Do you believe in evolution

[Archer]

How is natural selection a plan? It is anything but planned.

You see chaos where I see order. The universe is in balance and that is the will of it. If it were not so we would not be. What is seen as random and chaos is actually perfect order by design. Most know not the true meaning of Chaos; many simply use it to describe what they see because they do not comprehend the universal order set in motion with the word.

 

[Valjean]

No-one's seeing "chaos" in the sense you mean it, Archer. Evolution does produce order -- by the mechanisms it describes.
The clearly observable fact that this order is far from perfect, though, is a cogent argument against an intelligent designer.

 

[Archer]

No-one's seeing "chaos" in the sense you mean it, Archer. Evolution does produce order -- by the mechanisms it describes.
The clearly observable fact that this order is far from perfect, though, is a cogent argument against an intelligent designer.

I say it is chaos because it is chance. Explain this to me: eastern lamp mussel

It need the fish to breed. How did it figure this out? Did it just do it and the only line to survive was the one who teased the fish?

I can get the instinct thing but how did it develop? Surely they just evolved that way right? Show me the mechanics.

 

[Valjean]

The mussel is nothing, Archer. You could have done better than that. There are parasitic organisms with much more complex and interdependent strategies. :yes:

How they develop such complex interdependence is more suited to a textbook than a casual talkboard discussion. Have you looked at the Talk Origins website? It might explain some of the mechanisms.

You're correct that there is a great deal of chance involved in the process, but it's controlled and directed by the mechanisms of evolution in the same way a farmer selectively breeds wheat or chickens to develop new varieties.

 

[Archer]

The mussel is nothing, Archer. You could have done better than that. There are parasitic organisms with much more complex and interdependent strategies. :yes:

How they develop such complex interdependence is more suited to a textbook than a casual talkboard discussion. Have you looked at the Talk Origins website? It might explain some of the mechanisms.

You're correct that there is a great deal of chance involved in the process, but it's controlled and directed by the mechanisms of evolution in the same way a farmer selectively breeds wheat or chickens to develop new varieties.

No I think my example worked perfectly; simple to understand. Simply put I believe the course was guided. Where others see the wonders of nature I see more than just nature.

 

[Dan4reason]

You see chaos where I see order. The universe is in balance and that is the will of it. If it were not so we would not be. What is seen as random and chaos is actually perfect order by design. Most know not the true meaning of Chaos; many simply use it to describe what they see because they do not comprehend the universal order set in motion with the word.

Just because something is unplanned does not mean it is chaotic. There is no plan in nature to make a snowflake yet it is anything but chaotic.

 

[hindupridemn]

I believe God is so creative It could and did use evolution as a method of creation.

 

[LuisDantas]

No I think my example worked perfectly; simple to understand. Simply put I believe the course was guided. Where others see the wonders of nature I see more than just nature.

It is guided, but not by any conscious will. It is guided by selection pressure, which is ultimately a nice name for the circunstances around them.

What is Selection Pressure?

 

[Archer]

It is guided, but not by any conscious will. It is guided by selection pressure, which is ultimately a nice name for the circunstances around them.

What is Selection Pressure?

neither of us can prove our stance

 

[Valjean]

But one stance is backed by overwhelming evidence, while the other has no real backing at all.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Ninety-five percent?

I remember first hearing that less than 40% or so Americans "believed in evolution" and it was so - indigestible - that it took a while for that figure to be factored... because it still ain't "fact" in my mind...

Now I know (maybe) some of the logistics and logjams involved; and it seems that number is more likely - 60% of Americans don't know what to believe. I can parse that...

I believe in evolution, somewhat beyond acceptance of the theory of evolution; and that may be the defining perspective with my cultural disconnect - that I actively believe in the process of evolution rather than just accept scientific wisdom.

And I'm fundie with it! My core philosophy without evolution would be like English without vowels, and I just don't see - how others see - without this perspective... I can say this much: after all this time, my fundie-nation has resulted in zero loss of life, zero property damage, and minimal aggravation... but it is part of my "official record."

Funny, that; I cannot simulate the mindset that functions without an evolutionary worldview, yet I have been able to parallel the fun-and-mental myopia. I can honestly see myself surrendering to the siren call of senseless sensationalism - eight creationists, a TV camera, and the Sacred Shotgun...

I mean, yikes. If you, normal citizen, were linked up via vulcan mind-meld whilst it wandered down these corridors... well, you would have good reason to fear fundies.

As for I? The cause of science will not be forwarded by such nonsense; one could not say the same for religion.

 

[outhouse]

Ninety-five percent?

only 1 said no LOL lets see wilsoncole or newhope ????

I cant believe its not 2, theres less then a handfull that try and fight it in the evo threads

 

[EddyM]

Even given the existence of a Divine Agent actively meddling with His own physical laws,

Where in Vedanta does it say that the Omnipotent cannot interact with His creation once having created them?

 

[EddyM]

No-one's seeing "chaos" in the sense you mean it, Archer. Evolution does produce order -- by the mechanisms it describes.
The clearly observable fact that this order is far from perfect, though, is a cogent argument against an intelligent designer.

Please explain.

 

[EddyM]

It is guided, but not by any conscious will. It is guided by selection pressure, which is ultimately a nice name for the circunstances around them.

What is Selection Pressure?

This attribution of "forces" that "guide" (such a description sounds conscious and intelligent like that of a being) to non-organic matter one day will make science disprove itself and I don't mean science concluding the existence of "God", I mean science discovering and revealing its own absurdities.

Science then would be replaced with another "type" of science. A higher one. "Science" as we know it might cease to be. And the "science" of the future would be much more complicated to that which we have now, and that "science" would show the absurdities of the science of today like how we scoff at the alchemy of the ancients.

Humans observe
then they try to make sense of the observation
for this they try to find reasons for the observation, either they take a magnifying glass or the reason stares back at them(they think)
and of all reasons, they want the "most reasonable" one of all
finally they make conclusions when they feel satisfied (now this could be something they knew all along that would where they eventually would be lead to, or the conclusion would just be pressing against them about its own obviousness and they decided "well alright I get it already")

all the "science" that we study is something about a part of the universe. and we are also a part of the universe, not the whole universe itself. its one part of the universe against another part of the universe.

who takes the whole as the whole? who includes the individual observer who looks out of himself at the external?

"science" of the Western "modern" world has lost the spirit of science which is about discovering man's own ignorance and while at it marvel at the wonders of nature. Also helping him to overcome his own inability to control what happens to and around himself.

Nobody seems to realize that now science is more interested in getting results rather than studying things for what they are and what matters is the study itself.

people who think they do service to science have got the cheek to ask "where is God?, theres no evidence for it! whoever talks about this God thing is just plain stupid!"

Science proves fanciful concocted superstitions which are contorted from reality, as wrong. Science is the tool the Monotheist uses to crush nonsensical mythologies that include non-existent Deities.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Science proves fanciful concocted superstitions which are contorted from reality, as wrong. Science is the tool the Monotheist uses to crush nonsensical mythologies that include non-existent Deities.

Science only validates methodologies. Nothing is essentially proven, but a process can be outlined and repeated elsewhere with expected results. All science is but a cumulative predictive model that crosses subjective boundaries; considering that the brain is largely a predictive modeler, it is unsurprising that the scientific method developed.

Absurd? Well, it's a product of growth. Remember disco? A journey of a thousand miles may begin with a single step, but a thousand steps do not a journey make.

 

[EddyM]

Nothing is essentially proven,

We cannot, obviously "prove" non-existent entities to be non-existent. But yet we derive to the conclusion that some proposed entity that apparently contradicts our "common sense" as being unlikely/fancy stuff.

but a process can be outlined and repeated elsewhere with expected results.

Exactly. We have things like "bias" - which is what? so that "everyone" agrees upon something altogether.

This is absurd. What difference does it make in the grand scheme if one human or a hundred accept the same experiment that validates a hypothesis/theory?

Why do we think that we are more likely to be right if more of us are involved - putting our fingers on our lips and nodding in unison?

Also this bias thing is quite funny. One is the bias that arises from faulty procedure and minor uncontrollable difference in conditions and the other is something more of a psychological one.

Absurd? Well, it's a product of growth.

So you admit that finally this has to lead somewhere?

 

[Muffled]

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And confusing the popular meaning of theory with the scientific one.

Oh really. The test can be repeated ie a monkey can be evolved into a human scientifically?

 

[Muffled]

I voted "I don't know". And I don't think anyone ever will because none of us were there to see ow things came to be. God says He created everything and one would almost think that settles it but realistically His creative process could have been evolutionary.

I think there is some evidence for natural selection. For instance there are no Cro-magnon people around today. The dinosaurs are gone. However that explains why there is devolution not evolution.

I think there is some evidene for adaptation within species.

owever as far as I know no-one has ever provided a missing link to show that one species evolved into another.

Also I think the world DNA project is someone's pipe dream as well.

 

[Breathe]

Oh really. The test can be repeated ie a monkey can be evolved into a human scientifically?

No, and that would be alien to evolution.

Evolution doesn't work like that.