Creation Versus Evolution
Intelligent Design non-inclusive but opinions are welcome
Animals do evolve, it's a proven fact, but the theory that we came from monkeys is absurd. The main problem I have with that theory is that why aren't there still half monkey, half man animals running around? Did monkeys just evolve all at once, at the exact same time? That doesn't seem logical.
That can't be proven. Creationism can't be proven either, but it can't be dismissed.
just, it hasn't been proved that animals have evolved into other animals... The reason is that only small scale mutations have been seen. Theories have been put into place that describe large scale animal-animal mutations. the problem is that there's no evidence out there yet for such large-scale mutations.
This was discussed by Xipha, Soulfire and Bonding so many times before, like here... http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-17521-10.html
i would have always thought that as the only reason something evolves is survival of the fittest, the cross kinda "half human monkey" things wouldnt have been able to survive, and infact humans wouldnt have tended to survive in the areas that monkeys and apes did, and the rare few found a way to survive in cave "ooooh cave men" and then god knows what happened to lose ALL the fur as opposed to thinning of the fur, but you see that in many animals where its all down to climate, and you dont see monkeys in many places where you see people wearing not much in the third world, that must mean something.
anyway my point is surely those who were evolving towards todays human would have been the only ones to survive in the area they inhabited, and the apes would have been the only ones to survive in their area... and over those millions of years weve pretty much become seperate strands of evolution and theres no quick and direct route between us...
only my thoughts... and im always open for the world to open up its mysteries
I agree, large-scale mutations haven't been seen on 'larger species' if you take a look at a timespan of 100 years. Only small scale mutations. But if you take a timescale of millions of years then there are thousands of timespans of 100 years. After all those changes, it would be very hard to talk about the same species.
However, if you talk about bacteria/virusses, then sure big mutations have been observed and even exploited. Bacteria have been able to mutate to a state where they digest nylon (new enzymes were needed). Nylon never existed before 1930. The first changes were observed in 9 days, the whole change in 3 months. Of course creationists claim that the changes were made too quickly. Now what?
First of all, evolution doesn't state that we came from monkeys. It only states that if you go back in time, we had a common ancestor. These ancestors evolved into the current ape races and humans. A group was isolated due to some reason (like being on an island or just looking differently and not wanting to mate) and thus mutated/evolved seperately from the rest of the species to the point where they were no longer to make children together.
In this case the 'humans' had shorter tails and lived on the ground, while the 'apes' had longer tails and lived in the trees. They were still the same species and were able to produce children together. However, after a while they mutated so much that this became impossible. The group stayed mostly together and that's why there are no other human races on earth.
They have found bones of animals that are hald man half monkey, the problem is they either died or evolved, In darwins theory they found lots of holes in his argument, just like you saying why isn't there a half bear half dog running around?, and still to this day they are finding the missing links in Darwins theory from over 150 years ago.
Evolution - but to a certain extent both.
I believe there is a higher-power (if you will, God), but I don't believe that he just *poofed* everything here as it is.
I believe in evolution, but that there was a "divine hand" in every little change made over the millions of years it's been taking place.
Why do they have to be so separate? Each theory so at war with one-another, when that's what they are - theories. They have the flexibility for compromise.
Black + White = Small Minds.
(I'm not religious).
(I don't believe in a god so much as *something* - too hard a concept to explain through text)
I would have to go with evolution. As Bondings pointed out that if you look at things in a mirco span of time, say 100 years, then eveolution does not prove itself out. But if you multiply that to the nth degree it becomes more feasable that we did have one or more similar ancestors, or commonalities.
I also find it hard to believe that the earth and all life as we know it was created in 6 days. If that were indeed true who can explain the dinosaurs, the ice age, or just plain old how the hell did we survive all the natural (or un-natural) disasters that have befallen us. God allegedly wiped out all life with the exception of Noah and his family....how did we survive that simple act of a vengeful God?
Hmm. I don't want to get too involved in this right now, but I personally believe the truth is somewhere between the two. Maybe we were never meant to know. Or maybe the truth is different for everyone - to think it is to create it, you are where your thoughts are and you become what you think about, after all.
WOw, some heated debate here, from the polls, the creationists outweight the evolutionist, but i don't hear much of their voice in words...
Hmm, i guess most of us can reconcile science with religion as long as science does not touch on the origin of humans and religion do not try to try on infringe on the microevolution theory; each keeping to own their boundaries.
Well, IMO there are so many other things in the world that we cannot explain, why even bother with these stuff...I don't think its that much important..Maybe just an EGO problem, or am i wrong??
Why is he and all the other cross-breeds not alive today? Because either 1). They became extinct when they couldn't compete with the "modern human", or the image of a man we most identify with, or 2). They didn't have the ability to survive because of "evolutionary defects", and they eventually died off because they were weaker, leaving a slightly different "form" of man behind to try and survive in their stead.
As for Creation, I'm not willing to risk and devot my whole life to something that relies entirely on faith. Unlike Evolution, which has evidence and support-what we percieve through our 5 sensory outlets-religion and Creation is based on books and what-not that have no validity and can only be taken on faith.
But that's what I choose to believe, if people want the comfort and assurance in believing in a Higher-Being, then so be it.
Creationist point of view....
Right, first, a God who is omnipotent can create from nothing, can create miracles and can accelerate a physical process to the nth degree. So he can simulate evolution in 6 days if he wanted. (also claims the flying spaghetti monster)
Evolution is a really good theory, but the nth degree you mention is just speculation and theory, as there's no evidence for it. The big bang has background radiation for evidence, so that looks like evidence for me...
I'm happy with both sides of the story,
Anyway check out the flying spaghetti monster
Your last point here is well said. Nothing, as yet, has been proven. One could argue, nothing in science is ever proven. At best, all are just a series of tested (some more than others) observations with the appropriate controls such that the results are interpretable. Taken as a whole, a series of consistent observations become more than just observations. they become theory. Hence Darwin's theory of evolution. This has become a double-edged sword. Opponents would argue that, because it is ONLY a theory, it is not to be relied upon; it is not accurate. Such an argument is weak; it is made by those who do not fully understand the fundamentals of the scientific method (and how theory, is about as good as it gets). Now, proponents would make the argument that darwin's theory has been proven, over and over in all things examined. Therefore it is truth. I would almost agree with that statement, except for the 'truth' part. Assigning 'truth' to consistent observations implies a level of confidence no true scientist should ever approach.
Having said that... Your notion that it is absurd that humans come from monkeys is simply blind. Humans are 99.9% similar to the chimpanzee for all DNA that encodes protein. That is an unprecedented level of similarity. This is an irrefutable fact. This does not outright PROVE that we came from monkeys, but the evidence is certainly compelling. As you say, why is there not a continuum of species in between us and chimps. This continues to be an area that is being researched. There are a multitude of possible variable, some of which are not necessarily genetic per se. That is, sociological factors could attribute to some of this gap. Either way, the jury is out.
The other part of your argument is trite. I'm not really sure why people still consider creationism and evolution as being on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Tell me, what is so absolutely contradictory to having aspects of evolution be part of creationism? and vice versa? The two 'explanations' are just approximations of the truth. And that's the best one can ever ask for. Are their inconsistencies for both explanations? absolutely. Can either really be proven? that remains to be seen...
The evolution theory cannot even explain how animal-animal evolution occurs. There are only basic scientific mechanisms to show how this can take place. The fact that the ape and human genome is 99% similar is not so relevant when you know that the fruit-fly and human genome are 90-95% similar, although all we have in common is the basic cell structure and a brain. Also, the size of the genome is out of perspective. For example, some yeast are 0.016% the size of humans, yet their genome sequence is 7% the size of the human genome, but yet completely different species. This is found everywhere in genetics where the relationship between cellular and macroscale lifeforms is not proportional to their gene proportions. There is scientific evidence which denies simple mutations as a sole mechanism of animal evolution. There are thousands of publications based on tissue expression. Basically, immunoglobin genes are false-models for neo-darwinism, even though the 4 main sets of genes can produce 10^8 types of proteins, immunoglobulin genes are very specialized, and biologically enhanced for mutations. There is another model recently developed known as alternative splicing, which does not mutate genes nor create genes, but just creates a diversity of proteins based on the same DNA sequences. Neither immunoglobulin genes nor alternative splicing are theories which can be applied to evolution. Therefore the theory of evolution is too primitive to be considered scientific evidence, becoming mere speculation.
However, you're arguement for a scientific measurement confirming theories accurately can increase confidence in the theory. When animal-animal mechanisms have been proposed and verified, evolution will be as much a principle as any other scientific principle, and then we can say we have proof. But you really can't believe anyone when they say they have solid evidence for evolution yet. We are only now learning about eukaryotic genomes and how we differentiate tissues from a single stem cell, so we are a long way from describing animal-animal evolution.
A creation point of 6-day creation has to be rejected by science as this is scientifically impossible (unless the arguement is taken that nothing is impossible to god). Hence, either evolution or intelligent design are scientifically feasible.
Your Drosophila-human similarity estimate is a bit optimistic. Taking any gene, that has published homology between the two species, will get you an average of about 60-65% homology. Due to the millions of years that separate the two organisms, gene amplifications have occured such that many genes in Drosophila have more than one homolog, hence paralogs to each other, in humans. By this virtue, the similarities between both species while striking, do not approach the numerical values you mention.
there are numerous reports that strongly support speciation occuring at this very moment with a number of species. (read Science journal.. the breakthroughs in 2005 issue). Evidence for animal-animal evolution, in the case of birds and insects (i.e. speciation), has actually been much easier to find than the elusive monkey-human transition. Proposed mechanisms for speciation, like geographic isolation, can easily be seen today.
If one were to take the Judeo-christian bible literally, then 6 days is a tad bit short a timescale to explain the biodiversity we have on this earth. One could merely cite radiological methods of aging materials as a simple enough method to refute the 'week' creation idea. However, it can also be said that 6 days doesn't really mean 6 days... etc. etc. etc. Given that, it is still a plausible idea that.. first came light (say.. a sun) then came a world first populated with plants and animals, then came us (provided we assume that we are the most evolutionarily advanced species on this earth). Given this prospect, again, there is simply nothing completely contradictory between both explanations. to marry the two ideas, as intelligent design has attempted to do, may perhaps be a better approach. True scientists should not shun this idea outright. Although I also have reservations about some of the principles of that theory...
Guys coming to the point of creation. I was discussing with my teacher about that fact a bit, what she said is that it was proven that the earth is like 80 million or something years old. I can not remember clearly, but anyways the scientists who believe in evolution state that life on earth started way before then, because it would take almost 100's of millions of years to get something like a prokaryote into a human being.
I hope you see what I am getting into, I was wondering Lennon, what ype of scientists are you? like what research do you do exactly???
I think creation must based evolution!
Might as well give some more evidence for evolution now that I've biased against it...
Yes there is certainly an order of complexity as you go from microbial to vertebrate. No need for proof.
The complexity of the organism can be shown by higher order structures.
the mechanisms proposed for smaller animal-animal evolution can be seen at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878 (birds and insects). complements to illini319.
I generally agree with the idea that it took lots o' time to evolve from bacteria to humans. But I also know that we do not fully understand all the factors that can cause speciation and hence evolution. Meaning, macroevolution may not necessarily have taken as long as the current estimates would seem to suggest. There are these new (well not so new to the scientific community.. but perhaps new to the public at large) concepts such as punctuated equilibrium which describes how adaptation can occur within a shorter amount of time. Stephen Jay Gould pioneered the concept of punctuated equilibrium; it essentially describes the genetic moments in which an organism experiences extreme environmental stress that puts its existence into jeopardy. He states that during these moments of crisis, a species has to adapt or perish. And that during these crises, the organism experiences unprecedented levels of genetic mutation at a short amount of time (generations you can count with one hand), presumably as a mechanism to cause it to adapt. Granted many of these mutations are ineffectual, perhaps even deleterious. But... but perhaps one or a combination of these mutations may result in an increased advantage such that this newly mutated individual can adapt to its environment... and ultimately survive the enivornmental crisis. Lofty idea from a lofty scientist (Gould won the Nobel prize for this work). But are there actual examples of this in biology? The answer is yes. Gould looked at starved fruit flies and saw an unusual number of genetic mutations simply by reducing/removing their caloric intake. He found that the rate at which cells normally correct these mutations (something that normally occurs in all organisms) was dramatically reduced in these times of crisis... as if permitting more mutations to accumulate in hopes that it may prove advantageous. Hence one can see how situations such as this could contribute to macroevolution. That is...there likely has been numerous moments in earth history that would cause such undue pressure to the existence of a number of species. During these times, mechanisms such as punctuated equilibrium could give rise to an explosion of new species. Of course this still doesn't happen overnight, but it may not be as long as one may think... if one thought linearly.
Summary: There is overwhelming objective evidence to the theory of evolution. Creationism has no good evidence.
Creationism, like evoution, cannot be proved or disproved. They are theories that people choose to believe, and intelligent design sounds much more logical than evolution.
i think you miss my point entirely...
creationism... is not the opposite of evolution. period. the theory of evolution is pretty darn good. the idea that no greater power had no hand in this whole thing... well that's the true question isn't it? one that has not been (dis)proven.
Please clarify your statement... or at least understand mine.
Wonderful... The evolution side has matured, thanx to illini319...
One example of a dilemma with the scientists approach...
Scientists were asked what was the most effective way to boil an egg.
After much debate, they provided an answer... a cyclic flux of temperature in an incubater using a thermocycler...
Basically, scientists can be professionally single-minded. They focus so much on facts, theory, technology and optimisation that they miss they obvious. The most effective way to boil an egg depends on what techology is available and required. There is no need for a thermocycler to boil an egg when a saucepan, cooker and water are available.
The single-minded newtonian theorists refused to hear einstein's theory of relativity (incompatible with Newtonian physics it seemed).
What if all the research into evolution was biased. What if there was another theory to describe how the world was created. For example, it can be shown that carbon-dating may have significant errors beyond 10,000BC. Stress can speed up the evolution process. geographic layers in rocks can form in a few years (10-100yrs) given a high lateral flow rate under global catastrophic flood conditions, compared to millions of years in a sedimentation mechanism...
(yes, rapid layer formation has been demonstrated in labs, I've seen it with my own eyes)
Also, the beginning of the universe t=0 cannot be defined. Since space and time are inter-related, at t=0, s=0 (there is no space and no universe). Quantum Physics attempts to explain the origin of the universe, but given the rules of quantum physics they can only understand as far as the basic GUT force (electromag, weak and Strong force combined). This is a form of radiation, and I could say that in the beginning there was light. Confirmed by Stephen hawking and the bible. Thank you.
I'm sorry, but that's a lame example, imo. They gave the right answer to the question. If you ask for the most effective way - without any other conditions - then you assume that you can use/do everything that is possible. If you only have a saucepan, cooker and water, then there is no need for such a question in the first place. It's like asking to someone what the fastest way to get to New York is. Then if they answer by plane, tell them they are single-minded because you don't have enough money to take a plane.
There are no theories that can be proved at all. Even the second world war can't be proven and the belief in it is based on faith, according to this. But this is philosophy and not science.
Creationism is not a scientific theory because it is a literal interpretation on the bible and thus not based on facts. It also cannot be changed and thus doesn't fit with every possible definition of science.
Intelligent Design is creationism without mentioning the creator and all the details of the bible. This is one of the weaknesses of that theory. Why? Because it doesn't state any positive fact/proof. It doesn't mention the creator, it doesn't mention how it was created, it doesn't mention why it was created it doesn't mention when it was created, ... it doesn't mention anything in specific. It only mentions negative facts/proofs like irreducible complexity.
If you want to make a scientific theory, you need facts to prove your own theory and not "the other theory can't happen, because ...". Maybe start with:
-Who created the earth?
-How was the earth created?
-When was the earth created?
-Why was the earth created?
-How did everything change since the earth was created?
All this based on facts/observations. If something is not observed and there is no indication for it, then for sure there shouldn't be mentioned in a scientific theory.
Let's say I make a theory that states that Mickey Mouse created the universe exactly 30 years ago by saying "abahernenbo". What makes this less scientific than intelligent design?
-Everything is irreducible complex --> Mickey Mouse made it.
-Information can't be created by chance --> Mickey Mouse made it.
-The chance that life was formed by chance is way too small --> Mickey Mouse made it.
So, next year it should be taught in schools that Mickey Mouse created the universe? Or is there still something I didn't mention?
It wasn't Mickey Mouse, it was the Spaghetti Monster
i beleive in evolution more. i know there are many thesis against the evolution theory by Davincci or any other scientists, but i think it's more reliable than creation. i can't see there is anybody who has the supreme power and create humans, create the whole world.... where does his power comes from then ? why not me ???
sorry, i don't believe in religion.
Hey, and I thought my idea was so original. After seeing that, my Mickey Mouse example is starting to get a bit pathetic in comparison.
I love that idea.
But other than that, what about the other arguments. Because all arguments for ID I ever heard were actually arguments against the evolution theory.
I mean, if life is to be too complex to be created by chance, then this doesn't imply at all that is is designed by a creator.
-People could have lived eternally on earth and nobody created us because we always existed. (native American tribes believed in a sort of 'spiral' starting again at the same point after x years, going higher and higher and then falling back to the same point it started)
-It could just be an eternally repeating loop, it is future people go back in time being our ancestors.
-Or just if you go far enough in the future, it becomes the past.
-It could be that future people designed the universe they are in.
-It could be that life wasn't created by 'chance', because life actually doesn't exist, this is all an illusion.
All this just to show that I see absolutely no evidence/facts pointing to the fact we were designed.
By the way, about chance. If every star would have a few planets like ours (most likely yes). Now take a trillion stars in a galaxy. A trillion galaxies in the universe. ... Maybe a trillion universes in the uni-universe, then a trillion uni-universes in the uni-uni-universe, ... If you go further and further, wouldn't it be possible that every possible situation would be created resulting in the "impossible" chance for life to be created by its own?
Think about this -
Evolution is constantly being proven wrong. Sure, the whole scientific theory thing about change, but stil...
Creation, on the other hand, is the one and only theory that has never once been proven wrong. It has always been right, at the basic core level of facts.
And may I ask why you don't believe in religion? Perhaps I can help you out a bit......
[quote="Rocky3478"]Evolution is constantly being proven wrong. Sure, the whole scientific theory thing about change, but stil...
Creation, on the other hand, is the one and only theory that has never once been proven wrong. It has always been right, at the basic core level of facts./quote]
That's the difference between a scientific and a religious/philosophical theory.
A scientific theory is never completely right and is constantly adjusted and made a better theory. If people think that object x is 10 days old, but you have a proof that you saw it 11 days ago, then the theories will change making it possible for the object to be at least 11 days old.
The problem with that creation theory is that it is a religious theory and thus cannot be adjusted or proven wrong by facts. If you would have a movie clearly showing that god created the earth on 8 days, even then the creationist theory wouldn't be changed as everything that contradicts the bible is considered fake by its definition.
you bring up worthy points here, although I would never use the word theory and creation in the same sentence... as theory implies a logical progression of conclusions. Faith perhaps. I find your 8 day analogy compelling. I think dogmas, whether religion- or science-born, run the risk of your analogy; that discoveries can be ignored simply because it doesn't fit a PRECONCEIVED notion. Perhaps it is this very rigidity that BOTH camps adhere, to their own detriment. It is a folly of semantic; it is a failure to realize that definitions should guide our search, not hinder it.
When one realizes this, I think we become more free (as scientists AND/OR as people of faith). What do I mean????
The I.D. debate is interesting. scientists on one side and bible thumpers on the other. you have already bulleted the principles of ID. and YES i agree, you also highlight its shortcomings. BUT, I must re-emphasize that as a scientist, one should never eliminate a possibility simply because they cannot wrap their mind around it. there is no logical reason, NOR evidence, to refute the idea that at some point in history there was some divine intervention that may have got the ball rolling. do i ascribe to this notion? not personally. do i discount it? never. why? because I have no reason to. beyond all the principles of irreducible complexity (which, BTW, i think is BS), the spirit of ID contends that there may be a 'man/woman behind the curtain.' That could be completely wrong. who knows. Either way, whether you are religious or call yourself a scientist, you have ZERO evidence against that to refute it. As a true scientist, one should accede that such a possibility remains until disproven. It is the same reason why scientists who claim atheism are, IMO, absolutely hypocritical. agnosticism... (which, BTW, is not a cop out... read your dictionaries before you comment) is a much better way to go should one consider themselves scientists.