Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe

We can't prove that Deity exists, but neither can we prove that deity does not exist. We CAN prove evolution, despite the Fundies.

You can prove speciation. Micro evolution.

Again, that's different than the amino-man chain.

Cuz, Sidhe, if *you* can prove macro-evolution, you have done what no other scientist in the world can do. (As evidenced in TS's redundant reply.)


**edit:
I was rhetorical because it illustrated that those things can't be proven. That is why I didn't expect a reply. I understand many of the dwellars are not Christian, but that doesn't justify the sarcasm. Keep it friendly, please.

[Lady Sidhe]

"10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?"


Some of these have answers. Mutations that are beneficial come from oopsies. We can use the moth example. I don't remember the specific details such as the name of the town, but:

In this town, the moths all tended to be white with gray speckles, and matched the trees, and were thus camoflauged and had a better chance of surviving. The moths that were black were easily seen against the trees, and eaten. When coal power, and the resulting ash, came to the town, the trees ended up with a layer of soot on them, which made the white moths stand out. The black (mutated) moths survived and outbred the white moths.

Mutation can either be an oopsie that generally kills the organism, or it can be brought about by environmental situations that favor the mutation, such as with the black moths. Mutations that help the organism survive continue to be bred into the offspring. Those that do not help the organism survive are bred out, because these organisms die before they are able to pass on the mutation.



The similarities only serve to prove evolution to me. I'm not quoting this as scientific fact, so don't take it that way, but it seems to me that as organisms begin to branch out more and more (for instance, the Mudhopper, a fish that has both gills and lungs, and can spend a significant time out of the water) that the ones who have certain traits will tend to do better, and thus branch out even MORE, and those who are best suited to survive in the new environment will breed that suitability into their offspring, which is what evolution is all about. I think that would answer #12, also.


The first example, of the moths, is the only actual scientific observation that I can say with certainty. The other two are just my educated opinions.


But then again, like I said before...I have no problem reconciling evolution with creationism. I believe in a Deity, and I believe that Deity gave the space dust the first shove in the right direction, then just sat back and let it go on its merry little way.

Here are some interesting links:

http://www.biology-online.org/2/11_n..._selection.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/darwin's_finches.htm

Sidhe

edit: addition of links

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Questions for Evoutionists. (I don't expect an answer to these, this is rhetorical.)

Too bad.

6) It didn't. It came from nonliving matter. How? Unknown.

7) It didn't 'learn' anything. Crystals reproduce themselves easily. Life reproduces itself in a more complicated, but also more adaptible method. When, where, why, and how are unknown.

8) (I'm making this up, not speaking from research. It's just one possibility.) The first non-asexual reproduction was bisexual - two critters swapped DNA, neither was male or female (DNA swapping has an adaptability advantage). Amid the random variation, one variety developed a tendency to go after another variety. A symbiotic relationship developed, with the two varieties dependent upon each other.

9) Want doesn't enter into it. Non-reproductive strains die out. There is no "drive to survive", as you use the term. Species which were more suited to continue, did continue. In the case of some of the more complicated animals, a mental "drive to survive" in the individual might increase the chance of replication.

10) But mutations in binary code can change Shakespeare to Sun Tsu. DNA is much closer to binary code (actually it's base 4) than it is to English.

11) Yes, but evidence suggests otherwise. And no evidence suggests a creator. That's why faith is necessary for such a belief.

12) Random mutations cause more complicated and less complicated results. The less complicated ones are often more successful - bacteria don't end up on the endangered species list - but all that is needed is for a species to be successful enough to survive. If a bug with a horn can fight off enough bugs without horns to successfully mate, that's enough. It is primarily our perspective that makes it seem like complexity is increasing - most life is still single cell. But for any complicated life to exist at all is what takes millennia.

13) Two and three-celled life forms are unlikely (I'm not ruling it out, though. You never know.) Much more likely is a mutation that a) prevented a cell division from fully completing, and b) did not cause death. From then on, it would continue to grow, each division making it bigger. Slime mold is an example. Such a colony needs to have a certain shape, or some members won't get food. Or, perhaps, the members that don't get food die, providing a conduit for their neighbors to get food, which ends up producing a structure. A sponge, perhaps. I provided a link a while back that discusses the various transitions between fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc.

14) a) probably from a hippo-like creature.
b) I don't know.
c) probably from something resembling a flying squirrel
d) See here.
e) Ears are just flesh ridges around vibration sensors, and vibrations are probably the very first sense evolved. (perhaps after temperature, doesn't matter either way).
f) On a colony of critters as mentioned in 13), the outermost layer probably evolved to be the most hardy - I'm not saying it was a different species, just that exposure to the 'outside' caused it to be more defensive. Thus, perhaps, the origin of skin. Everything after that is based on the environment it found itself in.

15) These are all questions that can be answered with very little imagination needed.
a)Food came first - plants. Then animals which ate plants. Then animals which ate animals. "Ability to find" started off as "random bumping into", then as senses and mobility improved, became hunting. Digestive juices increased in potency just behind stomach lining resistance.
b) Ability came before desire. Desire is the mechanism by which creatures with consciousness are governed. Simpler creatures react simply by stimulus-response.
c) Simple lungs, then mucous. The throat is just the hole from the outside to the lungs. The air was already there. It wasn't "the perfect mixture", it was what was available. Critters that could use it did so.
d) I don't remember enough about DNA/RNA interaction. But as I recall, there are very simple critters with just RNA, so I guess RNA probably came first.
e) Flagella predate termites. But I expect that cellulose digestion is something that slowly built up, providing proto-termites with wider and wider variety of potential food sources. Wood turned out to be resistant to predators, so it was preferred.
f) Plants first, generally reproducing by wind. Insects started eating plants, but also spreading pollen more efficiently than wind. Plants that attracted more insects reproduced better. Plants that attracted insects, and provided them with food that was undamaging to the plant (nectar) survived longer.
g) blood first - food source for cell colonies. Then muscles. See squid, octopi, slugs, etc. Bones provide structure and make animals less appetizing. Ligaments and tendons are increase efficiency of muscle movement.
h) I don't know enough.
i) The need, of course.
The only puzzle for most of these is assuming that one part of an animal evolved to its complete modern state completely separately from another part. In fact, the parts evolve together.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by DanaC
The problem comes ( imo) when mythos is taught as fact in schools. As I understand it there are many schools in the western world ( particularly in the US) which teach the two theories as equally valid.

I'm 33 years old, and I've never been taught creationism in school. When people try to teach creationism, it generally goes to court and gets thrown out.


Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


You can prove speciation. Micro evolution.

Again, that's different than the amino-man chain.

Cuz, Sidhe, if *you* can prove macro-evolution, you have done what no other scientist in the world can do. (As evidenced in TS's redundant reply.)


**edit:
I was rhetorical because it illustrated that those things can't be proven. That is why I didn't expect a reply. I understand many of the dwellars are not Christian, but that doesn't justify the sarcasm. Keep it friendly, please.

I really wasn't being sarcastic. I was just posting my opinion.

Sidhe

[Torrere]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?)

Single celled organisms grouped together (like flocks and herds) into colonies such as Volvox (which so happens to be the name of my Linux box). Volvox are massive colonies of thousands of flagellate single cells organisms. They reproduce by forming daughter colonies within the colony, which grow for a while inside the parent colony before being released into the wild. They're also very pretty (and my Linux box is named volvox ).

[jaguar]

I hope, after all these replies, in detail, to your silly questions and sillier arguments you can see how arguing for creationism from a scientific basis is frankly, stupid. If you want to believe some wonderful deity made everything that's cute, but don't pretend there is any science whatsoever in any form backing you up. The fact that around half your 'unanswerable' questions can be answered says more than enough about the scientific ineptitude of the entire school of 'thought' you champion.

What shits me about creationists is that despite any supporting evidence whatsoever (the scant and weak evidence against evolution is exactly that and provides no support to creationism more than any other crackpot theory) they seem to feel that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools and is somehow equal in scientific stature. Each and every one of those people is personally contributing to the dumbing down of society and the education system and should hang their heads in shame. religion is not science, teaching it as such is lying to kids.

That's why I won't keep it friendly*. Because fuckwits who believe absolutely in a badly translated book want their ideas taught like legitimate science and that I find repugnant in the extreme.

* This applies to all groups that pursue agendas by attempting to hijack the school system, political (RIAA, anti-drug), religious or otherwise.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by jaguar
[B}

What shits me about creationists is that...(snip) they seem to feel that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools and is somehow equal in scientific stature.(snip)... religion is not science, teaching it as such is lying to kids.

That's why I won't keep it friendly*. Because fuckwits who believe absolutely in a badly translated book want their ideas taught like legitimate science and that I find repugnant in the extreme.

* This applies to all groups that pursue agendas by attempting to hijack the school system, political (RIAA, anti-drug), religious or otherwise. [/b]

I agree with your basic ideas here. While I do believe in a Deity, albeit not the "christian" one, and believe that a Deity gave the first shove to the primordial soup, I would probably classify myself as an "Pagan Evolutionist." Science has proven evolution, and it seems to me that the only reason that religious groups insist upon creationism is that they don't like the idea that they may have evolved from lower organisms.

Religion is NOT science. Science is much more objective, and doesn't tend to have an agenda as religion does. Religion is based on faith, not logic or facts. There's nothing wrong with having faith in a Deity...however, it shouldn't be taught in schools, especially not as science.

Religion is for church. We don't teach the three R's in sunday school, so they should keep their noses out of our classrooms. One has nothing to do with the other.

If a religious parent wishes to teach creationism to their child, then that's their perogative. Do it at home. There's no proof for it. Whether you or I believe in the intervention of a Deity makes no difference. There is no proof for it, whereas there is scientific proof for evolution.

Religion sticking its nose in education has led to beliefs such as the idea that the earth is the center of the universe--Copernicus got into all kinds of trouble with the church when he said that the sun was the center, remember? The theory behind the idea that the earth was the center of the universe was this: Heaven was furthest from the center. Everything towards the center was increasingly more evil and sinful. Hell was in the center of the earth, being the most sinful and evil and thus the furthest away from heaven. But the church felt that earth's sinfulness and evilness was just a step above Hell, so it was the "center," furthest away from heaven.

That's not science. And it's wrong. This is why religion should not have influence on school teaching. There are no facts and no scientific method in the religious worldview, only faith, and that doesn't work when it comes to secular education.

I don't think that anything other than education should be taught in school--what I mean by that is: no religion (unless one chooses to take a religion class), no pushing sexuality on people (such as "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" for fifth graders)--Sex Ed is one thing--advocating a particular form of sexuality, straight or otherwise, is not. Religion and sexualityare two subjects that, while interesting if one chooses to take classes concerning them, should not be FORCED upon students. Those subjects are best taught at home, because they have no usefulness in the classroom beyond the fact that they can be interesting.



Sidhe

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
no pushing sexuality on people (such as "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" for fifth graders)--Sex Ed is one thing--advocating a particular form of sexuality, straight or otherwise, is not.

A minor note - those two books don't "advocate" any form of sexuality. Most obviously, there is no sexuality in the books of any kind. Also, you can't advocate having two parents of the same sex - there's nothing the kid can do about it either way. You might as well "advocate" having interracial parents or immigrant parents.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
A minor note - those two books don't "advocate" any form of sexuality. Most obviously, there is no sexuality in the books of any kind. Also, you can't advocate having two parents of the same sex - there's nothing the kid can do about it either way. You might as well "advocate" having interracial parents or immigrant parents.

I disagree on that. I have no problem, personally, with homosexuality, or with gays adopting or having children. I think that what should concern folks is the quality of life the child has with the parents, straight or gay, not the sexuality of the parents.

However, those two books were REQUIRED reading for fifth-graders in New York about five years ago. I don't know if they still are, because of the big to-do that resulted.

Some parents don't want their young children taught about sexuality at school, and that's valid. Sexuality, like religion, is something that is the parent's responsibility to teach, not the school's. Those books shouldn't be required reading any more than the bible should be required reading, and for the same reason: it serves to promote a non-educational viewpoint. If you want to assign it as extra credit, fine. If you put it on a book list for the parents to review and approve or disapprove, that's fine. But to make it a requirement is wrong. The purpose of school is to teach skills and facts, not promote particular social viewpoints.

That was the point I was trying to make.


Sidhe

[Torrere]

Er, I can't find this word. Just a minute...

[Lady Sidhe]

Minute's up....

Sidhe

[Torrere]

Originally posted by jaguar
I hope, after all these replies, in detail, to your silly questions and sillier arguments you can see how arguing for creationism from a scientific basis is frankly, stupid.

Huh? I had thought that Onyx was playing the devil's advocate, or maybe trolling.

Some of her points are well founded: if we accept evolution without thinking critically about it, then what difference is there (to the lay man) between science and religion? The scientists, sure, many of them are thinking critically about the basic concepts they hold dear, and they test them experimentally, with controlled testing and reviewed critically by their peers. The person that does not understand evolution and how it works, who cannot test it, who cannot do the math -- they have to take it on faith.

Unfortunately, many people do not understand even how the scientific community operates. I have occasionally visited a Hare Krishna cafe down the street, and the most inflammatory line that I've ever read in their literature went along the lines of: "I have met scientists who did not accept evolution. The scientists disagree amongst themselves, but they project a (falsely) unified front. However, all of the cultists that I've brainwashed believe wholly in the idea that all life came from our God. There is no dissent among us. Therefore, because every one of us agrees, we must be right."

Unfortunately, most of the debate over whether or not evolution is valid takes place at the behest of the religious loyalists of the old model, who believe that an superman formed of absolutes -- knowing everthing, capable of anything and everything, etc -- simply placed us here. Most of the examples used in the debate are ones picked up by the faithful after they saw that the scientists had already disproven them. Please, please, stop trotting out the fucking moths! Most of the debate is based in the narrowness of minds and our concept of time. Can we accept that slight changes, over thousands to millions of years and over millions to billions of iterations, can accumulate into substantial and significant changes? Most of the debate is based on the nobility of our origins. Can we accept that In The Beginning, instead of paradise, instead of the good old days, instead of a rib and a snake, there was pond scum being thrown against the rocks by the crashing waves?

[Perry5]

March 24,004.

By:Joseph B Verrengia.Associated Press,science writer.

Igniting a scientific furor,scientist say that thay may have found the genetic mutation that first seperated the earliest humans from there apelike ansestors.

[perth]

(Do you have a link? Because without it, the point isn't worth much.)