 |
I have always been a strong supporter of the Egg first then the Chicken argument.
Why some people refuse to believe in things like evolution baffles me. Just because you cannot see it with your eyes ( you can see Natural selection & Darwin's finches etc..) you choose not to accept that it is the only real posibility. People say that it is not 100 certain but as far as I can see it is as solid as a rock (Granite or Talc you can choose).
Quick bit of maths probablity...
Probability of Evolution 99.98% certainty
Probability of Some wierd turn of events of Creation 0.02%
(Christian religon note: God decided to create plants before he even created the sun Check it out if you don't believe me !! ) 
Which do you like the look of?
|   | Subject: Creationism vs Evolution
Posted Nov 28, 2000 by Virus I
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 122
|
Cosmo - good point about evolution, natural selection and creationism. Gravity seems to have become mixed up with bike races - is this a first?
The point about gravity is simply that we should never forget that it is a name for a type of behaviour. As yet there is no proof of its existence as a thing. That isn't to say we should pretend it doesn't exist. But too often we forget (scientists rarely forget) that in physics we are nearly always talking about behaviour not about things.
This is an important issue because in a strong sense it is this that defines the limits of scientific enquiry, limits that are completely accepted by most physicists, although the would use a more precise definition than this.
This leaves open many questions in the province of metaphysics and mysticism, which is just as well since otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Cosmo, about linking mutations and natural selection together being unscientific. It seems logic to me. You know that mutations happen at a certain rate. Some of the mutants will have an advantage towards the already existing individuals. And thereby winning the natural selection. Having this happen a lot of times, the result is Evolution. Whereīs the fault?
Well, if nobody else have any objections to Evolution then i guess we should just send this discussion to the American board of education. Show them that nobody are able to come up with arguments against Evolution, and it should therefore be taught, not Creationism.
I didn't think Creationism was taught in American public schools, seperation of Church and State and all that.
| | Subject: Creationism vs Evolution
Posted Dec 8, 2000 by Andy
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 125
|
In Kansas (I think and correct me if I'm wrong) creationism is taught as part of the science curriculum, which is just mad.
It's a mad, mad world....
Especially in the US bible belt!!
Their Motto - Keep it in the family.....and they do!!!
Now you scare me....
Ironically even the Pope accepts the evolution as a miracle of God.
Religion causes Wars, third world over-population (Famine), increase in AIDS (Pestilence). And we are all waiting for the forth horseman.
Mad world.
| | Subject: Creationism vs Evolution
Posted Dec 8, 2000 by Muqtadee
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 130
|
On the subject of evolution through mutation, I'd be interested if anyone could cite a single recorded case of advantageous mutation (as opposed to hypothesised).
I suppose if the mechanism of evolution were natural selection through mutation, the mutation would also have to affect reproduction so that subsequent generations inherited it.
'Religion causes Wars' has its own thread somewhere,. Evolutionists might argue that famine and AIDS are just part of evolution. But famine is not caused by over-population. And AIDS certainly not by religion. If Islamic guidelines (and probably Roman Catholic, for all I know) about sexual relations and using drugs were followed, there wouldn't be any AIDS problem, and 36 million people wouldn't by HIV infected.
Isn't it funny that people who belive in creation ironically look unevolved.
Huge eyebrow ridge, long hairy arms, hunched over slightly. If God created them in one day then it looks like he rushed it!
Actually Darwins Finches can still be seen today.
Mutations like longer beaks mean that birds can eat a better variety of food during environmental fluctations (e.g. El Nino) while the birds with shorter beaks die. This is clearly a demonstration of what you are talking about. If you go to the Galapagos Islands for about 2-5 years and study finches you can see this happen. It is very clearly scientifically documented. There are hundreds and thousands of demostrations of positive mutations effecting the genetic make up of the creatures. Infact you name the organism and the ability/mutation and I will try to find an explanation of how that was caused by evolution. 
 |  |
Unfortunatly I am not versed enough in modern biology to show you any specific examples of advantageous mutation where humans have seen both sides of the mutation...(it might be easier than I think..) but still;
"I suppose if the mechanism of evolution were natural selection through mutation, the mutation would also have to affect reproduction so that subsequent generations inherited it."
A mutation is a "flaw" in the genetic makeup of an individual. Reproduction caused the genes of two individuals to mingle and become a third indivudal. Mutation is when that third individual has a genetic makeup that differs from the sum of it's parents. Upon reproducing this third individual passes it's genes (=it's parents genes + own mutation) on to it's offspring, modified by the other parents genes and any mutations the offspring is host for.
"Evolutionists might argue that famine and AIDS are just part of evolution. But famine is not caused by over-population. And AIDS certainly not by religion. If Islamic guidelines (and probably Roman Catholic, for all I know) about sexual relations and using drugs were followed, there wouldn't be any AIDS problem, and 36 million people wouldn't by HIV infected."
This is a good argument for why we have religion: To coax people into doing the right things without having to tell them why. A thousand years ago very few people had any idea there were things like germs about, but the priests of the time still preached hygiene. Maybe they knew something others didn't. I belive that a few people understood much of the workings of the world earlier than most often thought. I also belive that these people failed to explain (or failed to understand) the underlying reasons for people getting sick, but they knew how to avoid it. It's been said before (in this forum or another) that the holy books of the world contain a lot of practical rules that benefits an older society. However, isn't it time we let god go? We don't really need it anymore...
Hmm, Iīd have to agree about AIDS. If the africans followed the "no sex before marriage"-thing, they wouldnīt be all infected with AIDS. I believe somebody on here claimed marriage was probably invented to prevent AIDS-like diseases to be spread. I suppose if thatīs true you should be able to find proof of it in the animal world. Like less AIDS-like diseases with animals that choose a partner for life, instead of the ones being promiscous. But you can find places in Africa where the whole population is starving, while living next to a forest full of fruits. But that place is sacred, so they canīt go there. Duh.
[URL removed by moderator]
BTW have a theory that the Bible isnīt quite accurate(stop snickering) about the four horsemen of the apocalypse. I have a theory that besides those four, there also exists a Donkey Rider of Bad Mondays. Instead of having to wait till doomsday for those four to arrive, we meet this guy once a week. Bringing in his path headaches, drowsiness, burned toast and grumpiness.
Okay, I am jumping into this with both feet...been reading, and by God, I've got to say *something*!
Look, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that judging others is okay. That is a right solely reserved for the deity. Judge not lest ye be judged, etc. So to call someone a bonehead for believing something other than what you believe is just usurpation.
The question of women in Muslim countries? Not one of the Koran's verses says bupkiss about subjecting women to the horrible treatment they now receive. And the menstrual restrictions in the Torah? Well, those are holdovers from long ago goddess religion, in which menstruating women were believed to have incredible powers. It was not until the invention of a sun god (read: not of this earth, unlike the goddess) that women's personal power of creation, i.e., the ability to give birth, was looked upon as something to be feared. Men fear what they do not know. What is that quote again, if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament? Well, if the shoe fits...
And as far as the Pentatuch goes, folks, you are talking about a severely persecuted minority trying to give themselves enough cohesiveness and personal power to do something about their persecution. It was appropriate THEN to have the avenging, angry and kill the nonbelievers God. Yahweh was one pissed-off deity, and with good cause. Unfortunately, we have allowed this wrath-of-God to permeate the much more gentle Christian messiah. If you read a red-concordance Bible (the ones where only what Jesus says is in red ink), you discover that Jesus basically said hey, be nice, do nice things for one another, and believe in something. And oh, yeah. See that woman/man/child over there doing something you disapprove of? Don't get too worked up about it, 'cause you do stuff others don't like, too. Relax. And Mohammed was even more simple than Jesus... he says (okay, major nutshell here)look, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is God. Deal with that one, you finite beings. Wrap those brains around that concept.
I know, I know. Long, didatic, and somewhat meandering. Here's the wrap-up. Does it really matter if you believe in God, and I don't? Or that I believe in creation, and you prefer the evolution theory? NO. What matters is that we are here together. Whatever created/ started/ planted the world in which you live, every religion admonishes us to take it in, be nice, and play well together. Now, take that bad boy and run with it.
Ahh yes, the old "All religions teach nothing but love"-idea. I suppose it was because that the Yawhe followers had to defend themselves that they said all gay people should be killed.
| | Subject: Creationism vs Evolution
Posted Dec 11, 2000 by Muqtadee
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 137
|
Number of points:
Proper Ganda (Keeper of torn maps): probability of Evolution is opposite of what you say. Why? For evolution to work, we have to look at the probability of complex proteins forming, DNA appearing, eyes 'evolving', etc, etc. What studies have been done have shown these to be almost infinitesimally small. Which, by your own argument, leaves Creation as a dead cert!
Also, the variation in your finches has never been demonstrated to be the result of mutation. The only thing that has been documented is the variation itself. But even if we accept that theory, a finch developing a slightly larger beak, say, in no way lends plausibility to one species changing into another species; a handy kidney appearing here, a feather appearing there, or all manner of vast differences between species. As you seem sure you can explain any mutation, you might wish to start with the theory that birds evolved from reptiles.
JAR (with new and improved sense of purpose) & Ping (the
zen-Soupist): by no means are all mutations passed on to subsequent generations. In fact, in general they are not. Take humans, for example: if someone if born blind, or with some other physical deformity, generally this is not inherited. In other words, even if we get X-Men X-Women, there's no guarantee they'll give birth to X-Children!
Montana Redhead (aka the Redheaded Goddess of the West): Prophet Muhammad NEVER said God is everything -- that's pantheism, and is quite against the basic beliefs of Islam. (One of these days I'll get around to putting some articles about this on my empty home 'space'. )
Returning to the topic of this thread, the philosophical and social implications of Evolution give great incentive to those who support it. If you don't want to believe in God, you must believe in Evolution. As quickly as one evolutionary hypothesis is brought crashing down, another is quickly found to put in its place, no matter how far-fetched, in a desperate attempt to stop the whole theory from falling into utter disrepute. For over a century the overwhelming evidence brought forward by researchers has strengthened the view of Creation, but the dogmatic propagation of the Theory of Evolution continues. The lengths evolutionists go to the portray their theory as 'fact' to the masses knows no bounds. We still shoulder the awful legacy of social Darwinism, which places the white man at the forefront of human evolution, as an indelible image from countless text books where apes evolve through primitive 'races' to emerge as modern caucasian man.
Wow !!
This is good stuff.
Yes if you have brown hair and your wife has brown hair then there is still a chance that you can have blonde children. We all understand male & female chromosones and resessive genes and we even understand how complex organs & sensory equiptment form.
How do we get eyes? Surely someone didn't just get born with the very complicated ability to see in 3D, the only way I can think of it perhaps divine intervention? How can evolution explain this ?
Well it is simple. Worms have light sensative skin. (An evolutionary hop & skip) From there we can produce the facets that indicate light from above or below from left or right. After than we evolve a fly's eye. Still remarkably simple and basically several panes of light sensative skin placed at different angles to detect movement. Hey ? We are nearly there. The rest takes several million years. Perhaps a concept that escapes most humans. I can assure you that a kidney is childs play compared to an eye.
Look at the pteradactyl and give it feathers it is already halfway to the Archaeoraptor a hollow boned reptile like turkey. Check the web look it up. Heavy dinosaurs had to have light bones otherwise they would just colapse. The soultion? Hollow boned Dinosaurs could run faster and get more food. Therefore more likely to survive. Take those same hollow bones and grow small and you are as light as a bird.
"Generally mutations are not passed on to your children"
what wht WhAt? I think that small people who get married have small children ! It is very rare (but possible) that two small people have a big son. Successful mutations are most likely carried as recesive genes for the first generation.
Praise be to God !!
For he created this wonderful....blah blah blah....
SCIENCE !
| | Subject: Creationism vs Evolution
Posted Dec 11, 2000 by Muqtadee
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 139
|
I'm a big fan of science. It can be truly awesome.
I am less awed by the gaping holes -- sheer chasms -- in some of these evolutionary constructs.
In fairness to Darwin, when he agonised over his theory he has only 19th century science to help him. Microscopes revealed cells only as little blobs. Now we know otherwise.
Take your fly's eye, for example. Have you any idea how complex it is? I'm afraid your description would baffle those who study this wondrous organ. It is astonishingly complex, far far removed from a worm's light sensitive skin. If there is one thing that science continues to demonstrate without fail, it's that the closer and deeper you look, the more amazing and complex things are. And this is one of the glories of science: the incredible universe it uncovers that never ceases to astound and beguile us.
And where are the intermediary stages in the evolution of the eye? Certainly not in the fossil record. Trilobites appear on the scene already with complex eyes. Did they appear out of nowhere? Well, yes, they did if they were created! The truth is, no evolutionist can explain how the eye appeared.
Give your pteradactyl feathers! And just where do you get your feathers from?
And great big hollow-boned dinosaurs could run faster and catch more food, so they shrunk themselves down and started flapping their little arms? Mind-bogglingly fanciful. And backed by no evidence whatsoever, of course.
Back to mutations. The variations in height you mention are not the mutations evolutionists speak of. Their mutations require something new, something dramatically different. Such mutations occasionally appear in humans -- an extra finger, or a leg that thinks it's an arm -- but they are not passed on to the next generation. But apart from differences in scale, such as fat or thin, tall or short, where's the evolutionary mutation?
Evolution is easy to believe if someone draws nice pictures of a lizard running at one end, and a bird flying at the other, with nice inbetween stages. Or an ape at one end and a man at the other. Thanks to computers and Hollywood, we can even see it. But let's leave suspending our disbelief for the movies!
My position is clear.
Darwin all the way.
However I am somewhat puzzled about your position.
You agree that animals have been around for billions of years.
Then what? Every now and again a divine being pops down and opens a cage and releases a bunch of trilobites. Does he/she just bring the two or are there already about ten or more? I guess then judging by the diversity that he/she is a busy person droping down each of these very specialised creatures. How in the name of Science are these things constructed?
I am not saying that you just stick feathers to things! They evolve from hair folicals that become feathers. Hair evolves from a type of skin excrement that solidifies and forms a light weight protective layer that can easily be replaced. Just like horns evolved from solid sections of hair.
"Mind Bogglingly Fanciful" so what do you call your story. I have to say that the majority of educated and intelligent individuals from all nations understand the theory of Evolution. These are not people who believe what they are told.
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
