Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[ADigitalArtist]

Well it depends on what you mean on evolution. If you say we evolved from Apes then that would not really be accurate. However, any type of evolution should not be regarded as fact. It is a theory. If it were real, there would be substantial evidence. Theories are changed a lot, so to regard it as fact or something close to it is absurd. Wait until we have an ''established fact'' then we will go from there.

You understand that there is nothing higher in science than a theory right? That theories are dynamic collections of tenants supported by facts? That many things you hold to be true are theories? (E.g, cell theory, germ theory, relativity theory, atomic theory, information theory, oxygen theory of combustion, and so on and so on.)
Being a theory does not mean there isn't substantial evidence. And evolutionary theory has one of the largest evidence piles their is, affirmed by genetics, microbiology, zoology, anatomy and physiology and paleontology.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As two beliefs they are certainly closer than they used to be. Creationists always maintained that the gaps, sudden leaps in the fossil record were real, not merely artifacts of an incomplete record.

This used to be dismissed out of hand but is increasingly accepted in 'punctuated equilibrium' etc.

The function of punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary theory being explored is not an aha gotcha moment for Creationism any more than some herbs being found to have positive effect on the body being an aha gotcha moment for Chinese medicine. There is still more that divides than aligns.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The function of punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary theory being explored is not an aha gotcha moment for Creationism any more than some herbs being found to have positive effect on the body being an aha gotcha moment for Chinese medicine. There is still more that divides than aligns.

I agree there is more to it, but the gaps in the record have long been a fundamental point of contention between the two. Credit where it is due, it was creationists who favored taking the scientific evidence at face value, and evolutionists who favored liberally sprinkling it with imaginary transitionals to fit a predetermined conclusion. science v atheism?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I agree there is more to it, but the gaps in the record have long been a fundamental point of contention between the two. Credit where it is due, it was creationists who favored taking the scientific evidence at face value, and evolutionists who favored liberally sprinkling it with imaginary transitionals to fit a predetermined conclusion. science v atheism?

Tempo and pacing of gradualism was not something being explored by creationists. Just outright rejection of all descent models gradual or punctuated. Make no mistake, punctuated equilibrium is an 'evolutionist' theory within broader evolutionary theory. Besides, the current consensus is that p.e. Is overstated in the media and is really only a small part in the neo-Darwinian model. And while present, is not the sort of ground breaking thing creationists would like it to be. Because it still supports the phylogenetic tree as is. Again, just like the discovery of some herbal supplements and their benefit is not a 'step' towards other more spiritual Chinese medicine axioms, even though the significance of those herbs were not accepted until recently in western medicine.

 

[Jabar]

You understand that there is nothing higher in science than a theory right? That theories are dynamic collections of tenants supported by facts? That many things you hold to be true are theories? (E.g, cell theory, germ theory, relativity theory, atomic theory, information theory, oxygen theory of combustion, and so on and so on.)
Being a theory does not mean there isn't substantial evidence. And evolutionary theory has one of the largest evidence piles their is, affirmed by genetics, microbiology, zoology, anatomy and physiology and paleontology.

There is. The more accurate it is, the more factual it can become.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There is. The more accurate it is, the more factual it can become.

Those listed theories are still theories. Theories do not become something else the more facts they get. Even if they are accepted universally. And, again, evolutionary theory is one of the largest and most dynamic collections of facts there is. Spanning more biological fields than any other biological theory.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Tempo and pacing of gradualism was not something being explored by creationists. Just outright rejection of all descent models gradual or punctuated. Make no mistake, punctuated equilibrium is an 'evolutionist' theory within broader evolutionary theory. Besides, the current consensus is that p.e. Is overstated in the media and is really only a small part in the neo-Darwinian model. And while present, is not the sort of ground breaking thing creationists would like it to be. Because it still supports the phylogenetic tree as is. Again, just like the discovery of some herbal supplements and their benefit is not a 'step' towards other more spiritual Chinese medicine axioms, even though the significance of those herbs were not accepted until recently in western medicine.

The extent to which a person might say Darwinism has already been refuted is subjective, but the pattern, the direction is clear, the gaps and leaps are continually being clarified, not filled in and smoothed out- as Darwin considered fundamental to the theory. Ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time

 

[Jabar]

Those listed theories are still theories. Theories do not become something else the more facts they get. Even if they are accepted universally. And, again, evolutionary theory is one of the largest and most dynamic collections of facts there is. Spanning more biological fields than any other biological theory.

Brother, fact in science is a verifiable observation. Evolution is both fact and theory. It depends on what you mean though. If you believe we evolved from Apes, then this is false. However, i believe the Qur'an does not go against Evolution.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The extent to which a person might say Darwinism has already been refuted is subjective, but the pattern, the direction is clear, the gaps and leaps are continually being clarified, not filled in and smoothed out- as Darwin considered fundamental to the theory. Ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time

Darwinism=!Neo-Darwinian models. Darwin also knew nothing about genetics which is now one of if not the biggest contributor to evolutionary biology. And yes, continually fills in gaps of our knowledge which creationists insist are still there, to make room for their straw manning of evolution to 'evolution must be like what Darwin thought it was or it doesn't work.'
Actually we have quite a bit more examples of transitions (especially when you add in genetic markers) but I'm not willing to argue creationist goal post shifting on what is 'transitional forms' for the next month, or be forced to limit talking about evolution to what creationists know about paleontology (or paleontology from 50 or more years ago). Take it up with the TalkOrigins transitional forms page.

My point has already been made. The discovery of PE doesn't lend any sort of credence to creationism, and it can not honestly be considered a 'creationist idea' when PE is also rejected by creationists as much as gradualism is. PE also doesn't remove gradualism but adds the concept of gradualistic tempo, and even the founding figures of PE like Gould was pretty conservative in his estimates of how much it impacts neo-Darwinian models.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Brother, fact in science is a verifiable observation. Evolution is both fact and theory. It depends on what you mean though. If you believe we evolved from Apes, then this is false. However, i believe the Qur'an does not go against Evolution.

Evolution is both fact and theory the same way that cell theory, atomic theory, germ theory et all is fact and theory.
We did come from extinct apes, and are great apes ourselves.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Darwinism=!Neo-Darwinian models. Darwin also knew nothing about genetics which is now one of if not the biggest contributor to evolutionary biology. And yes, continually fills in gaps of our knowledge which creationists insist are still there, to make room for their straw manning of evolution to 'evolution must be like what Darwin thought it was or it doesn't work.'
Actually we have quite a bit more examples of transitions (especially when you add in genetic markers) but I'm not willing to argue creationist goal post shifting on what is 'transitional forms' for the next month, or be forced to limit talking about evolution to what creationists know about paleontology (or paleontology from 50 or more years ago). Take it up with the TalkOrigins transitional forms page.

My point has already been made. The discovery of PE doesn't lend any sort of credence to creationism, and it can not honestly be considered a 'creationist idea' when PE is also rejected by creationists as much as gradualism is. PE also doesn't remove gradualism but adds the concept of gradualistic tempo, and even the founding figures of PE like Gould was pretty conservative in his estimates of how much it impacts neo-Darwinian models.

Sure, I also don't really want to get mired in semantics of what characterizes 'transitional' or 'gradual' .. but the fossil record certainly did not satisfy Darwinian predictions as hoped, creationists and PE advocates agree on this, and even a staunch classical Darwinist like Dawkins notes 'it's as though they were just planted there with no evolutionary history'

I agree with Darwin, that yes, kinda the predictions of smooth transitions were fundamental to the entire theory of evolution, the shorter the window- the more improbable the millions of significant lucky accidents that have to take place during that time. It doesn't exactly kill off Darwinism- and off course people will come up with work-arounds, but it certainly doesn't help the case does it? , Point being, that it's the goalposts of evolution that are shifting by necessity here, not creationism.

David Raup- curator and Dean at the Chicago Field Museum, defined evolution as simply change over time, which incorporates Genesis as much as Darwinism

Genetics are another matter- whenever the fundamental flaws in the fossil record are pointed out- 'it doesn't matter, because we have genetics'.... and vice versa...

two inadequate sets of evidence do not make a whole one, if anything I'd say the problems in each compound one another

 

[Etritonakin]

I do not agree with the second precept. Design as a function of intelligence is given by the definition of design, the same is not true of intelligence. There's no reason to assume that if there is intelligence it must have been designed.

Technically, I did not say that intelligence must have been designed -but that intelligence exists by design. A more complex or capable intelligence would be of a more complex and capable design -similar to how more powerful computer chips are more complex arrangements of the same simple logic gates, etc. -simple logic gates being similar to simple intelligence, and more complex arrangements being similar to more complex intelligence. Computers use on and off states to represent basic code -but anything could technically be or represent data.

That is why it seems logical to me that intelligence and design initially increased together.

 

[Jabar]

Evolution is both fact and theory the same way that cell theory, atomic theory, germ theory et all is fact and theory.
We did come from extinct apes, and are great apes ourselves.

We are not against everything about Evolution. We are changed, however i do not believe our origin is from apes. Allah made Adam, and that was the first human. Right now it is a theory that we originated from Apes, not even.

 

[McBell]

We are not against everything about Evolution. We are changed, however i do not believe our origin is from apes. Allah made Adam, and that was the first human. Right now it is a theory that we originated from Apes, not even.

That Allah made Adam is not even a theory....

 

[Jabar]

That Allah made Adam is not even a theory....

I would like to ask you, how science was created?

 

[McBell]

Right now it is a theory that we originated from Apes, not even.

No idea whose "theory" that is, given the only time I hear it brought up is by those ignorant of evolution making the false claim.
Evolution says we evolved from the same ancestor as apes.
In fact, we humans are apes.

 

[Jabar]

No idea whose "theory" that is, given the only time I hear it brought up is by those ignorant of evolution making the false claim.
Evolution says we evolved from the same ancestor as apes.
In fact, we humans are apes.

It is impossible that we can be made from Apes by DNA coding. It remains a theory and science takes U turns, so do not jump to conclusions.

 

[McBell]

It is impossible that we can be evolved from Apes by DNA coding. It remains a theory and science takes U turns, so do not jump to conclusions.

you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

 

[Jabar]

It is impossible that we can be evolved from Apes by DNA coding.

What do you mean we evolved from the same common ancestor as apes?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sure, I also don't really want to get mired in semantics of what characterizes 'transitional' or 'gradual' .. but the fossil record certainly did not satisfy Darwinian predictions as hoped, creationists and PE advocates agree on this, and even a staunch classical Darwinist like Dawkins notes 'it's as though they were just planted there with no evolutionary history'

The fossil record more than satisfies common descent, despite creationist claims. That there is more to the fossil record than Darwin originally thought is not a strike against evolution, any more than the developments on physics long past Newton and Einstein are strikes against physics.

I agree with Darwin, that yes, kinda the predictions of smooth transitions were fundamental to the entire theory of evolution,

Then you and Darwin would be wrong.

the shorter the window- the more improbable the millions of significant lucky accidents that have to take place during that time.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Engineering probability from morphologocal ideals never actually works. It's a strawman deconstruction of evolution, which is not going towards any particular form.

Point being, that it's the goalposts of evolution that are shifting by necessity here, not creationism.

No, they aren't. As has been noted by far more intelligent people we could quote mine all day. Far more biologists from all fields accept common descent than don't.

Genetics are another matter- whenever the fundamental flaws in the fossil record are pointed out- 'it doesn't matter, because we have genetics'.... and vice versa...

More like genetics complements phylogeny so well that it doesn't make sense to leave it out, but creationists haven't bothered to actually learn anything about evolution in 50 years! So they can't have honest conversations about it.

Which is really why it's futile to continue this conversation. So I won't. Have a good day.