Is Evolution True? | Benzun's Perspective

[Loren Booda]

I'll go with #2, with natural science "guided" by the divine gift of free will and personal deity.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Bernardo
Creationists that dare say "darwins theory of evolution is false and thus evolution is a fake" are in fact sealed there ingorance, way not ask them about genetic draft next time!(which darwin had no idea of)

Sorry, but I'd just like to clear something up real quick. Just so you all know this because I know you'd want to know.

There are two main creationist views;

1) literal 7 day creationist - who believe just like the name, creation was completed in 6 literal Earth days with God resting on the 7th.

2) progressive creationism - me. Guided "evolution".

Thought you'd like to know - just so you can direct your critisim properly and perhaps offer a little grace to some as well.

In the vernacular "creationist" specifically implies the literalist type, ie someone that denies evolution.

 

[nautica]

To Chem super

As I stated earlier, I fully agree with evolutionary theory, but I still will not admit that "On the Origin of the Species" was much more than a philosophy, which Mr. Darwin himself, also, referred to his work as.

Yes, He had read and studied many works of that time as well as completing his own studies (Pigeons)and yes he was a brilliant man, but as I said, he did not under stand the mechanisms for "Natural Selection".

While most of his ideas have been proven at least to some extent, some of his ideas were completely absurb. Allow me to include a quote in his book.

"The evidence that accidental mutilations can be inherited is at present not decisive; but the remarkable cases observed by Brown-Sequard in guinea-pigs, of the inherited effects of operations, should make us cautious in denying this tendency."

There were many other points, which he did not understand and fully admitted. He, also, believe that the idea of any mass extinction was completely absurd.

This post is no way meant to discredit Mr. Darwin, but to point out the ignorance of the day, which, personally, I hope does not "subjectively" lead scientist of today in the wrong direction.


Another comment on Sexual Selection, yes Mr. Darwin included it in this book, but only after criticism from the "naturalist" of the day.

Nautica

 

[nautica]

One other comment.

As far as "Evolutionary theory" being FACT. It depends on your definition of evolution. If you keep it in its simplest biological form. "A change in allele frequency within a population over time"

Then Yes it is fact. But, the problem is that everyone has their own personal definition of evolution.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by nautica
One other comment.

As far as "Evolutionary theory" being FACT. It depends on your definition of evolution. If you keep it in its simplest biological form. "A change in allele frequency within a population over time"

Then Yes it is fact. But, the problem is that everyone has their own personal definition of evolution.

Nautica

I think you find the simplist defintion is A change in allele frequency within a population over time and natural selection!(sexual selection is sometimes considered natural selection, but becuase it was such a big and important detail many regard it has seprate.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
I think you find the simplist defintion is A change in allele frequency within a population over time and natural selection!(sexual selection is sometimes considered natural selection, but becuase it was such a big and important detail many regard it has seprate.

That is completely incorrect. Natural and sexual selection are only possible causes of evolution. They are by no means the only causes and should not be considered in the difinition.

How about genetic drift, migration, founder effect... These can also be causes of evolution.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

could you please read my comment more careful, I didnt say evolution is natural selection and sexual selection... that's way I said ...AND natural selection... not IS!

and by the way, the founder effect is an example of genetic draft, (which i mentioned before)

- which is concered with transmitting alleles, or not.

 

[agnostictheist]

If you said a change in the gene pool now that would of been ok

 

[nautica]

I said a change in allele frequency within a population - which the gene pool in that population consist.

Nautica

 

[agnostictheist]

still doesn't excuess the fact that what u wrote above was a result of you not reading what i wrote.

and my statement still stands, even more so when you added this:

Natural and sexual selection are only possible causes of evolution. They are by no means the only causes and should not be considered in the difinition.

solution:

you don't have to have them soley to formulate a diffintion, hence the word AND.

the defintion I added brings the genetics, and studies of that nature, with those of darwins natural selection (and sexual), hence the modern evolutionary synthesis! - that's why I added to it

natural selection explians a system in HOW the change in the gene pool is done, and a very important ONE, in fact its importance is on par with genetic draft, and that's even more of a reason to add not omit the term! in the defintion! which you so claimed!

the point is while your defintion is correct at a very basic level, its not really explianing to much, in short I didnt so much disagree with it, but ADDED to it!

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
I think you find the simplist defintion is A change in allele frequency within a population over time and natural selection!(sexual selection is sometimes considered natural selection, but becuase it was such a big and important detail many regard it has seprate.

This is what you originally wrote. I have read it several times. Now you might want to take the time and reread it. Then maybe after you retype it, we can all understand what you were trying to say.

Nautica

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by nautica
As far as "Evolutionary theory" being FACT. It depends on your definition of evolution. If you keep it in its simplest biological form. "A change in allele frequency within a population over time"

Evolution is fact. Evolutionary theory (the scientific description of how evolution occurs and has occurred through history) is a theory, and as such may be strongly supported by facts, but like all theories, can never be rigorously proven.

It's like how gravity is a fact in the sense that we know that things fall, but a particular description of how that happens (Newtonian gravity, general relativity, quantum gravity, etc.) is a theory, and may one day be replaced by another theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[agnostictheist]

Originally posted by nautica
This is what you originally wrote. I have read it several times. Now you might want to take the time and reread it. Then maybe after you retype it, we can all understand what you were trying to say.

Nautica

correct it was, and no where do I say Evolution IS natural selection.

I don't need to retype it, I tryed to explain it above.


(Has for my bad "writing structure" that's a result of my dyslexia.)

 

[nautica]

So, I guess I will never know what you were trying to say?

Nautica

 

[Descartes]

This is a great thread; indeed, one of the very few discourses on evolution that didn't lead to ad hominem attacks from those opposed.

Also, what are some good books for non-biologists that help elucidate some of the finer points of these arguments? Having an interest in so many things, I don't always have the time to keep up with all the discoveries of a given science.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Descartes
Also, what are some good books for non-biologists that help elucidate some of the finer points of these arguments?

The archives of the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup at http://www.talkorigins.org/ are often good.

 

[Bernardo]

Ambitwistor-
It's like how gravity is a fact in the sense that we know that things fall, but a particular description of how that happens (Newtonian gravity, general relativity, quantum gravity, etc.) is a theory [evolution], and may one day be replaced by another theory.

Are there any other theories out there in the science community?
I would be very interested to hear the 'cutting edge' thoughs on this topic.

 

[Ambitwistor]

Originally posted by Bernardo
Are there any other theories out there in the science community?

You mean, potential successors to the theory of evolution? There have been various modifications to the theory of evolution, but most of the principles have remained intact. e.g., Darwin proposed natural selection, but he didn't have an understanding of how inheritance and the appearance of new traits work (i.e., genetics). But there are still plenty of debates about mechanisms. For instance, if you read the Gould vs. Dawkins thread, you'll find that some people propose that evolution is generally a uniform, gradual process, while others propose that much of evolution happens in relatively sudden spurts. Or, if you read the writings of Kauffman, he proposes that natural selection is overrated, and that some features of the genome can be explained by means of self-organization, in the absence of any kind of selective pressure.

 

[agnostictheist]

Has suggested by I fellow postee, talk origns is an excllent resource geared for all readers from very different backgounds!

was once part of the newsgroup learned alot.

also some good books of evolution, by "biologists": are:

the self gene
By Richard Dawkins

personaly I don't like dawkins and find him presassumptions and flat wrong one some points (not biology, rather his philosophical spim) but being a theist I would disagree with him in parts, however he very much worth a read.

ISBN 0-19-286092


-------------------------------------------------------------------

the second is by Simon Conway Morris

" The crucible of creation the burgess shale and the rise of animals"

ISBN 0-19-286202-2

and excellent writer, whom does produce a a very different and theist spin to evolution, those not always from his writings!

conway is the foremost scholar on the "cambrian explosion"

his main argument is "convergence"

 

[O Great One]

Ha Ha

Ya know...You guys really crack me up. If I was to walk with anyone of you guys into a store and walk up to a mannequin, I would not be able to convice you that it wasn't designed, yet your own body is about a billion times more complex and yet you believe that it wasn't designed. An animal with enough intellectual capacity that it can design clocks capable of being accurate to within one second every 20,000,000 years, capable of proving Fermat's Last Theorem, a theorem with an infinite number of equations each with an infinite number of possible solutions, capable of designing machines capable of discovering prime numbers 4 million digits long, playing chess better than 99.9% of the population, putting a man on the moon, doing billions of calculations in the blink of an eye. An animal that can discover its own genetic code and its own genome. An animal that can do that and yet its own genome is so complex it will be a long time before we fully understand it.
You guys are insane.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by O Great One
You guys are insane.

Was there an actual argument in that post, or did I just miss it? It seems like you're just saying "we're complicated, so we must have been designed by God." I don't think this is a very useful (or logically valid) argument. It's a non-sequitor.

- Warren

 

[Bernardo]

O Great one,
I don't think you read very much of this thread before jumping in with your assessment of the discussions here. This is not like a conversation where you can judge the content in a few minutes. Posts a few pages past are still 'current'. I have posted often on this thread and voiced my faith in a creator. While often met with debate, overall I feel an openness anong the frequenters here.

If you would have read you would see there are many views here all of them for the majority are respected. The only thing jumped on and unwelcome here is slamming the thoughts of others.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by O Great One
Ya know...You guys really crack me up. If I was to walk with anyone of you guys into a store and walk up to a mannequin, I would not be able to convice you that it wasn't designed, yet your own body is about a billion times more complex and yet you believe that it wasn't designed. An animal with enough intellectual capacity that it can design clocks capable of being accurate to within one second every 20,000,000 years, capable of proving Fermat's Last Theorem, a theorem with an infinite number of equations each with an infinite number of possible solutions, capable of designing machines capable of discovering prime numbers 4 million digits long, playing chess better than 99.9% of the population, putting a man on the moon, doing billions of calculations in the blink of an eye. An animal that can discover its own genetic code and its own genome. An animal that can do that and yet its own genome is so complex it will be a long time before we fully understand it.
You guys are insane.

OGO, do you not realize that you have actually defeated your own purpose here? If we are such intelligent animals, who have done (or can do) all of the things that you mention, and much more, then what makes you think we could all be so "mislead" on the subject of our own origin? Science has done so much, and yet you - while admiring some of its endeavors - act as though it would make a great leap of faith on one of the most important questions that humanity has ever asked. That's not giving us our full credit.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Bernardo
I have posted often on this thread and voiced my faith in a creator. While often met with debate, overall I feel an openness anong the frequenters here.

If you would have read you would see there are many views here all of them for the majority are respected. The only thing jumped on and unwelcome here is slamming the thoughts of others.

Glad to hear you say that, Bernardo. That's the goal...an open debate of ideas. This particular debate often gets heated as it touches on people's core beliefs, but we try to keep it civil overall. Bottom line is that the theory of evolution makes no statement for or against God. Some people say evolution operates on its own, others say God uses evolution to create. If O Great One wants to refute evolution completely, then fine...this is a science forum, so let's discuss the scientific evidence for/against that position.

 

[einsteinian77]

O great one, we haven't proven fermats last theorem. As I can recall it is unprovable.

My biology teacher told me that the theory prior to evolution was the theory that life forms could change just by will. Was that really the theory before evolution?

 

[Bernardo]

OK everyone,


O Great One is gone probably never to return. What we have here is a 'drive by posting' so let's agree his post was 'hasty' and articulated in a way that makes his opinions very hard to accept. Having done this let's leave him behind and continue the discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
My biology teacher told me that the theory prior to evolution was the theory that life forms could change just by will. Was that really the theory before evolution?

Actually, the theory before Darwinian evolution was called Lamarkian(sp?) evolution. It didn't really say that animals changed at will, so much as it said that any change that the environment produced in an individual could be passed to that individuals children (thus producing new species on a constant basis).

 

[einsteinian77]

How would these changes come about, according to the theory.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by O Great One
Ya know...You guys really crack me up. If I was to walk with anyone of you guys into a store and walk up to a mannequin, I would not be able to convice you that it wasn't designed, yet your own body is about a billion times more complex and yet you believe that it wasn't designed. An animal with enough intellectual capacity that it can design clocks capable of being accurate to within one second every 20,000,000 years, capable of proving Fermat's Last Theorem, a theorem with an infinite number of equations each with an infinite number of possible solutions, capable of designing machines capable of discovering prime numbers 4 million digits long, playing chess better than 99.9% of the population, putting a man on the moon, doing billions of calculations in the blink of an eye. An animal that can discover its own genetic code and its own genome. An animal that can do that and yet its own genome is so complex it will be a long time before we fully understand it.
You guys are insane.

We're not all that smart. Some of us continue to deny obvious proven facts because they conflict with our completely uninformed preconcieved superstitions.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
How would these changes come about, according to the theory.

I really don't know. I guess they knew about mutation, but believed that this mutation was much more radical, over much less time...but I'm not sure on that.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
O great one, we haven't proven fermats last theorem. As I can recall it is unprovable.

Er.. we have. Though it was done by the brute force, computer based approach, and some mathematicians feel that it does not really constitute a proof.

playing chess better than 99.9% of the population

Doesn't this actually disprove any idea of a requirement for a higher designer? The folks who made the chess computer bearly could play chess at all - and so, this is an example of some property appearing from a place where it did not exist before. More advanced versions of game playing computers also utilise learning algorithms - evolutionary computing, basically - to beat human opponents.

 

[Bernardo]

fermats last theorem

I realize (by reading only - I am the anti-mathematician) the situation behind Fermats Theorem. A problem that has boggled the minds of great thinkers for such a long time, to now be solved gives me great hope.

No matter if computers solved it or not - mankind has the ability to discover and to solve. As a matter of fact you don't even drive a car now without a computer. What we need to do is continue to discuss and research and learn about this world we live in - as well as where it came from.

I do attribute our amazing ability to 'dig' for knowledge a God given gift. A gift that allows us to have awe and wonder over the universe no other creature enjoys.

But also a gift we can use to elevate ourselves inappropriately. We are 'in the image' of our creator. This means we have His qualities and one of them is a desire to create. Create art, buildings, good pizza and computers.

I would be very interested to hear other views on the evolution of man particularly. Why is there no other 'animal' on Earth approaching our intelligence? Why are we so far ahead of everything else?

 

[selfAdjoint]

First of all, Fermat's Theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles without using computers. It was the four color theorem that was proved using computers.

Then as far as humnan evolution is concerned, some species had to be first with intelligence and apparently it was us. You can see other animals, like baboons, evolving toward the early stages of intelligence. And don't give up on the other primates yet, either.

 

[Bernardo]

How about this idea?

Don't you think there come a time when 'there can only be one'. Everything pretty much has an equal footing at the cellular level, but as life gets more advanced domination occures. Evolution ends for all but the most advanced.

If humans ever discovered baboons roasting chestnuts over an open fire we'd wipe them out. So for everything else on Earth intelligence is a pointless endevour.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If humans ever discovered baboons roasting chestnuts over an open fire we'd wipe them out. So for everything else on Earth intelligence is a pointless endevour.

Gee, I hope we get beyond that. If not there is more likelihood that some species from elsewhere would come and wipe us out.

There are among present day humans some who so long for competitors/allies in intelligence that they persuade themselves they see it in space or in other animals where the evidence is extremely slight. Let us hope that the trend in intelligent species is for such to prevail.