Topeka Tussle

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 3 2005, 12:46 AM
Well, I find the findings of the poll difficult to believe. When you give people 3 very narrow statements and tell them to pick the one closest to what they believed your results are going to be skewed. Why was the phrase within the last 10000 yrs included in the only non-evoltuionary statement? What level of change constitutes evolution? Is Neandretal man human? It's way to complex an issue to sum up with 3 narrow statements.

Irrelevant to the point at hand though.

I don't have an interpretation of creation in the bible, but I can say that I don't believe that if a God created everything that he did it in 144 hours. I don't believe all he had to do was say let there be light and there was light. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the account of something that unfathomable would have to be dumbed down considerably to appeal to the masses.

My point is that to there is nothing in either theory that eliminates the possibility of the other being truth. If were going to use people who interpret the bible on a word by word literal basis as the keystone of an argument against what I said then you win I guess.

First things first Dis...in Canada we have the Catholic School system, where Adults can send their children for brainwashing in the Religous vain...if they so desire, and IF they are of Roman Catholic persuasion. This is funded from our taxes and allows two seperate school systems.

Heres a brief paragraph on Creationism that defines things better...


Creationism, far from being a science, is actually a special department of fundamentalist apologetics. Its commission is to defend the biblical book of Genesis, which posits the magical and sudden creation of all forms of life on the planet just a few thousand years ago , teaches that all human beings are descended from one pair of white people, and claims that all but one boat-load of the living things on this planet perished in a world-wide flood in the year 2,348 B.C.E. (Before the Common Era). As believers in the literal truth of Genesis, creationists attack any discipline which, in its discovery of truth, exposes the absurdity of the biblical mythology. Despite the camouflage of speciously scientific terminology, the real raison d'être of "creation science" apologetics is the defense of the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. Creationism exists for religious, not scientific, reasons.

Is this what you defend? Or is it another view of Creationism?

[CaramonLS]

I always wondered how Adam and Eve's kids had kids.

Obviously thats not going to be brought up in Creation class, but seriously I'd like to know if the kids slept together or what. Or at least what Creationists beleive what happened.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@May 3 2005, 10:09 AM
I always wondered how Adam and Eve's kids had kids.

Obviously thats not going to be brought up in Creation class, but seriously I'd like to know if the kids slept together or what. Or at least what Creationists beleive what happened.

How is Genesis 2 to be interpreted? Were Adam and Eve literal people?

Genesis 2:7-8 states that Adam was formed as a special act of creation from "the dust of the ground," and the rest of the chapter implies that Adam was created as an adult, not born to almost-but-not-quite-human parents.

If Adam and Eve were not literal people, then Cain, Abel and Seth were not literal either, and the history of Genesis 4 and the genealogy of Genesis 5 make no sense (particularly 5:3-5: if Adam wasn't real, why is his lifespan recorded and his descendants listed down to Noah?). One must also consider Romans 5:12-21, where Paul's argument assumes Adam was a real person and that we experience the ongoing consequences of his sin.

While some theistic evolutionists may interpret the story of Adam and Eve figuratively, a literal interpretation is not necessarily incompatible with theistic evolution. It could be that God guided the process of evolution to create all life forms except humans, and then specially created Adam and Eve in his own image as described in Genesis 2. The Catholic church offers as a possible explanation the notion that God could have specially created the human soul and/or spirit but not the body (Adam, Eve and Evolution).

[Clarkey]

I'm definately not a scientist, but isn't natural selection different from evolution?

I understand natural selection a little bit; the black moths live because they are less noticeable whereas the white moths get eaten and therefor get phased out, but is there any evolution in that? If the moth grew legs and a beak then that would be evolution. As far as I can see natural selection and evolution are 2 different things.

[Flames89]

Originally posted by Clarkey@May 3 2005, 12:52 PM
I'm definately not a scientist, but isn't natural selection different from evolution?

I understand natural selection a little bit; the black moths live because they are less noticeable whereas the white moths get eaten and therefor get phased out, but is there any evolution in that? If the moth grew legs and a beak then that would be evolution. As far as I can see natural selection and evolution are 2 different things.

The first black moth could have been an evolution from white moths

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Clarkey@May 3 2005, 09:52 AM
I'm definately not a scientist, but isn't natural selection different from evolution?

I understand natural selection a little bit; the black moths live because they are less noticeable whereas the white moths get eaten and therefor get phased out, but is there any evolution in that? If the moth grew legs and a beak then that would be evolution. As far as I can see natural selection and evolution are 2 different things.

The first leads to the second. Evolution would occur when the white moths start to exist less and more and more moths are born black. Eventually all moths will have evolved into black ones who are better suited for survival.

[Flames89]

Natural Selection helps dictate Evolution

[Clarkey]

Ok so if they were all white moths originally and then started turning black evolution has occured. Otherwise isn't it more that one trait (the white) get's diluted so much that it ceases to exist or becomes very rare?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Clarkey@May 3 2005, 11:59 AM
Ok so if they were all white moths originally and then started turning black evolution has occured. Otherwise isn't it more that one trait (the white) get's diluted so much that it ceases to exist or becomes very rare?

Evolution is about genes, and how frequently they appear in a population.

If you have a population of moths where, at one point in time, 99% have the white version of the colour gene and 1% have the black version of the colour gene, and you come back to that population a few years later and it's 97% white and 3% black then you can say that evolution occurred -- there was a change in the frequency of the different forms of a gene in a population.

One way evolution can occur is through random chance (called drift) -- say one day a huge tree falls and smushes a bunch of moths, most of which happen to be black. You now have fewer black genes --> Evolution. This isn't really an important process for evolution because a whole bunch of random events will never give rise to anything complex.

Another way evolution can occur is through natural selection -- say a big coal operated plant opens near the 99%-1% population and starts covering everything in soot. Now the black moths blend in to the environment much better and the birds that eat moths have a hard time seeing the black ones and so more white ones get eaten. Over time the black ones will become much more frequent in the population --> Evolution.

This process is important because it actually selects what forms survive in a population rather than relying on random chance. So long as the environment stays the same, any trait that helps moths blend into the sooty environment will increase in the population because fewer of them will get eaten, and over a long enough period of time this can lead to really comple traits being built up.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Wow.

First to Mike...you ask what I believe when I've already said I'm not a person of faith. Still, I'm not willing to say that it is impossible that something incomprehendable started everything. I can see creationism on a level that jives with what science has learned. I can see that the two can coexist. I don't take everything in the bible in a strict literal context.

You've basically said we can't have a discussion because I don't have a strictly interpreted belief of the bible. Fine with me, if you're unwilling to accept the fact that I'm not a bible thumper that's your problem, not mine.

To DP...I wasn't defending shinguard.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 3 2005, 04:57 PM
Wow.

First to Mike...you ask what I believe when I've already said I'm not a person of faith. Still, I'm not willing to say that it is impossible that something incomprehendable started everything. I can see creationism on a level that jives with what science has learned. I can see that the two can coexist. I don't take everything in the bible in a strict literal context.

You've basically said we can't have a discussion because I don't have a strictly interpreted belief of the bible. Fine with me, if you're unwilling to accept the fact that I'm not a bible thumper that's your problem, not mine.

To DP...I wasn't defending shinguard.

Wow, way to overreact and misinterpret.

I'm not saying you have to be a strict bible thumper for us to have a discussion, I'm saying that if you want to have a discussion on whether evolution can be taught without discounting an alternative view that incorporates some religious/biblical aspects you have to first outline what that alternative view is. How do you see the two coexisting?

If all you're willing to say is, "I have a view that the two coexist, and I don't think that evolution should be taught in such a way that discounts that" then we can't have a discussion because I don't know what you're proposing.

Are you saying all life started billions of years ago as a single collection of simple building blocks, but it might have been a God that put them together and kickstarted the process?

Are you saying that all life started billions of years ago as a single collection of simple building blocks, but it must have been a God that put them together and kickstarted the process?

Are you saying that all life started billions of years ago, but a god created a number of different original varieties, one of which eventually became man who is/was special?

Give me an idea of what you believe and we can have a discussion, but until then we can't.

[peter12]

Originally posted by Mike F+May 2 2005, 08:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ May 2 2005, 08:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@May 2 2005, 06:40 PM
I totally agree.

The amount of sheer coincidences that occur in nature cannot be just accidents or random freak chances.

No offense, but you clearly never bothered to learn what the theory of natural selection proposes before deciding it must be wrong.

A nice summary from Wikipedia

Natural selection can be expressed as the following general law:

• IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
• IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s) [i.e. some traits are influenced by genes], and
• IF there is variability of traits, and
• IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population [i.e. more individuals are born than survive to reproduce],
• THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
• THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

The result is the evolution of species.

If you agree that the 4 IFs occur in the natural environment, the you believe in evolution by natural selection.

And while we're at it, a nice point - counterpoint of pure evolution vs. intelligent design [/b][/quote]
Sorry, I sort of switched topics there. I wasn't talking about natural selection...

Coincidences like the critical density of the Universe is exactly 1 and hasn't deviated significantly from that in it's 14 billion year existence.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Mike F+May 4 2005, 01:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ May 4 2005, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@May 3 2005, 04:57 PM
Wow.

First to Mike...you ask what I believe when I've already said I'm not a person of faith. Still, I'm not willing to say that it is impossible that something incomprehendable started everything. I can see creationism on a level that jives with what science has learned. I can see that the two can coexist. I don't take everything in the bible in a strict literal context.

You've basically said we can't have a discussion because I don't have a strictly interpreted belief of the bible. Fine with me, if you're unwilling to accept the fact that I'm not a bible thumper that's your problem, not mine.

To DP...I wasn't defending shinguard.

Wow, way to overreact and misinterpret.

I'm not saying you have to be a strict bible thumper for us to have a discussion, I'm saying that if you want to have a discussion on whether evolution can be taught without discounting an alternative view that incorporates some religious/biblical aspects you have to first outline what that alternative view is. How do you see the two coexisting?

If all you're willing to say is, "I have a view that the two coexist, and I don't think that evolution should be taught in such a way that discounts that" then we can't have a discussion because I don't know what you're proposing.

Are you saying all life started billions of years ago as a single collection of simple building blocks, but it might have been a God that put them together and kickstarted the process?

Are you saying that all life started billions of years ago as a single collection of simple building blocks, but it must have been a God that put them together and kickstarted the process?

Are you saying that all life started billions of years ago, but a god created a number of different original varieties, one of which eventually became man who is/was special?

Give me an idea of what you believe and we can have a discussion, but until then we can't. [/b][/quote]
Well, I might have misinterpreted, but I wasn't agitated so I don't think I overreacted. In any case, I would lean toward the first scenario you listed and I guess that's where I now see your point.

Given that, I don't think evolution nixes that scenario and I don't think teachers should be telling students that there is no God. Science certainly can't prove that a intelligent designer (that's a popular phrase lately isn't it?) didn't do this and as such a science teacher should have no place discounting that.

Did that help?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 3 2005, 08:00 PM
Well, I might have misinterpreted, but I wasn't agitated so I don't think I overreacted.# In any case, I would lean toward the first scenario you listed and I guess that's where I now see your point.

Given that, I don't think evolution nixes that scenario and I don't think teachers should be telling students that there is no God.# Science certainly can't prove that a intelligent designer (that's a popular phrase lately isn't it?) didn't do this and as such a science teacher should have no place discounting that.#

Did that help?

Yes, that helps.

If you're in line with the first statement then you wouldn't have a problem with any evolution class I've been in. How life first began is acknowledged as a big outstanding question with people having lots of theories but no one ruling anything out absolutely, including divine creation.

The problem with mainstream Intelligent Design is that they want to argue the second alternative -- that many features of life can't be explained without a God. The evolutionist response to that isn't, "No, you're wrong, there is no God," but instead "No, you're wrong a God isn't absolutely necessary." A pretty big distinction.

As I've said before, if someone started a religion which proposed that there was a supreme being that kicked off the big bang and maybe ordered things up to the point where life first began and then sat back to watch with interest how things played out on their own momentum, I could probably jump on board without any problem.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Mike F@May 2 2005, 11:06 AM
Honestly, I defy anyone to take the time to understand the underlying premise of Natural Selection and then come back and say it's not true. It's just so simple and logically self-evident that the only way to dismiss it is to stay ignorant of what the underlying theory is.

I mean even the frikken Pope accepted that evolution is more than just a theory!

Natural Selection is one part of adaptation but it's not the entire story. For instance natural selection doesn't adequately explain early adaptation of micro organisms and bacterias. All of these organisms flourished not because of competition with one another but because of cooperation.

Symbiogenesis is another crucial element in explaining the evolution of life. It basically explains how cellular organisms share DNA between each other. The cells also join into a larger system to create a whole new species. For instance when algae and fungus joined to create lichens.

So I would take issue with you that it is the ONLY theory to explain the development of life and adaptation.

[REDVAN]

Originally posted by Flames89@May 3 2005, 06:28 PM
Natural Selection helps dictate Evolution

Natural selection is the PROCESS by which evolution occurs. In other words, evolution is the RESULT.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Hakan+May 4 2005, 04:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hakan @ May 4 2005, 04:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@May 2 2005, 11:06 AM
Honestly, I defy anyone to take the time to understand the underlying premise of Natural Selection and then come back and say it's not true. It's just so simple and logically self-evident that the only way to dismiss it is to stay ignorant of what the underlying theory is.

I mean even the frikken Pope accepted that evolution is more than just a theory!

Natural Selection is one part of adaptation but it's not the entire story. For instance natural selection doesn't adequately explain early adaptation of micro organisms and bacterias. All of these organisms flourished not because of competition with one another but because of cooperation.

Symbiogenesis is another crucial element in explaining the evolution of life. It basically explains how cellular organisms share DNA between each other. The cells also join into a larger system to create a whole new species. For instance when algae and fungus joined to create lichens.

So I would take issue with you that it is the ONLY theory to explain the development of life and adaptation. [/b][/quote]
Are you a biologist or a bio major?

Just wondering, because I did my term paper in evolution class on symbiogenesis (got 97% on it! B-)). Pretty interesting stuff.

Along the same lines, evidence suggests that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once free living organisms, but once the Earth's oxygen started to increase, they couldn't survive as well so they took refuge as a symbiont in another unicellular organism. Over time, they formed one reproductive unit. Very similar to the algae/ameoba symbiosis where free living algae sometimes enter an ameoba (can't remember which one) and feeds the ameoba through photosynthesis. When the ameoba divides, the new cell has an algae sybiont in it too.

Some scientists even believe that sexual reproduction, and in particular, the fusing of gametes, replicates two unicellular organism entering in an exchange of genetic material to form a new organism.

Anyway, if you're interesting, here is an interesting article about an algae/slug symbiosis where some slugs actually remove chloroplasts from algae and incorporate them into their own cells to utilize their photosynthetic properties. The article blew my mind. It's like something from outer space!!

http://intl.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/29

[Hakan]

I actually am a political science major. But I am aware of these theories because because of my specialization in environmental politics/policies.

I am particularly interested in symbiogenesis because of the inherent cooperative nature of it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 3 2005, 11:20 PM
Along the same lines, evidence suggests that mitochondria and bla bla bla bla bla...

Can we please restrict the Star Wars crap to the Star Wars thread?

Anakin has more mitochondrians than anyone else! Fine!! We get it!!!

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Hakan+May 3 2005, 09:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hakan @ May 3 2005, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@May 2 2005, 11:06 AM
Honestly, I defy anyone to take the time to understand the underlying premise of Natural Selection and then come back and say it's not true. It's just so simple and logically self-evident that the only way to dismiss it is to stay ignorant of what the underlying theory is.

I mean even the frikken Pope accepted that evolution is more than just a theory!

Natural Selection is one part of adaptation but it's not the entire story. For instance natural selection doesn't adequately explain early adaptation of micro organisms and bacterias. All of these organisms flourished not because of competition with one another but because of cooperation.

Symbiogenesis is another crucial element in explaining the evolution of life. It basically explains how cellular organisms share DNA between each other. The cells also join into a larger system to create a whole new species. For instance when algae and fungus joined to create lichens.

So I would take issue with you that it is the ONLY theory to explain the development of life and adaptation. [/b][/quote]
First, symbiogenesis is a ways from a rock solid tenet of biology.

Second, as I understand it symbiogenesis isn't an alternative to natural selection but is proposed as an alternate means of creating variation. Whether the outcome of a given symbiogenetic [sp?] merger ends up surviving and flourishing still depends on whether it forms a better 'fit' to the environment than the other variants such that it is able to increase in frequency over time.