Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Undertoad]

Natural selection happens, but it does *not* explain how one kind becomes another kind, IE a bird becomes a reptile, or a monkey becomes a man.

Actually it's thought that birds evolved from dinosaur-era reptiles, and that man did not evolve from monkey but they had a common ancestor.

It's not hard to believe that (for example) once one species took to the skies, that they had a huge and immediate advantage and could branch off separately from that point forward. The basic timeline from Wikipedia:

The basic timeline is a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with (very approximate) dates:

• 3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
• 3 billion years of photosynthesis,
• 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
• 1 billion years of multicellular life,
• 600 million years of simple animals,
• 570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
• 550 million years of complex animals
• 500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
• 475 million years of land plants,
• 400 million years of insects and seeds,
• 360 million years of amphibians,
• 300 million years of reptiles
• 200 million years of mammals,
• 150 million years of birds,
• 130 million years of flowers,
• 65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
• 2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
• 200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today,
• 25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

A curved beaked finch and a pointy beaked finch are still finches. A zebra and a horse are still an equine kind. A baboon and a chimp are both monkey kind. None of that process explains how a monkey becomes a man.

Chimps aren't monkeys; they're apes. If monkeys and apes are the same "kind", then humans should be in the same group. But "kind" is an amorphous "god of the gaps"-style word that seems to mean "species that some creationists accept evolved from common ancestors, with no real criteria.

There is no difference in evolutionary terms between finches evolving different beaks, and the evolution of different "kinds", because "kind" has no scientific meaning.

[tw]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

There are two schools of thought here: one is that there was a big bang, and the other is that God created the Universe (heavens and earth) on day 1.

The first is a theory. The second is nothing more than wild speculation.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

This is the evolution I'm talking about.

This site does a very good job at explaining the massive amounts of evidence for evolution. Look for transitional fossils (the second link).

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd..._intermediates

[HungLikeJesus]

The Evolution v Creation Forum claims to be neutral, but I haven't looked at it enough to figure out if that's true. They do seem to have some smart people involved in the discussions, and some interesting points.

The Creation/Evolution Debate: Dedicated to helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue, the EvC Forum plays host to the ongoing debate.

Study the details of the controversy in our Reference Library.
Debate the issues in our Discussion Forums.
See a list of topics currently under discussion in the Recent Topics List

[toranokaze]

<complaining>
There are problems with evolution that is why it is a theory not a law.

It is hard to question evolution and be religious without being dismissed.

If one believes God created everything believe, if one does not believe, don't believe.

And if one believes the former than the latter then science says is what God did.

Creationism ( as I understand it) isn't science, isn't religion and creationism is barely a philosophy additionally it hurts all three.

</complaining>

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

There are problems with evolution that is why it is a theory not a law.

The reason evolution is a theory instead of a law is that it can't be described in the form of a mathematical equation. The science behind all scientific laws is just as much theory as is evolution.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

The Evolution v Creation Forum claims to be neutral, but I haven't looked at it enough to figure out if that's true. They do seem to have some smart people involved in the discussions, and some interesting points.

From looking at the forum they do have a lot of smart people involved, and because of that they are not very neutral. It looks like they have been around for a while, so how could they?

Originally Posted by toranokaze

It is hard to question evolution and be religious without being dismissed.

And yet if you have a valid line of questioning scientists are required to consider it. You get dismissed because so many people have tried, and failed so badly that most consider it a waste of time to hear the same tired arguments over and over.

Besides, religion questioning science is dismissed with logical reasoning and empirical evidence. Science questioning religion is dismissed with hearsay from an unreliable source, and faulty reasoning. Is it really fair to complain about science?

Originally Posted by toranokaze

Creationism ( as I understand it) isn't science, isn't religion and creationism is barely a philosophy additionally it hurts all three.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, but there are downsides to letting your fellow man believe falsehoods. From a macro view think of all the time and resources that are wasted on religion. No longer would people have to deal with the Sunday restrictions, wasting time and resources on religious observances or posturing. More importantly though, believing religion makes you make different choices. Skipping the whole holy war diatribe, a religious person often comes off as an extremely odd customer to a logical person.

For instance, if a scientist sees a pretty woman's face they might consider complimenting her, maybe even asking her out if they are not in a relationship. A religious person may well stone her to death in the street for not covering it. Oh sure, not every religious person does that, and certainly not the flavor we have over here. The problem is that each little sect has their own crazy quirks that you have to find out for yourself. Southern Baptists have roughly 80% (around here) believing that drinking alcohol is somehow sinful. Why would they think such a thing given that Jesus supposedly gave wine to his followers? Well, the story is this: Deacons were responsible for representing the faith to potential converts, and there was a widely held but false belief that drinking was a sin. Deacons were therefore sworn to not drink so that they could appear a better example to those new converts. The main body of followers didn't follow this line of thought, and eventually concluded that since Deacons were not allowed to drink it must be because it is sinful! I suppose you could make something of a theory of religious evolution from that example.

The point being, if a religious person makes decisions based on faulty premises then all else being equal they will make incorrect decisions more often than a logical, science-based person.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It was hard to decide whether to resurrect this thread, or put this in the humor thread:

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I'm too lazy to search, was that posted here?

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No, Roy Comfort is a creationist nutter. That's from his blog ( See the "put this" link).

A follow up. He wrote a book.

Originally Posted by Roy Comfort

"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,"

[HungLikeJesus]

Wow! He's got me convinced. Where do I send the money?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Roy Comfort
"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,"

Shit, even I can answer that one.

Evolution, being a slow progressive process, means that changes that appear in a critter don't make it completely different from it's type. It can still mate with it's type and produce offspring of both sexes, and some of them will carry the change.

Are people really stumped by that question?

[Happy Monkey]

He only thinks they're stumped because he can't understand their answer.

[Happy Monkey]

For example:

Comfort replied, "I don't have the evident faith the professor has to believe in the theory of evolution, and so I am glad that he took the time to explain his beliefs as to why females had evolved along with males in every species in creation.


"Okay, I've got it," Comfort continued. "Your belief is that species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female. So, let's take it slowly for those of us stupid folk who like empirical evidence. We are looking at a contemporary male and a female elephant. They are part of a population of elephants. Let's go back to their elephant ancestors 10,000 years ago. They are still male and female elephants (they had to be because that's how elephants reproduce). Let's now go back one million years to what you called 'the populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females.' Obviously, they are still male and female way back then because that's how pre-elephants reproduced," Comfort said.



"Let's go back even further (100 million years ago) to pre-pre-elephants that also contained males and females. At what point of time in evolutionary history did the female evolve alongside the male? And why did she evolve? Then explain, if you would professor, why horses, giraffes, cattle, zebras, leopards, primates, antelopes, pigs, dogs, sheep, fish, goats, mice, squirrels, whales, chickens, dinosaurs, beavers, cats, human beings and rats also evolved with a female, at some point of time in evolutionary history. Professor, I know you believe, but please, give us who are healthy skeptics some empirical evidence. Remember, stupid people like me want good hard evidence before we, like you, become believers in Darwin's theory," Comfort said.

[Undertoad]

He's got it exactly backwards: male/female reproduction is precisely what permits serious evolution to take place. A creature could create its own progeny's DNA, but that DNA would be the same, wouldn't it? Or the changes that it would have would be random. But when two different sets of DNA come together, you have as xoB said, non-random traits that carry on, including recessive traits, which make certain progeny more likely to succeed and to continue to combine their DNA with others.

Witness the practice in plants, which Mr. Comfort does not mention. We have a male holly tree in our front yard. Oddly enough that means it has no berries. It's not that the male and the female trees fuck to have children. It's that having different sexes and combining their DNA is the best way for them to evolve.

[DanaC]

I want to see this dickhead explain Fig wasps without referencing evolution for both the wasp and the fig in which it breeds.