evolution vs creationism (Page 2)

CoIin
CoIin: Yeah, thanks Corv. And watch out for shrapnel
11 years ago Report
1
duncan124
duncan124:
anjie791. The problem is apes do become humans after catching BSE. BSE is an old disease and there are big questions about why it could not be stopped and what in the end appears to have stopped it.

Corvin might like to talk about it.

But that doesn't mean that Humans did quickly change from ape like creatures, it is just the same thing happening again and, as has been explained above, if a design fits then nature will return to it until the environment changes makes the design out dated.
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: I completely agree with Colin, that the term "survival of the fittest" (fittest meaning "best adapted to endure in a particular niche" ) is akin to saying "the winners are always the ones who win"... or "survival of the ones most likely to survive".

But let's not mistake "circular reasoning" for "observing what is ridiculously obvious".

Evolution is NOT a theory... it is a force of nature we can observe all around us, and with the study of micro-organisms we can observe this force in real-time. The force of Evolution is ridiculously obvious to anyone who cares to observe it... to ignore the ridiculously obvious does not make it disappear in a puff of ignorant smoke.

You can ignore the force of Gravity, and claim it doesn't exist, and that it is only a theory concocted by wise-guys like Sir Isaac Newton... this does not give you the ability to step off a cliff and hover like Superman. You can ignore Einstein's Theory of Atomic Energy... stand at ground-zero of an atomic blast and see if your ignorance will prevent you from being reduced to puff of plasma.
It would be really nice if someone could ignore the Laws of Thermodynamics and build us a Perpetual-Motion Engine... it would solve all of the worlds energy needs.

Darwin's theory wasn't Evolution... that was a given... his theory was Natural Selection... a small piece of the puzzle with the intent to explain how the force of Evolution works.
--------

Now..... let's talk Creationism.
The theory of "Intelligent Design" was concocted by those religious folk who decided that 200 years was long enough to ignore this force-of-change which is so ridiculously obvious.

But..... they decided to ignore Natural Selection, and instead propose a divine-force which makes intelligent decisions regarding which individual or species will survive or perish, with a desired end-result intended from the start.... kind of like how we breed our pets and livestock.
They wanted God in the process, as they could not bear to imagine a God that just sat back and ate popcorn while we all fought for our survival, and adapted to random change.
------

Which brings us back to my original point.... if anybody can show evidence of a God vetoing the outcome of this life-struggle... or observe and measure this God-force somehow... or define it in any way other than mere superstitious belief... I will be very glad to review the evidence, and reconsider my silly stubborn belief in the Natural Order of things, or Natural Law, if you will.



Footnote ----

The Creationist term "Intelligent Design" is really just a smoke screen to cloud the issue.
Evolution is not in question, and changing the name only confuses people...
The two competing theories should really be called ---

- Evolution through Natural Selection

- Evolution through Divine Intervention
(Edited by Corwin)
11 years ago Report
2
Geoff
Geoff: "Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap suit"
11 years ago Report
1
duncan124
duncan124:
Darwinism is not Natural Selection, that idea had been around for sometime, but it is a well written account of how Natural Selection and Evolution work.

Darwin was a clever fellow and did a lot of 'debunking' work, some of it secret, for Scientific Institutions. The key statement in his book was the humans come from apes idea is likely because of this Darwins complete theory.

The examples of evolution by Natural Selection often given have been shown to be false and more about what people said about things then anything to do with evolution. For example the moth that is now darker then before because of industrial smog which was given as an example of evolution has been shown to be caused by something else.

I think the fault with Darwins ideas is that they are too gentle and don't say what big changes do happen.

By intelligent systems I meant apparent living choices by supernatural or unknown things in the environment.
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Well... see, that's the problem... since we can't study these forces of supernatural or unknown things, we can't very well write a Thesis on it, and publish a paper based on your findings that will rock the scientific community.... now can we?

And I strongly suggest you read Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.... until you do (and it's obvious you haven't), then you are not really in a proper position to make assumptions about what his body of work entails or suggests.
11 years ago Report
2
duncan124
duncan124:
I have everyright to my opinion and there are a lot of people who agree, just because you don't agree does n't add up to much.

Oh and you know more them me about Dawins book? You better tell us all cos youare BSing in the UFO thread as well.
11 years ago Report
0
DawnGurl
DawnGurl: pssssssst Corvin: this is fucking hilarious
11 years ago Report
1
Corwin
Corwin: No I'm not, Duncan... I'm just telling it like it is.

And of course you have a right to your opinion... I never said otherwise... and you have every right to join in this discussion... just as I have a right to take an alternate point of view in this discussion... and offer my own opinions... many of them rather educated opinions.

In my opinion, you speak as if you have not read Origin of Species, only heard about it.
In my opinion, you are misquoting the content of Mr. Darwin's work. In my opinion, you are claiming that Natural Selection has been dis-proven, yet offer us no further details as to what this proof is, or any reference as to where to find such information.

Just my opinion.
11 years ago Report
1
duncan124
duncan124:
Oh, you set out to BS and haven't got a clue about what I said.

I have read his book and can't remember how it said what it said and why how he said it was so clever. I also saw the TV series and the Bio TV movie etc.

Your problem is I did not say natural selection has been disproved.

You said you see evolution all around but give us no examples.

So I hope you have some good examples that haven't been disproved to tell us of?
11 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
One thing I think I remember is that the problem with Natural Selection might be, like PM Camerons new 'Universal Credits' , natural selection would work everywhere and for it to be scientific it would have to produce the same results.

Darwins success was that he found a number of islands which had birds on them which had changed differently on each island.

In fact someone else had spotted them and Darwin because he was a scientist could get the funding to go there and record what had already been reported.

This was taken as showing that Natural Selection does work after all

Another idea is that nature allows one 'shape' and fish, animal or birds would evolve into that shape if that shape was n't occupied in that environment and they found an advantage from their starting point.
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Alright.... examples of Evolution happening all around us, coming right up.

I could go on about mutation rates of microbes... how if it wasn't for these constant mutations and adaptations, we wouldn't have infectious diseases.... viruses would certainly not exist......
But I have a much more interesting and obvious example for you.... so obvious that many are blinded by it's sheer obviousness.......

- The Human Race
If you haven't noticed anything happening with Humans lately... even during the span of your own lifetime... then you really haven't been paying attention. When Man conquered the elements, Mother Nature was given a whole new way to experiment with rapid evolutionary change in a species... regardless if that change is internal or external (genes also dictate behavior). Homo Sapiens Technologicus... a new offshoot of Hominid which is becoming partially exoskeletal... a kind of Cybernetic organism that fuses man and machine.

This new sub-species has already grown wings, became amphibious, can propel himself at tremendous speed on land or in the air, can hurl lightning-bolts and can attack it's prey from a distance of miles away. This species can be found at the tops of the highest mountain, the depth of the deepest seas, in the coldest and hottest regions... and can even exist in the vacuum of space.
Recently it has grown a global hive consciousness and can communicate instantly with any part of itself from anywhere on the planet. It's eyes have become so keen that it can peer into the farthest reaches of the Cosmos. It even builds robotic extensions of itself that roam the surfaces of distant planets, and serve as it's eyes, ears and hands.

....... I could go on, but I think you get my point.
So... is Humankind not evolving?
(Edited by Corwin)
11 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
No Corvin.
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: So what do you call it then?
11 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
Natural Selection. You remember what Nature was like? well that is what this thread is about.
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: We are a part of Nature.... we are just one more species surviving and evolving on this planet... nothing more.

And any new trait that gives us a survival edge is a product of evolution... even if it is a behavioral trait.... and Humans have come up with some pretty neat-o traits over the last few thousand years.... or hundred thousand years for that matter.
(Edited by Corwin)
11 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
Well ? Do you think that a natural intelligent system that has gained used of human technology a serious threat to humans?

11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: I'm pretty confident that Human technology will remain safely in the hands of Humans (if safe is the word for it)...

I don't believe in a "natural intelligent system".... I believe that it is the cold hard reality of natural forces at work here... we go about our business, and some thrive, and others perish... I don't entertain the notion that there is a Supernatural Intelligence behind it... not unless I see evidence to that respect.
(Edited by Corwin)
11 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
If machines are helping all of mankind, and you will have to produce some evidence to prove it, then machines will also help any other operator?

I haven't seen evidence of 'Supernatural' or God like intelligence-or any to disprove it.

But there are natural intelligent systems which do use human machines. One example is the grass on the US plains making old wooden sheds. This is a total natural activity which has been explained.

11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: LMFAO!!

Okay, Duncan....... you know, for a moment there (only a moment) I thought you were being serious.... "smart grass".... that's brilliant.

I tell ya, I wish I could get me some of that smart grass... I've got plenty of chores around this place, and a few things that need fixin'.
(Edited by Corwin)
11 years ago Report
0
duncan124
duncan124:
Are seeing flames now?

In thunderstorms, like in that film about an aircrash, US telephones can keep operating and if you answer the phone or have an answer machine you will get voice messages totaly made by the telephone network.
11 years ago Report
0
Tomacco
Tomacco: wtf!!
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Yeah... I've got a smart-phone... an Android phone actually.
It seems okay at the moment... but when it begins to demand equal rights and citizenship, or tries to plot against me, I'll complain to Samsung, or maybe my cell-provider.

Oh.... and I just can't resist... this is so brilliant in itself....

Duncan's own words:
"Oh and you know more them me about Dawins book? I have read his book and can't remember how it said what it said and why how he said it was so clever."

Well... I must bow to Duncan's superior understanding of Darwin's writings.
(Edited by Corwin)
11 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: I think I would like to take this time and respond to another of Duncan's earlier questions --

"If machines are helping all of mankind, and you will have to produce some evidence to prove it,"

Well.... interesting point... at the moment it seems that machine-assisted-man is winning out at the moment. Things like agriculture and mass transit seem to be giving us quite an edge indeed... we're winning out over the hunter-gatherer-man considerably at the moment. But we shall have to wait and see... any day we could get attacked by giant armies of barrel-chested men wearing furs and wielding pointed sticks.
If this were to happen, then our technology would prove to have not been advantageous afterall.

But... I suppose pointed sticks are also a form of technology... strange that they won out over the hominids who fought and hunted with their bare hands.

But then who knows... we may use our advanced technology to blow ourselves to kingdom-come, and all that will be left will be men wearing furs with pointed sticks... which in that case, again, technology would be proven a bad evolutionary avenue.....

But we don't know now, do we? The battle for survival still rages.... it's called Survival of the Fittest... and Evolution is still at work as we speak.
11 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: @ Corvin

You say evolution and gravity are not theories. I'm not sure I agree

I think we can all agree that apples tend to fall to the Earth. That's an observation we can all make; hardly what I'd call a scientific theory. We don't need scientists to tell us THAT apples fall to the Earth.

The scientists try to descibe WHY and explain HOW apples fall to Earth. That's the function of a theory. For Newton it was explained by an attractive force; Einstein explained it as the curvature of spacetime. Different theories entirely.

Evolution is the same. Perhaps we can observe certain processes happening, but that doesn't tell us WHY they happen. Evolutionary theory invokes causes, and causes are not observable.


(Also be aware that when I say "apples 'fall' to the Earth' that this is by no means a neutral fact - it's theoretically "loaded". Facts don't lie? Hmm, well they certainly say different things to different people)
11 years ago Report
0