Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Who the hell argues teleology? GTFO

There's a lot more to take issue with but I don't have time at the moment, I have to get to class. I'm come back to it if neccessary.

[devonin]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Who the hell argues teleology? GTFO

Ad Hominem for the win. And just when I was starting to respect you as a debater, you crack out the chatspeak, and insults.

I'm come back to it if neccessary.

If necessary? What, you mean if I don't look in the face of your overwhelming argument of "GTFO" and immidiately recant on what I said?

And for what it's worth...I -wasn't- arguing teleology, in fact, I was arguing the furthest you can get from teleology while still considering that something may have started the universe other than randomness. I'm explicitly -against- the idea that the universe was "being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose." Just because I feel it likely enough to consider, that the universe was -created- by an outside force, doesn't in any way imply that I think it was created -for- any reason other than "because I can" or -for- any end other than "To see what happens"

If you -want- to try and argue that simply because I have a causeless cause (which I actually don't, you'll note) I -must- be arguing teleology by all means, go to town. But as far as I'm concerned, a Teleological theory about the universe has to have within it that something created the universe for a specific purpose, and that it moves inexorably towards that exact specific end (as per christian teleological arguments) and it should be pretty clear from what I described that what I said was not that.

[Reach]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Why is it that you assume any person who mentions a creator is automatically referring to the christian image of an omnipotent, omniscient, yet kind loving and benevolent god, probably male and with a big beard, who specifically wanted humans to exist because we're special and he loves us?

I'm not. However, that is what the creationist is arguing. Creationism as I'm referring to it is the literal interpretation of the Bible. Realize this, and then realize my argument is centered around THIS. I can't apply the occams razor logic unless you go out of your way to assume that you know God. So no, I didn't mean to imply that I was talking about the concept of 'God', because I was specifically talking about creationist-biblical interpretations.

Occam's Razor seems -more- likely to want to posit a creator than to posit pure random chance. I mean, just consider the four fundamental forces, heck, just consider Gravitation, and the Strong Nuclear Force. If the strength of the strong nuclear force to bind nuclei to one another was even minutely stronger (And we're talking on the order of 1*10^-50 kind of minute) all elements would condense and condense until we were left with a big ball of iron and other dense metal. If it were weaker by the same minute degree, the only element that could form would be hydrogen. in any case, only the one exact specific value of all the infinite possible ones could have possibly led to the universe as we know it...

Few problems here. You can't know what caused the strong nuclear force to be that way. It could be completely non random. That could be the only possible value for the strong nuclear force, so there is no room for it being 'off'.

Also, occams razor doesn't apply to this. There are no assumptions being made. Occams razor infers the unlikelyhood of something based on how many assumptions are being made about it.

The strong nuclear force exists, and we can measure it. Therefore I don't have to speculate or assume anything. You're applying pure probability to it, which of course you cannot because we have absolutely no understanding of what variables go into determining the strong nuclear force.

And while it's a somewhat cheap way out, the response to "Well then, what created your creator" is to say "If it existed (as I believe) outside our universe, then the question has no answer, because the inability of things to exist but have no cause is a rule of our universe, and may not be a rule of their universe."

That is a great way out, isn't it. "Basically we don't know, so therefore it COULD BE true" is what you're saying. But what I'm saying, is that since we can't know, TRYING to know (i.e. one religion being right over another) is impossible, and that it is infinitely unlikely that you are right according to occams razor.

However, you can't really apply the same logic to a 'God' in general because it encompasses too much ground. It holds within itself an infinite number of possibilities, God could be anything then. I can't deny that 'God' could exist. But I will definitely deny that what you think about God is true



From here I suppose I just throw out the whole idea because...well, I don't like the whole 'well there could be' thing. Yes, a giant flying unicorn could have created the God of our universe, and it's actually only a tiny spec in a marble that the real God is playing a game with in his other God universe, which was created by some other big sponge with 3 teeth. It just goes on and on. Too many 'could be's (an infinite number of them).

[devonin]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

However, that is what the creationist is arguing. Creationism as I'm referring to it is the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Then maybe you should use a term that actually means what you want it to mean? Maybe "Biblical creationism" or "Religious creationism"? Because "creationism" as an actual term has no necessary religious undertones, which is why, as I pointed out, and you so kindly confirmed for me, so many non-religious, evolution-side people are so rudely dismissive of the very tenets of creationism.

You can't know what caused the strong nuclear force to be that way.

Why is it that you're allowed to take something that youself admt we can't actually know the cause of, and are somehow able to say that -your- idea about what caused something you stated we can't know the cause of is valid, and another idea about what caused it is invalid? Either we can't know, and all options are equally invalid due to an absence of proof, or every option ought to at least be -considered- to see if it makes any kind of logical sense.

But what I'm saying, is that since we can't know, TRYING to know (i.e. one religion being right over another) is impossible

In the sense of which you are applying the word 'religion' in this statement, science is merely another religion, and if trying to know is impossible, then the entire discussion is immidiately null and void, and we all default to agnosticism, and say the question is as meaningless as every possible answer.

From here I suppose I just throw out the whole idea because...well, I don't like the whole 'well there could be' thing.

You're saying "Well it could be that it was all random chance" Does that mean we can throw your whole idea out too?

[Reach]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I hate this text stuff. These types of debates are so much better in person.

Then maybe you should use a term that actually means what you want it to mean? Maybe "Biblical creationism" or "Religious creationism"? Because "creationism" as an actual term has no necessary religious undertones, which is why, as I pointed out, and you so kindly confirmed for me, so many non-religious, evolution-side people are so rudely dismissive of the very tenets of creationism.

The term originates from its biblical roots. 'Creationist' has always literally ment 'biblical creationism' (at least in america) and it is never used in any other context. Anything else is always referred to as Intelligent Design. I should have specified, however, let's not cry over spilt milk since you now know what I mean.

Anyway

Why is it that you're allowed to take something that youself admt we can't actually know the cause of, and are somehow able to say that -your- idea about what caused something you stated we can't know the cause of is valid, and another idea about what caused it is invalid? Either we can't know, and all options are equally invalid due to an absence of proof, or every option ought to at least be -considered- to see if it makes any kind of logical sense

That's a long sentence. However, I'm not claiming anything (other than how occams razor must be used and that the measurement of the strong nuclear involves no assumptions. Therefore occams razor prefers natural > design argument.). I'm simply saying you're wrong and there's a huge difference between denial and a claim.

The denial of a claim, given that you can provide no evidence for your claim is not on the same level as a claim o_O. If you make a claim it's your burden of proof (which you provided none, thus the claim is dismissed). My example after what you quoted was simply an example of a 'could be' (an alternative equally as plausable). I also used the word 'could be' in both cases so it is most certainly not a claim.

In the sense of which you are applying the word 'religion' in this statement, science is merely another religion, and if trying to know is impossible, then the entire discussion is immidiately null and void, and we all default to agnosticism, and say the question is as meaningless as every possible answer

Science is most certainly not a religion! I think it's clearer if I say it this way:

Instead of 'trying to know' let's change that to 'making a claim'. This claim is based on their attempt to know. People of radical faith (i.e. they believe the literal interpretation of the bible) are making a claim. They claim to know God, among other things. Since they make a claim, the burden of proof is theirs.

However, they provide none and their claim rests on the hands of an infinite number of assumptions. Therefore, given Occam's Razor, we can dismiss the claim entirely as it is infinitely improbable of being correct. This is why I would deny any stance of a religion.

Science falls nowhere near this ground. Science is the opposite; it makes a claim and then supports it with evidence. It also follows the logic that you must support a claim in order to make it, otherwise your claim is rejected regardless of it being possible or not.

You're saying "Well it could be that it was all random chance" Does that mean we can throw your whole idea out too?

I'm confused. You're doing exactly what some other guy here was complaining about. You've quoting something I said that has nothing to do with your response. Where did I say it was random chance?

Again, I'm denying a claim. I'm denying that religion is true and this has nothing to do with a claim or random chance. You didn't address my argument so there's really nothing else for me to say until you do :S


Also, in your first statement you said that I was rude. Maybe I am coming across as being rude. If so I apologize. I'm only trying to debate the cosmos and have a discussion. Let's keep it serious but completely impersonal.

[devonin]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I hate this text stuff. These types of debates are so much better in person.

Full agreement from me on that one.

The term originates from its biblical roots. 'Creationist' has always literally ment 'biblical creationism' (at least in america) and it is never used in any other context. Anything else is always referred to as Intelligent Design. I should have specified, however, let's not cry over spilt milk since you now know what I mean.

Agreed.

My example after what you quoted was simply an example of a 'could be' (an alternative equally as plausable). I also used the worlds 'could be' in both cases so it is most certainly not a claim.

If it is equally as plausable, why should either option be any more or less worthy? In the previous line you said "I'm simply saying you're wrong" but then say your example was -equally- as plausable?

Science is most certainly not a religion!

I simply meant that in the terminology you were using, you could make that claim and it would be at least somewhat valid, but that's an off-topic issue.

Therefore, given Occam's Razor, we can dismiss the claim entirely as it is infinitely improbable of being correct. This is why I would deny any stance of a religion.

I'm curious what proof you have that the existance of God is -infinitely- improbable, but that the existance of the entire universe by pure random chance is any less improbably.

Science falls nowhere near this ground. Science is the opposite; it makes a claim and then supports it with evidence. It also follows the logic that you must support a claim in order to make it, otherwise your claim is rejected regardless of it being possible or not.

I've found that the more impressive scientific discoveries have been less about building support before making a claim, and more about making a claim, and -then- testing the veracity of that claim through experimentation. To me, some of the best science starts with "Well..what if X"

It's more systemic of mathematics than many other branches of science, but it's outright common to go "What if X....if X what would that -mean-" and then follow the consequences of believeing X all the way up, and only if it looks like it goes somewhere important, do you then set about trying to actually prove X.

I'm confused. You're doing exactly what some other guy here was complaining about. You've quoting something I said that has nothing to do with your response. Where did I say it was random chance?

Well, perhaps we're having another of those fun terminological misunderstandings. In much the same way as you define "creationist" as "Must believe in literal religious version of creation" I tend, for the purposes of the argument, to define "evolutionists" as "the universe exists by chance, everything exists through natural selection via random mutations"

Again, I'm denying a claim. I'm denying that religion is true and this has nothing to do with a claim or random chance. You didn't address my argument so there's really nothing else for me to say until you do :S

Ah...but since my particular "creationist" or I guess I should say "intelligent design" theory has nothing to do with religion...so no, I actually don't need to address your argument that religion is wrong, because I agree with you that it is *grin*

Also, in your first statement you said that I was rude. Maybe I am coming across as being rude. If so I apologize. I'm only trying to debate the cosmos and have a discussion. Let's keep it serious but completely impersonal.

I wasn't actually calling -you- rude, I was more observing that -most- evolutionists assume that creationism -must- be rabidly religious, and thus tend to dismiss intelligent-design style creationsists as though they are automatically christian religious creationsists, that just by believing in -a- creator, they are believeing in THE creator, meaning (usually) christian God. Was never anything personal to you, you just seemed to be exhibiting the behavior, to me, that I've seen a lot, but (as we found out) it was just because I was using the term in a way that misled you, since you more clearly distinguish between types of creationist than I did.

[Reach]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

This is better

If it is equally as plausable, why should either option be any more or less worthy? In the previous line you said "I'm simply saying you're wrong" but then say your example was -equally- as plausable?

Close, but I ment something else. The idea is that neither is more likely. I brought them up to show specifically there are other possibilities, and given that you can't know and you provide no evidence, I can dismiss your claim about the strong nuclear force( as well as mine lol).

I'm curious what proof you have that the existance of God is -infinitely- improbable, but that the existance of the entire universe by pure random chance is any less improbably.

I'm using pure Occam's Razor here. An important aspect of the principle is that more assumptions decrease the likelyhood of something being correct. From here I projected this onto a Newtonian limit, where if you were to assume infinitely, then given the nature of the limit, what you're actually saying is completely improbable.

Now then, pure random chance? Again, I'm not claiming that so avoid the false dichotomy. I could provide a shed of light into this, though:

A purely random chance arisen universe would stem from natural elements (at least under the argument I think you're making). Therefore, the number of assumtions is ineviably contained within the finite relm. Also, given our understanding of science, we can narrow the number of assumptions required down to a few, making the premise entirely more possible than the God argument.

There is no 'proof' per say, it's just a logical argument about likelyhood.

I've found that the more impressive scientific discoveries have been less about building support before making a claim, and more about making a claim, and -then- testing the veracity of that claim through experimentation. To me, some of the best science starts with "Well..what if X"

It's more systemic of mathematics than many other branches of science, but it's outright common to go "What if X....if X what would that -mean-" and then follow the consequences of believeing X all the way up, and only if it looks like it goes somewhere important, do you then set about trying to actually prove X.

That's true. But that's why ideas start off as hypothesis and are not taken seriously, even if they are potentially right. The God argument is merely a hypothesis, not a theory on any grounds. When you can support your idea with concrete evidence then your claim makes ground, thus advancing to a theory.

Well, perhaps we're having another of those fun terminological misunderstandings. In much the same way as you define "creationist" as "Must believe in literal religious version of creation" I tend, for the purposes of the argument, to define "evolutionists" as "the universe exists by chance, everything exists through natural selection via random mutations"

Earlier you cleared up my assumption. Now let's clear up yours XD

Evolutionist ---> pure random chance isn't necessarily true. As an evolutionist I would agree that evolution is true, and that natural selection is at work here on earth. However, evolution doesn't necessarily imply thoughts about the cosmos, as it isn't the job of evolution to explain origin and the fundemental workings of reality.

I'll leave my personal views and thoughts to aim/msn or something, since they really arn't relevant to the topic.

Ah...but since my particular "creationist" or I guess I should say "intelligent design" theory has nothing to do with religion...so no, I actually don't need to address your argument that religion is wrong, because I agree with you that it is *grin*

Well, it's not really your idea. It was just thrown out to everyone.

I'm glad you agree though,

wasn't actually calling -you- rude, I was more observing that -most- evolutionists assume that creationism -must- be rabidly religious, and thus tend to dismiss intelligent-design style creationsists as though they are automatically christian religious creationsists, that just by believing in -a- creator, they are believeing in THE creator, meaning (usually) christian God. Was never anything personal to you, you just seemed to be exhibiting the behavior, to me, that I've seen a lot, but (as we found out) it was just because I was using the term in a way that misled you, since you more clearly distinguish between types of creationist than I did.

I see. I would agree, that usually that is the case but it's best not to assume things because it increases the likelyhood of you being wrong (Occam's razor...love it baby ).

XD!!

But alright man, that's cool. I like you. I see that we're on more even ground than I would have thought. I am not an entirely spiritless person, and wouldn't dismiss the idea of God. At times I find myself being quite spiritual and tending towards my less scientific side. However, I just firmly believe that claims of being correct when talking about something so beyond our understanding...is just, wrong..? XD I don't think you can know God, and claims of knowing God are completely without evidence and dismissed. This nullifies the claims of all earthly religions, and therefore I suscribe to the beliefs of none of them and don't buy the design argument at all.

Anyway, I have a LOT of microbio to be studying right now ;(

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

That's true. But that's why ideas start off as hypothesis and are not taken seriously, even if they are potentially right. The God argument is merely a hypothesis, not a theory on any grounds. When you can support your idea with concrete evidence then your claim makes ground, thus advancing to a theory.

Hmmm... sadly enough i can say that if you dont believe miracles as being acts of God then there is no other 'concrete' proof that God exists in my experience.

Humorous tangent- It's not like many people would suddenly believe God exists if one day a mountain range was normal and then the following day a gigantic inscription read "God exists, deal with it" across the whole mountain. Or in another example, one day a satellite reveals that underwater mountain ranges form a similar inscription.

So there you go, in my opinion, there will never be concrete proof that evolutionists will believe towards the existence of God.

P.S. - I am glad to see that people here spell God properly instead of with a lowercase "g".

[OmegaSyrus]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I dont think things are purely random, wth the beauty of genetic drift and natural selection, even random things can bring about order.
If you think the universe arose from pure chance, than thats your problem. In the first instances of the big bang the universe "chose" (natural selection) our version of particles over anti-matter. <disclaimer: im not purely clear on big bang and abiogenesis, i only know some parts, if i'm wrong, provide me with sites or proof>

I would contend the amount of knowledge devonin has of evolution:

define "evolutionists" as "the universe exists by chance, everything exists through natural selection via random mutations"

Via random mutations?

I would agree that science doesnt cover anything outside our "realm" well. But that doesnt default into belief either. Agnostics would be best for this situation. Deist is a good choice too, and one i support if you really require to hold onto spirituality.

[devonin]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

I don't know that Deism is at all inherantly spiritual. You can easily be both a Deist and a Nihilist (And some days I am both)

My particular belief of Deism goes something like: "Take the current best guess of what created the cosmos [viz: the big bang] Have that particular event's cause be an outside creative influence, proceed as normal"

It's a way to explain the incredibly unlikelyhood of anything existing at all, it's a way to contend with claims that your cause needs a cause ad infinitum, and it seems more likely to me that the answer to "Why are the rules the universe follows the exact specific ones needed for the universe to exist at all?" is "Because something made it that way" instead of "Er...cuz?"

ANd as for my inadvertant mishmash of evolutionary terms to the creation of the universe, it was, as I just said inadvertant. I'm aware that mutation/natural selection is intended by most who support it to refer only to the evolution of life on the planet, and that it's generally not used in relation to the rest of the universe, but you'll have to excuse me, I've been overtired, writing final essays, preparing for final exams, actually writing a paper on Darwin as we speak, and concepts have been running together in my mind, I'll pay closer attention to what I'm saying in the future.

[lord_carbo]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

lol

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

edit: dats really me making the lecture in the video

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

Ad Hominem for the win. And just when I was starting to respect you as a debater, you crack out the chatspeak, and insults.

Yeah, sorry, force of habit. Anyways please don't respect me, I'm not sure I could stand for that sort of thing.

If necessary? What, you mean if I don't look in the face of your overwhelming argument of "GTFO" and immidiately recant on what I said?

Duh.

And for what it's worth...I -wasn't- arguing teleology, in fact, I was arguing the furthest you can get from teleology while still considering that something may have started the universe other than randomness. I'm explicitly -against- the idea that the universe was "being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose." Just because I feel it likely enough to consider, that the universe was -created- by an outside force, doesn't in any way imply that I think it was created -for- any reason other than "because I can" or -for- any end other than "To see what happens"

You seem to be associating force with intelligent force. Without sufficient support (which would likely be impossible) this is an animistic fallacy. This is the core problem with assuming the universe must have been created simply because of raw probability and essential possibility rooted in externality. Sure, things outside our known universe don't have to obey the same laws as our universe. That doesn't mean the cause of the universe is neccessarily animated, and it's also worth noting that making statements about what the possible nature of an external system might be is in some ways begging the question simply because these statements are rooted in this system.

To drive home the point, what is the probability of probability existing? Also, if even logical truisms such as "A & ~A" are rooted in the ruleset of this universe and not neccessarily the case in all conceivable worlds, then what possible good are your linear semantics in making the kind inductive arguments you've been making?

You're stuck arguing possibility. Not even probability, because there is no way of measuring that given the assumptions you've made. This is ultimately hollow. I'd hesitate to describe it as an argument from ignorance, but it's in the same family anyways.

But as far as I'm concerned, a Teleological theory about the universe has to have within it that something created the universe for a specific purpose, and that it moves inexorably towards that exact specific end (as per christian teleological arguments) and it should be pretty clear from what I described that what I said was not that.

Fine. Your post didn't contain every element of a teleological argument. It contained enough elements to make me sad though.

[devonin]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

so here I will strike a mortal blow to the Theory of Evolution.

Odd, if this is all it took, I wonder why the theory of evolution has stood up to the direct gaze of the scientific method for hundreds of years.

When Was “the Beginning”?

The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science does not disprove the Biblical text.

Nor does the bible in this case, contradict or disprove the scientific theory either.

How Long Were the Creative Days?

What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

Nor again does the fact that science does not prove this interpretation of the bible wrong in any way imply that the science is wrong.

Creations Appear Gradually
Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”

So you're arguing that things started at one time, and then over the course of time, through other changes in environment, the state of the earth -evolved- into another form?

According to Their Kinds

Does this progressive appearance of plants and animals imply that God used evolution to produce the vast diversity of living things? No. The record clearly states that God created all the basic “kinds” of plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25) Were these original “kinds” of plants and animals programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions? What defines the boundary of a “kind”? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures “swarmed forth according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a “kind.” Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.

But it -does- support the idea that many things which did exist no longer exist, and many things which do exist now show no signs at all of having existed before certain points...Did God remove some sub-types of "kind" and then create new ones? If so, how and why?

Interestingly, however, in the ancient Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that the universe had a beginning and that life appeared in stages, progressively, over periods of time. How could Moses gain access to such scientifically accurate information some 3,500 years ago? There is one logical explanation. The One with the power and wisdom to create the heavens and the earth could certainly give Moses such advanced knowledge. This gives weight to the Bible’s claim that it is “inspired of God.”—2 Timothy 3:16.

Er...You lost me there...I wasn't aware that "Life appeared in stages" is "Scientifically advanced" information. It makes sense for humans to assume that life was created in stages because God created humans last, as though everything else were created for humans, and it helps to support the idea that humans are the purpose for creation, if everything else was done first, to set the stage for us. Further, human life is visibly created in stages, from conception, through pregnancy, birth, infancy, adolescence and adulthood, as is the case with all living things which reproduce, so I don't see that it's much of a stretch to go from "I can see things being created in stages" to "I bet everything was created in stages too" Hardly cutting edge experimentation even 3,500 years ago.

So, is evolution a Fact?
But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Nope, that's why it's called the -THEORY- of evolution, not the fact of evolution.

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

Again, the THEORY as in, unproven hypothesis with some evidence to support it, but not evidence enough to deem it incontrovertably true, doesn't actually "rest" on those assumptions at all. It -supposes- that natural selection allows for creatues with favourable traits for reproduction to be more apt to reproduce, passing on those changes, and that, given sufficiently diverse changes to environment, isloated groups might favour changes sufficiently different enough to be called another species.

Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered a fact?

Nope, that's why it's called the THEORY of evolution, not the -fact- of evolution.

Can Mutations Produce New Species?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently.

Who is to say that they were wrong? Cutting five million years down to one million years is substantially more efficient, maybe when we've been trying for one million years, you can address whether they succeeded or failed to be more efficient.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.” Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”

They IRRADIATED things. Radiation, harmful to life, destructive to cells, responsible for many -uncontrolled- and -unselected- mutations, caused "bad consequences"? Colour me surprised. "forcing random and uncontrolled mutation through radiation" isn't "speeding evolution along" it's going out of your way to screw stuff up. I'm willing to pretty much invalidate every conclusion of this set of experiments as having tested nothing at all connected to natural evolution.

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

So because using a poorly thought out, destructive method that has nothing to do with the effect they were trying to test for, you accpet someone's conclusion that functionally says "Because we tried in a really poor way to force something to happen, and it didn't happen, it's impossible"? That seems a pretty silly basis to support a conclusion for.

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job?

The "Unintelligent" process is passive, and simply involves liklihoods and probabilities of certain adaptations to thrive, and has precisely nothing to do with bombarding living tissues with radiation to see what happens. Also, 70 years of trying versus millions of years of a passively working process that requires to outside input are hardly equable.

If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Research shows that the particular method tried by some scientists on some types of living thing in a short span of time did not transform a species into another one. That in no way invalidates the mere idea that such a process could take place.

“The Grants have estimated,” continues the brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”

In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.”

So because a drought -didn't- happen once every ten years while these people were watching, it dismisses the idea that -if- a drought happened once every ten years, the expected results could occur? Just because they didn't personally witness what they were needing to witness to support their conclusion doesn't invalidate the logic or the conclusion.

In 1991, Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

Equus asinus and Equus caballus are seperate and distinct species and yet they can reproduce, and in fact, by every genetic standard, the result of that reproduction is itself a third and distinct species...so I'm not sure how just because the finches retain the ability to interbreed they cease to possible be new species.

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of microfossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”

Good think that evolution as put forward by Darwin proposes a means by which organisms, given sufficient change in environment, will eventually select sufficiently diverse qualities as to create a new -species- not new kingdoms, phyla, or classes.

Evolution—Fact or Myth?

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? After criticizing some of Richard Dawkins’ reasoning, influential evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense “because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Yes, and the opinion of one scientist at one time is clearly indicative of the entirety of the scientific community across the whole of recorded history. You're concluding from one isolated report a far too general conclusion about scientists as a whole.

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings.

I believe that there are exceptions to every general statement, but that you cannot allow yourself to dismiss the entire field of study because some people, some of the time, behave in a manner you consider inappropriate.

You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor

From common ancestors, plural. While it is theorized that even those common species could have themselves come from a singular ancestor, it is not necessary to the theory that absolutely 100% of everything started from one pile of goo, that's just a common lies-to-children to make it easier to grasp.

despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time.

And also strongly indicates that old types of plants and animals vanished entirely, and new types of plant and animals that had never before been seen to exist to comeinto being, among many other interesting implications.

Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or on a myth?

It sounds to me like a pretty good theory, that explains a great many things about the evidence we've seen through experimental science, anthropology, geology, biology, chemistry and other fields, that has withstood a great deal of scrutiny from much greater minds than you or I, and survived largely intact while other theories and ideas have fallen by the wayside in the face of evidence.

As -worst- it sounds to me to be at -least- as convincing a theory as the one you put forward about biblical creation. At least evidence for evolutionary theory is found from more sources than just The Origin of Species.

[Baby-]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

ok gotta favor what about narrowing the field down to how humans were created
by either evolution, or the God theory"
i need a debate on it for a project
it would be so helpful
i personally dont believe in evolution or " creationism"
tho i would lean towards evo.
to me we r just here because we r
i wold explain mor but it wold be to complicated i would get myself confused ( sometimes hehe)!! to many possibilities

[devonin]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

ok gotta favor what about narrowing the field down to how humans were created
by either evolution, or the God theory"

So uh...the entire thread then?

i need a debate on it for a project
it would be so helpful

We're here to debate and discuss, not do people's homework for them.