| From: Ava | 2/11/99
16:57:54 |
| Subject: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4336 |
| I don't believe in
evolution. For one thing if evolution is true, I would be related to a frog. That would mean that somewhere back then we both had a common ancestor, but here's the thing; if we both had a common ancestor why was it so perfect? Why did it miraculously had two eyes, one nose, two ears on either side a mouth, and why is it all on the head? Why not everywhere else on the body? If evolution was correct, there would be some thing out there that would have the mouth over the stomache, ten eyes, one ear or something like that, and not concentrated on the head. There has to be something controling this, something that had planned all of this. But that's just what I think. | |
| From: biz | 2/11/99
17:01:25 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4339 |
| you mean like crustations,
insects, spiders, etc? | |
| From: Kothos | 2/11/99
17:09:13 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4348 |
Hi Ava The thing about evolution and divine creation is that they both describe the same thing - the pattern of life on Earth. If, as you say, evolution predicts all sorts of weird and varied creatures, with noses and ears all over their bodies etc... it would have been discounted by scientists as a non-viable theory. But it hasn't been discounted. Evolution describes a series of steps that life takes to adapt to its environment. Once upon a time, when the common ancestor between humans and frogs existed, it had one nose and two eyes and two ears. It took a while and it evolved into a frog, and also into a human. The one nose-two eyes/ears configuration worked well, so it remained a characteristic of both species. Other possible configurations apparently didn't work so well, because the creatures that may have been born (by accident) with ten ears or no mouths did not live to show us their offspring. That's why they're not around - but we (and the frogs) are. | |
| From: Cam | 2/11/99
17:20:18 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4355 |
| Hi Ava, Evolution is not a rapid event, it occurs slowly over many generations. Life o this planet has been radioisotope dated (by the rocks people) to some 3.5 or greater billion years. How long do you want. About 1 billion years since the development of complex multicellular organisms. That is one thousand million years. The amphibions date to (approx) 250 or 300 million years ago, the primates are relative recent things, about 2 to 5 million years. Evolution for the ecological niche is very slow but is present as a slow selection of those individuals within a vast and varied group most able to meet the demands of the niche and live to a reproductive age. Sometimes it can happen quickly. Look at two things, one is the cockroach (in the 'Roaches thread) and two is the EVOLUTION of drug resistant bacteria. We as humans place a strong evolutionary and selection pressure on bacteria, some will be resistant (slightly) to the drugs we use. Some will not. The pressure selects those that are resistant to the drugs, so THEIR genes are passed on to the next generation. This is the process of EVOLUTION. There are many hundreds, nay thousands of examples of such selection pressures placed on organisms by human interactions. Evolution exists and carries on all the time. The only thing that does not change is change itself. Paul | |
| From: Cam | 2/11/99
17:37:32 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4364 |
| If you're grossed-out by the idea
of sharing ancestry with frogs, then perhaps I can make you feel a little
worse. You share about 90% of your DNA with the common fruit
fly. | |
| From: Kothos | 2/11/99
17:41:04 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4366 |
I've always found that funny about the "I ain't related to no Ape" argument. Whether it was God or natural selection that brought about present life on Earth, the DNA is shared just the same - making us related just the same. Apparently not even God could be bothered redesigning everything. | |
| From: Alan | 2/11/99
17:51:03 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4373 |
| Sue will have the correct numbers
/ locations for the following. But... Jelly fish - stomach directly located behind the mouth. no ears, no eyes(?) Flys - 100 eyes, no ears(?) etc | |
| From: Kothos | 2/11/99
17:57:33 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4376 |
Yeah but jelly fish and flies are not found between frogs and humans on the Terran Family Tree. I think Ava's point was that if humans are related to frogs, there should exist today all the other possible creatures between them (or some approximate thing). Which is wrong of course. | |
| From: Kate (TUO) | 2/11/99
18:11:21 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4377 |
| The beauty of the theory of
evolution, or any other scientific theory, is that you don't have to
believe it at all. You can quite readily go out and find evidence
to support (or refute) the theory and let the facts speak for themselves.
Where many go astray is discounting evidence that doesn't fit their
personal pet theory (or creationist
belief). | |
| From: Kate (TUO) | 2/11/99
20:52:55 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4412 |
| Hang on a second, why/how does
the physical symmetry of a creature preclude
evolution? | |
| From: TonyW | 2/11/99
21:17:10 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4419 |
| There are more things in heaven
and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Ava. (Appropriate apologies to the Bard of course) | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 2/11/99
22:13:15 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4441 |
| The "how could 'perfect' eyes
come into being by chance" argument is a good one because it provides the
question of prediction (albeit "retroactive prediction") which just
strengthens the case for evolution. All scientific theories must withstand
and answer criticism and scrutiny (which stands science apart from
fundamentalist religions) - and the fact that Evolution answers these time
and time again never ceases to astound me. The reason for this is that if you look at all the forms in nature it is realised that you don't need a perfectly working eye to get an adaptive benefit. Indeed the entire opthalmic spectrum exists in nature, all the way from crude photosensitive cells for eyes, to photosensitive cells with rudimentary lenses in front of them to focus light, all the way up to the exquisit engingeering of a eagle or cat's eye (the human eye is hardly a feat of perfect engineering - the photoreceptors are on the "wrong" side of the retina for one). And indeed this is exactly what prompted the theory of evolution in the first place - the fact that we see a continuum of characteristics throughout the animal kingdom. Soupie twist, Ed G.  | |
| From: Leith | 2/11/99
23:14:28 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4462 |
| Some evolution is fact,like
generations of pests becoming adapted to insecticides and
diseases. | |
| From: steve(primus) | 2/11/99
23:30:19 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4468 |
| Evolution is fact. It did and
still does occur. Observations bear this out. The way in which evolution
ocurred is theory - gradual change or punctuated equilibrium are the main
contenders. | |
| From: Lib | 3/11/99
1:20:53 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4484 |
| I quite like frogs. What's wrong
with being distantly related to a frog? Mind you it has been quoted by an eminent herpetologist that they posses an apology for a brain. | |
| From: Rogalo | 3/11/99
11:28:52 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4539 |
| The reason the mouth and eyes,
ears etc are on the head is because these organs need to be close the
brain for them to work accordingly. If your ear was on your toes, it would
take longer for you to hear something and you would have less range to
hear. As for the frogs being related to us well I don't know. I to don't believe in evolution, I believe in Adaption, evolution is a theory, as is Creation. | |
| From: Dan B. | 3/11/99
11:39:30 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4542 |
| Isn't it funny that although
history class teaches evolution (Darwinism) and RE class teaches creation,
no one ever thought to challenge the teacher of one about the teachings of
the other? I guess that's why they don't do it after Year 8. Dan. | |
| From: Dr Paul | 3/11/99
11:47:25 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4545 |
| Hi Rogalo, please define your version of adaptation of an organism population to an ecological niche. I have put enough down for myself at the moment, I would now like to expand my thoughts with details of others knowledge or thoughts. Many thanks in anticipation Paul | |
| From: Kothos | 3/11/99
12:01:58 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4553 |
I used to challenge them all the time - made the nuns cry and the brothers would get a frog in their throats and get all defensive. That's why I gave it up - none of them would ever answer my questions. | |
| From: helen | 3/11/99
12:04:50 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4555 |
we had a great school chaplain who taught the bible as "poetry" - had no problem with evolution, thought the old testament was a great yarn, encouraged us to see it all as a grand metaphor, not to be taken literally. What a cool old guy. | |
| From: Rogalo | 3/11/99
13:35:19 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4589 |
| Sounds like my science teacher.
One of the only things I can remember him saying (remembering the actual
words, not what he taught) is "Science is the how. Religion is the
why." | |
| From: Rogalo | 3/11/99
16:13:15 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4634 |
| Hi Dr Paul, Well evolution is the long developmental time peroid where one specie changes into another, Whereas adaption is where a specie will adapt to it's changing environment. A perfect example of this is a finch specie on Galopagas Islands, previously a herbivore / insectivor, but has now been recorded to eat meat due to changes in environment. This has a change on the specie but has some how avoided taking it's ecological niche away. Hope this helps | |
| From: adam ashby | 3/11/99
16:22:14 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4638 |
| There is actucally (3) three
theories on how the earth and life evolved. As we know it
today. theory of evolution seeding theroy creatism theroy An apparatus used by Stanley and Miller, shows how organic compounds can be produced, by some simple processes. I belive you should take a look at the expriment and apparatus, before you say 'I don't belive in evolution'. Most people are famlier with Charles Darwin and his theories, about natural selection, and evolution. It is ok to belive the the earth and animals were created by a 'god', but these theories are only beliefs, therefore than can not stand up to the major and most common theories we know today. | |
| From: adam ashby | 3/11/99
16:29:07 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4640 |
| I think you might mean the theory
of natural selection, for your example on the Galapogos
Island finches. | |
| From: steve(primus) | 3/11/99
16:52:52 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4653 |
| Adam, creationism is not a theory
in any scientific sense. That evolution is a fact is observable. The
theories are the way in which evolution ocurred and the way in which life
developed in the first place. There is room for a god in evolution, which
is why many scientists are also churchgoers, there is no room for science
in creationism because the creationists won't allow any science that
disputes their beliefs. | |
| From: Cam | 3/11/99
22:03:56 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4734 |
| Even Miller admitted that those
sparking-box experiments left a lot to be desired. Nothing conclusive was found as a result of the experiments for the simple reason that we have no way of accurately determining the conditions that existed on Earth 3.5 billion years ago. | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 3/11/99
22:09:01 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4735 |
| Yes, it seems unlikely that one
might create life by such a brute force technique, unless (like the Earth)
you have hundreds of millions of years, and quintillions of cubic
metres of fluid in which to do it. | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 3/11/99
23:04:56 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4767 |
| why was it so
perfect? Why did it miraculously had two eyes, one nose, two ears on
either side a mouth, and why is it all on the head? This line of thought demonstrates the human centred view of the world that (most?) creationist religions espouse. The human is the pinacle of creation, and in the case of Christianity the image of God, and therefore perfect in form. Evolution requires the abandonment of the assumption of perfection because it relies on random, beneficial variations (dare I say imperfections) to provide the motive force for change. A perfect creature simply cannot exist because its environment and internal makeup is changing constantly. Does this make evolution fundamentally at odds with the belief of human perfection? I think it does, but it it does not preclude the notion of creation and subsequent evolutionary change. | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 4/11/99
3:17:06 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4814 |
| We are no longer talking about
evolution, but biogenesis (or abiogenesis, depending on which books you
read). Calling seeding a theory of the origin of life is a cop-out, pure and simple. It can be used to explain the origin of life on Earth, but all that does is shift the problem in space and time. That isn't real science. | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 4/11/99
6:19:21 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4824 |
| Dr Ed is that
Mars picture for real? It's obvious that your mind has been tainted by the spiritless cynicism of scientific orthodoxy. Yes, indeed it is real and it was taken at about the same time as the so-called "face" on Mars. Little do people know, however, that Richard Hoagland, his Martian "face", and his Martian "pyramids" are all simply part of an elaborate NASA hoax to divert the gullible public from the real truth that life on Earth originated from the Muppet Aliens of Mars. Interestingly, I used to have a link which described that actual location on Mars that this picture was taken, but the link has mysteriously disappeared!!! Gladly, though, their subversion inevitably cannot last forever (and I'm just glad I saved the image to my hard disk), as the Martian Muppet Spiritual tells us, "Some day we'll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers, and me!" It's not a question of if this NASA hoax, and the truth about our origin, will be revealed, but when! Soupie twist, Ed G. | |
| From: Anura | 4/11/99
14:06:35 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4903 |
| I love this discussion. I dont'
believe in creation or evolution. If the evolution theory is right, I can't figure out how in 250 Million years nature manage to carve a human being out of a frog ! Because natute had only 250 million random iterations to play with. In other words frog had only 250 million or so generations to evolve. If I had a pair of frogs in a cage and after 250 million years will there be a human being or beings reading my script ? I doubt it. Thanks. | |
| From: Di | 4/11/99
14:11:55 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4905 |
| I don't think a cage would be the
exact same conditions. | |
| From: steve(primus) | 4/11/99
14:12:18 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4906 |
| I can't figure
out how in 250 Million years nature manage to carve a human being out of a
frog It didn't. Modern frogs are the end point of their evolution to date just as we are the end point of our evolution so far. If you go back far enough, there will be a common ancestor for both frogs and humans but modern frogs did not, and cannot evolve into humans. To get a better insight may I suggest you read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins. | |
| From: Anura | 4/11/99
14:30:20 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4910 |
| Hi Anura, Steve has hit it correctly, the processes of evolution mean that one end point of evolution does not evolve into another endpoint. However, there can be many similarities in the patterns of ecology of different organisms which have evolved in different regions. This is called Convergent evolution, and is due to the different regions containing sites with very similar selection pressures in selected niches. Examples are the Felis groups of the Northern hemisphere and the Dasyurid cats (quolls). They have similar ecology but come from different regions. The selection pressures for the evoluionary paths may have had some strong similarities, but the populations are highly separated, the Felis group being placental mammals, the Dasyurids being marsupials . (Along similar lines, the Hyenid group and the Dasyurid Tasmanian Devils!!) The processes of evolution are very slow. If Humans were to be wiped out tomorrow, the ecological niche space of a social interacting species may be filled by a bird, an amphibian, or lizard or insect. It will depend on the presence of a group of organisms with sufficient evolutionary variability to enable selection for such a niche. It will likely take many 10's to 100's of millions of years. My likely choice would be the birds (Carn the crows). If not for the Yucatan meteor, we might have been raptoid!! Paul | |
| From: Anura | 4/11/99
17:23:46 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
4984 |
| Anura, I love this discussion. I dont' believe in creation or evolution. May I ask what you do believe in, then? If I had a pair of frogs in a cage and after 250 million years will there be a human being or beings reading my script ? I doubt it. It depends on the conditions in your cage. If the conditions were kept constant and sufficient for the sustenance of frog life, you'd most likely end up with creatures still very much like frogs, apart from a few random changes which did not materially affect the frogs' adaptation to their environment. For example, you might end up with pink frogs. On the other hand, if you gradually altered the conditions in your cage to produce appropriate selection pressures on your frog population, you could influence the evolution of the species towards possessing any particular set of characteristics you wanted. Computer simulations of this type of thing, which allow for random mutations along with imposed selection pressures, show that surprisingly few generations are required for quite radical changes to occur in a species. 250 million years should be more than sufficient to evolve a frog population into something closely resembling a human population, especially if conditions are altered with this particular end result in mind. Of course, you'd need a big cage and the ability to control a myriad of different environmental factors in just the right way... JR | |
| From: Anura | 4/11/99
22:22:05 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
5051 |
| James, My problem with evolution therory is that it is such a slow process and if just random selection is left to do the job it would have been impossible to end up with a human being. I believe in "Directed evolution" . I am not sure whether that is the right word for it. What I meant by that is; the events may not have been purely random or just been lucky. Well that is what I think. | |
| From: Kothos | 4/11/99
23:34:11 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
5074 |
Anura, if you are having trouble believing that the randomness of natural selection could have produced all the well-working set of life on Earth, try thinking of it this way; You know when you dial a wrong number on the telephone, they always answer?? Freaky huh? Surely whether the person you are mistakenly calling answers or not should be a random event. Except they always, always, answer. That means it must be directed right? What you're not aware of is the countless amount of wrong numbers you've dialled which nobody answered - and as such you never got to find out whether it was wrong or not, you just assumed it was the correct phone number. Evolution has created whole bucketfuls of life which were "wrong numbers" and have died out. You don't get to see these, so you can't assume that the life present now was "directed". It's just what's left over after the crap dies off. It's like throwing tennis balls through a hole in the wall. To you, sometimes you miss and sometimes you don't. But to the person on the other side, it looks directed, because it looks like you never miss. | |
| From: steve (primus) | 5/11/99
1:04:59 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
5097 |
| Anura, what have you read on
evolution? It really is a random event and is certainly not directed. If
it was directed, why are there so many different types of eyes in the
world and why don't humans have the best model? The Blind
Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins are
two good books to start with and are very
readable. | |
| From: DrGreg | 5/11/99
10:02:51 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
5111 |
What Kothos is aiming at here is the weak anthropic principle. His examples are very good, because they illustrate the part that perception plays in this debate. One strong argument against evolution made by creationists is that evolution by chance is unsupportable because of the small probability that we might have been produced randomly. The argument goes that it is far too unlikely for us to be the product of random mutation. As Anura says "it must be directed", there must have been a directing hand involved with the goal of producing us in mind. This argument is flawed, and the WEP shows us why. Probability only mounts against the production of humans by chance when one establishes the production of humans as the goal. In other words we as humans are placing an extraordinary value on the probability of evolving ourselves, a value which is not represented in evolutionary theory. Evolution works whether it evolves us or not - as Paul suggested it might easily enough have evolved intelligent dinosaurs in our place but for the cretacious mass extinction event. Unfortunately this type of probability weighting is exactly the mindset required of a creationist. Their reasoning is necessarily inductive in nature because their results are already established. Which is fine, but it isn't science. I recommend a couple of essays on evolution in Stephen Jay Gould's Bully for Brontosaurus, particularly the one's on Justice Scalia's dissenting judgement in the Kansas "outlawing of teaching evolution theory in schools" case. Also I believe the "Red Mars" etc trilogy deals with alternative evolutionary endpoints (although I haven't read it myself). Also check up any more complete discussions of the Weak Anthropic Principle to make sure you understand what it is saying. Cheers Chris | |
| From: DrGreg | 5/11/99
13:20:46 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
5134 |
| To draw a parallel: suppose last
week's lotto numbers were 11, 13, 28, 33, 36, 40. The probability of this outcome is less than one in eight million. The odds against it seem overwhelming, and if they happened to be your lotto numbers, then you might indeed feel specially blessed. If they weren't your numbers, you'd say "Big deal. There's nothing very remarkable about them." | |
| From: DrGreg | 18/11/99
11:01:55 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
8316 |
| It's not strictly the topic but
you can't usually reason with creationists using logic and argument
because the whole experience and mindset of creationism is to ignore and
refute logic and reason. If they did embrace logic they would talk about
how barren the night sky was over Eden. Say the world really was made in 6 days 10 thousand years ago as creationists assert and Adam had a camera with a long exposure setting...40 secs or so. What would he see or photograph in the freshly formed night sky..? A moon and 8 dimly visible planets and some asteroids. He wouldn't see a star for four years and then they would appear in spontaneous dibs and drabs over the millenia.Our Galaxy is what, 100,000 light years wide? and being on the edge of a spiral arm of our Galaxy we should be able to see less than a 10th of the Stars we can see in our own milky way. Creationist Ministers should demonstrate the scientific and predictive nature of Creation "Science" but showing you that you are not really seeing all those glowing points in the night sky. Don't you hate the Idea that you could be distantly related to stupid people. Also where do creationists get off on the Idea that we are "above" other creatures. We are not at the top of the peak of some Evolutionary pyramid or pinacle of creation. We share our position with every other creature that has survived to this point in time. Why don't Christians ever bother to read the Bible? Try Ecclesiastes 17-21. We have no preeminance above other beasts and we are beasts ourselves. | |
| From: Matt | 18/11/99
11:28:36 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
8330 |
| God could have set up the EM
fields so that the light from the stars was already "well on its way" at
the moment of creation. Omnipotence has its
advantages. | |
| From: Matt | 18/11/99
17:52:49 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
8557 |
| Dr Greg - If you look at the
beginning of the bible God has given man dominion over the animals.
Creation is not a scientific account - the bible is no science textbook. It is saying that God created the world and us - not how He did this. | |
| From: DrGreg | 19/11/99
9:40:38 |
| Subject: re: I don't believe in evolution | post id:
8686 |
| Yeah Daryn, what a great and
honest "creationist" God that sends deceitful em signals showing how Stars
looked for millions of years before they were actually created and then
give them whole fictional histories of collisions and SuperNovae
explosions etc. What a lying deceitful bastard this God is that Creationists worship. What do you mean The Bible isn't meant to be a science text book? Ask a Creationist or read their Magazine Ex Nihili or whatever it's called (at all good newsagents) The old testament is the literal truth!!!. Thats why the Earth has corners, the heavens have windows, Homosexuals are abominations, adulterers should be stoned to death (Rev Baker?) and no Christian should ever eat pork or shellfish. Check out the good book of Leviticus, the basis for Christian persecution of various minorities. Funny how they let dwarves marry nowdays though, but of course all fundamentalist Creationist Christians exactly follow these teachings........ Ah, the consistancy and honesty of a true believer. | |