Do You Believe In Evolution?

[spideyboy_1111]

the chicken and the egg is the key. if the chicken cqame first creastionalism is true if the egg came first evolution is true.

i think you got it backwards... a chicken can evolve into what it is.. an egg cant. the "egg" would have to appear

 

[kedrell]

Evolution's greatest obstacle is that ultimately it says you can get something from nothing, i.e. cause w/o effect.

Creation's biggest obstacle is that if there is a creator, then said creator seems, by inaction, to not give a crap if we believe it exists or not.

 

[Bubonic]

Evolution doesn't say you can get something from nothing, the mechanism of evolution are always brought about by external forces which force organisms to adapt or die out.

If your going way, way back to the beginning of life on earth I still pretty sure no scientist says it was something from nothing, just that at this point there is still a lot of theorizing to do in order to come at a concrete answer.

But they at least don't fold their arms, pout and say that "obviously" it had to start with a creator.

 

[jaguarr]

Evolution's greatest obstacle is that ultimately it says you can get something from nothing, i.e. cause w/o effect.

No it doesn't. Evolution is completely about cause and effect (e.g. mutation).

jag

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Yeah evolution is about having something and it becoming something else due to infinite possibilities of factors to change it. Most common reasons tend to be environmental, "use of" (essentially if you have no use for it you lose it, such as more and more humans being born today without wisdom teeth), or in need of use of something.

Another classic example of evolution is the fact we have a tail bone.

 

[November Rain]

No it doesn't. Evolution is completely about cause and effect (e.g. mutation).

jag

I think he means going back to the route and seeing what everything ultimately evolved from and where that came from.

 

[jaguarr]

I think he means going back to the route and seeing what everything ultimately evolved from and where that came from.

So? Same answer still applies.

jag

 

[November Rain]

so that assumes everything (in some form or another) has always existed and there is no beginning

which may be right but brings into question our perception of time.

 

[jaguarr]

so that assumes everything (in some form or another) has always existed and there is no beginning

which may be right but brings into question our perception of time.

Atoms and energy have always existed. How they've formulated together and played off of one another has evolved.

jag

 

[squeekness]

I think there is too much evidence NOT to believe in evolution, but I do think that that same evolution happened under God's guidence and according to his laws when he made the place. I don't see why a person's belief has to be either Creationism or Evolution when the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

 

[Danalys]

so that assumes everything (in some form or another) has always existed and there is no beginning

which may be right but brings into question our perception of time.

it's irrelevent to the question of evolution tho because only things that replicate evolve. the formation of the first replicator wasn't evolution.

 

[C.F. Kane]

I believe in evolution.

I also believe in the superstring theory, gravity, the heliocentric solar system, predicate logic, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics.

 

[Danalys]

string theory is a bit iffy. theres some question about whether it should be called a theory. and quantum mechanics is a bit dodgy insome ways aswell, like renormalisation.

 

[fifthfiend]

I don't believe in evolution; I accept it as the most scientifically valid theory.

Soon as someone comes up with another one that isn't balls-ass ******ed and built out of faeries and moon-magic, I'll give that a listen.

Evolution relies on something that may or may not have happened in the distant past which no one living ever witnessed.

Except that we witness it all the time in bacteria and viruses.

 

[chaseter]

Actually what came first, the chicken or the egg question can go either way. Birds came from prehistoric reptiles it seems. Most repliles lay eggs but some in fact give live birth. So, the mutant animal that resembled more of a chicken actually could have been there before the egg.

 

[Carcharodon]

What I meant was that it has been proposed that all embryos begin development the same, then begin growing into completely different organisms. This is what is printed in textbooks. Then it is said that this helps prove a sharing of a common ancestor because we are all similar as embryos. Like, everyone has gills and a tail

This is only true of vertebrate embryos (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). It makes sense, too: vertebrates make up a tiny faction of the diversity of life on this planet, and they are all very, very closely related.

Here's where you need to make a distinction: there was a hypothesis that proposed that changes made during embryonic development were ultimately responsible for the slight phenotypic changes that acted as the driving force behind evolution. This hypothesis (not theory, mind you) was proposed long ago and has since been proven 100% false.

HOWEVER, the fact that the vertebrates simply LOOK the same in the womb, while not proof of evolution, does support the theory.

One more distinction: we don't technically have "gills" before birth. The structures are called pharyngeal slits and they look an AWFUL lot like gills. In fish these structures DO become gills, but during early development they lack any actual functionality (as far as I know).

 

[Carcharodon]

Actually what came first, the chicken or the egg question can go either way. Birds came from prehistoric reptiles it seems. Most repliles lay eggs but some in fact give live birth. So, the mutant animal that resembled more of a chicken actually could have been there before the egg.

This argument doesn't work anyways when applied to evolution: it's based in the false idea that there was an individual that evolved into the first chicken (bird) from reptiles, when in fact an individual cannot evolve.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Actually what came first, the chicken or the egg question can go either way. Birds came from prehistoric reptiles it seems. Most repliles lay eggs but some in fact give live birth. So, the mutant animal that resembled more of a chicken actually could have been there before the egg.

yes but either way, the egg needs laid. so weather it was birthed from a gooey protoplasm and evolved over time to a lizard, to a lizard giving birth to a feathered like bird lizard.. to a chicken, the goo came first.

 

[squeekness]

yes but either way, the egg needs laid. so weather it was birthed from a gooey protoplasm and evolved over time to a lizard, to a lizard giving birth to a feathered like bird lizard.. to a chicken, the goo came first.

Ah, but even so, who made the goo? That is why I believe a Creator started the process and then the process took over on its own or was minimally guided by that same Creator.

 

[Carcharodon]

laws are things that can be expressed as a simple formula. evolution cannot be so it is a theory instead. laws are not on a higher level of certainty than theories.

it is theory rather than practice.

It'd be awesome to be able to reliably predict evolution mathematically, but the best we could EVER do would have to be some probability model. Even THAT would be nearly impossible. It'll never happen.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Ah, but even so, who made the goo? That is why I believe a Creator started the process and then the process took over on its own or was minimally guided by that same Creator.

which is pretty much what i stated before... and how i viewed the world to make sense to me. God created the big bang... which created atoms, molecules, etc... which joined and evolved and made the goo, and made the bugs, the fish, the lizards, the birds, the mammals, etc etc etc

 

[squeekness]

It'd be awesome to be able to reliably predict evolution mathematically, but the best we could EVER do would have to be some probability model. Even THAT would be nearly impossible. It'll never happen.

It won't happen because there are way too many variables to chart. Weather plays a lot into these things and we can't even predict that, nevermind try to guess how it might effect this or that species.

which is pretty much what i stated before... and how i viewed the world to make sense to me. God created the big bang... which created atoms, molecules, etc... which joined and evolved and made the goo, and made the bugs, the fish, the lizards, the birds, the mammals, etc etc etc

Yeah, exactly. It's the best of both worlds and answers more of the questions in my opinion. I don't see why there can't be any compromise between the two theories.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Yeah, exactly. It's the best of both worlds and answers more of the questions in my opinion. I don't see why there can't be any compromise between the two theories.

exactly, squeeks, we should run for joint presidency of the world... we'd totally be the most fair :-P, plus who wouldn't love us with you lookin all cute in your crown, on my shoulder. Plus i'd totally give you a diamond studded hamster ball

 

[Carcharodon]

It won't happen because there are way too many variables to chart. Weather plays a lot into these things and we can't even predict that, nevermind try to guess how it might effect this or that species.

Not so much weather as climate, but yeah. There's also the fact that predicting random mutation isn't practical (or really possible).

 

[Carcharodon]

Yeah, exactly. It's the best of both worlds and answers more of the questions in my opinion. I don't see why there can't be any compromise between the two theories.

Only one of those things is an actual scientific theory, though.

Spoiler

I'm a stickler for enforcing the definition of scientific theory, in case you couldn't tell. Too many misconceptions over the word.