Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I asked you how evolution addresses the vast differences between man and animals, things like guns, computers, abortions, etc. Obviously man is not perfect, but evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature, instead, he remains the top of the scale. How does evolution answer this question?
But we aren't the top being because of evolution. We're the top being because of technology. Our ancestors, H. Habilis started us down the technology highway that's led to where we are today. But guess what? Take away our technology and we're pretty wimpy. No fangs or venom, no thick hide or horns, no claws, heck, we can't even stay in 70% of the earths surface because we don't have gills, and another 15-25% because we don't have fur. You're mistakenly conflating our technological superiority with evolutionary superiority.
And we're not even really that superior - the humble bacteria and virus can stike us down. Some "super-bug" strains of staph are resistant to anti-biotics and we're in a constant race against new strains of flu, while there's no vaccine for HIV and Ebola. One pandemic could severely disrupt human life.
I don't know where you get "evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature." That's nowhere in evolutionary thoery. Technology does not cause evolution.
We have evolved since H. Habilis into H. Erectus and now H. Sapiens, but that has been due to genetic change over time and population isolation that allowed new traits to build up in a species. If anything, technology, because it allows virtually anyone to breed with anyone else has put the brakes on human evolution, because there's no need to sexually select for fitness and there's no truly isolated populations for genetic change to build up over time.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
Oiy how many times must I go over this with you? I do not know the name of the report that I heard and I have not real interest in it at all. Fraud or not, it does not prove evolution. If it is not a fraud, then it would prove a flaw in the evolutionary theory. If it is a fraud, it does not prove anything but that that evidence does not exist at this time.
Evolution 0
Creation 0
Actually, because science works by disproving theories, things like Paluxy turning out to be frauds bolster the status quo. Part of evolutionary theory is that beings that did't exist together won't be found in the same geological strata. Paluxy being a fraud would just be a confirmation of that observation. On the flip side, if humans and dinosaurs did walk together, it would mean that human evolution would need to be re-evaluated. Unless we started finding other incongruities from the standard fossil record, the rest of evolutionary theory would be unaffected.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
I believe that to put things into context, I did not say one way or the other what I believed. But since you asked, I believe that evolution is a theory and so is creationism and intelligent designism, as such, I have an issue with anyone who claims to have overwhelming evidence or that theory is fact.
Creationism (young earth, instant special creation of species) is a falsified theory. Geologists have known for over 150 years that the earth is old and it's topography is not the result of Noah's flood. Biologists have shown over the last 150 years that species were not instantly and specially created.
Intelligent Design is God of the Gaps. It points to areas where we have incomplete knowledge and says, "God did it." That's not science, and it's not a theory.
You seem to have some confusion about theory and fact. This is a common occurance. Evolution has occured. This is a fact. The theory of evolution explains why evolution occured. This essay from Talk.Origins might help explain how the two words are used in describing evolution and hopefully will clear up your confusion.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
Try God created every living things. And that they reproduce according to their kind. That is one theory and as to what is reproducable scientific data, there is nothing to prove otherwise. The very nature of the theory of evolution proves that evolution cannot be proven because of the length of time involved to reproduces a sugnificant change.
Could you define what a "kind" is? I've never gotten a definition from creationists that didn't basically mean "species." If kind means species, then we have indeed seen populations of beings that in very short spans of time have been observed to become seperate species (i.e. can't breed with each other).
The sentence I've blued shows you're either ignorant of the scientific method, or you've been fed the cock and bull story of creationist apologists about direct observation being the only method of observation.
Do you watch CSI? Notice how there's rarely, if ever a witness to the murder? And yet the investigators are able to use science (and it's theories) to prove what happened. The same applies to evolution. We have a myriad of methods of investigating whether evolution has occured.
Sticking with the CSI motif, let's take two staples of the show - Skeletal remains and DNA - and see if there are evidences supporting evolution.
Here are 14 skulls. The first is a chimpanzee. The last is a modern human. Can you point to the dividing line between ape and human, and explain why. I'd also like to ask, if every "kind" was specially created, why do we have this seemless change in skull morphology? Or if you want to suggest design, why does it appear that the "designer" was tinkering with his design over the eons?
Now let's move to the DNA lab. Endogenous retroviruses are when a virus inserts its DNA into a hosts DNA which can be passed down to the descendants of the host. There are at least 7 examples found in both chimps and humans. How could we share the genetic leftover of a viral infection from one of our ancestors, unless we shared a common ancestor?
There are literally tons of other evidence that is not circumstantial or circumspect, but directly points to evolution having occured as explained in the Theory of Evolution.
(I'm breaking this up in parts for space and clarity)
(I'm breaking this up in parts for space and clarity)
And, perhaps, for the sake of mercy?
__________________ The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies--
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
Part 2 and I'll try not to step on stuff Jet's already covered.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
Explain what you are referring to and we can address it in more detail. I will assume you mean that man footprints are not along side dinosaurs, that can be explained by the creationist theory of the flood. So again, we are at
evolution 0
creations 0
Flood Geology was falsified 150+ years ago by Christian geologists who were investigating the creator by studying his creation. What they discovered was that geology pointed away from a flood and away from a young earth.
For an in depth () discussion with evidences and claims by both sides, check out this Talk Origins essay and you'll see that claims about the flood flounder. ()
Please explain what you mean by self-correcting. It would seem to me that you are saying that the theory of evolution is always changing according to what science knows.
That would be partially correct. It's not always changing, and the fundamentals of evolutionary theory haven't changed since Darwin's time. New discoveries (like DNA and new fossils) help to tweak the specifics. That's how science works. When a new edition comes out, that becomes the standard.
A lot of creationists take this to be a weakness because their beliefs are based on the faith in the Bible which doesn't change (much), and for them something set in stone is better than something which grows and improves with new knowledge. But let me ask you something. Do you do your taxes on an abbacus?
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
What gives you this idea? I have heard reputable scientists on both sides of the issue debate. Both have strong points, thus further proof that there is not overwhelming evidence to support evolution.
I doubt you've heard reputable biologists or geologists debating this. There is debate amongst biologists about specifics of evolutionary theory, but there is no debate as to whether evolution has occured. One thing to keep in mind about verbal debates is that a lot creationists are not professional scientists, but professional debators. They sound very convincing, but only until you start digging into their claims and you see how weak they are.
As to the overwhelming evidence for evolution. It's there, you're just blinding yourself to it.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
What scientific data can you present to support this so that we can discuss the possible interpretations of this data?
I'm not going to respond to the what you and Merle were discussing, but I want to take this opportunity to correct you on something. Science isn't about interpretations. You don't interpret data. It's not art or rhythmic gymnastics. The data stands or falls on it's own.
Science also doesn't start with an assumption, and then set out to prove the assumption correct - that's what creationism does. And the last time they tried 150+ years ago, they proved a young earth and instant special creation of the species was false. What science does is observe - then formulate a theory to explain the observations - then observe some more to see if it buttresses or demolishes the theory. For the last 150 years, the observations have done nothing but shore up evolution.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
1. To accredit everyone's idea as having worth, one must apply a % of possibility to every idea. This possibility is in direct proportion to the number of people that believe the thing.
Rubbish. Even if everyone or if no one believed something, that would in no way effect the percentage of its possibility. What effects somethings possibility is evidence that supports it actually existing or happening. Not how many people believe (in) it.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
2. The probability of something happening. Mathamatics is a much more exact science and as such, has put astronomically low probability on the evolutionary theory
Math has done no such thing, nor could it. For one thing the possibility of evolutionary theory being correct is 50/50 - either it is, or it isn't. That's how science works. We're not determining probably of a winning Lottery ticket being sold. We're looking at mountains of evidence from fossils and DNA and trying to determine if the observations match the theory. They do.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
3. Truth for the prusuit of truth is much more complexed that either of the above.
We're discussing science here. The philosophy department is in another building. As long as creationists continue to seperate "facts" from "TRVTH"TM then they'll never understand why they just don't get that possibility and probabilty have nothing to do with things that are factual or true. They're either true or their not.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
(snip stuff aimed at Merle)
What facts prove evolution. Science itself is an interpretation of the data. Interpretations can vary. What proof makes evolution fact, this is the issue I have with evolutionist, they claim fact when theory is what they have.
Here's that magic word "proof." Proof is for logic, math and liquor. Science does provide evidence that evolution has occurred sufficient to call it a fact. And please reread what I wrote above about science not being an interpretation of data. That's your misconception of it... not a fact.
The skulls and DNA in my previous post are from the essay 29 Evidences for Macroevolution written by a Christian biologist. There are evidences there showing how evolution is a fact - and more importantly - potential falsifications for each of the evidences. That is why science isn't about interpretation. Each claim of evidence must be able to be falsified.
Let me give you an analogy to show your claim of interpretation if wrong.
The theory is a shoe.
The evidence is a foot.
Either the foot fits the shoe, or you need to get a new shoe.
You don't change the foot to fit the shoe.
If your claim of interpretation in science was valid, that would be the equivilent of changing the foot instead of the shoe.
And as far as evidence goes, creationists just blind themselves to it. Check out what happened in this thread where we were asked to show creationists transitional fossils.
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
(snip some one liners)
Yes, because science is an interpretation of data, interpretations don't by fallible man.
Again, science is not an interpretation of the data. It's an observation of the data, which is checked to see if it fits the theory, or if the thoery must be discarded. Let's use CSI again. When they investigate a murder and take hair and blood samples, do they interpret it into a case? No, they'd be laughed out of court. They develop a theory based on observations (Joe was caught driving the victims car), then check the gathered evidence to see if it matches the theory (victims hair and blood on Joe's clothes) in order to bolster or dismiss (no evidence, Joe no longer a suspect) the case.
That's how science works.
And speaking of fallible man. Wouldn't a man made particular interpretation of Genesis be just as likely to be incorrect as a man made scientific theory or man made muder prosocution case?
What is this lighter-than-air solid? Do you have any support for this claim?
Saw a scientific program on it some time ago, it was quite interesting to say the least. I do not recall the name of the substance. I would imagine a little research would reveal that info.
"Now mathamticians have done probability studies (math being a much more exact science than science) and the studies suggest that the probability of evolution is astronomically against."
This is a gross error. Probability only applies to future events. Past events are a done deal. They can only try to calculate the probability of evolution happening a 2nd time.
Your arguement would be to assume that evolution already occured, which has not been proven and according to the theory of evolution, cannot be proven in this lifetime or any of the lifetimes of people alive today. For proof would literally take millions of years. Probability studies can determine the likelyhood of an event occuring, but not the truth of whether or not it has or will happen.
Saw a scientific program on it some time ago, it was quite interesting to say the least. I do not recall the name of the substance. I would imagine a little research would reveal that info.
Since you're making the claim, how about you make the research effort to support your claim.
[quote=Jet Black]Evolution remains largely a genetically based theory, not a memetic one.
Evolutionary theory indicates nothing of the sort.[quote]
But the context of the discussion was Merles claim that evolution is fact. So I asked him how his belief system that evolution is fact, explains that man is very different and seperate from other animals. It has nothing to do with the discussion of evolution vs. creationism or ID other than to say that the other theories give explainations whereas evolution has no answer. So you have proven my point. Thank you.
the fact that creationists keep plugging it as evidence counts against them somewhat don't you think? it has no bearing on evolution.
actually yes there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution. twin matched hierarchies, the existance of a great number of transitional forms in the fossil record, observed instances of speciation, observed instances of rapid evolution, junk DNA, pseudogenes, ERVs, ALUs, Biodiversity and so on and so on......
It is people like Merle who continue to say that it is fact. Have you read any of his posts. This is what I take objection to. Theory is theory, not fact. As to your other claims here, let us look at them independently of one another and see if there are other possible interpretations of the data.
do you now. do you actually know anything about the evidence for evolution, or is your claim just a blind one? I suspect that to be the case.
this would be the intelligent design responsible for, amongst many other things, the laryngeal nerve, manatee toenails, eyes in the Itjaritjari which are embedded in the skin, Bothriomyrmex regicidus and B.decapitans, Scurvy, the male Urethra, greenland shark eyes,. need I go on? why doesn't your intelligent designer design intelligently?
I know what I have studied which was some time ago I admit, but I would think that is earth shattering new evidence was found in that time, two things would have happened. 1. it would be all over the news and schools, and 2. we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
false, evolution is both fact and a theory, science doesn't do proof so you might as well argue the same against gravity.
only the flood has been falsified already. you can't call on a falsified theory to try to explain things, because it's false.
Again, let us look at the individual data and see if there are alternative explainations.
please give us some of these strong points.
I have asked several times now for you are somone else to put forth one of your so called overwhelming evidences for examination of other possible explainations (interpretations)
false. give evidence, please don'T quote Hoyle's calculation of abiogenesis, because (1) abiogeneisis is unrelated to evolution (2) it is a strawman
I didn't quote anybody.
the fact that mutation and differential reproductive success have been observed. tell me, given variation in the population and differential reproductive success, how exactly would you stop evolution?
evidence plz rather than claims.
What science has seen is micro evolution. This is not disproven in the alternate theories of C and ID. There has been no evidence as far as I know to macro evolution and if there has, please show us. And no, cloning and introvitero is not evidence.
creation has not been disproven, since the fact that we exist proves we were created,
Yet someone else on this thread says that creationism has been disproven. Which is scientifically correct?
the question is how we were created. intelligent design on the other hand is set up as an unfalsifiable theory, how on earth are we meant to determine if something is intelligently designed or not. Yesterday I went down to the river, and there is a shingle beach there. on looking at it, I could see that the shingle beach was intelligently designed, with each stone placed in a specific location by an intelligent shingle beach maker. prove me wrong. Of course one question IDists do have to answer is why their intelligent designer is so incapable of designing intelligently.
And when you can show me in science how this is proven, we can have an intelligent discussion. Untill then, I can only assume you are blowing smoke to make a point.
) discussion with evidences and claims by both sides, check out 
Linear Mode
