|
1 registered members (1 invisible),
672
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68901
04/14/06 00:11
04/14/06 00:11
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
@Irish_Farmer: You are stating a lot without backing it up properly. For example, where did this came from?: Quote:
Evolutionists like to dumb things down to little preschooler diagrams whenever the evidence makes things look shady for them. Which I find hilarious. Their dumbed down version (a simple lense with a simple receptor in the background) already requires an almost unfathomable complexity that would have arisen by chance, without the ability for the animal to even use it yet. But we're the quack ones.
Maybe you've only looked into the highschool books about it, because I've got here about 4 books going deep into detail. You may not have read literature of the scientific level, but more 'popular' stuff, basically designed for people with not much background knowledge or just to make a book which is readable for a lot of people, not just very clever one's  ..
To give you an example of an excellent book on the subject;
"The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution" Jones, Martin, Pilbeam, Dawkins (etc..).
Quote:
That you think its fact just goes to show how horribly misrepresented the guesswork of evolution is. But then again, to you, that I don't think its fact just goes to show how loony I am so I guess we're at a stalemate here.
That's not true. Although the idea is a theory, it's backed with lots of facts, wether you like it or not. It's far from guesswork, and by using these kind of words you don't make it less solid. 
Oww and about the fact or not thing. Yes, I agree evolution is a theory, but as long as it's not falsified, then it may be considered valid. When something is valid, especially theory's, then it's considered highly likely, more or less a fact. I guess every scientist will tell you that there is no such thing as truth and perhaps facts don't exist either, especially when getting really filosophic about it  .
Quote:
If the evolutionary timeline is true, then the exact relationships between organisms aren't as exact as you say they are. According to the timeline, the eye would have had to evolve on its own at least (according to evolutionists) 36 times. There was a theory that it was a shared gene in the primitive form of the eye, but that was just one zoologist, and now most evolutionists agree it would have had to have happened near to forty or more times.
The idea that this happened 40 times, or probably more is scoffable. But you can keep believing it, because you have old bones and we all know fossils can explain what observable science cannot.
The thing you forget is, the eye's purpose plays a major role here. I think it's not that odd that it has been 'invented by nature through evolution' over 40 times. Just think about the human inventions from the last 200 hundred years, plenty of things got invented more than 4 times. Considered the time difference between that and the 40 times of eye 'invention', I think it's not odd at all. I also have to remind you that some species are not linked to others, so if they indeed didn't have a common ancestor who developed eyes during a evolutionary process, then when eye's would give a clear advantage to the species they would need to develop those. Some species can't evolve very well and just die out, others are lucky to have beneficial mutations, after quite some time and a lot of mutations later the eye could have fully developed. Yes, you are right this whole process is far from simple, yet there are enough interesting species in this world from which we can learn a lot about this process. We've got small creatures with eyes only sensitive to light, but not really able to see, and we got the far evolved animal eye (like from humans or predator birds) and a lot in between too. Enough observable scientific material to study imho, and bones also say a lot. You speak of them as if it's wood, but all kinds of features will tell things. Really basic stuff can be derived from them instantly, like how big would the organs have been, but also a lot lot more, like details about the eyes can be derived from for example skulls with further study, as in comparisons with modern animals/humans. Again, it's far from guesswork, and it's pretty solid.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#68902
04/14/06 06:49
04/14/06 06:49
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
What we have going on here right now is this: "I'm right because I said so." "No, I'm right because I said so." Maybe I shouldn't have been so vague because that post didn't lead us anywhere. But it really is getting beyond the point of the argument. Unless we establish if evolution is even possible in the first place, we're just going to keep going back and forth like this. Yeah, I made a few stabs at evolution, but it really doesn't need to be argued. However, one thing that does need to be argued is this: Quote:
Really basic stuff can be derived from them instantly, like how big would the organs have been, but also a lot lot more, like details about the eyes can be derived from for example skulls with further study, as in comparisons with modern animals/humans. Again, it's far from guesswork, and it's pretty solid.
Interpreting fossils isn't evolution. That would be forensics. But I get what you're saying. However, seeing evolution in the fossil record is just one viewpoint, that doesn't mean its right. We've also interpreted a lot of things into fossils that we later found out were false outright, so you're not dealing with an exact science in these fossils. But this is another bunny trail. We're not going to solve anything by worrying about this.
Oh, one more thing. Conscious, purposeful humans creating things, and mindless random evolution creating something repeatedly is comparing apples to oranges. Evolutionists themselves will tell you that evolution is neutral and has no goal. When we invent something, we have a goal or a purpose. So that can't be used as a parallel.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/14/06 06:50.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68903
04/14/06 22:01
04/14/06 22:01
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Oh, one more thing. Conscious, purposeful humans creating things, and mindless random evolution creating something repeatedly is comparing apples to oranges. Evolutionists themselves will tell you that evolution is neutral and has no goal. When we invent something, we have a goal or a purpose. So that can't be used as a parallel.
I'm not quite sure what you mean with this, can you explain this a bit more? I think evolution does have a purpose, or I should say life has a purpose, but both are linked together in my opinion.
I don't believe in a mindless random evolution, infact why should it be random at all? Evolutionary stages of todays species are a result of adaptations to the past's conditions. It's a simple mechanism, the weak will die out, the ones with beneficial properties will make sure a species won't die out, or maybe even evolve into a new species. I'd say that's both the purpose of life and the purpose of evolution, or at least it's result. A result of a simple equation is not a random something. It's a race, the last one's a loser, the first one obviously was either stronger that the rest or had something a bit different that made him the winner.
Human inventions either happen because someone has a 'eureka moment' and suddenly has a crazy idea, ending up in a great invention, or there is desperate need for some problem to be solved. For example certain tools to work the land, instead of doing it all by hand, those inventions are the ones comparable to evolutionary steps. The only way a species would survive, would be to adapt to it's threatning situation, in the example the tools would be the invention that would help out the humans. I think it's infact quite comparable. One invention because there is a desire for a solution to a certain problem or situation. An evolutionary change because the species wouldn't survive otherwise, off course these changes don't come in a christmass package, it's the work of natural selection and mutations.
Btw I don't get it either why certain creationists believe that the eye could never have evolved in steps in the first place because it's function would only become available if there would be enough 'hardware and software' to even be able to use it. Again, this view is way to simplistic. The socalled hardware and software comes gradually, just like the eye itself. Just look at some animals around us, like chickens for example. They've got wings, yet can't really fly, only a few feet above the ground. I know most scientists think this is infact a degradation, but who proofs me wrong that the eye may not actually have had a really handy function in the first stages of it's evolution? Why would that be so odd?
Quote:
Interpreting fossils isn't evolution.
Okey, when I understand correctly, now you are stating it can't be seen by studying fossils, well there are plenty of examples that will prove you wrong. Rudimentary structures, left overs so to speak from other adaptions to different environments. Now why would God add those to a lifeform  ... Again, fossils play a keyrole, how else would you propose to study the past?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#68904
04/15/06 04:45
04/15/06 04:45
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
When I say random evolution, I really should have said random mutations. Natural selection has an ultimate goal, mutation is just random, both are requisites of evolution so I suppose I was focusing on mutations without elaborating. Its not that I don't believe the eye couldn't have evolved step by step, but I'm saying is that the chances of it happening randomly, step by step, 40+ times is astronomical. When you really add up all the different probabilities of evolution, it really becomes unthinkable. That's ignoring the fact that mutations can't lead to true evolution. Quote:
Okey, when I understand correctly, now you are stating it can't be seen by studying fossils, well there are plenty of examples that will prove you wrong. Rudimentary structures, left overs so to speak from other adaptions to different environments. Now why would God add those to a lifeform ... Again, fossils play a keyrole, how else would you propose to study the past?
That fossils prove evolution is a matter of opinion. We say that animals have similar structures has to prove evolution, I say that its a reflection of a similar creator. How do we prove each other wrong? I don't know, so I don't really care about the fossil record. The fact is that the fossil record details a long series of well-formed creatures. Not to mention that the whole thing is highly subjective. Like I said, if all the different variations of dog were suddenly fossilized, we could look back and say, "Oh, this is evolution in action, look how similar they are such a wide variety of creatures must have all evolved from the same form." When in fact they're just genetic degenerates of the wolf and in fact are all the same species. I won't get started on the dating methods, I really don't want to get off on a tangent like that right now. Besides, its unimportant to the overall picture. Whether the fossils were buried over millions of years or within 6000 years, evolution is still untrue so the fossil record bears no relevance for me.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68905
04/15/06 15:56
04/15/06 15:56
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Its not that I don't believe the eye couldn't have evolved step by step, but I'm saying is that the chances of it happening randomly, step by step, 40+ times is astronomical. When you really add up all the different probabilities of evolution, it really becomes unthinkable. That's ignoring the fact that mutations can't lead to true evolution.
I've read this argument dozens of times and it doesn't seem to die out. It's the basic creationist misunderstanding of simple probability calculation.
If a random event has a probability P and happens in an average time T, then 40 consecutive events will just happen in the time 40*T.
Intentionally or not, on creationist websites this is always confused with the probability for all 40 events happening at the same moment. The average time to wait for that would be proportional to 2^40 * T and that would be indeed astronomical.
In evolution we have the first case. Eyes don't pop up suddenly but develop step by step. Mutations permanently happen. Some of them will get the eye one step further - maybe one mutation in ten thousand years. Thus we'll end up with a fully developed eye in 400,000 years. Life exists since 2 billion years on earth. Thus it would be unthinkable if eyes had _not_ developed many times in many species during evolution.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68906
04/15/06 16:48
04/15/06 16:48
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I'm not talking about it happening all at the same time. Nevermind that point, its irrelevant to the discussion, and actually is just a matter of opinion. For you, it could have happened because it did, for me, it couldn't have happened because we still don't know of any mechanism where its possible. So, whatever. Quote:
In evolution we have the first case. Eyes don't pop up suddenly but develop step by step. Mutations permanently happen. Some of them will get the eye one step further - maybe one mutation in ten thousand years.
Your evidence for this is?
Quote:
Thus it would be unthinkable if eyes had _not_ developed many times in many species during evolution.
Assuming the goal of evolution is that creatures without eyes should get them. And that its even possible in the first place, which has never been demonstrated.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68908
04/15/06 18:33
04/15/06 18:33
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Assuming the goal of evolution is that creatures without eyes should get them. And that its even possible in the first place, which has never been demonstrated.
Yes, it has never been demonstrated. We haven't got 400,000 years yet to demonstrate the evolution of an eye.
Evolution theory explains the existence of species with a mutation and selection mechanism that is plausible, mathematically predictable, and - in case of selection and of small mutations - even directly observed. For large mutations we only have indirect evidence in transient fossils, vestigial organs and so on.
Creationism explains this with the actions of one or several gods.
Indeed we haven't directly observed the evolution of a species by large mutations. And we've also never seen a God place a new species on earth. So we can't decide from direct observation which theory is true. In such a case science applies Ockhams razor. The result is obvious.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68909
04/15/06 18:44
04/15/06 18:44
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,753
Munich, Bavaria, South of Germ...
TripleX
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,753
Munich, Bavaria, South of Germ...
|
"The human body has a hundred of "development" mistakes and weakpoints that are only explainable thru random changes and development. Parts like the thumbs, the neck or the shoulders are bad designs for such a species like we are. But are perfect development stages on the other hand." yes yes.. in 1000 years another important step will probably be done. The extinction of the damn wisdom teeth and of the appendix. Another good step in our evolution  (no fad chops for one week anymore )
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: TripleX]
#68910
04/16/06 00:19
04/16/06 00:19
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 202
Southern California, USA
GhostwriterDoF
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 202
Southern California, USA
|
You know, I've read through this debate as it progresses. I am not quite sure of the purpose of the discussion at this point. So much energy expended and I await some consessions, some shared understanding. How about trying something new for a change, and start talking about where science and religion run parallel in thinking. What common ground do they share. It just seems counterproductive now. To question is valid in any sense, wether it be religion or science. In fact it is extremely important to both. We ask questions and weigh the answers to understand purpose, meaning, identity and direction. I believe in a God and in evolution too, to a point. Evolution has plenty of gaps to give thought to variations but, the evidence is pretty clear. And science isn't all that it is cracked up to be either. Perpetual energy should have been achieved decades ago. Hopefully our understanding will begin to evolve within the next 1000 years
The rivers of time erode away the mountains of existence...
|
|
|
|
