Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
He's saying that microprocessors have 'evolved' since first being created, but in fact they were initially created and didn't 'spring' into existance. This is a silly analogy because we are really debating two concepts:
a) Life on earth evolved over millions of years. Few people in the thread are even debating if a 'God' did or did not 'start' the process, just that it was a process.
b) Life on earth started about 7000 years ago, out of the blue, and everything that is, has been, or will be was pre-ordained and created by the 'God' referenced in A.
Bill
Not too long ago if you expressed the notion that man descended from something like an ape you might have been killed. I think this knowledge, the power of fanatical religious orthodoxy is still fresh and frequent in people's minds. It makes religious nuts quite suspect and unpopular, no?
Naturally, secular evolutionists and supporters have to be careful they don't become an equally fanatical orthodoxy of a similar yet different kind.
Naturally, secular evolutionists and supporters have to be careful they don't become an equally fanatical orthodoxy of a similar yet different kind.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Actually, Occam's razor would dictate that concluding a creator was responsible for Evolution is in fact NOT logical.
First possibility: The process of Evolution "just is" and brought about mankind.
Second possibility: The creator "just is" and created the process of Evolution, which brought about mankind.
The second possibility is more complicated (and, by the way, requires the existence of an entity for which there's no empirical evidence). How, therefore, can it be "logical" to prefer the second possibility?
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
And additionally:
Humans occupy a niche. Apes occupy a niche. Any niche abandoned by apes (in becoming human) would leave an opportunity for an ape-like creature. So we'd still have apes because an ape-niche is a terrible thing to waste ("nature abhors a vacuum"). Not to mention that humans and ape-humans would be competing for the same niche-resources, and one would lose. So you'd end up with just "humans" (even if they were more hairy than the current ones).
This is why bats eat insects and lions eat antelope: The bat niche and lion niche can coexist, and bats don't evolve into lions.
In all the threads that i have read on evolution, this is the frist time i have seen someone talk about Occam's Razor. :beer: to you!
I believe in evolution personally, it just makes sense. Especially, now that we can track it. The genome project has opened up tremendous possibility in tracking the migration of humans. How do they track this migration? Changes in human DNA, what is that change? That is evolution on a micro scale. Humans are changing to the environment around them. and the change is measurable, even in speck of time that humans have been on earth!
I just don't understand how people can deny that fact.
Other things to think about....
A theory has to be the simplist explaination tht explains the the most and predicts the most. The creationist theory fails on many levels in regards to this. It makes a HUGE assumption, that higher being exists. That CANNOT be tested. Thereby, is has to false.
Also, the creationist theory doesn't predict anything. If anything happens, the higher being ordained it. Whats the purpose of that theory?
I'm rambling now.... stopping
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Extinction is nature's way of eliminating genotypes that don't work any more.
Horses will go extinct when the niche that makes horses viable ceases to exist or when some other creature surfaces (through evolution or relocation) and out-competes horses for the same niche.
Furthermore, a creature doesn't evolve into another creature which replaces it. Creatures evolve (but it's more accurate to say that creatures are nudged into change by evolutionary forces) to exploit available niches. If the original niche and the newly-exploited niche are still viable, both the original creature and the evolved creature can both exist.
Let's say the world consisted of horses and grass and nothing else, and there were random, periodic shortages of grass (overpopulation of the horses; drought). Over a long period, you'd eventually have horse-like carnivores that subsisted on horse-flesh. But there would still be horses, too.
Originally posted by: Fern
Basically, and honestly, I'm pretty much a sceptic of almost everything.
Moreover, arguing about evolution v. creationism seems a pretty big waste of time to me.
As you may know, or can guess, I'm a sceptic of (MM) global warming to, but at least that debate has some merit if only because we could possibly do something (effective) about it if true. I don't see what there is to actually "do" about creationism, evolution, some hybrid fo the two, or even theories about extraterestrial beings as the source of life here. Interesting to know? Yeah OK, but I can't imagine how it would change in the slightest what I plan on doing tomorrow or any day after that. (Some undeniable proof of creationism might blow the evo-folks minds, but not mine.)
I also don't understand this "rush to decide" which it is. What's wrong with keeping an open mind and entertaining different possibilities (I particularly enjoy daydreaming about the alien possibility - big sci-fi fan here). I see no reason to "decide", and judging from many of the posts I've seen here the evolution folks demonstrate just as much "rabid faith" as the Young Earth Creationists types (of course, they'll hate me for saying so since they're usually anti-religeous types).
Oh, see below.
.......
Now, while the above author dislikes the quoted definition of evolution, if you're gonna debate with creationists about the whole evo v. creation thingy there's no way around the fact that your debate is own terms with his "disliked" definition.
You wanna "expand" evolution to include something like a bacteriums (or other organism's) developed resistance to some medicine, fine. But that's it's a big whooping stretch to say that's got something relevant with creationism.
Let's face it, "evolution" is all over the media (last night watched some dinosaur show on the Hostory/Discovery Channel) and it's really all about a "new critter" evolving from something else. You wanna stretch the definition to something else less drastic, fine. But then lay off the creationists cuz you guys are talking apples & oranges
Fern
It's not fair to equate acceptance of evolution with creationism. Evolution has a large body of evidence which gives one good reason to believe it is true. Creationism does not, and therefore is not of comparable value. Also, a good point to remember is that evolution makes no claims as to how life began. (which I assume is what you meant by the alien thing... seeding? To be honest that would be pretty cool.)
There's really no rush to decide at all, but there is a point at which people should be willing to accept overwhelming evidence as well. I truly believe that evolution has long since passed that point. The argument is more of principle then anything else. The life on earth will continue evolving whether or not it has our permission, so in a sense it doesn't matter. There are practical considerations as to what evolution can do for us (oil eating bacteria, antibiotics, etc), but the real sticking point seems to be the nature of science and reality. It is a profoundly dangerous thing to reject science because it disagrees with your religion. It is a denial of reality that could have far reaching implications. What if the church had succeeded in squelching Galileo's idea that the earth wasn't the center of the universe? I'm not sure if that would have exactly changed anyone's day back then either... but it would have far reaching effects for science and human culture I believe.
About the scientific debate over exactly what covers evolution, the general consensus on the definition of evolution is that there is in fact no such thing as macro or micro evolution, it is all one process... the only difference being in how long it takes. Very few scientists would even attempt to confine the definition of evolution to such a small thing that it would be in any way compatible with creationism.
Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
I'm not even talking about evolution as the origin of man. I'm just talking about evolution. I think that a majority of people who "don't believe in it" have no idea what it really is. Not believing in natural selection and the resultant change in allelic frequencies is just ignorant.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,892
- 31,410
- 146
well, if you assume that that creator "induced" evolution in order to create humans in "that creator's image," then that is highly illogical, and rejects the foundation of evolutionary research.
It is acutally quite difficult to insist that evolution "began" this way...as it is a stark rejection of evolution. It doesn't matter if you, or someone else don' think that these ideas conflict--but they absolutely do.
Man, I love evolution threads! Oh wait...no I don't. damn trolls...
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Why is this flamebait troll thread still going? Lots of Dems believe in creationism as well, and scientific truths don't care about democracy and how many people accept them. Science isn't religion. It doesn't suddenly become less true because some people don't accept its theories. OTOH, threatening people that they should believe in one thing or another is EXACTLY the way that many religions operate, which is exactly why I find threads like these so disgusting. Some of you here might claim that you accept science, but your mindset is that of the worst of religions -- believe or die.
I think I agree with Vic on this one. I find both creationism and interesting idea, and I find evolution an interesting theory. Do I believe in either one? No. Creationism can't be scientifically proven, but at the same time, evolution is till just a theory not a scientific law. I think evolution is on the right path, but there are still some holes in it, hence forth why it isn't a scientific law yet. Neither, is a proven fact or law, yet there are folks on both sides that state you've got to believe one way or the other, and the other side is complete wrong and ignorant. Isn't it better to keep an open mind? I subscribe to the fact that evolution is a sound scientific theory, but until you can prove to me its law, well then. Same goes with creationism. Until you can prove this interesting concept and idea by the scientific method, I can't blindly follow it as a law either.
The news is just using that as a political stunt. There are probably just as many or close to as many Democrats that believe the same way. If the research that provided that data had been done properly and/or the reporter and news agency that got that data had done there job properly, a full survey would have been done on both republicans, democrats and independents. Even then evolution and creationism have nothing to do with how good of a job a person will be as President of the United States of America or as any political leader. I want to know what the person possesses as far as leadership skills, thinks about revamping our taxes, social security, health care, immigration, ect, ect.
The news is just using that as a political stunt. There are probably just as many or close to as many Democrats that believe the same way. If the research that provided that data had been done properly and/or the reporter and news agency that got that data had done there job properly, a full survey would have been done on both republicans, democrats and independents. Even then evolution and creationism have nothing to do with how good of a job a person will be as President of the United States of America or as any political leader. I want to know what the person possesses as far as leadership skills, thinks about revamping our taxes, social security, health care, immigration, ect, ect.
This is the old ATPN falacy that all opinions are equal. You make a statement which implies that both concepts have equal weight and should be judged at such. This is false. Such thinking completely ignores the evidence which has found zero proof for creationism and while mountains of current evidence backs up evolution.
Read #1 for those asking to be shown...
And since people are throwing around laws, hypothesis, and theories without knowing what they mean..
Actually I gave the theory of evolution more weight in that I gave it credit for being a scientific theory using scientific method to hopefuly prove one day it is a scientific law.
Definition of scientific method: "The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."
I called creationism an interesting idea and concept that by today's technology can not be subjected by scientific method and found to be a plausible scientific theory. Creationism can not be considered a valid theory as of yet. Question, to prove creationism does one have to prove "God?"
I should have clarified this further. I also said that I subscribe and support the theory of evolution, but I don't believe there are enough facts at present to quantify it as scientific law. Here are some questions that I ask evolution to explain which it can not as of yet: How does evolution explain and/or prove the addition of information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms? In addition, how does the theory of evolution explain drastic changes in genomes and species that have occured in some instances, and how does it explain the process that resulted in the first living cell that started the process of evolution? The third question evolution doesn't really need to answer as understanding evolution and applying its principles does not rely on understanding how life began as there are a number of theories and experiments on this subject such as Miller's experiments, Eigen's hypothesis, Wächtershäuser's hypothesis, Autocatalysis, Clay theory, "Deep-hot biosphere" model of Gold,"Primitive" extraterrestrial life, The Lipid World, The Polyphosphate Model, The Ecopoesis model, and the PAH world hypothesis.
I'm just trying to get people to think and be more open minded. Science is not supposed to be a study of "close" or "narrow" mindedness. Just because I am a Taoist does that mean I can't think scientifically? Just because someone is a Christian, they are automatically ignorant and can't think scientifically? People will choose to believe what they want to believe no matter what facts there are that present themselves, and more often than not, that person will not have the forth with to go research the facts for themselves when they read or hear about it in the news or on the internet. I find this saddens me, and I must then go drink beer to wash away my saddness.
All that to state the fact "evolution" and "creationism" describe two entirely separate concepts. And that last contradictory paragraph! LMAO
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
And...? So what? There is a general agreement upon what constitutes evolution among biologists. That other people are confused about it doesn't change that fact.
{snip}
I'm sorry, but I cannot parse your sentence -- particularly the last half-dozen words or so.
Evolution is the reason that bacteria develop anti-biotic resistance, yes. When that happens, evolution is happening. It doesn't change the fact that your larger challenge was already met also.
You must be confused. I didn't say anything about creationism.
I supplied examples of the same in a link in my previous post.
No, we're not. The evolution of new species has been demonstrated, contrary to your claim. That is what evolution predicts and is confirmed via observation. You're guilty of the disingenuous yet common creationist tactic of attempting to move the goalposts.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Scientific theories do not "graduate" to become scientific laws. Laws aren't the highest pinnacle of scientific merit on an imaginary continuum of confidence. In fact laws are relatively mundane scientific details. Theories are the over-arching and unifying principles that contain the scientific laws. Consider the Kinetic theory of gases which explains the Ideal Gas Law.
{snip}
There will never be a "Law of Evolution," and it is rather ignorant to suggest that there would.
Define "information" as you have used it in this context. How is such information measured, according to you? I bet you don't even know what you're saying. Do you mean Shannon Information? or Algorithmic Information?
Which ones do you mean? Evolution doesn't say drastic changes won't happen.
That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
{snip}
How is my last paragraph contradictory? What is contradictory about keeping an open mind?
Ya, I am wordy as I am not supposed to have alcohol with the chelation drugs so I'm a little "dazed" right now.
Garth, I appreciate your opinions, but I don't know why it is you think I'm against the theory of evolution or am somehow harming it, as I can not, by questioning certain aspects of the theory. As I said, I support and agree that at this time, the theory evolution is the most plausible. I guess that is what I get for even raising a few healthy questions. j/k Garth I do appreciate your comments, and no, I don't pretend to know the whole theory of evolution word for word.
First off I'm not a scientist or geneticist, and I don't pretend to be.
I'm not saying that a theory graduates to become law, but a theory can become law, can't it, even one as complicated as evolution? I realize that by definition scientific theories are accepted as fact by the scientific community as such, and I do not have a problem with that because theories are a set of related obeservations based on proven hypothesis which are verified and reverified by different groups of researchers. In addition, that a theory is generally a more complex and dynamic where as a law governs a single action. I'm just assuming evolution can eventually be simplied enough through more research to be accepted by the scientific community, both amature and professional as a whole, as a law that can be used to support other theories. It is only my opinion, and I am open to the fact that I could be wrong.
You must've not read my whole post as I did state that evolution doesn't have to prove that further down. I said previously:
How does evolution explain and/or prove the addition of information to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms? In addition, how does the theory of evolution explain drastic changes in genomes and species that have occured in some instances, and how does it explain the process that resulted in the first living cell that started the process of evolution? The third question evolution doesn't really need to answer as understanding evolution and applying its principles does not rely on understanding how life began as there are a number of theories and experiments on this subject such as Miller's experiments, Eigen's hypothesis, Wächtershäuser's hypothesis, Autocatalysis, Clay theory, "Deep-hot biosphere" model of Gold,"Primitive" extraterrestrial life, The Lipid World, The Polyphosphate Model, The Ecopoesis model, and the PAH world hypothesis.
Yes, this is known as abiogenesis and not evolution. I wasn't trying to say anything otherwise.
Another, thing. Why directly attack me as to whether or not I know what I'm talking about it as I have educated myself quite a bit on the subject as it interests me as well as many other things. I stated some opinions and some facts. Nothing more, nothing less.
edit: I apologize for the confusing quotes as I am little intoxicated right now....ok so maybe more than a little. Hey did you realize that after several pints of Guinness the text on the screen start to move on their on.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
You're putting words in my mouth.
{snip}
No, not really. We don't call it "the theory of evolution" because we're not confident enough to call it a law. We call it "the theory of evolution" because that's what it is: a scientific theory. In this context, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "speculative idea." Rather, it means "a cohesive and explanatory model of reality." These theories frequently incorporate laws, but they are not "laws-in-training" or somesuch.
Quite bluntly: you are wrong. Scientific theories are the end of the proverbial road for models of reality. A law is not "one step better" than a theory.
{snip}
Because most people who pose challenges to the ability of evolution to create new information in the genome generally do not know what they are talking about. So far, I have no reason to believe that you are not also one of those. How about answering the questions I asked you?
{snip}
In this case, I am referring to Chatin's Algorithmic Information theory. I read Algorithmic Information Theory back in college. I have not read his Exploring Randomness yet.
Evolution doesn't say or say that drastic or fast changes will happen in a species or in genomes. For example in a species on an island, say the dwarf elephant fossils found in the Mediterranean. If there is some information that you know and could point me in a direction to that would expound on this, I would greatly appreciate this.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
In that case, your challenge is easily met. Gene duplication adds algorithmic information. Anyone familiar with algorithmic information theory should know that of the two strings "AGTC" and "AGTCAGTC," the latter contains more information than the former.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
{snip}
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter