Creation vs. Evolution

[Midnight Star]

There's that word again..."could"

But this theory is as most "scientific creation theories" are...incomplete and grasping at straws.

It's another unknown at this time, that all. Maybe one day those things will be revealed.

-----

Mike.

 

[Soggy]

I'm not sure how to answer that properly, because i'm not quite sure what your inferring there. Are you saying that because i'm posting in this thread, that i'm saying you or anyone else is going to hell? I hope not, since I made it clear in other posts that I am not the final judge.

I'm inferring that sitting there watching one specific species evolve into another is not necessary to understand the reality of evolution since every piece of evidence ever uncovered supports the theory and we *have* observed both macro and micro evolution *directly* in nature and in laboratories. It is irrational to believe that things would have occurred any other way when we can test this over and over and over again.

 

[Bryan]

That was Scenario 2. If you mean Scenario 1, I defer to Dawkins: could there be a god who whipped it all up? Yes, but the word "could," permits anything. Could there not have been a god? Yes. Could the moon have been made of green cheese? Yes. The point is that dusting off a Bronze Age myth is not required for an explanation and does not explain anything any better once dusted. So why bother? And BTW: if you have a real need to dust off a myth ... how on earth can you choose which of the 2,500 or so that have been cataloged?

The word "could" is appropriate in this case as nobody here was present at the time these events took place.

We only have transient geologic snapshots and an infinitessimally small period of recorded history to go on.

Prediction and Falsifiability, which are two facets of the scientific method, demand that you ask questions.

"Could" is one way of beginning one of those questions. It is a means of forming an hypothesis. It is also a way to show that something cannot be ruled out absolutely, should another possibility exist that cannot be readily disproven.

 

[Bryan]

Yup...IQ != SATs

What's the point of bringing IQs into the picture? Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, and often are a last resort in debates.

 

[Soggy]

What's the point of bringing IQs into the picture? Ad hominem arguments are often a last resort in debates.

Huh? I was agreeing with Catherine saying that IQs test capacity for intelligence, whereas SATs (Scholastic Aptitude Test) test knowledge. Where did you get an ad hominem out of that!?

 

[Midnight Star]

Couldn't all forms of life have been created by a common creator, who used the same DNA [blueprint] for life? This is a similar notion used in programming: writing code once and reusing what works.

What if, it's a self modifying code, never going back to the same thing again, which one day, will come to a final conclusion. On a much greater scale, what if all things were relative to that; the universe and all creation. That all things once in motion, not only depend on, but are defined by everything else that exists; osmosis but on a different and grandious scale. What's also interesting, is how some things have a form of "genetic" memory ... not cloned animals which dont have genetic memory, but thinking more along the lines of insects. They know what to do, and begin doing it at birth, which is unlike mammals which have to be taught. A genetic memory or specific purposeful response to stimuli built into an organism - so intracately woven as to appear alive and functional. Interesting indeed! I'm also beginning to think an "unknown" defines their actions outside of genetics.

Wonderous in a way, and way beyond my ability to understand.

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

I'm inferring that sitting there watching one specific species evolve into another is not necessary to understand the reality of evolution since every piece of evidence ever uncovered supports the theory and we *have* observed both macro and micro evolution *directly* in nature and in laboratories. It is irrational to believe that things would have occurred any other way when we can test this over and over and over again.

Sure, germs can "adapt" or evolve quite quickly within the confines of their own structure, but that doesnt prove they're going to one day become elephants. How can we test that?

-----

Mike.

 

[Soggy]

What if, it's a self modifying code, never going back to the same thing again, which one day, will come to a final conclusion. On a much greater scale, what if all things were relative to that; the universe and all creation. That all things once in motion, not only depend on, but are defined by everything else that exists; osmosis but on a different and grandious scale. What's also interesting, is how some things have a form of "genetic" memory ... not cloned animals which dont have genetic memory, but thinking more along the lines of insects. They know what to do, and begin doing it at birth, which is unlike mammals which have to be taught. A genetic memory or specific purposeful response to stimuli built into an organism - so intracately woven as to appear alive and functional. Interesting indeed! I'm also beginning to think an "unknown" defines their actions outside of genetics.

Wonderous in a way, and way beyond my ability to understand.

-----

Mike.

Sorry, but that's a bunch of metaphysical psychobabble.

Animals have learned and inherent behaviors. I think I learned about that in my 4th grade class with Mr. Allen. I didn't like him much. He sent me to the "Planning Room" once when I was in 8th grade because I didn't finish an article for our school newspaper in time. During that time period, I also wrote a paper on river otters. They are really neat animals. I still like otters. I wonder if otters like divers?

 

[Bryan]

Huh? I was agreeing with Catherine saying that IQs test capacity for intelligence, whereas SATs (Scholastic Aptitude Test) test knowledge. Where did you get an ad hominem out of that!?

It wasn't you in particular.

 

[Midnight Star]

To add very quickly another thought ... for a bacteria to evolve into an elephant, one thing would have to exist, that in it's genetic code is the elephant. This is not a sarcastic statment, but has anyone seen in a lab a bacterium become an amoeba? A virus can "exchange" rna within a given cell, but doesnt carry the entire genome, so that would be excluded from evolving since it doesnt have all the genetics to become something else, outside it's class or grouping.

-----

Mike.