Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[devonin]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

It would be interesting to see if someone can bring up an example where the world is imperfect that doesn't have human intervention......

That depends on how you define "imperfect"

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Not really. Perfection will always be an ideal, something intangible and more importantly connected directly to human existence. Without human beings we wouldn't have the human assessment "imperfect". Now, if you want to define perfection and imperfection in terms of real, observable things that's fine. Then we have a direct correspondence between the word and reality. But as long as "imperfect" retains pejorative quality, that part of the word ends up meaningless without human beings around because valuations are only the product of and for human beings.

[devonin]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Well, from the context of his post (I was advised over in 'stem cell research' to 'learn to read context') he seems to be saying "Maybe the world -was- perfect, and humans came along and screwed it up" and wants to see a case where the world isn't perfect that wasn't our fault. In that case, I think asking him for the definition -he- used for "imperfect" when he said it, before trying to give him the example he's looking for is a perfectly valid course.

[Curlyguy]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I guess then it might be reasonable for me to elaborate on that area (and avoid one of those discussions where people argue the philosophy of word meanings) .When I say that something is imperfect I mean that it could be logically improved. So for example, in cellular respiration NAD efficiently transports more electrons than FAD and therefore it yields more ATP. However FAD is still readily available in the cell and competes with NAD to reduce the Electron transfer chain. Wouldn't it make more sense if FAD didn't exist in the cell at all? Doesn't it seem that this system is imperfect? (However this is not a good example because FAD is alternatively more efficient in different cell processes, but it somewhat shows what I am looking for). I don't think it is a good point to say "God" can't exist because there are flaws in the world's design, when really humans account for the most obvious flaws. I feel an extremely valid point could be made by suggesting that something non-human related is essentailly not as well designed as it could be. (I hope it sort of makes sense what i am saying, and i appreciate devonin actually trying to make logical sense of things)

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I don't think it is a good point to say "God" can't exist because there are flaws in the world's design, when really humans account for the most obvious flaws.

But (assuming his existence) God made humans...

and yet I already know how you'll finish that sentence.

[The Mirror Image]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Well, I've always had a thought that perhaps one day on Earth is like a second, a breath to God. I'm religious, yeah, and I'm pretty proud. I don't think the Bible is a quack, I just think that maybe our scale of time is a 'little' off-kilter compared to what an hour is to God.

Maybe our planet only lasts one God Hour.

That's what I think.

My question, though:

How exactly was life formed on Earth? Why not on any other planets, ones that could ADAPT to the planet's atmosphere?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

How exactly was life formed on Earth? Why not on any other planets, ones that could ADAPT to the planet's atmosphere?

It would be very difficult for life to adapt in this way. The efficiency of the respiration process is very much reliant on the properties of the atmosphere. Basically, even if life did somehow come into existence in an extreme environment and adapt, it would probably remain composed of very simple organisms because the environment couldn't support anything else. I doubt in most instances it would even get past the single-celled phase, but my knowledge of science let alone biology is extremely limited so please don't hold me to anything from "probably" onward.

There are doubtlessly scientifically supported requirements for life to arise as well, but they don't immediately spring to mind at least in part because of conjecture that life could possibly have different properties, such as being silicon based rather than carbon based, despite the fact all life on this planet is carbon based.

[The Mirror Image]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Yeah, but our environment can be rather extreme if you analyze it from an outside view, and perhaps from other animals' POV.

Let's take frogs. Frogs are very sensitive to their environment and they usually sense changes right away. They need a delicate balance in order to survive. To them, (as long as you don't do it subtly) a change in temperature can FREAK them out.

What this has to do with evolution, I don't know...I'm just typing what he's telling me to.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Um. I don't know how you would measure "extremeness" in an environment, but the point isn't how extreme the environment is from any given perspective, rather that the environment contains everything neccessary as understood by science for life to exist. Frogs... well, different animals adapt to different environments on this planet based on what's neccessary to survive in that environment and is therefore passed on to offspring. Thus the variety between species and even within them. Frogs respirate differently than mammals, but they still utilize the same resources, and they're still composed of the same basic material. Life has to start though before evolution can begin slowly conditioning it to its environment through heredity.

[The Mirror Image]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Yes.

Thanks, now I understand a little more.

^^ Back to the naiveness.