Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
People who embrace evolution are not going to change any mind that embraces creationism. The literal meaning of the Bible creation story is ingrained in their faith. Faith is a belief systems not based on facts. You can't argue science vs faith.
Also, the cartoon on the missing link was right on. Looking for that missing link always uncovers yet another human-like species. Truthfully, finding a missing link will not satisfy creationist either because that link will be so ape like; they would say it was just another extinct species of ape. We have evidence of many ape-human like species with a steady progression in their erect statue, height, abilities to survive in a changing environment, and intelligence going back 2 million years. What missing link are we looking for exactly? The only missing link that some one who believes in creation will believe is if a ape fissile is found with a human skeleton fetus in it.
There is hard evidence that Neanderthals and Cro Magnums had contact with one another, even lived together, perhaps even interbred. Doesn't that prove at least a more modern missing link if two separate species are similar enough to bred? Relative to their smaller size, Neanderthals actually had larger brains.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
For Pez, Hint:
Well, as educated people know, the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the realm of science.
 
kiefers

kiefers

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/120#post_3490708
I have four small things to add to this thread. I admit that I have not read the whole thing, but I really don't need to in this case.
1. I was watching Futurama last night and they did a pretty good job of explaining why we haven't "found the missing link." Each time we find new fossil evidence of a previously unknown humanoid species, two gaps are created in our fossil record. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU Sorry for the horrible quality, it was all I could find.
2. Sometimes people get hung-up on words like "theory," "law," and "hypothesis." The main argument you see with this is that, "If evolution were fact, it would be called the "law of evolution." or "It's just a theory." Well, as educated people know, the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the realm of science. For an idea to get through the rigorous peer review process and gain the title of "theory," there has to be quite a bit of evidence.( A theory is a collection of statements and propositions or even concepts that explains or accounts for natural events. Basically it's an educated idea. then you find the evidence to support such theory. The word, "law" is reserved for those theories which are best established. But the problem is that this system is not meant to be quantitative and exact. Who decides to change a theory into a law? The answer is nobody. There is no panel to decide that a theory should be changed into a law. It is done with the general consensus of the scientific community. Here are a few examples of how this is flawed. You guys have heard of string theory, right? This goes by a few different names, but the basic concept is that matter consists fundamentally of tiny vibrating strings. There is mathematics to support these ideas (if you add dimensions), but there is absolutely 0 evidence to back up these ideas.Yet, we call it a theory. Another extreme is the theory of heliocentricity. This is the idea that the sun is the center of our solar system. This is a fact, but also a theory.(how can this be a theory if it has been proven) Another, similar, example is the theory of relativity. If the theory of relativity weren't a fact, GPS wouldn't work. And laws aren't set in stone, like most people think. Laws can still be changed or completely disposed of, it just isn't as common. So don't get strung up on nomenclature, it doesn't usually mean much.I agree, things do change. I liked how you put all of this together. There are things tho that have been proven, no fact? Hmmm depends on who you talk to really.
3. Science cannot prove anything. The very nature of science prevents this. This is just something to chew on.( science has proven so much. In the areas of microbiology, chemistry, immunology, and mostly bacteriology. Please be more specific.)
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
An explanation based on confirmed facts arrived at by use of the scientific method.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiefers http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490738
A theory is a collection of statements and propositions or even concepts that explains or accounts for natural events. Basically it's an educated idea. then you find the evidence to support such theory.
Scientific theory is not based on statements or propositions, it is based on proven facts. Its not an educated guess, but a explanation of of how something happens in the natural world. Many proven facts lead to the theory, not the theory first and then "lets prove it".
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiefers http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490738
My point is that these terms are not as rigid as people like to think. (how can this be a theory if it has been proven)? This is a good question, but you can research it. It is indeed a theory. Germ theory is another example. We have seen these things, we know them to be factual, yet they are theories. Evolution is factual, we can actually see it in action. The evidence is quite compelling. The reason that these things are considered theories is because there is no rigid way of putting these things into categories and there is no group of people in existence that goes about examining and determining what should be a theory and what should be a law. But that's the point. You should not base your opinion of an idea solely on how it is labeled. If you want to know about evolution, you have to research and do your best to understand it. And don't stop there, visit a museum. See the evidence for yourself. Also realize that I am not talking directly to you, Kiefers. When I say "you" or "yourself," I am talking about a general member of society. There are things tho that have been proven, no fact? Hmmm depends on who you talk to really.
Yeah, it does depend on who you talk to because these things drift from science to philosophy. I was trying to find a Bertrand Russell quote that illustrates a point better than I can, but I couldn't find it. Anyway, the idea is that maybe the universe is 12 seconds old. Perhaps we all popped into existence 12 seconds ago with these thoughts in our heads and holes in our socks. You can't prove that we didn't. In mathematics, things can be proven, but in science it isn't so easy. How much evidence do we need before considering something proven? And who makes that decision? Then again, there's the paradoxical argument that if we can't prove anything, then we can't prove that we can't prove anything. Anyway, it does depend on who you talk to. Science is all about being skeptical and sometimes things that we think are 100% true (and perhaps even useful in practice) are not entirely accurate. Take for instance the Standard Model of Particle Physics. That was thought to be completely accurate and then we discovered that neutrinos have mass and it changed. Science is always changing. Again, there are arguments for both sides of this and like I said, it dips out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy.
 
kiefers

kiefers

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490742
Scientific theory is not based on statements or propositions, it is based on proven facts. Its not an educated guess, but a explanation of of how something happens in the natural world. Many proven facts lead to the theory, not the theory first and then "lets prove it".
Look up the defintion. I took the time to dig in all of my micro books, chem books, and the dictionary. they led pretty much to my statement.
However, a theory is NOT the result of of a single experiment repeated over and over again, but it is an entire body of ideas that expresses or explains many aspects of a phenomenon. It is not a fuzzy or weak speculation as is sometimes the popular notion, but a viable decloration that has stood the test of time and has yet been disapproved. I apologize if I misled you in believing otherwise
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/120#post_3490708
I have four small things to add to this thread. I admit that I have not read the whole thing, but I really don't need to in this case.
1. I was watching Futurama last night and they did a pretty good job of explaining why we haven't "found the missing link." Each time we find new fossil evidence of a previously unknown humanoid species, two gaps are created in our fossil record. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU Sorry for the horrible quality, it was all I could find.
2. Sometimes people get hung-up on words like "theory," "law," and "hypothesis." The main argument you see with this is that, "If evolution were fact, it would be called the "law of evolution." or "It's just a theory." Well, as educated people know, the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the realm of science. For an idea to get through the rigorous peer review process and gain the title of "theory," there has to be quite a bit of evidence. The word, "law" is reserved for those theories which are best established. But the problem is that this system is not meant to be quantitative and exact. Who decides to change a theory into a law? The answer is nobody. There is no panel to decide that a theory should be changed into a law. It is done with the general consensus of the scientific community. Here are a few examples of how this is flawed. You guys have heard of string theory, right? This goes by a few different names, but the basic concept is that matter consists fundamentally of tiny vibrating strings. There is mathematics to support these ideas (if you add dimensions), but there is absolutely 0 evidence to back up these ideas.Yet, we call it a theory. Another extreme is the theory of heliocentricity. This is the idea that the sun is the center of our solar system. This is a fact, but also a theory. Another, similar, example is the theory of relativity. If the theory of relativity weren't a fact, GPS wouldn't work. And laws aren't set in stone, like most people think. Laws can still be changed or completely disposed of, it just isn't as common. So don't get strung up on nomenclature, it doesn't usually mean much.
Sorry, PEZ, but your definition of "theory" and "saw" are wrong. That a theory can become a law is a common misconception. A theory is an experimentally testable, and extensively tested, explanation of an observed event. A law is the mathematical description of an event. Thus we have the "law of gravity" which says that two objects attract each other in proportion to their mass and inversely to the distance between them. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why this is so. That is why the theory of evolution remains a theory - it is highly tested, and until contrary evidence emerges, it will be relied on as a correct explanation of why species emerge.
 
kiefers

kiefers

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490751
My point is that these terms are not as rigid as people like to think. (how can this be a theory if it has been proven)? This is a good question, but you can research it. It is indeed a theory. Germ theory is another example. We have seen these things, we know them to be factual, yet they are theories. Evolution is factual, we can actually see it in action. The evidence is quite compelling. The reason that these things are considered theories is because there is no rigid way of putting these things into categories and there is no group of people in existence that goes about examining and determining what should be a theory and what should be a law. But that's the point. You should not base your opinion of an idea solely on how it is labeled. If you want to know about evolution, you have to research and do your best to understand it. And don't stop there, visit a museum. See the evidence for yourself. Also realize that I am not talking directly to you, Kiefers. When I say "you" or "yourself," I am talking about a general member of society. There are things tho that have been proven, no fact? Hmmm depends on who you talk to really.
Yeah, it does depend on who you talk to because these things drift from science to philosophy. I was trying to find a Bertrand Russell quote that illustrates a point better than I can, but I couldn't find it. Anyway, the idea is that maybe the universe is 12 seconds old. Perhaps we all popped into existence 12 seconds ago with these thoughts in our heads and holes in our socks. You can't prove that we didn't. In mathematics, things can be proven, but in science it isn't so easy. How much evidence do we need before considering something proven? And who makes that decision? Then again, there's the paradoxical argument that if we can't prove anything, then we can't prove that we can't prove anything. Anyway, it does depend on who you talk to. Science is all about being skeptical and sometimes things that we think are 100% true (and perhaps even useful in practice) are not entirely accurate. Take for instance the Standard Model of Particle Physics. That was thought to be completely accurate and then we discovered that neutrinos have mass and it changed. Science is always changing. Again, there are arguments for both sides of this and like I said, it dips out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy.
I feel better that you see my point
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
According to Martin Bridgstock, "The best-established theories are usually referred to as 'laws'."
To take this as fact would be an appeal-to-authority logical fallacy, but I cited something to back up my claim...so that's something.
EDIT: By the way, I didn't just google for that. I had to dig out the book and look for it lol.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/120#post_3490681
The theory of evolution claims that creatures morph into a higher on the scale critter, a more adaptable creature and eventually developes into something else. Everything in life can adapt to a certain point to help it survive, but the creature is always true to it's creation. A dog may be a spinoff from the original creature the wolf...but it is always canine...
I don't doubt that every creature had an anchient ancestor and that over the years it adapted and somewhat changed. Darwins theory claims bacteria developed into higher organizims and morphed into fish... that fish morphed into a creature that went on dry land...and that creature morphed into another creature and so forth ..so in the end... that creature was an ape and over time the monkey became a human being.
There is and has never been any proof that creatures change into another totally different DNA creature. The so called missing link that showed the split from ape to human has never been found and that includes the Lucy bones. The DNA is simular but not human.
I think Darwin was CLOSE. We did indeed adapt, but the creature that adapted didn't morph into another creature, it adapted into a creature more capible of survival as the world around it changed. Humans have always "resembled" apes but humans have a different DNA. All creatures are true to their DNA (the original created creature) We may indeed have creatures sharing the planet with simular DNA... such as the chimp, but the chimps are not morphing into humans, and humans are not morphing into something else either. We do change, but not into something else.
So there is an early man that adapted into the modern man...but it was not ever a monkey that changed into a man.
Flower: I know that I can't change your views, but I also cannot let your mis-statements go unanswered since others, less knowledgeable, might read and accept them as objective truth. You argue that "the creature is always true to it's creation", and this is true in the short term. As I tell my students, "as a rule, humans give birth to humans, and dogs give birth to dogs, despite what you might read in the Globe or National Enquirer about human women giving birth to two headed calves." Nevertheless, over geologic time scales species change. This is not the appropriate place to go through it, but Google "whale evolution" to see how a small land-dwelling mammal eventually evolved into whales (and many other species, both terrestrial and aquatic). You could look at this distant ancestor for the rest of your life and not be able to conclude that the whale was "true to it's creation." It just isn't similar to a modern whale, but the fossil record is quite clear that whales can be traced back to this distant ancestor.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490761
Flower: I know that I can't change your views, but I also cannot let your mis-statements go unanswered since others, less knowledgeable, might read and accept them as objective truth. You argue that "the creature is always true to it's creation", and this is true in the short term. As I tell my students, "as a rule, humans give birth to humans, and dogs give birth to dogs, despite what you might read in the Globe or National Enquirer about human women giving birth to two headed calves." Nevertheless, over geologic time scales species change. This is not the appropriate place to go through it, but Google "whale evolution" to see how a small land-dwelling mammal eventually evolved into whales (and many other species, both terrestrial and aquatic). You could look at this distant ancestor for the rest of your life and not be able to conclude that the whale was "true to it's creation." It just isn't similar to a modern whale, but the fossil record is quite clear that whales can be traced back to this distant ancestor.
Or bird coming from big lizards.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490761
Flower: I know that I can't change your views, but I also cannot let your mis-statements go unanswered since others, less knowledgeable, might read and accept them as objective truth. You argue that "the creature is always true to it's creation", and this is true in the short term. As I tell my students, "as a rule, humans give birth to humans, and dogs give birth to dogs, despite what you might read in the Globe or National Enquirer about human women giving birth to two headed calves." Nevertheless, over geologic time scales species change. This is not the appropriate place to go through it, but Google "whale evolution" to see how a small land-dwelling mammal eventually evolved into whales (and many other species, both terrestrial and aquatic). You could look at this distant ancestor for the rest of your life and not be able to conclude that the whale was "true to it's creation." It just isn't similar to a modern whale, but the fossil record is quite clear that whales can be traced back to this distant ancestor.
Sorry, but being able to be traced to a distant ancestor does not mean that ancestor was a crocidile or a turtle or a snake or a human....it was a creature that evolved into a whale over a long time. That same creature did not evolve into a whale and a camel and a dolphin...it evolved into one direction...into the modern whale. It didn't ever spend part of it's life as a turtle and evolve while the turtle critter remained a turtle.(such as what is claimed that happened to man from apes) It is and was always the creature it was from the start.....absolutly it changed over billions of years...so what makes you think it was ever anything but a certain mammal....only that mammal evolved into the modern whale. Another certain mammal evolved into a modern elephant. I never said that the original creature looked and behaved just like the modern evolved creature. I said that each line of evolved creature was true to it's own line. The birds are birds, the humans are humans and lizards are lizards. So the ancient snakes had arms and legs, maybe it could talk...maybe it talked to Eve....the modern snake hisses and eats rats....it's ancestor was still it's ancestor, but not my ancestor.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490774
So the ancient snakes had arms and legs, maybe it could talk...maybe it talked to Eve....the modern snake hisses and eats rats....it's ancestor was still it's ancestor, but not my ancestor.
You could say that Genesis paved the way for the modern theory of evolution by letting us know that snakes once had arms and legs, right? LOL
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiefers http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490771
No Corey, thats an example of inbreeding, evolution gone wrong! Lol....
Oh, for a second I thought I had a vision of man evolving from ape and then gravitate back into ape form again. Almost as though carrot top was genetically more advanced than the rest of us. Guess I was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490776
You could say that Genesis paved the way for the modern theory of evolution by letting us know that snakes once had arms and legs, right? LOL
Some Snake's, still do. I think, I tought I saw one slithering around here a little bit ago.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
It's like the branches of a tree. All of the modern organisms are leaves and ancient ancestors can be represented by the forks of the tree. You start with the trunk (the original organism from which all life came-if that's how it happened) branches into two limbs, the limbs turn into branches, the branches turn into sticks, the sticks turn into twigs, etc. So chimpanzees and humans are leaves that branch from the same twig. See, it isn't linear. So the organism that spawned chimps and humans likely did not look like a chimp/human hybrid. Perhaps it looked more like a chimpanzee, but that's irrelevant. So to find the common ancestor of a snake and a human you have to find the two leaves and trace them down the tree until they meet. The common ancestor of a snake and a human probably doesn't look like a snake or a human and it definitely doesn't look like a snake/human hybrid. This is a commonly misunderstood concept (google kirk cameron crockoduck and you'll see what I'm talking about). That's because it is incredibly hard to explain (as you can see with my horrible attempt at making an analogy). It is not hard to understand, but it takes a little effort and intuition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top