link in the chain, except that we have developed a sense of intelligence, and the ability to pass inventions and ingenuity through the generations far more effectively than any other species yet on earth.

What you're saying is the term "lower" is an archaic one from when man tried to order creation.

that's right

I was just wondering... I wasn't raised around staunch Christians, so I wouldn't know, but why are Christians so threatened by the theory of evolution?
I read a good explanation by Daniel Quinn, that said that Christianity was trying to cast itself as humanity's religion, so if the earth is older than the 6000 years predicted by the bible, then It must be wrong.

Originally posted by Jbill311
that's right

I was just wondering... I wasn't raised around staunch Christians, so I wouldn't know, but why are Christians so threatened by the theory of evolution?
I read a good explanation by Daniel Quinn, that said that Christianity was trying to cast itself as humanity's religion, so if the earth is older than the 6000 years predicted by the bible, then It must be wrong.

its not Christians

even the contribution of christian members to this thread can show that. It is VERY easy to view a metaphorical bible as being consistant with science.

However, mix religion with poverty, low education, low social mobility, low autonomy, low self-determination and a social struture that supports isolationist and segreationist mentalities (I don't mean in the racial sense) then people will believe whatever you tell them.

From there it is the unfortunate fact that 1) The salience of any argument that pertains to God makes that argument seem more "truthful" to anyone who believes in God and 2) Belief in God is normally associated with the acceptance of church authority, and thus, should figures within the church say things that you might not logically agree with, you are motivated by social and "belongingness" forces (not to mention a good dose of cognitive dissonance) to agree with what the church leaders are saying. I guess the addendum to that is to point out that it is the most radical and outspoken church leaders who seem to get the most air time..... which only can agitate the situation more.

DOES MACROEVOLUTION EXIST

TODD GRANTHAM (2007)
IS MACROEVOLUTION MORE THAN SUCCESSIVE ROUNDS OF MICROEVOLUTION?
Palaeontology 50 (1), 75–85.

Abstract: Whether macrovolution is reducible to microevolution is one of the persistent debates in evolutionary biology. Although the concept of emergence is important to answering this question, it has not been extensively discussed within palaeobiology. A taxonomy of emergence concepts is presented to clarify the ways in which emergence relates to this debate. Weak emergence is a particularly helpful way to understand the hierarchical nature of biology: it captures the ways in which higher-level traits depend on lower-level processes, while recognizing that emergent traits can nonetheless provide the basis for autonomous higher-level theories. A brief review of the biological literature suggests that geographical range size is weakly emergent. While some concepts of emergence do not block the attempt to reduce macroevolution (i.e. the attempt to explain all macroevolutionary phenomena in terms of microevolutionary processes), weak emergence does. Thus, if geographical range is weakly emergent, it provides a basis for arguing that macroevolutionary phenomena cannot be fully explained by microevolutionary processes.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00603.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28macroevolution%29

DAVID JABLONSKI (2007)
SCALE AND HIERARCHY IN MACROEVOLUTION
Palaeontology 50 (1), 87–109.

Abstract: Scale and hierarchy must be incorporated into any conceptual framework for the study of macroevolution, i.e. evolution above the species level. Expansion of temporal and spatial scales reveals evolutionary patterns and processes that are virtually inaccessible to, and unpredictable from, short-term, localized observations. These larger-scale phenomena range from evolutionary stasis at the species level and the mosaic assembly of complex morphologies in ancestral forms to the non-random distribution in time and space of the origin of major evolutionary novelties, as exemplified by the Cambrian explosion and post-extinction recoveries of metazoans, and the preferential origin of major marine groups in onshore environments and tropical waters. Virtually all of these phenomena probably involve both ecological and developmental factors, but the integration of these components with macroevolutionary theory has only just begun. Differential survival and reproduction of units can occur at several levels within a biological hierarchy that includes DNA sequences, organisms, species and clades. Evolution by natural selection can occur at any level where there is heritable variation that affects birth and death of units by virtue of interaction with the environment. This dynamic can occur when selfish DNA sequences replicate disproportionately within genomes, when organisms enjoy fitness advantages within populations (classical Darwinian selection), when differential speciation or extinction occurs within clades owing to organismic properties (effect macroevolution), and when differential speciation or extinction occurs within clades owing to emergent, species-level properties (in the strict sense species selection). Operationally, emergent species-level properties such as geographical range can be recognized by testing whether their macroevolutionary effects are similar regardless of the different lower-level factors that produce them. Large-scale evolutionary trends can be driven by transformation of species, preferential production of species in a given direction, differential origination or extinction, or any combination of these; the potential for organismic traits to hitch-hike on other factors that promote speciation or damp extinction is high. Additional key attributes of macroevolutionary dynamics within biological hierarchies are that (1) hierarchical levels are linked by upward and downward causation, so that emergent properties at a focal level do not impart complete independence; (2) hierarchical effects are asymmetrical, so that dynamics at a given focal level need not propagate upwards, but will always cascade downwards; and (3) rates are generally, although not always, faster at lower hierarchical levels. Temporal and spatial patterns in the origin of major novelties and higher taxa are significantly discordant from those at the species and genus levels, suggesting complex hierarchical effects that remain poorly understood. Not only are many of the features promoting survivorship during background times ineffective during mass extinctions, but also they are replaced in at least some cases by higher-level, irreducible attributes such as clade-level geographical range. The incorporation of processes that operate across hierarchical levels and a range of temporal and spatial scales has expanded and enriched our understanding of evolution.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00615.x

So, it appears as though macroevolution does exist after all, though maybe not to someone who wants to reduce all life to genes (re: me.....). Interesting articles, if anyone wants the whole thing I can probably figure out a way to email it or host it somewhere for d/l, give me a PM.

What is the theory behind reducing all life to genes?

reductionist biology?

I'm pretty sure it is wrong having looked over the second article. While all variance and fitness advantages to eventually come down to genetic changes, there seems to be evidence to support the idea that it may not always be the genes driving the evolution.

What else could be a driving factor?