The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[Columbusite]

I have expressed my displeasure with over half the Ohio board of education for voting to keep a lesson plan, which while not teaching ID outright, does allow it equal footing with a "critical analysis" of evolution which is not scientific. I went there in person and funny thing is having just read this last page is that one board member tried to discredit pro-science university professors by their being "liberal" in opposing an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2004. As was already said, "liberal" has nothing to do with it (neither does gay marriage) and it has nothing to do with evolution and is plain stupid to bring up. I did reply to that previously made statement, saying that supporting gay marriage isn't "liberal", it's the American thing to do and we should follow the Constitution. I also explained how ID isn't scientific since it says living things are too complex and must have been created. So, I guess we shouldn't bother with science, since it's just "too complex" and saying that we must have been created, umm, says who? I'm certain there will be a lawsuit by AU and there is plenty of documentation that there are parts of the lesson plans straight out of ID and creationist literature.

 

[Thinker]

Does Steen really want me too take him seriously?

Furthermore, I have no reason to concede so I shall keep this discussion going. What was your last attack again?

All you have to do is present ONE piece of evidence for ID, just ONE.
I hope that is simple enough for you, but remember: "I'm right because I think
you are wrong" is neither evidence nor a logical conclusion.

Despite repeated requests for such evidence, not a single shred has ever
been produced. As a result of this complete lack of evidence, supporters of
ID resort to attacks on evolution, usually based on a complete
misunderstanding of what evolution is about and misrepresenations or lies.

The difference is clear: supporters of evolution present huge amounts of
evidence that can be examined and discussed; supporters of ID produce no
evidence at all.

 

[tecoyah]

supporters of evolution present huge amounts of
evidence that can be examined and discussed; supporters of ID produce no
evidence at all.

And here.....we have a little slice of Reality, in an otherwise clouded stand-up routine.

 

[CaliNORML]

Evolution can attest to what we do see, the complex systems that make up a human body however can not truly be described anywhere else.

More than just survive, feed and reproduce, systems that are beyond survival of the species immediate needs. What was it in humans that seems to drive them towards an intelligent end in this process? and why is it only us and not other creatures?

Art, abstract, and metaphysical concepts are available to our physical bodies, and none other. Looking at evolution there is something that makes us more intelligent.

I am not saying "god" did it, or a little green man, but something did push us towards this end. Something did make us intelligent. Chemicals, diet, what ever it was needs to be examined. This "God" that did it may turn out to be something physical we can study.

Indeed we were designed to be intelligent, our design is genetically similar to chimps why did they not evolve to where we are today?

KMS

 

[steen]

Evolution can atest to what we do see, the complex systems that make up a human body however are composed can not truly be described.

Well, that depends on what you mean with "truly." We can certainly describe each component in detail.

More than just survive, feed and reproduce, systems that are beyond survival of the species immediate needs. What was it in humans that seems to drive them toward an intelligent end in this process? and why is it only us and not other creatures?

Art, abstract, and metaphysical concepts are available to our physical bodies, and none other. Looking at evolution there is something that makes us more intelligent.

Well, that is our competitive advantage

I am not saying "god" did it, or a little green man, but something did push us towards this end. Something did make us intelligent.

Our environment. Since we weren't particularly fast, couldn't fly, couldn't really survive on grass or similar, we had to rely on what did help us survive, such as our dexterity and adaptability to new and unique situations. And the brightest individuals were likely to utilize this the most effective in bringing offspring to adulthood. Anything that selects for this will push evolution toward such traits.

Chemicals, diet, what ever it was needs to be examined.

It was natural selection.

This "God" that did it may turn out to be something physical we can study.

We already did.

Indeed we were designed to be intelligent, our design is genetically similar to chimps why did they not evolve to where we are today?

For one, chimps stayed in the forest where the food and shelter was more abundant. So did the gorilla, so did the orangutan. Seems like the apes do better in the forest environment. We bucked the trend but needed a hefty dose of evolutionary change to succeed.

And the price was hefty {warning: The following is majorly speculation, although it is borrowed in part for several sources}. The fossils indicate a rather widespread difference in changes in the initial exploration of the niche, leading to multiple species. But only one or two survived the initial changes and eventually only one lead to us, the one who could out-compete everybody else. Possibly, if we didn't have to struggle so much in the beginning against the other species, we wouldn't have evolved such a successful ability to adapt to our environment in general, and might have lazily specialized into some unique, specialized niche that would leave us more vulnerable to extinction. But because of potentially rapid changes in environment as we had to adapt to competition from multiple sources, we specialized in change, in not getting wiped out in suddenly having to shift to new environments. And that meant the need for smarts and hence a pretty hefty IQ as the biosphere goes.

Yes, speculation. But not impossible. Certainly not leaving "but God MUST have done it" as not a necessity.

 

[Engimo]

Evolution can attest to what we do see, the complex systems that make up a human body however can not truly be described anywhere else.

More than just survive, feed and reproduce, systems that are beyond survival of the species immediate needs. What was it in humans that seems to drive them towards an intelligent end in this process? and why is it only us and not other creatures?

Nothing. You are aware of the fact that there were multiple species of human-like, intelligent ancestors around at the same time, right? It's not like we were unique, it's just that homo sapiens came out on top - remember the neanderthals? There were 18-19 other species of human-like organisms that existed at one point, they just died out and we overtook them. There is nothing driving us towards intelligence, it's just a trait that lets us survive the best. Somewhere along the line we developed intelligence and because of the overwhelming advantage that affords us - we kept it.

Art, abstract, and metaphysical concepts are available to our physical bodies, and none other. Looking at evolution there is something that makes us more intelligent.

I am not saying "god" did it, or a little green man, but something did push us towards this end. Something did make us intelligent. Chemicals, diet, what ever it was needs to be examined. This "God" that did it may turn out to be something physical we can study.

Indeed, we have much to understand about the structure of the brain and why we exhibit sentience and creativity - but Occam's Razor dictates that there is no reason to include God in our final answer when there is most probably a naturalistic explanation for why this is so.

Indeed we were designed to be intelligent, our design is genetically similar to chimps why did they not evolve to where we are today?

KMS

A common misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory. We shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but because of environmental factors we branched off from them and evolved differently. It's as simple as that, it has nothing to do with genetic similarities - it has to do with different natural selection.

 

[CaliNORML]

As you said, we branched from them, somewhere near Asia. We had an evolutionary event that affected humans to become more than those others, a higher intelligence.

Music and art are not natural needs, except for us. The concept of immortality, is only in us. The brain does in deed seem to be the key.

We may have started walking upright when a flood hit the forest our far ancestory lived in, walking through the water to collect food would have caused a shift in the hip bone and strengthened the legs, making us walk upright, evolution. Physicaly change to meet our surroundings, providing for better survival. This is out of the evolution process of simply meeting our basic needs better in humans went way beyond that from others we had risen along side.

The emotional, language, communication, and other instincts humans have developed are ours alone. Art, Music, and spirituality are not found in the evolution of other species and are un-necessary to survive, humans are indeed singled out in this fact.

What was this factor that caused this intelligence to blossom among humans granting us this sight to a diminsion beyond what we see?

What if it was ooooooooo lets say a plant, not "God" that humans came upon and started to use in their diet. A natural chemical that provided us a link internaly to the frontal brain. No physical evidence can be found of soft tissue systems such as the brain and nervous system, yet it is evident something started within us to spark this intelligent quota we have today.

Continued use of this unknown factor could have allowed man to access his brain in such a manner as to even "Create God" to explain what he was only starting to understand, and could see around him, but not prove.

This time in Evolution History of man meets anthropology and shows us rituals, buring the dead, and the famous cave paintings, that was a huge jump from only survival to a mind set of abstract.

KMS

 

[oracle25]

Nothing. You are aware of the fact that there were multiple species of human-like, intelligent ancestors around at the same time, right? It's not like we were unique, it's just that homo sapiens came out on top - remember the neanderthals? There were 18-19 other species of human-like organisms that existed at one point, they just died out and we overtook them. There is nothing driving us towards intelligence, it's just a trait that lets us survive the best. Somewhere along the line we developed intelligence and because of the overwhelming advantage that affords us - we kept it.

No. At least if this was true no proof of it has ever been found. Neanderthals were just monkeys, they were not intelligent. Furthermore, it has been proven that Neanderthals could not have evolved into humans, it's nasal cavity is too big. And no species of "intelligent" ape like this has ever been found.... except maybe if you count pitdown man:lol:

 

[oracle25]

This time in Evolution History of man meets anthropology and shows us rituals, buring the dead, and the famous cave paintings, that was a huge jump from only survival to a mind set of abstract.

Many species bury there dead, that doesn't prove any evolutionary superiority.

 

[steen]

No. At least if this was true no proof of it has ever been found. Neanderthals were just monkeys, they were not intelligent.

Well, that's a rather brazen claim, when they had burial rituals, used tools, etc.

Furthermore, it has been proven that Neanderthals could not have evolved into humans, it's nasal cavity is too big.

They were our cousins, not our ancestors. That aside, your claim is utterly silly. Please provide evidence that the size of a nasal cavity precludes evolution into another species. No? Uum, as I expected, your knowledge of evolution is just about zero.

And no species of "intelligent" ape like this has ever been found.... except maybe if you count pitdown man

Please show where the Scientific Theory of Evolution EVER relied on the piltdown (please get the spelling right to not confuse people) man forgery.

Now, do you have any factual claims to make, or will we just see more of the same from you? Do you have any evidence you can actually present for your wild claims?

 

[steen]

Many species bury there dead, that doesn't prove any evolutionary superiority.

Really? "many species" do that? And place flowers in the grave and whatnot?

I am intrigued by your claim. Would you mind providing the evidence for your claim regarding the "many species"?

Or did you just dishonestly make that up?

 

[tecoyah]

No. At least if this was true no proof of it has ever been found. Neanderthals were just monkeys, they were not intelligent. Furthermore, it has been proven that Neanderthals could not have evolved into humans, it's nasal cavity is too big. And no species of "intelligent" ape like this has ever been found.... except maybe if you count pitdown man:lol:

I would like to recommend you study up a bit on a subject....before you attempt to debate it:

http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/neandertal.html

"Researchers working in the US and Germany have extracted a short segment of mtDNA from the Neandertal type specimen and opened the door to a new era in the molecular study of human evolution. The landmark research primarily proves the feasibility of obtaining ancient mtDNA from human fossils. The resulting statistical reconstructions of genetic lineages add more evidence pointing to Africa as the origin of human mtDNA patterns. Writing in the July 11 issue of Cell, Matthias Krings and Svante Paabo at the University of Munich and Anne Stone and Mark Stoneking of Pennsylvania State University report that the mtDNA sequence is, very different from sequences that correspond to those of modern humans. Paabo and his coworkers used the mitochondrial control region of the 30 kyr Neandertal 1, (kept at the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Germany), and then copied and amplified that genetic material, (consisting of 379 base pairs), with the help of two human primers that matched the beginning of the Neandertal sequence. When they compared the samples there were, on average, 27 differences between the human samples and that of the Neandertals at sites in the sequence where modifications are known to occur. The average difference is seven among modern humans at sites of known genetic modifications. According to Stoneking, if European Neandertals had interbred with modern humans they should display a close match to modern Europeans."

Though I would Imagine you would prefer this site:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0217neandertal.asp

Not science by any means...but still, interesting.

Neadertal was far from a monkey....and seems to have had a culture unto itself. I find it rather silly for those who hide heads in the sand where science is concerned...to attempt a valid discussion on the very things they spend lifetimes ignoring. You certainly have every right to distrust the scientific literature on Human Evolution, but do not be at all suprised when those who have actually read, and understand the Data ....disagree with you, and submit evidence contrary to your beliefs. You may simply want to avoid these discussions, as they run counter to the myth you adhere to.

 

[oracle25]

I would like to recommend you study up a bit on a subject....before you attempt to debate it:

http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/neandertal.html

"Researchers working in the US and Germany have extracted a short segment of mtDNA from the Neandertal type specimen and opened the door to a new era in the molecular study of human evolution. The landmark research primarily proves the feasibility of obtaining ancient mtDNA from human fossils. The resulting statistical reconstructions of genetic lineages add more evidence pointing to Africa as the origin of human mtDNA patterns. Writing in the July 11 issue of Cell, Matthias Krings and Svante Paabo at the University of Munich and Anne Stone and Mark Stoneking of Pennsylvania State University report that the mtDNA sequence is, very different from sequences that correspond to those of modern humans. Paabo and his coworkers used the mitochondrial control region of the 30 kyr Neandertal 1, (kept at the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Germany), and then copied and amplified that genetic material, (consisting of 379 base pairs), with the help of two human primers that matched the beginning of the Neandertal sequence. When they compared the samples there were, on average, 27 differences between the human samples and that of the Neandertals at sites in the sequence where modifications are known to occur. The average difference is seven among modern humans at sites of known genetic modifications. According to Stoneking, if European Neandertals had interbred with modern humans they should display a close match to modern Europeans."

I suggest you do some more research yourself. The evolutionist who studied neanderthal admitted that it could not have evolved into a human, it was also not intelligent (at least not more so than any monkey today).

Though I would Imagine you would prefer this site:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0217neandertal.asp

Not science by any means...but still, interesting.

You have given no reason why this is not scientific, perhaps you should before making ridiculous claims. I would like to remind you that all of the scientists who work at AiG are highly qualified. And they have received many honors in the scientific community. And most of them are former atheists, who realized how ridiculous evolution was.

Neaderthal was far from a monkey....and seems to have had a culture unto itself. I find it rather silly for those who hide heads in the sand where science is concerned...to attempt a valid discussion on the very things they spend lifetimes ignoring. You certainly have every right to distrust the scientific literature on Human Evolution, but do not be at all suprised when those who have actually read, and understand the Data ....disagree with you, and submit evidence contrary to your beliefs. You may simply want to avoid these discussions, as they run counter to the myth you adhere to.

You have submitted no evidence, other than a DNA test, whatever that proves. It amazes me how ignorant some people who don't really study things can be.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I suggest you do some more research yourself. The evolutionist who studied neanderthal admitted that it could not have evolved into a human, it was also not intelligent (at least not more so than any monkey today).

You have given no reason why this is not scientific, perhaps you should before making ridiculous claims. I would like to remind you that all of the scientists who work at AiG are highly qualified. And they have received many honors in the scientific community. And most of them are former atheists, who realized how ridiculous evolution was.

You have submitted no evidence, other than a DNA test, whatever that proves. It amazes me how ignorant some people who don't really study things can be.

Ignorance my be blissful, but it's not a virtue. You do yourself a disservice when you glorify your own ignorance.

Furthermore, I don't think anyone actually in this debate had suggested Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals. The Extent that was mentioned is they were cousins to humans, and they were not monkies.

Neanderthals, also, have been suggested to be very intelligent, maybe even more so than humans, but neanderthals posessed lesser communication ability (all this surmised by examining the skulls). It's human communication, and thus our strength in numbers, ability to share expirience and events, and pass on technological information, that gave us the ability to survive better than suggested more intelligent animals, or at least, as intelligent animals.

It is also our communication ability that is manifest in art, asthetics, music, ritual and the like. (CaliNORML)

 

[tecoyah]

It amazes me how ignorant some people who don't really study things can be.

Sometimes.....people simply react in such a way...to show the futility of debate. You win....the insults definately proved you correct, Later.

 

[nkgupta80]

I suggest you do some more research yourself. The evolutionist who studied neanderthal admitted that it could not have evolved into a human, it was also not intelligent (at least not more so than any monkey today).

You have given no reason why this is not scientific, perhaps you should before making ridiculous claims. I would like to remind you that all of the scientists who work at AiG are highly qualified. And they have received many honors in the scientific community. And most of them are former atheists, who realized how ridiculous evolution was.

You have submitted no evidence, other than a DNA test, whatever that proves. It amazes me how ignorant some people who don't really study things can be

not really....most scientists at answers in genesis show how incompetent they are when u simply read their take on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or their faulty knowledge of biology. When you have the greatest medical minds, and nobel prize winners supporting evolution, you knwo that these guys at AiG have a problem.

secondly, i always have to point this out, evolution has too many applciations in science to be considered false. When a theory shows repeatable success in other fields of studies it gains much credibilitiy. In all biological field research and medical reasearch, evolution gives a logical basis behind the research and experiments carried out by science. I mean this point just seems to go over ur heads, u never think to consider it. You mame modern biology and medicine when u discredit evolution.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Many species bury there dead, that doesn't prove any evolutionary superiority.

Name 'em. xxx

 

[oracle25]

not really....most scientists at answers in genesis show how incompetent they are when u simply read their take on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or their faulty knowledge of biology. When you have the greatest medical minds, and nobel prize winners supporting evolution, you knwo that these guys at AiG have a problem.

secondly, i always have to point this out, evolution has too many applciations in science to be considered false. When a theory shows repeatable success in other fields of studies it gains much credibilitiy. In all biological field research and medical reasearch, evolution gives a logical basis behind the research and experiments carried out by science. I mean this point just seems to go over ur heads, u never think to consider it. You mame modern biology and medicine when u discredit evolution.

You have offered no evidence for these faulty claims about Answers in Genesis. I would point out that you probably have very little understanding about the second law of thermodynamics. You will have to give me examples of their "faulty" understanding of biology, I doubt you have any. Especially when you consider the qualifications of there lead biologist.

Secondly, evolution has no importance to science. There are no examples of evolution in modern science. You have things changing but you do not have any new DNA information being produced.

 

[libertarian_knight]

You have offered no evidence for these faulty claims about Answers in Genesis. I would point out that you probably have very little understanding about the second law of thermodynamics. You will have to give me examples of their "faulty" understanding of biology, I doubt you have any. Especially when you consider the qualifications of there lead biologist.

Secondly, evolution has no importance to science. There are no examples of evolution in modern science. You have things changing but you do not have any new DNA information being produced.

Yes, there is http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

 

[Engimo]

You have offered no evidence for these faulty claims about Answers in Genesis. I would point out that you probably have very little understanding about the second law of thermodynamics. You will have to give me examples of their "faulty" understanding of biology, I doubt you have any. Especially when you consider the qualifications of there lead biologist.

Oh, the irony. If I could distill it and sell the irony contained within this single quote, I could make billions.

Unfortunately, sir, you are the one with absolutely zero knowledge of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is a misunderstanding that stems from a total misunderstanding of what the law says. As a physicist, let me tell you that the Second Law in no way prohibits Evolution from occuring.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says, mathematically, that dS/dT ? 0. That is, the rate-change of entropy (S) is greater than or equal to zero.

What this means, in English, is:

The entropy of a closed system will not decrease for any sustained period of time.

The key phrase here is closed system. The Earth, my friend, is not a closed system. We have this thing called "The Sun" that provides massive quantities of energy to Earth continuously. Yes, the net entropy of the solar system is becoming greater, but that does not mean that the open system of the Earth cannot have increasing complexity.

Answer this: If complex things cannot arise spontaneously, how do you propose that snowflakes appear?

This entire argument is bunk and is based on a total lack of knowledge of elementary physics, so don't try and act all condescending when it is you who truly do not know what is going on.

Secondly, evolution has no importance to science. There are no examples of evolution in modern science. You have things changing but you do not have any new DNA information being produced.

...Are you thick? Ever hear of this little thing called Influenza? Why do you think flu shots lose their effectiveness and you have to get new ones every year? It's called Evolution, buddy. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology and medicine - without it, nothing makes sense at all.

 

[oracle25]

Organisms DNA will reshuffle itself creating new combinations to accommodate defenses to obstacles, but no NEW information is created. When you remove the obstacle the organism's DNA reverts back to it's original form. Again NO NEW INFORMATION IS CREATED.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Organisms DNA will reshuffle itself creating new combinations to accommodate defenses to obstacles, but no NEW information is created. When you remove the obstacle the organism's DNA reverts back to it's original form. Again NO NEW INFORMATION IS CREATED.

Yes, there is http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

 

[oracle25]

Answer this: If complex things cannot arise spontaneously, how do you propose that snowflakes appear?

Every single thing in a complex organism has a purpose. Without the complexity of the organism it could not survive. A snowflakes design, while complex in that artistic way, is not irreducibly complex. If you remove part of a snowflake it's not going to keep it from falling to the ground. This is a ridiculous analogy, please think next time.

 

[oracle25]

Yes, there is http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Read this article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

It deals specifically with this "evidence".

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says, mathematically, that dS/dT ? 0. That is, the rate-change of entropy (S) is greater than or equal to zero.

What this means, in English, is:



The key phrase here is closed system. The Earth, my friend, is not a closed system. We have this thing called "The Sun" that provides massive quantities of energy to Earth continuously. Yes, the net entropy of the solar system is becoming greater, but that does not mean that the open system of the Earth cannot have increasing complexity.

What's scary is that I know mechanical engineers that refuse to understand this when it's applied to their religious biases, though they certainly had to know the right answers to get their degrees.