evolution vs creationism anjie791: Do you believe in Darwinism? Me personally being a scientist, I do, but I was wondering what everyone's thoughts on it were .....all are welcome to express their views. Just curious ....   Geoff: It always stuns me when people still think that there is a debate between science and myth. Basically we have a scientifically supported and clearly explained process that logically outlines the development of life from its simple single-celled origins to the diversity we see today, being compared with a stone aged story so unsupportable that even the Catholic church abandoned teaching it as fact more than 60 years ago.  duncan124: However, there is no evidence to support Charles Darwins ideas further then Apes became Humans but even that requires BSE. The is evidence of 'life' with out a biological base, the Alien and Fake Humans, if they can be called life, but they might just be 'intelligent natural systems'. I think the arguments for a God or Gods is not stopped by the science we know and Darwinism is just one thing happening in a long and complicated scene and does not explain the results we see around us.  Corwin: Darwin based his explanation of Evolution on "survival of the fittest"... this is a pretty hard case to argue against. But, in all fairness... if anybody can show me an example, either present-day or something in the fossil record, of a "less-fit" species dominating over a "more-fit" species, say through some kind of divine intervention..... well.... then maybe I'll give the matter some consideration. anjie791: Although I disagree, your last point is interesting duncan124. And Charles Darwin's theory is not that Apes became humans lol (common misconception about evolution). We are closely related to them genetically.  CoIin: There are a lot of misconceptions about evolutionary theory. With all due respect, I doubt any of us really understands it properly. The problem is that it looks deceptively simple, but it's not. One issue I've been reading about lately is how Noam Chomsky's linguistic theory of a "universal grammar" squares with evolution. Both Chomsky and many of his critics agree that if Chomsky's ideas are right, they are quite incompatible with evolutionary theory. And is anyone out there gonna call Noam Chomsky a dummy? Eh? Eh?  (Oh, and he's not religious either) CoIin: @ Corvin "Survival of the fittest" may be hard to argue against simply because it's circular. Many have pointed out that if "fittest" means "most likely to survive", then the maxim says nothing at all. "Survival of those most likely to survive"  anjie791: Of course. Even Scientists dont understand it fully, but there is concrete evidence of it. We have a few pieces of the puzzle. They are all theories, but I was talking about stereotypical perceptions people have about it, like the apes comment. CoIin: Yeah, the ape thing is silly. Or that we evolved from slime  But there are some serious misconceptions. Eg that ALL traits are selected for. I don't think that's correct. anjie791: it's an expression colin. That's not the only thing that defines evolution ...that term is just famous and overused. And that term does not directly relate to individuals in a population that may survive, there are so many factors that are involved, like speciation, the actual dynamic of the ecological niche etc... CoIin: Yeah, it's just an expression, but kinda misleading - coz it seems to say almost nothing cf "death of the diers" LOL CoIin: And when you talk about "concrete evidence", we should remember that a theory may entail certain evidence (i.e. the evidence is a logical consequence of the theory), but conversely, evidence NEVER entails a particular theory. CoIin: I thought I'd write a little something on this "survival of the fittest" slogan to try and illustrate its circularity. Now, no need to panic  LOL. This has no bearing on evolutionary theory itself; just the vacuous nature of its motto.Let's say we're doing a study into why some combat soldiers live longer than others. Geoff, Corvin, and DawnGurl propose the following theories:- 1. Geoff - All other things being equal, the physically stronger soldiers will tend to survive longer 2. Corvin - All other things being equal, the fastest runners will tend to survive longer 3. DawnGurl - All other things being equal, the "fittest" soldiers will tend to survive longer Now, Geoff and Corvin's theories may or may not be true, but the only way to ascertain this would be to get out there in the field and conduct studies. DawnGirl's theory is more problematic. Before we rush out into the battlefield, we need to know what exactly we're looking for. Let's ask her... : So the fittest soldiers will survive longer? : Yup : What exactly does fit mean? : Well, it means having certain advantageous traits : Like what? Singing well? : LOL. Well, maybe. If it gives the soldier an advantage on the battlefield, then yes. : How about camouflage? : Well, same again. If it increases our soldiers' chances of survival, then sure. : So "fitness" refers to all traits which will raise the chances of survival? :  Well, I hope the point is clear. The only way we could demonstrate any correlation between survival and {strength, speed, dulcit tones or camouflage} is to get out into the world and carry out research. But do we really need to leave our armchairs to identify a correlation between survival and fitness? (Edit - P.S. Oops, almost forgot.  The witness is excused. DawnGurl, you may leave the stand.  ) (Edited by CoIin) Geoff: Fit, in this case (and as originally intended by Herbert Spencer) means those best suited to survive in their environment long enough to breed. In terms of natural selection, it refers to those who not only survive, but breed most, and whose offspring are most likely to survive to breeding age. Fit doesn't have to mean strongest, fastest, biggest, it can simply mean "sneakiest", or "reaches sexual maturity faster", or even "cleverest". CoIin: And so to Corvin's comment... (you did say "in all fairness" buddy) "But, in all fairness... if anybody can show me an example, either present-day or something in the fossil record, of a "less-fit" species dominating over a "more-fit" species, say through some kind of divine intervention..... well.... then maybe I'll give the matter some consideration" Well, I think this is an example of a conceptual misunderstanding (like expecting to see fish thriving in trees). What you're asking is an impossibility. The "more fit" organisms dominate BY DEFINITION. That is how fitness is defined. If you don't dominate you're not "fit". If I show you two snakes , identical in every way except that one is blue and the other is yellow, which one is fitter? There's no way to answer this question out of context - it's meaningless. Fitness will be decided by, which one of the two, within the context of a particular environment SURVIVES. The winners write history. The dominant species ARE the fit. Geoff: As a general rule of thumb, not much. If we then throw in 'variable heritability' then we get the basis of how life diversifies. duncan124: Darwinism is different from the ideas that others already had and which you seem to be arguing here. 'Natural Selection' was illustrated by the different appearence of birds from the same species on islotated islands. It is not survival of the fittest as there is no way of knowing which is the fittest it just means species change. DawnGurl: Coiln: you misquoted me again. I didnt say the "fittest" would survive; I said the "fattest" would. Everyone knows a real porker on the battlefield could take a hit better than some pencil-thin skin and bones stick. Get your facts straight. CoIin: Dang! Well, if you mean "fatter" rather than "fitter", this will require empirical verification rather than just conceptual analysis. And I ain't leaving my armchair for no one  Tell Corvin to do it DawnGurl: Nor shall I leave my armchair. Ever since I joined the Buddhist Society for Untamed Hair my armchair and I have become 'One." Corvin can collect data and put it in a little jar for us to peruse at our convenience. Thanks a bunch Corvin! | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |