Evolution vs Creationism

[AbsoluteApril]

why do primates still exist if they weren't good enough for this time that we live in? Why did we get rid of our fur that keeps us warm, just to have to make a substitute (clothes)? It seems (speculation, I'd need to research) that the human race has more immune (viruses, disease) issues than your typical primate.? Humans have a harder time with hiv than primates do. Siv or hiv originated with primates but were transferred to humans, some primates seem to live with it better than humans.

Perhaps humans didn't evolve from apes on Earth and we were simply seeded here as some other species' experiment or from 'dust' that traveled from Mars or on an asteroid and evolved into what we are today.

 

[Fangthane]

OK, so let's say that we are evolving (to make better?) from primates. I'd like to ask a few questions, why do primates still exist if they weren't good enough for this time that we live in?

First, I should start by saying that my initial reply to you was considerably more pissy than I'd intended. I can't sleep for in this ing desert. It's taking it's toll.

To me, in my admittedly limited understanding of evolution, it appears that you have some pretty serious misconceptions about just how it works. Firstly, it seems as if you're operating under the assumption that there's some conscious, long-term goal to evolution; that it's working toward some perfect iteration of any given animal. If that's the case, I don't think that's how it works. The basis of evolution is random genetic mutation. If a given mutation appears and gives an organism some advantage over those among its population that haven't been effected by said mutation, it's more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass that mutation on to the next generation. If the mutation has a negative impact (think albinism and its impact on an animal's ability to effective camouflage itself) it's less likely to survive long enough to pass on its genes. That's basically natural selection in a nutshell.

Here's where I think you're going off the rails: Speciation - the "apes becoming humans" thing. I really wish one of our resident evolutionary biologists would chime in here, as my knowledge base is woefully inadequate to give a righteous explanation; but here's my understanding of speciation. I think it typically happens among small-ish populations of a given animal that become isolated from the rest of the herd. Think of a coastal region where a landmass suddenly falls away into the sea, creating a new island. While it would likely remain business as usual for animals that remained with the main landmass, those that are newly insular would suddenly be subject to different environmental variables, putting them in a position where they needed to either adapt or die out. Perhaps their typical prey items weren't available on the new island. There may also be sudden changes to weather patterns, temperature ranges, less availability to water, etc. Basically, it's likely that some situation along those lines rose among the ancient apes. There are still apes and humans because not all of the apes were forced to adapt or die. I'm sure I bungled the explanation to some degree, but I don't think I'm too far off.

I haven't had time to watch the whole thing, but this video seems to be more clear and accurate, if you have some actual interest in the subject.

 

[Fangthane]

from 'dust' that traveled from Mars or on an asteroid and evolved into what we are today.

Not sure if you're saying that facetiously, but I think it's an entirely plausible scenario. I believe scientists have identified bacteria that can definitely survive the conditions in space. Sure I'll piss someone off with this statement, but I think it's a fairly ludicrous idea that Earth possesses the only life in this universe. Never understood why it's such an unpopular idea.

 

[Beyond GenetiX]

I'm assuming that the op was talking about Darwin's Theory of evolution and natural selection, am I correct?

 

[Robert Walker]

I think it's a fairly ludicrous idea that Earth possesses the only life in this universe.

A point upon which we both agree.
Even forgetting a Creator(s)/God(s) for the moment, to me, it absolutely seems statistically improbable that some how, we are the only (1) planet deemed so lucky, uniquely special out of the other "100 billion (100,000,000,000) planets in...just our galaxy"* to house life[FONT=&quot]. Then take that number times the approx. "2 trillion (2[/FONT],000,000,000,000) galaxies* that we can currently see, and the probability becomes astronomically far less likely that we some how were the only ones to draw the golden ticket for advanced "life".

Side Note: According to those pesky "golden plates" and other text I view as scripture, this Earth is simply one of many. One of many with individuals like ourselves, meaning our planet is hardly unique. A planned creation set in motion following a blueprint used many times before.

Perhaps humans didn't evolve from apes on Earth and we were simply seeded here... or from 'dust' that traveled from Mars or on an asteroid and evolved into what we are today.

I would agree, that all of / part of this could very well be a plausible means by which a "Creator(s)" could achieve expansion throughout the universe(s).


[FONT=&quot]* NASA: The Milky Way's 100 Billion Planets[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]* NASA:[/FONT] Billions and Billions of Planets
[/FONT]* phys.org: A universe of 2 trillion galaxies

 

[WebSlave]

Man, this sort of discussion raises so many questions I've had in my mind for decades, that it's hard to even grasp a beginning point to start talking about it.

My first exposure to organized religion was when my mother dropped myself and my next youngest brother off for our first Sunday School session. I think I was 5 or 6 years old. I listened intently, and asked questions. Nearly every answer was the equivalent of "you must have faith." Ronnie, my younger brother, sort of collapsed into a ball and just cried most of the time. I guess he wasn't ready for separation from home and mom. When mom picked us up and asked what we thought about Sunday School, I just said it all didn't make sense to me. These were people trying to teach me something that they knew nothing at all about. So I wasn't interested in going back. My mom just said that she only wanted to expose us to it, and that was that.

Nothing has changed, as far as I know. Of course, "religion" is about the epitome of a class of social interaction that has no grounding whatsoever in reality. The fact that some religions will violently oppose others, where neither KNOWS any more about the subject matter they are fighting over than the other, tells more about humanity than it does about whatever entity they are claiming to BELIEVE in. Would any bonafide God demand that the creatures under it's benevolent (or in some reasons not quite so much) care actually and literally worship it? But if man was made in God's image, well, I guess that does sorta make sense.

So what exactly makes a "God"? Is that something anyone can BECOME if they could attain the powers attributed to God?

Just out of curiosity, has anyone been able to create organic life in the lab from inorganic materials? Heck, for that matter, what is the actual definition of "life"?

It appears that mankind is on the precipice of creating inorganic "life", of sorts, with artificial intelligence. Would that programmed self awareness in AI be the equivalence of digital life? Would that AI be granted the powers of self preservation and self replication, along with the self awareness, or what the programmers specifically put in limitations via hardwired programming? In short, if WE would do that with AI, why would not a God who had created us (if in fact that did happen), not do the same to us?

Anyway, before creationism can be validated, doesn't the actual proof of a "creating" deity need to be proven first? Otherwise, how can there even be such a discussion of "either/or" if there is no proof that the "or" even exists?

Perhaps the error is in believing that we could prove God by understanding what God is. Perhaps that is as improbable to do as it would be for ants to understand the mind of the contractor directing the bulldozers able to alter their universe.

As for evolution, heck, just the definition of what makes a species is problematic. Seems kind of silly to me that you have an entity (human beings) that on one hand will spend lifetimes trying to differentiate something like milksnakes into various species and subspecies based on such arcane things as scale counts, minor skeletal structures, and hemipenes shape, and then on the other hand have a kazillion different types of dogs all over the earth and claim they are all the same species.

Maybe the problem is just that all of our definitions of important terms is just really screwed up.

 

[Robert Walker]

Maybe the problem is just that all of our definitions of important terms is just really screwed up.

[FONT=&quot]^ This is a huge missing link.
Who governs the end-all, be-all definition when it comes to specific terms, like: God, evolution, life, species, worship, proof? No one. As such we are all left with our own interpretations. Both parties on either side of a debate can be 100% correct according to their own applied definitions.

In circles we/they go...
[/FONT]

 

[JCCS]

Anyone who can participate in the selective breeding of animals and not accept that evolution happened is willfully ignorant. It just is what it is. We are of course going to learn more about evolution and things are going to be changed or added or even removed because that's how science works. When new information is discovered, it changes how we understand the world around us. That is the ONLY reason it is called a theory. That is a word that fundamentalists use to discredit the process and it's sad that they believe that them calling it a theory puts creationism on the same logical footing. There is zero credible evidence of creationism.

Note: None of this is commentary on religion, just fundamentalism. Religion is fine as long as it is kept personal and you don't start accepting what the pulpit says without viewing it through the lens of critical thinking. When that happens, problems start to occur.

 

[JCCS]

Jason, my advice to you is to enroll in a biology class at your local community college. I think it's the second semester of general biology that answers all of the questions you've posed. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the very thing you are trying to dispute. That unfortunately paints an unflattering light on you pertaining to this discussion. If you want to learn about science, ask a scientist, not a preacher.

 

[Beyond GenetiX]

Anyone who can participate in the selective breeding of animals and not accept that evolution happened is willfully ignorant.

Name calling, that's classic.

Jason, my advice to you is to enroll in a biology class at your local community college. I think it's the second semester of general biology that answers all of the questions you've posed. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the very thing you are trying to dispute. That unfortunately paints an unflattering light on you pertaining to this discussion. If you want to learn about science, ask a scientist, not a preacher.

Posing questions is now considered disputing?

So you are saying that I can't believe in creation and natural selection (that's not being very open minded)? I've seen natural selection in my own collection (yes I'm a breeder, believe it or not).

What's next, you going to say I'll never amount to anything in this community?

My dispute is that I am called ignorant and uneducated for living differently but I am good with it. You do you.

 

[JCCS]

That's not name calling, that's a description of a state of being. When you have all of the evidence at hand and choose to ignore it, you are willfully ignorant. It is what it is. The cool part about ignorance is that it is a reparable state. I wasn't speaking to you at that point, but it seems you fall into that category. And yes, asking questions when the answers are easily attainable by any 3rd grader with a phone is disputing something. The way you asked the questions wasn't exploratory, it was defiantly. There is a difference.

You want to know why primates still exist while we have evolved? It's for one, because we are not the pinnacle of evolution, there is no such thing and with how we've been doing with destroying ourselves, I'm not sure that would be an apt description even if it there was. Evolution is not linear. I know that makes it more complicated, but it's just how it works. It's more like a web. Some spots branch off into multiple areas, some strings go nowhere (the vast majority, honestly). We evolved from a common ancestor to modern primates. They evolved to best adapt to their niche in the system and we evolved to best adapt to ours. It just happens that we got a fully opposable thumb and a bit more grey matter so we were able to behaviorally adapt to a lot more situations than other animals. We are not more evolved or less evolved than any of our brethren, we are just separately evolved. You can choose to get butthurt, I'm sure there's an ointment for that out there, or you can choose to actually take the time to do straight up research on the subject. You will probably need someone to guide you through this due to the complexity, which is why I suggested the college courses. This book might be a good starting point as this series is typically very solid.

 

[Beyond GenetiX]

That's not name calling, that's a description of a state of being. When you have all of the evidence at hand and choose to ignore it, you are willfully ignorant. It is what it is. The cool part about ignorance is that it is a reparable state. I wasn't speaking to you at that point, but it seems you fall into that category. And yes, asking questions when the answers are easily attainable by any 3rd grader with a phone is disputing something. The way you asked the questions wasn't exploratory, it was defiantly. There is a difference.

You want to know why primates still exist while we have evolved? It's for one, because we are not the pinnacle of evolution, there is no such thing and with how we've been doing with destroying ourselves, I'm not sure that would be an apt description even if it there was. Evolution is not linear. I know that makes it more complicated, but it's just how it works. It's more like a web. Some spots branch off into multiple areas, some strings go nowhere (the vast majority, honestly). We evolved from a common ancestor to modern primates. They evolved to best adapt to their niche in the system and we evolved to best adapt to ours. It just happens that we got a fully opposable thumb and a bit more grey matter so we were able to behaviorally adapt to a lot more situations than other animals. We are not more evolved or less evolved than any of our brethren, we are just separately evolved. You can choose to get butthurt, I'm sure there's an ointment for that out there, or you can choose to actually take the time to do straight up research on the subject. You will probably need someone to guide you through this due to the complexity, which is why I suggested the college courses. This book might be a good starting point as this series is typically very solid.

Yep, thanks for the advice.

 

[JCCS]

Forgot the link: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis/dp/0470117737

 

[Robert Walker]

If you want to learn about science, ask a scientist, not a preacher.

Is an accredited scientist who is also a preacher a reliable source for learning science?

 

[Helenthereef]

Is an accredited scientist who is also a preacher a reliable source for learning science?

I think that's a very interesting question. I studied biology and the basics of genetics and evolution with a classmate who was a staunch Baptist, and believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore the 6-day creation story.

We discussed (civilly) how she dealt with the dichotomy, and she was able to separate what she "knew" (i.e., learned in class) from what she "believed" (i.e., learned in church).

I have worked with other scientists who are able to accept evolution and/or natural selection (which are not exactly the same thing, by the way) as the mechanism by which a god could create, and continue to perfect, life.

I imagine there are preacher/scientists out there who could allow something similar. rather than insisting that one must refute the other. I'd love to hear from one if that's so.

 

[Beyond GenetiX]

I think that's a very interesting question. I studied biology and the basics of genetics and evolution with a classmate who was a staunch Baptist, and believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore the 6-day creation story.

We discussed (civilly) how she dealt with the dichotomy, and she was able to separate what she "knew" (i.e., learned in class) from what she "believed" (i.e., learned in church).

I have worked with other scientists who are able to accept evolution and/or natural selection (which are not exactly the same thing, by the way) as the mechanism by which a god could create, and continue to perfect, life.

I imagine there are preacher/scientists out there who could allow something similar. rather than insisting that one must refute the other. I'd love to hear from one if that's so.

Civility is key in any discussion or it really isn't a discussion.

I know several college professors, public teachers and doctors that are pastors or preachers. How many of us have walk into a doctors office that comes highly recommended by their peers and asks "are you one of those mindless religious people"? What if they say yes, are you going to find another doctor that isn't quite as capable, just because this one is "religious". Who is/was one of the top neurosurgeons in the USA, you gonna walk away because he's a "religious" man?

I probably associate with more non religious people than with "religious" people.

I understand creationism, evolution and natural selection very well.

We (human race) as individuals live our lives by what we believe and understand. Tell me, am I that bad of a person because of how I live my life? We lump people together (stereotypes) into groups, when in reality, we are all individuals living together.

I think the true issue here, is the definition of several terms seem to be fluid.

 

[JCCS]

If the scientist/preacher is an evolutionary biologist, then absolutely. I bet that person would also be fun as hell to have a beer with as well.

 

[JCCS]

Again, it's not so much about religion but about fundamentalism. If the doctor said they didn't believe they needed to treat snake bites because god said if you were a righteous person, you couldn't be hurt by one, then yes, I'd probably find another doctor. I've worked very closely with churches in food security programs and feeding the needy and enjoyed my time doing so. As I said, religion is not the problem. The problem is when religion asks you to stop thinking critically and solely believe what is written in their book. (whichever book it is)

 

[Robert Walker]

rather than insisting that one must refute the other.

^ This for me.

I imagine there are preacher/scientists out there who could allow something similar. rather than insisting that one must refute the other. I'd love to hear from one if that's so.

While I'm not a scientist I have several friends who are.
I wish I had a direct link, but you can scroll down to the "Science" section to see those involved in the fields of: Forensic DNA, Geology, Astronomy, Planetary Sciences, Chemistry, Human Genetics, Biology, Organic Chemistry, etc. who have no issues viewing our existence through both lenses, using science & religion to see what many define as a more complete view then a single lens.
Scientist Link

 

[WebSlave]

Well heck, I dunno, but there seems to be so much of science that is actually really just theory, so I sometimes have a very hard time drawing the line between what is actually "science" and what is "religion". And lord knows there have been "heretics" of both camps that burning at the stake, in a metaphorical sense, has certainly taken place.

For instance, it is kind of interesting following the "war" between old line "scientists" and upstart "heretics" concerning the age of the The Great Sphinx of Giza and the pyramids. And lord only knows about the battles over ancient structures all over the globe that it is difficult to believe that those people are actually only discussing theories and not facts.

Seems some scientists and followers get every bit as entrenched in their beliefs as theologians and their followers do in theirs. Sometimes it is difficult to tell who is who without having a scorecard.

Sometimes it is humorous, and other times it is quite sad.