Whoa... Biologist utterly pwns a Creationist

[Cartollomew]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... sts_to.php

I take issue with his assertion that an idea has no credibility until it is published, but within the context of ID/Creationism, this is largely correct. The proponents of ID/Creationism are so well funded and organised, that if their ideas had scientific credibility, they'd be in peer reviewed journals in an instant. These journals cannot print their arguments, however - they have no testable basis in science.

For those curious about the scientific dismissal of ID/Creationism, it largely stems from the fact that ID is not a theory, as it cannot ever really be disproven - large parts of the idea are untestable.

The chaps over at the Discovery Institute would do far better following the lead of the scientific community - spending their time trying to poke holes in theory of evolution.

Evolution as a concept is far from perfect, but it's the best fitting theory we have. So far, we just need to firm up the details and work out the bits that don't make as much sense as they could. Evolution, however, remains a fully fledged theory - it is conceivable that it could one day be disproved (or proved) and its ideas are testable.

[Vampirial]

Only read the first few paragraphs and nice find Cart! Now must go pack and stop reading random interests QQ

[Leviat]

Tell me, if we come from apes, how are we so different? What makes us so special that we made the jump to self awareness and theyre still.. apes. If evilution is correct, then why are there still apes. TELL ME!! This has bugged me for a while.

[Cartollomew]

Tell me, if we come from apes, how are we so different? What makes us so special that we made the jump to self awareness and theyre still.. apes. If evilution is correct, then why are there still apes. TELL ME!! This has bugged me for a while.

I'm honestly not the best person to ask, but I'll have a crack anyway.

It is important to remember that evidence suggests we didn't evolve from apes, but rather apes and humans evolved from some common ancestor - that common ancestor is no longer around.

Apes are still well evolved for what they do - just because there are people doesn't preclude apes from doing very well in their own environment. And apes are superior to humans in many different ways, particularly physically. I'm also curious about how you define "self awareness", but that's an aside - I understand your point. Why is it that we are capable of advanced thought, tools, abstract concepts and so on, while other species are apparently not?

I don't know. You'll have to ask someone else. But evolution doesn't particularly care - it's concerned only with what is the best fit for a given environment.

Now the really gritty questions to ask about evolution are the ones relating to the development of advanced specialties.

Let's look at eyes for example - an eye has a very specific job. For a creature without eyes to evolve into one with eyes would take many many generations. Each generation takes a step closer to eyes as we have them today - but each generation of change needs to have a "pre-eye" that still provides an advantage over those of the same species who do not have a pre-eye (or a more primitive pre-eye).

How the hell does that happen? Again, I'm the wrong person to ask - but there are people who research this sort of thing. There are a number of theories related to it, and each of those is testable - it's likely we can't prove or disprove them at this stage, but it is at least possible for them to be proven or disproven.

Saying "an intelligent creator made them that way" doesn't provide anything useful, and isn't science - we can't prove or disprove that, short of observable and measurable intervention on the part of the creator.

If someone chooses to believe that a god had a hand in development of life as it is today, then science has no problem with that - because that belief has nothing to do with science.
Likewise, one's faith should not be threatened by the ideas presented in evolution, as they do not make any statement about the existence (or otherwise) of a creator.

Certainly there are a number of scientific concepts at odds with the belief in a 6000 year old world, but that has little or nothing to do with the belief in a god.

[Vampirial]

Generally its all down to DNA. I'm not an expert by no means but basically our replication process may make an error every 10th million time - this may not seem trivial at all but when you think that many cells are being replaced every single day well thats a hell of a lot of room for errors to occur. Some errors are huge mistakes and people die or are diseased in differnt varying levels. Some errors do nothing at all and occur in DNA termed junk DNA (mainly termed this well because science hasnt yet found out what their purpose is). Sometimes an error occurs and its one of the lucky ones that provides something darn well decent. So genetics plays a vast role in evolution. In theory its the errors that go wrong but create some sort of function for the organism that then makes it more survivable then its fellows for why its then passed on. Good errors tend to survive bad ones tend to die quite fast, some are just a typical pain in the arse and explain all the various diseases we can get. which then leads to Darwinism and survival of the fittest.

As to why we gained intelligence and no other organism? Well beats me I don't think there is anyone alive that could really answer that question to the satisfaction of most people? Which is why some people believe creatism or a "being that had to of manipulated it" or in evolution and science. Probability is often used aswell by creatists seeing as there is some astronomical figure to why something just happenned to happen the way it did that therefore it is just improbable and someone else must of played a part.

Like I said I'm by no means an exert thats just how I've interpreted what I've learnt in laymans terms.

[Vampirial]

Shit meant to edit grammar.

[Mitra]

re eye.

one proposed theory
phase 1 Photo sensitive patch of skin - holy shit theres something there i better eat it / run away
phase 2. patch becomes recessed to allow better direction finding - holy shit theres something over there i better eat it / run away
phase 3. opening of recessed area begins to close over again providing superior direction finding. - holy shit theres something right over there i better eat it / run away
phase 4. development of aqueous humour etc and several iterations of lenses. - holy shit theres something right over there next to te coral i better eat it / run away

RE apes.
Metrological data on the brains of the primates suggests that the level of comprehension and mental faculties increases with brain mass - we have massive brains

chimps have been known to use tools - they make dipsticks for termite nests
rocks to smash nuts. - it's not much but it is a start.

when discussing where we are today technologicaly you need to remember that the vast majority of our technology came about in the last 100-1000 odd years. which on evolutionarily time scales is a drop in the pond.
consider that even today there are uncontcted people in the amazon living as they have for thousands of years while we all have computers, cars, aeroplanes, Instant coffee, fast food, elevators, pants, watches, carpet, lights, electricity, television, medicine, dentistry, Ntional government, space shuttles, mars rovers, Hubble, Submarines Physics, Calculus, Pharmacology, Meteorology, Scuba diving, Screwdrivers, Plumbing, Recorded music, deodorant, Washing machines, Department stores, Mail, Taxes, Educational institutes, Social security, Buses.......

[Leviat]

Maybe self aware was the wrong word for it. Maybe a sense of obligation and consequence. Like having to be somewhere(a job) at a certain time(or your fired) to do a certain thing for example, but this is basically the human means of surviving, which monkeys do in their own way so bad example. Or what makes us want to learn and study everything around us and why things do what they do and why(including ourselves). But here again, on a smaller scale monkeys do this as well when they know what to eat and where to get it, and what creatures to fear in their little area. Or how apes could give two shits about their purpose in life; why they exist, and how we as humans are utterly consumed by it. I guess my interpretation of self aware is broad /shrug.

I do not believe in evolution. Alot of it seems extremely far fetched. To believe all of life evolved from a germ? Maybe not one germ, maybe a few so there'd be variation of the species that evolved from each. And the earth is billions and billions of years old and they know this as fact how? I guess to match the theory of evolution it would need to.

Its really odd, but watching the discovery channel and seeing scientists exploring other planets and finding water and carbon and w/e else needed to 'make' life, Ive found myself thinkin 'yea, could be..'. Why? Because this has been imposed on me my whole life. Since day one in science or biology class in schools ive been in. Force taught athiesm basically, and then going to church with the fam the following Sunday. Completely clueless as a child but absorbing the information forever to be in the back of my mind.

Ive often wondered what exactly have they proven to give evolution merit. I understand its just a theory, and an extreme rough draft at that, to be proven or disproven. I remember when they found that skull that was the 'missing link', Lucy they called it or something like that. Turns out it was only skull fragments and a jaw of a pig. What happens when they credit something like that and it turns out to just be a hoax? Just say Ooops and brush it under the rug? It just seems convenient that we'll never see an evolved species/mutation per genetics, in our lifetime or not notice if it does occur.


Okay, im done rantin for now. Heres a good read http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

[Mitra]

[Mews]

It's not self awareness, it's cognitive/derivative thinking, sense of mortality, self existential knowledge etc etc Basically, we have a higher capacity for thinking and ideas. A lot of what other species do is down to basic instinct; Hunt, gather, reproduce, survival etc etc sort of stuff. It's just basic processes that they've been told from their ancestors to do. We have these too (Fight or flight, self preservation etc), but we're able to ignore them aswell.

I do not believe in evolution. Alot of it seems extremely far fetched. To believe all of life evolved from a germ? Maybe not one germ, maybe a few so there'd be variation of the species that evolved from each. And the earth is billions and billions of years old and they know this as fact how? I guess to match the theory of evolution it would need to.

First I'm going to say it's great you have your own opinion on the matter.

Next I'm going to point you to what Cart prefaced with; Evolution isn't proven, it's not fact. It's a theory, and currently the most plausible theory known to man. It has a lot of evidence supporting it, but nothing to prove emphatically that it's correct. There are holes it in, it just has substantially less holes than every other theory (Creationism for example has no scientific credibility).
With that false find, that's all it was. It doesn't discredit any other evidence, it only discredits itself and possibly the finders.

On the topic of creationist, this is a link from another forum I frequent that houses ONE fruitcake (everyone else is cool) that refuses to go away or have a legitimate discussion with anyone. I haven't watched the video, it's LONG, but judging from the comments from other users, it's a pretty good laugh and full of holes.
He also tried to say "This video beyond a doubt proves that dinosaurs walked with man and thus evolution is a lie", Yeah I laughed too.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?sou ... en&tab=wv#

Also Levi that link is to a heavily creationist and religious toned book. This alone makes it extremely biased against Evolution (Evolution goes against the writings of the bible where god created man, the earth etc etc) and to be fair, completely unfair.
This kind of writing is exactly what Cart's link says has no scientific credibility. It works the evidence to prove what they want it to say, it quotes the bible as an infallible source of evidence (Which it's not), it lumps Atheists in with Evolutionist (or more specifically, non-christians), and not only that but the whole point of that book is to discredit Evolution with scientific methods then support Creationism with non-scientific methods...

Look at the last paragraph, it says you're either and Evolutionist or a Creationist. This alone shows that his concept of scientific processes and theories is completely off key.

[Kayleb]

To believe all of life evolved from a germ? Maybe not one germ, maybe a few so there'd be variation of the species that evolved from each

Not trying to disprove you or say your opinion is wrong in anyway, but a test conducted a while back (sorry Cart no reference) attempted to recreate the beginning of the earth's biological life, in the form of 'primordial ooze'.

In order to do this, they took some mud rich in elements found at the time (hydrogen, oxygen etc), heated it up (as the earth was still cooling, another point yet to be proven, but still the best possible suggestion) and added some electricity in order to mimic the possible lightning.

The result was the formation of the 'primitive' component of the cell, the mitochondria. This then evolved over time to produce something similar to the modern day cell (plant or otherwise) to evolve into all things wonderful, even Rico.

[Johnnyrico]

:'D

[Leviat]

Not trying to disprove you or say your opinion is wrong in anyway, but a test conducted a while back (sorry Cart no reference) attempted to recreate the beginning of the earth's biological life, in the form of 'primordial ooze'.

In order to do this, they took some mud rich in elements found at the time (hydrogen, oxygen etc), heated it up (as the earth was still cooling, another point yet to be proven, but still the best possible suggestion) and added some electricity in order to mimic the possible lightning.

The result was the formation of the 'primitive' component of the cell, the mitochondria. This then evolved over time to produce something similar to the modern day cell (plant or otherwise) to evolve into all things wonderful, even Rico.

Wow.. thats interesting. I apologize for layin out my opinions and critizing like that. Those are your beliefs and
I shouldnt be commenting on it like I know what im talking about (I dont).

I totally understand the need to have tangible proof. Creationism is set on beliefs and the believers just know, and I
know that doesnt work for everyone. Christianity is a very involved life choice, self maintained, bound by rules and
limitations with eternal consequence. Completely faith based, and because of that I dont see anyone proving it. Not to
mention the Bible has been changed so many times and there are so many different versions that are very inaccurate.

Those eternal consequences scare the hell outa me. Either you guys believing evolution are right or me believing in one
God am right. We'll soon find out

[Mitra]

to elaborate further on ""

The stronger evolutionary pressure is that disadvantageous traits get weeded out faster than advantageous traits get passed on. We, as a species, use our technology to mitigate our physical short comings to allow us to survive to an age at which we can reproduce when in previous times we wouldn't have.

I'm walking proof of that (and will use myself as an example for the purposes of this post)

I suffered from a Hole in the Heart which wasn't detected until I was 4.5 yrs old - the same condition that killed my Maternal Aunt when she was 12 yrs old (sadly 1 year before the development of the heart-lung machine which is vital for surgical intervention)

Anyway because of medical intervention I lived to reach puberty at which point my Keratoconus manifested and my unaided vision degraded pretty steadily from 13 -> 22 at which point I required a corneal transplant on my right eye due to the excessive thinning of the tissue.

My point is this, both conditions are selected against but to different degrees, because the visual defect doesn't manifest until I could theoretically have had children and passed on the defective genes (even though it gets harder for me to survive in the wild) compared to mr normal he will likely have more offspring (due to my early death limiting mating oppurtunities)
while the heart conditions (assuming i somehow survived to reproduce) will kill x number of my descendents which over an ammount of time means that mr normal will have more descendents than I will. (ceteris paribus)

meaning that my share of the genetic pie decreases with time while his increases - for both conditions

mmm pie.


On the merits of creationism I will admit that "irreducible complexity" is a sticky biscuit for some evolutionists and that if you aren't familiar with it's argument and defend evolution you should look it up and allow it to inform your position.

with regards to your last post Lev

I was raised as a Catholic, attended a Catholic school, was an altar boy, my mother teaches in a catholic school, I Was a member of a catholic/christian youth group.
However i've gradually drifted away from the FAITH as it were and now think of the Bible as the book which contains the foundations of my moral code. The one key message i recall being told many times is that Christianity is supposed to be an open and accepting religion which doesn't seek to prove it's Superior "rightness" (not the correct word) over other religions/ ways of life.

Those eternal consequences scare the hell outa me. Either you guys believing evolution are right or me believing in one
God am right. We'll soon find out

I don't really want to say it because I don't want to tell you what you should believe/ live your life but, IF the fear is the only motivation you have to live your life according to the teachings of your church, I think you should look at your faith and find something to center you rather than bouncing up against the edges and being restrained from actions by fear, find the center and live as an example of Christian behavior- you'll never touch the sides after that.

[Mews]

Those eternal consequences scare the hell outa me. Either you guys believing evolution are right or me believing in one
God am right. We'll soon find out

Exactly what Mitra said to this is spot on. I'm not going to add to it because there isn't anything else to say.

/rant

One of my major gripes with creationists is their processes are so... black and white, left and right, one side AGAINST the other. If it's not one thing then it has to be the other, there is no supa sekret option number C. There is no leeway for discussion or conceptualisation.
What it comes down to is that they're trying to prove themselves right rather than find out the honest truth, like science does. Science has no agenda or bias towards any outcome (The SCIENTISTS might, but science as a whole can't be bought or swayed). I know the creationists believe they're right, but in my experience they're unwavering in even considering they could be wrong.

/endrant