Evolution vs Creation

[Jedi_Outcast]

Re: Re: Re: part II

I second that. Evangelists of all stripes love to quote unsourced statistics. Another favorite I've heard several times is "Less than the chances of a tornado in a junkyard turning out a 747" or some variation of that, like a jeep or bus. Seems like that would be prohibitively difficult to calculate anything close to. I've never heard any more reliable source for any such statistic than "somebody," though.

my favorite statistic is that if you have an infinite number of monkeys, and infinite number of typewriters, and an infinite amount of time, you will get shakespeare. A classic example of chance at work.

If you have enough time, and it is in the realm of physical science. It WILL happen.

 

[dreamer]

This thread is funny.

I'm beginning to agree...when the two posts after mine have 'fucking idiot' and 'full of shit' in them...to think I got sucked in for a minute there.

 

[metal_minx]

calm down minxie, you are just giving him what he wants. Fight his "christian science" with real science.

I doubt anyone will change his mind, and getting all worked up doesn't do anything except piss you off and turn him on.

sorry but this is one subject i get passionate about and to think that they want to teach creationist crap in schools sickens me

we're supposed to be an educated country and we still have dumbasses like him dragging us back to the middle ages

and christian science is an oxymoron

 

[dreamer]

I'm beginning to agree...when the two posts after mine have 'fucking idiot' and 'full of shit' in them...to think I got sucked in for a minute there.

One good thing though...only 165 posts till I hit 1000.

 

[WaxNWane]

Some points - mostly at driver's arguments:

Darwin didn't recant on his deathbed. That's a goofy little fairy tale. From a creationist site, no less: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp - And, even if he had written an entire retraction, it would be like Newton recanting his theory of gravity. One person's opinion has no effect on the evidence or the science behind the theory - even if it's the person who originated it.

Science has nothing to do with faith. The "evolution is a religion" line is just an attempt to make this an apples vs apples comparison. Since there's no science to back up any parts of creation, so you've got to attempt to remove the science from evolution to make it an even match. Doesn't work, misses the point, and is just an attempt to sidestep the argument.

Any science, evolution included, is about observation. When a skull was found recently that drastically changed the possible timeline of human evolution, scientists embraced it and began working through the possible scenarios. That's indicative of a theory that's based on evidence and observation, with a willingness to change as the evidence dictates. That's the antonym of faith.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: part II

cite your source please.

the big bang may be highly improbable, but if you have infinite time (as we understand it), then it becomes a certanty.

I think driver775 misspoke - I believe the number he was qouting refer to the possibility of there being a planet where the conditions being conducive to any kind of life. The numbers probably come from a somewhat well reasoned argument by a Christian astrophyicist in a book titled "Reason to Believe". The numbers do not dispute the the theory of evolution, just point out that life is a rare occurance in the universe.

As to there being a higher chance with an infinite period of time - no, not really, no more than if you put an infinite number of monkeys in a room of typewriters of them then coming up with the complete works of Shakespeare.

 

[Jedi_Outcast]

and christian science is an oxymoron

no, just your plain garden variety moron

 

[metal_minx]

Re: Re: Re: part II

I think driver775 misspoke - I believe the number he was qouting refer to the possibility of there being a planet where the conditions being conducive to any kind of life. The numbers probably come from a somewhat well reasoned argument by a Christian astrophyicist in a book titled "Reason to Believe". The numbers do not dispute the the theory of evolution, just point out that life is a rare occurance in the universe.

As to there being a higher chance with an infinite period of time - no, not really, no more than if you put an infinite number of monkeys in a room of typewriters of them then coming up with the complete works of Shakespeare.

as to the improbablility of life...how do we know that we're the only planet with life on it in the universe? there are millions of other galaxies that probably have solar systems similiar to ours, which in turn probably has planets like earth

 

[WaxNWane]

And the rather famous quotes about the odds of evolution happening are sound bites that do a nice job of redefining terms to fit their needs.

Evolution, in the truest sense, is the change in the genetics of a population over time. The odds of that happening are 1:1. Documented, observed, proven.

Life forming in the primordial soup - that's abiogenesis. More chemistry than anything else. Lots of theories on that, but not a bit of it has to do with evolution.

The big bang - cosmology.

As DCL said - evolution doesn't care a whit how life got here. Plug anything into the big bang, solar system formation and abiogenesis, and evolution works the same way.

 

[Jedi_Outcast]

Re: Re: Re: part II

As to there being a higher chance with an infinite period of time - no, not really, no more than if you put an infinite number of monkeys in a room of typewriters of them then coming up with the complete works of Shakespeare.

but if you do that the chances of getting shakespeare are 100%

 

[metal_minx]

driver...since i can't pm you i'll tell you out here - i'm a female first of all so don't call me 'son' and you're full of bullshit and you're just pissed off that i called you on your nonsense

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

The time periods I won't argue with. But evolution by survival of the fittest demands something--non-survival of the unfit. If nobody died before Adam and Eve got fruity, how'd they evolve? (Nota bene-I'm not preaching creation, just the incompatibility of literal Bible belief and evolution.)

I believe the story of Adam and Eve are some kind of figurative, not literal, story. Of course God could have actually literally done something along those lines and it might have even fit the physical evidence - there is evidence in the fossil record that could support the idea of some kind of intervention; it is now believe that there was not just one evolutionary branch preceding homo-sapiens, but rather a number of branches, all of which died off save for one. There is also evidence that there could have been a sudden branch off of the tree which is homo-sapiens as we know them now. That is just pure conjecture - it could just as easily support the theory of a big black obilisk messing around with the people of the time too.

At the same time, there is now evidence of two different races of our ancestors; there are people in the world who have a much older set of DNA than the rest (I believe most are in Mongolia). This could support other parts of Biblical mythology too (such as the pre-Noah races).

It is hard to say what it all means, I am just saying I don't have see any irreconcilable conflicts between the Bible and the physical evidence - the Bible is just too vague on the issue to say otherwise.

For the "quark soup for the big bang/dimensional involution for the superstring big bang/etc. had to come from somewhere, so God must have created it" argument, you do realize you're simply pushing the conundrum back one more level, right?

Yep, and on this mortal coil we probably will never see the resolution of that conundrum. If Christians and other faiths that believe in a Creator and an after life are wrong, we will probably never know.

 

[WaxNWane]

Re: Re: part II

cite your source please.

the big bang may be highly improbable, but if you have infinite time (as we understand it), then it becomes a certanty.

I don't think we can really say anything about the probability of the big bang, because it's an undefinable state. Time (as we know it to be) didn't exist before that instant. Relativity says the "edge" of the universe is pushing space and time with it, and that started at that instant. If you can't define time, you can't define probability.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

as to the improbablility of life...how do we know that we're the only planet with life on it in the universe? there are millions of other galaxies that probably have solar systems similiar to ours, which in turn probably has planets like earth

We don't know that we are the only such planet, and even with instantaneous travel from one section of the universe to another, we would probably never know. However, much of the universe is inhospitable to life - indeed almost all of it is just empty void, and most of the rest is regions of space that would be deadly to all life, even if there were planets there. There are a lot of stars, but we have no idea how many of those have planets (many do not) and how many of those planets are of the right size, composition, orbit and position relative to a hospitable sun to support life. How many of those actually go through a process amenable to life starting is even smaller.

Ask any scientist knowledgeable about the issues (there are people who specialize in thise arena) and they will all tell you the odds are literally astronomical. Not impossible, but staggering. I am not saying there is not life on other planets besides earth - I am saying that even given the infinite size of the universe and the billions of galaxies, the places where life could develop are actually rather rare.

 

[Morwen]

The Old Testament, the Torah, whatever you call it, contain a number of interesting creation myths and antiquated laws for nomadic pastoral living. So does the Koran, the King James Bible, the Elder Edda, the Vedas, and all of the Eastern books. So too the Celtic myths. For that matter, Tolkien's creation stories are as aesthetically pleasing as any of the shining bits of fiction worshipped in empty houses.

None of this has anything to do with the scientific understanding of the evolution of human intelligence, at any stage. That's like reading "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and claiming you understand the vast and complicated macroeconomic process that puts Twinkies in little plastic bags in stores near your house so you can eat them.

It's highly likely there is life outside our solar system. I really, really hope there is, because I don't want the universe relying on you superstitious rock-worshipping fucks.

 

[WaxNWane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

I am not saying there is not life on other planets besides earth - I am saying that even given the infinite size of the universe and the billions of galaxies, the places where life could develop are actually rather rare.

Two things -

There's actually a reasonable (not insignificant) chance that there are two places in this solar system that could have conditions favorable for life: Titan (a moon of Saturn) and Ganymede (a moon of Europa).

And more importantly, every scientist, and anyone with an opinion on what the chances of life evolving elsewhere in the universe are arguing from a necessarily weak position. We work from a sample of one. Our paradigm is as narrow as it could possibly be. That puts any definitive statement about probabilities on shaky ground. We simply have no other examples of life evolving to study.

Well, aside from those *possible* lifeforms in the meteorite from Mars a few years back.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

but if you do that the chances of getting shakespeare are 100%

No they are not. Look at it this way and maybe it will become clear: if I fill a room full of rocks and typewriters, and nothing else, nothing is going to happen.

The same is true of monkeys and typewriters; all they are ever going to create is gibberish - they are not capable of anything else, even by random chance.

 

[Jedi_Outcast]

I believe that life is inevitable, I'm willing to bet that there was/is life on mars. maybe it's just microbes, but life that evolved separatly from our. Where there is water, there should be life. and there is a lot of water out there.

 

[Jedi_Outcast]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

No they are not. Look at it this way and maybe it will become clear: if I fill a room full of rocks and typewriters, and nothing else, nothing is going to happen.

The same is true of monkeys and typewriters; all they are ever going to create is gibberish - they are not capable of anything else, even by random chance.

A) it is physically impossible for rocks to type, so that argument holds no water
b) chance says it will happen, only one monkey may hit all the right keys in the right order, but it will happen, given enough time, monkees and bananas.

 

[Dougy]

First of all...unless I am way off...the evolution of the 'human line' goes back much further than 1 million years. Australopithecus afarensis was something like 4 million year plus years old and I am sure that the supposed 'hoax' of Lucy was about 3 million. We know that there were other members of the line (or lines as the case may be) well before that. Bipedalism in Africa has been estimated at somewhere around the 10 million year mark, and there is a logic of evolution to humans from that point.

The problem with arguing evolution is that there are, admittedly, holes all over the place. It is a family tree that is being constantly reassessed and rewritten as we learn more. Creationists can find these holes in our knowledge and convince themselves that it tears down the whole theory, but it does not. Deductive reasoning has to be used in order to answer these types of questions. We have solid evidence of the evolution of humans from bipedal apes in Africa. We have found enough evidence that it is obvious to any logically thinking individual that some form of change in the line of man has been going on for millions of years. If you want to believe that 'God' is responsible for the path that evolution took, that is fine with me, but you are on horribly unfirm ground if you are trying to claim that evolution has not occured...either that or you are fooling yourself with semantics.

And by the way...I firmly believe in nothing larger than myself other than the combination of others no larger than myself into a social unit.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Evolution, in the truest sense, is the change in the genetics of a population over time. The odds of that happening are 1:1. Documented, observed, proven.

Evolution is more than that - a lot more:

Evolution is nature selecting for the most adaptive species or individuals. That is why humans are the ultimate species - we are the most adaptable. Some even say we have essentially stopped evolving genetically, and our evolution is now all mental. There is some validity to that theory.

But evolution is not a theory - we see and deal with it every day - for example; bacteria evolving to survive anti-bacterial medicines, viruses (especially retro-viruses) evolving when passed from one host to another. I could go on and on, including examples of human evolution on many levels and of many types.

 

[Morwen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

No they are not. Look at it this way and maybe it will become clear: if I fill a room full of rocks and typewriters, and nothing else, nothing is going to happen.

The same is true of monkeys and typewriters; all they are ever going to create is gibberish - they are not capable of anything else, even by random chance.

What the hell are you talking about?

Nothing.

Mixed metaphors and obfuscation don't cut it in this case. Stick to demonstrably proven facts, no matter how frightening you and your 2,000 year old outdated world-view might find them.

Ten years ago you and your crowd were arguing Earth was the only life-world and our Solar System was the only one with planets. Now we've proven there's more than a hundred of them, and that's just within our feeble, painfully under-funded survey.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[WaxNWane]

Evolution is more than that - a lot more:

Evolution is nature selecting for the most adaptive species or individuals. That is why humans are the ultimate species - we are the most adaptable. Some even say we have essentially stopped evolving genetically, and our evolution is now all mental. There is some validity to that theory.

But evolution is not a theory - we see and deal with it every day - for example; bacteria evolving to survive anti-bacterial medicines, viruses (especially retro-viruses) evolving when passed from one host to another. I could go on and on, including examples of human evolution on many levels and of many types.

We're getting into semantics, because we're both concluding the same thing, but....

I'd say natural selection is part of evolution. Natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, recombination - all mechanisms that evolution "uses" to effect a change on the genetic makeup of a population.

And, scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory - the same way that gravity is a theory.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

A) it is physically impossible for rocks to type, so that argument holds no water

It was an extreme example to make a point.

b) chance says it will happen, only one monkey may hit all the right keys in the right order, but it will happen, given enough time, monkees and bananas.

Ahh, but therein lies the rub - you are adding another variable - infinite time - which I did not include. Even given an infinite amount of time, if the monkeys stay monkeys, the works of Shakespeare would not be forthcoming. This is an old philosophical argument that has been proposed before, and I think you will find all intelligent people agree with the outcome I asserted.

Even if you allow for evolution, and you allow them to become human like and develop a language, the chance that they would then, by themselves and without intervention, come up with anything remotely resembling the works of Shakespeare are highly improbable. If they remain monkeys the chances are impossible - and anyone who knows me knows how much I hate using such absolute words.

 

[WaxNWane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: part II

It was an extreme example to make a point.

Ahh, but therein lies the rub - you are adding another variable - infinite time - which I did not include. Even given an infinite amount of time, if the monkeys stay monkeys, the works of Shakespeare would not be forthcoming. This is an old philosophical argument that has been proposed before, and I think you will find all intelligent people agree with the outcome I asserted.

Even if you allow for evolution, and you allow them to become human like and develop a language, the chance that they would then, by themselves and without intervention, come up with anything remotely resembling the works of Shakespeare are highly improbable. If they remain monkeys the chances are impossible - and anyone who knows me knows how much I hate using such absolute words.

Ok, forget the monkeys. If you have an absolutely random letter generator and no constraint on time, every word and every book written by man would be reproduced eventually. That's all the analogy says, and I don't see where it can be refuted.