Creation vs. Evolution

[Green_Manelishi]

i couldn't open 2, 3, and 5 due to bad links

the two i read are clear and point out that we are real close to chimps and descended from them, and then go into specific analysis as to the mechanisms thereof (specifically, gene regulation and protein differentials).

again, they're arguing details, not the overall theory of evolution nor the fact that we are 98.5 similar to chimps in DNA

You might be descended from a chimp (or a common ancestor), I am not. So what the DNA is similar. God, being the intelligent and creative entity that He is, designed a common base (DNA) that could be tweaked to specifics. He also knew (being omniscient) that some would say "Hey, a monkey's my uncle" or "Hey King Kong, Curious George and I are related !!! Woo wee".

 

[Hank49]

Darwin couldn't grow a shrimp

nor could Newton ... i bet neither can Hawkins

Einstein ... hmmm... no, no shrimp growing in his resume either...

)

You're correct Andy but you're missing my point. I'm talking of PhDs hired for their knowledge of marine organisms. They have a wealth of knowledge in the subject but not the ability to apply it in a practical sense. And part of putting together the pieces of this puzzle and debate of evolution vs creation is exactly that. Get it?

 

[Soggy]

You might be descended from a chimp (or a common ancestor), I am not.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

So what the DNA is similar. God, being the intelligent and creative entity that He is, designed a common base (DNA) that could be tweaked to specifics. He also knew (being omniscient) that some would say "Hey, a monkey's my uncle" or "Hey King Kong, Curious George and I are related !!! Woo wee".

So, he's deceitful. Glad we cleared that up. I guess that's where all the creationist lies came from.

 

[H2Andy]

You're correct Andy but you're missing my point.

no i'm not ...

it's a fallacy, and i was responding to it with humor

 

[H2Andy]

You might be descended from a chimp (or a common ancestor), I am not.

if i am, you are

 

[Uncle Pug]

You are more than your biology. One of the many elephants in the room is how significantly different we are than Chimps and Urchins. Our physical being is made of the same stuff every other living creature is made of. Our spirit comes from God.

 

[Hank49]

no i'm not ...

it's a fallacy, and i was responding to it with humor

OOOhhhhh. Thanks for clearing that up. you have a warped sense of humor, by the way...

 

[H2Andy]

Our spirit comes from God.

according to a Semitic creation myth, which borrowed heavily from a Babylonian creation myth (which in turn borrowed heavily from an earlier Sumerian myth)

while i thoroughly agree with the meaning of this myth, i hardly consider it a literal rendering of how things really happened

to elaborate:

the Babylonian myth has the Gods create the world. then they create man to be the Gods' servants so they could rest. from tablet VI of the Enuma Elish (predates the Genesis account):

When Marduk heard the words of the gods,
His heart prompted him to fashion artful works.
Opening his mouth, he addressed Ea
To impart the plan he had conceived in his heart:
"I will take blood and fashion bone.
I will establish a savage, ‘man’ shall be his name.
truly, savage-man I will create.
He shall be charged with the service of the gods
That they might be at ease!


the Semitic myth has the Gods create the world, and THEN create man as their crowning achievement of creation, breathing life into him ("them" in another version) directly, unlike any of the other animals. and then the Gods said to man and woman to have dominion over the earth, and over the animals.

the changed meaning in the Semitic myth is earth-shattering, if you think about it.
i argue that it laid the foundation for modern society, through Judaism, Christianity, and eventually through the philosophical and political pronouncements of Christian Europe, for both good and bad.

 

[Midnight Star]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Star
I agree completely. But how do we decide which is which? By whichever side of the fence (or camp) we're on (or in) at the moment? By which point (not necessarily related to) that we're trying to prove at any given time? By observation? How do we unbias that, in order to come round about to a more universal conclusion?


I'm missing your point.

If evolution (adaptation is we could) is the "intelligence" behind all creation, then it would most definately be the driving force behind all life, and the basis of all inherited traits. So an eskimo, would logically start to grow hair when they live in a very cold environment. The problem to me, is whether all things we see are a result of natural selection, survival type evolution or something else.

For example, look at the insects first, some ate toxic plants that prevented them from being eaten by a majority of predators ... was that by chance, or did they or their genes say ... don't eat that stuff, you'll get eaten, eat this instead. Natural selection at work? or evolutionary adaptation. How about snakes and other organisms that "mimic" toxic animals? Is this a throwback to a common set of genes? Two different types interbred and the result is the colorful markings on a non-toxic species (from the toxic one)? A possible common genetic trait that has just resurfaced in a common species, that was shared between two different types of a simular kind; like traits in humans - eye color, hair color, etc.,.

Different microbes become resistant to anti-biotics everyday. Is this evolutionary, or just reactive to a new environment; each living organism is the same, yet slightly different from it's neighbor - perhaps a mutation allows a new microbe to resist, or replicate in a toxic (anti-microbial) environment.

Another possibility is that all traits are subject to environmental changes, and adapt or evolve accordingly. The diversity of genetic material outside of the orginating environment is then attributed to interbreeding (same species, different environments). However, this would have to hold true for all species ... even the isolated ones.

One final note, and just a thought, before I post this, is that, if adaptation is a result of the environment (every aspect), then some of the species we have today are absolutely dependant on extinction events (meteroites distributing rare elements across the earth for example) to make that leap.

-----

Mike.

 

[SeanQ]

Heh, SeanQ should have a conversation with Mr. Heisenberg.

I tried, but I wasn't sure where the conversation was going. :geek:

I didn't mean to say that you can't model uncertainty. It's my understanding that a model can never be a 100% representation of reality because we do not understand everything about reality.