Creationism vs. Evolution

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Isherwood Since this thread is supposed to be about creationism vs. evolution, I have a question; why are Christians offended by the thought that we descended from an early form of primate but OK with the Biblical implication that we were created from dirt?

Or how about the irony that biological evolution is criticized for not providing an explanation for the origins of life (an issue that's dealt with in another profession, as I've mentioned tirelessly), which, according to theists, is enough to warrant evolution false, yet theists cannot provide a clear explanation as to where their god(s)/God came from, yet follow their deity with 'unfaltering' faith? I'd at least like to see some level of consistency.

[Kite]

I dont understand the problem with evolution, perhaps the designer designed evolution as a way for his creations to improve, the 2 dont contradict each other. Its just that one doesn't have any proof and shouldn't be taught in schools until it gets proof. thats the original issue before everyone forgot about it

Exactly. Evolution has evidence to support is hypothesis. ID has no evidence, and is reduced from theory to mere speculation. Science class, not speculation class.

[Nemiroff]

Jubloz:
there is no irony in something science hasn't found, 100 years ago science didn't find space travel, before that science didn't know about viruses. Thats the thing, science knows its short comings, accepts them, doesn't deny and explain them away, but works towards discovering them. Of course noones gonna put effort into proving an unproveable theory unless blind zealousy is behind it.

Also science does have an explanation for the origin of life, but that is still a hypothesis and not a theory. I never bother mentioning it because i dont full understand it, and its obvious many of the people i'm arguing to dont understand the difference between the two.

apparently they made an experiment where they recreated the early earth's atmosphere, put some basic nonliving proteins and building blocks of all living things (whatever they may be) ran some electricity through it, (much like the insanely common, and severly strong thunderstorms of early earth) and although they didn't create life.....(we're not there yet, noones denying it), they did turn into more complex RNA and some DNA, and almost the makings of something alive.

Perhaps they got the mix wrong, or not enough electricity, perhaps multiple lightning strikes over a long time and only a chance for success, (not like nonliving things die anyway, they got time), or maybe the whole hypothesis is wrong and it happened some other way, but its definetely proof we're getting closer.

[Jubloz]

Nemiroff,

I think you misunderstood my statement. Despite that, thanks for responding. The subject matter you're discussing is called abiogenesis, and there are several primary hypotheses formulating an idea of what the origins of life may have been like. Wikipedia has a brief, albeit incomplete, overview of the different hypotheses:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have a book or two lying around here somewhere that I'd like to recommend if you're interested in this sort of thing, but I can't remember their names offhand. If I remember or find them, I'll let ya know in case you're up to checking one of 'em out.

[Derach]

IMO - both creationists and evolutionists have come to an indirect conclusion based upon incomplete data about a topic that fundamentally defines what type of universe we live in ... either a careless one that behaves according to physical laws or a calculated universe in which everything has a purpose (and conscious creator).

What gives the evolutionsts more credibility to me is the fact that science readily admits it does not have all the answers, and is willing to seek the truth. Most religious based creationists resort only to attacks on the unviability of evolution and their faith as evidence supporting their position (and those 2 conditions make it near impossible to suede a staunch creationist that his fundamental idea may be wrong ... By definition, someone's faith does not follow paths of logic).

[Nemiroff]

Evolution does not yet to explain the universe, the two yet to explain completely different phenomena. Creationism is trying to explain creation, the beginnings of the universe and everything in it. Evolution trys to explain how life evolves and betters itself through a natural process.

Its basic physics that creationism should be having a problem is, but they're still pissed they came from monkeys

[Derach]

I guess I should have said the scientific approach to the origins and evolution of life as dictated by the understood laws of physics and biology that are universal so far as we know. I didn't mean to imply that our undersanding of the cosmos is related to our understanding of evolution (except that it does appear plausible that interplanetary meteors have the ability to ferry life from cosmic body to another ... but I digress).

My point is that evolutionists (scientists devoted to a better physical understanding of the origin, nature, and development of live) in general are more responsive to evidence that runs contrary to their theories than do creationists who have a base of faith rather than education and scientific observation for their conclusions.

That some creationists cannot get beyond that 'they came from monkeys' to see a possible flaw in their own theory shows the level of ignorance that must be overcome before a scientific conversation can even begin with 'devout' creationists.

[gallo]

You need to tighten your ideas up a bit, lest you furnish creationists with fuel.

Quote by: Derach IMO - both creationists and evolutionists have come to an indirect conclusion based upon incomplete data about a topic that fundamentally defines what type of universe we live in...

Whatever an 'evolutionist' is. Evolutionary theory does not reach conclusions that define the type of universe we live in. Evolution deals with life and how it changes and has changed through time due to some relatively well understood concepts. Creationist conclusions are assumptions without examination of data.

What gives the evolutionsts more credibility to me is the fact that science readily admits it does not have all the answers, and is willing to seek the truth.

Then you are misguided. No field of science seeks truth. Science tries to explain observations of natural phenomena.

And, of course, a 'creationist' is one who believes in creation. But an 'evolutionist' does not believe in evolution. Technically, an 'evolutionist' would be one who accepts 'evolutionism', which is a short lived philosophical movement that was thoroughly discredited. But somehow the word has come to be applied (by creationists, mostly) to anyone who accepts the biological theories of evolution. Personally, I consider myself a scientist and an evolutionary biologist. I generally substitute one or the other for "evolutionist".

Quote by: Nemiroff Evolution does not yet to explain the universe, the two yet to explain completely different phenomena.

And, of course, evolution never will explain the universe since that is outside the domain of how life changes through time.

Evolution trys to explain how life evolves and betters itself through a natural process.

Oh, Frak! There's that creationist nonsense about how life 'betters itself'. You are trying to explain evolution by presenting creationist arguments? Are you a troll? Or maybe you don't know enough about evolutionary theory to understand that there is no concept of getting "better." What is that supposed to mean?

...but they're still pissed they came from monkeys

No, they didn't. If you are going to argue on the side of evolution, wouldn't it be nice if you learned what you were talking about?

Quote by: Derach My point is that evolutionists (scientists devoted to a better physical understanding of the origin, nature, and development of live)

Well, thank God! At least someone defined what he meant by evolutionist. Except that the question of the origin of life isn't evolution, even though evolutionary principles may be found to be in effect, i.e., the idea that self reproducing molecules that are more successful in reproducing become more numerous.

in general are more responsive to evidence that runs contrary to their theories than do creationists who have a base of faith rather than education and scientific observation for their conclusions.

Scientists (I'm not sure why you specified 'evolutionists') virtually leap at evidence that is contrary to accepted theories. That's how science works and how scientists get their name out there.

On the other hand, Creationists reach their conclusions by faith rather than observation. If their faith cannot be reconciled with reality, creationists reject reality.

[Nemiroff]

In general evolution betters the species, if a mutation results in a weakness, overtime the weakness usually dies off.

And what creationist argues that life betters itself? They argue that life sprang up as is, are you sure that you know what your talking about?

Also, not giving them ammo is all good and stuff, but a debate is meant to discover the truth, not win, sugar coating the truth to win does as much damage to science and humanity, as teaching a baseless idea along side a well studied and proven theory.

[gallo]

Quote by: Nemiroff In general evolution betters the species,

No, it doesn't. There is no concept of getting better in evolutionary theory. That is a bogus claim made by creationists about what they believe evolutionary theory says. It seems that you have learned you evolutionary theory from creationists.

if a mutation results in a weakness, overtime the weakness usually dies off.

Sloppy wording. What's a "weakness"? You have a very simplistic grasp of evolutionary theory. What evolutionary theory states is that heritable genetic changes (those that are not immediately lethal) will give give organisms differential reproductive success in some given environment. A change may be an adbantage in one environment and a detriment in another. However, it has nothing to do with getting "better" (whatever that means), but with adaptation to the environment.

And what creationist argues that life betters itself?

They don't. They argue that it is a claim made by 'evolutionists'. But no one who knows anything about evolutionary theory makes such an argument.

They argue that life sprang up as is, are you sure that you know what your talking about?

Yep. I'm sure. I've been debating creationists for over 20 years and have been an evolutionary biologist, studying and teaching it, for over 30.

Also, not giving them ammo is all good and stuff,

Right. That's why I object that you are doing so because you don't know what you are talking about.

but a debate is meant to discover the truth, not win,

You never took debate, did you?

sugar coating the truth to win does as much damage to science and humanity, as teaching a baseless idea along side a well studied and proven theory.

But you aren't even sugar coating the truth. You are spouting error. Evolution is not about organisms becomming better. That is a baseless idea. By the way, science doesn't prove theories. It seems that your lack of understand extends beyond evolutionary theory to science in general. You don't seem to understand what it is or how it works.

[Nemiroff]

No, it doesn't. There is no concept of getting better in evolutionary theory.

of course, the theory natural selection does though, and natural selection is the way that evolution works it's magic. and certain evolutionary effects do make the creature better in the real world, the theory doens't go that far because it's just a theory and not a reinactment. it says there is change, the real world desides if that change is better or not.

Sloppy wording. What's a "weakness"? You have a very simplistic grasp of evolutionary theory. What evolutionary theory states is that heritable genetic changes (those that are not immediately lethal) will give give organisms differential reproductive success in some given environment. A change may be an adbantage in one environment and a detriment in another. However, it has nothing to do with getting "better" (whatever that means), but with adaptation to the environment.

better isnt a scientific term, its called regular english and if you dont understand what the definition of better is then you shouldn't be talking. If a species profits from the change, "increases in reproductive success" as you so technically and complicatedly word the same thing to try to sound smarter then us, knowing full well its the same thing. when in fact yours is more misleading making the average lay man think "uhhhh it has sex better" or it attracts the opposite sex better, when any increase in chance of survival increases future chances in reproduction, in other word, the animal in question becomes BETTER then it wose, otherwise it becomes worse, sorry weaker may make people think strength, but worse off then it was before is what it becomes, correct me if i'm wrong anywhere here.....

Yep. I'm sure. I've been debating creationists for over 20 years and have been an evolutionary biologist, studying and teaching it, for over 30.

oh so your a pro at this, please correct our ideas, but dont descriminate over simple english, i know that theories describe a process "in theory" and dont actually play it out all the way the way it is in the real world, but in the real world if a creature improves it's chance at survival and reproduction, or any other word you choose to use it in effect, becomes BETTER, in some way or form, then it was before. its a simple word, from simple english, even einstein knew that the world is based on simplicity buried deep beneath complexity. but your acting more like clinton defining the word IS.

[gallo]

Quote by: Nemiroff of course, the theory natural selection does though,

Actually, anyone who has even a basic understanding of natural selection would not make such a statement. Natural selection does not include the idea of organisms getting "better". From what creationist site did you get that idea?

and natural selection is the way that evolution works it's magic.

It isn't magic and natural selection is only one of several known mechanisms of evolution. My bet is that you can't name 3 others.

and certain evolutionary effects do make the creature better in the real world,

What does that mean? What are "evolutionary effects"? What is a "creature"? What do you mean by "better"? What do you mean by "real world"? None of that makes sense in a discussion of evolutionary biology. How sad that you seem to want to learn and yet are unable to accept correction from someone who knows more about the topic than you.

the theory doens't go that far because it's just a theory

Yet another fundamentalist creationist argument. Evolution is only a theory. So you actually have no idea of what a scientific theory is, do you?

and not a reinactment.

How dismally ignorant. Where did you get the idea that science was supposed to be some sort of re-enactment?

it says there is change, the real world desides if that change is better or not.

But, if you actually had this primitive understanding of natural selection, why on earth would you claim that evolution makes organisms better? Evolution is a change in the allele frequency of a population over time. Natural selection is differential reproductive success. Natural selection is one mechanism that produces evolution.

better isnt a scientific term,

Then you understand my objection to your use of that word in a scientific discussion. It is actually meaningless. I'm glad that we agree.

its called regular english and if you dont understand what the definition of better is then you shouldn't be talking.

Your feeble attempt at insult is noted and reported. Do you want me to go back and correct you semi-literate spelling and grammar? If you want to challenge me about English grammar, then you should know that when I was in graduate school I used to tutor master candidates in English.

If a species profits from the change,

Getting closer. Except in my years as an evolutionary biologist I have never heard of "profit from change."

"increases in reproductive success" as you so technically and complicatedly word the same thing to try to sound smarter then us,

I am sorry that I know more than you do. I wasn't trying to sound smarter. I was trying to explain. I am sorry that you take correction of your ignorance as an effort to seem superior. It isn't. It's just that I have been doing this stuff since about 1965.

By the way, you should pay more attention when you read. Please don't misrepresent what I said. I didn't ever state that evolution or natural selection was an "increases in reproductive success". I may have said that natural selection was differential reproductive success. Please show that this means that species get better.

knowing full well its the same thing. when in fact yours is more misleading making the average lay man think "uhhhh it has sex better" or it attracts the opposite sex better, when any increase in chance of survival increases future chances in reproduction, in other word, the animal in question becomes BETTER then it wose, otherwise it becomes worse, sorry weaker may make people think strength, but worse off then it was before is what it becomes, correct me if i'm wrong anywhere here.....

WTF are you talking about? Was that actually supposed to make sense? You are correct. You are stating people-think, not science. So, if I actually had any idea of what you said, I would correct you. Sadly, you talk gibberish.

oh so your a pro at this, please correct our ideas, but dont descriminate over simple english,

Are you asking me to correct your semiliterate english?

i know that theories describe a process "in theory"

Holy Jesus! Theories explain in theory? Does that actually make sense to you?

and dont actually play it out all the way the way it is in the real world,

WTF does that mean? Do yoy actually understand what a scientific theory is? So you think that the theory of gravity doesn't actually play out all the way the way in the real world? Are you afraid the you will float off into space?

but in the real world if a creature improves it's chance at survival and reproduction, or any other word you choose to use it in effect, becomes BETTER,

No, it doesn't. You closet creationist trolls are tedious.

in some way or form,

And you never define better.

then it was before.

Do you mean "than it was before"? An example of semiliteracy. And yet, you pretend to correct me?

its a simple word, from simple english, even einstein knew that the world is based on simplicity buried deep beneath complexity. but your acting more like clinton defining the word IS.

Don't be stupid. Evolution does not mean that organisms get better. I means that they change and that they adapt to their environment. Please educate yourself before you make yourself look more foolish.

By the way, since you seem to have little understanding of evolutionary theory and natural selection, would you like to learn? I can explain the fundamentals of natural selection in a short post. Do your want to learn? Sadly, I have done so several times in this thread.

[Nemiroff]

Actually, anyone who has even a basic understanding of natural selection would not make such a statement. It isn't magic and natural selection is only one of several known mechanisms of evolution. My bet is that you can't name 3 others. What does that mean? What are "evolutionary effects"? What is a "creature"? What do you mean by "better"? What do you mean by "real world"? None of that makes sense in a discussion of evolutionary biology. Yet another fundamentalist creationist argument. Evolution is only a theory. How dismally ignorant. But, if you actually had this primitive understanding of natural selection, Your feeble attempt at insult is noted and reported. I am sorry that I know more than you do. I wasn't trying to sound smarter. I was trying to explain. I am sorry that you take correction of your ignorance as an effort to seem superior. It isn't. It's just that I have been doing this stuff since about 1965. Are you asking me to correct your semiliterate english? Does that actually make sense to you? WTF does that mean? Do yoy actually understand what a scientific theory is? You closet creationist trolls are tedious.And you never define better. An example of semiliteracy. And yet, you pretend to correct me? Don't be stupid. Evolution does not mean that organisms get better. I means that they change and that they adapt to their environment. Please educate yourself before you make yourself look more foolish.

your response to every single part of my post has had some form of insult. you may be a biologist but most people here are not, and i decide to post all my posts in regular lay english, the type of english you use when talking to friends on the street and amongst normal people, sorry my than was a then or whatever, oh no, a made a typo, thank you for pointing that and every other spelling mistakes, and not for using masters degree english, what does that have to do with anything, differential change or whatever you said, i'm not wasting any more time rereading your insults. is a way to sum up change in either direction, whether the change helps them in the enviornment or harms them. (better or worse, positive or negative) an animal that stands up on 2 legs to reach the higher branch, or grows more fur to survive the cold has bettered itself as far as their enviornment goes. i hope you did report me, because i have plenty of insults to report you for.

[Jack]

<Mod comment>
There's no need for this debate to be so antagonistic. While it may be true that were a person to ask a biology professor some of the questions posted in this thread he could expect a rather rude response, we needn't be so short with each other here.

People tend to ignore the content of a post if the manner in which the content is presented is perceived as abrasive. In other words, no matter how "correct" their position, no one is going to prevail in a debate if everyone ignores their statements. Just like in a classroom, the presentation should be geared toward the knowledge level of the audience and presented in a fashion that will capture their interest.

It is also best to simply report posts you feel are in violation of forum rules. There's no need to address them in the forum. That just serves to drag the debate further off topic.
</Mod comment>

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo I means that they change and that they adapt to their environment.

Do you mean "It means that they change....."? An example of semiliteracy [sic]. And yet, you pretend to correct others? Lol.

[Kite]

This is a debate about evolution and creationism, not grammar.

Back on topic, I have to agree with gallo in that doing your homework and studying up on a topic before you debate over it can save you as well as fellow proponents of your cause alot of headaches due to simple slips of the tounge or poorly worded answers.

[gallo]

Quote by: Nemiroff your response to every single part of my post has had some form of insult.

Correction of your errors is not an insult. However, you might consider your attempt at insult. Why on earth would you expect courtesy? The fact of the matter is that you have so little understanding of the topic that you are stating errors. [snip]excuses[/snip]

differential change or whatever you said, i'm not wasting any more time rereading your insults.

If you don't wish to be insulted, then don't insult me. What I said was differential reproductive success. It is an easy concept that is understood by anyone who actually understands what natural selection is. It means that organisms that possess certain beneficial characteristics (in a given environment) tend to survive longer and as a result product more offspring. That is one of the mechanisms of evolution.

By the way, I notice that you didn't give me three examples of evolutionary mechanisms. I suspect that you don't know.

is a way to sum up change in either direction, whether the change helps them in the enviornment or harms them. (better or worse, positive or negative)

But that is not what you said before. You said that evolution was a process of getting better. Now you are saying that it is the result of adaptive change. You seem to be having a problem with your "regular English." Do you know what you actually mean?

an animal that stands up on 2 legs to reach the higher branch, or grows more fur to survive the cold has bettered itself as far as their enviornment goes.

First, that's not what you said before, and second, that's wrong. The organism hasn't "bettered itself", it has become better adapted. The same characteristic might not be adaptive in another environment - for example, imagine a polar bear in the Sahara.

In the spirit of reconciliation and in an effort to help you understand, here is a summary of Darwin's thoughts about natural selection. He observed that in nature organisms produce so many offspring than population size would increase exponentially if not constrained, and yet he noticed that adult populations remain relatively constant. He also observed that in any environment there is a limited number of resources. As a result, all organisms must be engaged in a constant competition to acquire these limited resources for themselves in order to survive. Note that this competition is greatest among individuals of the same population.

Darwin also noted that in any population there is such great variability such that no two individuals are exactly the same. He also noted that many of these characteristics were passed on from one generation to the next, i.e., they are heritable. (note that Darwin didn't know why or how) Some of these heritable characteristics affect the organisms ability to acquire the limited resources in the environment. Those individuals who are more successful in acquiring resources tend to reach maturity in greater numbers and produce more progeny, while those that are less successful tend to produce fewer progeny (differential reproductive success). As a result, populations change over time as beneficial characteristics increase in frequency.

As I mentioned, that is but one of several mechanisms of evolution.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Do you mean "It means that they change....."? An example of semiliteracy [sic]. And yet, you pretend to correct others? Lol.

Why thank you, Z. I am impressed that you actually saw that. However, you did miss where I typed "yoy" instead of "you." However, my errors are clearly just typographical, i.e., I know the difference and just hit the wrong key. The difference isn't actually all that subtle. Think about it a little more.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: gallo Why on earth would you expect courtesy?

Maybe because the second rule is to show respect, and you don't.

Quote by: gallo I suspect that you don't know.

See? Disrespectful.

Quote by: gallo You seem to be having a problem with your "regular English." Do you know what you actually mean?

That's twice.

Perhaps, if you feel the need to correct someone, you can choose to be respectful.

[gallo]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Maybe because the second rule is to show respect, and you don't.

I do until I am insulted.

See? Disrespectful.

Now you're just being silly. I asked him to demonstrate that he actually understands evolutionary theory by answering a question. He didnt answer. I suspect he doesn't know the answer. I suspect that you don't either. Maybe that's why you don't try to discuss evolutionary theory.

That's twice.

You did notice that my remark about 'regular English' was in response to disrespect, didn't you? Of course you didn't.

Perhaps, if you feel the need to correct someone, you can choose to be respectful.

I was until insulted. Besides, ignorance offered as knowledge isn't worthy of respect. If a person has any respect for himself he will educate himself about the topic before pretending to speak with authority. You might think about that.