Evolution

[Seb!]

for all you saying that it's more logic that god made everything than evolution coming from nothing; where the heck did god come from?

First of all, you're equating two beliefs that have nothing common. They are not even on the same subject.

Second of all, a divine being wouldn't have an origin or he wouldn't be divine. The source of life as described through evolution is much more questionable than the easily-digested concept of an omniscient deity.

 

[Kenny]

First of all, you're equating two beliefs that have nothing common. They are not even on the same subject.

This debate is about evolution verse the concept of creationism (or creation by god).

The source of life as described through evolution is much more questionable than the easily-digested concept of an omniscient deity.

If evolution wasn't questionable, then it wouldn't be science, since everything in science can be debated if given sufficient evidence. On the other hand, the concept of an "omniscient diety" can be questioned, but not much can be done about changing it, since it is the higher powers of the religion that have the power to change it, but they believe in these concepts, so its kind of useless. And most sufficient evidence against the fact would just be rejected.

 

[vypur85]

Evolution doesn't detail the origin of life.

QFT again. Do not always confuse evolution and how life was created. They are of different topic. This has been mentioned several times, I think.


> prokaryotes (cells without internal structures)
I think 'cell without internal structures' is not the best way to describe them. They're more like 'nucleus-less' and 'less complex'. As for the prokaryotes 'attacking' eukaryotes, they seem more like endosymbiont theory of how mitochondria was found. But it's been a long time since I've touched genetics, so I might be wrong here.

Anyway, Google is a very strong tool to solve questions that you can't find answer of. Some theories of Origin of Life. Though, Wikipedia is never the best source to find any answers but it's still useful .

 

[New_U.S.]

Wow, Freshman Bio class all over. Anyways, the basics of genetics works with two alleles making a genotype and phenotype. Basically what this means you get two letters that mean different forms of a trait. One letter is dominant over the other. Really, the important thing to see out of this is that these letters affect the phenotype (or how it actually looks in nature).

Since that is probably really confusing, heres an example-
Say the letter H meant an animal would be tall, and the letter h meant it would be short. An animal would inheret a set of two of these possible. Capital letters are dominent. Lower Case Recessive.

HH- Pure Tall
Hh- Tall, but cares the gene for shortness
hh- Pure Short

Sometimes anomilies occur in the system. This happens all the time and ususally nature gets rid of them pretty quick. Think of it this way, if a rabbit in a snowy climate somehow got the gene for brown hair, do you think it would last long enough to reproduce? However sometimes these 'new traits' benefit the organism and it better adapts to its enviroment.

Take A LOT of small adaptation over a long period of time while separating a species of animal, and eventually you will get two different species. Thats the general idea of evolution. I like it. Its probably right. Yet thats not saying "fuck you" to the church.

Ok. Creationism is based off the idea that God created everything in six days. Yay God? However I find that that is a very literal way of looking at it. Thats how you get these stupid kids that think narrowly in the tiny slit of space the Bible told them to think. However take a step back. Say one day = a lot more time, and we progressively got from day one to day six. Maybe it can work a bit better then.... (however some people have told me im going to hell for thinking like this xD)

Anyways, there how evolution works so nicely, how creationism is an EXTREME literalist basterdization of it, and my shot at converting you to my way of thinking

-New_U.S.

 

[Varine]

Wow, Freshman Bio class all over. Anyways, the basics of genetics works with two alleles making a genotype and phenotype. Basically what this means you get two letters that mean different forms of a trait. One letter is dominant over the other. Really, the important thing to see out of this is that these letters affect the phenotype (or how it actually looks in nature).

Since that is probably really confusing, heres an example-
Say the letter H meant an animal would be tall, and the letter h meant it would be short. An animal would inheret a set of two of these possible. Capital letters are dominent. Lower Case Recessive.

HH- Pure Tall
Hh- Tall, but cares the gene for shortness
hh- Pure Short

Sometimes anomilies occur in the system. This happens all the time and ususally nature gets rid of them pretty quick. Think of it this way, if a rabbit in a snowy climate somehow got the gene for brown hair, do you think it would last long enough to reproduce? However sometimes these 'new traits' benefit the organism and it better adapts to its enviroment.

Take A LOT of small adaptation over a long period of time while separating a species of animal, and eventually you will get two different species. Thats the general idea of evolution. I like it. Its probably right. Yet thats not saying "fuck you" to the church.

Ok. Creationism is based off the idea that God created everything in six days. Yay God? However I find that that is a very literal way of looking at it. Thats how you get these stupid kids that think narrowly in the tiny slit of space the Bible told them to think. However take a step back. Say one day = a lot more time, and we progressively got from day one to day six. Maybe it can work a bit better then.... (however some people have told me im going to hell for thinking like this xD)

Anyways, there how evolution works so nicely, how creationism is an EXTREME literalist basterdization of it, and my shot at converting you to my way of thinking

-New_U.S.

Well the Bible never says Earthly days. Given that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, there wouldn't have even been a defined day on Earth.

However, if you believe in God, then you should probably believe he is all powerful and can figure it out from there.

 

[w/e]

Everything Nox has said is pretty much what I would have said.

 

[Kershbob]

As an English biology student I find it odd that there's people in the modern world who try to claim that evolution doesn't happen or that the Theory of Evolution does not explain the complexity of life.

I accept the Theory of Evolution and believe there's no god.

Also; the brief summary of abiogenesis given in this topic isn't really accurate at all. The most commonly accepted lineage goes

RNA-like molecules
Last Common Ancestor
(Massive amounts of ambigious protobion-esque life)
Prokaryotes
(More ambigious lineage)
Prokaryotes / Eukaryotes (via symbiotic relationships) / Archea (via symbiotic relationships)

Bacteria never evolved into plants. I can go into this a bit better when I'm at home.

 

[Varine]

As an English biology student I find it odd that there's people in the modern world who try to claim that evolution doesn't happen or that the Theory of Evolution does not explain the complexity of life.

I accept the Theory of Evolution and believe there's no god.

And as a rational person who doesn't really believe in you anyway, I want to believe that something happens when I die. Maybe you don't, but then again maybe you haven't seen death very much in your life. And as a conclusion to that, the idealism of biology tries to explain how life works, but it doesn't because it doesn't address why it works like it does and why it evolved like it did. And your timeline, which doesn't explain anything more than what most people already understand, really isn't going to change anyone's mind.

 

[Kershbob]

And as a rational person who doesn't really believe in you anyway, I want to believe that something happens when I die. Maybe you don't, but then again maybe you haven't seen death very much in your life. And as a conclusion to that, the idealism of biology tries to explain how life works, but it doesn't because it doesn't address why it works like it does and why it evolved like it did. And your timeline, which doesn't explain anything more than what most people already understand, really isn't going to change anyone's mind.

First of; don't separate yourself from me because you want to believe in the supernatural. Of course I want unicorns and Ymir to exist, that'd be awesome, but this is not rational or scientific and as a Theravada these are the things I strive for in my understanding of the world.

You don't believe I'm a biology student? This probably won't sway you but I study Bsc Microbiology (second year) at NTU and my student number is N0202603.

Oh and in no way does rational thought lead to the supernatural as there is no evidence present for such. I think it is hypocritical to believe in just a few select things that have no evidence; either take everything or nothing and then you may call yourself rational to at least some degree.

The "timeline" was for the benefit of those interested in life straight after the current abiogenesis theory.

Also please list all the things biology doesn't explain and I will correct you by citing the current explanation (n.b. do not bring up the supernatural as this is never commented on by science).

 

[New_U.S.]

First of; don't separate yourself from me because you want to believe in the supernatural. Of course I want unicorns and Ymir to exist, that'd be awesome, but this is not rational or scientific and as a Theravada these are the things I strive for in my understanding of the world.

You don't believe I'm a biology student? This probably won't sway you but I study Bsc Microbiology (second year) at NTU and my student number is N0202603.

Oh and in no way does rational thought lead to the supernatural as there is no evidence present for such. I think it is hypocritical to believe in just a few select things that have no evidence; either take everything or nothing and then you may call yourself rational to at least some degree.

The "timeline" was for the benefit of those interested in life straight after the current abiogenesis theory.

Also please list all the things biology doesn't explain and I will correct you by citing the current explanation (n.b. do not bring up the supernatural as this is never commented on by science).

When he says life after death, he's not talking about unicorns and ghosts and monsters, he's talking about God... Being a scientists or believing in evolution does not stop someone from having some sort of religion.

Through all of this though, I got a kick out of the amount of energy you put into proving that you were, in fact, studying science. You even went as far to say what college you study at and what your student ID is. I believe that you are a student studying microbiology at NTU. I just don't see where anything you said in the last post would refute what Varine said.

 

[Kershbob]

His point seems to be that what science doesn't currently know (even though the point was left unspecific; most likely as Biological studies have explained whatever point) is impossible to know or will never be known or is too difficult to know and therefore there must be a supernatural explanation.

This is neither logical or scientific and therefore requires no comment. But if I must; it is comfortable to give questions an answer but this does not mean in any circumstance that you can jump from "I don't know" to "Magic". "I don't know yet" is always an acceptable answer.

And to your point of religion; I myself am a practicing Theravada Buddhist (don't put much time into nowadays but still try and better myself through it) and it doesn't interfere or conflict with my belief system or lifestyle at all.

Now the Abrahamic religions that actively say that knowledge is a sin/evil and promote faith and look down on science (even to this day), quite frankly, disgust me.

 

[emjlr3]

why it works like it does and why it evolved like it did

biology takes care of why it evolved like it did, just fine an dandy

physics/chemistry takes care of the rest

 

[Bronxernijn]

Macro-evolution is an unproved theory, therefore it is a belief.
Creationism is an unproved theory, therefore it is a belief.

The point I am trying to make here, is that the theory of macro-evolution in itself is not scientific, for it is not based on facts. Furthermore, both macro-evolution and creationism do not give us further insight in science, instead, they both tend to answer the bigger questions of life.

Therefore, I come to the conclusion that this debate is not scientific at all, and any scientific arguments brought in are totally irrelevant. There is no way to prove the one, nor is there a way to prove the other.

Furthermore, I think that in choosing what you believe, you should consider what this personally means for you, not what the facts are, for the facts are dubious and can be explained in multiple ways. Choose wisely.

 

[Kershbob]

Macro-evolution is an unproved theory, therefore it is a belief.
Creationism is an unproved theory, therefore it is a belief.

The point I am trying to make here, is that the theory of macro-evolution in itself is not scientific, for it is not based on facts. Furthermore, both macro-evolution and creationism do not give us further insight in science, instead, they both tend to answer the bigger questions of life.

Define macro-evolution please.

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life and makes predictions. Of course it is based on facts because it is a theory. Creationism is not a theory it is an unproven hypothesis with no evidence to back it up.

If you don't define macro-evolution feel free to rant about it all you want; but no-one I know or any educational standard in the UK ever refers to "macro-evolution".

 

[Bronxernijn]

It is already defined. As far as I know, educational standards in the UK teach you how to search for information.

The evolution theory is not based on facts. It is based on the thoughts of a single man who was not even a scientist. As far as I know, there is no proof of evolution that can not be explained otherwise, therefore, it is not based on facts.

Also I would like to point out that a theory based on facts is a law. Thus, evolution is in fact as much as a theory as creationism. There is no proof to back it up, but there is material that can be used against evolution and not against creationism, and vice versa.

 

[Zakyath]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

 

[NoxMortus]

there is material that can be used against evolution and not against creationism, and vice versa.

Let's see your evidence that disproves evolution, please.

 

[Kershbob]

It is already defined. As far as I know, educational standards in the UK teach you how to search for information.

The evolution theory is not based on facts. It is based on the thoughts of a single man who was not even a scientist. As far as I know, there is no proof of evolution that can not be explained otherwise, therefore, it is not based on facts.

Also I would like to point out that a theory based on facts is a law. Thus, evolution is in fact as much as a theory as creationism. There is no proof to back it up, but there is material that can be used against evolution and not against creationism, and vice versa.

Define it yourself since whenever it is brought to a discussion it seems to be recoined.

The theory of evolution has over several million pieces of factual evidence that back it up, more than any other theory. My favorites: Neaderthal mtDNA, retroviral DNA created phylogenetic trees and mtDNA from organelles.

A law is a description of something that is always true in nature. A theory can never become a law and visa versa.

Saying that there is no evidence to back up evolution is just a plain lie. Please reconstruct your understanding on phylogenetic trees and then attempt to explain their correlations without bringing evolution into it.

 

[emjlr3]

how do you explain the lack of genetic deversity shown in native africans as compared to those in other continents?

Bingo! Evolution

Vestigal proponents?
How about new viruses every year????

 

[TheDamien]

The point I am trying to make here, is that the theory of macro-evolution in itself is not scientific, for it is not based on facts.

It is both scientific and based on facts. As are most of the generally accepted components of evolutionary theory.

Furthermore, both macro-evolution and creationism do not give us further insight in science, instead, they both tend to answer the bigger questions of life.

Is it so wrong to seek scientific and evidence-based answers to the "bigger" questions?

Furthermore, I think that in choosing what you believe, you should consider what this personally means for you, not what the facts are, for the facts are dubious and can be explained in multiple ways. Choose wisely.

Lysenkoism was the result of the Soviet Union applying this idea to their scientific and agricultural policies. Sad as it may be, the facts are a better indicator of truth than personal or ideological comforts.

It is already defined. As far as I know, educational standards in the UK teach you how to search for information.

The common definition of macroevolution refers to an idea that is supported not only by overwhelming scientific consensus but also by a wealth of scientific evidence. If you're using a different definition, it would be kind of you to elaborate on it.

The evolution theory is not based on facts. It is based on the thoughts of a single man who was not even a scientist.

The idea that any scientific theory is based entirely on the thoughts of a single person is laughable. Natural selection was not Darwin's idea alone, and early conceptions of evolution preceded and influenced Darwin's own. Furthermore, modern evolutionary theory has advanced considerably since Darwin's time and encompasses a much wider range of phenomena than classical Darwinism.

I find it interesting that you reference Darwin and say that he was "not even a scientist." Not only is this false by any reasonable definition of the term, it also gives me the impression that you are more interested in simply deriding evolution than constructing any sort of rigorous argument against it.

As far as I know, there is no proof of evolution that can not be explained otherwise, therefore, it is not based on facts.

With a good enough imagination you can think of a million different explanations for a given circumstance. Unless you are arguing for Solipsism and a rejection of evolution on that basis I am not entirely sure how this relates to evolution or anything else in this thread.

Also I would like to point out that a theory based on facts is a law. Thus, evolution is in fact as much as a theory as creationism. There is no proof to back it up, but there is material that can be used against evolution and not against creationism, and vice versa.

All three sentences here betray your fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. I can understand if you feel that science or evolution posits a threat to your particular set of religious views, but the way to resolve this is not to embrace ignorance. Theism and evolution are perfectly compatible.