Jump to content
Science Forums

Round Two: God vs. Darwin


Fishteacher73

Recommended Posts

Tormod wanted to close the ID/Creationist thread because of its length and break up some of the finer points brought up in individual threads, so here goes...

 

One issue that was raised is the perhaps some of the evidence supporting evolutionary theory has been skewed to facilitate and support the theory. Such examples were the Miller-Urey experiments, correlations between embryonic development, natural selection in the peppered moth (Biston betularia), etc.

 

Has the evidence been streached to fit evolutionary theory, and if it has in what manner is it being done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can readily admit that there have been some hoaxes(Piltdown Man) and incorrect conclusions drawn (Darwin's or Hutton's concept of evolution is now not really considered an accurate picture, although the massive concept of natural selection remains fast) but that is to be expected in ANY field. Perhaps some of the evidence has been amplified because of the wider audience that this scientific theory has as opposed to many others (As well as opposing view points that vehemantly combat each other). You really don't have soccer moms picketing schools for teaching realativity... I would think that much of the mis-use or distortion of the evidence has been done in the layman's circles and not so much as the scientific circles. It is just contradictory to what science is about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really don't have soccer moms picketing schools for teaching realativity... I would think that much of the mis-use or distortion of the evidence has been done in the layman's circles and not so much as the scientific circles. It is just contradictory to what science is about...

 

Very well said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of the Piltdown hoax. It is said what people will do for fame. I was not aware that Darwin's version

of Natural Selection was decprecated. I don't know who Hutton is. Jay Gould had a theory that evolution

can occur in spurts (like quantum leaps -- sorry for the pun). These transitions can be where branchings in

the tree occur. It seem plausible to me. I have yet to go thoroughly over his theory.

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of the Piltdown hoax. It is said what people will do for fame. I was not aware that Darwin's version

of Natural Selection was decprecated. I don't know who Hutton is. Jay Gould had a theory that evolution

can occur in spurts (like quantum leaps -- sorry for the pun). These transitions can be where branchings in

the tree occur. It seem plausible to me. I have yet to go thoroughly over his theory.

 

Maddog

 

 

The most widly accepted model for evolution is now currently Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium. You pretty much paraphrased it. The problem with Darwin is not so much the mechanics (natural selection) but it was thought of a gradual progression, and evolution is not always positive, there have been many regressive mutaions in species to make them more contemporarily viable.

 

While Gould usually is credited with terming the current evolutionary theory, it really was the unspoken model for the past 50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Punctuated Equilibrium seems like a lunge for answers.

First evolutionists want to take credit for having billions and billions of years of mutation and natural selection to do their work, then when it doesn't jive with the fossil recored they theorize PE...and in doing so take away much of the time they needed to have any chance of success. :cup:

 

Question for evolutionists, I have a heart and lungs and a circulatory system. How did these evolve?

- I currently need them to live,

- I couldn't live with half developed organs,

- half developed organs have no functional advantage,

- why and how do you think they evolved?

 

Does each mutation add another cell worth of length to a undeveloped circulatory system?

 

How many mutations would it take to develop one system?

 

What about the great number more of negative, harmful mutations, why didn't these kill my evolving self in years gone by?

 

When you think about evolution in basic, common sence terms, it has great problems.

 

Ah, but the moral freedom it gives the person who can convince himself that it is true! Have we come across a motive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but the moral freedom it gives the person who can convince himself that it is true! Have we come across a motive?

 

In general, I find the ID-ers have a tendency to claim that evolutionists vehemently oppose any attempt at disgracing the theory of evolution. Yet I find that most of the ridicule comes from ID-ers themselves.

 

I particularly like the argument (which can be found for example at your Icons of Evolution site) that evolutionists have never been to the field and seen for themselves. They just preach "learned facts".

 

How do they know? Most biologists I know spend half their life in the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for evolutionists, I have a heart and lungs and a circulatory system. How did these evolve?

- I currently need them to live,

- I couldn't live with half developed organs,

- half developed organs have no functional advantage,

- why and how do you think they evolved?

 

(Edit: quote shortened by Tormod)

 

 

Mutations for evolutionary purposes occur in the gametes or durring embryonic development.

 

We as humans have either half developed organs or declining organs (The appendix).

 

There are various cirulatory systems throughout the animal kingdom, and you can see the steps taken from an open cirulatory system to the closed system we have today. From O2/CO2 transfer mechanisms (Book lungs in inescts, gills, lungs, skin transfer, etc) to the various stages of complexity of "blood" (There are variations on blood types (A,B, AB, O, and iron based and copper based blood systems).

 

How many mutations would it take? To be blunt, as many as it takes... Many people do not seem to think that life is a long term process. In the grand scheme the individual is meaningless. Humans are in the process of change. Think of PE as a scum in rugby. Lots of avtion and slight shifts, but not really any major change. Suddenly the ball shoots out and all of a sudden all hell breaks loose as there is the sudden rush to a new position. But this is on a geologic time scale and not just 90 min.

 

Again a single cell in an adult going bad is pointless. The average adult has about 10 trillion of them. And we slough them by the million daily. This is why mutations really only count in the embryos or gametes. That one cell will grow into litterally millions.

 

If evolution doesn't make sense....what do you call ID? Lets just forget about combustion and all hail Prometheus for giving man fire...

 

How does removing a boogy man in the sky resolve one of personal responsibility? If nothing else it brings out virtue by relying on personal accountability for ones actions as opposed to fear of retribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I find the ID-ers have a tendency to claim that evolutionists vehemently oppose any attempt at disgracing the theory of evolution. Yet I find that most of the ridicule comes from ID-ers themselves.

 

I particularly like the argument (which can be found for example at your Icons of Evolution site) that evolutionists have never been to the field and seen for themselves. They just preach "learned facts".

 

How do they know? Most biologists I know spend half their life in the field.

The "ridicule" would come from ID-ers because they don't believe the evolutionary theory and have evidence for ID. Should we expect the evolutionists to ridicule their own theory?

I would be happy to see open minded scientific inquiry.

 

The leaders of the evolutionary movement do seem very reluctant to let a ID foot in the door.

- For instance, Dawkins won't debate Demski, but he will critizise his work in writing.

- A scientific society votes against ID without looking at the facts. Please see info below.

 

Michael Behe had a Phd in biology before he saw the evidence for ID and against evolution.

You can view this on the "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" DVD or Video. If people care about his area, I highly recommend checking this out. Great info, great computer generated imagry of the workings of the cell. A very good presentation of ID by Phd quality people...also a polite, mild look at why evolution won't account for the diversity and complexity we see in life. It's probably available lots of places if you Google the title.

 

Dr. Mark Eastmon says in his tapes / MP3's (mostly jokingly :cup: ) how when he listened to Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith's information on origins and evolution he felt like he wasted 4 years in college. (invalidated what he had been taught)

 

Here is some interesting non-copyrighted info from the Discovery Institute in Seattle:

 

What about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and its resolution against intelligent design?

 

In 2002 the board of the AAAS issued a resolution attacking intelligent design theory as unscientific. Unfortunately, the process by which this resolution was adopted was itself anything but scientific. In fact, the resolution was more a product of prejudice than impartial investigation. After the resolution was issued, members of the AAAS Board were surveyed about what books and articles by scientists favoring intelligent design they had actually read before adopting their resolution. Alan Leshner, the Chief Executive Officer of the AAAS, declined to specify any and replied instead that the issue had been analyzed by his group's policy staff. Two other AAAS board members similarly declined to identify anything they had read by design proponents, while yet another board member volunteered that she had perused unspecified sources on the Internet. In other words, AAAS board members apparently voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without studying for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory. It should be noted that a number of the scientists supportive of intelligent design theory are members of the AAAS, so the AAAS board clearly does not speak for all members of that organization.

 

Is that good science?

 

I value your thoughts, please tell me what this information means to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I value your thoughts, please tell me what this information means to you.

 

It means nothing to me, Lolic. I happen to have the same view of evolution as of all other areas of science: is evolution testable? Yes. Is it verifiable? Yes. Is it the only way to understand nature? No. (Nothing is). Do we understand the entire process? No. (We most likely never will).

 

The ID movement is indeed a movement. There is, however, no such thing as an "evolutionist" movement. I can see that from an ID perspective it seems as if the scientific commnunity is ganging up against ID views. This is a myth, however, although ID-ers will of course want it to appear otherwise. Everything that can be taken as proof that someone is opposed to ID will be turned against the sender, like in the AAAS case. Some ID-ers are particularly good at making it sound like they are at the receiving end of some horrible persecution from "evolutionists".

 

Well, I am not even sure what the term "evolutionist" means in this debate. I just assume it means someone who thinks evolution is a natural process. So count me in on that. I do not subscribe to everything that every person who is positive about evolution ever wrote. I have read Darwin. I do not look at evolution as "Darwinism", any more than ID-ers think of their own ideas as "Godism" (although the latter seems to be a more touchy point - the Discovery Institute certainly lists a lot of creationists in their links and books lists). I have also read several other books about how natural history is interpreted - they all are theories and none claim to be the absolute truth.

 

My point is not to say that ID is not a valid point of view. However, a lot of ID-ers ask questions about evolution which makes it quite apparent that THEY are the ones who have learned their facts from someone else. Looking at the Discovery Institue and the Icons of Evolution sites, for example, you find the EXACT same lists of "proofs" that "evolutionists" supposedly throw around (pepper moths, lung development, eyes etc). Lists of arguments will probably be common from both sides of the argument - much like many other discussions where there are factions.

 

It doesn't change the simple fact that we can observe evolution happen around us, and that we don't need to go back billions of years to document it - speciation happens while we sit here and type. Some will say that the HIV virus is not a good example because it is too small. Fine. But humans are not. Yet they react to the HIV virus just as evolutionary theory predicts: some will fall prey to it, some will die, some will not. Those who do not die from it can pass on the bits and pieces of our genes that makes us adapted. However, those bits and pieces may mean that the next generation(s) happen to be more receptive to some other threat - which will lead to further selection. What was the "strongest" or "fittest" a few generations ago will not be the same today. That is evolution in a nutshell - a constant struggle for survival at all levels.

 

Entire organs are not constructed in single generations. No one who has studied biology or zoology at any level has any reason to think so. It takes an extremely long time, depending on which organ and what creature.

 

I am not going to join in on another debate on ID and evolution. We've had them before and I am fed up of them, because they always end up as flame wars where both sides play ping-pong forever, unwilling to give or take.

 

This is, however, a science forum. So for any ID discussion to take place here, the science aspects of it must be presented. It is *not* enough to question evolution. Evidence to the contrary must be presented and evaluated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to join in on another debate on ID and evolution. We've had them before and I am fed up of them, because they always end up as flame wars where both sides play ping-pong forever, unwilling to give or take.

 

This is, however, a science forum. So for any ID discussion to take place here, the science aspects of it must be presented. It is *not* enough to question evolution. Evidence to the contrary must be presented and evaluated.

 

I agree, and I disagree. We have gone through these discussions many, many times. And they do seem to end in flames. And I am also weary of getting involved.

 

It *is* a science forum. And as such, I enjoy seeing ANY scientific theory questioned. I agree that if an alternate is suggested, some form of 'proof' (for lack of a better word) should be presented. However, I also think that sometimes the best discussions arise from the questions. Often the best part of learning the answer is the journey you take to arrive there. In that spirit, I hope that lack of evidence to the contrary of any accepted idea will not prevent people from continuing their search.

 

Here's to the journey, my friends...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...