Creation vs Evolution

Started by inimalist221 pages

"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."

Its not an easy thing to say "oh, this is driving this and not being driven by that" and for the most part I probably am not familiar enough with the field to know why it isn't reducable to DNA, especially when talking about theories of emergance. My guess is that, the conventional "DNA drives everything" is just not nuanced enough to explain some things, such as why there is stagnation of variance at a species level, though I can personally see that as a genetic property. Unfortunatly I am not a paelentolegist, or a biologist, so more than posting and parroting what other people say, I'm not a big authority on this.

Originally posted by Jbill311
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.

Yes . . . but having pride in ones species isn't a bad thing.

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.

The best part is...evolution doesn't prove the earth is old...physics does, but physics has never been popularized and isn't easy to understand. It a much harder realm to fight in, so creationism transferrs itself to Natural Seleciton to fight a proxy war that even if it won, wouldn't change anything.

Originally posted by Mithlond
My belief is that there is some kind of 'higher power', although I don't strictly follow any organised religion as I believe their messages have been too manipulated by men for political ends over the past few thousand years.

However; the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming; the evidence for the creation story in the bible has several major flaws; the most prominent being that you could quite easily translate the original Hebrew to English or Latin with several different versions, so how can you be sure the bible you read has the actual true intended meaning? For example, the Hebrew word for 'days' is the same as the Hebrew word for 'ages'.

The world ISN'T just several thousand years old; it is millions of years old. There is overwhelming evidence for this. I'm sorry, but anyone who takes the creation story of Genesis as - excuse the pun - Gospel has little grasp on reality and lives in a dream world. I don't mean that as a personal slur on any individual here and I speak in generic terms.

However, that is NOT to deny the existence of a higher power, call it God, Allah, Mother Earth, etc... I agree there is too much design in the world. But, to follow the Creationist line is just, in my personal opinion, utter craziness.

That basically reflects my beliefs.

Originally posted by Adam Hussein
I agree there is too much design in the world. But, to follow the Creationist line is just, in my personal opinion, utter craziness.

So because you are incapable of thinking of a way for the world to exist, you tell us that something must have created it?

sorry, sorry, I know this thread is old, but it's just such a fun topic to rant about...

let it die.

I agree, the first reply in this thread pretty much summed it up and definitively closed all debate points with it's sound and unshakable logic.

First reply:

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
meh anotha theory iz gunna cum along eventually dat disagrees wit everything else, so i basically stik wit God since its same Shit always and is something u can definately find out for yourslef if real or not in the end

Agreed.

D-disagreed.

Originally posted by Robtard
I agree, the first reply in this thread pretty much summed it up and definitively closed all debate points with it's sound and unshakable logic.

First reply:

😛

Originally posted by Robtard
I agree, the first reply in this thread pretty much summed it up and definitively closed all debate points with it's sound and unshakable logic.

First reply:

I can't read. 🙁

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.”
-Charles Darwin

"Every organism, ranging from the complexity of a human being to the simplicity of a single-celled prokaryotic bacterium, is shaped by evolution. Evolution, also known as Darwinism, is a series or random mutations, that when beneficial, are passed on through future generations of a species that eventually result in a species with a new trait, and, ultimately, a new species entirely. Charles Darwin first developed and proposed the theory of evolution in the mid 19th century after going on a world-wide voyage, and his ideas have since grown in popularity and scientific proof. It is imperative that evolution be understood and accepted in our society. Evolution is a scientific fact. This can be proven by the falsehood of anti-evolutionary claims, the individual evolutionary paths of specific organisms, and the evidence to support Darwinism through fossil records.
There are many anti-evolutionary theories and beliefs that have been used to attempt to discredit Darwinism in its entirety since it first became an issue. Many of these assertions use scripture as evidence and are brought up by creationists who think that their beliefs are superior to Darwin’s logic and observation-based conclusions. What many creationists refuse to realize is that the conflict need not be evolution versus creationism in its entirety. Is it completely impossible that whatever greater power one might believe in designed all species, including humans and their predecessors, to adapt to an environment that has been proved to be constantly changing? Another phrase that has been used to bash and discredit evolution is the tossing around of the words “It is just a theory.” This, while 100 percent correct, means very little. In scientific terms, “theory” is a term that is not taken lightly. The notion that evolution is wrong due to the fact that it is just a theory is comparable to asserting that “relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen” (Quammen). It is fair to say that these theories are generally accepted as fact, and that is because they do not conflict with hypotheses thousands of years out of date recorded in scripture.
It is well understood that there is a variety between all organisms. This variety is due to random mutations in each organism. Specific observations of these variations show how evolution has shaped certain species. Some of the best examples of the effects evolution have had on isolated populations are in the Galapagos Islands, a place where Charles Darwin made many of his observations. A commonly used example of an isolated population within the Galapagos is the finch. There are many types of finches on the islands of the Galapagos, but each is individual. Through time, the finches have evolved separate from each other to do specific jobs on separate islands. Where there is an abundance of hard shelled nuts, there are larger, strong-beaked finches. Where there is softer food, the finches are smaller with smaller beaks. Another variation among one species that can be more readily understood is dogs. All dogs are the same species, meaning they are alike enough to breed and produce fertile offspring, but that is where their similarities end. Dogs have evolved from a single type of canine into the variety that can be seen today. Each type was isolated and adapted to fit in a niche in its environment thanks to evolution.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Evolution does not happen over night, though, so expecting to see significant changes in any species over the course of an individual’s lifetime is not an option. Due to the process being gradual, however, there are many transitional creatures, organisms that are somewhere in-between two types of known species, one ancient, the other more modern, that can be found as fossils. For starters, there is Archaeopteryx, a winged, feathered, dinosaur-like creature. Archaeopteryx shows the beginning stages of an evolutionary change that many renowned scientists believe led to the first avian creatures. Among others are “an early whale that lived on land, and [an] animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod” (Wilford 2). All of these types of fossils have been found, and the significance of each of them is not to be understated. Each is a milestone in furthering the proof of evolution through the finding of physical evidence of transitional creatures.
In conclusion, the evidence for evolution is overpowering. The lack of counter-arguments, the individual evolutionary paths of specific organisms, and the fossil records do not lye. One of the only aspects that is more overpowering than the evidence is people’s willingness to disbelieve evolution based on illogical assumptions. The good that can be accomplished by accepting evolution may not be immediately apparent, but neither was the good that could be accomplished by the acceptance of the fact that the Earth is round or our Solar system heliocentric. Each has played a huge part in humanities understanding of the nature of science. The realizations and advancements that could come from a general admittance, understanding, and acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact has the potential to be much more groundbreaking that either of the previous theories, because it deals with the very nature of how life is shaped. The real question isn’t weather or not evolution is existent, but weather or not you are ready to accept it."

Wall of Text crits you for 278 points of eye-melting damage.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Wall of Text crits you for 278 points of eye-melting damage.

Ya, he should have used blue text. 😆

Please read this:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/070801_fin_fossil.html

Query: What is the point of that link?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Query: What is the point of that link?

Education. You can't talk about evolution unless you have current information. Would you rather I make a new thread for every article I find?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Education. You can't talk about evolution unless you have current information. Would you rather I make a new thread for every article I find?

Statement: FeceMan does not wish for Shakyamunison to do so unless Shakyamunison wishes FeceMan to call him "anti-JIA."

Declaration: Shakyamunison does not need to become defensive when presented with a non-hostile inquiry.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: FeceMan does not wish for Shakyamunison to do so unless Shakyamunison wishes FeceMan to call him "anti-JIA."

Declaration: Shakyamunison does not need to become defensive when presented with a non-hostile inquiry.

feceman needs to stop referring to himself in the third peron.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: FeceMan does not wish for Shakyamunison to do so unless Shakyamunison wishes FeceMan to call him "anti-JIA."

Declaration: Shakyamunison does not need to become defensive when presented with a non-hostile inquiry.

New meds?

😆