Evolution

[Peregrine]

I'll give you an example. Which one is simpler: That a computer chip evolved to what it is now in billions of years or that someone built it? Now just put this sheme on our nature and ask yourself the same question. The more simple answer is of course that it was a plan. So it would be the plan, which is probably true, because it is more simple.

 

1) This rule applies to the simplest valid explanation. It is simple fact that the computer chip was created by humans.

2) This isn't even a good comparison. We have undeniable evidence that evolution happened. So unless you want to just ignore all facts that don't fit your truth, you have to incorporate evolution into your beliefs. Leaving you with:

 

1) Everything evolved by natural forces from the first primitive life, over millions/billions of years.

 

2) "God" created everything exactly as the bible says. All the evidence for evolution is either god's idea of a joke, or a test for the true believers. Does anyone seriously believe this?

 

3) Evolution happened as shown by the evidence, with some force from "god" helping it.

 

Now since 2) is so completely wrong no sane person could believe it, the choices are 1) and 3). Both would fit the evidence equally well, except 3) has the added part of "god" that is not needed. Therefore 1) is a better explanation.

 

 

This was already suggested and is called "theistic evolution" (at least I think it's called so, I'm not entirily sure about the name). So there we have the compromise between faith and science: Because the word used in genesis 1 has the meaning of "period of time" and not necessarily "day", it could also be some billions of years. Then we could combine it with the results of ressearch and say that god somehow planned and started the process of evolution. Perhaps he created the big bang and then everything began to evolve from itselve, because until today we can't explain how everything started from the beginning, where all the mater and energy came from and why the explosion of the big bang occured. Then god would be something like the overseer of evolution.

 

Except this theory is just as bad. God is not needed to explain the evidence. Therefore the only reason for including him in this theory is the need to make religious people happy. The only evidence for divine intervention is in the bible, a book that you already admit can not be taken as literal truth. The simplest explanation is that the bible is just wrong, an incorrect and primitive creation story made because its authors could not understand what we now know to be true.

 

As for the "god created the universe and let evolution do the rest" part, that's an entirely separate argument.

 

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND EVOLUTION ARE TWO COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT THEORIES.

 

Even if it was proved 100% true that god created the universe (but nothing else), that would have no effect on evolution.

 

It does at least make sense to me: We have the intelligence behind it (because a planned action is simpler than just accident) and the mechanics of evolution we found in nature. I think it's the easiest explenation for it.

 

Except that divine creation is much more complicated than saying "god did it". What created god then? How did he interact with the universe? How does god exist outside the universe? And no, planned actions are not simpler than accidental ones.

1) Accidental: requires natural forces of the universe

2) Planned: requires natural forces of the universe + planning

Even if something is planned, the same forces still affect it. But now you have to explain another, outside force.

 

Well, good example. I agree. Another example of the big bang theory is like taking apart a pocket watch piece by piece. Then placing the pieces in a shoebox and shaking it up. An evolutionist or big bang theorist is almost saying that the pieces in this shoebox will come together by chance. What are the chances? Not good. I think every one can agree with that. The earth and all of its elemants are a lot more complex than a pocket watch and so the chances of it just coming together without a plan are unlikely and in my opinion, impossible.

 

Except that the universe as we know it did not come together like that. All that had to happen was for the first primitive "life" to form. After that, evolution has no problem explaining it. A more appropriate comparison would be two pieces of the watch eventually coming together. After that, survival of the fittest and all that is going to naturally favor the more efficently evolved organism. So after initial creation, the watch will pull itself together.

 

And remember, none of this happened instantly. That's the advantage of not believing the earth is only 10,000 years old... there's plenty of time for those elements of random chance to have their effect.

[hundinman]

oh, my mistake. Sorry everybody if you thought I was saying that the universe was created by having all the parts being put into a giant shoebox and shaken up!

[Darnoc]

We have undeniable evidence that evolution happened.

 

No, sorry to disappoint you, we don't. We do have undeniable evidence that genetic change can occure in lifeforms, we have undeniable evidence that there are fossils of now no longer existing lifeforms, we have undeniable evidence that the simplest forms of those fossils are at the bottom. We do assume from our findings that those simpler fossils must be older than the more complex forms lying above them, we do assume that genetic change lead to the evolvement from those simpler forms to the more complex forms and we do assume that the first living organisme did evolve from itself when the first proteines did develope (even with our complex machines and our intelligence we weren't able to recreate this process). Of this we don't know anything at all, we find something and interprete it like this. We never observed the development of live from not living material, we never observed the evolvment of a lifeform to a more complex lifeform (only to a different kind of the already existing lifeform) and we never observed if those fossils lying at the bottom truely are older than those lying above them (there's also another explenation coming from geology: When you meddle different stones, the littlest will lie at the bottom and the biggest above.) So don't come and say that the there is undeniable prove for the evolvement of any lifeform to a more complex lifeform (because that is what you mean with evolution, not the process of genetic change in a population of lifeforms because the environment has changed, which is undeniable true).

 

Everything we find we do interprete one way and sometimes forget that there are other ways to interprete our finding, which are also probably true and also have good arguments for them. And until someone really can undeniably prove it, it will stay an interpretation and so potentialy wrong. Because no theory has really prove at the moment, we have to look at probability. And there you are right, Peregrine: The most simplest valid explenation is very probably the true explenation. But it still not undeniably true and because of this potentialy not true. And true is true. When god exists, he does exist, even when it is not the simplest valid explenation. End of discussion. Same counts of course, when he doesn't exist. So we can only have an absolute oppinion when there is absolute prove and because this is not the case it is our duty to assume that our interpretations are perhaps not true and try to find those undeniable proves, so that we can have an absolute oppinion of the matter discussed.

[Pikeman85]

Actually we do have evidence of genetic change in organisms. It's often called cancer :P It doesn't affect the whole though, and isn't what you're refering to.

 

What you ARE trying to refer to is genetic changes in a population which FOR THE FOURTH TIME DOES HAPPEN. I asked if you wanted MORE references about it, and yet you will not answer me.

 

I provided some in my first post. Genetic changes DO happen over time, in population. THAT is evolution. Sexual reproduction = genetic change in a population. THAT = evolution. Didn't any of you ever take a genetics course? At least a basic biology course?

 

It happens everyday. It's happening as we speak. Genetic change enough to get a new organism takes a bit longer, depending on the organism and the conditions, but the principle is /precisely/ the same, except now the zygotes won't combine, or the animal won't breed in nature. That's /it/.

 

Period. Fin. The end.

 

Perhaps I don't have my degree yet, but I'd say I'm at least coming off coherently here?

 

And the theory of evolution, and the big bang have /nothing/ to do with each other.

 

The theory of evolution goes into play whenever there are living organisms with DNA as we've seen.

 

And if evolution doesn't happen, why do you think drug companies have to spend so much money to combat recently evolved bacteria? Trust me. I've dealt with these recent changes while in class. I know precisely what they had to add to penicillin to make oxacillin (sp?) so that they could inactivate the beta-lactamase, because bacteria were becoming resistant to penicillin, and producing beta-lactamase. THAT is evolution.

[Darnoc]

You've missunderstood me, Pikeman85. I didn't say that genetic change is unproved, it is an undeniable true fact. The only thing which isn't undeniable true is the evolvment of higher organism through genetic change. The only genetic change we did actually observe is the change occuring in a population of lifeforms when they have to addapt to a new environment. Then the species does change a little, but doesn't evolve to a higher lifeform, the only thing the species does is adapt, nothing more, nothing less. Now the theory says that when such an adaption had happened enough times, the species will evolve further into a higher evolved species. This was never observed or proven, it is only an interpretation of our findings. Some parts of the evolution-theory are true, like the adaption throuhg genetic change, but some are until today not proven, like the higher evolvment through genetic change.

[Peregrine]

No, sorry to disappoint you, we don't.

 

Yes, we do. For all relevant purposes, there is only one interpertation of the evidence. I admit, it can't be proven 100%. But the evidence overwhelmingly favors evolution. Its as close as you can get to definite truth on this subject.

 

We do have undeniable evidence that genetic change can occure in lifeforms

 

Translation: we have evidence that evolution occurs. Call it genetic change or call it evolution, its still exactly the same thing.

 

we have undeniable evidence that there are fossils of now no longer existing lifeforms

 

Are you trying to prove my point?

 

we have undeniable evidence that the simplest forms of those fossils are at the bottom.

 

Which proves that the complexity of life on earth has gradually increased over a long period of time. Now what theory does this describe? Oh yes, that minor one called evolution!

 

We do assume from our findings that those simpler fossils must be older than the more complex forms lying above them

 

A few points for you here:

1) Dating of samples proves this. The more primitive ones are older.

2) NO examples of civilization have been found in these lower layers. If, as you say, the smaller ones settled to the bottom, you would expect to find small human-made objects as well.

3) Smaller does not (necessarily) equal primitive. If it were merely size based, the fossils would be spread out randomly, instead of organized by date.

4) The organism's size does not matter. Once a fossil has formed/been sealed away, something that dies much later will not sink down through the rock to its level. The only time the size rule would apply is if the two organisms died fairly close together in time.

 

we do assume that genetic change lead to the evolvement from those simpler forms to the more complex forms

 

Then if not genetic change, what did cause it? God just got bored of watching single celled organisms for a million years, so he made something better? And then made us so he could get our tv signals and finally find something more intersting than creation to do?

 

we do assume that the first living organisme did evolve from itself when the first proteines did develope (even with our complex machines and our intelligence we weren't able to recreate this process).

 

WRONG. Scientists have created basic organic compounds in an environment similar to their best guess at conditions when life first formed. Once you have those, life can easily form from that. Of course no new organisms have been created like that... but the simple fact that we can't let an expirement run for even thousands of years makes that pretty obvious.

 

Everything we find we do interprete one way and sometimes forget that there are other ways to interprete our finding, which are also probably true and also have good arguments for them

 

Wrong. Just because someone comes up with an alternate interpertation does not make it valid. There is no alternate theory with good arguments, and that's simple undeniable fact. The only way to believe any of the alternate theories is to ignore the facts.

 

Because no theory has really prove at the moment, we have to look at probability. And there you are right, Peregrine: The most simplest valid explenation is very probably the true explenation. But it still not undeniably true and because of this potentialy not true.

 

Exactly right on probability. NOTHING can be proven 100%. Maybe gravity doesn't really exist and is just god moving things to play with our minds. But is that a reasonable theory? No.

By undeniable, I mean that no alternate theory comes even close in probability of truth. The probability of it not being true is so extremely low that it's as close as you're ever going to get to absolute proof.

 

When god exists, he does exist, even when it is not the simplest valid explenation. End of discussion. Same counts of course, when he doesn't exist.

 

Of course. That's why that rule only applies when there is no other evidence to favor the more complex theory. If god were to appear with undeniable proof of his existence and creation, we'd have to accept it. But the problem is, there isn't any reason to choose that explanation.

Now of course we could be wrong, and we just haven't found that evidence. But if you insist on using this argument, nothing is true. We could just be npcs in some giant rpg. Any crack-inspired "theory" you can name can be considered equally valid. So basic sanity says we have to rule out all that kind of stuff, and choose the most likely theory as definite proof.

 

So please, stop using the "nothing can be proven true" argument. If nothing can be 100% true, than no discussion can happen.

 

You've missunderstood me, Pikeman85. I didn't say that genetic change is unproved, it is an undeniable true fact. The only thing which isn't undeniable true is the evolvment of higher organism through genetic change. The only genetic change we did actually observe is the change occuring in a population of lifeforms when they have to addapt to a new environment. Then the species does change a little, but doesn't evolve to a higher lifeform, the only thing the species does is adapt, nothing more, nothing less. Now the theory says that when such an adaption had happened enough times, the species will evolve further into a higher evolved species. This was never observed or proven, it is only an interpretation of our findings. Some parts of the evolution-theory are true, like the adaption throuhg genetic change, but some are until today not proven, like the higher evolvment through genetic change.

 

They're exactly the same thing. These "higher forms" are better adapted and better able to survive and reproduce. The process is exactly the same... a favorable mutation is passed on over a long period of time until it becomes the dominant characteristic.

[Darnoc]

*Bows before Master Peregrine* Got me there, Peregrine :D ! Your good at discussions, I'm honored to have fought against you in this thread, but now I think, you've defeated me. I would like to fight against you (or together with you?) in another discussion, if you want to, of course. If someone knows new arguments, go on with it, but I'm out of here (until I come up with something new, but that could need some time). For me the thrill of the discussion is important, not who wins in the end. And I also recognize, when someone has defeated me.

 

So, I've got to say my last words :D (but don't think, that I'm dying or something like that!): Evolution is at the most probable explenation of the facts. But this can't hinder me to believe, what I want. This thread is not about proving my belief in god, it's about how our world came into existence (for proving god, there's another thread around here somewhere). I do belief, because I experienced somethings, which you probably wouldn't belief, when I told you. I couldn't even belief it myself, if I were someone else and I'm certainly not capable of explaining, what I experienced. Perhaps this is good, perhaps there should be some unexplainable things. The world would be a very boring place, if we could explain everything, wouldn't it? So, I hope that there will have all the time a mystery, something unexplainable and that the day is far, when we can explain everything. (perhaps this day won't come; every question we answer rises several new questions). So, to end this mysterical babble of mine, I just hand over the word to someone else here. But for my part, I think Peregrine is right now at the upper hand. Congratulations! :)

[Eltiraaz]

One can believe in both creationism, and evolution. Just to point out a fact.

 

;)

[Peregrine]

Now how exactly does one do that? As I see it, there's only a few choices for how to believe in both... and only one is at all reasonable!

 

1) Believe both as stated and ignore the contradictions: They can both be true. Who cares about any of that stuff anyway. Too bad this view falls apart if you even bother to look at the facts.

 

2) Reinterpert creation: The evidence for evolution is too overwhelming to deny it. So take evolution as fact and try to put in some elements of divine influence wherever you can. Ex: god let evolution happen mostly independently, but intervened in a few minor places to get the best end result. Too bad the "simplest explanation" rule makes this a bad explanation. If evolution alone explains the facts, adding god is unjustified.

 

3) Reinterpert creation, part II: Evolution happened as stated. The story in the bible is just a symbolic one. God just created the universe, then let evolution happen as the theory states. While this allows you to believe in both, it's completely irrelevant to the debate here. Once again,

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND EVOLUTION ARE TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE SUBJECTS.

[Darnoc]

Exactly, absolutely right, Peregrine. And that is, why "to belief in god" is only a belief, because you can't and never will be able to prove. It is even against all logic to believe in god. Even if I did try to bring logic to it, I do now clearly see that it is not logical and never will be. If it would be explainable and provable, it wouldn't be a belief, would it? But religion and belief aren't supposed to be logical, they are supposed to be above any explanation and are supposed to be a matter of everyone owns unprovable and unexplainable experience, not a matter of logical explanation and prove. That is why the bible says the kingdom of god is not for those who are the strong and the smart, but for the weak and the stupid, because the strong and the smart would never belief, they would try to explain things. Matters of belief of course don't belong to this thread, this thread is about explainable things and logic. So anyone who wants to discuss about belief can do this somewhere else. Well, I at least will do it.

 

P. S. Wasn't so long until I had something else to say, was it? ;) But I didn't bring new arguments, I only supported what Peregrine said just above and will discuss matters of belief in another thread. I will look inside here sometimes, but I like more philosophical discussions than this one here. So this isn't really the thread for me. See you somewhere else, guys!