A Christian reformer?

[The diplomat]

And, how did I get lured from a simple post about Christian creeds into a evolution/creationism debate with me as the accused?

Do all topics eventually lead to a debate between evolution and creationism?

[Odin]

Creationists really annoy me. Evolution is a fact. The fossil record is proof of that. Why does Archeopterix look like a small Dromaeosaurian ("Raptor")? Because Raptors are the ancestors of birds. the Mitochondria in our cells are the decendents of symbiotic aerobic bacteria 2 Billion years ago; the proof is in that Mitochondrial DNA and ribosomes are bacterial in nature. They even found feathered dinosaurs; many paleontologists now believe ALL dinosaurs had feathers, although the large ones lost the downy covering to prevent overheating.

If one looks in the fossils of the Permian and Triassic periods one can see the evolution of mammals starting with cold-blooded synapsid reptiles (like the fin-backed Demetrodon), to warm-blooded Therapsids like the sabre-toothed Gorgonopsids and plant eating Dicynodonts. Finally, in the late Triassic, on group of Therapsids developed a better jaw joint, interlocking permanent teeth, and milk glands.

All the creationists should shut the f*ck up and get real.

I agree with Fezzie for once!!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
I apreciate that you checked my links. I have read yours.

It seems to me phylogenetics does not necessarily prove common descent. It just proves that all life shares similar "building blocks". If life were designed, it would also have those same "building blocks", because it would make much more sense to design life piece by piece rather than build every life in a completely separate and unrelated way. After all, when engineers design an airplane, they don't start from scratch every time, they build on previous designs.

How about phylogenetics plus the fossil record, which clearly shows step-by-step transformation of species? The two combined are rather unassailable as proof evolution occurred...in addition to our having observed evolution occuring!

But you're making the unfounded assumption that all systems for similar purposes share a common design, and biologically this isn't true. Take the eye. The eye has been shown to have evolved, independently, at least 11 times. Now, take the human eye. We don't see images exactly how they are. Our eye inverts the image, and then reverts it back. It's a convoluted and biologically unneccessarily complicated process for vision. Yet the squid sees things exactly as they are--its eyes do not invert images. Why didn't this vaunted designer copy the same design for squids for us, to avoid this unneccessary stuff? What about the designers other design flaws? Take the bottom-dwelling fish who is born with one eye on top and another on the bottom. The bottom eye is useless, as it has to rest in the mud. So, throughout the course of the fish's life, the bottom eye migrates up top to join the other. Does this sound like good design?

There are a plethora of other engineering problems in all species that make intelligent design very questionable as a theory. What kind of intelligence gave us appendexis, vulnerable scrotums, tailbones and such?

All airplanes share common characteristics because they were designed that way.

And funny, because airplane wing design is precisely one of the fields where Darwinian mechanics is being used quite helpfully today to create better wings than can be engineered!

All life is automatically going to share common characteristics since all life shares the same planet, and therefore shares fairly similar environments.

But guess what? This notion supports evolution, too. Since we have no proof of intelligent design, but tons of proof for evolution, which should we believe? Common descent is not refuted by positing a supernatural theory that explains the same thing, since supernatural theories defy any scientific verification. Occam's Razor applies. If faced with a plausible scientific theory and a supernatural theory for the same thing, the scientific one should be accepted.

If other molecules besides ATP are equally acceptable as currency for energy, then why did the others not develop simultaneously with ATP? In other words, if life evolved, and the other molecules are equally acceptable, then why is there not some life that uses ATP, and some life that uses UTP, that evolved simultaneously? I don't quite see why anomalous examples would necessarily falsify common ancestry.

The answer lies in natural selection. Yes, other molecules could have formed the basis, but ATP ended up winning out through random chance. Who knows what happened to make that the case? Perhaps the others did arise, but simple chance made it so ATP happened to survive and the others did not. If ATP happened to be the first to form, then it may have had just the leg up to outcompete the others. Perhaps by the time the others got around to it, ATP was dominate enough that they couldn't hope to survive.

And if only ATP works, then it would make sense that life would only use ATP if it were designed, since you are not going to design something to fail.

That brings me to my other point. The fact that life is most generally well suited for its environment can also fit intelligent design, since logically, if you design life, you are going to design it to fit into its environment. You are not going to purposely design life to fail.

Then why did your intelligent design 99.9% of the species that have existed on this planet to fail? You assert a designer wouldn't make his designs to fail, yet a huge majority of them have! Why? How does intelligent design explain that better than natural selection?

You are again using circular logic to back your point, namely that life is suited to its environment. That doesn't in any way promote intelligent design, unless you could prove that life was perfectly suited to its environment. That is clearly not the case. If we were perfectly suited to our environment, I'd have to wonder how disease and allergies are problems.

The scientific reality is that certain life is better suited to the environment than other life, and that life will win out. As the environment changes, life that is better suited to the changed environment will win out, whereas the life not suited to it (or worse suited to it) will die out, being evolutionary dead ends.

A perfect example of this is how giraffes evolved their long necks. We know from fossil evidence that the giraffes had a mammalian ancestor whose neck was comparatively normal to other mammals. So how did giraffe's neck get long? Well, the ancient giraffe diet consisted of leaves from trees (they had successfully evolved to be leaf-eaters, as the trees became, through natural selection, the predominat foliage. Ergo mammals who could eat tree leaves flourished, those that could not died out). The ancient giraffe had no problem reaching the lower branches of trees...but some giraffes, due to a random variation, had slightly longer necks and could get at higher leaves. Well, there were so many short-necked giraffes that the leaves on the lower branches of the trees soon became sparse. So, competition among small-necks became fierce. They soon began dying out, not having enough food to eat. Or maybe they became grass-eaters. However, the longer-necked ones could reach the leaves still, so they survived. And bred. And their longer necks were passed to the next generation. In the next generation, there were those with still longer necks! And guess what? The cycle repeated, with the longer-necked ones winning out over the shorter-necked ones, who eventually exhausted their food supply and died out. The result is what we have today, a long-necked giraffe.

If you accept microevolution, there is no logical reason to reject macroevolution. Given 100,000 generations, a species that has one random variation per generation will end up dramatically different after 100,000 variations, since inherited variations are cumulative.

It just seems to me that evolution has to involve circular reasoning to some degree. Since science cannot prove or disprove God, it can only rely on naturalistic explanation. If naturalistic explanation is the only acceptable explanation, then the only logical explanation to why life shares common characteristics, is common ancestry. Therefore, you are automatically going to classify life through a tree of life. Once you have your tree, you have proved common ancestry. But you had to assume common ancestry to begin with, since you are assuming a naturalistic explanation. If life were organized completely differently, scientists would not reconsider common ancestry, they would just draw a different tree.

So you object to evolution and accuse it of being circular because it relies on a naturalistic explanation? Tell me, do you reject all naturalistic explanations, or just the ones you find morally objectionable? I just want to know how consistent you are, since science itself is founded on naturalistic explanation of observable phenomena. Do you reject that the Earth goes around the Sun? That relies on a naturalistic explanation. What about magnetism? Gravity? Hell, wouldn't it be easier to assume God does everything and go live in a cave in animal skins?

I don't think you know the history of evolutionary theory, as it certainly was NOT founded by someone looking to back up a presupposition of naturalism. Darwin was a creationist before he set out on his voyage. What he observed convinced him common descent and natural selection. It wasn't a preconceived notion.

This is precisely what scares me about creationists. Just because one theory, Evolution, doesn't jive with their dogma, they decide that the entire foundation of science is therefore incorrect. If you reject evolution based on this, you have to reject modern biology, medicine, physics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, etc., etc. If you're willing to do that, I will await your postcard from the fringe.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Odin
I agree with Fezzie for once!!!

Sometimes there are things that cannot be denied. Evolution being one of them. At least we agree on something. I been an hardline evolutionist ever since I gained the concept of science. Creationism to me is just an excuse for people not to accept reality.

[Drake Tungsten]

Another thread ruined before I found it...

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Occam's Razor applies. If faced with a plausible scientific theory and a supernatural theory for the same thing, the scientific one should be accepted.

That is not what Occam's razor says. It does not say anything about scientific or supernatural explanations. It simply says,
"one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything". There is nothing there about supernatural or scientific explanations. It simply says not to add unnecessary variables.

If you ask me, I think Occam's razor could support creationism. After all, creationism only has 1 variable, ie God, which is completely sufficient to explain life. Evolution on the other hand, has to involve many many variables that have to fit just right for life to work.

Then why did your intelligent design 99.9% of the species that have existed on this planet to fail? You assert a designer wouldn't make his designs to fail, yet a huge majority of them have! Why? How does intelligent design explain that better than natural selection?

I meant designed for normal circumstances. It is not the organism's fault, if an asteroid slams into it.

So you object to evolution and accuse it of being circular because it relies on a naturalistic explanation? Tell me, do you reject all naturalistic explanations, or just the ones you find morally objectionable? I just want to know how consistent you are, since science itself is founded on naturalistic explanation of observable phenomena. Do you reject that the Earth goes around the Sun? That relies on a naturalistic explanation. What about magnetism? Gravity? Hell, wouldn't it be easier to assume God does everything and go live in a cave in animal skins?

Of course, I don't reject all natural explanations. A person can have a problem with one particular explanation, while still accepting others. I accept natural explanations that are proven true.

This is precisely what scares me about creationists. Just because one theory, Evolution, doesn't jive with their dogma, they decide that the entire foundation of science is therefore incorrect. If you reject evolution based on this, you have to reject modern biology, medicine, physics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, etc., etc. If you're willing to do that, I will await your postcard from the fringe.

Do you reject all food because you don't like one particular food item? No of course. Just because I have a problem with evolution, does not mean that I have to reject all science. I happen to love science.

[monkspider]

I think you guys are being too hard on Diplomat. There are plenty of perfectly good reasons for not accepting the whole of evolutionary theory which have nothing to do with theological beliefs. To just accuse diplomat of being "ignorant' because of his questioning nature toward this subject is just not cool.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by monkspider
I think you guys are being too hard on Diplomat. There are plenty of perfectly good reasons for not accepting the whole of evolutionary theory which have nothing to do with theological beliefs.

Harsh? Not harsh. I been harsh and this isn't harsh. Good reasons? Really?

To just accuse diplomat of being "ignorant' because of his questioning nature toward this subject is just not cool.

Not cool? I am sorry man, but evolution is a solid fact. Normally I don't find myself in agreement with Boris, but he laid everything out as it is. The cold hard facts.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Fez
Good reasons? Really?

Yep, I kid you not.

Not cool? I am sorry man, but evolution is a solid fact.

Of course, anyone could say anything is a fact. I could say pink fluffy dinosaurs are a fact, but naturally that doesn't mean they really are. I'm going to have to ask you to trust me on this one Fezzie.

[Agathon]

Someone mentioned evolution within species as opposed to creating new species. Presumably this concerns whether natural selection can occur separately from common ancestry.

Here's an interesting paper. This guy argues that evolutionary natural selection hypotheses aren't testable without hypothesising common ancestry. The claims of natural selection and common ancestry are logically independent, but the upshot is the hypothesis isn't testable unless you assume both.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/CANS1.pdf

I went to the talk this paper is based on. Way out of my area of interest, but food for thought nonetheless - I was quite convinced at the time. (I hope he hasn't changed the paper too much since the talk).

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by monkspider

Yep, I kid you not.


Of course, anyone could say anything is a fact. I could say pink fluffy dinosaurs are a fact, but naturally that doesn't mean they really are. I'm going to have to ask you to trust me on this one Fezzie.

There are things I accept and things I don't. And creationism is one of the things I don't accept. Comparing evolution to pink fluffy dinosaurs is the most retarded inference I have seen here yet. Evolution is infallible.

[Jon Miller]

creationism (done properly) is outside the realm of science

evolution is a science (not done nearly as well as physics)

they don't really interrelate, except when creationism tries to say something about evolution (in which case creationism is getting out of bounds), or when people try to use evoltuion to say something about religion

there are many different creationist ideas that do not interfere with science (neither physics or evolution)

and evolution (as understood now) is nowhere near infallible, in fact I guarantee it is wrong (it is a lot closer to right than anything else we have in that area right now though)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Fez


There are things I accept and things I don't. And creationism is one of the things I don't accept. Comparing evolution to pink fluffy dinosaurs is the most retarded inference I have seen here yet. Evolution is infallible.

it would be silly for you to accept creationism since you are in athiest

(I have heard about creationist nondeists, I am not sure if I understand their position though)

Jon Miller

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


it would be silly for you to accept creationism since you are in athiest

(I have heard about creationist nondeists, I am not sure if I understand their position though)

Jon Miller

That is correct...

[Berzerker]

Boris -

But if Christian doctrine is so built upon the notion of Original Sin, then I can see the threat of evolution. Evolution being fact proves that Adam and Eve is a myth, and thus eliminates Original Sin as a factor in the world. This, in turn, would render Jesus's mission moot!

How does evolution prove Adam & Eve is a myth? According to Genesis, God used existing "materials" to bring them forth. The Sumerians have a much older "myth" about the first peoples and they claim the Gods mixed their "blood" with that of an existing creature to make humans. The Zulu also have a "myth" about ancient wars between the "apemen" and the "artifical ones". Now, Christians obviously don't care about these stories, and while I reject original sin as an immoral premise (the sins of the father), I don't see how Christianity is compromised by evolution. We know humans are primarily responsible for the wide variety of dogs in the world, but that doesn't mean wolves didn't evolve before our interference nor does the evolution of wolves mean humans didn't jump in as a catalyst for dog breeding.