Evolution?

[Deacon]

ajaxrynu, reread it again. I think Blaze was referring to the strongly patronizing implications and inferrences.

I submit that much of the reason that it makes more sense to you is that it is more comforting to believe in a benevolent, all-known, all-powerful entity that looks over you and directs things in your best interest, and has personally guided things in such a way as to produce you, rather than to believe that you were either the result of chance, or that you are the result of a series of complex chemical reactions.

The jist being that you cling to your fanciful fairy tales because "you can't handle the truth!"

[Makh]

[quote="Martin Blank";p="502674"]There are visible differences in the peoples that developed in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Americas that cannot be denied. It's hard to study these differences without being labeled a racist, but you can't deny that they exist. Asians have epicanthic folds; Africans tend to have shorter, curly hair; Europeans have almost pigmentless skin. These had to have developed for a reason, whether saving energy (shorter hair, or not creating more melanin than necessary for the environment) or having some practical use based on the climate (epicanthic folds perhaps were better-suited for windy areas).[/quote]
Interesting post and perfectly right. A native tungus tribe who live in Siberia for 12000 years have a body adapted to coldness. The body is larger to keep the heat, nostril are nearly close and their eyes are very, very small. That is a good example of evolution.

[Terrene]

I think that certain sides need to be held back a bit. There appears to be certain people who believe that creationism and evolution are direct polar opposites; however it is not the direct concepts that conflict with each other, rather the implications of those concepts (whether God exists or doesn't). Thus, I was already troubled when the idea of "creationism vs. evolutionism" came up; the tone of the original post seemed to imply that, which carried down towards these other arguments and such.

Cool down, people. I don't care what's been exactly said up to this point, but it would seem as if the evolutionists like to draw in religion to counter the creationists' point. The creationists, on the other hand, like to reject certain scientific ideals in a decidedly non-scientific way (you have the right qualitative idea of proof/evidence, but quantitatively you explain it with rhetoric and hot-headedness). This is definitely not what I had in mind when I started to read this thread.

Posted Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:07 am:

What I had in mind was MONKEYS!

[Martin Blank]

[quote="Blaze";p="502787"]Yeah, crocodiles are indeed dinosaurs. They evolved from beings which lived durring the Triassic, and were in full swing durring the late Mezozoic.[/quote]
No, they are not dinosaurs. Just because they existed -- or even evolved -- at the same time does mean they are dinosaurs. Pterosaurs were not dinosaurs, nor were plesiosaurs or mososaurs (both were groups of large sea-dwelling reptiles). They diverge at the Archosauria Superclass into the Order Crocodylia and the two dinosaur Orders, Ornithischia ('bird-hip') and Saurischia ('lizard-hip'). Birds and pterosaurs also belong to the same Superclass.

How is it that changing conditions didn't suit neighbors so CLOSELY related to us, but were just fine for us? Since they all died, it stands to reason that the conditions were no good for large brained bipedal beings like us.

It may be that large-brained bipeds like us were uniquely suited to survive, specifically because we could so readily adapt to the changing environment. Our adaptability increased the range over which we could live, allowing the species to further propagate. The larger the range of a species, the less likely that any one event -- even major climate change -- will do it permanent damage. Those species which have settled into a niche that does not change do not themselves change. I submit for your consideration the coelocanth, still existing in some deep spots of the Indian Ocean, essentially unchanged for 80 million years.

Point 1, the crocodile is FAR from unchanged from it's earlier forms. Point 2, the sheer abundance of dinosaur life meant that one species might get lucky and survive, that being the Crocodile. There being 9 Homonid species, that's a drastically different scenario.

Crocodiles are not all that different from their forebears that lived tens of millions of years ago. They have similar body styles (including the long, strong tail and splayed-out legs), lived in largely aquatic settings, and had similar skull and jaw structures. Different species have arisen, but there haven't been major changes that have significantly altered the looks or probably even behavior of crocodilians, aside perhas from preferred foods.

[quote="Deacon";p="502892"]Where are the Homo Erectus today? We have both Sundew and Venus Flytraps, so why not them? And if it's because we evolved from them, why are there still apes around? I realize and understand the answers to these questions, but I hope you can admit that you have to take some creative liberties to explain away the inconsistencies and gaps in the theory of evolution.[/quote]
There are several possible explanations for the disappearance of H. erectus, including the most likely: a gradual evolution into later species.

There's this concept that because something is now extinct, that means that it was unsuccessful, which is incorrect. This does happen, yes, but it also happens that the entire population slowly shifts into a new species, which is likely what happened. Skeletons of H. erectus show increasing brain capacities over the roughly 1.5 million years it roamed the planet, suggesting that its success allowed it to survive and adapt, until it was eventually something so far removed from the early examples of the species that it had to be reclassified into something different.

There was some overlap with later species, and there were almost certainly cases where these later-evolved species came into contact with H. erectus, and over time proved to be more successful and so some populations of the earlier species were displaced or 'died out' in a more commonly-used sense. But this was not due to the sudden arrival of a more advanced species from nowhere that hacked them all to pieces. It was quite gradual.

[quote="Blaze";p="502946"]THIS is my point. Just because one species has evolved from another in the past does not mean the previous species disappeared. Not in the least. But that seems to be the case ENTIRELY for any Australophithicus or Homo genus beings.[/quote]
As I have pointed out, there are numerous other cases where only a single species of a given genus still exists.

You're saying to me you believe me to be so weak, I require something to survive which you do not. I require an artificial substance. A drug. Even worse, since you don't believe in God, you believe I require a placebo.

I'm offering you a chance to take back your statement that the religous are weak, and make their selection because they don't feel they can survive otherwise. I, and any truly religous person, believe what they do because they believe in it. They think it's right, and they want what's right. They, nor I, do not need it. I've spent my whole life, and continue to do so, questioning my decisions, not the least among them my decision to be religous.

So, you can either take that back, or be officially labeled a moron and an asshole in my book. To make a claim that someone is a dependant addict on something you know NOTHING about... honestly.

You may think what you will, but I would have believed that you would know me in these situations better. I speak plainly and without hidden meaning. Had I intended to insult someone, I would have said as much, but in doing so, I would have been guilty of argumentum ad hominem, something I strive to avoid, and to which you may be falling prey.

You seem to claim that I know nothing about religion (at least that's how I read your words), and yet you don't know much about my own religious background, including that I went to a Catholic church semi-regularly until I was perhaps nine years old. I also have had a number of strongly religious friends with whom I have had lengthy discussions, and I have turned to clergy on occasion for guidance and advice.

I do not regard, nor have I ever seen, religion as a crutch or a drug. I also have never stated that the religious are weak. John McCain relied on his religious upbringing to give him strength in his years of captivity in North Vietnam, from which others drew inspiration to survive and make it home. Pope John Paul II was propelled by his religious beliefs to provide a voice for the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden, no matter their color or even faith. Jesus inspired people to new behaviors through the strength of his conviction to do Very Good Things.

If it is what makes sense to some people, and if that is what comforts them, then so be it. I have never said that I do not believe in some sort of supernatural entity; this is an inference which you have mistakenly taken. I do not believe that we have the ability to define such a thing at this point in our existence, and we must make do with what we have. Some choose to make do with the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, or the Vedas, because these make the most sense to them and bring them mental comfort. Consideration of a process which is free of divine influence is what brings me mental comfort.

I can see where my choice of words may have come off a bit patronizing, though it was not intended as such. The concept stands, however -- if you find your religion offers you more comfort and makes more sense, then embrace it, as I have embraced that which brings me comfort and which I find makes more sense. But when it is placed in comparison to my own beliefs, I should not be expected to defer to yours while attempting to defend my own.

[Blaze]

Of course you speak without hidden meaning. You came right out and SAID that you believed I prefered to believe in God, because it made me feel better. A security blanket, or, a drug.

[Grumlen]

Blaze, instead of accusing him of being a bastard by saying that, why don't you prove that he's wrong? I don't remember the names of arguements, but the one you're using is very weak ond simply consists of making the other person defend their motives instead of actually attacking or even dealing with the arguement itself. Why is believing in God not a "security blanket" for you?

[billf]

Sorry if I am just repeating some things that have already been said, but there are a lot of posts with a lot of info, and I did kinda skip over a few posts, especially in the middle.

The thing I don't get about the arguments against Evolution is that most of them have very little, if anything to do with the theory of evolution itself.

The main counters to the theory of evolution from what I have seen have been the state of energy (Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so where did it come from?), the innaccuracies of cabon dating and other such methods, the lack of "in between" stages of evolution (partial wings, slightly shorter/longer legs, that sort of thing), and the improbability of spontaneous creation.

There are other things as well, but I don't have time to get into them all. Here are my issues with these arguments:

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it had to come from somewhere: So what if The Big Bang Theory is wrong? I don't think it is. I think there is another fundamental issue there that most people haven't even begun to comprehend yet, but that's a whole other issue. The point is that whether the Universe has always been, or if it has a starting point, it doesn't matter. It has no effect on Evolutionism.

Carbon Dating is inaccurate: So what if it is? So what if what we though took 10,000 years only took 5,000? Does that disprove Evolutionism? No. It just means we got the timeline wrong. It doesn't matter.

Missing Link is still missing: I can't remember the name of the theory, but it had something to do with population explosions. Small isolated groups that suddenly started expanding across continents. This is something we have even SEEN in recorded history.

The human population, especially blacks and whites, have expanded ridiculously over the past 500 years. Not just across the Americas, but a general mixing of races has occured all over the world.

So that would explain why we don't see a lot of fosils for the "inbetween" species, but another reason is that fosils are rare. Not everything that dies gets turned into stone. Generally fosilization occurs because of a disaster. A flood, mudslide, large fire, volcanic eruption and other things that don't exactly happen on a day to day basis. It's very likely that the small group of inbetween species just managed to miss getting embedded in a rock, or maybe we haven't found that rock, or perhaps even more likely, that rock was destroyed in some other natural event.

There are so many reasons why a fosil WOULDN'T be created or wouldn't last a few million years that it is no surprise that we can't find evidence of the bulk of creatures this planet has supported in the past.

The Improbability of Spontaneous Life: This is the silliest of all the "evidence" to disprove Evolutionism. There are countless galaxies in our Universe, and that's to believe that our universe is the only one (which some say it isn't, afterall there are an infinite number of 2 dimensional planes crossing through our 3 dimensional universe, who is to say that there aren't an infinite number of 3rd dimensions out there? We can't say because we do not have the means to escape our own 3 dimensional universe, but that's just pure speculation and has nothing to do with Evolutionism.

So we're one of a handful of planets revolving around one star in a galazy of billions of billions of stars in a universe of countless galaxies. That leaves us with a near infinite number of possibilities for life to occur, and seeing as how not just our planet, but our neighboring planet has broughtforth some evidence that life may have once existed, who's to say that life, at least in it's most basic single celled form, is not only possible, but probable given the correct set of circumstances?

Ok, so given what little evidence we have from Mars, we know that if it did have life, it failed. Big deal. There are countless other places where it may not have.

People who say that spontaneous life is nearly impossible just don't fully grasp exactly how large our universe is. You CAN'T grasp how large it is. It's too damn big, we don't have the capabilities to fathom it. We can theorise and scribble notes until our heads explode, we still won't understand exactly how large the universe is.

Given a near infinite number of possibilities for life to occur it is no longer a question of if, but one of how often, and more interestingly: where.

[Nekra]

Religions as a whole are crutches and security blankets. A way of explaining the unexplainable. A book called Religion Explained goes into great detail about it. Science is slowly replaceing and changing the structure of the modern belief systems. Disproving the "Facts" as they have been stated.

"We are the center of the universe"
"The earth is flat"

are just two things the church has condemed, and are two things we now know are fact.

If you look at religion for morale guidance, then good, thats what it should be for, its a way of life of judging your actions. However if you start thinking that a religion tells you the nature of te universe then you need to re-evaluate your life.

[Seraphim]

Once again, I might as well have just not posted at all.

[Deacon]

Martin Blank, surely you must understand why there may be a negative reaction to your clearly condescending and patronizing explanation of why people believe in the supernatural. You say you had no intention to insult anyway, but you're far too smart to be that oblivious...

Nekra, your argument seems to be against "the [Catholic] church" rather than "religion" or God or the concept of the supernatural itself. What society in the entirety of recorded history has not believed in the supernatural, specifically in God or various gods? You think the Babylonians were really just a bunch of dumbasses regardless of whether they happened to have figured out the heliocentric universe long before the Dark Ages? That the Mayans who had a much better grasp on astronomy and the movement of the stars and planets than even some professionals have today were just trying to mask their idiocy?

If you're so willing to toss out possibilities by making blanket statements on that scale, "then you need to re-evaluate your life."

Posted Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:25 am:

[quote="billf";p="503234"]The thing I don't get about the arguments against Evolution is that most of them have very little, if anything to do with the theory of evolution itself.[/quote]
Right. At first glance, the theory of evolution sounds feasible, given all the specific evidence evolutionists have provided to try to bolster their beliefs. It's much easier and more effective to show that the exact combination of "known" quantities might not be what they've assumed rather than to argue that the theory in any circumstances holds no water, which is a silly stance to take. Under the right circumstances, evolution is feasible. Hell, time travel is feasible given a certain set of circumstances and assumptions about things we don't yet know for sure. However, whether the right circumstances have existed on earth to produce the world as we know it from nothing is still an open question in many people's mind.

The point is that whether the Universe has always been, or if it has a starting point, it doesn't matter. It has no effect on Evolutionism.

Many scientists turn to the Big Bang theory for a way to explain the current arrangement of matter in the universe in a way that they believe sufficiently displaces any supernatural involvement. As Terrene pointed out, many of the arguments designed to bolster the theory of evolution are presented for that purpose rather than to prove that evolution happened.

Carbon Dating is inaccurate: So what if it is? So what if what we though took 10,000 years only took 5,000? Does that disprove Evolutionism? No. It just means we got the timeline wrong. It doesn't matter.

And if something supposedly took 50 million years but only took 5,000? Wouldn't that matter? There's a great deal of assumption by geologists and paleontologists and others in which they interpret their findings within the framework of evolution and refuse to consider the possibility that any part of that interpretation may be off or that the assumptions they're making may not be made safely.

Missing Link is still missing: I can't remember the name of the theory, but it had something to do with population explosions. Small isolated groups that suddenly started expanding across continents. This is something we have even SEEN in recorded history.

The human population, especially blacks and whites, have expanded ridiculously over the past 500 years. Not just across the Americas, but a general mixing of races has occured all over the world.

Wait...did you just say the "missing link is still missing" is irrelevant because Columbus and others in the era of modern technology revolutionized the way the world works? It's like saying brainpower is irrelevant because computers do all the work, so cromagnon man didn't have to think too hard. It makes no sense.

So that would explain why we don't see a lot of fosils for the "inbetween" species

I would disagree.

People who say that spontaneous life is nearly impossible just don't fully grasp exactly how large our universe is.

Have you considered that you're assuming such a think is feasible and possible, even given all the right circumstances? You do understand what you're doing, here, right? You're interpreting [the number of stars] as conclusive evidence that [life developed randomly from nothing] because you're taking the latter for granted, walking in a backwards circle The two concepts (braketed for clarity) have little to do with each other.

[Nekra]

Do I believe in the existance of other life in the universe? Yes
Do I believe they might have access to knowledge and understanding beyond our own? Yes
Do I beleive in the existance of a supreme being? No

How would a caveman see us?, we can fly, move faster the any other animal on the planet, can kill from a far distance to ourselves, to a creature with only a rudimentary language and a low level of technology these would be marvalous things, magical things maybe even godlike.

but you are right i singled out the cathorlic and subsequently the christian churches as the most annoying of the religious beliefs, seeing as i'm exposed to their dogma and stupidity on a daily basis.

A number of things pop up into several different cultures, the phoenix for example, couldit have been a comet crashing through the atmosphere. person looks up sees a fire crossing the sky, things, what flies? Birds do, but its on fire, therefore it must be a fire bird. Human minds work on association. We like to put everything around us into nice easy to apply labels. almost like OO objects, it has a name and attributes, if its attributes match it then it belongs to that.

[Euthanatos]

Let's say we are to take the Creationist viewpoint.
The Earth is less than 10,000 years old. For the sake of easy arguement, we'll say 6,000 years ago, we have the Flood that Noah and company survived.
According to this, then, all humans must be descendants of Noah and family.
All animals must be descendants of the animals present on the Ark.
All fossils must be creatures who died during the flood.
All living creatures were supposedly destroyed, so any oceanic or water based lifeforms had to be in water ballast tanks on the Ark.

In order for this to be true, disproving evolution is the least of your worries. Now, if you claim intelligent design, and reject Creationism, then just stop arguing. There is no way to prove or disprove whether the life spontaneously arose or arose due to divine urge; that doesn't change the basis of the ideas present in the theory of evolution.

Besides, you guys botched it pretty hardcore with the whole 'Sun revolves around Earth' thing, didn't you? Look at the lessons there. Science in no way disproved the existence of God, or the divine; if anything, it strengthened it. If our Sun is just like the stars in the sky, then out of all the stars ours was chosen to bear life by some manner of Creator. Rather than deny the existence of God, the model of the solar system puts us in our rightful place and makes clear the Creator established an entire universe to govern, and we merely small cogs in it.

[Deacon]

[quote="Euthanatos";p="503339"]Besides, you guys botched it pretty hardcore with the whole 'Sun revolves around Earth' thing, didn't you?[/quote]
It's that kind of smirking stupidity that gets most evolutionists a big fat brick wall to talk to.

[Terrik]

[quote="Euthanatos";p="503339"]

Besides, you guys botched it pretty hardcore with the whole 'Sun revolves around Earth' thing, didn't you? it.[/quote]

Hi Euthanatos. Remember this?

While the Heliocentric universe and the earths elliptical orbit were discovered by Copernicus and Keppler. Both were Christians who held to God as the creator.

Know your history.

[Silux]

Chipping in my 2 cents...

[quote="Proginosko";p="501256"] evolutionist have to change their theories every time a new discovery that contradicts them is made[/quote]

That's funny. This is exactly how science works. Once something is disproven, a new hypothesis is posed and tested to take its place. No, evolution has not been disproven. Please take this up with your local biology professor. No, ID will never take it's place. ID is not a testable scientific theory.

[quote="Deacon";p="502892"]And if it's because we evolved from them, why are there still apes around?[/quote]

The apes knew enough to stay the hell away from us.


Sorry, those were just two bits I read earlier that sent me into convulsions. As for everything else, well, what can you do? I've had numerous debates with coworkers, friends, family, and ultimately concluded that people will believe what they want to.

If you truly believe that Evolution is defunct, then why are you arguing your point here in an internet forum? What will that accomplish? Trying to convert the uninformed? A few extra parishoners at your service next Sunday? Why not take your evidence to the scientific community and see what kind of weight it holds?

For those arguing on the side of evolution, good for you. But you aren't likely going to change anyone's mind on the matter that has already decided to think otherwise.

For the rest somewhere in the middle, please don't take others' opinions as proof. Do some research of your own. Allowing people tell you what to think is the mark of a weak mind.

Finally, a couple of sites that I know I found informative...

http://www.talkorigins.org - Most of those creationist/ID arguments have already been addressed here.

http://www.ncseweb.org


Peace