[Volks]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Actually not much at all. Evolution requires isolation and adaptation to different environments as well. That's why there are so many different species on islands like Madagascar and Galapagos. Since humans are pretty much spread out over everywhere on the globe and we have pretty much adapted as well as we can to the environment we won't evolve much further.

This is a ridiculous statement. Are you actually saying, for example, that Chinese people who leave China and live in Europe will turn into blonde haired blue eyed white people? We all know that will never ever happen. Face it, evolution is all just smoke and mirrors. There's no way that a species can morph into another species just by little random changes. Not only does there have to be a change, it has to also be a beneficial change.

You might as well buy a lotto ticket, because you'll have more or a chance of winning than the chance of ever proving your evolution religion is true.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by Volks

This is a ridiculous statement. Are you actually saying, for example, that Chinese people who leave China and live in Europe will turn into blonde haired blue eyed white people? We all know that will never ever happen. Face it, evolution is all just smoke and mirrors. There's no way that a species can morph into another species just by little random changes. Not only does there have to be a change, it has to also be a beneficial change.

You might as well buy a lotto ticket, because you'll have more or a chance of winning than the chance of ever proving your evolution religion is true.

Do you even know what evolution is? First, it only happens between parents and offspring (people don't evolve different colored eyes during their life). Minor changes over millions of years equates to very significant changes. Evolution works on DNA, minor changes in the sequences of DNA can result in significant changes in the physical characteristics of the individual. If you are going to deny this, then you are denying the mechanism by which you inherit different traits from your parents to create your unique qualities. Finally, consider that 98% of the DNA between a human and an ape is identical. It doesn't take a whole lot of minor changes to make up that 2%. Don't misunderstand this statement either, we did not evolve from the current apes, both likely evolved from a common ancestor.

[Kerrigan]

The paradox of evolution is that it requires the belief that living matter can evolve from non-living matter, a point which is as mysterious and unproveable as many aspects of Creationism.

[- - e r i k - -]

Volks, that post just proved beyond shadow of a doubt that you have no concept of what evolution actually is. Please remove yourself from the genepool. Thanks in advance

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The paradox of evolution is that it requires the belief that living matter can evolve from non-living matter, a point which is as mysterious and unproveable as all aspects of Creationism.

[Kerrigan]

Frankly I have not read much about creationism/intelligent design, so I don't know much about either.

What I have read has shown me that creationists frequently resort to taking perfectly plausible scientific theories, and then warping them beyond recognition.

The funniest theory I read about said that the solar-system existed at the centre of the universe (ok, fair enough) and that the big bang had caused space-time to warp such that the further away from the solar system you go, the faster time passes. That explains why stars appear to be billions of years old, when the universe is in fact only 4,000 years old. Brilliant!

This, combined with the "irreducibly complex" cliche that ID pundits always fall back on, provides a complete account of the world. Who knew it was that simple to integrate all scientific theories into a universal religious account of the world?

[11011001]

Thanks for making this thread reasonable again Kerrigan. That theory about solar system, and time variation is really creative!

As for evolution, I don't think it discredits the existence of God. Instead, it reaffirms it. Creating order out of chaos, the magnificent simplicity of the concept, and the staggering intricacies that arise out of it, it's very divine in a sense.

I don't think we'll ever understand what makes something alive in the framework of evolution alone. Religion might be a possible framework, but maybe we'll discover something else that it explains it just as well, or maybe a combination of both? Well, it's exciting..

[Volks]

Originally Posted by 11011001

Do you even know what evolution is? First, it only happens between parents and offspring (people don't evolve different colored eyes during their life). Minor changes over millions of years equates to very significant changes. Evolution works on DNA, minor changes in the sequences of DNA can result in significant changes in the physical characteristics of the individual. If you are going to deny this, then you are denying the mechanism by which you inherit different traits from your parents to create your unique qualities. Finally, consider that 98% of the DNA between a human and an ape is identical. It doesn't take a whole lot of minor changes to make up that 2%. Don't misunderstand this statement either, we did not evolve from the current apes, both likely evolved from a common ancestor.

There is no way, regardless of your hacked explanation, that DNA is going to significantly alter a species to the point that it becomes an entirely new species. Scientists tried for decades to reproduce darwinian evolution even on the smallest scale in the lab. It never worked. Give it up. Mainstream scientists have abandoned Darwin's theory. So the argument is pointless.

Science now just simply defines evolution (macro evolution) as a new species literally being created out of another spontaneously, which is absurd but requires no proof. So scientists are happy, even though they have created a religion.

It makes absolutely no difference if whatever percentage of DNA is identical. And just to let you know, mice and humans have 80% identical genes. So which do you wanna be, an ape or a mouse?

Actually, I think you have the manners of an ape, and the brain of a mouse.

Man was created, there is no doubt about it.

[- - e r i k - -]

Wow. If you hadn't proven yourself a genuine nutcracker before you certainly did now. Congratulations!

[Cubeoid]

This is what I predict we will look like by the year 2009.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by freudling

In the context of Darwinian Evolution, how much will we morph? Since homo sapiens are some 100,000 + years old, a mutated version of apes, what will we be like in about 200, 000 years?

My prediction.

We will look much different (leaps due to mutations and adaptations). i.e. smaller mouths, less muscle, larger heads, more coherent sensory perception...

Humans will be long extinct, another failed species in the evolution of the planet.

[monkeybrain]

Anyone read The Time Machine? Half of us will go underground and become cannibals, whilst the other half will lead docile lives on the surface as serve as cattle for the other half.

[Cubeoid]

You mean the Eloys and the Morlocks?

[11011001]

Originally Posted by Volks

There is no way, regardless of your hacked explanation, that DNA is going to significantly alter a species to the point that it becomes an entirely new species. Scientists tried for decades to reproduce darwinian evolution even on the smallest scale in the lab. It never worked. Give it up. Mainstream scientists have abandoned Darwin's theory. So the argument is pointless.

Science now just simply defines evolution (macro evolution) as a new species literally being created out of another spontaneously, which is absurd but requires no proof. So scientists are happy, even though they have created a religion.

Don't make things up. Mainstream scientists have not abandoned evolution. There is proof for isolation leading to new species. There is nothing religious about science. It's not a belief, it's a system based on observation and experimentation. Religion should have never been brought into the debate in the first place.

On a side note, why is a religious belief being taught in classrooms? It has nothing to do with science, and belongs in religion class.

Originally Posted by Volks

It makes absolutely no difference if whatever percentage of DNA is identical. And just to let you know, mice and humans have 80% identical genes. So which do you wanna be, an ape or a mouse?

Actually, I think you have the manners of an ape, and the brain of a mouse.

That's the point, it does make a difference, because that is one part of the evidence for evolution. You cannot simply refute a statement as not true without a logical argument. Oh, and it's actually 85 % if memory serves.

You know, scientists could simply make up stuff too, then they would be as simple and naive as creationists. But, science is based on a logical system of induction, deduction, and implication. They don't assume something is true without any evidence, or reason. Maybe that's why most of them simply laugh when a creationist tells them everything they know is wrong, perhaps it's a laugh of sympathy.

Btw, I don't deny the existence of God. There is no evidence to suggest that there isn't one. Furthermore, I think there is lots of things in nature to indicate that there is one, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it snapped its fingers and created every species on the planet such that there would be no evidence of evolution. There are two possible cases as such: either it created the universe such that evolution is possible, or it created the universe in it's current state 3000, or whatever years ago, such that it appears to be 15 billion years old and has evidence for evolution. The fact is, we can never tell the two apart, and in some sense they are equivalent.

If you still have trouble grasping the concept of evolution, consider the possibility that God is subtly guiding things such that complex things can evolve. This is far more rational than blindly refuting evolution. Furthermore, there is a good number of Christian scholars who support this idea, like this academic.. Though I disagree with his numbers for the required amount of time to evolve current life. When crossover is factored in, the computational power of the system becomes far, far greater. Furthermore, when a member of a species makes a choice as to who it's mate is, there is even greater direction in the system (which makes the system no longer purely random, but lends it ever increasing intelligence).

People initially attempted to understand things that they couldn't explain through magic, and sometimes gods. There were gods for wind, rain, fire, etc. With an understanding of those things, there was no need for such magic, or gods.

Back in the days of the creation stories, no one could explain how life came about. There was no scientific method at this point. Furthermore, there was no broad acceptance of the foundations of logic. What tools did people have to explain such a mystifying thing? Well, how about God, and so the creation stories were created.

Well, now we have applied the scientific method to the origins of the species, and we have an explanation for it, namely evolution. We don't need a religious or mystical explanation anymore.

Creationism is thousands of years old, created by an extremely primitive society. It's ludicrous to argue rationally about it in a literal interpretation at this point. In my opinion, it was a mistake to consider the bible as the literal word of God. If it was, then why didn't it maintain a consistent writing style throughout? Why aren't the passages of Matthew identical to say James? That's because it's not the literal word of God, and is instead most likely a subject interpretation of the word of God. What does this imply? Yes, that the bible is literal, and is not meant to be read in that way.

Finally, if the bible had attributed gravity to God, would you be refuting Newton and Einstein? Naturally, Einstein's theory replaced Newton's, and modern theories such as string theory might replace Einstein's. But there is no religious explanation for this.

The theory of evolution is most likely not an absolute fact, but it's successors is/are never going to be anything like creationism.

Hmm, I think in 200,000, science will have explained everything that religion attempted to explain, and there will be no more religion as it exists now. People will laugh at us, in the same way as we laugh at the Church for persecuting those who thought the world was round, or that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Well actually that's not a laughing matter, as many people were tortured and killed. Nor is it a laughing matter that fundamentalists are ruining the school systems by debating religion in science class. Why does it seem the world is taking strides backwards instead of forwards?

Accepting evolution isn't going to destroy Christianity. The Bible wasn't literal to begin with, there is no problem. God isn't going to suddenly disappear because a few people stop taking this so fundamentally.

edit: sorry if I get the thread locked I swore I would make this a two liner !

[SirCastor]

My scientist friend (That sounds official, doesn't it?) says that evolution can be proven generationally in flys. Isolating and moving flys into different environments will affect genetic structures and change the way the body develops over several generations. IE, put a bunch of flys in a slightly colder place, and in a few generations the body's will be better suited for that environment.

I don't have any data to back that up, so it might as well be null to the argument, but it's what I was told. Secondly, a lot of people are throwing around a lot of numbers: 80%, 98% this %, that %. Are you getting these from viable sources? Or just trying to recount some high number you saw on the Discovery Channel?

As it is, Evolutionary changes as large as going from one species to another has never been tracked. (At least to my knowledge, let alone have we had the time to observe that.) Remember that evolutionary theory is not about time, it's about generations.

That said, I think that both have applicable value. I believe in creation, but not the version where God snaps his fingers and everything appears. I believe that Evolution has some value, but not that there was a pool of primordial ooze that landed some protiens together and 3 and half billion years later here we are (having a discussion about those protiens... maybe we should hang them on a wall or something)

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Volks

There is no way, regardless of your hacked explanation, that DNA is going to significantly alter a species to the point that it becomes an entirely new species. Scientists tried for decades to reproduce darwinian evolution even on the smallest scale in the lab. It never worked. Give it up. Mainstream scientists have abandoned Darwin's theory. So the argument is pointless.

Science now just simply defines evolution (macro evolution) as a new species literally being created out of another spontaneously, which is absurd but requires no proof. So scientists are happy, even though they have created a religion.

It makes absolutely no difference if whatever percentage of DNA is identical. And just to let you know, mice and humans have 80% identical genes. So which do you wanna be, an ape or a mouse?

Actually, I think you have the manners of an ape, and the brain of a mouse.

Man was created, there is no doubt about it.

Some of the funniest writing of our time. You should submit to McSweeney's!

11011001: Don't waste your time arguing with someone who is obviously joking. No one on the Mac platform is THAT stupid.

[Stradlater]

As it is, Evolutionary changes as large as going from one species to another has never been tracked. (At least to my knowledge, let alone have we had the time to observe that.)

Wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...ion.html#part5
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

That said, I think that both have applicable value. I believe in creation, but not the version where God snaps his fingers and everything appears. I believe that Evolution has some value, but not that there was a pool of primordial ooze that landed some protiens together and 3 and half billion years later here we are (having a discussion about those protiens... maybe we should hang them on a wall or something)

And some people still believe the world is flat and that dragons exist.

EDIT: I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but your disregard for the potentiality of evolution is just as ignorant as any atheist's disregard for the potentiality of creation. In a century or so, you have to be prepared for a schoolboy attitude about your beliefs on par with the schoolboy attitude towards people who thought the earth was flat.

[Psychonaut]

Ya'll are just being silly now. Your mistake is that you're thinking with a linear view of technological development. Here, go read The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I don't have any data to back that up, so it might as well be null to the argument, but it's what I was told. Secondly, a lot of people are throwing around a lot of numbers: 80%, 98% this %, that %. Are you getting these from viable sources? Or just trying to recount some high number you saw on the Discovery Channel?

The 98% figure has been commonly cited for many years now. The highest I have seen is 98.8% (on an astrobio story). I have also seen figures around 95%. Keep in mind that the they usually compare chimpanzees and humans (chimps are a subgenera of apes). A quick web search reveals this somewhat viable source National Geographic. You can find the 95-98% range in many papers. The difference is usually attributed to the way they measured the difference, or to the statistical methods used.

I shouldn't have picked on Volks for the 80%, because again, there is even more variation in those estimates (the National Geographic article quoted 60%). So, I apologize for that.

If Volks was playing a joke, he's probably laughing his butt off.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The paradox of evolution is that it requires the belief that living matter can evolve from non-living matter, a point which is as mysterious and unproveable as many aspects of Creationism.

You're confusing evolution with atheism. A common mistake these days. Evolution doesn't care about the origin of the first living thing any more than creationism cares about the origin of God. The first cell could have been created by God, and/or God could have arrisen through evolution, and it wouldn't change either belief one bit.

Evolution is a recursive theory: Given you have life, how does it change into other life?
This thread is somewhat similar: Given you have evolution, what do you think it will produce? That's why it's off topic (not to mention horribly rude) to insult people for believing in evolution just because they play along with the premise of the thread.

[Kerrigan]

Actually evolution is not necessarily "recursive" as you said. There is evidence, according to the Urrey-Miller experiment, that chemical reactions can create organic compounds, and the the organic compounds can spontaneously form the features of a living cell.

It is a strange, somewhat mysterious theory, but it certainly not impossible for cells to evolve from primordial soup.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Actually evolution is not necessarily "recursive" as you said. There is evidence, according to the Urrey-Miller experiment, that chemical reactions can create organic compounds, and the the organic compounds can spontaneously form the features of a living cell.

It is a strange, somewhat mysterious theory, but it certainly not impossible for cells to evolve from primordial soup.

This is abiogenesis, however, which—given the inclusion of non-life—is not exactly within the theory of evolution. Properties are shared, certainly, as many areas in science overlap, but one can still accept evolution without believing in abiogenesis.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Actually evolution is not necessarily "recursive" as you said. There is evidence, according to the Urrey-Miller experiment, that chemical reactions can create organic compounds, and the the organic compounds can spontaneously form the features of a living cell.

There's also evidence that W is a war criminal. That doesn't mean it's part of the theory of evolution

[Kerrigan]

Uh oh, when W is mentioned, there is no hope for the future of a thread.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Uh oh, when W is mentioned, there is no hope for the future of a thread.

Sorry I killed your thread, freudling. In restitution I offer my on topic prediction that humans will evolve into cabbage, a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[Fyre4ce]

Just for the record, there is no disagreement within the scientific community about the the overwhelming evidence supporting evolutionary theory. As has been mentioned before, evolution does not preclude the existence of God - couldn't God have started the evolutionary process? - and many scientific people I know believe in God. But, none of them believe the literal interpretation of the Bible, where God created man and the Earth in six days.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support evolution. The fact that the Earth is billions (not thousands) of years old, the fact that the grass outside my apartment is capable of reading my DNA, and the fact that evolution has been observed in nature. Anyone ever think about antibiotic-resistant bacteria? What about the evolution of crops over time? Those big red apples you buy at the grocery store are not what wild apples looked like 10,000 years ago! By farmers continuously selecting the biggest, reddest, and juiciest apples, and replanting those seeds, the genetic composition of grown apples changes over time. (Which, by the way, is all evolutionary theory says - gene compositions in populations change over over time, not that God doesn't exist or had nothing to do with "creating" man the way he is today.)