Creationism vs. Evolution

[Fonceai]

Right.

Certain traits led to being more attractive, or needing less time to get food, or whatever. Those who carried those traits reproduced.

[dilligras]

One might contend also that the influences on exactly which traits are ultimately passed on may have a socialogical aspect in the case of humans and other social animals.

Some of the things that females find attractive are entirely arbitrarily selected, due to the kind of peer pressure that sets trends, and determines in large part what they deem valuable.

For example, one could take the obvious example of nerds. Many are of above average intelligence, an attribute that would intuitlvely be valuable to the species and a highly desireable trait for ones offspring. And yet these folks are often ridiculed and demeaned by more average folks, who decide as a collective that Rock Hudson looks are emminently more important, even if behind those looks is a Mongo intellect.

As Arthur C. Clarke once observed, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

[Fonceai]

Quote by: dilligras One might contend also that the influences on exactly which traits are ultimately passed on may have a socialogical aspect in the case of humans and other social animals.

From an evolutionary perspective, the development of sociological morals and ethics is potentially catastrophic to natural selection.

As we get smarter as a species, we have developed better medicine. This means that diseases that normally would have killed people are now passed on through generations.

One has to wonder what would have been bred out of humans without the interference of modern medicine.

That's one of the reasons why gene therapy for diseases will be so incredible... no more passing on those bad genes, and people don't have to die for the sake of evolution.

[gallo]

Quote by: dilligras One might contend also that the influences on exactly which traits are ultimately passed on may have a socialogical aspect in the case of humans and other social animals. Some of the things that females find attractive are entirely arbitrarily selected, due to the kind of peer pressure that sets trends, and determines in large part what they deem valuable.

Such considerations are so fundamentally a part of Darwinian selection that many evolutionary biologists don't discuss it as a separate mechanism. They talk about 'selection,' meaning both natural selection, i.e., the action of the environment on genetic characteristics, and sexual selection, i.e., the preference for certain characteristics by the opposite sex. Ernst Mayr was one such evolutionary biologist.

An obvious example (and therefore an often used example) is the beautiful tail of the peacock. That tail is not a survival advantage since it severely limits the ability of the peacock to fly. It is, however, very attractive to peahens. It has even been shown experimentally the larger and more elaborate tails are overwhelmingly preferred by peahens.

So here we have a characteristic that is actually a survival disadvantage that is a great advantage to reproduction. Thus, peacocks with large, elaborate tails tend to produce more offspring, which tends to produce more peacocks with large, elaborate tails and peahens that prefer mates with large, elaborate tails. It seems that in the wild, the disadvantage or the large tail is more than offset by the differential reproductive advantage it offers. While large tailed peacocks may survive to reproduce in fewer numbers than the less well endowed (tail wise, I mean), enough of them survive and are so overwhelmingly successful at attracting peahens that the characteristic continues to be passed to the next generation.

Quote by: dilligras For example, one could take the obvious example of nerds. Many are of above average intelligence, an attribute that would intuitlvely be valuable to the species and a highly desireable trait for ones offspring. And yet these folks are often ridiculed and demeaned by more average folks, who decide as a collective that Rock Hudson looks are emminently more important, even if behind those looks is a Mongo intellect. As Arthur C. Clarke once observed, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value."

True. But for most of our past, the physically strong probably had a survival advantage, and it probably made sense to choose such men for mates since they could provide for offspring better.

[dilligras]

gallo:

I can tell debating with you wouldn't take long, as there's not much to disagree with.

I should also have pointed out that the two extremes (nerds and Rock Hudson/Mongos) were not the only choices for females, and the more likely average choices would involve gradients of both.

All other things being equal, it is natural to place appearance on the list of desirable qualities for any beings with eyes (being a primary source of sensory experience of the person being considered.)

[dilligras]

My god drives the Hale-Bopp comet, and he told me that he created evolution as a sort of combination sea anchor and auto pilot, so that he didn't have to baby sit this solar system's incubator quite so much.

He does have other interests, you know.


.

[gallo]

Quote by: dilligras I can tell debating with you wouldn't take long, as there's not much to disagree with.

Well, you're no fun.

Quote by: dilligras I should also have pointed out that the two extremes (nerds and Rock Hudson/Mongos) were not the only choices for females, and the more likely average choices would involve gradients of both.

Indeed. And it seems that there is a gradient of success in the matter of peacock tails too. While the peacocks with the largest and most ostentatious tails were the most successful breeders, their numbers in a wild population are inversely proportional to the size of their tails. (Well, not exactly. It is probably more of a skewed bell curve.) Thus, peacocks in the middle standard deviation do reproduce, and quite probably some in the lower end of the curve do too. But those in the upper end tend to produce more offspring per individual, and that is enough to drive evolution towards big, beautiful tails. Hypothetically, such individuals are at the peak of fitness in order to overcome the disadvantage of the large tail.

Quote by: dilligras All other things being equal, it is natural to place appearance on the list of desirable qualities for any beings with eyes (being a primary source of sensory experience of the person being considered.)

Well then. I guess that explains Jessica Simpson.

This discussion brings to mind a personal experience. My wife and I visited a bird sanctuary by the Brazos River in Texas. At one point we were drawn off the main path onto a secondary path by a god-awful screech. In a small clearing we encountered a peacock. As I prepared to take his picture, he fanned his tail at me and screeched again. I told my wife that either this was a seriously twisted peacock, or that there was a peahen nearby. Within seconds, 5 peahens came out from behind some buildings behind me, walked past me without notice, and down into the trees along the river. The peacock folded his beautiful tail and then followed the hens into the trees. I wonder which one of those hens winked at him.

[Thaway]

Quote by: gallo Exactly. Those traits arise by mutation which is where the genetic variability in any population of organisms comes from. Some of those traits are more beneficial than others in a given environment and are therefore statistically more likely to be passed on to succeeding generations. When you consider that there are many, many different alleles for any given gene in a genome, some which may be beneficial, some which aren't, and some that may be deleterious, you begin to see that it is a complicated picture.

You will have to forgive me…I'm new at this.

Given your views, please explain for me how you interpret the persistence of the genetic components of homosexuality in the human race. If you feel that traits that are not reproductively beneficial would fade into oblivion if they are not included in sexually reproducing people, then homosexuality is either a very recent phenomena (not likely) or an exception (a genetic mutation that never seems to go away…that would be a logical impossibility…because something cannot be both systematic and random).

When you said "statistically more likely" even though that is technically correct, it would be more accurate to say "more probabilistic" since stats are based on probabilities and are merely a form of reporting probabilities...thus stats themselves are not the principle driving the phenomena that certain things are more or less likely to occur.

But nonetheless, you did bring up stats and I would love to talk about them in this context. Do you realize that scientific evidence is all based on the stats they report? Scientific findings are never facts...they are merely probabilistic statements about the likelihood of what was observed in an experiment was due to chance (this is where stats come in). You might say “so what”?

Well, this actually means that all the scientific evidence (which is what it really is...evidence) could be wrong. Though it is EXTREMLY unlikely, it is possible.

Every experiment require human observation…humans are prone to observation errors, just look at eye witness testimony inconsistencies. Every experiment requires humans to design them…this requires forethought and prediction based on theory; a lot of room for error there. People have bias, independent observers are not always consistent, experimental conditions vary across experiments, and many theories can never be directly tested…like evolution. Until we have an experimental earth and control earth and billions of years, science could never verify evolution.

So if you want to rely on scientific evidence to support your beliefs (which they are beliefs, just as the Muslims and the Christians have beliefs) that is fine, just make sure you understand all the faith gaps that exist in your belief system before you go and criticize someone else’s faith based belief system.

You might say "where does science require faith?". Many, many places...that is why science itself acknowledges the possibility it is mistaken, and therefore requires the use of statistics to estimate the likelihood its findings are due to chance.

So, I raised a lot of issues...let me know which ones you would prefer to talk about by responding selectively.

Quote by: gallo And you have put your finger on one primary fact of natural selection that is missed by many, and by most creationists. Natural selection is not "the survival of the fittest." Natural selection requires reproduction.

Again, then explain the persistence of the genetic components of homosexuality.

[Fonceai]

Ooo, I can do that in one word:

Unproven.

[gallo]

Quote by: Thaway You will have to forgive me…I'm new at this.

No problem. New isn't a detriment. Nor is ignorance with an honest effort to learn. Only intentional ignorance, based on dogma, is unforgivable.

Quote by: Thaway Given your views, please explain for me how you interpret the persistence of the genetic components of homosexuality in the human race.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "views." I actually haven't given many of my views. Mostly I have stated evolutionary theory. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what views you are talking about.

Quote by: Thaway If you feel that traits that are not reproductively beneficial would fade into oblivion if they are not included in sexually reproducing people, then homosexuality is either a very recent phenomena (not likely) or an exception (a genetic mutation that never seems to go away…that would be a logical impossibility…because something cannot be both systematic and random).

Where did I ever say that homosexuality was genetic? Please offer some support for your assertion.

You seem to be unaware that homosexuality has been observed in many species, from chimpanzees to penguins. It seems to be a natural condition. To be honest, I don't know if it is genetic. Please offer your evidence.

Quote by: Thaway When you said "statistically more likely" even though that is technically correct, it would be more accurate to say "more probabilistic" since stats are based on probabilities and are merely a form of reporting probabilities...thus stats themselves are not the principle driving the phenomena that certain things are more or less likely to occur.

Why try to confuse the issue? Certain characteristics tend to be more successful at producing offspring. When examined, they are "statistically more likely." Perhaps you are unfamiliar with population genetics.

Quote by: Thaway But nonetheless, you did bring up stats and I would love to talk about them in this context. Do you realize that scientific evidence is all based on the stats they report? Scientific findings are never facts...they are merely probabilistic statements about the likelihood of what was observed in an experiment was due to chance (this is where stats come in). You might say “so what”?

Indeed. You read my mind.

Quote by: Thaway Well, this actually means that all the scientific evidence (which is what it really is...evidence) could be wrong. Though it is EXTREMLY unlikely, it is possible.

Do you even know what science is and how it works? Of course it could be wrong. It could be that the earth doesn't orbit the sun. It could be that various micropathogens don't cause disease. what was your point?

Quote by: Thaway Every experiment require human observation…humans are prone to observation errors, just look at eye witness testimony inconsistencies.

And humans are also prone to being duped by religious charlatans. Do you have a point?

Quote by: Thaway Every experiment requires humans to design them…this requires forethought and prediction based on theory; a lot of room for error there.

But no room for error in the reading of scripture?

Quote by: Thaway People have bias, independent observers are not always consistent, experimental conditions vary across experiments, and many theories can never be directly tested…like evolution.

And that is why science progresses by peer review. You don't know much about how science works, do you? As for evolution, it has been observed and those observations formed the hypotheses that formed the basis for the predictions that have been experimentally verified. Please educate yourself before you speak.

Quote by: Thaway Until we have an experimental earth and control earth and billions of years, science could never verify evolution.

What a mindless statement. Is it preferable to posit mythology?

Quote by: Thaway So if you want to rely on scientific evidence to support your beliefs (which they are beliefs, just as the Muslims and the Christians have beliefs) that is fine, just make sure you understand all the faith gaps that exist in your belief system before you go and criticize someone else’s faith based belief system.

But I don't believe in evolution. My belief system is something else, not evolutionary biology. Biology is a matter of reason and logic rather than some superstition based mythology.

Quote by: Thaway You might say "where does science require faith?". Many, many places...that is why science itself acknowledges the possibility it is mistaken, and therefore requires the use of statistics to estimate the likelihood its findings are due to chance.

Why do you find it necessary to argue with this straw man? Why do you think that it is necessary to reduce science to the level of faith? Is it that your faith is weak? I see the symptom often.

Quote by: Thaway So, I raised a lot of issues...let me know which ones you would prefer to talk about by responding selectively.

You raised nonsensical mythology. Let me know which particular myth you wish to discuss by responding selectively.

Quote by: Thaway Again, then explain the persistence of the genetic components of homosexuality.

Again, show that there are genetic components and show how they must necessarily be eliminated from the genome. Your assertion isn't sufficient.

So explain to me why it is that you fear homosexuals? Homophobia seems to be a characteristic of suppressed homosexuals. Why are you so interested?

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai Ooo, I can do that in one word: Unproven.

Worse. Unsupported.

[nokton]

This debate on creationism V evolution I feel misses the point entirely.
Firstly, intelligent design? Doubt that. Any intelligent creator would
have taken a much shorter time than 3+ billion years to realise a creation
that expresses intelligence. Evolution as a science is still in it's infancy,
and as such, much misunderstood. Secondly the creationist view is based
on mythology and dogma with no factual evidence whatsoever.
Science is shooting itself in the foot by contesting it, science grows by
questioning current thinking in the light of new discovery, and changing
its opinions according to new knowledge. Religion has no such dimension,
it is rooted in dogma that subscibes to an unchanging belief that truth as
we know it, is forever set. May I express my sincere apololgy to anyone
offended by my above.
As I implied above, evolution is poorly understood, there are so many
questions it raises rather than answers. Would suggest there is a program
written within the genetic code as an adaptive software program, that is
self learning. Am not interested where it comes from, would not be so
arrogant to try to understand the why or wherefore, or even contemplate.
Least of all, believe I know the answer.
Just knowing have an insight and idea is enough for now.
Nokton

[gallo]

Quote by: nokton This debate on creationism V evolution I feel misses the point entirely.

What point is that?

Quote by: nokton Firstly, intelligent design? Doubt that. Any intelligent creator would have taken a much shorter time than 3+ billion years to realise a creation that expresses intelligence.

And most creationists, even ID creationists assert so. Some claim that it took as little as 6 days.

Quote by: nokton Evolution as a science is still in it's infancy, and as such, much misunderstood.

Evolution has been going on since life first appeared. What do you mean that it is in its infancy? Or are you talking about evolutionary theory? I think it is misguided to refer to the evolutionary biology as being in its infancy too. It is even more misguided to say that evolutionary biology in misunderstood. Maybe you misunderstand it, but evolutionary biologists don't. There is still a lot to learn about the specific mechanisms of life, but we don't misunderstand much. The basics of evolution are understood pretty well, in fact.

Quote by: nokton Secondly the creationist view is based on mythology and dogma with no factual evidence whatsoever.

That is true.

Quote by: nokton Science is shooting itself in the foot by contesting it,

Then it is your opinion that we should allow science to be replaced in public school curriculums with the mythology of creationism?

Quote by: nokton science grows by questioning current thinking in the light of new discovery, and changing its opinions according to new knowledge.

Actually not a very good description of how science works.

Quote by: nokton Religion has no such dimension, it is rooted in dogma that subscibes to an unchanging belief that truth as we know it, is forever set. May I express my sincere apololgy to anyone offended by my above.

It is based on the belief that the Bible contains the literal history of the earth

Quote by: nokton As I implied above, evolution is poorly understood, there are so many questions it raises rather than answers.

You didn't imply it above, you stated it above. And you are wrong. It isn't poorly understood. To say that there is still much to learn does not mean that what we know is poorly understood. Consider that Darwin's original theories have not been falsified to this day. He was shown to be wrong in some of his minor speculations (even Darwin changed his theories from the 1st edition to the 6th edition of Origin), but his work has been expanded more than replaced.

Quote by: nokton Would suggest there is a program written within the genetic code as an adaptive software program, that is self learning. Am not interested where it comes from, would not be so arrogant to try to understand the why or wherefore, or even contemplate.

Except that there doesn't seem to be any such program. In fact, such an assertion is actually quite contrary to evolutionary theory.

Quote by: nokton Least of all, believe I know the answer.

I don't believe it either.

Quote by: nokton Just knowing have an insight and idea is enough for now.

Thank God it isn't enough for scientists. Scientists actually want to learn about nature. Your attitude is more akin to that of creationists than it is to scientists.

[Jack]

Would suggest there is a program written within the genetic code as an adaptive software program, that is self learning. Am not interested where it comes from, would not be so arrogant to try to understand the why or wherefore, or even contemplate.

"Written" would seem to necessitate a writer. That would appear to put you in the theist's camp.
It's not arrogant to seek knowledge, unless that was your personal motivation. Contemplation and increased knowledge could benefit all mankind.

[Thaway]

[quote=gallo;308882]

Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
When you said "statistically more likely" even though that is technically correct, it would be more accurate to say "more probabilistic" since stats are based on probabilities and are merely a form of reporting probabilities...thus stats themselves are not the principle driving the phenomena that certain things are more or less likely to occur.

Why try to confuse the issue? Certain characteristics tend to be more successful at producing offspring. When examined, they are "statistically more likely." Perhaps you are unfamiliar with population genetics.

“Statically more likely” only makes sense if you do not understand what statistics are. Since, you don’t believe me I will drop it since I understand what you intend. But, again, what you mean to say is that “research has demonstrated that they are more likely to occur”. Again, things cannot be statically more or less anything. It’s improper use of the word.

Before you comment again on how much I do not know about statistics, I am in a doctoral program and just completed my second course in Advanced Statistics. Yes, I’m in a science program, so I also know plenty about science.

One of the main points I was trying to share with you what that science itself does not claim to prove or disprove anything. Science can only offer evidence for logical conclusions. The conclusions themselves are not the finding of research. The findings are the evidence. Everything people put on top of that is just guessing.

Nor does science claim to be able to answer any question that cannot be directly observed.

AND YET, people seem to think science proves and disproves, and is the key to understanding any question imaginable.

Note – you can never observe yesterday…thus science can never directly answer a question about the past.

Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Well, this actually means that all the scientific evidence (which is what it really is...evidence) could be wrong. Though it is EXTREMLY unlikely, it is possible.

Do you even know what science is and how it works? Of course it could be wrong. It could be that the earth doesn't orbit the sun. It could be that various micropathogens don't cause disease. what was your point?

My point is a little deeper than that. I hold the view that science combined with reason can lead us to the “real truth”. But many people fail to recognize the part where science stops and reason begins. I find those people to be intellectually dishonest.

Of course they are threatened by the knowledge that science cannot directly answer anything because they have fooled themselves into thinking “I base all my ideas on what science has proven”. If that is the case…then you have no ideas because science cannot prove anything and it does not claim to.

Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Every experiment require human observation…humans are prone to observation errors, just look at eye witness testimony inconsistencies.

And humans are also prone to being duped by religious charlatans. Do you have a point?

I was talking about the room for human error in science – I’m petty sure you understand that. We could however talk about all the things humans can do if you would prefer.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Every experiment requires humans to design them…this requires forethought and prediction based on theory; a lot of room for error there.

But no room for error in the reading of scripture?

Again, I’m talking about the room for human error in science. But I think you see that.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
People have bias, independent observers are not always consistent, experimental conditions vary across experiments, and many theories can never be directly tested…like evolution.

And that is why science progresses by peer review. You don't know much about how science works, do you?

Plenty of peer-reviewed research is crap. Sorry to burst your bubble, but peer review is just one more step in the chain of “room for human error” in the scientific process. But, publication is a little farther down the road then I was trying to go, nonetheless, I’m glad you brought it up.

As for evolution, it has been observed and those observations formed the hypotheses that formed the basis for the predictions that have been experimentally verified. Please educate yourself before you speak.

Sorry, but the only evolution that has EVER been observed it what is referred to as microevolution. That is, evolution within a species. There has never been a single case of macroevolution, when one species evolves into a new species.

Whenever you hear someone use science to back up evolution, they are taking evidence from microevolution and using it to make claims about macroevolution.

Hopefully you can see the error in that reasoning.

Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Until we have an experimental earth and control earth and billions of years, science could never verify evolution.

What a mindless statement. Is it preferable to posit mythology?

It’s a scientific statement. …“Mythology” of course not…but guessing is really our only option. At least I recognize that.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
So if you want to rely on scientific evidence to support your beliefs (which they are beliefs, just as the Muslims and the Christians have beliefs) that is fine, just make sure you understand all the faith gaps that exist in your belief system before you go and criticize someone else’s faith based belief system.

But I don't believe in evolution. My belief system is something else, not evolutionary biology. Biology is a matter of reason and logic rather than some superstition based mythology.

Once again, I think you are missing the gap between where science ends and reason begins. You state it here, but then loose your own thought immediately in the same sentence. Every conclusion is a belief – no matter what is based on. I’m not sure you believe.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
You might say "where does science require faith?". Many, many places...that is why science itself acknowledges the possibility it is mistaken, and therefore requires the use of statistics to estimate the likelihood its findings are due to chance.

Why do you find it necessary to argue with this straw man? Why do you think that it is necessary to reduce science to the level of faith? Is it that your faith is weak? I see the symptom often.

Personal attacks are not a great way to communicate. Nonetheless, my general point here is that ever conclusion is a belief. Believe requires faith. Some people pretend that beliefs based on scientific evidence do not require faith. That is simply a mistake.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
So, I raised a lot of issues...let me know which ones you would prefer to talk about by responding selectively.

You raised nonsensical mythology. Let me know which particular myth you wish to discuss by responding selectively.

Name one myth I raised.
Quote:
Quote by: Thaway
Again, then explain the persistence of the genetic components of homosexuality.

So explain to me why it is that you fear homosexuals? Homophobia seems to be a characteristic of suppressed homosexuals. Why are you so interested?

I do not fear homosexuals, but thanks for your concern.

[gallo]

You don't seem to have the hang of quoting on this board. You made a mess of it.

Quote by: Thaway “Statically more likely” only makes sense if you do not understand what statistics are. Since, you don’t believe me I will drop it since I understand what you intend. But, again, what you mean to say is that “research has demonstrated that they are more likely to occur”. Again, things cannot be statically more or less anything. It’s improper use of the word.

As I said, you are trying to unnecessarily complicate the question. Even after you say that you understood what I said, you demonstrate that you may not by repeating what I said.

Quote by: Thaway Before you comment again on how much I do not know about statistics, I am in a doctoral program and just completed my second course in Advanced Statistics. Yes, I’m in a science program, so I also know plenty about science.

That is not evident from your discussion. In fact, you actually seem to know little about science.

Quote by: Thaway One of the main points I was trying to share with you what that science itself does not claim to prove or disprove anything.

So you don't understand science. Science does a lot of disproving.

Quote by: Thaway Science can only offer evidence for logical conclusions. The conclusions themselves are not the finding of research. The findings are the evidence. Everything people put on top of that is just guessing.

I see. So you are saying that the logical conclusions of science are just guesses.

Quote by: Thaway Nor does science claim to be able to answer any question that cannot be directly observed.

Really? Please show me a proton.

Quote by: Thaway AND YET, people seem to think science proves and disproves, and is the key to understanding any question imaginable.

I don't, except for the disproves part.

Quote by: Thaway Note – you can never observe yesterday…thus science can never directly answer a question about the past.

Why limit yourself in this comment since you have already pretty much stated that science can never directly answer a question period.

Quote by: Thaway My point is a little deeper than that. I hold the view that science combined with reason can lead us to the “real truth”. But many people fail to recognize the part where science stops and reason begins. I find those people to be intellectually dishonest.

That's not what you indicated above. You indicated that science can't answer questions and that the logical conclusions of science are guesses. I wish you would make up your mind.

Quote by: Thaway Of course they are threatened by the knowledge that science cannot directly answer anything because they have fooled themselves into thinking “I base all my ideas on what science has proven”. If that is the case…then you have no ideas because science cannot prove anything and it does not claim to.

Then I guess I'm lucky since I pretty much know what science is and how it works. You, on the other hand, still seem to have some confused ideas.

Quote by: Thaway I was talking about the room for human error in science – I’m petty sure you understand that. We could however talk about all the things humans can do if you would prefer.

My question was if you had a point.

Quote: