main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Evolution

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Captain-Communist, May 2, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth_SnowDog

    Darth_SnowDog Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 10, 2001
    PENA: Evolutionists have nothing to say about how it all "started"... they only research how it all evolved.

    If you want to discuss how it all started, like I've said before in the previous thread... astrobiology deals with the whole spectrum of how life began, evolved to the present and continues to evolve. That is entirely different from evolutionary theory alone, and would really be a separate thread because we'd have to discuss a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines beyond those which deal with evolution.
     
  2. R2D2-PENA

    R2D2-PENA Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Neither do I. Is there anyone who does? According to evolutionary biology, humans and amoebas share a common ancestor. This common ancestor was much more similar to an amoeba than to a human, but that is not the same as humans evolving from amoebas. This is an important point.

    I agree with you on this one, because i as a creationist have a biblical explanation for this. The Bible teaches that man was created from the dust of the earth, that is where the relation of man to the rest of creation is evidenced, if we come from the dust of the earth then obviously we have similar if not identical ingredients which make up our structure.

    Now i am just posting this as a creationist point of view, to state that there are biblical explanations which do support many scientific evidences. Take it as you will, but note that this was written thousands of years ago when the technological knowledge needed to verify this didn't exist. So please don't take it as me trying to convince you of my belief but see it as proof or evidence or maybe a point in favor of creationism and God, that some of us are on the right track and that in my eyes it is not a coincidence but a planned route which God devised.

     
  3. Darth_SnowDog

    Darth_SnowDog Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 10, 2001
    ...it is not a coincidence but a planned route which God devised.

    We have no reason to believe that evolution wasn't god's self-perpetuating master plan to begin with... so stating that Creation is somehow unique from Evolution because Evolution implies there is no god is obviously a fallacy. In that sense... no, it isn't a point to favor Creation over Evolution.
     
  4. R2D2-PENA

    R2D2-PENA Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    If you want to discuss how it all started, like I've said before in the previous thread... astrobiology deals with the whole spectrum of how life began, evolved to the present and continues to evolve. That is entirely different from evolutionary theory alone, and would really be a separate thread because we'd have to discuss a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines beyond those which deal with evolution

    Thanks Snowdog, you have answered my question. Because one of the gripes i have about evolutionists is that many have claimed that the big bang theory is linked to the evolution theory, which you have showed that it's not entirely true.

    Now my points on evolution have been stated, in saying that i do believe that evolution exists in many ways and forms, but that i do not believe that that is how it all started. Maybe it's a misunderstanding on both our parts, in saying that we are on two sides of the fence. Maybe we can look at it like this:

    God created the universe, he planted all humans and creatures and plants, etc. but established certain scientific principles to govern the rest of creation (in this specific case, evolution). Not that i am agreeing with it all, but i do see the fact that all of this evolution or growth would be part of the greater scheme of things, for what reason? i don't know. But i don't dismiss the evidence that you post here, if there is evidence and information proving your post, i will believe it and agree.

    But the only thing i do disagree is the fact that it all started through an evolutionary process.
     
  5. sleazo

    sleazo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    r2d2 pena---Well there are many thoeires as to which of the fossils were our ancestors. The problem is that it is indeed very rare for an organism to become fossilised. THe ones that we do find are interpreted to the best of our knowledge and using the cladistics method a relationship between them is shown. This can be changed ove r the course of time depending on what new discoveires are made. But there are many species which are thought to have been direct ancestors(australopithecus afarensis, homo egaster, homo erectus) while others are offshoots from a common ancestor whose lines have fizzled out over time(paranthorpus robustus and homo sapiens neandertalenis to name a couple.). I will try to find a good web site for you that can explain it to me, i was just minored in paleo anthorpology so other s will know more than me.


    And peez , very good points obove about the common ancestor as oppossed ot directly descening form that organism, alot of peopl edont realiize that.
     
  6. R2D2-PENA

    R2D2-PENA Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    We have no reason to believe that evolution wasn't god's self-perpetuating master plan to begin with... so stating that Creation is somehow unique from Evolution because Evolution implies there is no god is obviously a fallacy. In that sense... no, it isn't a point to favor Creation over Evolution.

    I never meant to state is a a point in favor of creationist over evolution, i used this to state that in some form or another there could be a biblical faith induced explanation for a scientific proof. If you look at it that way you can say, "well maybe the guys who wrote this Bible were being guided by an all-knowing Being who planted these ideas in their heads, and there is a coincidence in this point, could there be more?"

    Look at is as the Bible supporting science. Not as the Bible beating science. I mean, it would be self defeating to say that God created the universe and science and then goes and writes a book that contradicts what He just created. All i see is biblical support of science, and that brings a bible verse to mind which states "the heavens and the earth show the glory of God". This might not make sense to you but to me and other creationists or more specifically Christians, it makes alot of sense.
     
  7. sleazo

    sleazo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    But evolution does say that god did not create life, it explains the process by which it has survived and changed.
    Most Christians that i know believe in evolution. Maybe it is because i live in NYC but that is the case. your religion and evolution really should nt conflict.

    But if you are to take the bible completely literally than you must assume every other religion on this planet to be wrong. That is not a blanket staemnet but a logical one.
     
  8. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    R2D2-PENA:
    I agree with Melyanna one this point, that human beings have evolved through the passage of time, there is evidence to that fact. When i have argued the evolution theory in the past it has always been the fact that evolutionists argue that we all started from a single cell organism and evolving to our present state.
    It is not uncommon for creationists to have a special problem with human evolution, as they seem to take it personally. To a scientist, there is no reason to view human evolution differently than the evolution of any other species.
    I can believe and there are facts that state that we are changing continuously, and that is believable and true. But the big band [sic] theory which is what evolutionsts cling to when they are discussing the orgins [sic] of humanity is where we differ in opinion.
    Is that the theory of how Tommy Dorset created the universe? :) You should know by now that the "Big BanG theory is physics, not biology, and has nothing to do with evolution (other than both being science). By the way, nobody will tell me what an "evolutionist" is. Is it like a gravitist? Or perhaps an atomist? A heleocentrist?
    Now many state that evolution is not a part of the big band [sic] theory, but there are only two sides to this coin, either humans were created by God or a higher being or they spontaneously emerged out of nothing.
    Actually, neither of those is evolution, and I can think of at least several more possibilities: two gods created humans, five goddesses created humans, one god named the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe and humans simply evolved from life forms that spontaneously formed on this planet, a race of imperfect supernatural beings created the universe and then created life and then humans evolved from that created life...
    Many evolutionists will not take either side, that to me is one of the holes of the evolutionist theory.
    If by "evolutionist" you mean "scientist", then the side that they take is the side that the empirical evidence points to. That side is: living things on this planet share a common ancestor, and have evolved over billions of years by mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
    They claim that God did not create the universe, because they don't want to acknowledge a higher power by any means, because it would detract from their theory, making it not the supreme, chaotic, balanced, conicidence [sic] it is, but an act of faith on a Higher Power; also not to acknowledge that creationism is a very logical way of looking at the beginnings, because after accepting the origin of a higher being, creationism makes more sense, and because evolutionists are inherently atheists.
    Whew, that is quite a sentence! Where to start... t is difficult to address this without knowing exactly what is meant by an "evolutionist", but I will go with "someone who accepts that living things have evolved from a common ancestor by Darwinian evolution." You are incorrect in asserting that "evolutionists" claim that "God did not create the universe" There are many "evolutionists" who believe that God created the universe, this is not a problem for evolution (and has not much to do with it). The rest of that sentence is rather presumptuous, with you presuming that you know what motivates "evolutionists". It also doesn't make much sense to me, but again the final bit about evolutionists being "inherently atheist" is, to say the least, unfounded.
    And the second would be the big bang origin of the universe and species, which is absolutely ridiculous, even to atheists, because it all had to start somewhere, even in our human minds we accept the fact that it needs a beginning.
    I don't, but that has nothing to do with evolution anyhow.
    So where do evolutionists stand in relation to this origin? Many don't really know, including those on this message board, if there is another
     
  9. Darth_SnowDog

    Darth_SnowDog Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 10, 2001
    PENA: I think you still misunderstand my point. My point is not to demonstrate that evolution and astrobiology are mutually exclusive... evolutionary science is one of the areas of science that is a component of the greater field of astrobiology.

    Secondly, no, humans weren't "planted" here as-is. Mitochondrial DNA is evidence of this, and it's also being currently used to examine our descendancy from Homo erectus and our lineage. In a sense, the goose chase that Creationist spokespeople have set you upon, PENA, by asking for transitory species is simply a devious one... why? Because every species IS a transitory species.. between its predecessor and successor. For example, Homo erectus is the transition between Homo sapiens and Australopithecus. Australopithecus ramidus, found in Aramis/Ethiopia in 1994 is from 4.4 million years ago and is the "missing link" between the common ancestor of ape/Homo and human family trees... and is genetically closer to chimpanzee. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is an example of a transitory subspecies which could have led to a new species but didn't before it died out completely.

    Without understanding the massive changes that can occur within a single generation as a result of HOX gene mutation, a Creationist might easily assume that there are some "special" transitory species out there that are somehow distinctive from any "non-transitory species"... when in fact every species, every generation, is possibly a transitory species between one and another.

    On the one hand, some physical changes may occur so gradually over time that the gradation between species may be too slight to notice and the number of generations that affected the gradual change are so many that it is too difficult to find in-tact specimens of every single stage of transition from the predecessor to the successor...

    On the other hand, other massive changes might be triggered by HOX genes so immediately that the predecessor and successor appear significantly different but have no transitory species between them because the mutation occurred within a single generation. These are both scientifically plausible scenarios, and proof exists that both can happen.

    Again, the problem is that Creationist spokespeople, such as Duane Gish, are setting you up when they're asking you to ask evolutionists for "transitory species" because we all know that every generation affects one form of transition or another... and some transitions may be so sudden and radical within a single generation, that you're asking for nonexistent evidence you don't need because the evidence is already right in front of you.
     
  10. R2D2-PENA

    R2D2-PENA Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    But evolution does say that god did not create life, it explains the process by which it has survived and changed.

    I don't understand this, evolution denies the origin of it all but it does not post a theory of the origin, all this goes back to my earlier posts, is it or is not (evolution) making claims of the origins? If it's not discussing this point then lets leave the origin out and move on to the next point.

    ...your religion and evolution really should nt conflict

    I never said that they conflicted unless you insist on the first point.

    But if you are to take the bible completely literally than you must assume every other religion on this planet to be wrong. That is not a blanket staemnet but a logical one.

    I do believe this, otherwise i would not have faith in my belief, note that christianity is NOT viewed as a religion per se, by it's members, we are individuals who have a relationship with God, directly, and since there are many of us who do the same, we are classified as being an organization, but Biblically speaking, we are just people who believe the same things and decide to have a communion between ourselves, it doesn't mean that we are members of an organization which rules over others, it is a personal thing between man and God. But with all this said, i still have respect to those who believe differently and the reason why i preach what i preach, is to let others know of what i have found, and to let them experience the same joy and happiness i have, and if they don't want to, then they are entitled to their belief. But all of this really belongs in another thread.
     
  11. sleazo

    sleazo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    But peez wthese people just cant or wont believe the evidence.

    And for the record man is a beast whose behaviour, mind and body are the direct result of his habitat and natural selection
     
  12. sleazo

    sleazo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Oh dear god how many times do we have to explain it to you, evolution is not concerned with who created life or why.
    It does not say that there is or isnt a god.


    and im sorry i made th estatemnet about other religions being wrong, big can of worms there, though it does help me realize that it is very hard for you to put yourself in other peoples shoes
     
  13. R2D2-PENA

    R2D2-PENA Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Again, the problem is that Creationist spokespeople, such as Duane Gish, are setting you up when they're asking you to ask evolutionists for "transitory species" because we all know that every generation affects one form of transition or another... and some transitions may be so sudden and radical within a single generation, that you're asking for nonexistent evidence you don't need because the evidence is already right in front of you.

    I'm sorry but i do not know who this person is, Duane Gish, i am from Mexico, so i don't know. Also the questions i am asking were not implanted in my head, those are just logical questions on my part which to me still don't make sense, because in nature we see transitory evidence of everything, just look at how water turns to ice, it is a slow process in which you can see every point of transition from one state to another, likewise when it turns to gas, you can see every step of the way, but not in evolutinary origins. I see jumps, big jumps. Now you can state that there can be big changes from one generation to another, but all this is speculatory, even though there are theories to support this, because the only thing we see in nature is that all of the beings that existed before still exist now. If we evolved from one state to another, this means we left one state of ourselves behind, if we did, like monkeys, chimp, gorillas, fish, etc. where are those that are the links between these creatures. Did they disappear? where did they go? If it all happened slowly over a course of millions of years, there has to be transitory evidence of all those states, just like water changes there are transitory pieces left, like water with a small speck of ice inside, the another piece which is more ice than water, and so on until we have a pure solid piece of ice, you see my point? in this process i can see every single piece of the transition but not in evolutionary origins, all is see is gaps, which to me just states that this theory of how it all started is in error.
     
  14. R2D2-PENA

    R2D2-PENA Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Oh dear god how many times do we have to explain it to you, evolution is not concerned with who created life or why.
    It does not say that there is or isnt a god.


    From earlier:
    But evolution does say that god did not create life, it explains the process by which it has survived and changed.

    MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!! You are making one statement which basically denies the existence of God and another which says that God did not create life.

    Also stating a yes and no answer is to me an easy way out of not explaining something very important in your theory, which would support what i first said today.
     
  15. sleazo

    sleazo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    sorry typo, i meant it doesnt say that god did or didnt create life
    there sorry for the misunderstanding
     
  16. Republic_Clone_69

    Republic_Clone_69 Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Aug 10, 2001
    If we evolved from one state to another, this means we left one state of ourselves behind, if we did, like monkeys, chimp, gorillas, fish, etc. where are those that are the links between these creatures. Did they disappear? where did they go? If it all happened slowly over a course of millions of years, there has to be transitory evidence of all those states, just like water changes there are transitory pieces left, like water with a small speck of ice inside, the another piece which is more ice than water, and so on until we have a pure solid piece of ice, you see my point? in this process i can see every single piece of the transition but not in evolutionary origins, all is see is gaps, which to me just states that this theory of how it all started is in error.

    And you have obviously done exhaustive research on this subject. [face_plain]
    Someone please enlighten this individual on how natural selection works... I don't have the patience right now to even touch this, let alone get into the history of our early hominid contemporaries.
    Ugh.
     
  17. sleazo

    sleazo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    republic clone that person really doesnt understand evolution or the fact that we are not descended form chimps gorrilas or monkeys(we have a common ancestor)
     
  18. R2D2-PENA

    R2D2-PENA Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Someone please enlighten this individual on how natural selection works... I don't have the patience right now to even touch this, let alone get into the history of our early hominid contemporaries.

    Then why the heck did you come here? Go on, move along, move along.
     
  19. Wylding

    Wylding Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Let's try and keep things civil now.
     
  20. Darth_SnowDog

    Darth_SnowDog Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 10, 2001
    PENA: i am from Mexico, so i don't know

    That's no excuse :p

    just look at how water turns to ice, it is a slow process in which you can see every point of transition from one state to another, likewise when it turns to gas, you can see every step of the way, but not in evolutinary origins.

    Ok, right here either you haven't taken interest, paid attention or comprehended a word I've said (which is it, you tell me?)... First of all, you see that water turns into ice, ok... neither can you explain to me the exact molecular process by which this occurs, nor do you realize that this is an absolutely irrelevant analogy because frozen H20 is still H20... whereas Australopithecus ramidus is not Homo sapiens, but is genetically our ancestor.

    I see jumps, big jumps. Now you can state that there can be big changes from one generation to another, but all this is speculatory,

    No, it is not speculatory... for the umpteenth time there is direct observable evidence how a radical shift can occur from one species to another within a single mutation. The numerous times I've posted reference to UCSD's studies on HOX genes, not one Creationist has refuted these studies I have cited or even attempted to address them (perhaps because there is no argument they can pose against scientific studies they haven't even examined).

    even though there are theories to support this

    Theories? No, not just theories... direct observation, PENA. Once again, I refer to the studies on HOX genes in living organisms as well as the analysis of Mitochondrial DNA.

    where are those that are the links between these creatures.

    Again here you clearly demonstrate that you haven't read any of my recent posts... So, go back and read them. I'm not going to restate the blindingly obvious, but let me see if I can give you as mind-numbingly simple an example as even a sixth grader should be able to understand (yes, even in Mexico)... Between each species there is a gap... even if I show the Creationist spokesperson Dr. Gish himself examples of two species... one of which is the direct ancestor of the other within one single generation (i.e. the evolved species followed the ancestor within a single evolutionary mutation)... he will say "Yeah, but where's the transition?" If the leap was made in one step... how the HELL can I divine out of thin air a species that never existed, nor is required to have existed, in order for that single mutation to have occurred from species A to species B??

    Now don't tell me you can't understand this.

    Whoever suggested that evolution says that god didn't create life was incorrect... evolutionary theory makes no statement for or against god. Evolutionary science is an ongoing process of discovery of the process by which life evolves... it has, for the bazillionth time, absolutely nothing to say about god, positive or negative. Again, don't misquote me by saying that evolution cannot disprove god, or that evolution disagrees with the Big Bang or anything of the sort... I'm simply saying that evolutionary science alone makes no comment, says n-o-t-h-i-n-g one way or the other about the origin of life, what constitutes the metaphysical consciousness, or why (in the philosophical, not mechanical sense) we exist.

    Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world... even in Mexico... who can clearly understand what I have stated here... before you go off refuting evolution on what are predominantly speculations that arose (Creation theory) from Biblical conjecture, not proven fact or even observable correlation, for that matter... please, please, PLEASE take the time to reread my previous posts... particularly that dealing with phylogenetic classification.
     
  21. Wylding

    Wylding Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Theories? No, not just theories... direct observation, PENA. Once again, I refer to the studies on HOX genes in living organisms as well as the analysis of Mitochondrial RNA.

    I assume you are referring to the similarities between bacterial RNA and Mitochondrial RNA? Either way, I'd like remind you that correlation is not causation. Every good scientist knows that.
     
  22. Darth_SnowDog

    Darth_SnowDog Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Wylding: No, typo... I'm talking about Mitochondrial DNA... a few posts above I put a link to an article about how scientists use Mitochondrial DNA in identifying hominid lineage between species.

    My point in mentioning correlation to PENA was precisely that... Creationists haven't even managed to make correlative observations, much less cause-effect ones.
     
  23. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Greesha:
    Darth_Snowdog- I believe I am entitled to my opinion just as much as you are entitled to yours, but I suppose that doesn't make it a truth/fact.
    More to the point, you are entitled to your opinion but creationism is not science. Among scientists, evolution has the same status as gravity. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind about gravity, but they should realize that they are rejecting science. I am not saying that science has all the answers (it doesn't), but many creationists attempt to sell creationism as science in order to give it more credibility (and to have it taught in science class).
    Secondly: I am leaving this thread for the time being. I have finals coming up not too long from now and I simply don't have the time to research creation and evolution. Perhaps I'll return in the summer when I have more free time.
    Please do come back, or visit the Evolution/Creation forum at Internet Infidels. Meanwhile, good luck on your finals!

    Peez
     
  24. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Melyanna:
    I have to agree with you in part there. We can't test the hypothesis that the universe began as a single point of matter and came about through the big bang, or test evolution of a single-celled organism into a sentient being. In much the same way, we can't perform an experiment to prove that the universe and all things in it were created. Sorry, but there's no scientific proof either way. They're both theories, and to accept either takes faith.
    Please look up "theory" in a dictionary. Meanwhile, you are incorrect in asserting that evolution is not testable. There are many observations that would falsify evolution, and many things that we might expect to see if evolution were true. For example, the genetic code that we use employs three nucleic acid bases in triplets known as codons. Each codon (usually) codes for a specific amino acid in a protein. There are many other systems which could do this just as well (or possibly better), but let's just stick to this system for the time being. With four nucleic acid bases there are about 10.67x10^89 possible ways to set up the genetic code. Of course, there are only 20 amino acids, so if we assume that these are the only ones that may be used (unrealistic, but for the sake of argument...) this reduces the number of possible ways the genetic code may be set up to about 2.43x10^18 or so (if my calculations are correct). So, very conservatively, there are about 2,430,000,000,000,000,000 ways to do this, each entirely equal to the others. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, we would expect that all species would inherit just one way (the way that the original life form did it). In fact, all life forms examined so far use the same way of doing this. Very compelling.

    Naturally creationists can argue that God just made them all the same. This is the problem with creationism: any and all observations can be put down to some god doing that way for his/her/their own reasons. It is not testable. Evolution, on the other hand, is not consistent with all observations. Again and again when we test evolution, we find that the observations are consistent with common descent. Either common descent occurred, or god(s) created things to look just as if they did.

    Peez
     
  25. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    R2D2-PENA:
    Sorry Sleazo, but my points are valid, please reply to all of them, not just point to one flawed point, because i have also studied evolution in school, just like the rest of you, although i am not very well versed in all the facts of evolution, that is why i am asking the questions, so that they can be answered, think of it as evolutionists trying to teach me about their theory, i am not debating it, i am asking a question about it, excuse my ignorance and please answer, that is why we are here, isn't it?
    With all due respect, first you state that your points are valid, then you admit that you are not well-versed in evolution. If you are not well-versed in evolution, how can you evaluate the validity of your points?

    At the risk of sounding pompous, I am well-versed in evolution. That doesn't make me right, of course, but perhaps when I tell you that the big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution you might give me some credit.

    Now, if you have any questions about evolution I will attempt to answer them.

    Peez
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.