Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

I'm guessing that you can't tell me what I don't know about evolution?

Hm ... "what I don't know." There you go, asking someone to prove a negative again. Can't do that.

But as far as what you DO KNOW about evolution ... guess again, of course I can ... watch me. "You don't know jack about evolution." There. See, I sure can.

 

[coachpill]

Hm ... "what I don't know." There you go, asking someone to prove a negative again. Can't do that.

But as far as what you DO KNOW about evolution ... guess again, of course I can ... watch me. "You don't know jack about evolution." There. See, I sure can.

Again?

Thanks.

 

[Sas]

Again?

Thanks.

Ok coachpill, if you do know about evolution, how about a summary of the theory? And also a critique of what you know, given that you don't agree with it.

The main thing that indicates to me you don't understand the theory is that you don't think abiogenesis is separate to evolution. And you have misinterpreted Gould given your past posts on his work. That is a pretty huge misunderstanding you have right there but I am sure if I go back and read over your posts again I could find more

 

[coachpill]

Ok coachpill, if you do know about evolution, how about a summary of the theory? And also a critique of what you know, given that you don't agree with it.

The main thing that indicates to me you don't understand the theory is that you don't think abiogenesis is separate to evolution. And you have misinterpreted Gould given your past posts on his work. That is a pretty huge misunderstanding you have right there but I am sure if I go back and read over your posts again I could find more

Apparently I get confused a lot with a different post-er on this thread. I have clearly stated more than once that I would take at face value warthaug's contention that Gould thought abiogenesis and evolution were two separate issues. The only part I was arguing was this: someone claimed that the Gould's quote from a certain interview was taken out of context...actually, the quote was perfectly in context with the interview. And again, I have also stated that I'm sure Gould felt abiogenesis and evolution were two separate things.

 

[Sas]

Ok then, whatever. What about this question I asked?

Ok coachpill, if you do know about evolution, how about a summary of the theory? And also a critique of what you know, given that you don't agree with it.

If you believe it is unfair to say you don't understand evolution, I would like to hear what you think the theory involves and what the problems with it are.

 

[coachpill]

Ok then, whatever. What about this question I asked?

Ok coachpill, if you do know about evolution, how about a summary of the theory? And also a critique of what you know, given that you don't agree with it.

If you believe it is unfair to say you don't understand evolution, I would like to hear what you think the theory involves and what the problems with it are.

In a snippet?

The only real issue I have is that prokaryote to human evolution is touted as basically a fact when, yes, we observe mutations, and, yes, we observe speciation, but then we say, "See, that's how it was done."

The speciation we observe (even if speciation did not occur via mutation, but only via sorting of already present genes) is touted as evidence of the "fact" that prokaryotes evolved into humans by roughly the same method.

 

[deco_martini]

The speciation we observe (even if speciation did not occur via mutation, but only via sorting of already present genes) is touted as evidence of the "fact" that prokaryotes evolved into humans by roughly the same method.

Is there any reason for that not to be the case?

Speciation primarily occurs because populations get separated geographically and natural selection, genetic drift, and mutations cause the distinct populations to eventually differentiate enough to become different species.

As a divers, we observe the results of this kind of speciation.

So why would humans not follow that same evolutionary path?

One could argue that had eastern asian, african, and european populations never mixed that they might have eventually developed into separate species. If you went back 100 years and studied the homo sapien, you would have seen the short and dark Bushman, the Japanese man with no crease in his eyelid, and the Norse man with his ultra-fair skin and concluded that if the populations stayed completely unmixed for enough time they would eventually be distinct species.

Evolution affects so much of what we see as divers its almost unthinkable to think of the denial we see about the subject. Just recently I was reading about how great white shark populations have been mapped geographically and found to be non-mixing.

 

[Sordello]

All this is starting to upset my stomach...

 

[Sas]

In a snippet?

The only real issue I have is that prokaryote to human evolution is touted as basically a fact when, yes, we observe mutations, and, yes, we observe speciation, but then we say, "See, that's how it was done."

The speciation we observe (even if speciation did not occur via mutation, but only via sorting of already present genes) is touted as evidence of the "fact" that prokaryotes evolved into humans by roughly the same method.

Why would this not be a fact?

 

[H2Andy]

It could easily be said of you that you "poo-poo" creation modles with no understanding of the models, and that you should go read up on some of it yourself.

first, there are no creation models other than: supernatural being shows up (from somewhere) and creates the universe (out of nothing) ...

second, such a model can not be disproven, and thus it is not a real "model" in the scientific sense

third, i have done an amazing amount of reading on the subject, as hopefully my previous comments to you show. on the other hand, i guess since you know so little about the subject, no, you wouldn't know how lacking in real information you are and would not be able to appreciate what others do know

and fourth, i do not poo-poo the idea of a God creating the universe ... in at least three previous posts i've stated that evolution is not incompatible with God, that if we go back far enough (pre Big-Bang) ... well... there might be a God involved... i can't prove or disprove it, so i hold off making a call

which shows that, among other things, your reading comprehension is also sketchy