Evo, Creationism, I.D. - The Poll

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Apr 20 2006, 01:17 PM) [snapback]242667[/snapback]</div>

No surprise here!

 

We are making progress. It was not long ago that we still thought the earth was flat.

 

id= creationism, and creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. so... i do not know. :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 21 2006, 07:02 AM) [snapback]243097[/snapback]</div>

Actually, creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, because a creator could have used evolution as its method of creation, unless by "creationism" you mean that all species were created exactly in their present forms. Note that evolution simply means change, and does not specify whether god or nature is the determining factor.

However, intelligent design and natural selection are mutually exclusive, because id says that there was intention and planning in the characteristics of species, whereas natural selection says that changes happen randomly, and those traits that enable an individual to survive and produce more offspring become expressed in an ever-greater proportion of the population.

 

I choose none, yet all.

...and options that may appear only in the future.

(unless, of course, time travel will ultimately be possible, whereas we've ALREADY been manipulated from the future ANYWAY! :angry: )

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 21 2006, 09:14 AM) [snapback]243103[/snapback]</div>

The trouble with the god-as-watchmaker idea is that it really has no value. Unless god forgot to take a tool with him or you rely on some sacred text, there really isn't any way to tell when he started the clock. Just before or after the big bang? 10,000 years ago? Last Tuesday?

And I never understood what the religious value was either. Other than a desperate need to verify something made up in the bronze age. Does a religion need a creation myth? Plenty of them don't.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 21 2006, 11:02 AM) [snapback]243097[/snapback]</div>

IMO, creationism is based on "assertions" (which are different from facts), whereas "evolution" is a theory based on observation of demonstrable change over time.

So on the one hand there is "mysticism" (subjective) and on the other hand there is "cause and effect" (objective) sources for the two positions. It is self-evident that an entity must act in accordance with its nature. So, the law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. Evolution theory developed from studying "effect" and concluding the "cause". "Reality" (objective, fact based) vs. "mysticism" (subjective, not fact based).

Ergo (IMO) - mutually exclusive!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 21 2006, 11:14 AM) [snapback]243103[/snapback]</div>

The law of cause and effect means the events do NOT occur randomly. For EVERY event there is a cause that produced the effect. Randomness is a mathematical tool. Any particular, identifiable event, which has ever occurred, had a cause. One can attempt to compute the odds of an occurrence. That is a different issue altogether. All entities must act in accordance with their nature.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 21 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]243103[/snapback]</div>

daniel:

i did say "not" mutually exclusive.

i don't count id as anything other than a creationist agenda shrouded in fake 'scientific' theory. hence in my mind natural selection vs careful construction do not need to be compared. however, many people in my field reconcile their education with what they were taught growing up by using the "not mutually exclusive" argument.

not to say i personally subscribe to any of these ideas. i think we're all wrong somehow.

 

I had a redneck buddy tell me he believes in evolution he says" just look at black people some have facial structures of chimps". I told him that was a slanted racist out look but that I have seen it too But I have seen white people look that way too, i would never go around telling people that geeze...

 

The problem is this poll is a bit vague, as there is some overlap between choices. Also some people are incorrectly claiming ID = Creationism.

For one thing, what is evolution? If you describe it as a species gradually changing through selective reproduction, then humanity has itself evolved the dog from the wolf, countless crops from poorer-performing wild varieties, etc. Plus we can watch viri evolve. Only an idiot would believe even that form of evolution (microevolution) doesn't exist.

By the way, dogs' evolution is an example of intelligent design, as humans are the designers that guided the dogs' evolution. That's the kind of overlap I'm talking about.

But what some people have more difficulty believing is that everything on earth evolved over hundreds of millions of years from much different things just through selective breeding (and some freak mutations caused by the environment). So some people feel we evolved but our evolution was guided by some intelligent force -- that is what intelligent design is.

Creationism is poof! we exist.

For the record, I just believe we naturally evolved, but it is difficult for the human mind to fathom.

Oh, and evolution does *not* purport to describe how life was created; it just describes life evolving from one form to another. Mud does not evolve into bacteria and that is a different topic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 21 2006, 11:49 AM) [snapback]243182[/snapback]</div>

That's funny. I knew a caucasion while male who had ape-like features. The funny thing is he was a biology professor.

I grew up in a southern baptist church that is unrecognizable today -- women deacons, social justice, etc. So I didn't think twice about goi8ng to a highly regarded baptist college. Boy, was it different! I took biology, and one day the aforementioned professor looked very uncomfortable and started class with a disclaimer -- What we're about to cover may conflict with your personal values, so there will be no test. I was mystified, and all I could think of was sex! I was blown away when it turned out to be evolution! Needless to say, I didn't last long as a student there.

Peace --

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 21 2006, 12:49 PM) [snapback]243182[/snapback]</div>

that would be implying that black people are somehow less evolved than other races, which is entirely incorrect as well as being grossly racist.

we are all of the same species, meaning that we are all equally evolved. i'd use DNA as an example but i know someone would shoot back with the "we share a large percentage of our genome with fungi" argument.

what you're seeing as far as differences in populations (aka skin color, facial structure, etc) in my opinion is due to cultural differences in the ideal of what a person should look like aka beauty. now that we are not a bunch of isolated groups by geography or cultural opposition we are seeing much more diversity. i count that as a good thing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 21 2006, 01:22 PM) [snapback]243241[/snapback]</div>

Yes, in the sense that humans are equally as evolved as mushrooms since both species are alive at the same time (i.e. today). But there are differences; sometimes those differences have a purpose, other times they do not. People native to hot tropical regions are black because they don't get sunburned easily like caucasians do; that's a purposeful bit of evolution. A purposeless one is the exact opposite: people losing that pigmentation. It serves no purpose that I can think of.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 21 2006, 12:49 PM) [snapback]243182[/snapback]</div>

And yet you just did. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Denny_A @ Apr 21 2006, 09:25 AM) [snapback]243168[/snapback]</div>

There is a great deal of randomness in nature. Sub-atomic particles behave in a statistical manner, with a random distribution in the behavior of individual particles. For example, the half-life of a given radioactive isotope is fixed by quantum mechanics, but within that statistical distribution, the exact moment when a given atom decays is random.

Similarly, some mutations in the genome of a living animal are caused by ambient radiation. The specific atom within that animal's DNA that is hit by a given quanta or particle of radiation, is pure chance. Others are caused by environmental chemicals. The specific gene that is damaged by a given contaminant molecule is random.

These random events change the DNA in random ways, and the resultant alteration of the protien coded for by that gene is therefore also random.

Random genetic change is the material acted upon by natural selection, which is not random, but rather selects for those changes that make the individual better able to produce larger numbers of viable offspring.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 21 2006, 09:38 AM) [snapback]243178[/snapback]</div>

Intelligent design is indeed a ploy for creationists to get their religion into science classrooms, and to cast doubt in the minds iof gullible people concerning evolution. However, id is not precisely the same as creationism, because a god could have created life by a method which involved chance. God might have said, "Let there be life and let it be random." This would be an act of creation, but without intelligent design.

There could also be un-intelligent design. If the world was created by an all-powerful moron, it would explain a great deal that religion cannot.

A malevolent creator would also explain the state of the world. "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Apr 21 2006, 12:49 PM) [snapback]243182[/snapback]</div>

In the same vein my own mother claims that Caucasians are closer to the apes than Chinese. Her proof lies in that fact that caucasian arms are longer (yes all my shirt have to be altered; shortening the sleeves). And Caucasians are hairier too.

Then again my mother is an equal opportunity discriminator. She reminds me of Don Rickles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 22 2006, 02:13 PM) [snapback]243679[/snapback]</div>

Randomness, as I pointed out in reply #9, is a convenient term to deal with a googol of occurences which would be impossible to follow individually. However, no particular occurence involving any entity is random. Every action, however obscure adheres to the law of CAUSALITY!

The law of CAUSALITY rests on two points: the fact that action is the action of an ENTITY; and the law of IDENTITY, A is A. Every entity has a nature. It is specific and non-contradictory. It is limited - having certain attributes and no other. This entity must act in accordance with its nature.

Cause and effect is, therefore, a universal law of REALITY. Every action has a cause, and the same cause leads to the same effect. That is, the same entity under the same circumstances, will perform the same action. Cause and effect allow such events as the Huygens probe to the Saturn moon Titan. Huygens piggy-backed on Cassini all the way to Saturn orbit, from whence it was launched to Titan. Cause- effect.

Once more - there are NO random events. There are however entities (like me, and other humans) whose knowledge is limited and therefore find it convenient to use the term "random" when referring to the particles involved in the observable outcome of many simultaneous events. For example; Pressure, temperature, of a contained cloud of atoms racing around and colliding with stuff, is kinda like shorthand for the average number of (random?)collisions per unit time. But each and every collision is caused. :blink: There is a certain uncertainty principle (Heisenberg) dealing with the mathematical treatment of such motion which is too complicated to measure with instruments. The motion of the actual particles is NOT random.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Denny_A @ Apr 23 2006, 11:34 AM) [snapback]243995[/snapback]</div>

Once again, I beg to differ. Your vision was once accepted. It was thought that if we understood ALL the laws of nature, and the position and velocity of every particle at a given instant, we could calculate the entire history and future of the universe.

Heisenberg changed all that. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not just a question of a lack of precision in real measuring devices. It is a theoretical limit on specifying both position and velocity of a particle, and relates to the most fundamental laws of quantum mechanics.

There is always a certain amount of uncertainty in the trajectory of a particle. In attractive systems (such as planetary orbits) the uncertainty is small enough that trajectories can be calculated with great precision over long time periods. But repulsive systems (such as atomic collisions) magnify differences, and therefore uncertainties, such that it is impossible to predict the trajectory of a particle after some small number of collisions.

Radioactive decay is a random event. There is no way to know which particle will decay at any given moment, even though it is possible to know with reasonable accuracy how long it will take for half the atoms in a population to decay.

But more to the point of this thread: There is absolutely no way to predict which atom in a strand of DNA will be struck by a particle or quanta of ionizing radiation. Because you cannot predict which atom will be struck, you cannot predict what mutation will arise from it. Because you cannot know that, you cannot know what protien will be synthesized differently, or what the difference will be. This is what is meant when it is stated, that mutations in a gene pool are random. And these random mutations are the stuff upon which natural selection works.