The Limits of Evolution

[oyarde]

Shhh, your logic might scare away the deniers. God put those fossils here to test our faith!

Not sure how an extict species of man first discovered in the Neander valley should be relevent to a persons faith .

 

[reillym]

Not sure how an extict species of man first discovered in the Neander valley should be relevent to a persons faith .

I was poking fun. Creationists like to say that god put things here that prove evolution because he is testing us.

 

[reillym]

Actually, all of the physicians at my church reject evolution and embrace creationism. According to them, evolution is useless in their specialized fields of medicine. So they don't need to "consult a textbook" on evolution to be successful physicians.

Like most people, you fail to understand how both creationism and evolution are religious or philosophical ways of interpreting natural data. The controversy is not "Evolution vs. Religion"; it is "Religion (Evolution) vs. Religion (Creationism)." When you say, "Don't bring your fundamentalist crap into the classroom," you've obviously forgotten that "fundamentalist crap" is being taught in the classrooms already, whether it's secular or sacred in nature. The fact that you're a scientist but fail to comprehend such realities is very sad indeed.

Evolution, by definition, is not religion.

You fail once again.

 

[oyarde]

I was poking fun. Creationists like to say that god put things here that prove evolution because he is testing us.

I figured you were poking fun. I do find the Neanderthal very interesting .

 

[Dr.3D]

Evolution, by definition, is not religion.

You fail once again.

Neither is Creationism.

Edit:

I should go on to say.... Evolutionism is a belief system held primarily by the Secular Humanist fundamentalist, while Creationism is a belief system held primarily by the Christian fundamentalist.

 

[reillym]

Neither is Creationism.

Edit:

I should go on to say.... Evolutionism is a belief system held primarily by the Secular Humanist fundamentalist, while Creationism is a belief system held primarily by the Christian fundamentalist.

Evolutionism?

Grasping at straws here... science isn't a "belief". Be definition. If you disagree with dictionaries, that's fine. But please be aware of your mistakes. Creationism and Evolution are not opposing sides of one issue with equally valid points; creationism is myth and fable, and evolution is fact.

And evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. Nothing.

 

[Seraphim]

Evolutionism?

Grasping at straws here... science isn't a "belief". Be definition. If you disagree with dictionaries, that's fine. But please be aware of your mistakes. Creationism and Evolution are not opposing sides of one issue with equally valid points; creationism is myth and fable, and evolution is fact.

And evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. Nothing.

For the most part, this.

I'm not sure what you define as creationism, but I do think something created this Universe in some capacity or another. What I primarily agree with is that evolution has NOTHING to do with how life was created. Merely how life has continued once it begun.

It is extremely possible that this Universe is the creation of a higher power and that the creation was left to evolve and adapt in a "natural" way.

This universe may very well be the science experiment of a larger being watching us with a microscope.

It comes down to "If God created us, what created God?".

Our "God" could just be a teenaged being, in science class conducting an experiment on a larger plane of existence that we have no concept of from a time and space perspective.

I.e our Universe's multi billion year existence could be a semester of school for a higher being and we're are the creation of it's imagination and curiosity- and we have no idea.

Think about what we do as supremely intelligent beings- almost the same thing!!

I'm not saying that's the truth. I'm merely stating that the truth behind our reality has infinite possibilities from our narrow and incomplete perspective.

Fundamentalism is a drain on human productivity.

 

[Sentient Void]

I agree with Ron Paul on the idea that religion and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive.

As per the debate between evolution and creationism, however... evolution is backed by both empirical and apriori evidence.... creationism itself is not backed by neither any empirical nor apriori evidence.

Of course, as with *all* science (including physics, etc), it is never *proven* to be fact. Through empirical study, this is impossible. With science, empirical evidence, and the scientific method - thigns can only be *disproven*, never actually *proven*. That being said, when you're left between two mutually exclusive choices - such as creationism vs evolution... you choose which one makes the most *logical* and/ore *empirical* sense.

Hint: Creationism is neither. creationism is *pure* dogma.

And dogma is not only intellectually lazy, but also DANGEROUS.

 

[EndDaFed]

What about all the skeletons of Neanderthals, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Austrilopithecus, etc?

The devil put those there to test our faith.

 

[EndDaFed]

You are not grasping the order of magnitude - the odds of winning the Powerball twice is 1 in 21,316,000,000,000,000 or already in the quadrillions. Never mind the odds of once every 10 years for 500 years.

You would only have to win the life lottery once, because life by its nature reproduces. Lotteries sadly don't reproduce. It doesn't have to be sexual reproduction. A simple division would suffice.

 

[idirtify]

Neither is Creationism.

Edit:

I should go on to say.... Evolutionism is a belief system held primarily by the Secular Humanist fundamentalist, while Creationism is a belief system held primarily by the Christian fundamentalist.

You can argue that both are belief systems, but that’s not really the point. The point is which belief system is more valid.

 

[idirtify]

I agree with Ron Paul on the idea that religion and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive.

As per the debate between evolution and creationism, however... evolution is backed by both empirical and apriori evidence.... creationism itself is not backed by neither any empirical nor apriori evidence.

Of course, as with *all* science (including physics, etc), it is never *proven* to be fact. Through empirical study, this is impossible. With science, empirical evidence, and the scientific method - thigns can only be *disproven*, never actually *proven*. That being said, when you're left between two mutually exclusive choices - such as creationism vs evolution... you choose which one makes the most *logical* and/ore *empirical* sense.

Hint: Creationism is neither. creationism is *pure* dogma.

And dogma is not only intellectually lazy, but also DANGEROUS.

You explain very well why evolution is more scientific and more valid, but such an explanation pretty much refutes your first sentence that states religion and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Theocrat]

What Lies Beneath

You can argue that both are belief systems, but that’s not really the point. The point is which belief system is more valid.

Never forget that what a person considers to be valid will be a reflection of his own worldview, guided by presuppositions which either affirm naturalism or affirm supernaturalism, at the outset. To the creationist, his belief system is valid because his own assumptions about the universe comport with his interpretations of the evidence from raw nature. The same applies to the evolutionist.

I would add that creationism makes more sense because, as rational human beings, we reason that when we observe a complex entity in the world, like a computer motherboard or a skyscraper, that it had to have come from a more complex entity. When observing Mt. Rushmore, no one ever reasons, "Look at those four heads in the rock. Isn't it amazing that it evolved over millions of years and formed into four U.S. Presidents?!" That would be a very irrational judgment, and it makes sense to us that Mt. Rushmore was designed by its sheer features, without question.

Yet, when it comes to the real Presidents from which Mt. Rushmore was carved, many people fall into the irrational claim that those Presidents evolved on their own over millions of years, with all of their anatomical systems and structures. [lol] Rock is not more complex than flesh, and evolutionists should know better. They would rather be irrational than admit the obvious about design in creatures. Ultimately, they don't want to acknowledge God (Romans 1), and it has nothing to do with scientific evidence. It is philosophical, through and through.

 

[jmdrake]

I will admit, that in the practical sense, evolution is not as useful as a lot of other things. However it is CRITICAL in areas of science such as:

1. study and cure of viruses and bacteria.

2. computer programming

3. management of endangered species and wildlife preservation.

I can say for a fact that number 3 is not correct. I've got a masters in computer science. And the whole "genetic programming will take over everything" craze never materialized. Instead object oriented design rules the day. Yes there are some niches where genetic algorithms are helpful, but in general they never lived up to the hype. Sort of the whole "fifth generation" fallacy that predicted all programs would one day be written in Prolog. You can get a PhD in computer science in any major university in the world without ever writing a single genetic program. Is it used? Yes. Is it useful? That's debatable. Its it "essential"? Not hardly.

Further genetic algorithms are still "programmed" and "tweaked". It's not the case of a single line program "evolving" into a massive "thinking" artificial intelligence. Which, coming back around to biology, most "creationists" accept evolution to some degree. The basic belief is that we were designed with the ability to adapt and change. It's like sending up a Mars rover with some ability to adapt to unforeseen circumstances as opposed to sending up a bunch of self assembling Lego robotics blocks and hoping for the best.

 

[jmdrake]

I agree with Ron Paul on the idea that religion and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive.

That's not all of what he said on evolution.

YouTube - Ron Paul: Revolution minus Evolution is Just R(etarded)

Further here:

With regard to evolution, I mean… I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on this, especially in politics. “Do you believe in evolution or don’t you believe in evolution? Yes or no? And then we’ll decide whether you should be President or not.”

You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it’s sort of irrelevant, that because we don’t know the exact details and we don’t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it’s a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.

The idea that if you don’t [?] believe in evolution means that you don’t believe in a creator is total nonsense. So I think this once again is overly played and we spend too much time on it. And besides, if you’re in politics it shouldn’t be a bother. This is something maybe not dealing with science as much with your own spiritual life, your personal beliefs. The important thing is that you have a political system where you can debate this and make a decision and government rule shouldn’t be based on this. If you have governments basing their rules on this, then it becomes very important. But in a libertarian society these beliefs aren’t nearly as critical.

That's where I am. I see gaping holes in evolution as a theory. If others want to accept it, fine. I don't see why it should be a big deal. I totally agree with microevolution (the kind that's actually observable) and it fits in with my idea of a creator smart enough to make things with the ability to adapt.

 

[idirtify]

Never forget that what a person considers to be valid will be a reflection of his own worldview

Yes, and that’s why it’s important to stick with accepted definitions and to compare the legitimacy of the evidence.

I would add that creationism makes more sense because, as rational human beings, we reason that when we observe a complex entity in the world, like a computer motherboard or a skyscraper, that it had to have come from a more complex entity.

So you think, “In the beginning, there was COMPLEXITY”??

 

[Sentient Void]

From another thread:

Originally Posted by sofia
......I have yet to see any evidence of an amoeba turning into a fish...turning into an ape...turning into a human. Evolution theory has as many holes in it as Global Warming

That's not quite what evolution says happens... It's not quite that simple.

I suggest you actually do research into evolution, how unbelievably long it takes, and the extremely slow gradualism from one species to the next through natural selection. An amoeba doesn't give birth to a fish, nor does a fish give birth to an ape, nor an ape to a human - nothing *close* to that.

You're either attacking a strawman and being intentionally intellectually dishonest, or you simply do not understand how evolution works.

Let's start here (some a priori and empirical analysis/observation in favor of evolution):

YouTube - How Evolution REALLY Works, Part I

 

[Pericles]

You would only have to win the life lottery once, because life by its nature reproduces. Lotteries sadly don't reproduce. It doesn't have to be sexual reproduction. A simple division would suffice.

Missed the point of the explanation - the the total odds are the order of magnitude I described. In every generation of humans, there are millions of DNA mutations from one generation to the next. This is the basis of the accuracy of DNA testing - that no two individuals can have the same DNA (not even "identical" twins). In almost all cases, these millions of mutations have no impact on the health of the individual, but some mutations and combination of mutations do. Thus, the individuals, develop certain medical conditions, which limit the ability to reproduce.

There are some combinations of mutations that prevent reproduction (which is an evolutionary imperative. Therefore, the number and order of mutations matter, as evolution requires the ability to reproduce.

DNA based reasoning leads to some interesting conclusions - for instance at observed rate of change in humans, it would take 40 to 50 million years to change out 2% of our DNA - yet evolution theory is based on human evolution starting some 5 million years ago - otherwise, you don't have a common ancestor, upon which evolution theory is based.

 

[Sola_Fide]

That's not all of what he said on evolution.

YouTube - Ron Paul: Revolution minus Evolution is Just R(etarded)

Further here:

With regard to evolution, I mean… I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on this, especially in politics. “Do you believe in evolution or don’t you believe in evolution? Yes or no? And then we’ll decide whether you should be President or not.”

You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it’s sort of irrelevant, that because we don’t know the exact details and we don’t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it’s a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.

The idea that if you don’t [?] believe in evolution means that you don’t believe in a creator is total nonsense. So I think this once again is overly played and we spend too much time on it. And besides, if you’re in politics it shouldn’t be a bother. This is something maybe not dealing with science as much with your own spiritual life, your personal beliefs. The important thing is that you have a political system where you can debate this and make a decision and government rule shouldn’t be based on this. If you have governments basing their rules on this, then it becomes very important. But in a libertarian society these beliefs aren’t nearly as critical.

That's where I am. I see gaping holes in evolution as a theory. If others want to accept it, fine. I don't see why it should be a big deal. I totally agree with microevolution (the kind that's actually observable) and it fits in with my idea of a creator smart enough to make things with the ability to adapt.

Thank God Ron Paul has a firm and Biblical view of these issues!

This is all the more reason I fully support the good doctor.

 

[idirtify]

Missed the point of the explanation - the the total odds are the order of magnitude I described. In every generation of humans, there are millions of DNA mutations from one generation to the next. This is the basis of the accuracy of DNA testing - that no two individuals can have the same DNA (not even "identical" twins). In almost all cases, these millions of mutations have no impact on the health of the individual, but some mutations and combination of mutations do. Thus, the individuals, develop certain medical conditions, which limit the ability to reproduce.

There are some combinations of mutations that prevent reproduction (which is an evolutionary imperative. Therefore, the number and order of mutations matter, as evolution requires the ability to reproduce.

DNA based reasoning leads to some interesting conclusions - for instance at observed rate of change in humans, it would take 40 to 50 million years to change out 2% of our DNA - yet evolution theory is based on human evolution starting some 5 million years ago - otherwise, you don't have a common ancestor, upon which evolution theory is based.

It appears you are basing your argument on Sean Pittman’s funny math, which appears to have been debunked years ago.

Just follow this discussion:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2005-11/msg06108.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2005-11/msg06243.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2005-11/msg06264.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2005-11/msg06316.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2005-11/msg06443.html

You will note that no less than three opponents debunked his calculations, and the discussion ended (back in Nov 2005) without his reply.