Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe

No it wouldn't.

Seriously Woody, this is a very easy hurdle to get over, and if you're still stuck here then there is little chance I can help you too much. Start a course or read some very large books.

The problem stems from how the mind looks at these things. By your sentence alone, we can almost see you picturing a crocodile 'one day' deciding to give birth to an elephant. It doesn't work like that, but the way your mind sees the whole thing it's not a surprise you get confused.

Evolution is not something you can just go out on the weekend and photograph. With insects it's a lot easier because their lifecycles are much faster than other animals - which is why every single year 20,000 new insects are found and named. However, the typically creationist view of evolution is one where that insect then turns into a pig the next day. It's a very long process, and not one you can just sit down and film happening.

How is step 3 shakey?

? Life coming from inert ingredients is not evolution, but abiogenesis. There is a lot about abiogenesis that isn't known - as talkorigins would tell you:

But Woody, what do you consider as 'life'? Clearly you wouldn't consider a self replicator with a strand of six dna nucleotides, (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994), as 'life', and yet they are simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry - and being self replicating "set the stage" for evolution.

As you can see, it's not "woefully inadequate". Yes there are still questions and still a lot that isn't known, but they're doing a much better job than you are, (sitting there simply dismissing it through lack of study).

Well, I hate to ruin your entire life, but evolution is a science according to the scientific method. You just don't understand it.

Again you're just wrong. This is why I had told myself not to bother with you. It's like men debating womens clothing. If you don't know anything about it, which you obviously don't, don't debate it.

Life can come from wherever it wants - stones, gods, Mickey Mouse or the giant invisible bouncy ball and it doesn't in any way hinder evolution.

Such as?

Alas, it is your "hypothesis" that needs to be rewritten or abandonded, (I'd vote for the latter).

How dare you. A man who accepts the word of any old shepherd he's never met as complete and total truth telling me I have "faith" and "religion"? Don't be an asshole. Come back when you understand it a bit better.

Dude, it ain't my job. There have been countless evolution threads in this forum that you could go and check up on, but other than that I would simply suggest you take up a course, (starting with the very basics). There is nothing I can say here that is going to help. You're arguing against something because you consider it trend to do so, but you haven't got the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

Looks like I'll have to explain it to you..

They are brought about during moments of fear or cold, and caused by the contraction of the papillae, (connective tissue), at the base of the hair. It's not to do with sweat glands, and it's purpose is actually quite simple.

It causes hair to stand on end, (to stand out). On a human that is generally quite hairless overall, it doesn't have much of an effect - but on an animal that has a lot of hair it serves a very important function. When they get a moment of fear, the papillae squeezes together causing the hair to stand on end. This makes the animal look a lot bigger than it is, and thus possibly prevent an enemy from attacking. During moments of cold, the same process occurs keeping the body better insulated.

While it would have great use on a monkey or similar animal, it has no purpose to a being without a lot of hair - and thus to a human is worthless.

If you use this (worthless) excuse, it would then apply to all other dates in the bible, no? So instead of Noah being stuck at sea for 40 days, he was actually stuck there for 4 million years right? Or instead of Moses wandering the desert for 40 years, it was actually 40 million years right?

You have no basis with which to use normal human time measurment for one story but then multiply that by millions for a story right next to it.

Let's say Moses wrote Genesis for arguments sake. There would be no justifiable reason for him to use two completely different time measurements. When he says "1 day", he means 1 day, and when he says "40 days", he means 40 days.

I know you need to dream up any nonsense excuse because your bible is simply unrealistic garbage, but you have no justification for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suspect you didn't read the rest of what I wrote, all of which was from a theistical point of view. My point was that there is no rational reason for denying the mythical basis of Genesis 1, but still retaining a belief in the glory and majesty of God, which in fact becomes magnified as we better understand the magnificent complexity of all Creation. Of course, the one good answer to that is that as God appears to be responsible for less and less, there is less and less reason for even believing in Him - which is certainly what happened to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, the mutation that resulted in adult lactose tolerance, which evolved after the domestication of animals that produce milk.

So, you are willing to reinterpret scripture to fit observed facts. Then, couldn't God have just arranged the initial conditions for life to emerge? He didn't need to design each creature, since he would still be doing that now, and we can observe the mechanisms that change creatures today to fit changing environments. When life first emerged, there weren't many environments that we have today- no forests, no grasslands, no swamps, etc...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

S/G said: Yes, the mutation that resulted in adult lactose tolerance, which evolved after the domestication of animals that produce milk.

Woody: Aside from the comfort of eating dairy products, what survival benefit did this provide? I don't even drink milk and I avoid dairy products. I take prevacid and most of my relatives take prevacid. How does this relate to evolution? If I eat right, avoid cloresterol, fats, sugars, oils, and such, everything is fine.

So how is this mutation "good" as I origininally defined "good?"

 

You've given up, haven't you, Woody? If you agree "...that speciation occurs and can be demonstrated.", then evolution describes everything from abiogenesis onward. After all, the major taxonomic groups are all the result of the accumulation of those same changes until they are significantly different from the starting point. There must have been gradual transitions between cold-blooded and warm-blooded, and egg-laying to mammal-type internal eggs. Look at the Paltypus, it's a warm-blooded mammal-like creature that lays eggs like a reptile.

 

S/G said: You've given up, haven't you, Woody?

Woody: I'm giving up on the idea of getting the required number of speciations from single celled life to homo sapiens. Who is going to stick their neck out on that one?

S/G: Look at the Paltypus, it's a warm-blooded mammal-like creature that lays eggs like a reptile.

Woody: Yeah I knew about that one. So why doesn't it evolve to live birth like all the rest of the mammals? By the way, mammary glands were required for live birth, so throw that fact in with your exponentiating list of speciations.

Some aquarium fish have live births, so it's not that big of a deal for a platypus to have eggs.

 

You see? If you were living in an age without supermarkets (and prevacid), it would benefit you in times of famine or crop failure to be able to digest milk without having to kill the dairy animal. It is a fact that this mutation only survives in areas where dairy products are common like Europe. Asians are still mostly lactose intolerant.

The mutation doesn't have to be a matter of life and death to be selected. If the increased calories allow you to defeat your enemies that don't drink milk, then this trait is selected for.

 

Woody: Why aren't reptiles evolving into mammals today?

Because there are already mammals. So that ecological niche is already filled. If all mammals were to die out, then reptiles would evolve to fill their place. They might also begin to resemble the animals they replaced. Kangaroos, for instance, are the Australian equivalent to the antelope in Africa.

You might as well ask why aren't mammals evolving into reptiles? Well, the fact is, when the dinosaurs died out, that was when mammals exploded into a huge variety of forms. Before that, mammal diversity was much less.

 

Woody: I have one simple question here for anyone that has the guts to answer it: How many speciations were required for the first living cell to evolve to man? A hundred speciations? A thousand? A million? A billion?

Zero. Evolution doesn't proceed by speciation events, which are only a formality of classification.

 

S/G said: Evolution doesn't proceed by speciation events, which are only a formality of classification.

Woody says: OK then, what events cause evolution to proceed? Can you give an example where this has happened?

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

Woody: Why aren't reptiles evolving into mammals today?

S/G: Because there are already mammals. So that ecological niche is already filled. If all mammals were to die out, then reptiles would evolve to fill their place. They might also begin to resemble the animals they replaced. Kangaroos, for instance, are the Australian equivalent to the antelope in Africa.

Woody: How about the Komodo dragon's environment, and island niche environments where there aren't any mammals? Why haven't reptiles evolved in Ireland where there are no snakes for example. There is a niche just waiting to be filled, why doesn't evolution fill it?

 

Actually the number of speciation events would be far smaller than you think. It's not dissimilar to the mathematics of the famous "six degrees of separation" experiment, where nobody is more than six individuals from everybody on Earth.

You might as well ask why all the mammals haven't evolved into humans. Or elephants (large and strong) or mice (small and fecund). Platipuses did not complete the evolutionary process from reptiles that the other surviving mammals did. At one time all proto-mammals laid eggs. Out of all of those species the only survivors are the platypus and the spiny anteater. They survived because, despite being mammalian and yet laying eggs, they still had whatever it took to survive in their respective environments. Probably they live in areas that lack egg-eating predators and other more successful mammals. In any case it makes no sense to ask why a "species" evolved or didn't evolve. Evolution in terms of speciation consists entirely of the construction of new species and the destruction of old ones.

I didn't see how you defined "good", but a couple of points to note. First of all, just because milk drinking provides a survival benefit for a species does not make it compulsory for every member of the species to take that benefit, particularly if they're human! But for a survival benefit of milk, it's a wonderful way of directly pumping fat from the parent directly into the child. Fat is quite useful to mammals as insulation, which they require to maintain their high body temperature. In any case "I don't need milk" is not really a valid objection to any evolution theory. The number of non-biological, non-genetic and thus non-evolutionary ways in which your life is preserved to the point of gestation of a new generation, is too large to be adequately numbered. We human beings are by and large outside the operation of Natural Selection (unless we get eaten by sharks, of course).

You're just demonstrating your ignorance of biology when you make that kind of statement. You have no real idea of the circumstances of live birth in fish and to instantly equate that with egg laying mammals is just not thinking it through at all.

 

Silas, you are right, it doesn't matter if an individual benefits if it benefits his clan in the long run. Most mammals feed their babies milk, but this ability to digest lactose stops as an adult, since it is unnecessary and costly to keep producing this enzyme. Humans are the only mammals that can digest lactose into adulthood, but this isn't universal. This ability centers around agricultural civilizations.

Your line of creatures only "speciates" in relation to another branching-off point. From the point of view of that creature, it was a gradual transition from the first cell to the present. So, evolution happens (sometimes slowly, sometimes quicker), but not in sudden jumps from one species to another. A better question is what causes evolution NOT to proceed, since we would expect creatures to change more than they do.

What causes evolution to proceed is part of the definition of it. Basically, living things give rise to other living things which are not exact replicas of their parents, and some traits are more advantageous than others, so the advantageous traits get reproduced more often, and the cumulative effect is that living things change over time.

Wonderful question, Woody. On island environments, strange animals DO take the ecological niche that we would expect certain mainland creatures to occupy. For example, on Madagascar, Lemurs fill the ecological niche of monkeys. Often, islands form so quickly that there isn't time for these niches to be filled, and the island's residents enjoy freedom from predators. For example, flightless birds lost the ability to fly because they didn't have to.

Reptiles haven't evolved in Ireland, because there aren't any there!

I'll have to check my book "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins for more examples, I'll get back to you.

 

Exactly what is supposed to evolve into reptiles in the first place? "Reptiles" are not a family in the same way that mammals are. Reptiles are defined by exception. They are chordates which are not mammals or birds.

 

Silas: I didn't see how you defined "good", but a couple of points to note. First of all, just because milk drinking provides a survival benefit for a species does not make it compulsory for every member of the species to take that benefit, particularly if they're human!

Woody: I defined "good" as providing a visible survival value that couldn't be obtained otherwise. S/G and I were discussing lactose in dairy products, and a supposed mutation that allows adult humans to overcome lactose problems for dairy products. I don't see this as a "good" mutation, anymore than dark skin is a better genetic quality than light skin.

Silas: You're just demonstrating your ignorance of biology when you make that kind of statement. You have no real idea of the circumstances of live birth in fish and to instantly equate that with egg laying mammals is just not thinking it through at all.

Woody says: The only point I'm making is that live birth animals are not necessarily more evolved or advanced than egg laying animals. That is all I meant by the statement.

 

Evolutions is about being adequatly adapted, not perfectly adapted. You are confused with creation in which god or aliens could create perfectly adapted species.

So lactose intolerance is actually proof against creationism.

It is right in front of your nose, but you don't want to see it because it smells like a turd to you.Just step in it and feel how smooth and cohesive evolution really is.

 

Umm... dark skin is a hell of a better "quality" (?) to have if you happen to live in a very hot country.

 

S/L: Umm... dark skin is a hell of a better "quality" (?) to have if you happen to live in a very hot country.

Woody: Then why don't caucasians have dark skin? they would have less skin cancer as a result. Yet many caucasians view dark skinned people as inferior, and dark-skinned people like Michael Jackson, want to be white.

spuriousmonkey said: So lactose intolerance is actually proof against creationism.

Woody: How about alchohol tolerance, heroin tolerance, cocain tolerance, any kind of tolerance? Are you sure lactose tolerance is a mutation rather than another form of human conditioning?

 

S/L said about goose pimples: They are brought about during moments of fear or cold, and caused by the contraction of the papillae, (connective tissue), at the base of the hair. It's not to do with sweat glands, and it's purpose is actually quite simple.

Woody: There are many medical professionals in the fold. A good understanding of human anatomy doesn't give them problems with their faith. Luke was a physician too.

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

S/L: How is step 3 shakey?

Woody: Because speciation does not prove that life could evolve from a single cell organism. As S/G said, speciation is not the evolutionary method that got us here. I am still waiting to hear about the evolutionary method that got us here.

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

On the subject of inert ingredients springing to life: What caused it I might ask? The answer must be pretty tough.

By the way I never thought elephants came from grasshoppers in the evolutionary scheme of things. I've had some biology courses in secular school, so please don't get extreme in your characterizations.

I did not become a theist until I was 29 years of age. My dismissal of evolution had nothing to do with the religious beliefs that I picked up many years later. We are covering a lot of the same ground that has already been covered before. I remain unimpressed. Your "way-back-then-but-not-now" time machine doesn't buy any points.

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

So what do you think about a human fetus "supposedly" going through all the evolutionary steps as it develops from single cell to baby? Do you attribute evolutionary proof to this phenomena?

 

The fact that a medical professional is a theist is no evidence for God or for Creationism etc, nor does it add weight to his belief - as this is an "appeal to authority" (taking weight from the position rather than the evidence).

If I believed that a huge imperceptible/invisible monkey was the only thing holding up the Golden Gate bridge, would the fact that I'm a Structural Engineer add credence to my claim?

 

Sarkus said: If I believed that a huge imperceptible/invisible monkey was the only thing holding up the Golden Gate bridge, would the fact that I'm a Structural Engineer add credence to my claim?

Woody: Yes it would give credence to your claim: If you and many of your state certified structural engineering professionals decided it was physically impossible for the golden gate bridge to be standing by the known laws of physics, I would indeed be ready to listen. Wouldn't you? I certainly wouldn't go across it -- only a fool would do that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!