10 Creatures That Have Evolved In Modern Times

Submitted by: Gerry1of1 2 months ago in Science


Here they go again with a bunch of facts trying to back up that whole evolution myth.
There are 101 comments:
Male 16
Creationists are certain that evolution is not true because they believe in a God that they can't prove is real.  Evolutionists are certain that evolution is true because they believe in a theory that they can't prove is real.  And the weird thing - they fight because of the other side isn't supposed to have faith in something unproven.
0
Reply
Male 1,886
Why is it always talked about at evolution vs. religion ?  Most folks on the planet belong to a religion that supports the theory of evolution.  There is disagreement concerning the origins of life itself, but that is different from evolution.

Sikh and Hindu recognize evolution.  So does the Catholic Church.  I don't know about Islam, nor Taoism, nor Hebrew.

Seems to me that it isn't an issue of faith, but more a position of a particular faith's dogma.
2
Reply
Male 1,928
punko Islam totally does support 'evolution' within a limited means: as Allah wills it. This is a valid argument, no worries.
Not much different than Deism, actually :-)
IDK about Jews, but Christian fundamentalists seem to be the only "anti-evolutionists" out there...

The difference is: Law or Theory.
A Law is just that: you cannot break it: go try, I'll laugh as you fail!
A Theory can be nearly as powerful: but not quite 100% like a Law is. Once a Theory hits that 100% marker? It becomes a Law and that's that.

Example: The (my favorite!) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: You cannot take heat form the cooler to the hotter.

Break it: I dare you. It simply cannot be done, ever, anywhere or any place. Period. Is that clear?
But evolution? There's "flaws" found and they are valid ones: they NEED to be explained or reconciled. The 2nd LoT? No need to explain it: it is right there in front of you. Indisputable, perfectly rational.

This does not mean Evolution is wrong or (even less so) disproven! It just illustrates the difference between Laws and Theories... at least that's how I think.
0
Reply
Male 276
gohikineko a theory cannot become a law; a theory is the best supported explanation based on testing and observation.
There is the law of gravity and theories on gravity; by what means does gravity work.
 
0
Reply
Male 1,928
elgabalo Right, that's an example I frequently use: the difference between the Theory of Gravity and the Law of Gravity. 
All Laws were theories once, how could they not have been? Laws and Theories are human constructions: theories don't exist in nature, only laws do. We humans think these things up and name them "laws and theories" because that's what humans do. But in reality? Nothing is "in theory" it either is or it is not.
Thus a theory becoming a law is a human concept: completely removed from nature. In nature a law is a law and that's all there is.
0
Reply
Male 276
gohikineko "All Laws were theories once, how could they not have been" no they were not, they could not have been, that's not how it works.
In common parlance, a theory and hypothesis are interchangeable, this is not the case in the sciences.
The theory of gravity  (actually Einstein's general theory of relativity) describes how gravity is the consequence of the bending of spacetime, and not a force in its own right.
The law of gravity (Newton's law of universal gravitation) is an equation that deals with gravity as a force in own right which can be calculated as a function of the mass of objects (how fast/strongly objects will attract, not how they do so [it is also partially incorrect as the masses do not exert gravitational force, but it's useful because as a measure of the effects of gravity, it still works]).
0
Reply
Male 1,928
elgabalo Before Newton wrote it down? The Laws of Gravity still existed. He wrote down a  theory (principles, his observations) which became widely accepted by humans and eventually was called a Law. The words are human terms, not to be confused with the things they describe: those always were Laws and never theories, yes that's true. I'm talking about human understanding of these natural laws though: we use those words to designate how certain we are of that hypothesis or observation... does that make sense yet? Lolz! Hope so.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
gohikineko Hmm, this is not the correct use of the terms "law" and "theory."

Law: means a description of patterns based on observations. Newton identified a law (F=ma) which describes many phenomena in terms of forces. We split this into three laws when teaching it. But it is not really three. The first and third law are simply specific cases of the second law (F=ma).

Theory: a self-consistent tested foundation which is used as principles of explanation and prediction for a wide variety of phenomena. 

Newton's Law of gravitation is that the gravitational force between two objects is described by the formula:

F_g=(G*m_1*m_2)/r^2

This is descriptive, not explanatory. Newton cannot explain WHY this works. Einstein did that. His theory of general relativity does that.

"The Laws of Gravity still existed."

I guess so...this is really an epistemological question though, not a scientific one. Certainly, the patterns in nature exist whether we observe them or not. But the "Law" is our framework for understanding/describing it. In that sense, the law does not exist until we write it down. But that is for us, Nature certainly doesn't care what the fuck we write down. 

BTW, nice to speak with you again. 
0
Reply
Male 1,928
BuckeyeJoe Hey Buckeye, feeling better?
My guts hurt lately, I fear a re-infection... :/

Anyhow, there's a reason the terms have different names eh? Laws aren't really open to debate: they are proven. Theories are, by definition, debatable because they are not proven, by definition.

So while it is possible to overturn a Law? It isn't easy or likely. But theories are frequently and deservedly overturned on a regular basis: by design!
This does NOT mean a theory is wrong: exactly the opposite: it is the best explanation we have! It has NOT been disproven (yet) eh? So IDK why people get their panties in a knot over calling it the "Theory of Evolution" when in fact that's exactly what it is... not a Law, not yet.

0
Reply
Male 1,203
gohikineko

"Hey Buckeye, feeling better?"

Not really, but it is hard to stay away :)

"My guts hurt lately, I fear a re-infection"

My best wishes to your good health.

"Anyhow, there's a reason the terms have different names eh? Laws aren't really open to debate: they are proven. Theories are, by definition, debatable because they are not proven, by definition."

This is not in congruence with the definitions.

Laws simply describe behavior. They are most certainly open to debate. They are descriptive, not explanatory. Theories are, on the other hand, basically the highest aspiration that a scientific thought can rise. In essence:

A Law + lots of experimental evidence + solid theoretical framework + cohesion with already established theories = a new theory.

A theory is really the highest aspiration that a hypothesis can achieve.

"So IDK why people get their panties in a knot over calling it the "Theory of Evolution" when in fact that's exactly what it is... not a Law, not yet."

The Theory of Evolution has transcended the status of Law. Natural selection is the Law, and evolution is the theory

Natural selection explains the mechanism (descriptive) of the evolution theory (predictive). 

The reason why so many theists disagree with the theory of evolution is because they do not understand what it means. 
0
Reply
Male 1,928
BuckeyeJoe I think the reason some religious folks dislike the ToE is because they see it as atheists trying to "explain away" their religious beliefs.

Never heard Natural Selection referred to as a Law before, it's a mechanism isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Seems like it.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
gohikineko

"I think the reason some religious folks dislike the ToE is because they see it as atheists trying to "explain away" their religious beliefs."

Yes, well, scientists are not specifically trying to ruin their beliefs. Scientists are honestly evaluating the evidence. The reason why this angers theists is because over time the evidence has consistently contradicted religious claims.

Maybe that's because they are incorrect?

"Never heard Natural Selection referred to as a Law before, it's a mechanism isn't it?"

One could describe it as a mechanism, sure. But the two terms are not mutually exclusive. If you haven't heard it referenced as a Law before, then I recommend you just read more about it. For example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025556476901279
0
Reply
Male 1,928
Is adapting really the same as evolving? I know adaptations can be quick, but it's still the same animal, it can go back to the previous state just as quickly if the environment dictates.
I think actual evolution takes quite a bit more time. Look at dogs: they sure look different, diverse, but different species? Nope, they can all inter-breed and thus are the same species (or whatever the technical term is). Even thousands of years of evolving/adapting hasn't made them all that different.

And yes: Great Danes and Chihuahuas can inter-breed. There's people out there who do this on purpose... don't ask me why! 

Also: even lions and tigers can inter-breed. 
1
Reply
Male 45,690
gohikineko Adapting v Evolving:  

Adapting is behavioral or leaned. 
Evolving is physical characteristics passed on to offspring.

I can adapt to a situation, but I cannot physically evolve. 

If only I could evolve,  I'd stop dragging my knuckles on the ground.
1
Reply
Male 1,928
Gerry1of1 Ok, I didn't watch the whole thing, but some of them seem to have evolved: they pass the traits (colouration & etc) on eh? However they still make 'old colured' offspring too, so if the environment changed back those would once again be the more successful ones. Over time they old colours would be gone completely, then they become a new species? Seems logical to me...
0
Reply
295
gohikineko different breeds of dogs are due to controlled breeding by mankind.  They are all aimilar in that they are genetically descended from the gray wolf.
1
Reply
Male 1,928
kelly_hanna Yes, and yet after thousands of years they're still the same species. A key in that is interbreeding: they can do it, sort of :/
But I know many animals have adapted, and quite quickly too! When does that count as evolving? I think Gerry's wrong and that learned adaptations can also be passed on (one of Humboldt's (iirc) once laughed-at theories, now back in vogue eh?) without changing the species except in appearance, not genetics so much.
0
Reply
Male 1,886
gohikineko "Soft inheritance" is indeed laughed at.  And will remain so. You cannot alter your genetic code in such a way through exercise or "learned adaptations" as to intentionally cause a mutation to pass on that "learned adaptations".  there's that funny 'random' thingy again.  You can breed for different traits, but if you ask any breeder, they'll talk at enormous lengths about the arbitrariness of it all.
1
Reply
Male 18,342
gohikineko adaptation is a key part of evolution, just as stitching is a key part of fashion.
0
Reply
Male 1,886
Draculya nope.  That's not how it works.
1
Reply
Male 13,429
Draculya that's how the story goes
0
Reply
Male 13,429
static void Main()
        {

            List<string> itemList = new List<string> {
                                "weeds",
                                "owls",
                                "bedbugs",
                                "elephants",
                                "mountain lions",
                                "fishes",
                                "dogs",
                                "green anoles",
                                "bacteria"};

            foreach (string item in itemList)
            {
                Console.WriteLine(
                    $"{item} becoming {item}."
                    );
            }

            Console.ReadKey();
        }

weeds becoming weeds.
owls becoming owls.
bedbugs becoming bedbugs.
elephants becoming elephants.
mountain lions becoming mountain lions.
fishes becoming fishes.
dogs becoming dogs.
green anoles becoming green anoles.
bacteria becoming bacteria.
-3
Reply
Male 5,713
2
Reply
Male 1,094
These are all examples of adaptation and/or natural selection.  Not evolution in the sense of the word as it is intended.  There is no speciation, and shows nothing whatsoever more than the natural ability of living organisms to adapt to their environment, for better or worse.

No one (or at least anyone reasonable) is denying that natural selection and adaptation occurs.  But this is not at all the same as evolution.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
cjeffblanchr This has been shown false. Speciation has been observed in the laboratory. The only difference between speciation and evolution of (say) a primitive organism to a complex organism is TIME. That's it. 

You see, evolution is the theory that, over time, organisms change. That's really all it means. It is interesting that as organisms change, they tend to grow more sophisticated/complicated over long periods of time. But not all organisms do this. Organisms well adapted to their environment stay simple -- just look at bacteria and viruses. Organisms that become poorly adapted to environment changes tend to show more specific traits better suited to reproduce in that new environment. 

Put another way: genetic mutations that produce traits favorable for surviving in an environment are more readily passed to offspring (the parents have them and so better survive the environment to reproduce).

THAT is natural selection. It is an explanatory mechanism for increased specificity among organisms subjected to disparate environmental stimuli. 

Evolution is not humans evolving from monkeys, as many theist propaganda machines like to push.
0
Reply
Male 45,690
cjeffblanchr   Adapting to cope with environmental changes is what drives evolution.
No, none of them adapted to the point of being an entirely different species, except the plastic eating bacteria, but give it a millennia or two .  
1
Reply
Male 398
Gerry1of1 I have to go with you on this one. Adaptation is just one of the features that make up the process of evolution.

It isn't necessarily alway positive. I could see this one going pear-shaped with major climate change.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/07/secret-scotlands-shrinking-sheep-solved
1
Reply
Male 1,928
mikesex 'Positive' and 'negative' are such human-centered terms! :-)
If a sheep gets slightly bigger or slightly smaller, and survives better? That sheep just don't care! It's doing it's genetic job perfectly either way.
When humans force them to get bigger, then all the big ones die off leaving just the runts? That's not so good for sheep DNA, but shows how much resilience there is in the system :-)
0
Reply
Male 398
gohikineko Not going to argue, but there was no human involvement in the case I quoted.

But looking at the convo below, we could set up a subIAB just to discuss this one subject.
0
Reply
Male 1,928
mikesex Right, it doesn't matter if the evolution is natural or human-caused: the sheep just don't care! :-) They will live or die and their DNA will advance or not.

Humans are part of nature too: everything we do is "natural" in that regard: Mother Nature makes no distinctions. Survival depends on being "best fit for one's environment" and that includes human meddling in any form, eh?

Not trying to argue, just explaining further. It is a very interesting topic!
0
Reply
Male 1,886
Gerry1of1 The theory of evolution is based on random changes to DNA exhibiting greater chance of survival and/or survival of its offspring.  the giraffe didn't grow a longer neck to eat the tops of the trees. ancestors to today's giraffes randomly developed changes which allowed them to be mores successful i.e. they ate the food at the top of the tree because they had a long neck.  the development of the longer neck increased their food source as they were able to exploit a resource that no other creature that it was in competition was able to.  The change created the opportunity, not the opportunity caused the change.
1
Reply
Male 45,690
punko Or, there wasn't enough food low enough so only those giraffes with long necks procreated. Environment does not control evolution, but it does effect which random mutations survive.

0
Reply
Male 1,886
Gerry1of1 correct - so we agree that "adapting to cope with environmental changes is what drives evolution" isn't quite right ?
1
Reply
Male 45,690
punko Huh?  Environment is one of the driving forces. There can be more than one. No food on low branches so get a long neck... or random mutation makes a longer neck and luckily there is better food higher up.  No way of knowing why it happened, but that doesn't mean we can't know it did happen.
0
Reply
Male 1,886
Gerry1of1 Adapting to the environment does not drive evolution.  If that were true, then extreme changes in the environment would cause evolution to occur faster. Random change, if they increase reproduction rates, drives evolution. 
1
Reply
Male 45,690
punko evolution takes time. 1 generation at a time in small steps.
If you have massive environmental change, like a meteor hitting the Earth
then the indigenous species do not have time to adapt.

Given a  slow change to environment plant and animal will adapt to it. Numbers will decrease, increase, and fall again... as evolution dictates 
0
Reply
Male 1,886
Gerry1of1 I think we're both on the same page; I just wanted to emphasize that is was  the random mutations in DNA that provide the tiny changes in a living being that may make it more or less likely to reproduce.  Changes in the environment merely open new niches for an early adopter to exploit.  These environmental changes don't drive evolution, the DNA mutations do; environmental changes provide a new opportunity for something slightly different to do better than its competition.
1
Reply
Male 45,690
punko Well, if you are gonna confuse the issue with facts . . .
1
Reply
Male 276
Gerry1of1 the definition of what constitutes a species has been coming under greater scrutiny/is being re-examined due to our growing knowledge of genetics. So who knows, maybe these will be examples of speciation in the future.
0
Reply
Male 45,690
elgabalo No one said they  became a new species.... just that they have evolved.
0
Reply
Male 45,690
elgabalo    These are creatures demonstrating physical change which is then passed on to next generations. That is the minimum definition of evolution. 

It is a theory that has been proven with facts. 
1
Reply
Male 276
Gerry1of1 I entirely agree; I was attempting to point out that with our growing abilities of observation are allowing us to define things more precisely and objectively.
0
Reply
Male 45,690
elgabalo  That's a whole other topic... are we, humans evolving, or devolving?
Are we allowing the stupid to reproduce while smart capable people have fewer children.

hmmm.... I might submit that as a separate thread
1
Reply
Male 276
Gerry1of1 I'm strongly against the notion of devolution or the idea that evolution has stagnated in humans. Evolution is a population level phenomenon, and we currently have been greatly increasing our genetic diversity. We don't know what the future will bring, our great variation may be our best insurance; those with current genetic "deficiencies" may provide us with a future advantage in the same way that sickle cell anemia provides a degree of advantage in malarial regions.
(Though whatever gets us into space is probably best)
0
Reply
Male 1,094
Gerry1of1 Adaptation and Natural Selection are absolutely proven facts.  Evolution from one kind to another is speculation.  But I want to clarify my stance, because of my use of the word 'kind'. 

The evidence--which we all have access to--shows that there are changes with a species.  Evolutionists then claim that given enough time, these changes accumulate until the offspring is so far different than the original that it is a new kind of animal.  The problem is that there is absolutely no evidence for this beyond speculation.

A pair of cats will always yield cats.  There may be changes over time to the offspring due to environment and even mutations, but there is no reason to think this this has ever resulted in anything other than more cats.  Sometimes these changes end up resulting in speciation to where those from different branches can no longer mate with one another... but they are all still cats.

Now I get that the evolutionary theory believes that given enough time those changes in the branches can accumulate so much that after many, many generations, they are so unrecognizable as the same kind as to call them different animals.  There are two problems with this...  First, there simply has not been enough time for all of this to have happened on such a large scale to where we have so many distinct species.  The second problem is that although evoltion theory suggests that it could happen, there is no solid evidence that it did happen.  

Yes, the scientific facts can be interpreted to support evolutionary theory, but this is far from proof.  Especially considering that those same facts can be interpreted other ways as well.  One or the other is only validated and claimed to be true by those who already have an established worldview.
0
Reply
Male 45,690
cjeffblanchr
"there simply has not been enough time for all of this to have happened on such a large scale to where we have so many distinct species.  "

Earth is 4.5 billion years old.    How much time do you want? 
0
Reply
Male 45,690
cjeffblanchr   Just look at dogs. Is a pug really the same species as a St Bernard?  In the wild we would say no, but because humans bread them to those shapes we call them both dogs. They are less similar than lions and tigers, which can also interbreed but are different species.
0
Reply
Male 1,094
Gerry1of1 The thing is its really all just a matter of how we are classifying animals.  I've heard numerous arguments from different scientists about how we should define species.  Some say that if they can breed and have fertile offspring that they're the same species.  Others think it should be defined based on common traits.  Its hard to have these discussions if we might be using different definitions.  Under any definition though, where do we draw the line and decide that something is a new species?  Are there any dog  breeds that cannot produce fertile offspring?  i might be wrong on this, but I believe that although lions and tigers can breed, the Ligers cannot reproduce, and so under some scientists' definitions, they would not be the same species, but under others' definitions, they are.
0
Reply
Male 1,928
cjeffblanchr Lions and Tigers make Ligers and Tigons depending on who the mother/father is. Just like horses and donkeys make Mules and (Hinny's) for the same reasons.
Iiirc? Ligers and Tigons are still fertile ( I think?), but mules (and that another animal Note: a Hinny!) are almost always sterile. This illustrates just how far apart the two species are. I think.
Note: nope, the Liger / Tigon crosses are almost always sterile, just like Mules and Hinnys... mostly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
0
Reply
Male 276
cjeffblanchr I would kindly ask you to use the commonly used, and more clearly defined taxonomical terminologies. 
0
Reply
Male 1,094
elgabalo Not entirely sure which part you're talking about, but if it's the usage of the word 'species' then you'll have to tell me which terminology you prefer.  Scientists are not even using the same definition for the word anymore.
0
Reply
Male 276
cjeffblanchr yes, species, and they absolutely are. There are some issues with it; i.e. bacteria do not reproduce sexually, thus differentiation between species cannot be made by means of a viable offspring of two individuals. Conversely, morphology and genetics indicate that H. Neanderthalsis and H. Sapiens are different species, incapable of producing viable offspring together (the archaeological record supports this, providing a number of examples of severely challenged hybrids). Yet in spite of this, a few rare hybrids did survive and reproduce, leaving their genetic mark on their European descendants (the same is true for denisovans in Asia).
All this to say that the term "species" is an attempt to quantify the genetic difference between groups of animals. Initially we were limited to the observation of signs of genetic divergence, difference in form and/or reproductive viability, but now we have the ability to directly observe and quantify these differences.
This may be where your impression  of a lack of a defined definition comes from, but despite the assertions of those who have misinformed you, the term is being made more rigorously objective, not less.
0
Reply
Male 9,505
cjeffblanchr "The problem is that there is absolutely no evidence for this beyond speculation." This sentence isn't just wrong, it's wildly wrong.

Per Merriam-Webster (and if we're settling an issue of American English here, that's the best authority--former copyeditor here), to speculate is to "take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence." I'm going to go out on a limb here, Jeff, and do some actual speculating: I don't think you've ever read a single book on evolution. I say that because if you had, you'd know that far from there being insufficient evidence, there is overwhelming evidence from multiple fields, such as paleontology, genetics, and anatomy.

(By book, of course, I don't mean some religious treatise or blog post on the subject, but a book written by either a scientist or a science writer who's studied the subject and the evidence. Example: Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, Weiner's The Beak of the Finch, or Shubin's Your Inner Fish.)

I'm so tired of listening to people who've never learned about evolution -- people who don't even know what a scientific theory is (hint: it's not speculation) -- pontificating about something they don't understand, as if they're authorities. I'll ask them what actual books they've read on the subject and inevitably the answer is: None.

What's worse is you don't see this strain of ignorance, at least not to this degree, in other advanced countries. It seems to be a peculiarly American thing. I've never had a Finn or a German or a Frenchman tell me that evolution is "just speculation" or "just a theory," as people do in America. This is good evidence that adults from those countries are dependably scientifically literate. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the United States.
2
Reply
Male 1,928
squrlz4ever Just because Europeans are more "lock step" in their opinions? That doesn't make those opinions into LAWS oK? Only irreversible Scientific proof does that. Open-minded people who are often wrong but sometimes right are the backbone of all science.
Thus evolution is just a theory: it has not been proven, not yet!
Thermodynamics IS A LAW. You cannot break it, go ahead and try! You will fail.
Gravity is covered by a theory AND a law too: since we don't know a whole lot of things about it... someday those two will be unified: or not ;/

PS: Time moves only in one direction because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. (2nd one) No other Laws require that of time. But because LoT does? The it must be so: until the LoT get overthrown. It's that important to our understanding, eh?
0
Reply
Male 9,505
gohikineko Gohiki, you aren't understanding what a theory is in the scientific context. (We've actually been over this once before.)

How do I know you don't understand what a scientific theory is? Because on at least two occasions you've made fundamental errors regarding the concept. (Please don't get your back up about this; these misunderstandings are exceedingly common. Rather, try to learn the concept so that you can avoid making the same mistake.)

First of all, scientific theories are not "trial balloons" of ideas that may someday become laws or facts. Scientific theories never become laws or facts; they are completely different classes of things. People who don't understand this are forever saying, just as you did now, that evolution is "only a theory," with the implication that someday, if it's proven, it may become a fact. That's a complete misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.

A scientific theory is a complex framework of ideas that explain a natural phenomenon that has been tested by observation and never has been found to be at odds with observable facts. It is comprehensive enough that it not only explains what is observable in a particular area, but it is capable of making predictions that are then found to be true by observation.

An example of a scientific theory is the heliocentric theory of our solar system. According to this theory, the Earth and all other planets orbit our Sun and their orbits can be described by Kepler's Law. Using the heliocentric model, the planet Neptune was mathematically predicted before it was finally observed by telescope in 1846. Today, using the heliocentric model, scientists can launch space probes out to distant planets and beyond, basing their trajectories on the gravitational influences and orbits of our solar system's heavenly bodies.

Perhaps a better example of a scientific theory, for our purposes, is cell theory. Cell theory states that all organisms arise from the cells of the same type of organism by either sexual or asexual reproduction. In the Middle Ages, it was thought that tadpoles and frogs and other creatures were spontaneously created by the mixture of mud and water. Today, we know that the mechanism for reproduction always depends upon a cell or cells that contain genetic material, be they sperm, spores, or eggs.

The theory of cell origins of all life tells us that chickens arise from chickens, oak trees from oak trees, and humans from humans. Like reproduces like. It tells us that if you find a baby animal in the jungle, sexually mature adult forms of that creature were responsible for bringing the juvenile into existence.

Could cell theory be proven wrong? Possibly, but it has adequately explained all that mankind has so far observed about life and its reproduction on our planet. Perhaps someday, on another world, or someday on Earth, we'll find a kind of bird that is magically created when a shaft of sunlight hits a cloud in a certain way, but we haven't found anything like that yet. If and when such a discovery occurs, cell theory will either have to be significantly altered or thrown out altogether.

But at no point is it sensible to say, "Cell theory is just a theory," in the way one might say, "It's simply a guess, no better than any other guess." Guesses, in a scientific context, are hypotheses; theories are complex frameworks that explain complex systems. Similarly, it is a complete misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is to suggest that cell theory "may someday become a fact if it's proven." That's a garbled statement that makes no logical sense.

You said the theory of evolution "has not been proven--not yet." I'm hoping at this point, you yourself can understand what's wrong with that statement. The theory of evolution isn't waiting to be proven. It already has been: It's way of explaining life of Earth has been corroborated by virtually every field of science that deals with life known to man, chief among them paleontology, botany, taxonomy, anatomy, and genetics. No reputable scientist alive today who works in a field related to living things does not accept it and even base his or her work on it. Every day, scientists proceed on predictions borne of their understanding of evolution and find that those predictions are accurate.

Perhaps a small example, taken from Richard Dawkins' book, The Greatest Show On Earth (subject of a recent post of mine), will help to show you how the theory of evolution works and is applied by scientists--in this case, anatomists. You are a human and I am a squirrel. We are both mammals. This means that we share mammalian traits, such as skeletons, warm-bloodedness, and hair. The theory of evolution tells us that we both received these traits from a common ancestor far in the distant past up the evolutionary tree.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution predicts that our anatomies will reflect common traits borne of that common ancestor--a myriad details that would escape the casual eye but that a scalpel will reveal on the dissection table. For example, the human skull is comprised of 28 bones, most of them joined by suture lines, with the exception of one free-moving bone, that being the jaw or mandible. Guess how many bones make up the skull of a squirrel? Exactly 28. And these 28 bones correspond exactly to the bones in the human skull; anatomists even use the same names: the occipital bone, nasal bone, the maxilia bone, the parietal bone, et cetera.

Take a look at the other mammals and their skulls, and with very few exceptions of the odd bone here and there, how many bones do you have: The horse? 28. The bear? 28. The otter? 28. The hyena? 28. All of them share a common ancestor, all of them received their skull structure on the same branch of the evolutionary tree, and the anatomy reflects that, exactly as the theory of evolution predicts.

Hope this helps.
1
Reply
Male 1,928
squrlz4ever A theory is just that: possibly wrong. Pluto didn't follow the theory did it? Nor did the rest of the 'planetoids'. We may or may not discover another real planet way further out there... but it's unlikely at this point. But that's the thing: we don't know absolutely... not yet!

"Wrong" in this case means flawed or imperfect. 99.9% is not perfect: it is flawed. A theory isn't incorrect: it's the best correctness we have! But it isn't indisputable: science is founded on disputing theories: a theory is not valid unless it could be disproven! An un-disprovable "theory" is junk, garbage: not science.

A Law is something proven: it isn't wrong without a major (massive!) shift in universal understanding. Overturning a Law is unspeakably hard.
A Theory is probably correct: as best we know? It is correct! But it still could be disproven should a better theory come along to displace it. That's what science is based on.

Example: once the theory said the Big Bang contained ONLY Hydrogen and Helium. Then it was discovered that Lithium is not produced by any mechanism known to us... so all existing Lithium must have come from the Big Bang too... now those 3 elements (1,2 and 3 on the table eh?) are in the current theory, not 2. It might change: back to 2 or increased? That's why it's still a Theory of the Big Bang, not a Law.

And thus there are Laws of Gravity and also Theory(s) of Gravity. One set is absolutely true, the other is almost certainly true... but not quite beyond doubt yet.

Same for Evolution: we don't know ALL the mechanisms OR functions of it... yet. Thus we cannot predict with absolute certainty what things will or will not evolve. If we knew more we might be able to? But right now: nope. That means its a Theory, not a Law. There's nothing wrong with theories, why worry about a name? It's functional, descriptive: not judgemental!

A guess is a theory too... sort of. It's just a lot less substantiated and a lot easier to dispute. 

I think all Theories could become Laws if enough were known about them. Just like Heliocentrism: Once heresy (ie: false), then a theory? Now a Law (ie: an indisputable fact). 

My MAIN point is that evolution in no way, shape or form "disproves" God. That's just nonsense.
0
Reply
Male 276
gohikineko "Pluto didn't follow the theory did it?" The definition as to what constitutes a planet is not a theory.

0
Reply
Male 1,094
squrlz4ever Do you have any idea how arrogant you sound in this post?  It is filled with--as you admitted--speculation, which is incorrect in regard to what I have read.  Likely the only difference between you and I in this area is that I don't just accept it as absolute truth just because it was written by 'scientists'.  I am able to take what I read, decide for myself if the evidence is strong enough to accept, and apply it.  

You don't seem to understand that evidence is not the same as proof.  Yes, the scientific facts can be interpreted to support evolution.  They do not prove it.  Part of the scientific method is observation.  You were not there to witness any of it.  Thus, to assume that your interpretation is proof is just intellectually dishonest.  What if that same evidence can be interpreted differently?  

I've talked about it before on IAB, though maybe not to you, but I have the same evidence to work with as you.  But if evidence can support different theories, then neither should be regarded as fact.  Evolution is not fact, nor are my beliefs.  To claim you know what is not proven is just arrogant.
-1
Reply
Male 9,505
cjeffblanchr So you never answered the main question of my comment: Have you read any books on evolution written by scientists or science writers? If so, which book or books?

Why on Earth do you think you're in a position to evaluate evolution if you haven't read a single book on the topic?

What is arrogant about expecting someone to have made at least a passing effort at understanding something before passing judgment on it? You've got blinders on, Jeff. If you think not accepting evolution as fact in 2018 is a viable position for someone well educated in science, it's not. That is, no doubt, a splash of cold water in the face of some. I can't help that.

I'm chuckling at your last sentence. "To claim you know what is not proven is just arrogant." That's just it, Jeff: Evolution is proven. The ones who aren't understanding that are in the dark.
3
Reply
Male 1,928
squrlz4ever In a peaceful way I address your point here: you're challenging him on "how many books he has read about..."? Not the quality, not the relevance? Just sheer number?
And that proves... what? Can the Laws of Thermodynamics ( a personal favorite!) be revoked because "you didn't read enough books about them, so NOW they don't apply here!" Because reading makes it a fact!!!"
Wrong: the LoT still apply with ruthless efficiency and absolute universality. This notion of a 'professional science expert' who somehow over-rules the laws of science (selectively) is a very modern and completely illogical idea.

Evolution is proven to exist, yes, but that theory is not a Law... not just yet! A massive difference. I suggest your own darkness isn't as bright as you imagine it to be... I mean by that: the difference between theory and law is exponential: if not more.
0
Reply
Male 9,505
gohikineko See my other comment, which addresses a misunderstanding you have held regarding scientific theories.

As for my comments to Jeff asking if he's read any books on the subject of evolution (such as the Dawkins book I referenced in my lengthy comment to you), that's a reasonable request. It's difficult, if not impossible, to have a worthwhile discussion about evolution with someone who hasn't read any good books on the subject.
1
Reply
Male 1,928
squrlz4ever Ok, someone uninformed on the subject would certainly be difficult to discuss it with yes... but not impossible as you also say.

Yet what is the definition of a 'good book'? The Bible? YOUR Bible or his? If he's read a book he thinks is 'good' but you do not, who is wrong? By what method do you, he or others decide that?

Of course YOUR opinion is entirely up to you, but "challenging" him based on the number of books YOU consider to be relevant isn't a valid argument: it's a fallacy. It has nothing to do with the facts, only with the opinion of/about the speaker.

I have NO 'misunderstanding' about science. None. You have an OPINION that I (apparently) do? That's true. However there's a world of difference between the two: opinion and reality. I hope I don't need to further explain that.
0
Reply
Male 290
The creationists will argue that these are just changes within a "kind", like Noah had to carry only one "kind" of fox on the Ark and the different species of fox around the world somehow microevolved in 4000 yrs from that one set of parents, despite all the differences in DNA and molecular clocks that argue millions of years.  

When you ask them exactly how they define a kind, they will jingle some keys off to the side and quickly change the subject.
1
Reply
Male 1,094
stevopusser Your claim of what Creationists will argue is exactly what happens and is what's going on in this video.  It doesn't take that long for species to adapt and for natural selection to sort things out.

As a creationist, I admit that the term "kind" is a pretty loose term, at least scientifically.  It is a general term that appeals to common sense, such as...  A cat is a kind.  There are many different variations of cats in our world, but they are still distinctly cats.  There's no evidence to prove that cats will ever "evolve" into something that is not a cat.

Tell me, what would evolution tell us would happen if we took a pair of lions, isolated them without any access to other cats of any kind, and then waited a really long time?  they would multiply, spread out, adapt, be subject to natural selection, and with time, we would see different 'species' of cats emerge.  Right?  Well, that's not any different than what I believe.  The difference is that I see no evidence that in any such situation anything has or would change from a cat into a different type of cat.  There has not been enough time.

As a Creationist, obviously I'm going to interpret the facts differently than an atheist would interpret them.  But, as a man open to view the scientific evidence, I can say that I have no problem with the idea that maybe God used evolution as a means of creation.  However, there is just no proof that that is actually what happened.  I've seen nothing that is not more easily explained from a Creation standpoint.
-1
Reply
Male 190
cjeffblanchr Well, I'll leave this one to the experts.

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.

But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.

Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

1
Reply
Male 1,928
popsicle01 Deism easily "smuggles in a God" and asks: where did all this evolution (life!) come from? It's all well and good to talk about "Colt-45 six-shooter" as if they spontaneously sprang into existence... but the fact is they did not: Colt created them... what is our proof? They exist: disprove that.
Deists think God is not unnecessary: He is the reason #1 of existence. Now: what God is? THAT is a mystery. We just know He exists because WE exist! And he might indeed be a random Big Bang... oooor He may have created the BB just as we see it now: on purpose. Disprove that, eh? (Hint: you cannot)
0
Reply
Male 190
gohikineko What you have written here is a prime example of someone ignorant of what the theory of evolution through natural selection means, and what it doesn't mean. Evolution does NOT propose that things 'sprang into existence'. Quite the opposite. Or, am I misinterpreting your word salad?
2
Reply
Male 1,928
popsicle01 Yes, I'm not that clear, sorry about that.
According to BB Theory: life just 'sprang into existence' spontaneously just like the BB itself did. That should be self-explanatory eh?
Evolution happened after that: the existing life changed, adapted and evolved over billions of years to where we are now. There's no plan for it, no rhyme or reason, it's just... there. Without life there is no evolution, obviously, eh?

I know plenty about evolution and natural selection, I'm focusing more on abiogenesis: the origin(s) of life itself.
0
Reply
Male 290
cjeffblanchr So, what is the scientific definition of "kind", since creationists are trying to use it to refute science? They've got to play on the same field with the same rules; no moving goalposts or just saying "everyone knows what I mean by kind!"

Also, evolution is defined as the change in frequency of genes in a population over time.  That's it, nothing about species.  Everyone can see that demonstrated in studies, but some will invoke some mystical barrier that stops the changes somehow when they go too far, though they can provide no evidence for how this barrier works at all.
1
Reply
Male 276
cjeffblanchr why is atheism being invoked?
0
Reply
Male 1,094
elgabalo Because the claim of the post to which I replied was clearly an attack on Creationism.  Those who do this are clearly coming at it from an atheistic standpoint.
-1
Reply
Male 276
cjeffblanchr yes because God is undefined and untestable. That is why science is "atheistic", without god, it doesn't prognosticate on what it can't observe; it is neither for or against the divine, it does not deal with the divine.
This is not the case with creationism, which has staked the truth of their god on the literality of it's myth (myth in this case meaning a narrative on the relationship between god and man, and their place within existence), which is directly observable and testable. Creationism undermined its own god by pretending to be science, and is now claiming science is anti-theistic due to its own incompetence and ignorance.
2
Reply
Male 1,928
elgabalo God is easy to define, you just don't like it.
Evolution has many areas of NOT well defined mechanisms: a crap-ton of them. That does NOT make it a bad theory, it's an excellent theory! It just means it isn't a LAW... not yet.

You are looking at a single, specific example of "creationism" which is not universal, ok? We Deists include the Creation of the Big Bang in our philosophy. THUS anything you attribute to the BB? It also applies to God too. God created the BB... you cannot disprove that, it's (currently) impossible.
Science can easily be entirely theistic: the two are NOT mutually exclusive. Like... Deism!

That's science: it is: explain why.

Example: if someone proved beyond doubt that ghosts really did exist? Centuries went by: everything proved they existed, not one thing disproved it. Would you then admit that ghosts are part of the natural order of existence (ie: the Universe!) and thus part of science too? Because that's what I'd conclude... IF... THEN...

There are several PROVEN things that show science has NO WAY of explaining how and why they exist. Double Slits? And the "Clock in the Box" (Non-locality). Proven to be impossible... yet there they are... (and proven to exist many times: actual facts to back them up)
-1
Reply
Male 276
gohikineko God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, the alpha and Omega. These are not definitions, they are characteristics beyond us, beyond existence.
Creationists do not claim God created the big bang, this is a deist interpretation of what we can observe; I cannot say anything against this. Creationism is very clear that God created everything precisely as described in Genesis, 6000 years ago.
This is demonstrably bullshit.
1
Reply
Male 1,928
elgabalo Oh for sure, I agree. 'Young Earth Creationists' are a bunch of literalists without a lick of common sense :/

It's possible "in theory" that God really did make the universe 6000 years ago and just made it "look like" it was billions of years old... that's "possible" for an omnipotent Being to do, but it doesn't make much sense, particularly for the Biblical God. Also it really doesn't change anything, I think, it's a moot point.

Deism may be somewhat vague on details? But at least we're consistent! Lolz!
0
Reply
Male 276
elgabalo the pope believes what you describe, yet he is not a creationist.
0
Reply
Male 190
gohikineko 
God created the Big Bang.
How was God created?
He just always was/is.
Why couldn't the universe have always just been?

Evolution currently provides the best answer of how something can come from nothing. Why is God necessary at all? Gods are a human invention to explain the unexplainable. When the next new discovery eliminates his guiding hand from the equation, concessions are made to keep him relevant (God created the Big Bang being one of the most recent).  
2
Reply
Male 1,928
popsicle01 Good question! lolz! I say: the same place the Big Bang came from, how's that?
We have no idea because we're really not that bright eh? We also have no idea where the BB came from either. Just guesswork. It is just as easy for God to create the entire universe as it would be for Him to create the Big Bang. I see no distinction between the two possibilities.

Life has to exist first before evolution can begin, eh? Rocks don't come to life, they don't evolve: all life comes from life.
God as in 'the creator' not the Biblical God or other religious ones is what Deists believe in. Who or what that is? We can only speculate.
0
Reply
Male 16
Species change over time.  Not the same as I came from amino acids in a primordial soup.  The theory of evolution is a good theory.  It has a lot of evidence supporting it and many scientists believe it is correct.  It should be taught that way.   Somehow, science became politicized and now we all must believe that it's either a fact or a lie.  Can't it just be a good theory until we have evidence otherwise?
1
Reply
Male 1,094
mguy2 See, that's almost exactly how I see it as well, thought I may view it from a different angle than you.  You said it correctly...  many scientists believe it is correct.  Evolution is a good theory, and evidence can absolutely be interpreted to support it.  But that doesn't mean its the only interpretation.  When we don't know and have absolute proof, we are all just forming beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
cjeffblanchr You have underlined a pervasive misunderstanding of the word "theory." This is not your fault -- we use this term colloquially much differently than its true definition.

If something is a theory, than it has:

A pattern which is describable + lots of experimental evidence + solid theoretical framework + cohesion with already established theories.

It is the highest aspiration that a scientific hypothesis can grow. Even Newton only came up with LAWS. It took Einstein to make it a THEORY.

In contrast, what we informally mean by "theory" is: a wild-ass guess.

"I have a theory why the Giants keep losing...."

These definitions are nowhere near the same in meaning.

The only rigorous, evidence-based, interpretation for the multitude of life we observe on Earth is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Other "theories," such as: intelligent design, are wild-ass guesses without evidence or fallibility. 
2
Reply
Male 1,928
cjeffblanchr These folks seem lost in the concept:
Theory: possibly true, seems to work! Might be a Law someday...
Law: try to break it... go on, just try! Bzzzt! You will fail!

SOME folks treat Evolution as a Law: it is nothing of the sort. It is a theory and honestly there's nothing wrong with that! IDK why their panties are all in knots over that idea :/
-1
Reply
Male 1,094
gohikineko I think they're all bunched up in the nether regions because if they acknowledge that it really is just one possibility, then there might be room for something else that they refuse to believe in because they are willfully ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 190
gohikineko Your use of the word theory here to delegitimize a proven scientific fact is disingenuous, or at best ignorant of how this term is treated in the scientific world.
2
Reply
Male 1,094
popsicle01 It doesn't matter if evolutionists want to twist words, change their definitions...  theory is theory, and theories are good.  But when we start claiming that something that  cannot be proven is fact, we are bordering or fanatical.
0
Reply
Male 1,928
cjeffblanchr Yes! You get it! Putting MORE power into an idea than is warranted by evidence is called FAITH and everyone has faith to some degree. It's just that some folks refuse to admit it...
Like... this fellow! Lolz!
0
Reply
Male 190
cjeffblanchr "But when we start claiming that something that cannot be proven is fact, we are bordering on fanatical."

 You said just a few lines up how you are a Creationist. That means you have allied your beliefs to a group that claims that an all powerful sky god created everything in the universe. Are you admitting that you are a fanatic with this statement?
0
Reply
Male 1,094
popsicle01 No.  I am admitting that I am a believer in God.  The key word is 'belief'.  A creator is what I believe in, not what I claim to KNOW is absolute truth.  The difference between my view and that of the atheist evolutionist is that I admit that my claims are belief and not fact.  When an evolutionist admits that their view is just a belief, based on sound theory, then I take no exception with them.  It's the militant atheists that I have issue with, and I have little patience for the militant religionist as well.  We don't KNOW any of it for sure, one way or another, which means that it is belief.

Also, just so you know, claiming that I believe in a "sky god' is nonsense.  It is a weak attempt at making a belief system look childish.  I believe in a sky god about the same that you believe in a flying spaghetti monster.  Its the same level of ridiculousness.  What I do believe in though is a creator God who created all that there is (including the sky), an entity that transcends time, space and matter, and all things, who is within and outside of all of its creations, who is love and all divine virtues.
0
Reply
Male 190
cjeffblanchr 
 
It seems 'sky god' touched a nerve. Was it childish? Maybe. Was throwing 'militant atheist' out there to describe someone trying to defend what are widely known around the world as facts childish? 

Science is not a belief. It is an objective way of testing our environment to see what is true. The very way that the scientific community changes it's stance when new evidence comes into play should make this clear. When I use the word fact to describe evolution, it is because of a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support the claim. To try to minimize or discredit this mountain by essentially arguing that science must use the word belief and not fact for you to take it seriously is disingenuous. If tomorrow there was credible evidence (not testimonial evidence if you are listening, MW) to support the God you talked about in your last paragraph above, the scientific community would adjust accordingly. 

I'll again state that your claim (or belief or whatever you want to call it) that an all powerful entity that created everything in the universe only begs the question as to how the all powerful entity came into existence. It just raises more questions, and to insert gods into the mix is absolutely unnecessary, and with zero evidence to support it. 

Google 'humans are wired for belief'. There's a lot of fairly new research about our brains out there. 

0
Reply
Male 1,094
popsicle01 I didn't say that science is a belief.  I said the theory, or interpretation, of evolution is a belief.  I don't claim that the evidence available to us all defies evolution as a scientific possibility; I simply say that it is only one interpretation of the same evidence.

You said that the scientific community changes its stance when new evidence comes into play... and you followed that by explaining why you use the word fact to describe evolution.  Don't you see that this is the problem?  You can't say that it's fact if it might change tomorrow.  

It seems to me, that based on one interpretation of data, that evolutionists only 'believe' it to be true.  It would be the same as me saying that I know there is a God, that I know Jesus was real, died on a cross and rose again, but that maybe I could be convinced otherwise.  If it can change, then we didn't know jack in the first place--not certainly enough that we should have called it 'fact'.

I love science as much as the next guy.  But I see the potential for misuse of its claims--and I mean by evolutionists and creationists.  Scientifically, there is no way that either can claim their views as absolute fact.  To say that evolution is accepted as fact around the world does nothing whatsoever to make it truth.

As to me belief in God...  I consider myself a Creationist in that I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that does anything but support the idea that everything came from an intelligent entity, rather than from nothing.  I see just the opposite, because I interpret the data differently than you.  To me, there is no piece of evidence that supports evolution that cannot also be interpreted to support creationism.  I'll give one quick example that you've probably heard before...  common traits in species is often considered to be evidence in support of evolution.  I agree--it does support the idea that species arose from a common ancestor.    But it also supports the idea that there was a common designer.  After all, if I'm writing a big computer program and it does the same function in different parts, I'm not going to write the same code over and over, I'm going to copy and paste it.  So, I believe in one interpretation while others believe another.  Neither are fact, no matter how many claim it is.

From a scientific perspective, you're right that belief in God begs the question of where God came from.  There is no more of an answer to this question than there is to the question of how life truly originated.  I would not agree that there's not any scientific evidence for a creator, though.  The incredible complexity of life, the unbelievably awesome way that life reproduces, how intricate DNA really is, all hints at a higher intelligence behind it all.  Even the 'great' atheist Richard Dawkins admits that there is the appearance of design.  Is any of this proof?  Absolutely not.  But it is evidence.

So scientifically, I am a creationist.  But there is more to existence than life, at least in my perspective, than just science.  There is evidence outside of what science can currently show, and I do not base the whole of my beliefs on science alone.  There are spiritual matters, personal experience, logic and reason, and philosophical matters that also lend to my beliefs.  So to me it is not at all ridiculous or with 'zero evidence' for the existence of something greater than are we.  I don't need absolute scientific proof in have a belief.  And neither does an evolutionist need to have absolute proof to believe in evolution--which they do not.  The difference is that I freely admit that my perspective is a belief.
0
Reply
Male 1,203
cjeffblanchr "I didn't say that science is a belief.  I said the theory, or interpretation, of evolution is a belief."

Uh, no, that's just false. By definition. Evolution is a fact: organisms change over time. What you disagree with is the mechanism for that change. Scientists say: natural selection, which has evidence -- that's why scientists say it. Theists say: God/magic did it, which has no evidence. How could it?

"You can't say that it's fact if it might change tomorrow."

This is the fabled argument from ignorance, a well understood logical fallacy. You can't be sure that Mohammed won't manifest tomorrow, right in front of you. So why aren't you Muslim? See the problem? You see it, right? No, don't turn away. Where did you go, boo? 

"I consider myself a Creationist in that I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that does anything but support the idea that everything came from an intelligent entity, rather than from nothing."

This is two fallacies: 

1. Shifting of the burden of proof: it is your job to prove yourself correct, using evidence. Not ours to prove you wrong. You have made the positive claim: you have the burden.

2. Equivalence fallacy. You have not demonstrated that there are only two options possible for "creation," namely,
  • an intelligent entity (ohh..let's call it...God..just a hunch)
  • it comes from nothing

First, how do you know the Universe was created? You don't. You don't know that. Second, and here is the kicker, even if I grant you that the Universe was created (which is unfounded), how do you know an intelligent being did so? Why do you presume a "who" instead of a "what?" Bias maybe?

"So scientifically, I am a creationist."

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It fails by definition.

And, as a scientist, I have to note that I have seen absolutely no evidence that any of your thought process is even lightyears close to being scientific.

You should google: confirmation bias.

You will not get away with careless thinking here. I will take you to task, and hold you accountable for your statements. 

You're in my yard now. Buckle up. The Buck is coming for ya.
0
Reply
Male 1,094
BuckeyeJoe You're attitude and arrogance displayed in your very last sentence tells me you're not worth talking to.  We are not a school yard.  I am not impressed.

Also, this actually wasn't your conversation to be butting into. 
0
Reply
Male 1,203
cjeffblanchr A common ploy: claim that the person is just too unreasonable to talk to, then you continue to avoid engaging. How convenient for you. 

Cowardly, but understandable. You see, when contradicted, theists typically retreat to one of two paths:

  • The person is attacking me/unreasonable/so I am justified in my belief.
  • The person does not understand the mysteriousness of the divine (but somehow I do).

Those of us who are objective address the ideas, not the personalities.

Truth does not need to retreat.
0
Reply
Male 1,928
popsicle01 There's a world of difference between belief and fanaticism: chill dude. It is you who's sounding fanatical here, just FYI.

A theory is, by definition, NOT a law: it is not "proven" but at the same time it is the BEST idea we have about that subject. It is no shame for a theory to be replaced by a better one: we stand on the shoulders of giants after all...
0
Reply
Male 1,928
popsicle01 Noooo, I use the word 'theory' as it is intended to mean. In no way is something lessened because it's a theory: theories are the backbone of science. 
It is important to keep in mind that a theory is subject to change: it isn't "set in stone" just yet (like a Law is) but it could be someday. Changing a theory to a better one is a GOOD THING not something to be feared or fought against.
0
Reply
Male 276
mguy2 abiogenesis =/=evolution.
0
Reply
Male 1,928
elgabalo Without abiogenesis? There is NO EVOLUTION AT ALL EVER. If life never started? How can it have evolved, eh?

I think you agree, I'm saying that most folks have NO idea about the difference :/
-1
Reply
Male 276
gohikineko I really don't understand. God Himself could come down and tell us He was the prime mover, it does not change the fact that theory of evolution explains the mechanisms of His constantly changing creation, not the act of creation. 
0
Reply
Male 1,928
elgabalo It doesn't explain them ALL. Not 100% we still have things left to learn about evolution, natural selection, adaptation & etc. Because: science!

The ToE doesn't include God... so if God came and told us that? It for sure would change the ToE quite a lot! I think :-)

0
Reply
Male 290
gohikineko See the scientific definition I posted above for evolution.  Nothing about how it started---it could have been natural abiogenesis, aliens, panspermia, but make no difference to how it works after it's going. 

Aren't you getting tired of moving those goalposts?
2
Reply
Male 1,928
stevopusser I was discussing something else, that's entirely different than moving goalposts eh?

I agree: labeling something a different species or kingdom is a human thing: the DNA doesn't care what you call it, it just keeps on replicating and (thus) evolving regardless of the names we apply. Our 'rules' are based on our best observations and speculations: but "the map is not the terrain" is important to remember, yes?

Where life comes from originally only matters in a philosophical sense. It doesn't alter what's going on right here and now, I think.
0
Reply