Evolution vs. Creation

[Redzeppelin]

Not at all. We've got quite enough to be able to infer aproximately what's missing from the fossil record, and we can determine common ancestry among still-living creatures in other ways. If we have the fossilized remains of Organism A and Organism E, we can assume that there were living, at some point, transitional forms B, C and D. We might also be able to guess what they look like. If we find fossilized remains of B at some point, and they look something like what we expected to, that reinforces our theory. If not, oh well, the theory wasn't depending on them. If, at that point in the fossil record, we find the fossilized remains of Organism Z, then we have a serious problem on our hands, but that hasn't happened yet.

I kind of figured you have an answer like this.

The pre-scorpion first develops a risistance to some sort of venom that is present in its environment. It then, over time, starts developing the poison in its own body as a defense against being eaten. Nature eventually selects those scorpions which collect the poison in a gland, as opposed to excreting it, because those would be more poisonous, and therefore less likely to be eaten. Eventually, the pre-scorpions develop the ability to eject the poison from their bodies, first as a defense mechanism, and then for the purposes of hunting. Nature selects for those scorpions which can hunt most efectively, and you wind up with something extremely scary.

There are plenty of reptiles who survive without the ability to change colours. The chameleon likely developed that trick out of necessity as his environment became increasingly multi-coloured, likely by flowers competing for the attention of insects.

Bats, despite their reputation, are not blind. Early bats probably hunted in the day, until they were forced by environmental pressures to develop the ability to do so at night. Better hearing is certainly an advantage when you can't see, and the echolocation probably developed in parallel with that.

The frog is an interesting one. Perhaps the ability to turn of the stomach acid developed first, maybe because this particular frog was suceptible to ulcers to the point where it affected its ability to procreate. Raising ones young inside one's self has obvious advantages in terms of chances of passing on one's genes.

I am not saying that this is definitely how these traits evolved, or even that it is probably how those traits evolved. All I'm saying as that, even if you can't imagine transitional forms for some creatures, I certainly can. That doesn't make me right, but it makes it true that transitional forms aren't impossible.

Interesting answers (and I figured you'd have answers for these too). My short response would (predicatably) be that the precision and complexity that is involved at all levels of life - from the solar system down to microbiological entities - argues for a designer. I understand why you will attribute such things to random chance - what other choice is there if you eliminate God? I don't intend to change your position - but the evidence and speculation that props up evolution still requires a significant amount of guesswork about gaps that may/may not suppport your position.

Because the process by which DNA is replicated is imperfect.

But why mutate in a beneficial way? Especially to some of the uniquely specific ways some creatures have (i.e. Venus flytrap)?

You've made it quite clear that you refuse to believe that. That's your perogative.

I suppose I'm asking if you believe that - does that really seem reasonable to you - or, must it because you have disavowed the option of the exitence of God?

If you are genuinely interested, Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. The odds are indeed long, but we've had one sextillion* trails running for 13.7 billion years. Something interesting was bound to come up eventually.


*A rough estimate of the number of planets in the universe

Perhaps - but I dislike Dawkin's militant stance against Christianity - his venom towards us dampens my interest in appreciating his work as a scientist because I question HIGHLY his ojectivity.

[cuppajoe_9]

But why mutate in a beneficial way? Especially to some of the uniquely specific ways some creatures have (i.e. Venus flytrap)?

Short answer: why not? If enough mutations occur, some are bound to be benneficial in some way, and these get selected and spread through the gene pool.

The Venus Flytrap's fly trap was not the product of one mutation, but thousands, each giving it a slight edge over its competition and each bringing it closer to its current form.

I suppose I'm asking if you believe that - does that really seem reasonable to you - or, must it because you have disavowed the option of the exitence of God?

Acceptance of evolution came before atheism in my particular case. And yes, it seems more than reasonable to me, it seems almost self-evident.

Perhaps - but I dislike Dawkin's militant stance against Christianity - his venom towards us dampens my interest in appreciating his work as a scientist because I question HIGHLY his ojectivity.

I'm not overly fond of Dawkins' militancy either, but if you want to understand evolution, he's one of the few in the field who knows how to talk like an actual human being (as opposed to a scientist).

[Redzeppelin]

Short answer: why not? If enough mutations occur, some are bound to be benneficial in some way, and these get selected and spread through the gene pool.

It seems that the immense time spans that had to pass while life forms adapted would contribute more to the ending of life than its advancement, because creatures still had to eat in the meantime; are we assuming that prey and predator developed reciprocally, so that the predator's adaptations didn't advance faster than the prey's ability to defend/elude? The timing of all these changes seems too fantastic to be believed. When you consider the numerous things that happen when the birth process begins (heck, the entire process of pregnancy) how can we account for that? How did the species survive whilst all those thousands of chemical/neurological processes worked themselves out?

The Venus Flytrap's fly trap was not the product of one mutation, but thousands, each giving it a slight edge over its competition and each bringing it closer to its current form.

Right: and what good is a partial "jaw," or one missing the "trip hairs" inside, or an an incomplete "closing" muscle reflex? In other words, am I to believe that all the interlocking components that allow a venus flytrap to do what it does all evolved simultaneously? Because if not, then the other developments in isolation would have proved useless, and therefore should not have "carried forward" in the evolution of that particular creature.

Acceptance of evolution came before atheism in my particular case. And yes, it seems more than reasonable to me, it seems almost self-evident.

Understandable. But "self-evident" I disagree with - like the old anecdote of finding the watch on the beach, I think the idea that complex, non-random structures occur naturally is less intuitive than the idea that this thing is so detailed and complex (with interlocking and cooperating systems precisely balanced to do what they do) that it clearly shows an intention of design and purpose.

I'm not overly fond of Dawkins' militancy either, but if you want to understand evolution, he's one of the few in the field who knows how to talk like an actual human being (as opposed to a scientist).

I may too buried in my position to appreciate Dawkin's explanation because I do not have faith in humanity's attempts to attribute to mindless nature that which clearly shows intelligent design.

[cuppajoe_9]

It seems that the immense time spans that had to pass while life forms adapted would contribute more to the ending of life than its advancement, because creatures still had to eat in the meantime; are we assuming that prey and predator developed reciprocally, so that the predator's adaptations didn't advance faster than the prey's ability to defend/elude?

Predator population develops slightly better eyesight, prey population declines, genes for slightly better camoflage spread throughout prey population, predator population declines, genes for slightly better eyesight spread throught predator population...you get the picture.

Right: and what good is a partial "jaw," or one missing the "trip hairs" inside, or an an incomplete "closing" muscle reflex? In other words, am I to believe that all the interlocking components that allow a venus flytrap to do what it does all evolved simultaneously?

They probably evolved from something like a pitcher-plant. Pitcher plant develops a mechanism for closing slightly when a fly enters using the light-sensitive membranes that most plants already have, then a mechanism for detecting the presense of insects more accurately, etc., etc., etc.

But "self-evident" I disagree with - like the old anecdote of finding the watch on the beach, I think the idea that complex, non-random structures occur naturally is less intuitive than the idea that this thing is so detailed and complex (with interlocking and cooperating systems precisely balanced to do what they do) that it clearly shows an intention of design and purpose.

Self-evident once all the evidence is present. I agree that one would have considerable trouble coming to that conclusion on one's daily walk.

I may too buried in my position to appreciate Dawkin's explanation because I do not have faith in humanity's attempts to attribute to mindless nature that which clearly shows intelligent design.

Then one of us is wasting his time.

[Redzeppelin]

Predator population develops slightly better eyesight, prey population declines, genes for slightly better camoflage spread throughout prey population, predator population declines, genes for slightly better eyesight spread throught predator population...you get the picture.

True - but you're describing a pretty balanced progression here - one that presents a certain logic that I wonder doesn't implicitly also point towards a designer; why should nature progress in such a "fair" and balanced way?

They probably evolved from something like a pitcher-plant. Pitcher plant develops a mechanism for closing slightly when a fly enters using the light-sensitive membranes that most plants already have, then a mechanism for detecting the presense of insects more accurately, etc., etc., etc.

But why develop this particular characteristic at all? Why carnivorous plants? Why only these few varieties? Why not all plants carnivorous, or none? Why these few?

Self-evident once all the evidence is present. I agree that one would have considerable trouble coming to that conclusion on one's daily walk.

But "all of the evidence" will never be present - certain realities preclude that from happening - you've admitted that yourself. One of the things evolution cannot do is obey the tenants of the scientific method:

1) Observation
2) Hypothesis information
3) Prediction
4) Testing and predictions

Evolution cannot answer to these requirements.

Then one of us is wasting his time.

Probably you more than I - but is that a surprise to you?

[cuppajoe_9]

True - but you're describing a pretty balanced progression here - one that presents a certain logic that I wonder doesn't implicitly also point towards a designer; why should nature progress in such a "fair" and balanced way?

Well, sometimes it doesn't work that way. The alternative is one or both species going extinct. That usually happens one way or another. It progresses slowly because evolution takes several generations to take effect.

But why develop this particular characteristic at all? Why carnivorous plants? Why only these few varieties? Why not all plants carnivorous, or none? Why these few?

Because they happen to live in an environment where it's easier to get certain nutrients out of insects than out of the ground. Why else?

But "all of the evidence" will never be present

I suppose I should have said "all the evidence thus far collected".

One of the things evolution cannot do is obey the tenants of the scientific method:

1) Observation
2) Hypothesis information
3) Prediction
4) Testing and predictions

Evolution cannot answer to these requirements.

I can't believe I've bothered to respond to this. For information regarding the observations that lead to evolution and the predictions which it makes and then tests sucesfully, please refer to the entire rest of this thread.

Probably you more than I - but is that a surprise to you?

No.

[billyjack]

pardon, one quick thing.

In the absence of God, all that's left are the things I listed; without an intelligent being all we have is force, chance, arbitrary occurrence.



And where did those insticts come from? As well, learned behavior cannot be incoporated into the genetic code that controls instinctual behavior.



That's the problem: a God-less universe would be hostile to life; that life arose by chance (and at unbelievable odds) clearly argues against the natural tendency to survive.

1) i don't buy the whole intelligent being doohicky. that would suggest that god consiously created everything. that means he thought everything. thought happens linearly, one thing at a time in a series. You can only think of one thing at a time, but that is too slow for understanding anything at all and much too slow to understand everything. "it would be like trying to drink the pacific ocean with a one pint beer mug" (watts). a silly method for drinking the ocean, a beer bong would be more feasible. anyways, maybe "intelligent" design isnt the best way to desribe creation.

2) instincts are innate, found in geneology.

the ability to learn is an instinctual behavior--some are naturally better at it than others. although that which is learned during a lifetime is not passed down in the genetic code, that ability to learn is!

3) on the contrary to your claim that a godless world is hostile to life--"what has been the greatest objection to existence so far? god." (N)

[cuppajoe_9]

*puts on devil's advocate hat*

In Red's absense, I will point out that while you can't think of more than one thing at a time, there is no reason to think that God, if he exists, can't.

[Dante Wodehouse]

You accept a theory as fact or your reject it as fact. Believing in something is about opinion, whereas acceptance of something is about knowledge.

I can believe that I can fly, but that doesn't make it true. I can reject the knowledge that tells me that I cannot fly and therefore still make my belief reasonable. If I accept the knowledge that I cannot fly but still believe I can fly anyway, I'm unreasonably believing in something.

Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, based on my experience with how each side works. Evolutionary biologists almost never take creationism seriously for good reason: They've got evidence of their theory, whereas all creationism has sought to do is pop illogical and emotionally driven holes in evolution that have nothing to do with the theory itself. Personally speaking, the whole "vs" idea of evolution against creation is absurd because the argument comes down to Biblical truth as being capable of being interpretted as scientific truth or the dismissal of such truths as merely literature that is more philosophy than scientific fact.

A bit of a long-winded reply, but I do find it more succint to get the basics out of the way early. heh

Evolutionary biologists are relying on theory alone, and have been relying on such since their last (false) evidence collapsed on itself. On the contrary, the fossil record shows a completely contrary notion. Fossils of animals do not have a gradual chain, but show explosions of extinction and creation of new species. For example, the dinosaurs died and were almost immediately replaced by mammals. The fossil record should also show many errors, that is, organisms who have been unfortunate enough to have mutated undesirable traits. There have been no such examples. Natural selection could and probably did develope the different finch species on the Galapagos, but it cannot create anything more complex than a variation of beak shape.

[Dante Wodehouse]

*puts on devil's advocate hat*

I find that ironic in many ways on nine levels.

[Dante Wodehouse]

It seems that Red is involved in every theological discussion on this site.

[cuppajoe_9]

Evolutionary biologists are relying on theory alone, and have been relying on such since their last (false) evidence collapsed on itself.

Completely false.

On the contrary, the fossil record shows a completely contrary notion. Fossils of animals do not have a gradual chain, but show explosions of extinction and creation of new species. For example, the dinosaurs died and were almost immediately replaced by mammals.

"Almsot immediately" is geological terms, means "in about 10 million years". Anyhow, if this is evidence of any kind of design, "intelligent design" is hardly the right term. "Psychotic design" might be more accurate. Why create a plethora of dinosaur species and then kill every single one?

The fossil record should also show many errors, that is, organisms who have been unfortunate enough to have mutated undesirable traits. There have been no such examples.

That's because an undesireable trait, by definition, decreases one's chances for survival. It is completely impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesireable trait.

I find that ironic in many ways on nine levels.

I don't strike you as a good Catholic boy, Dante?

[Dante Wodehouse]

Completely false.

"Almsot immediately" is geological terms, means "in about 10 million years". Anyhow, if this is evidence of any kind of design, "intelligent design" is hardly the right term. "Psychotic design" might be more accurate. Why create a plethora of dinosaur species and then kill every single one?

I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy, not in proving intelligent design. It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.

That's because an undesireable trait, by definition, decreases one's chances for survival. It is completely impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesireable trait.

It is impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesirable trait, but I'm not talking specifics; there has been a tiny-nonexistent amount of badly mutated creatures of any kind. Darwinism requires there to be even more badly mutated organisms than well mutated, while fossils have shown just the opposite.

I don't strike you as a good Catholic boy, Dante?

I thought you were Protestant!!!! (here I would add a smiley if not for my dislike of adding smileys)

[cuppajoe_9]

It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.

Again, quite false. Uranium-lead radiometric dating can date rocks 3 billion years old with a margin of error of about 2 million years, and argon dating has a margin of error of less than 5%.

It is impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesirable trait, but I'm not talking specifics; there has been a tiny-nonexistent amount of badly mutated creatures of any kind.

Fossilization is rare. There have been rarely few creatures with harmful mutations because these creatures, by definition, die before being able to pass on their genes. Beneficial mutations are easier to find because these things spread through the gene pool.

Darwinism requires there to be even more badly mutated organisms than well mutated, while fossils have shown just the opposite.

Nope, it requires more non-beneficial mutations than beneficial. However, it predicts that creatures displaying beneficial mutations will be more common, because they – again, by definition – are better at replicating themselves.

[billyjack]

*puts on devil's advocate hat*

In Red's absense, I will point out that while you can't think of more than one thing at a time, there is no reason to think that God, if he exists, can't.

okay. i do not think that this being able to think more than one thing at a time would be called thinking as we know it. it would be more in par with the same kind of intelligence we possess when we breath, grow our hair, fire our nerves, digest our meals, ect....basically, unconscious, or ignored by our consciousness.

point is, this kind of intelligence isnt godly-- at least not in the christian sense--rather, its nature. and if this is what they want to call godliness, i am going to have to call myself god, and you, and red, and everybody and everything because we all have the natural ability to do without knowing how we do or do many things at once.