Evolution and Creationism

I've studied biology and the evidence for evolution (and the fact that we came from pre-apes) is quite strong, almost overwhelming. Several of the other posters have done a good job giving those facts and arguing against evolution's detractors. The only evidence that I've heard that has made me question evolution is the fact that some complex systems only seem to work together and they seem to have evolved at the same time.

I mean, you can see the evolution of flight. Reptilian (Dinosaura actually) scales grew longer and slowly turned into feathers (likely for insulation). Then some of these feathers grew large enough for short glides and hops. Then the feathered reptiles with lighter bone structures could fly better and did better over a span of millions of years (thus creating hollow bones), finally reptiles/birds needed a better circulatory system and those with better hearts could fly longer. This is a simplified story, but we have fossil records for each stage, and each stage makes sense on its own. But sometimes evolution happens quickly and all of these changes happen soon. Too soon for statistics to account for properly. This could mean that some kind of God has a master plan written in our genes, or it could mean that we are missing some information.

Of couse some of this data is confusing and difficult to interpret. I helped my cousin create a mathmatical model for his doctorial thesis on the subject. And some of the statistics can be interpreted in a variety of ways. But given probabilities it does seem that life should have started earlier to account for evolutionary patterns. We were actually trying to disprove this theory and failed, but who knows it might just be part of the "Law of Really Big Numbers" (i.e. if you get large enough numbers weird things happen and absolutly anything is possible).

PS: Anzac I agree with your post in general, although remember that humans (homo sapiens) have existed for only about 100,000 years and that's streching it. Evolutionarily speaking that is only a heartbeat. And we do have records of our ancestors (cromagnon, the apes...). And it is known that we are taller than our ancestors (say the ancient egyptions), but much of this can probably be accredited to diet.

[Rand Al Thor]

I hate to say it, but I told you this would happen.

ALL of the arguments that seem to have been presented thus far have ALREADY been refuted MULITPLE times on the God thread!! You are posting the same old arguments and hoping that it won't be noticed because this is a new thread. If you want to be willfully ignorant go right ahead, but don't try to endow that ignorance onto others.

[Rand Al Thor]

BTW here are some statistics regarding Evolution and belief in god. Link

Notice the correlation between level of education and acceptance of evolution.

[Erik]

Originally posted by Rand Al Thor@Sep 18 2004, 06:12 PM
I hate to say it, but I told you this would happen.

ALL of the arguments that seem to have been presented thus far have ALREADY been refuted MULITPLE times on the God thread!! You are posting the same old arguments and hoping that it won't be noticed because this is a new thread. If you want to be willfully ignorant go right ahead, but don't try to endow that ignorance onto others.

We only made this thread to keep this out of the god thread, so that it could move on.

[Portuguese Rebel]

Tell you what i'm going to pin this so that we can make another 100 page thread about it :cool
Creationist guys will just keeping saying the same crap and keep being refuted again and again but that never stopped them.

Got love seeing the conflict between religion and science spilling over into a video game website.
My vote: science.

[sunsmountain]

Well to those who voted science, as a student in mathematics there is that one piece of the puzzle which bolson pointed out:

But sometimes evolution happens quickly and all of these changes happen soon. Too soon for statistics to account for properly.

Evolution can be seen with your own eyes in 'controlled' evolution experiments. As you know, bacterial colonies have been isolated and grown over the past 10 years. Starting with an identical population at first, different mutations and adaptations have resulted in multiple sub-species or breeds*, all of them having different properties/traits/qualities* necessary to survive an environment wthout sugar (because it was scarce). When a population almost died out completely, it was extracted and put into a new breeding cell+new (limited) stash of food.

So we have observed several mutations and traits supporting evolution, but there is 1 point which should have statistically happened: The evolution into a new species. All the bacteria were still of the same species. Now you can say give it more time, but it can be shown statistically that the chance of a new species evolving, versus the chance of a new mutation/trait evolving, although lower, is not low enough to warrant it not having occured yet.

One could further argue that the model used to determine these chances is inaccurate, yet it is accurate in prediciting mutations. If evolution theory suggests that new species arise by chance alone, then that process cannot be that different from genetical mutation, due to the properties of a biochemical system being finite & known.

If evolution assumes external factors required to create a new species, it still has a chance of being a valid theory after all. However, for all we know, this 'guiding external force' could be any physical source, known or unknown. If we assume all physical phenomena to be known, then it cannot be 'spiritual'. Since we cannot assume that because we cannot disprove that, it is still possible for an external 'spiritual force' to influence evolution, as long as it can attract energy and have an effect. I define spiritual here as such, as that part of matter being able to have a physical effect on matter.

This brings us back to the ether-discussion the Michelson & Morley experiment ended. The ether-drag hypothesis was refuted mainly due to stellar abberation, as observed by astronomy. The emission theory also didn't save ether. Redefining ether may lead to new experiments that may lead to a better understanding of light, colour & sound, with respect to atoms. (right now, atoms are colorless, soundless and dark)

Science is not stable beyond doubt, it is a model and thus does not refer to reality directly, it only describes it. If the inclusion of more subtle forces can be shown to have an effect in measurements, science will change.

This does not deny (a belief in) a God who created everything now, in blueprint, towards which we evolve. If we eliminate time, evolution becomes a pointless illusion that never started, nor finished. Note how reincarnation would be similarly illusional.

Since we believe in time, however, no such luck.


*Forgive my poor scientific english, i'm familiar with the proper biological/genetical terms in Dutch, but not in English

[Portuguese Rebel]

So we have observed several mutations and traits supporting evolution, but there is 1 point which should have statistically happened: The evolution into a new species. All the bacteria were still of the same species. Now you can say give it more time, but it can be shown statistically that the chance of a new species evolving, versus the chance of a new mutation/trait evolving, although lower, is not low enough to warrant it not having occured yet.

Definition of a species of bacteria is the problem here. when is it enough change to call it a new species? Is a major mutation (like being able to break down certain vital organic compunds for energy) enough? Are some more needed? It is very complicated to tell with bacteria because they reproduce assexually. At what point do you say that a bacteria is representative of a new species?

Biologists don't even like to talk about species of bacteria, instead we many time use strands to label them since it is so hard to use traditional taxonomy.

If evolution theory suggests that new species arise by chance alone

Chance and enviroment conditionalisms. A potential new species can never be a new species unless it is somehow fit for the enviroment.

[GodNeptune]

I have a question concerning evolutionary theory. I know that man came from ape, but what animal did the apes evolve from?

[Portuguese Rebel]

Man did not "came from ape", man and ape share a common ancestor

Yeah, apes and humans diverged from a "missing link" a couple of million years ago (not long evolutionarily speaking though).

[ANZAC_JYNX]

What I did notice from creation/evo statics was that people with 'higher' education seem to follow scientific doctrine a lot more, after all, isnt higher learning really just listening to other peoples beliefs, being exposed to their way of doing and looking at things from a single veiw point and absorbing it for a lot longer, it could be called mild extended indoctrination in a lot of areas, while people who have a lower education tend to either believe outright in creationism (the first doctrine they are generally exposed too) or look at far out tangents of intervention from external entities and extraterrestrial lifeforms.

And with the whole missing link, why is it missing? I mean, if apes and men came from this sub-species, it must have been fairly prolific throughout every landmass, yet we still cant find any remains, fossils or sites that link the cromagnum directly to us. We find animals of every shape and discription on both sides of the gap, places where cavemen may have been using primitive tools, but no direct evidence of changes in these species due to climate, enviroment or living standard. We just suddenly appear as people, or more so, as civilised people wandering out of Sumaria knowing how to build, cultivate and cause effect on our environment to the point where we dont need to be nomadic any longer.

I may have missed something along the lines, so if anyone can shed a little light on 'how missing is the link these days' with all the new research and archeology being done and without having a go at me for being a little out of the loop as far as being up to date on what NEW discoveries are being made to support the argument, it would be much appreciated.

Missing link is a bit missleading, they constantly find species that are closer and closer. But the fossil record is full of holes do to the rarity of fossils. After all gazillions of lifeforms have lived on earth over the past few billion years and we have only a few thousand fossils (and most are just bone fragments), so it isn't supprising that we tend to have gaps. In addition it is hard to find the specific ancestor because our ancestors wern't particularly successful. IIRC a few years ago anthropologist found some bone fragments that they believe puts them very close to the link, but I can't remember any of the details.

edit: IIRC the fossil was called Tumai (sp?) and I think they placed it about 7 million years ago which would be about the time of the "missing link". Lucy I think is about 4 million years. Of course this was just a partial fossil (just a skull IIRC) so there is always debate. I read the article a few years ago.

[Syron]

Sorry to do this (well I have to go to sleep soimetime!) but some of these earlier points are quite misleading.

I agree with the gist of what you were trying to say ANZAC_JYNX but I think that some of the logic is a little flawed.

Someone even stated that gravity is a fact, well, just because a theory hasnt been challenged for a few hundred years doesnt make it any more true than when it was hypothasised. Velocity / mass = weight is a fact, not gravity. IF it turned out that the magnetic attraction between two objects on a molecular level was the reason for acceleration towards the centre of the planet, the fact would stay the same, just the theory around it would differ, but you would hardly go on calling that force gravity, it would be magnetism or something.

Gravity as an effect is fact, it's the actual HOW that is not. It's common for people to think just because somethings got an equation it's right, Newton had loads of them, still didn't make his ideas exactly right did it! Velocity and Mass are abstract concepts at the moment (although mass will hopefully soon be understood) so quoting that equation as fact is wrong. I think you've got it the wrong way round, If a diferent cause is found it's the process (equations etc) that is scraped not the theory it makes a lot of difference.

If we did a real world experiment, and moved the food source (small aquatic animal) into the shallows, what would happen to the species of predatory fish that depended on it for survival, they would die off, or source another food supply, they would not hold out until a few generations when their offspring could reach the shallows, they would be exstinct a long time before that. What would happen is another animal would become dominant due to the new supply of food. Do a test yourself...get a heap of mice, place their food source out of their reach so they need to stretch out through the cage and see what happens first.

Did their offsprings necks get longer in an effort to surive or did they all die.

Fistly, this was simply a very rushed example i gave, i could write a thesis on it if you want. You've got to remember that such process take a heck of a lot of time, and the other analogy that you gave is not actually consistent as fish can move in most depths of water, mice can't pass through the cage, your giving a false analogy. Another point you missed which I clearly stated is that there are already slight mutations present in the current generation so they do not have to wait and also that such catastrophies that I said about would be spread over a number of generations of fish, you may not have noticed but many fish don't have long lifespans.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

"Evolutionists" (stupid term actually) change the theory to fit the evidence they find,
Creationists change the evidence to fit the theory they have.


Anyway, about fossils. Earth is old and bones don't always preserve well, even over short amounts of time, except when in very good conditions. Imagine for a second that all bone-matter was preserved all the time. In that case, it has been calculated, some parts of post-iceage Europe would have been covered in a layer of 12 meter of bone matter by now. All the result of hunting and so. Trust me, that is a lot of bones. Luckily reality doesn't work that way and bones do vanish, reabsorbed into the ecosystem. And that is why what we find in fossils is only a tiny fraction of what there really was. Actually it's pretty amazing that we find as much as we do.

Just a reminder.

[Syron]

Originally posted by GodNeptune@Sep 18 2004, 10:18 PM
I have a question concerning evolutionary theory. I know that man came from ape, but what animal did the apes evolve from?

I'm surprised no-one has given him a full answer yet, it was quite a sensible question.

As the others have said we are not descended from apes but we are both descended from the same proto ape. I think that someone should have gone further than that becxause that didn't quite answer the question.

The ancestors of all primates are thought to have been so called "primitive primates" a broad group that contained creatures similar to today's lemurs. The group also contained creatures like tree dwelling shrews which brings us back further..........

Before that were early "placentals" of which the early types resemble shrews, there may just be a reason why all mammals now have a placenta! These animals started to appear at the end of the dinosaurs reign, the late cretaceous, and developed from there.

If we go really far back we find the animals that probably started the group we call mammals. At this time (Jurassic) the mammals were very different they were called Monotremes (If I remeber corectly, Bolson9999 should know) that lay eggs (they are the ancestors of the really wierd animals tike Platypuses and Echidna's). It was from one group of these that the placentals developed.

If your really want to go back you could go to the triassic and the time when dinosaurs started to appear. Before them were an even older group called synapsids. One of the sub groups, the cynodonts, they are considered to be the real group that started off mammals (because of their nasal configuration i think).

I hope that fully answers your question.

[sunsmountain]

"Evolutionists" (stupid term actually) change the theory to fit the evidence they find,
Creationists change the evidence to fit the theory they have.

I believe both. Consider a system which evolves to its maximum potential. Name this state of maximum potential Creation. Eliminate the factor time, and presto! Evolution = Creation.

[Syron]

I believe both. Consider a system which evolves to its maximum potential. Name this state of maximum potential Creation.

Nothing evolves to a natural maximum potential, thats not how evolution works (for the thousandth time!)

Eliminate the factor time, and presto! Evolution = Creation.

In a sentence, no it doesn't!

[GodNeptune]

Evolution is actually a very old theory, in fact its probably older than the Bible. The Greek philosopher named Anaximander, who lived around 550 B.C., theorized that all lifeforms gradually evolved over time and that man came from fish.

[Steeven]

Until now, evolution makes the most sense to me. I don't believe in God(s). We have a free will to believe or not, why would a God make us that way and send us to hell not worshipping him? Thats kinda hypocrit.