Evolution and Creationism

[Sionnach Glic]

Right, off we go.

That is the scientific method.

Pretty much, yeah.

"because chemists have succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.

I would very much like to read this article myself rather than take the opinion of some author.

Physicist H. S. Lipson Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 3: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. We must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

A. Why should I care what this guy said?
B. The experimental evidence supports evolution.

The fossil record is sketchy at best. It does not show the links between major types of living things.

Point out specific examples.

It's written in The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History (Jan. 1979, Vol. 50, "the geologic record does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.

So?
No one said we found everything.

"if progressive evolution from simple to complex lifeforms is correct, the ancestors of the full-blown living creatures in should be found

Can you clarify that a bit?
If he means that we have never found anncestors of living creatures, thats just a blatant lie.
If he means we should be finding anncestors going back to single celled organisms, then he's just being stupid.


State for yourself the problems with evolution.

[Captain Seafort]

ps am glad that everyone here can discuss things maturely, on other sites, certain folks can be derisive and juvenile about the beliefs of others, the only hint i'll give it that some people can be bigoted and do alot of 'wong'...

I'm aware that SDN in general and Mr Wong in particular tends to be somewhat more aggressive than most. How does this change the validity of their arguments? Indeed, given the unscientific nature of creationism why should they (and everyone else for that matter) not argue vigorously against it, especially in schools, where impressions are made that last a lifetime.

[Sionnach Glic]

ps am glad that everyone here can discuss things maturely, on other sites, certain folks can be derisive and juvenile about the beliefs of others, the only hint i'll give it that some people can be bigoted and do alot of 'wong'...

So? Just because someone isn't being polite dosen't mean the argument is wrong. You cant ignore someones argument just because they aren't being nice to you.

[Granitehewer]

Actually there are numerous fossils from china, that even more so than the german archaeopterix, that seem to substantiate a 'missing link' but i think that we must also be cautious about labelling such as 'missing links' and giving them such importance too readily, as like with that old austropithicus afarensis dispute over its phalanges(finger bones), scientists tend to overly promote a point eg it was a bipedal ancestor, basically us with a chimp-head, contrasted to 'its curved phalanges and pelvic configuration were more suited to arboreal life', then to fall into bitter warring factions over the significance of findings.
With science and religion, or inductive and deductive ways of thinking, because of the nature of the two camps, its hard to form a compatible middle ground sometimes, and we need middle grounds, to safely exchange ideas and find empathy,personally i believe in a divine ignition spark and a natural continuation. Although to be honest, although my first university degree, was biology,it focused on the anuses of sea squirts and the 'sexual cycle of the lichens'.......seriously.......thats where my youthful savings went.lol
So anything evolutionary, that i opinionatedly spout,comes from national geographic magazines on the train, or coming back from the pub, and half watching the discovery channel, whilst trying to work out why the room is rotating.

[Varthikes]

Okay. Let us first establish what evolution teaches: that, basically, everything we see living today is the result of chance. A combination of successive, small, random changes in traits. Am I right so far?

If I am, let us then consider the complexity of life around us. Consider this article. Particularly the subheading "From Self-Reproducing Cell to Man"

[Captain Seafort]

Actually there are numerous fossils from china, that even more so than the german archaeopterix, that seem to substantiate a 'missing link' but i think that we must also be cautious about labelling such as 'missing links' and giving them such importance too readily, as like with that old austropithicus afarensis dispute over its phalanges(finger bones), scientists tend to overly promote a point eg it was a bipedal ancestor, basically us with a chimp-head, contrasted to 'its curved phalanges and pelvic configuration were more suited to arboreal life', then to fall into bitter warring factions over the significance of findings.

So, despite a given find fulfilling all the criteria of a missing link we shouldn't refer to it as a missing link? Yes scientists will argue about the importance of a specific find and where it falls in the evolutionary ladder, but there's no controversy over the basic fact that such finds provide further support for the theory of evolution - it's simply a matter of where they fit in the theory.

Okay. Let us first establish what evolution teaches: that, basically, everything we see living today is the result of chance. A combination of successive, small, random changes in traits. Am I right so far?

Effectively yes. Don't forget though that the vast majority of such changes will confer either no advantage or a disadvantage. Only a minority will confer an advantage, and the bearers of that advantageous mutation will be more likely to survive long enough to procreate, and pass on their genes (and therefore the mutation). Those mutations which confer no advantage will be less likely to procreate, and those that confer a disadvantage are unlikely to. Thus over time the advantageous mutation will become dominant.

[Tiberius]

Okay. Let us first establish what evolution teaches: that, basically, everything we see living today is the result of chance. A combination of successive, small, random changes in traits. Am I right so far?

Unfortunately you are not right. Evolution is not random. it is guided by the process of natural selection.

The mutations that occur are random, yes, but there is more to evolution than that. The organism must also survive to pass those genes on to its offspring.

However, say there is an antelope in Africa that is born with much smaller lungs. It will have much less stamina than its herdmates, so it will not survive to pass on its genes. A predator will kill it.

On the other hand, say that there is an antelope that is born with an increase in lung capacity. It will have greater stamina, making it more likely to be able to evade predators. This animal will have a greater chance of living to pass on its genes. Thus, it is more likely that the "increased lung" gene will be passed on than the "decreased lung" gene. This is not random, because it favours mutations that favour the animal.

Chance and randomness play very little part in it.

[Teaos]

First off

Physicist H. S. Lipson Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 3:

Care to give evidence thats not almost 3 decades out of date.

Ok as for the debate.

Over the years I have have had several "discussions" with creationists. I have discovered a few things that some of you might find useful.

- Be ready, at any time, to drop the discussion and walk away.

While this may seem to be an intellectual argument or discussion, it is not. This is a position backed by emotions, often very strong emotions. More often than not, the emotions driving the position are unrecognized by the person.

Emotions are not changed by logical, scientific arguments. In fact, logical arguments to emotional positions results in emotional outbursts. The outburst can come from either side, or both sides.

When emotions flare, drop the subject. Nothing further can be accomplished, or discussed, for that matter.
- Don't try to walk through the scientific issues with them.

All of the creationists you will be able to talk to are not scientists. Any discussion in this situation will be a frustrating round about over what is science, what is observable, what is a scientific theory, what is a scientific fact and battles over who is qualified to determine what is science and what is evolution.

This can be extremely frustrating, emotionally disruptive and if not handled well, destructive of relationships (of which I have first hand knowledge.)

- If the thought arises "Science says there isn't a God," try to make the following points:

1 - Science deals ONLY in observable things. God is not observable and therefore science doesn't say ANYTHING about the existence or non-existence of God.
2 - There are scientists who make the claim that there is no God. This is a personal opinion or statement and NOT a scientific statement or position.
- Explore the creationist's view of the universe. Ask the following questions, if possible.

- Do they believe if the world is round or flat? If they say round, have them explain how they reconcile that with the creation story
- Do they believe there is space above us, or water? If they say space, ask them how they reconcile that with the creation story.
- Do they believe that the universe revolves around the Earth. If they believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, ask them how they reconcile that with the creation story.

[Graham Kennedy]

My thoughts on this...

First off, I have seen at least one post here which makes the classic mistake of bringing arguments about how life was created into the evolution debate. Theories regarding how life arose from non-life are called abiogenesis; they are absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution is a process by which species change over time once they have come into existence by WHATEVER means.

Second, the old canard that "evolution = random". Nothing could be further from the truth. The common argument along these lines is something like "the odds of a single cell being assembled at random are the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747."

But this misses the most vital aspect of evolution - selection. Nature CHOOSES the superior species to survive and reproduce and so pass on that trait. Living things we see today didn't come about through one gigantic improbable leap; they came about through a million tiny steps.

Anybody with a knowledge of probability can see the result of this. Suppose the odds of one particular mutation arising are 10%. That's enough that millions of animals in any given species will have that mutation. It's perfectly feasible that each generation could produce mutations with a 10% probability. But apply that probability to a hundred generations in a row and and you get an end result whose probability is 10% x 10% x 10% x 10%... a hundred times over. The odds of that creature are 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

It's like a mountain; there's no way in hell you could reach the top in one giant leap, but break it down into small steps and it becomes simple.

Processes like this can be simulated today, easily. Take a look at this video for an example...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZh ... ed&search=

They have a program which takes a completely random image and then "mates" adjacent pictures to produce an "offspring" picture. All pretty random... but then they apply a selection process to it. And lo and behold, an apparent "design" emerges right before your eyes.

[Captain Seafort]

But this misses the most vital aspect of evolution - selection. Nature CHOOSES the superior species to survive and reproduce and so pass on that trait. Living things we see today didn't come about through one gigantic improbable leap; they came about through a million tiny steps.

I'd agree we you generally, but disagree with your use of the word "choose" - it implies that nature has conciousness. Nature doesn't "choose" a particular outcome any more than an axe chooses to cut wood and not iron. Conditions simply exist, and those mutations which confer an advantage are passed on while those which incur a disadvantage are not. Rinse and repeat a few million times and the inevitable result is that the particular set of mutations that confer the greatest advantage for those conditions become the most common.

[Graham Kennedy]

No no no, I in no way mean that nature has consciousness. Nature chooses things by perfectly natural processes, it's not any kind of conscious choice.

[Granitehewer]

Rochey, What i obviously meant, and what was clearly written, was that it is better to discuss in a non purile manner, devoid of mud slinging, ad hominem attacks, red herrings and strawmen. Mature rational discussion should predominate. Which surely you'd be the first to agree with,considering your posts tend to be well researched, rehearsed, articulate and mature.
Seafort, i wasn't denying missing links per se, but was merely saying that sometimes the importance of specific missing links is overstated, clearly the big picture supports missing links and evolution , sorry my point wasn't terribly well written, apologies.

[Granitehewer]

Nor do i ignore arguments.

[Granitehewer]

Does anyone here subscribe to the endosymbiotic theory of mitochondria, that they were once free dwelling organisms, i find it fascinating, although at uni , the staff were pretty distainful of it...

[Granitehewer]

Lastly, am not disputing anyones' view, condoning or condemning, my own personal beliefs are that a super-entity created the earth and that evolution, exists and is a natural process. Although these are fairly embryonic and recent views, moulded out of neccessity due to certain happenings this year, contrasted with the last few years, when i was a buddhist.
Anyways i've talked to much, sorry